I. Now, to begin with _words_, I shall not be severe, but allow to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, that the texts alleged by each of them in behalf of his own cause consist of words which are either immediately perspicuous, or become mediately clear upon definite principles. But in turn I should ask them repeatedly to consider whether such a perspicuity can be denied to the words of which the texts cited for the Primacy of Peter consist. These words are in general and vulgar use, continually repeated in the Bible, but so connected together that their certain meaning is either immediately evident, or fixed with very little trouble. But are not most of them metaphorical, such as _rock_, _building_, _keys_, _binding_, _loosing_, _lambs_, _sheep_, _feeding_? Undoubtedly some are such, yet not that words used in their _proper_ sense are wanting, as when Peter is called _the first_, _the greater_, the _superior_; also when he is charged _to confirm his brethren_; and what we collect from the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul, and the evangelists' mode of writing. Not, _secondly_, that it is not evident, from the connection of the discourse, what fixed and established meaning must be given to those metaphorical expressions. Not, thirdly, that the meaning of those formulas is not shown by the exercise of the powers conferred in them. Not, fourthly, that there is any inability, if you remove the metaphor, to express in _proper_ words what the metaphor shadows out. Not, fifthly, as if the literal and immediate sense were therefore wanting; for it is very plain that the metaphorical[25] sense likewise is literal and immediate. And sixthly, not that _metaphorical_ can be considered equivalent to _obscure_, for obscurity is most opposed to the very genius of metaphor, and such a canon would destroy the perspicuity of human language. For there is no language, ancient or modern, rude or polished, semitic, chamitic, or japhetic, whose _metaphorical_ is not much more copious than its _proper_ vocabulary.