Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

all dispute will immediately cease. For the Pope himself will readily relinquish the charge committed to the apostles, which being full of labour and trouble, would deprive him of his pleasures without yielding him any profit. Since it is the doctrine of the gospel that opens heaven to us, it is elegantly expressed by the metaphorical appellation of keys.There is no other way in which men are bound and loosed, than when some are reconciled to God by faith, and others are more firmly bound by their unbelief. If the Pope assumed nothing but this to himself, I am persuaded there is no man who would either envy him or contend with him.But this succession being laborious, and by no means lucrative, and, therefore, not at all satisfactory to the Pope, hence arises a controversy on the meaning of Christ's promise to Peter. Therefore I infer from the subject itself, that it only denotes the dignity of the apostolic office, which cannot be separated from the burden of it. For if the definition which I have given be admitted, and it cannot without the greatest effrontery be rejected, then here is nothing given to Peter that was not also common to his colleagues; because otherwise there would not only be a personal injury done to them, but the majesty of the doctrine would be diminished. This our adversaries strenuously oppose. But what does it avail them to strike upon this rock? For they can never prove, but that as the preaching of the same gospel was enjoined upon all the apostles, so they were all equally armed with the power of binding and loosing. They allege that Christ, when he promised to give the keys to Peter, constituted him head of the universal Church. But what he there promised to one, he in another passage confers upon all the rest together, and delivers it as it were into their hands. (z) If the same power, which had been promised to one, was granted to all, in what respect is he superior to his colleagues? His pre-eminence, they say, consists in this, that he receives separately by himself, as well as in common with them, that which is only given to the others in common. What if I reply, with Cyprian and Augustine, that Christ did this, not to prefer one man before others, but to display the unity of the

(z) Matt. xviii. 18. John xx. 23.

Church? For this is the language of Cyprian: "That in the person of one man God gave the keys to them all, to signify the unity of them all: that, therefore, the rest were the same as Peter, endued with an equal participation both of honour and of power: but that Christ commences with one, to shew that the Church is one." Augustine says, "If there had not been in Peter a mysterious representation of the Church, the Lord would not have said to him, I will give thee the keys; for if this was said to Peter alone, the Church possesses them not; but if the Church has the keys, Peter, when he received them, must have represented the whole Church." And in another place; "When a question was put to them all, Peter alone answers, Thou art the Christ; and to him Christ says, I will give thee the keys, as if the power of binding and loosing had been conferred upon him alone: whereas he made that answer on behalf of all, and received this power in common with all, as sustaining the character of unity. He is mentioned, therefore, one for all, because there is unity in all."

V. But this declaration, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,"(a) they say, is no where to be found addressed to any other. As if in this passage Christ affirmed any thing respecting Peter, different from what Paul, and even Peter himself asserts, respecting all Christians.For Paul makes "Christ the chief corner-stone," upon which they are built who "grow unto an holy temple in the Lord." (b) And Peter enjoins us to be "as lively stones,' who being founded on that "corner-stone, elect and precious," (c) are by this connection at once united to our God and to each other. This belongs to Peter, they say, above the rest, because it is expressly attributed to him in particular. I readily allow Peter the honour of being placed among the first in the structure of the Church, or if they insist upon it, the very first of the faithful; but I will not permit them to infer from this that he possessed a primacy over the rest. For what kind of reasoning is this: he excels the rest in ardour of zeal, in doctrine, in magnanimity; therefore he possesses

(a) Matt. xvi. 18. (b) Eph. ii. 21, 22.

(c) 1 Peter ii. 4, 5.

authority over them? As though we might not with greater plausibility conclude that Andrew was superior to Peter, because he preceded him in time, and introduced him to Christ; (d) but this I pass over. I am willing that Peter should have the precedence, but there is a great difference between the honour of preceding others, and authority over them. We see that the apostles generally paid this deference to Peter, that he used to speak first in their assembly, and took the lead in proposing, exhorting, and admonishing; but we read not a word of his power.

VI. We are not yet, however, come to that question; I only mean at present to shew, that they have no solid argument, when they wish to erect an empire over the universal Church upon no other foundation than the name of Peter.For those antiquated fooleries with which they endeavoured at first to impose on the world, are not worthy of a relation, much less of a refutation; That the Church was founded on Peter, because it is said," Upon this rock I will build my Church." (e) They allege in their defence, that it has been so explained by some of the Fathers. But when this is contradicted by the whole tenour of scripture, what avails it to set up their authority in opposition to God? And why do we dispute about the meaning of those words, as though they were ambiguous or obscure; whereas nothing can be expressed with greater clearness or precision? Peter, in his own name and that of his brethren, had confessed that Christ

"the Son of God." (f) Upon this rock Christ builds his Church, because it is the only foundation, as Paul says, "other" than which "can no man lay." (g) Nor do I reject the authority of the Fathers in this case, from a want of testimonies in their writings to support what I maintain, if I were inclined to adduce them. But as I have observed, I am unwilling to be unnecessarily tedious to my readers in arguing so clear a subject; especially as it has been long ago discussed with sufficient copiousness and care by other writers on our side of the question.

[blocks in formation]

VII. Yet in fact, we can obtain no better decision of this point than from the scripture itself, if we compare all the places where it shews what office and power Peter held among the apostles, how he conducted himself, and in what manner he was received by them. On an examination of the whole, we shall only find that he was one of the twelve, equal to the rest, their companion, not their master. He proposes to the assembly, indeed, if there be any thing to be done, and delivers his opinion on what is necessary to be done; but he hears the observations of others, and not only gives them the opportunity of speaking their sentiments, but leaves them to decide, and when they have determined, he follows and obeys. (h) When he writes to pastors, he does not command them with authority like a superior; but makes them his colleagues, and exhorts them with a courteousness which is usual among equals. (i) When he is accused for having associated with the gentiles, though this is an unjust accusation, yet he answers it and vindicates himself. (k) Commanded by his colleagues to go with John to Samaria, he refuses not. (1) The apostles, by sending him, declared that they did not consider him as their superior. By his compliance and execution of the commission entrusted to him, he confessed that he was a colleague with them, but had no authority over them. If none of these facts had remained upon record, yet the Epistle to the Galatians might alone easily remove every doubt; where Paul devotes nearly two whole chapters to the sole purpose of shewing that he was equal to Peter in the dignity of the apostleship. Hence he relates that he went to Peter, not to profess subjection to him, but to testify to all the harmony of their doctrine: and that Peter required no such thing as submission, but gave him the right-hand of fellowship, that they might labour together in the vineyard of the Lord: that no less grace had been conferred upon him among the gentiles, than upon Peter among the Jews: and lastly, that when Peter acted with some degree of unfaithfulness, he was reproved by him, and stood

(h) Acts xv. 6-29.
(k) Acts xi. 2, &c.

(i) 1 Peter v. 1.
(7) Acts viii. 14, 15.

corrected by the reproof. (m) All these things fully prove, either that there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or at least that Peter had no more power over the rest than they had over him. And this, as I have already observed, is the professed object of Paul; to prevent his being considered as inferior in his apostolic character to Peter or John, who were his colleagues, not his masters.

VIII. But though I grant them what they require respecting Peter, by admitting that he was the chief of the apostles, and superior in dignity to all the others, yet there is no reason why they should convert a particular instance into an universal rule, and make what was done but once a perpetual precedent: for the cases are widely different. There was one chief among the apostles; doubtless because they were few in number. If there be one president over twelve men, will it therefore follow, that there ought to be but one president over a hundred thousand men? That twelve should have one among them to preside over the rest, is no wonder. For this is consistent with nature, and the common 'sense of mankind requires, that in every assembly, even though they are all equal in power, yet there should be one to act as moderator, by whom the others should be regulated. There is no court, council, parliament, or assembly of any description, which has not its president or chairman. So there would be no absurdity, if we acknowledged that the apostles gave this pre-eminence to Peter. But that which obtains among a small company is not immediately to be applied to the whole world, to the government of which no one man is sufficient. But the whole economy of nature, they say, teaches us, that there ought to be one supreme head over all. And in proof of this they adduce the example of cranes and bees which always choose for themselves one leader and no more. I admit the examples which they produce; but do bees collect together from all parts of the world to choose one king? each king is content with his own hive. So among cranes every flock has its own leader. What will they prove from this, but that every Church ought to have its own

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinua »