Rhemes against Rome: or, The remoouing of the gagg of the new Gospell, and rightly placing it in the mouthes of the Romists, by the Rhemists in their English translation of the Scriptures. Which counter-gagg is heere fitted by the industrious hand of Richard Bernard ...

Scriptures obiected answered.

Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell, &c.

Answ. Here is no expresse word of Headship; neither doth this Text by consequence proue it. For although Christ speakes to Peter, yet he speakes not of Peters person.

I. The words are a promise touching the Churches safety, and nothing of Peters Supremacie.

II. It speakes of a Rocke, on which the Church is builded. Now the words are a Metaphor, as Bellarmine granteth. But a Metaphor is to be interpreted, according to the nature of the thing, of which it is spoken: as here, of a Rocke, as of a founda∣tion, which is to vphold that which is built vpon it, and not to rule ouer that which is builded thereupon. So that from the name of Rocke, cannot be concluded Headship and Rule, for it is not proper to a foundation, in that respect, to rule; but to support and beare vp.

III. If Christ here, either gaue, or promised to giue to Pe∣ter the Headship, and that before all the rest of his Disciples, Why did then afterward Iames and Iohn, Mar. 10. 35. and their Mother, Math. 20. 2. seeke for the chiefest places aboue the rest? Yea, and why did the Apostles afterwards striue which of them should be the greatest, Luk. 22. 24? And why had not Christ plainely decided this for Peter then, and told them of this his speech and meaning in this place towards Peter? If Christ had heere intended it, surely, there he had not forbidden Soueraignty; but vpon so sit occasion offered, had stablished Headship vpon Peter. It is cleare therefore, that Christ here meant no such thing.

IV. If by Rocke be concluded Headship (not to vrge the Metaphor against it,) yet Peter is neuer the nearer his Head∣ship, for he is not the Rocke.

1. The name, Peter, giueth it him not. For first, there Christ names him for more vehement affirming of that, which hee would vtter for the Churches comfort. As if he had said, As ve∣rily as thou art Peter, and so to be called, Ioh. 1. 42. Mar. 3. 16. so certainly will I build my Church firmely vpon the Rocke, which thou hast made confession of, that Hell gates shall not preuaile against it. So that Christ cals him not Peter, because he should be the Rocke; but that vpon the remembrance of his name, he might thinke vpon the Churches safe stabilitie (as vpon a Rocke,) against all the powers of darknesse.

2. Petros is the interpretation of Cephas, Ioh. 1. 42. and ther∣fore he being by Christ, (who spake Syriak) called Cephas, as he is sometime so named by S. Paul, 1. Cor. 1. 15.) most com∣monly he was called Peter, not alluding to Peter in this place of Matthew; but for that Cephas was Syriak, and Petros Greeke, and so was he named Peter, because of the generalitie of the Greeke tongue, rather then Cephas.

3. Petros signifieth in Greeke generally, a stone, and not a Rocke of foundation. And therefore though hee be called Pe∣ter, yet is he not therefore the Rocke, but a Stone in the Lords building, a precious stone. For the twelue Apostles are twelue foundations, Reu. 21. 14. and euery foundation is a precious

stone, verse 19. 20. And if Peter bee reckoned the first in order, he is there a lasper. A stone he is, and so are all the other Apo∣stles fundamentall stones, and likewise are the elect stones too, 1. Pet. 2. 5. though not such stones. But the chiefe corner stone is Christ, 1. Pet. 2. 6. and here in Mathew is hee the Rocke, and not Peter; Petros is a stone. Now the Church is here built on a Rocke, not on a stone, except on the Corner-stoue, and on the twelue precious Stones, but not on one stone, but vpon one Rocke.

4. If Christ, by calling him Petros, had meant him to be Pe∣tra: then had Petros bin an appellatiue, the same with Rock, and not a proper name, as here it is vsed. For no Demonstratiue go∣eth before it. But if Christ had said, Thou art that Petros, and vpon that Rock will I build my Church, and so made the word appellatiue, this Text had been somewhat to the purpose: but here is no such Demonstratiue, Petros being a proper name.

5. He cannot be the Rocke, because that Christ cals him Peter: for he was Peter before, Mar. 3. 16. and is now Peter, when Christ called him so; for he saith, Thou art Peter. He was not now at this time the Rocke, as Bellarmine doth confesse. Therefore it is not his name that makes him the Rocke, because here hee is Peter, but yet not the Rocke, by Bellarmines grant.

II. These words, vpon this Rocke, will not make Peter the Rocke. 1. The Scripture no where makes man the Rocke of Gods Church. Dauid called God his Rocke, 2. Sam. 22. 2, 32. Psal. 18. 2. Saint Paul saith, Christ is the Rocke, 1. Cor. 10. 4. 2. The word Peter and Rocke, in the Originall, yea, and in their Translation, are distinguished in gender and termination, yea, and in signification, as before is noted, and the one a Noune ap∣pellatiue, and the other a proper name. 3. The present alterati∣on of the speech from Peters person, to some other thing, will not admit him to be the Rocke. For it is not said (as it in plaine∣nesse of speech should be, if indeed the Rocke had been Peter,) Thou art Peter, and vpon thee will I build my Church: but, Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke, &c. Where the Pronoune this, hath Relation to some other thing then to Peter, euen to his confession, that Iesus was Christ the Sonne of the liuing

God, vpon which Rocke Christ would build his Church. For no where the Scriptures thus vary in a Relatiue, if the intend∣ment of the speech be to one and the same person: neither doe any thus vse to speake, nor may wee thinke that Iesus Christ would haue thus doubtfully spoken, if he had purposed to haue had Peter held to be the Rocke.

III. The words following, I will build my Church, remoueth Peter from being the Rocke.

First, Church here is to be vnderstood the whole Church mi∣litant and Triumphant. How can Peter be the Rocke on which it is built? Could he be the Rocke of the Church Triumphant, when he was here militant? Or can he be the Rocke now of the Militant, and he a Saint in Heauen Triumphant? Or how the Rocke of both, then and now, as hee that is the Rocke must be? For on the Rocke is the Church built, not a part of it, but the whole, and not for a time, but euen for euer. For will all, or any part of the Church once built vpon the Rocke, bee remoued off from the Rocke? Or will the Rocke cease to bee the bearer vp of the Church? Then either is Peter now, the Rocke, or he ne∣uer was the Rocke at all. But how can he now be, whose bodie is turned to dust? Can his Soule be the Rocke? As for a Rocke by succession, it is but a fantasie. Christ speakes of an euerlasting sustaining Rocke, and but of one Rocke, and not of one Rocke after another, dying and decaying.

Secondly, the Church and this Rocke are two things: for Christ saith he will build his Church vpon this Rocke. Now Peter was one, in, and of the Church: here, a principall member militant; and now, a Saint triumphant. He must therefore bee one, built with the Church, vpon the Rocke: he cannot there∣fore himselfe be the Rocke; for so himselfe should be built vpon himselfe.

Thirdly, Christ speakes of his Church, and saith, my Church. Had he no Church, but that which was built vpon Peter? Had not he at this very time, when he spake these words, a Church? Was Zachary and Elizabeth, Iohn Baptist, Ioseph and Mary, Simeon and Annah, the other Apostles, the 70. Disciples, and many others following him, not of his Church? If they were,

were they built on Peter? Did they know Peter to be the Rock? Or were they of the Church, & not built as yet vpon the Rock? For as yet Peter was not the Rocke, by Bellarmines confession.

Fourthly, Christ here made himselfe a Builder; I will build (saith he) my Church. He built while he did liue, by his Word and Spirit. But did his Word and Spirit gather any to Peter? Did his Word and Spirit build his followers vpon Peter? Christ built his Church by his Apostles: for they are said to build: and Paul speaketh of himselfe, as of a wise Master-builder, 1. Cor. 3. 10. But vpon what did they build? Euen vpon Christ alone, 1. Cor. 3. 11. Ephes. 2. 20. in whom all the building is knit together, verse 21. They built not vpon Peter; nor he on himselfe, but vpon Christ, 1. Pet. 2. 4, 5, 6. Did any of the Apo∣stles preach Peter? Paul saith, he preached not men, but God, Gal. 1. 10. Or did Peter preach himselfe to be the Rocke? If he was the Rocke, why did they not preach him? If they did not, who can beleeue it?

Fiftly, if Peter now was made the Rock, and Head, as Aqui∣nas, Turrecremata, and many other Papists auerre, though Bel∣larmine saith it was but here promised; how came this Rocke, by and by after in Mathew, to be called Satan, Mat. 16. 23? Is it like that Christ would call the Rock, on which he will so firme∣ly build his Church, Satan? Lastly, if it were granted, that Christ built his Church on Peter; yet is it not spoken exclu∣siuely, as on him alone, secluding the rest of the Apostles; for elsewhere he conioynes them with him, Ioh. 23. 23. Ephes. 20. 20. Reu. 21. 14. Mat. 28. 19.

IV. These words, and the gates of Hell shall not preuaile a∣gainst it, will ouerthrow Peters being the Rocke. For this Rock beareth vp so powerfully the Church, that Hell gates shall not preuaile against it. Whence followeth, that this Rocke must needs be stronger then Satans power and policies. But what power can that be, but the power of Christ, and of God? For who but God can resist Hell gates? Therefore from all the words of this Text it is cleare, that Peter cannot by it bee the Head of the Church, nor the Rocke on which it is built: and yet this place is one of the chiefest for his Headship.

The words in the next verse 19. I will giue thee the Keyes, are answered before.

Ioh. 21. 15, 17. Iesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, sonne of Ionas, louest thou me more then these? Feed my Lambes.

Answ. 1. Here are no expresse words of Headship, neither can any such thing be concluded out of this place, by any well framed argument: and yet this is the very principall place which they alledge to vphold it.

Secondly, Christ here calleth him not Peter, (for that name is vttered by the Euangelist,) but onely Simon the sonne of Ionas, as thereby preuenting the conceit of Headship, which our Ad∣uersaries dreame of from the name of Peter. Which our Sauiour here mentioneth not, nor the name Cephas, because of his fear∣full deniall of him so lately, as now therefore vnworthy of that name.

Thirdly, he is here questioned concerning his loue, which he so much boasted of before Christs taking, and soone after see∣med to haue lost, by forswearing Christ. And three times hee is asked, to remember him of his three times deniall of Christ, it being now also the third time of Christs appearing to them, verse 14. Also the question is with a comparison, Louest thou me more then these? What if hee meant it of the 153. great Fishes, with the Ship, Nets, and other things therein? for he leaped into the Sea, hearing of Christ, and cast off all respect to the ship and Fishes, verse 7. till Christ willed them to bring of the fishes, ver. 10. 11. And therefore might Christ demand thereupon this que∣stion: neither is any thing in the Text against this. For Christ was by the fishes, and the question was after dinner. But con∣ceiue it of the rest of the Apostles, as it is commonly vnder∣stood; for Peter had preferred his owne loue before all of them before, Mat. 26. 33. Luk. 22. 23. Which here Christ, by thus propounding the question, remembers him of, as a check to his former conceitednesse, seeing his loue appeared lesse then theirs. Christ here questions Peters loue, hee here in a sort checks his former boasting. What of all this? Ergo, hee is the Head of the Church, and Prince of Pastors. Logically concluded!

Fourthly, Peters answer was now affirmatiue, concerning

his loue simply. He durst not boast now comparatiuely, as be∣fore. Neither did he answer to the comparison, but appealed to Christs knowledge of his loue towards him. And therefore at the other two times, Christ leaueth out the comparison. Which shewes that Peter knew his former folly, and now discerned no superioritie of loue in himselfe aboue the rest; neither that Christ purposed to commend it aboue the loue of the other, and so to preferie him aboue them, but to make Peter more humble, and better to know himselfe, as the whole carriage of the businesse sheweth.

Fiftly, the words, Feede my Lambes, will not afford Peter any Headship.

I. In generall, this charge was as to re-install him againe in∣to his Apostleship, that it might not bee doubted of, and that by a threefold command. First, because of a threefold deniall of Christ, by which hee had deserued to lose his Apostleship. And secondly, for that Christ would haue him very diligently carefull in performing the charge of feeding: being thus merci∣fully admitted into the grace of the Apostleship againe, but not aduanced into any higher dignitie and command ouer other Apostles.

Againe, this charge followeth not as a reward of his loue, which had formerly so failed: but as a true declaration of his loue now againe professed towards Christ. For what great ex∣pression of loue had it been to Christ, for Peter to haue accep∣ted of a Supremacie aboue all the rest, which before they had foolishly contended for? Luk. 22. 24.

II. The word feede maketh not heere for any Headship.

For first, it was a duty of his Office already receiued, for an Apostle to feed, and not an imposing of a new Dignitie.

Secondly, it is a common charge to all the Apostles, Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 15. Yea, to other Bishops and Elders, Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2.

Thirdly, the words in the Greeke, which Christ vseth here, are vsed to expresse such feeding, as is required of ordinarie Teachers, as the former quoted places shew; and doe not here imply any supreme Authoritie, or extraordinarie kinde of

feeding from other of the Apostles.

Fourthly, the word in our English to feede, and the Greeke words, are taken from such as feed beasts of the earth. The one is vsed for such as keepe Swine. Mat. 8. 34. Mar. 5. 14. but this our Aduersaries make no vse of, to pearke vp Peters regencie. And yet Christ in the Euangelists language vseth this word twice, in the first question, and in the last verses 15. 17. and the other word but once; perhaps because of such as are fed, that is, outwardly called, there will bee two Swine or Goats, for one true Sheepe. This last word is taken from Shepheards, feeding their flockes; as the word here applyed to Lambes doth shew. So in 1. Cor. 9. 7. 1. Pet. 5. 2. This they take great hold on, to helpe forward their conceit. Because this word is applyed not onely to Teachers, as in this place, and in Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. and the word Pastor also, taken from Shepheards, applyed to Teachers, Mat. 9. 36. and 26. 31. but the same is spoken also of Kings, Math. 2. 6. Reuel. 19. 15. So it is to teach, and to beare rule ouer others. Therefore they will hence conclude, that Peter had heere a Princely Supremacie bestowed vpon him.

But first the word which is vsed twice, both before and af∣ter, doth limit the signification of this, which is but once vsed.

Secondly, a word of double signification is to be vnderstood according to the subiect matter spoken of: and that significati∣on taken, which is fittest to the thing in hand.

As this word, here translated feede, spoken of a King, is to gouerne and rule, as a King, and not to teach as a Pastor. But being spoken of a spirituall Pastor, as here it is, it cannot bee so meant of ruling as a King: but is to be vnderstood of feeding, as a spirituall Pastor, by Doctrine and life, and not of ruling. Or if of ruling too, yet it is but of such a rule as befitteth a Pastor, and not of the Rule which is in a King. For our Aduersaries can no more conclude from the double signification of the word, that Peter is to teach, as an Apostle and Bishop, and to rula also as a King, the Church: then it may bee concluded of a King, that he is not onely to rule as a King, but also to teach the Church as a Bishop. This they will not allow to Kings, whom

they hold Lay-men: and yet the Argument from the double signification, is as good for the one, as for the other.

Thirdly, our Sauiour Christ tooke on himselfe no such Rule, as they would giue vnto Peter, to lay it vpon their proud Pope. Though the name of Gouernour be giuen to Christ, as of rule and power also, Mat. 2. 6. and 28. 18. yet he would not be made a King, Ioh. 6. 15. though he was a King, Ioh. 1. 49. nor would meddle in diuiding the inheritance, Luk. 12. nor allow Soue∣raignty in his Disciples, Luke 22. 24, 25, 26. Must here then a word of double signification bee written aduantageously to lift vp Peter to a new Dignity, which Christ neuer allowed of in them, nor euer tooke vpon himselfe, as the Pope doth? As his Father sent him, Iohn 20. so sent he not Peter onely, but them, that is, all the rest of the Apostles. But that was not to beare rule ouer Nations in outward State, as the Pope doth, as much as hee can: but to teach and preach to all the world: this did Christ. And his seruants may not thinke to be aboue their Master, or to be sent from him, otherwise then his Father sent him.

Fourthly, Saint Peter, who exhorteth the Elders to feede, vseth the same word, in 1. Pet. 5. 2. that is here in this Text; and yet by and by forbids them to be Lords ouer Gods Heri∣tage. If this word had noted any such soueraignty, hee would not haue giuen it to Inferiours; nor haue immediately forbid∣den Dominion thereupon, if there had beene any such Rule in∣cluded: for that had beene to giue, and by and by to take away againe.

Fiftly, the word and Title of Pastor, whence the other word to feede commeth, is the fourth degree vnder an Apostle: for Apostles, Prophets, and Euangelists are before Pastors. Now, a Pastor, or Bishop, or Elder, is to feede, Acts 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Therefore here is not imposed a Superioritie vpon Peter, but a Dutie common to other of inferiour ranke. This word feede therefore will helpe them nothing for the Supremacie.

The word my, pulleth downe Peter from Soueraignty. For first, Peters charge is to seed, not his owne, but Christs sheepe. So then, Peter is not a Lord, but a Seruant-Shepheard, to feede

the chiefe Shepheards flocke, as Peter himselfe calleth Christ, who knew no other chiefe Shepheardship, either in himselfe, or in any other, but in Christ, 1. Pet. 5. 3. And wee reade how the flocke is called Gods, Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. but no where Pe∣ters. As also by Christ himselfe wee are taught, that there is but one fold, and one Shepheard of that fold, to wit, but one gene∣rall Shepheard, and that is he himselfe, Ioh. 10. 11, 14, 16. and not Peter, and that by Peters owne acknowledgement in the fore∣quoted place, 1. Pet. 5. 3.

The word Lambes, or Sheepe considered with the rest of the words, and as it is commonly taken, wipes away Peters Supre∣macie.

For first, the words are not spoken vniuersally, Feede all my Lambes, as if hee had been charged with all of them. For this had beene a charge: First, which hee could neuer haue perfor∣med, secondly, which he neuer did attempt to performe. Now, God neuer imposed any impossible charge vpon him; and Pe∣ter would not haue been found faithlesse. But it is spoken inde∣finitely, to feed here, and there, whom he could, and where hee could, at any time. Therefore hee is not here the vniuersall Bi∣shop.

Secondly, Lambes or Sheepe are not Apostles, Prophets, E∣uangelists, and Pastors. These are neuer so called, but in relati∣on to Iesus Christ onely, Mat. 26. 31. and neuer in reference to any man. But if vnder these Lambes and Sheepe bee compre∣hended all, and euery one of the Church and flocke of Christ, then by their account, all the Apostles, and the rest, must bee sheepe, and Peter their Shepheard, and so a Shepheard ouer shepheards. Which vaine conceit, without proofe, who can giue credit vnto? And yet Bellarmine makes a difference be∣tweene Lambes and Sheepe. The Lambes forsooth, must bee the Laitie; and the Sheepe, the Apostles: when as the words are vsed indifferently, Math. 10. 16. Luk. 10. 3. Act. 8. 32. And Christ, though he vse two words, yet doth not make any such difference. For the two words to feede, are applyed also indiffe∣rently to either of them. So that taking sheepe for the Apostles, Peter must not onely rule as they would haue it, but also teach

the Apostles: when Apostles are all immediately from Christ, and taught of Christ, and by his holy Spirit, Galat. 1. 1, 12. and needed no instruction from man in the worke of the Ministerie, Math. 10. 20. Ioh. 14. 26. and 16. 13. Thus we see, there is not the least footing in any word of this Text, for Peters Supremacie aboue all other, on which yet they settle it. But if here Peters Supremacie could bee proued, yet whats this to the Pope? He feeds not by preaching Christs Lambes: but rules, or rather rauages like a roaring Lyon, ouer Christs Sheepe: hee is like a Lambe, but speakes like the Dragon, Reuel. 13.

Lastly, that here is no Headship giuen to Peter, it ap∣peareth in verse 17. where it is said, that, vpon Christs third time questioning him, he was grieued. Now, may wee rea∣sonably suppose, if Peter had conceiued of Christs words, as Popes doe, that a Supremacie was therein bestowed vpon him, that hee would haue beene grieued? Doe men grieue at high preferments offered, especially hauing contended for the same, as the Apostles had done? Who seeth not therefore, that Peter perceiued no such glorious preferment, nor high Dignitie, out of any thing that Christ here spoke, as our Ad∣uersaries doe? From all this it is cleere, that Peter from hence hath no Headship aboue others.

Notes

• Lib. 1. de. PP. Rom. cap. 11.
• The like speech, Gen. 41. 44.
• Lib. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Rom. PP.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉