Part 12

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.

That Paul was there much earlier and longer, appears from all the circumstances of the Acts of the apostles; for while Peter was preaching at Cesarea, Antioch, Jerusalem, and in other places, Paul was brought to Rome, and, having arrived there, “dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” Here the account of the Acts of the Apostles ends, without mentioning anything further of Peter. See Acts 28:30,31.

VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE.

In this demonstration we shall forego the method employed by Sebastian Frank, Gysius, and others, who have written syllogistically upon this subject, and shall confine ourselves solely to the express testimony of (or, at least, plain inferences from) Holy Scripture, upon which we propose to found our arguments.

_Reason._--_First Argument._--When Paul drew near the city of Rome, where he was to be arraigned before Cesar, the brethren[53] came out of the city to meet him, as far as Appii Forum, and the Three Taverns, whom, when Paul saw, he took courage. Acts 28:15. But among these Peter is not once mentioned, which would undoubtedly have been the case, had he been with them and occupied the episcopal throne at that place, as is pretended.

[53] By which of the other apostles these brethren at Rome were converted, is not mentioned in the text; but it may have been that they were converted on the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem, for at that time strangers of Rome were there. Acts 2:10.

_Second Argument._--When it came to pass, that Paul was to give an account before the emperor for the first time, he was forsaken by all, and no man stood with him, so that he complained of it to Timothy. 2 Tim. 4:16. Now, if Peter had been at Rome, he certainly would not have forsaken Paul, whom he was wont to call his beloved brother, 2 Pet. 3:15; but would have stood by him with counsel and actual assistance, according to his ability. This, however did not happen; which clearly shows _that he was not there at that time_; unless some one might conclude, that he, who before had forsaken his Lord and Savior (which was a matter of much consequence), now probably also forsook Paul, who was inferior.

To this may serve as reply: That Peter, at the time he forsook Christ, was not filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was not poured upon the apostles until after Christ’s ascension, Acts 2:1–3; hence he could easily come to this fall; but now, being filled with the Holy Ghost,[54] it was quite otherwise, so much so, that he and his fellow apostles feared no suffering, not even death itself. Compare Acts 4:19–21 with 5:40–42 and 12:3,4. Also 1 Pet. 3:14 and 4:16.

[54] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth. John 16:13.

Moreover, in Paul’s complaint to Timothy not a word is mentioned as to Peter having forsaken him; which, had it happened, would certainly, as a notable matter, not have been passed over in silence; more especially, as he mentions some of those who forsook him, by name, as, Demas, Alexander the coppersmith, etc.

_Third Argument._--When Paul was confined in prison at Rome, and bound in chains, he commended Onesiphorus, because he had visited him, and was not ashamed of his chain; without mentioning anything about others, saying: “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. 2 Tim. 1:16.

But why does he not commend Peter as having visited him in his bonds? or, if Peter was there and did not do so, but was ashamed of his chain, why does he not complain, that so great a man, who ought to have had been a leader unto others, was so negligent therein?

Doubtless, if Peter had been in the city at that time, and visited, or not visited, him in prison, Paul would not have passed it over in utter silence, without commending or complaining of it.

_Fourth Argument._--When many had departed from Paul, while he was in prison, he made mention of one who had remained by, or with, him, namely, in the city of Rome. He calls him Luke, and says: Only Luke is with (or by) me. 2 Tim. 4:11. It follows, therefore, that at the time when Paul wrote this, Peter was not at Rome, or it could not have been that only Luke was with him.

_Fifth Argument._--A little further on from the above mentioned words, Paul requests of Timothy, that when he came to him, he should bring Mark with him, since the same would be very profitable to him for his ministry, saying: Take Mark, and bring him with thee (when thou comest): for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 2 Tim. 4:11.

Now, if Peter was in Rome at that time, why was Paul under the necessity of sending for Mark for the ministry? or, if he was not there, why did he not send for Peter? Certainly, if he had sent for him, he would, unless prevented by some important cause, not have refused to come: and then it could be concluded, _that Peter was there a considerable time_, since, as we find, they both died considerable time afterwards.

But it does not appear that Paul sent for him; hence, it cannot be concluded, that he came in answer to his summons; and even if he had come at that time, his stay there could not have lasted several years, much less twenty-five years, as the papists say, since death overtook him as well as Paul, as has been shown in its proper place. The preparation, however, of this whole argument is unnecessary and superfluous.

_Sixth Argument._--Paul wrote various epistles from his prison at Rome to the believers; as to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, to Timothy, Philemon, etc., in which he puts various salutations from believers of the church at Rome, as also, in the beginning of the same makes mention sometimes of his fellow laborers; but he never mentions Peter. We will show here the manner in which this is done.

In the beginning of the epistle to the Philippians he writes these words: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ. Now, why does he not add here: and Simon Peter?

Nearly in the same manner he commences the epistle to the Colossians, saying: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus, our brother.” Why does he not add: and Peter, the chief apostle?

In concluding these epistles he adds the salutations of the saints who were with him. To the Philippians he writes: “All the saints salute you ... chiefly they that are of Cæsar’s household.” Phil. 4:21,22. To the Colossians he addresses these words: “Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you.” Col. 4:12. Also: Luke, the physician, greets you. Verse 14.

Peter is not mentioned here at all, which, certainly, had he been there, would have been highly necessary.

This same manner he followed in all the other epistles which he wrote from Rome. To Timothy he says: “Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia.” 2 Tim. 4:21.

To Philemon: “There salute thee Epaphras ... Marcus, Aristarchus.” Phil. 23,24.

There might be much said upon this subject, but it would all amount to this: that it would be a strange thing, if Peter was at Rome, when Paul wrote his epistles from the Roman prison, that the latter did never mention in these epistles a salutation from Peter (which, as has been shown, he did not); seeing he mentions salutations from different leaders and members of the Roman church, whom he calls by name: hence it is quite reasonable to conclude, that Peter was not there during that time.

Besides the six arguments mentioned, proving that during the time Paul was imprisoned under Nero, Peter was not at Rome, as far as the testimony of Holy Scriptures go in regard to this, there follow various circumstances showing (by like virtue of Holy Scripture), _that also during the time Paul was out of prison, Peter was not to be found in this city_.

_First Circumstance._--Here is to be considered, why Paul wrote an epistle to the Roman church, as well for the confirmation of the Christian faith, as for stirring up in the moral virtues (which epistle is still in existence), if Peter was there at that time, and had the charge of said church? or, if it was necessary for important reasons, that he should write to them, why he did not send this epistle to Peter as their leader, like he did to Timothy, the teacher of the Ephesian church; and to Titus, the teacher of the church in the Island of Crete?

Or, at least, if we look at the contents of this epistle, we may well consider, why he did not address a salutation to him, or once mention him by name? seeing he filled nearly a whole chapter with the names of those whom he salutes at Rome: as, Aquila with his wife Priscilla, Epenetus and Mary, together with Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbanus, Apelles, Herodion, those of the household of Narcissus (the women), Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Philologus, Nereus, etc., Rom. 16 throughout; without mentioning in any way whatever the person or name of Peter; from which there may be concluded again with good reason, that which has been concluded before from the account of the salutations which Paul wrote while in prison at Rome, namely, _that Peter was not in this city at that time_?

_Second Circumstance._--When it afterwards happened that Paul, having traveled through Arabia and the country of Damascus, returned after three years, with a particular desire to see Peter; he did not seek him at Rome, but at Jerusalem; where, when he had found him, he abode with him fifteen days; and then departed again into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Gal. 1:17–21.

_Third Circumstance._--When fourteen more years had elapsed, namely, those spent by Paul in his Syrian and Cilician journey, where was Peter to be found? Certainly not at Rome, but at Antioch; for there Paul came to him, and rebuked him, because he had eaten with the Gentiles in the presence of the Jews. Compare Gal. 2:1 with verses 11,12.

_Fourth Circumstance._--When some came down from Judea, and troubled the brethren, saying that, unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved; and Paul, Barnabas, and other pious men were sent to the apostles and elders, to consult about the matter; Peter as well as the others to whom they were sent, was found at Jerusalem. Acts 15:1–7.

_Fifth Circumstance._--Gal. 2:7, we read, that the uncircumcision (that is, the Gentiles) was committed to Paul, but the circumcision (that is, the Jews or the Jewish nation) to Peter; also, verse 9, that Peter (there called Cephas) together with James and John gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand and agreed, that these should go unto the heathen, but they unto the circumcision (the Jews); namely, to preach the Gospel unto them.

It is, therefore, a settled fact, that Peter was properly a teacher of the Jews (after this agreement was made), and not of the Gentiles. But if he had taught among the Romans, who were Gentiles by nature, he would have gone altogether beyond his engagement and promise; which certainly is not to be supposed of so great and eminent a man as Peter was at that time.

_Sixth Circumstance._--From the two epistles of Peter, especially from the words, 1 Pet. 1:1, it evidently appears, that he preached to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (namely those who were scattered there from the twelve tribes of Israel, according to the statement of James, chap. 1:1); for which preaching, since these countries are very far, some even a hundred and more leagues apart, several years were required, in order to travel through them; during which time Peter apparently could not be there and at Rome at once; this is incontrovertible.

_Seventh Circumstance._--At the end of the first epistle of Peter, namely 1 Pet. 5:13, are these words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected ... saluteth you.”

How could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, unless he was with it in Babylon at that time? But if he was in Babylon, he was not at Rome, unless he had two bodies; of which we do not read anything, nor have we any reason to believe it.

_Eighth Circumstance._--Those who hold that Peter was bishop at Rome, make no distinction between the words _apostle_, or messenger, and _bishop_, or overseer; yet there always has been a marked difference between the office of an apostle and that of a bishop.

The office of an apostle was to travel from one country to another, yea, through the whole world, and preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it; without being bound to any particular place or church, as appears from Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15.

On the other hand, the office of a bishop or overseer was to watch over, care for, feed and govern, as a shepherd his flock, a particular church, unto which the Gospel had been already preached, and which had accepted faith and the sign of holy baptism. Compare Acts 20:28 with 1 Tim. 3:1–5; Tit. 1:5–7.

Now, it is a fact, that properly not the latter, but the former office was enjoined upon Peter, for he gives himself the first mentioned name--apostle (see 1 Pet. 1:1 and 2 Pet. 1:1); for which purpose Christ himself had chosen him, Luke 6:13,14, and sent him out, as can plainly be seen in the last chapter of Matthew and of Mark.