Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
IV. How grossly they pervert those passages which make
mention of binding and loosing, I have hinted before, and shall
hereafter have to state more at large. At present it is worth
while to see what they can extract from that celebrated answer
of Christ to Peter. He promised him “the keys of the
kingdom of heaven.” He said, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth, shall be bound in heaven.”[868]
If we can agree respecting
the word keys, and the manner of binding, 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 beautifully 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.[869]
If the same power, which had been promised to one, was
granted to all, in what respect is he superior to his colleagues?
His preëminence, 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 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 show 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,”[870]
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 a holy temple in the Lord.”[871]
And Peter enjoins us to be “as lively stones,” who, being
founded on that “corner-stone, elect and precious,”[872]
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
all 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 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;[873]
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 show, 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.”[874]
They allege in their
defence, that it has been so explained by some of the fathers.
But when this is contradicted by the whole tenor 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
was “the Son of God.”[875]
Upon this rock Christ builds his
Church, because it is the only foundation, as Paul says, “other”
than which “can no man lay.”[876]
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.
