of which the church of Christ is admonished to beware of him. 2 Tim.
4:14,15.
Many others, who, though they bore the name of members of the Christian
church, did not stand by but forsook the oft mentioned servant of
God, when he was to answer before the Emperor Nero in regard to the
Evangelical doctrine; for which reason their names did no longer belong
among the pious. See last mentioned chapter verse 16.
After these followed many who in the days of John went out from the
Church of Jesus Christ, and did the works of antichrist; wherefore they
were called antichrists, being forerunners of the great antichrist
who was to follow afterwards. See 1 John 2:18,19. Besides these who
arose already in the time of the apostles, and went out from the
holy congregation of God, many others, who can not all be mentioned,
followed in all ages and will follow to the last days.
Of this the apostles prophesied when their departure was near at hand,
and warned the believers of their coming.
When Paul knew and was fully assured through the revelation of the
Holy Ghost that all those among whom he had traveled preaching the
Gospel would see his face no more, he thus addressed, on the island of
Miletus, the elders of the church of Ephesus, who had come to him: I
know, beloved brethren, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after
them. Therefore watch, and remember that by the space of three years I
ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. Acts 20:29–31.
Afterwards when he was in the city of Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana,
he wrote in a certain letter to his beloved friend Timothy, concerning
the apostasy which should be through some in the latter times, thus:
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared
with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from
meats.” 1 Tim. 4:1–3.
Who these apostates were that, in many instances, have forbidden
marriage and meats it is unnecessary to point out, since the truth of
the matter is clear and manifest to almost every one.
But at the close of his life, when he was imprisoned at Rome the second
time, and had already received his sentence of death, namely, to be
executed with the sword, for the name of the Lord, he once more renewed
the foregoing to his friend and spiritual son Timothy, in order that he
might never forget it, but also put the church, where he was a teacher,
in remembrance of it with these words: “This know also that in the last
days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own
selves, covetous, boasters, proud,... having a form of godliness, but
denying the power thereof.” 2 Tim. 3:1–5.
Continually, he adds this declaration for further instruction: “The
time will come when they” (namely, certain members of the Christian
church) “will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they
shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto
fables. 2 Tim. 4:3,4.
In like manner, Peter also, as his departure drew nigh, expressly
prophesied to the chosen strangers scattered abroad: That, as there
were, in times past, false prophets among the people (Israel), there
should also be false teachers among (or out of) them, who should
privily bring in pernicious heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them. 2 Pet. 2:1.
It would require too much time to recount what also John says on this
subject, not only in his epistles, but especially in his revelation;
since he gives a description of the condition of both the church of
Christ and of antichrist, from his time to the end of the world.
OF THE EVIL SUCCESSION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, CONSISTING ONLY IN THE
SUCCESSION OF THE PERSONS, AND NOT OF THE DOCTRINE.
Here is to be considered the great error of the Romanists, when they
without regarding the true succession of the doctrine build on, and
parade the succession of the persons, who either from the beginning of
the world, or from the time of the apostles have existed throughout,
as they pretend up to the present time; surely a very insignificant
matter![47]
[47] “Trust ye not in lying words,” saith the Lord, “saying, The
temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord,
are these.” Jer. 7:4.
For, if they reckon from the beginning of the world, we have shown,
that Cain, who was a murderer, has had his successors as well as Abel,
who was slain for the sake of his faith[48] and godliness.
[48] “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God
testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Heb.
11:4.
And also, if they reckon from the time of the apostles, we have
demonstrated that at that time already there were many apostates, yea,
adversaries of the Christian religion and the true worship of God; and
that more have followed, according to the prophecies and predictions
which the holy apostles uttered and left to posterity.
Hence it follows, that neither the antiquity, nor the long or great
succession of persons, can assure the truth of any religion or church,
since the evil is as ancient as the good, and the erring spirits and
evil doers have had, and still have, as great a succession as the true
believers and good; unless the antiquity, and the succession of persons
be accompanied with the divine truth and piety possessed by the upright
ancients in the beginning.
OBJECTION OF THE PAPISTS, BY MEANS OF THREE PASSAGES.
But, in order to maintain the aforementioned succession, the Papists
are accustomed to say, that they do not reckon the same from the
antiquity of some erring spirits who were before, in, or after the time
of the apostles; but from the church of Christ itself, and from Peter,
whom they styled the prince of the apostles, upon whom Christ himself,
as they asserted, wished to build his church. _Bell. lib. 1. de pont
Rom. cap. 10. Quansuys ex._
To this they add as a second argument, that to him, and no other, were
given, by Christ, the keys of heaven, to open or to close the same
according to his pleasure.
And, thirdly, that the Lord thrice commanded him--more than the other
apostles--to feed his flock, that is, his church.
Moreover, that he occupied the Roman throne, and that the popes
succeeded him therein.
To prove this supremacy of Peter, and, consequently, the succession of
the popes in his place, they have, for a long time already, misused
three passages of holy Scripture, namely Matt. 16:18,19; and John
21:15–17; to which we will reply in the following.
REPLY TO THE FIRST PASSAGE.
Matt. 16:18, the Lord says: “Upon this rock I will build my church.”
The error of the Romanists consists in this, that they misinterpret the
word _petra_, as though thereby was meant the apostle Peter; but this
is a great and palpable error. For the Lord there plainly distinguishes
between the name _Petros_ (Peter) and the word _petra_ (rock); saying
immediately before: “Thou art _Peter_,” but afterwards: “and upon this
_rock_;” upon which follows: “I will build my church;” so that the Lord
does not promise there, to build his church upon _Peter_, but upon the
_rock_; which he plainly mentions.
Now it will depend upon the true meaning--who and what is to be
understood by this rock. Some maintain the first mentioned meaning,
which we have refuted just now, namely, that Peter himself is meant
thereby; for which purpose they misapply the passage John 1:42, where
this apostle is called _Cephas_,[49] which, in their opinion, signifies
a foundation stone; but this is also an error.
[49] And he (Andrew) brought him (Simon Peter) to Jesus. And when
Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt
be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. John 1:42.
It is true that, according to the explanation of orientalists, those
versed in oriental languages, by this word there is to be understood
a stone; but what kind of a stone? Not a foundation stone, but a
piece, corner, or chip of a stone, upon which no building could ever
be founded. The word Cephas, they say, is derived from the Hebrew word
_Keph_, which with them means a corner or edge of a stone; while, on
the other hand, the rocks or foundation stones are designated by the
name _Sela_ or _Zur_,[50] according to Deut. 32:13. Thus Peter is
indeed called a stone in holy Scripture, yet not a foundation stone,
but only such a one as is generally built upon a foundation. Christ
is properly the foundation stone, as Peter himself declares, when he
calls Christ the living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen
of God, and precious (1 Pet. 2:4); whereupon he adduces the words of
the Prophet Isaiah, saying: “Wherefore also it is contained in the
Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious:
and he that believeth on him” (that is builds upon him through faith)
“shall not be confounded.” 1 Pet. 2:6 from Is. 28:16.
[50] He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might
eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out
of the (_Sela_) rock, and oil out of the (_Zur_) flinty rock. Deut.
32:13.
Therefore he admonishes the believers, to build themselves, as
living stones, to a spiritual house, upon the foundation which is
laid--Christ. Verse 5.
Paul confirms this, when he says: “Other foundation can no man lay
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” 1 Cor. 3:11. In another
place he calls him the foundation of the apostles and prophets, etc.
(namely, upon whom the apostles and prophets themselves were built up,
and upon whom they, through their doctrine, built up others also); for
he adds: “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto
a holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a
habitation of God through the Spirit.” Eph. 2:20–22.
It is not inconsistent with this, that the twelve apostles, of whom
Peter was one, are called twelve foundation stones,[51] upon which, as
John says, the city of God, that descended from heaven, was built.
Rev. 21:14. For, even if it were admitted that by the words, _city
of God_, in this place, there is to be understood the church of God
here on earth, this would only prove, that Peter, as well as the other
apostles, was one of the twelve foundation stones of the church of
Christ; which by no means confirms the proposed objection, _that Peter
alone is the foundation stone, or foundation, of the church_.
[51] “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them
the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21:14. In the
first place it is questionable (even if it be admitted that by this
description of the city of God we are to understand the church of
God) whether thereby is meant the church of God as it is here on
earth, or the glorified church of God, as it will be afterwards in
heaven; for only the former, and not the latter, is to be considered
here. In the second place, it is certain that the name “_foundation
stone_” is ascribed here not to Peter alone, but to all the twelve
apostles; hence he is here called a foundation not any more than any
of the others.
Again, the word “_foundation stones_” here does not signify the
foundation itself, since, properly speaking, in nature, the foundation,
as the ground or bottom of a building, is something different from
the stones built upon it, which are called foundation stones; for,
upon the ground or bottom the foundation-stones are laid, and upon the
foundation-stones the building; so that the ground of foundation must
support both, the foundation-stones and the building. Thus, Christ
is the ground, bottom, or foundation of his church; the apostles,
through their doctrine, are the foundation-stones; and the church is
the building erected upon these foundation-stones and the foundation.
It stands fast, therefore, that they err, who make Peter the only
foundation of the church of Christ, and that, consequently the building
which they erect thereon, is erroneous and false.[52]
[52] “James, Cephas” (or Peter), “and John, who seemed to be
pillars,” etc. Gal. 2:9. Here James is mentioned before Cephas (or
Peter). Again, John and James are called pillars as well as Cephas
(or Peter), in order to show that the worthiness or the ministry
of one was not more than that of the other, and that they, without
distinction, were all equal therein.
REPLY TO THE SECOND PASSAGE.
The second passage is taken from Matt. 16:19: “And I will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
But this does not in the least tend to prove that church discipline
or the power of expelling from, and re-admitting unto the church, was
given, among the apostles, to Peter alone, and to no other of the
twelve; for in verse 13 it is written: “When Jesus came into the coasts
of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say
that I, the Son of man, am?” Whereupon it is related, that Peter (in
the name of all) answered: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God.”
Then follows, verse 19: “I will give unto thee the keys,” etc., which
promise, though addressed specially to Peter, extended to all the
apostles in general, since the Lord did not ask Peter alone, but the
whole of them collectively; upon which, when he (Peter) had answered in
the name of all, followed the above mentioned promise.
This is explained still further by the holy evangelist John, who says,
chap. 20:19,22,23, that Christ, after his resurrection, standing in the
midst of his disciples, breathed on them all, and said: “Receive ye the
Holy Ghost,” adding: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained;” which words
are of equal importance with those just quoted from Matthew, concerning
the giving of the keys. Moreover, that the church also has received
this power, is expressed in words not obscure at all in Matt. 18:17,18:
If he (the sinner) neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee
as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye
(understand, according to the sentence of the church, which is here
spoken of) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever
ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Who doubts that these are the express words which were previously
addressed to Peter, but, of course, are intended for all the apostles,
and here for the whole church?
We see that the Corinthian church, at the time of Paul, possessed the
right of expelling and readmitting, called binding and loosing; for,
touching the expulsion of the sinner, it was said to them: “Purge out
therefore the old leaven” (namely, the obstinate sinner), etc. 1 Cor.
5:7. Again: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Verse
13.
Concerning the readmittance of the one who manifested penitence, they
are commanded: “Sufficient to such a man (namely, who repents of his
sins) is this punishment (that is, the expulsion from the church) which
was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive
him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up
with overmuch sorrow.” 2 Cor. 2:6,7.
Besides, that this power of binding and loosing was not given to Peter
alone, but to all the apostles, and also to the church, it is entirely
different in its nature from that of which the pope of Rome as the
imaginary successor of Peter boasts. For the power of which Christ
spoke, must be limited by the rule of his word, Matt. 7:24,26; Gal.
1:6–8; while on the contrary the power of which the pope boasts is
unlimited, has no rule, and extends as far as his pleasure. _Bald. in
cap. Eccles._ Also, _dist. 40. cap. S. Papae, etc._
It follows then, that to the pope is attributed wrongfully a power
which was not given to Peter himself; moreover, that the power which
was given him, was common to all the apostles, and also to the church.
REPLY TO THE THIRD PASSAGE.
The third passage (or argument) is taken from John 21:15–17, where the
Lord asked Peter three times, whether he loved him, and Peter answered
each time: “Yea, Lord, I love thee;” to which the Lord replied, three
times: “Feed my lambs;” “Watch my sheep,” etc.
Some among the Papists, in order to maintain the supremacy of Peter
and, consequently, that of the popes of Rome, have so strained these
words, that a certain celebrated author among them did not hesitate to
write, _that Peter is here appointed a ruler, watchman, and pastor, not
only over the church, but over the apostles themselves_. _Bell. lib. I.
de Pont. Rom. cap. 14. & 15. 16. Second. S. Velt. etc._
But herein they do violence to the text, since various arguments from
the holy Scriptures overthrow this view. For, in the first place, it
is certain, that at that time Peter had greatly and grievously gone
astray, more than any of the other apostles; since he, contrary to
warning and his own solemn promise, had so faithlessly denied, yea,
entirely forsaken, the Lord; hence, there is no probability that the
Lord exalted him above all the others, and appointed him ruler over
them; which would be altogether incompatible with the justice of
Christ, and the nature of the case.
In the second place it would not accord with what the Lord had taught
his apostles in general, on a previous occasion, when a strife had
arisen among them, as to which of them, after his departure, should
be the greatest; saying: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called
benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you,
let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Luke 22:25,26. Again: “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your
Master, even Christ.” Matt. 23:8,10.
In the third place, if we examine the proposed argument, we shall find,
that neither the threefold question of the Lord: _Lovest thou me?_ nor
his threefold injunction: “_Feed, or watch, my lambs, and sheep_,” was
directed to Peter any more than to the other apostles.
For, as regards the question, _Lovest thou me?_ what does it signify
more than that Peter should examine himself, _whether he did love
Christ_? Very well. What, then, had Peter more than any of the other
apostles? or than Paul afterwards had? who said: “For I am persuaded,
that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor
powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom. 8:38,39. Again: “The love
of Christ constraineth us;” etc. 2 Cor. 5:14. Yea, every Christian in
particular, and all in general, are bound to this love, which is so
necessary, that it is written: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus
Christ, let him be Anathema, Maran-atha.” 1 Cor. 16:22.
Concerning the injunction, _Watch, or feed, my lambs and sheep_, this
is also enjoined upon all true teachers. “Take heed therefore,” says
Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus, “unto yourselves, and to
all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to
feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
Acts 20:28.
Peter, moreover, has, in this respect, not placed himself above, but
beside his fellow ministers, when he, exhorting them, says: “The elders
which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, and a witness of
the sufferings of Christ.... Feed the flock of God which is among you,”
etc. 1 Pet. 5:1,2.
This is further confirmed by the fact, that the Lord did not command
Peter only, but all the apostles in general, to go into all the world,
to preach and baptize the believers. Matt. 28:18–20; Mark 16:15,16.
Again, he said to them all: “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost
parts of the earth.” Acts 1:8.
It follows therefore, that in the matter of watching over, and feeding,
the sheep of Christ, that is, in preaching the holy Gospel, and taking
care of the church of Christ, Peter possessed no more authority, power,
and distinction than the other apostles and apostolic teachers.
It now remains to give a solution, why the Lord thrice asked Peter
alone, and none of the others, whether he loved him, and thrice
commanded him to feed his sheep.
To this we reply: since Peter only a short time before had thrice
forsaken the Lord, it was not more than right, that he should also
confess thrice that he loved him whom he had forsaken; and that,
therefore, this question should be put to him three times.
Besides, since Peter, by his denial had entirely abandoned, or, at
least, had become totally unworthy of his office of teaching and
feeding the church of Christ, none of the other apostles would, under
any consideration, have recognized or received him therein; hence it
was necessary, that the Lord himself should earnestly, yea thrice,
charge him with it, so that no one might come to doubt the worthiness
of his person (since he was now converted), or the validity of his
office.
Thence follows again the absurdity of those who make the matter in
question say more than the Lord himself has done: namely, that Peter
hereby was not reinstated into his office, which he had abandoned; but
that he was appointed head of the whole church, yea, even over all
the other apostles; as can be seen in _lib. I. de pont. Rom. cap. 11.
Bellorm._
THE GROUNDLESSNESS [OF THE ALLEGATIONS] OF THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSTOMED TO
DEDUCE THE ROMAN SUCCESSION FROM PETER, THE HOLY APOSTLE, AND WHEREIN
THIS CONSISTS.
Besides that the three proposed passages are of no use to the papists
in proving the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles and the whole
Christian church, there follow various reasons and circumstances which
show clearly, that the succession of the popes, which they would deduce
from Peter, cannot stand, but is unfounded and untrue.
For, to come to the point, it cannot be shown, that Peter was ever at
Rome, (where the seat of the pope is placed), except at the close of
his life, and then he was not received as pope, but was put to death
as a martyr, with Paul, his fellow apostle, for the testimony of Jesus
Christ, as we have circumstantially shown in the History of the Holy
Martyrs, of the year 69 A. D. Also, _Egesipp. Hist. van de verstoring
Jerusalem, 3. Bock, 2 cap._ Also, _W. Band. Apopth._ Christian, lib. 1.
ex Hieron. _de vitis illustribus. Johan. Strac. in festo Johan. Evang.
etc._
Eusebius quotes from Dionysius, a teacher of the church at Corinth,
concerning the coming of Paul and Peter to Rome, as also concerning
their preaching, which was the cause of their death, these words: They
(namely Paul and Peter) were both together in our congregation at
Corinth, teaching (from) there (on) throughout all Italy; they taught
also in this city (namely, Rome, of which he had first spoken); where
they both were crowned martyrs at the same time. _Euseb. Pamph. Chron.
Eccl. Edition of 1588 lib. 2. cap. 25._
He speaks of Peter’s coming to, and preaching at, Rome, even as if
having taken place at the close of his life; and although he puts
Paul’s coming and preaching in the same time, Paul’s coming to this
city, nevertheless, happened much earlier than the coming of Peter,
which took place shortly before their death; in which time both
together preached the holy Gospel in that city.