| << | Contents | >> |
The Institutes of the Christian Religion
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 559
[549] The French adds, “Comme de Lecteurs et Acolytes;”–as Readers and Acolytes.
[550] The whole narrative in Theodoret is most deserving of notice. Theodoret. Lib. 4 cap. 20.
CHAPTER 5. THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT UTTERLY CORRUPTED BY THE TYRANNY OF THE PAPACY.
[551] “C’est un acte semblable, que quand ceux qu’on doit promouvoir se presentent à l’autel, on demande par trois fois en Latin, s’il ést digne; et quelcun qui ne l’a jamais vue, ou quelque valet de chambre que n’entend point Latin, repond en Latin qu’il est digne: tout ainsi qu’un personnage joueroit son rolle en une farce.”–In like manner, when those whom they are to promote present themselves at the altar, they ask, three times in Latin, if he is worthy; and some one who has never seen him, or some valet who does not understand Latin, replies, in Latin, that he is worthy: just as a person would play his part in a farce.
[552] French. “Ies vices des personnes:”–the faults of individuals.
CHAPTER 6. OF THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMISH SEE.
[553] See Calv. Adversus Concilium Tridentinum. Also Adversus Theologos Parisienses.
[554] French, “Pour ce faire, ils alleguent la pretrise souveraine qui etoit en la loy, et la jurisdiction souveraine du grand sacrificateur, que Dieu avoit establie en Jerusalem.”–For this purpose, they allege the sovereign priesthood which was under the law, and the sovereign jurisdiction of the high priest which God had established at Jerusalem.
[555] “Car c’est tout ainsi comme si quelcun debattoit que le monde doit etre gouverné par un baillie ou seneschal parce que chacune province a le sien.”–For it is just as if one were to maintain that the whole world ought to be governed by a bailie or seneschal, because each province has its own.
[556] French, “Ils ont Four leur bouelier, qu’aucuns des Peres les ont ainsi exposees.”–They regard it as their buckler, that some of the Fathers have so expounded them.
[557] The French adds, “Vision receue du Seigneur; Le Seigneur des armees l’a dit,”–A vision received from the Lord; The Lord of hosts hath spoken it.
[559] Calvin apparently believed that Paul’s conversion occurred about three years after the death of Christ; that Paul visited Peter in Jerusalem three years later (Gal. 1:18; Acts 9:26); that Paul saw Peter again at the Jerusalem Council fourteen years later (Gal. 2:1, 2:9; Acts 15:1-11); and that these three numbers were meant to be added together. He therefore locates Peter at Jerusalem about twenty years after the death of Christ.
[560] Nero committed suicide in A.D. 68. A subtraction of thirty-seven years brings us back to A.D. 31 for the date of Christ’s death. An addition of twenty years would place Peter in Jerusalem until A.D. 51. And following this date, Peter went to Antioch.
[561] Paul’s arrival in Rome as a prisoner is put at A.D. 60. If his epistle to the Romans was written four years before, then that book should be dated A.D. 56. In this letter, there is no salutation of Peter (as would be expected if Peter had been bishop of Rome). In fact, there is not even so much as a mention of him! (although many other names, some of them obscure, appear in the closing chapter). The implication that Peter was not in Rome at this time (A.D. 56) seems difficult to avoid.
[562] During his first imprisonment in Rome (from A.D. 60 to 62), Paul wrote his epistle to the Philippians. No mention is made of Peter, but there is a strong commendation of Timothy, who not only was with Paul in Rome, but also sought for the things which are Christ’s (Phil. 2:19-21). In addition to Paul’s own epistle, Luke’s account of Paul’s two-year imprisonment in Rome (in Acts 28) says nothing whatever concerning Peter. It would appear that Peter was not in Rome from A.D. 60 to 62.
[563] In Paul’s second epistle to Timothy (the last of the Pauline epistles, dated A.D. 67), he states that at his first defense no man stood with him, but that all forsook him (2 Tim. 4:17). Where then was Peter? A number of theories might be advanced in reply to this question. Let us examine for: (1) Peter was in Rome, but in hiding. This theory is not very complimentary to Peter, who must in such a case have been among those who forsook Paul, for whom Paul prayed that it might not be imputed to them (implying wrongdoing on their part). (2) Peter, at the time of writing of 2 Timothy (in A.D. 67), had not as yet arrived in Rome. This theory would hold that Peter arrived later in A.D. 67, and was martyred a short time after, perhaps in the spring of A.D. 68, with Paul. This view suffers from the fact that 2 Peter, believed to have been written by Peter at Rome, is dated A.D.66. (3) Peter had already been martyred, and thus obviously could not stand with Paul at his first defense. This theory would date Peter’s death in Rome at A.D. 64, during Nero’s persecution of the Christians following the great fire in Rome. Once again, this view conflicts with the date of the writing of 2 Peter, in A.D. 66. Peter’s second epistle, obviously written by Peter, just as obviously could not have been written by someone who had died two years before he wrote it! (4) Peter was imprisoned in Rome at this time, expecting shortly to be executed (note 2 Peter 1:14), and thus was simply unable to stand with Paul. This theory, although it has certain problems, nevertheless has one important feature in its favor. It can take into account a two-year period of imprisonment (A.D. 66-68) ending in Peter’s execution (during which period, in A.D. 67, he was unable to stand with Paul); and include within that period Peter’s second epistle (dated A.D. 66).
[564] Calvin in this one sentence states his conclusions on three distinct questions: (a) Did Peter die in Rome? (b) Was Peter bishop of Rome? (c) If Peter was bishop of Rome, did he hold this office for a long period of time? With regard to the first question, Calvin does not dispute the contention that Peter died in Rome. Although there is no specific statement to this effect in Scripture, yet Peter’s presence and martyrdom is attested by so many early writers, including Clement of Rome, Ignatus, Papias, and Irenaeus, that there appears to be no sound reason to reject a tradition about which so many authors agree. However, in relation to the second and third questions, Calvin does not feel that he can answer affirmatively. His reasons are found in the argument which he has developed in this section and the previous one. If Calvin’s development in these sections, and the appended annotations are substantially correct, then it would appear that at least three conclusions follow: (1) There is no evidence that Peter founded the church at Rome. (2) There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome for any considerable length of time. He may have been there, at the most, for six years (if he came in A.D. 62 and died in A.D. 68). He may have been there for five years (if he arrived in A.D. 66 and was executed in A.D. 68). (3) There is no evidence that Peter was the (first) bishop of Rome; or that such an office, distinct from that of elder, even existed at this early date. Such an office, clearly extra-Biblical, appeared only later in the history of the Church.
[565] French, “Voila l’Archeveque d’Arles assis pour retracter; si bon lui semble la sentence de l’Eveque Romain. au moins pour juger par dessus lui.”–Here is the Archbishop of Arles seated to recall, if he thinks fit, the sentence of the Bishop of Rome, or at least to judge as his superior.
[566] Nicolas, whose view is given in Decretis 17, Quæst. 3, cap. Nemini; Innocent IX. Quæst. 3, cap. Nemo. Symmachi 9. Quæst. 3, cap. Aliorum. Antherius, ibidem, cap. Facta.
[567] Erasmus, in a letter to Steuchus, says, “It may be that in Germany there are persons who do not refrain from blasphemy against God, but the severest punishment is inflicted on them. But at Rome, I have with my own ears heard men belching out horrid blasphemies against Christ and his apostles, in the presence of many besides myself, and doing it with impunity!”
[568] John Gerson, who lived at the time, attests that John XXII. openly denied the immortality of the soul.
[569] The French adds, “Vision receue du Seigneur; Le Seigneur des armees l’a dit,”–A vision received from the Lord; The Lord of hosts hath spoken it.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0561 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page