St. Robert Bellarmine. De Romano Pontifice: Book I

 On the Ecclesiastical Monarchy of the Roman Pontiff

Chapter I: The Question is Proposed: What Might be the Best System of Government?

THERE can be no doubt, that our Savior Jesus Christ could and wished that his Church should govern by that plan and mode that would be the best and most useful. 13 There are three forms of government: Monarchy, that is, of one prince, the contrary vice to which is Tyranny; Aristocracy, that is the rule of the Best men, to which is opposed an Oligarchy; and Democracy, this is, the rule by the whole people, which does not rarely fall into sedition.

The chief philosophers teach this, namely Plato, and Aristotle, 14 and they do so for a good reason. For, if the multitude must be governed, it cannot be done without being governed in some way according to those three ways: either one is put in charge of the commonwealth, or some from many, or everyone altogether. If one, it will be a Monarchy, if some from many, it will be an Aristocracy; if altogether everyone, then a Democracy.

Moreover, although these three might only be simple forms of government, nevertheless, they can be mixed among themselves and from such a mixture four other forms of government are produced. One, combined from all three: the second from monarchy and aristocracy: the third from Monarchy and democracy: the last from democracy and aristocracy. Therein being so constituted, the first question arises, what might be the best form of government from those seven?

Now, John Calvin, in order to altogether block every way in which one usually arrives by disputation to constitute ecclesiastical monarchy, places aristocracy and democracy before all other forms; an aristocracy from simple forms, though in fact it is a mixed form, a government tempered according to his own mind. Most of all, he wished monarchy to be regarded as the worst of all, especially if it were constituted throughout the world or in the Church. His words from the Institutes are these: “Should it be as they would have it, that it is good and also useful that the whole world be comprised by one monarchy, which is still very absurd, but should it be so; still I will never concede that it should flourish in the governance of the Church.” 15 And again: “If in itself those three forms of government are considered which the philosophers posit, I myself can hardly deny either aristocracy, or a form combined with popular government by far excels every other form of the state.” 16 Thereafter he showed two arguments; one brought out from experience, the second from divine authority: “It was always sanctioned by experience itself, not only because the Lord confirmed it by his authority but even more, in that aristocracy is nearest to the form of government he established among the Israelites.”

We, on the other hand, follow St. Thomas, and other Catholic theologians, in that from the three simple forms of government we place monarchy before the rest, although on account of the corruption of human nature, we reckon monarchy blended with aristocracy and democracy to be more useful for men in this time than a simple monarchy: nevertheless, only the first parts should be of monarchy, it should have the second aristocracy, and in the last place should be democracy.

To be sure, in order that the whole matter can more easily be explained and confirmed by arguments, we will take up our teaching on the three propositions. The first proposition: from the simple forms the most excellent is monarchy. Second: blended government from all three forms, on account of the corruption of human nature is more useful than simple monarchy. Third: after we have excluded all circumstances, simple monarchy simply and absolutely excels.

 

Chapter II: The First Proposition is Proved, that Simple Monarchy is Superior to Simple Aristocracy

Let us proceed from the first. We do not especially compare monarchy with mixed forms of government, nor do we place it before all mixed and simple forms; but we assert this, if some simple form of government must necessarily be chosen, without a doubt monarchy should be chosen. Now we will prove it by these arguments.

Firstly: all the old Hebrew, Greek, and Latin writers, theologians, philosophers, orators, historians and poets agree with this opinion. From the Jewish theologians, Philo, praising the teaching of Homer: “That for many to command is evil, there should be one king, it pertains not to citizens and men more than to the world and God.” 17

Among the Greeks, blessed Justin teaches that the rule of many is harmful, and on the contrary, the rule of one is more useful and beneficial: “The rule of one is truly freed from wars and dissensions and is usually free.” 18 Also St. Athanasius: “Truly we have said that a multitude of gods is a nullity of gods: so also, necessarily a multitude of princes makes it that there should appear to be no prince: however where there is no prince, there confusion is absolutely born.” 19

Among the Latins, St. Cyprian teaches the same thing, and he proves most eminently from the very fact that monarchy should be the best and most natural government, because God is one. “For the divine authority, let us borrow from an earthly example: In what way has an alliance of power ever begun with trust, or ended without blood?” 20 St Jerome says: “One emperor, one judge of the province. When Rome was built, she could not have two brothers as kings at the same time.” 21 Lastly, one can consult St. Thomas. 22

Now from the philosophers. Plato says: “One dominion has been arranged for good laws, the law of all these is best: but that governance, in which not many command, we ought to esteem as the middle: the administration of many others in all matters is weak, and also frail.” 23 Aristotle followed Plato, and after he enumerated these three forms of rule, he adds these words: “A kingdom is the best of these, a republic the worst.” 24 Seneca said that Marcus Brutus did not act with sufficient prudence when he killed Julius Caesar in the hope of liberty; and giving the reason, he says: “Since the best state of the citizenry is to be under one just king.” 25

Next, Plutarch wrote a whole work on Monarchy, and on the rest of the forms to rule the multitude, in which he expressed his opinion: “If the choice of electing were conceded; one should not choose another, but the power of one.” And again, Plutarch wrote the same thing on Solon of Athens, when he said that at Athens many seditions arose when democracy flourished, and immediately adds: “One method, however, appeared to be left over to safety and quiet, if matters would have been brought to the rule of one.”

From orators, Isocrates, in that oration which is entitled “Nicocles”, contends to show this very thing for many reasons. But John Stobaeus marked it down in this title, o`ti ca,llixon h` monarcia; and also in that discourse of Hesiod, Euripides, Serinus, Ecphantus and many others he produces testimonies to confirm this very thing.

Herodotus, in his histories book 3, which is entitled Thalia, when he brought to light the slaughter of the Magi, who had occupied the kingdom of Persia, also shows the disputation which was treated among the princes on establishing a republic. He had departed from their disputation, that shaking off the opinions of those who strove for aristocracy or a commonwealth, in the consensus of all, with only one exception, monarchy was judged to be the most useful and excellent, and on that account it was retained in Persia.

Thereupon among the Poets: Homer in book 2 of the Iliad, advanced that opinion celebrated by nearly all writers, o`uk avgaqo.n polucoirani,h( e=ij coi,ranoj e;xw, ei,j basileu,j) 26 Calvin responds to that testimony of Homer, whose opinion alone, among so many he objects to: “It is easy”, he says, “to respond: monarchy is not even praised in this sense either from the Homeric Ulysses, or from others as if one ought to rule the whole world by means of authority; but they wish to indicate, that a kingdom cannot take two, and power (as he says) is an impatient consort.” 27

But certainly, if it was easy for Calvin to respond, it is easier for us to respond to Calvin. For, either he says nothing, or he says what we say, or he speaks falsity and contradicts himself. If when he says one kingdom cannot have two men, he places the force on the word kingdom, and wishes to say a kingdom properly so called cannot take two men, because if there were two, there will not be a kingdom properly so called, since a kingdom is properly the supreme power of one man: what is more he says nothing altogether, but only spreads darkness over the inexperienced by the ambiguity of words. For to say in that sense, a kingdom does not take two, means the same as if someone would say, the rule of one is not the rule of two: and one man is not two men: nothing in this pronouncement is due to the wisdom of Ulysses.

Yet, if he does not put the force on that word, but rather he understands by kingdom the multitude who should be ruled, then he says the very thing which we are saying. On this we assert that monarchy excels a commonwealth and aristocracy, because the multitude is not ruled agreeably by many, and power is an impatient consort.

If therefore, he wishes kingdom to be understood, not as a multitude, but some individual province, or one scanty kingdom: that the sense might be, that one king is to be given to one province, nevertheless he is not to be judge of the whole world: then he speaks falsely, and contradicts himself For the Homeric Ulysses does not dispute over establishing a republic in some individual province, rather he spoke to the whole army of the Greeks, who were then fighting at Troy, in which army there were many nations, many princes, and as many kings, and he affirmed it was not fitting for that whole multitude to be ruled by many, but by one. Therefore, the sense of this famous passage can be none other than, in whichever individual multitude you like, there ought to be one primary ruler; because he holds place equally in a scanty kingdom, and in the greatest command; for in one scanty kingdom there ought to be one king, not because it is scanty, but because it is one.

For this reason, if some kingdom was great, as was Assyria, or that of Cyrus, or even of Alexander or Augustus, it was one, it ought to have one prince, and seeing that the Church is one. “There will be no end of his kingdom.,” 28 and, “In the days of their kings the God of heaven will rouse, because he is not overthrown”: on that account there even ought to be one king.

Next, Calvin even opposes himself: Accordingly not only does he consider that a monarchy over the whole world would not be advantageous, but not even over some individual city or the Church, as is clearly gathered from book 4 of the Institutes, 29 where he bestows all ecclesiastical power upon a body of elders: and from the same book, 30 where he praises those cities, which having thrown off the yoke of princes, are governed by senate and people, as the republic of Geneva. Therefore, since Calvin leaves no place for monarchy, he himself saw how well he ought to respond to so many and such serious authors who praise the opinion of Homer.

Another reason is deduced from divine authority, which shows in three ways that monarchy is the best system of government. The first, by the establishment of the human race, God, indeed, made from one every kind of man, as the Apostle says, indeed he did not produce both men and women equally from the ground, but man from the ground and the woman from the man. Showing the reason for this, St. John Chrysostom says that this is so, that there should not be democracy among men, but a kingdom. And indeed, if many men were produced from the ground at the same time they all would have been equally princes over their posterity; were that the case we could rightly doubt whether the rule of one pleased God. But now, since he made the whole human race from one, and he wished everyone to depend on one clearly, it appears to mean the rule of one is commended more than the governance of many.

Thereupon, God showed his opinion, not only when he inserted the natural propensity to monarchial rule among men, but even among nearly all things. There can be no doubt, whether the natural propensity must be referred back to the author of nature. Moreover, he even declares that in some house naturally the governance of the spouse, children, of servants and all other affairs naturally pertains to one head of the household, it is, before all other forms of government, the rule of one. In like manner, a great part of the world is governed by kings. 31 Apart from that, monarchy is by far, older than the system of republics. “In the beginning, the rule of nations and empires was in the hands of kings.” 32 Therefore, it appears all living things aspire to the rule of one. St. Cyprian speaks thus: “There is one king for bees, one leader among flocks, and one rule among rams.” 33 St Jerome adds “And cranes follow one by the order of the litter.” 34 Calvin, however, mocks these testimonies, for he says: “On this matter, if it pleased God that they offer proofs from cranes and bees, who always choose one leader for themselves, there cannot be many proofs. Rightly, I accept the testimony they give, but do bees from all over the world merely choose one king? In their beehives are contained individual kings, so also in cranes, each flock has its own king; what else does this evince, than that to each church out to be attributed it’s own bishop?” 35

This response from Calvin is easily refuted. For the Church is as one sheepfold (John X) not many sheepfolds thus it can also be said one beehive and one flock; and on that account, just as there is one king for bees, and cranes follow one in the rank of the litter; so the universal Church out to have and follow one leader and primary teacher Thereupon cranes and bees are not of that nature, that they can unite when they are absent and placed far away from the union of spirit: and on that account it is little wonder, that they do not flock together throughout the world, that they might choose one king: and in this matter, that each of their flocks have their own king, obviously shows enough, that the government of one is natural.

 For, if we evince from these examples brought from very authoritative Fathers, as Calvin says, that to each church ought to be attributed its own bishop, why will he not suffer bishops, except maybe in name only, but instead attributes all ecclesiastical power to a body of elders?

All of these aside, the form of rule which God himself wished to confirm by his authority, can be gathered here chiefly from that state which he established amongst the people of the Hebrews. He did not, as Calvin says, (nor can he prove) that the government of the Hebrews was an aristocracy, or a government of many, but was plainly a monarchy. The Princes among the Hebrews were first of all patriarchs, as Abraham, Jacob, Jude and the rest, thereupon generals, as Moses and Joshua; then judges, as Samuel, Sampson, and others, afterwards kings, as Saul, David and Solomon: thereafter again generals, as Zerubbabel and the Maccabees.

Further, the deeds of the patriarchs show they were provided with royal power. Abraham waged war against four kings: 36 and we do not read anywhere that he received full power from any senate, nor any decree from such a body Jude judged his daughter in law, who was accused of adultery, with fire, 37 and he did not consult or ask any senate. Moses, as a true and supreme prince of the Jewish people, commanded many thousands of Jews to be killed on account of the golden calf, 38 which they had erected one day. We do not read of any decree of a senate, or that a plebiscite was held. The same thing can altogether be said of the judges, who received no faculty from a senate, or the people, and waged wars that they wished and gave men over to be killed Certainly Gideon, after the victory over the Medianites, killed seventy men in the city of Socoth, and destroyed the tower of Phanuel. 39

Next, over the fields, and those who attended them, the leaders of the Jews were entrusted with supreme and also royal authority, as is so clear that it is not necessary to prove Therefore, it remains to be seen where Calvin read that the government of the Jews was by the aristocrats and the people, not usually governed by any one particular prince. By chance, one will object that we have in the first book of Kings (Samuel), Chapter 8, where the Israelites are reproved by God, because they demanded a king. For, if God was not pleased to establish a king for their government, how believable is it that generals and judges were established by God with royal power?

We respond: someone can be put in charge of a state with supreme power in two ways: first, as a king and lord, who depends on no one; the second, that for a king or a primary general, someone is indeed in charge of the whole people, but who, nevertheless, is himself subject to a king.

Therefore, God had in this second manner established the government of the Jews in the time of generals and judges, that he should, without any doubt, be the proper and particular king of that people: and nevertheless, because they were men, and lacked a visible ruler, and one whom they could go to and appeal, he placed before them some man as for a king, who by no means depended upon the people who were subjected to him, but upon the true king, God alone Hence, to Samuel: “They have not cast you off, but me, lest I should rule over them.” 40 And with the Apostle: “Moses was faithful in the whole of his house as a slave.” 41

However, because the Jews were not content in this state of government, they wished to have a king in that prior manner, who not only should command all as one, but even make generals and judges, and even should possess the whole kingdom as his own, and transmit to his sons and grandsons the inheritance. On that account, they were rightly condemned and castigated by the Lord. Nor did that desire of having their own king so displease God that he commanded them to apply a rule by many, or to adapt to the spirit of aristocracy; rather he designated a king as the best for them, and afterwards saved and protected both their king and their kingdom for a long time, until it remained as a duty.

The last reason follows, which is deduced from the enumeration of their properties, which everyone holds makes the best government in fact. That first property is order. In the very matter, if it is a better government, it is because it has been more ordered: however monarchy is more ordered than aristocracy, or democracy, thus it can be proved. All order has been placed in it, that some man should be in charge, others should be subject: nor indeed is order recognized among equals, but rather among superiors and inferiors. Where there is monarchy, there all things altogether have some order, when there might be no man who is not subjected to someone, excepting he who has care of all things. For this reason there is supreme order in the Catholic Church, where the people are subject to their pastors, pastors to bishops, bishops to metropolitans, metropolitans to primates, primates to the supreme pontiff, the supreme pontiff to God. But where governance is in the hands of aristocrats, indeed the people have their own order when they are subjected to the aristocrats, but the aristocrats have none among themselves. Democracy lacks order in a far greater degree, since all citizens are of the same condition, and they are all judged to be of authority in the commonwealth.

Another property is the acquisition of its proper end There can’t be any doubt, whether that form of ruling the multitude should be better, which more fittingly and easily acquires its proposed end: the end of government, however, is the unity of the citizens among themselves, and peace, which that union appears principally to be centered on, that all might think the same, wish the same and follow the same They will obtain it much more certainly and easily if one must be obeyed, rather than many; for it can scarcely happen that many, of whom one does not depend on the other, might make judgments about matters in the same way. Therefore, if there are many who rule the multitude, and another commands something, or will not suffer someone, or in various pursuits the people necessarily will be divide; thus, this can scarcely happen when it is the duty of only one to command.

Use confirms this same thing, and experience is the teacher of things. Accordingly, in Ancient Rome under the kings dissensions are rarely read amongst the citizens, after the kings were expelled, however, when a magistrate governed the republic for many years, it was a rare year in which the patricians did not contend with the plebeians, and at length, they progressed even to civil strife, that, in a certain measure, that most powerful republic perished at its own hands. It even happened that there was never a greater and longer peace enjoyed in the roman state than under the emperor Augustus, who established the first stable monarchy at Rome.

The third property is strength and power of a state. That governance which in the judgment of all excels the rest, is the one which makes the state more powerful and stronger: It is a stronger state, in which there is a greater peace and concord among the citizens, indeed the combined strength dissipated among them is itself stronger: but a greater unity is where all depend upon one, than where they depend upon many, as was proved above, therefore, monarchy makes both a stronger state, and itself is the best government.

Experience agrees: accordingly from the four greatest empires, three rose under kings, obviously the Assyrians, Persians and Greeks: the Roman Empire is the exception, which rose under popular domination, but even then they could not preserve it in great disturbances of affairs without a dictator, that is, a king established pro tempore. Afterwards it flourished under Augustus more than it had at any time under the Republic.

The fourth property is stability and long duration Certainly it cannot be denied that that government is better which is more stable and long lasting: but monarchy indeed more than aristocracy, or democracy endured the longest time, if it is a question of external force, we already showed that without a doubt it is stronger than the rest.

Now it remains to be seen, whether monarchy is less given to emergencies and change, than any other form of government with there being no external force applied. It is so proved: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed,” 42 as Christ says in St. Matthew. But it is more difficult for monarchy to be divided, than any other form of rule. It is divided less easily because it is more one: but being more one it is itself a simple one, than the multitude agreeing as one. Though truly, the monarchy is one in itself, and naturally, even nothing other than one; the multitude agreeing as one is only one from its character, in itself it is many; therefore, monarchy, which depends upon one, can be less easily torn asunder or destroyed than aristocracy or democracy, which depend upon the multitude agreeing as one body.

Herein, the monarchy of the Assyrians from Ninus to Sardanaptum endured for 1240 years without interruption, as Eusebius teaches in his Chronicle; or 1300 as Justin gathers in book 1, or beyond 1400 as Diodorus wishes us to believe. 43 Thus, this kingdom so endured that there was always a son as successor of the dead king in the kingdom, if it is true what Vellejus Paterculus wrote in the first volume of his history.

But the kingdom of the Scythians, which is held to be the oldest of all, could not be destroyed by any external enemy, as Justin writes in bk 2, nor was it dissolved in itself at any time, for around thousands of years that kingdom stood: there is no republic which was ever as long lived or as stable.

Certainly the most powerful republic of the Romans could scarcely count 480 years, as many years from the expulsion of the kings even to the reign of Julius Caesar. But under the monarchs in the east from Caesar even to the last Constantine, it endured for 1495 years without interruption, in the west, however, from the same Caesar even to Augustulus around 500 years, and from Charlemagne even to the present emperor it has been nearly 800. But for the 480 years that democracy flourished in the Roman Empire, the republic was not always ruled in the same manner: from the beginning yearly consuls were created, a little after they added tribunes, then the consuls and tribunes were taken up, creating the decemviri; after a year these were thrown out, and again the consuls and tribunes were recalled not rarely, even dictators and as many military tribunes were brought in with consular power.

Therefore, no one form endured long, nor could they all reach the age of noble kingdoms together. Some, by chance, bring up the Venetian republic, which counts about a thousand and ten years. Yet that has not even attained the years of the kingdom of the Scythians, or of the Assyrians; on the contrary, not even the kingdom of the Franks: and what’s more it is not a republic, where aristocracy is mixed with rule by many, the form which Calvin praises, but an aristocracy mixed with monarchy: democracy has never existed in that city.

The fifth and last property is the facility of governance Indeed, it relates more to whether it can be obtained easily and not with difficulty that the state should be well governed That it is easier for the state to be ruled rightly by one rather than many can be proved from these reasons.

First: it is easier to find one good man than many Thereupon, it is easier for the people to obey one than many On that account, magistracies which take turns, and govern a state for a short time, are often compelled first to lay aside a duty than plainly recognize the business of the state; on the other hand, a king who always exercises the same office, even if from time to time he is of a meager intelligence, nevertheless by use and also experience is better than many others. In like manner, yearly magistracies look after a business of the state, which is not their own, but common, as foreign; a king does so as properly his own. It is certain that it is not only easier, but even more thorough for one to care for his own things, than for others. Where there are many who rule, it can hardly be the case that there would be no rivalry, ambition and contention present, and in point of fact it does not rarely happen that some impede others, and effect that, those who govern the affairs at hand, will administer the commonwealth badly, in such a case it is better for themselves that when they exercise the magistracy, they receive glory in abundance. But monarchy, which does not have anyone it might envy, or with whom to contend in governance, more easily moderates all things.

Lastly, to the extent that in great households, where many servants are assigned to the same duty, they manage their business badly because one shall leave behind a common duty to another: thus even where there are many heads of state, one looks to another, and while each one throws back the burden on his colleagues, no one sufficiently employs diligent care to the state. A king, however, that knows all things depend upon himself alone, is compelled to neglect nothing. And also, hitherto, it is indeed proven that simple monarchy is better by far than simple aristocracy. Now let us proceed to prove the next proposition.

 

Chapter III: That Monarchy Mixed with Aristocracy and Democracy, Should be More Useful in this Life

The next proposition is such: government tempered from all three forms on account of the corruption of human nature is more advantageous than simple monarchy. Such a government rightly requires that there should be some supreme prince in the state, who commands all, and is subject to none. Nevertheless, there should be guardians of provinces or cities, who are not vicars of the king or annual judges, but true princes, who also obey the command of the supreme prince and meanwhile govern their province, or city, not as someone else’s property, but as their own. Thus, there should be a place in the commonwealth both for a certain royal monarchy and also an aristocracy of the best princes. What if we were to add to these that neither the supreme king nor the lesser princes would acquire those dignities in hereditary succession, rather the aristocrats would be carried to those dignities from the whole people; then Democracy would have its attributed place in the state. That this is the best, and in this mortal life the most expedient form of rule, we shall prove from two arguments. First, a government of this sort should have all those goods, which above we showed are present in monarchy, and should be on that account in this life more favorable and useful. And indeed, it is plain that the goods of monarchy are present in this our government, since this government truly and properly embraces some element of monarchy: it can be observed that this [government] is going to be more favorable in all things, however, because of this very fact, that all love that kind of government more in which they can be partakers; without a doubt this our [form of government] is such, although this is not conveyed by any kind of virtue. We will speak nothing on the advantage, however, since it may be certain that one individual man cannot rule each individual province and city by himself; whether he might wish or not, he would be compelled for the sake of their care to demand it from his vicars of administration, or from his own princes of these places. Again, it is equally certain, that princes are much more diligent and faithful for their own things than governing vicars for someone else’s. Another argument is added from divine authority. God established a rule of this sort, such as we have just described, in the Church both in the Old and New Testaments Furthermore, this can be proved from the Old Testament quite easily: The Hebrews always had one, or ten, or a judge, or a king, who commanded the whole multitude and many lesser princes, about which we read in the book of Exodus: “With vigorous men being chosen from all Israel, he established them princes of the people, tribunes and centurions, both captains of fifty, and of ten, who judged the people at all times.” 44 Also, one can see in the first Chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, there is clearly democracy in some manner. On the Church of the new Testament the same thing will need to be proven, as evidently there is monarchy in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, and also in that of the bishops (who are true princes and shepherds, not merely vicars of the supreme pontiff), there is aristocracy and at length, there is a certain measure of democracy, since there is no man from the whole multitude of Christians who could not be called to the episcopacy, provided he is judged worthy for that office.

 

Chapter IV: That Without the Circumstances of this World, Simple Monarchy Would Absolutely and Simply Excel

The Third proposition follows, which was such: Without the circumstances of this world, simple monarchy is absolutely and simply better than all other forms of governance. For, if in this case, we placed mixed government among men of a simple monarchy, that one man can’t be in all places, and necessarily would be compelled either through his administrators or through princes to take care of the business of state; certainly in this circumstance of person, and in others if some of the same kind were excluded, there will be no reason why simple monarchy should not be preferred to all forms of government. But we have besides that a more efficacious argument Since simple monarchy in the empire of God and Christ holds place, and moreover the best things ought to be attributed to God and Christ, therefore, the best government must be simple monarchy. If anyone, however, should wish to deny that, I do not see in what way he could avoid falling into the error of the Marcionists and Manichees, or even of the Heathen. For, since the world is governed best by its creator, and without controversy, if aristocracy were the best form of government, many would be moderators of this world, and therefore, it follows, many creators, many first principles, and many gods. Wherefore the old Fathers, St. Cyprian, St. Justin, St Athanasius, among whom even the Jewish writer Philo can be added, there is one God, who rules all created things and governs them, in that argument they principally prove that monarchy is the best government: Justin and Philo even left written books on the monarchy of God for that very purpose. Since these things are so, the error of John Calvin cannot be excused, who being completely blinded by his hatred of ecclesiastical hierarchy, prefers aristocracy to all other forms of government, even if the question should be considered with all circumstances removed. These are his own words: “And if you compare these situations among themselves on the other side of the circumstances, you may not easily discern what might be of more weight with respect to utility, to that extent they contend in equal conditions.” 45 And a little after that: “Truly if those three were considered in themselves, that is the forms of government which the philosophers put forth, I could hardly deny, either aristocracy or a state tempered by oligarchy, should by far excel all the others.” 46 But you will say, it follows from law, and you will discover the answer to your objection. Thus, indeed, Calvin adds: “Not in itself, therefore, but because it rarely happens, that kings so control themselves, that their will is never out of harmony with what is just and right: thereupon, being instructed with such acumen and prudence, that each one should see to it that there is sufficient quantity. Therefore, he commits all the vices of men, or lacks them, that it is safer and more tolerable, to have many heads of state.” I hear it: but what will become of the edition of 1554, where those words are not contained? But you will say, after he was admonished, he emended the error. I omit what was not imposed on such a teacher in Israel, that if ever he fell so seriously, I wonder that, Calvin could not correct that error, unless he opposed himself; for if, as he says, it is not easy to discern, which state should outweigh the other, even if they were compared with themselves beyond the circumstances of this world: and if while these there were considered, which the philosophers put forth, aristocracy is shown to excel; how true is it, what he immediately adds: “Not indeed in itself, ” etc. and: “Therefore, he commits all the vices of men, or lacks them, that it is safer and more tolerable, to have many heads of state.”? Indeed these are opposed, unless I’m mistaken. No less are these opposed: “It cannot be discerned which one outweighs the other, if they should be considered beyond the circumstances of this world,” and: “He commits the vices of men, that aristocracy should be judged more useful.” For, removing the question of the vices of men, and also all other circumstances being removed, monarchy excels, or not: if it excels, for what reason will it be true that it cannot be discerned which state should outweigh the other, even if compared outside of circumstances? If it does not excel, by what argument do we defend the monarchy of God against the Manicheans and the Heathen? Now, however, we are already coming to the next question.

 

Chapter V: The Second Question is Proposed; Should the Ecclesiastical Government be a Monarchy?

Since it has been shown that monarchy is the best government, the second question arises: whether the monarchical government is suitable to the Church of Christ And also that we might separate certainty from doubt, we agree with our adversaries on three things. One is that in the Church there is some government, for in Canticles we read: “The columns of the camp are drawn out.” 47 In Acts, we have: “Attend to your own and the whole flock, because the Holy Spirit has placed bishops to rule the Church of God.” 48 In Hebrews: “Obey those placed over you.” 49 The second, is that ecclesiastical government is spiritual and distinct from the political order: when indeed Paul said: “Who presides in solicitude.” 50 And “Who carries out his duties well shall be held in honor twofold.” 51 And similar things: there were not yet any, or certainly very rarely secular princes in the Church. Those two things even Calvin teaches. 52 The third is that the absolute and free king of the whole Church is Christ alone, about whom it is said: “I have been established a king by him over his holy mountain, Zion.” 53 And in Luke we read: “And of his reign there will be no end.” 54 Therefore, an absolute and free monarch is not sought in the Church, or an aristocracy, or democracy, but such a quality can be of ministers and dispensers, since Paul said: “Thus a man esteems us, as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God.” 55 And indeed, our adversaries reckon that the ecclesiastical government which was consigned to men by Christ is by no means monarchy, rather aristocracy and democracy, although they do not all agree among themselves. Illyricus, teaches that there is no one in the Church who is in charge of all, but the whole ecclesiastical authority is both in the ministers and in the people; 56 nevertheless, in another book, 57 he attributed supreme power to the multitude of the whole Church, giving the first place to democracy in the Church, then the second to aristocracy, that is the congregation of the elders. Calvin, on the contrary, grants supreme power to the body of elders, over whom he wishes a bishop to be in charge, as a consul of the senate. 58 He teaches the same thing clearly, that the greater authority is the body of elders, rather than bishops. Calvin, however, attributes something to the people, but less than a body of elders. Next, John of Brenz concedes supreme power to aristocrats: 59 but he would not have it that they are bishops, rather secular princes, whom he contends are the most noble members of the Church. For a long time Catholic teachers have all agreed on the point, that the ecclesiastical government which was consigned to men by God is indeed a monarchy, but tempered, as we said above, by aristocracy and democracy. 60 Following their footsteps, we now bring four propositions into the midst, and defend their strength. The first will be that the government of the Church is not in the power of the people. Second, it is not in the power of secular princes. Third, it is not chiefly in the power of ecclesiastical princes. Fourth, it is especially in the power of one supreme governor and priest of the whole Church.

 

Chapter VI: That the Government of the Church Should not be a Democracy

Thereupon, the first denial is proposed, namely of popular Ecclesiastical government, and it can be confirmed by these arguments, firstly, from four things, which ought to be present in all popular government. First, where there is popular government, magistracies are established by the people themselves, and also receive their authority from them. Since one cannot sit to declare a law of the people in itself, he ought at least to consult some who do so in their name. For that reason, Cicero calls the office of Consul, which was the greatest magistracy in the Roman Republic, the benefice of the people; 61 and he says in the same place, that consuls were created to preserve the right of the people to vote. Secondly, where there is popular government, a decree of the magistrate may be appealed against in serious matters by bringing it to the judgment of the people: this custom was witnessed in the Roman Republic by Livy, 62 and Plutarch teaches the same thing about the Athenian republic in his work on Solon. Thirdly, the laws by which the state must be governed, while indeed proposed by a magistrate, are commanded by the people, as is certain from Livy. The same can be recognized in Cicero. 63 Fourthly, magistracies are usually accused by the people, and indeed deprived of dignity and sent into exile, or even beaten to death, if it appears expedient to the people; there are many examples of this. The Romans, for instance, by the two first consuls whom they had created, deprived Tarquinius Callatinus of his magistracy before his time only on account of the odious name of the Tarquinius, as Livy recalls it. Likewise, when they had created the decemviri, they deposed the same against their will, as Livy again witnesses in book 2 of his histories. Now, it can easily be proved that none of these examples would be fitting to the Christian people. Therefore, to the first argument, it is certain enough in that in the whole scripture there is not one word whereby, authority can be given to the people for creating bishops or priests: rather, such authority is given to a bishop whereby: “For this reason I left you behind in Crete, so that you would correct those things which are wanting, and would ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed you.” 64 Thereupon, the apostles, who were the first ministers of the Church, were constituted by Christ, not by the Church, as we read in Mark VI. Also, the first bishops after the apostles, at a time in which the Church was purest, were not made by the people, but by the apostles, as can be recognized even by the historians of Magdeburg themselves. 65 For the Centuriators witness, at Iconium, and Antioch, shepherds were given by Paul, and they teach, following Nauclero and other historians, that Apollinarus was established a bishop by St. Peter at Ravenna, and likewise Majernum at Treveris, and Hermagora at Aquileiam. Irenaeus asserted that Linus was made a bishop by the apostles Peter and Paul at Rome. 66 Tertullian wrote, that Clement was made a bishop at Rome by Peter, and St Polycarp of Smyrna by John the Apostle. 67 Eusebius affirms, that Timothy was made a bishop at Ephesus by Paul, and Titus at Cretensis. 68 Nicephorus writes that Plato was made a bishop by Matthew the apostle in the town of the Anthropophagi, by the name of Mirmena. St. Mark was created a bishop by St. Peter and sent to Alexandria. 69 Dionysius, also the Areopagate, was made a bishop by Paul at Athens, which is gathered from Eusebius, 70 and Bede asserts the same thing in his martyrology. We could easily show the same thing on many others. Since these things are so, it appears sufficiently, that in this first and purest age of the Church, there was no place for democracy since not the people, but the apostles established the ecclesiastical magistracy. Nor is the second argument, on the appeal to the people fitting for the Christian people. It has never been heard of in the Church, that one might appeal from the bishops to the people, nor that the people should absolve those whom the bishop bound, or bound those whom the bishops absolved Nor has it ever happened, that the people judged on the controversies of Faith: and we indeed advance many judgments of bishops, and especially of the supreme pontiff, which exist in volumes of councils. But our adversaries cannot advance even one judgment of the people. Add that, how innumerable are the Scriptures, the testimonies of the Councils and Fathers, whereby it is proved that it is by no means fitting for the Christian people to exercise ecclesiastical judgment, which we have partly brought in the question on ecclesiastical judgment, and partly bring in questions on Councils. But certainly, if in the Church a government of the people flourished, it would be a wonder that in 1500 years nothing ever was judged by the people. Next, the third argument, that imposing laws is even less fitting to a Christian people. All ecclesiastical laws are discovered to have been imposed either by Bishops or by Councils; they have never awaited the vote of the people, as if it were reckoned that authority resided therein. Hence, St Paul, crossing over Syria and Cilicia, commanded the people, that they should guard the precepts of the apostles and elders. 71 However, there is no law, whereby a plebiscite may be called in the Church, nor any such laws as there were in the Roman Republic. Thereupon, that last argument, on judgment of a magistrate, hardly fits at all. No bishop can be shown to have either been deposed or excommunicated by the people, although many are found who were deposed and excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiffs and general Councils. Certainly, Nestorius was deposed from the episcopacy of Constantinople by the Council of Ephesus, from the mandate of Pope Celestine, as Evagrius witnessed Dioscorus was deprived of the bishopric of Alexandria by the council of Chalcedon, from the decree of St. Leo, which is clear from that Council Act 3, and this indeed is the first reason. Another reason is taken up from the wisdom of God. It is not credible that Christ, the wisest king, established in his Church that form of government which is the most degenerate of all: for the most degenerate government is democracy, as Plato teaches in his dialogue Axiochus: “Who can be happy living by the common will, even if he should be favored and applauded by it?” etc. Aristotle, from the three forms of ruling the multitude pronounces monarchy the best, and democracy the worst. Plutarch reports, that Anacharsides the Scythian marveled, that in Greece wise men speak, while fools judge, for without a doubt the orators were speaking, while the people gave judgment. Likewise, in Apophtheg, he says Lycurgus was asked, why Sparta had not established a democracy; he responded to the one asking, saying let him first establish it at home. From our own authors, St. Ambrose says on the common multitude: “It does not pay merit to virtue, nor examine the benefits of public advantage, but changes to uncertainty in disturbance.” 72 St. Jerome adds: “The mob is always mobile, and is given to the manner of the blowing and diversities of the winds, going from here to there.” 73 St. John Chrysostom defines the people as full of tumult and disturbance, the greater part being constituted of foolishness, and also composed of a rash nature like the waves of the sea, changeable and repeatedly thrown in to contentious opinion; thereupon he adds: “Therefore, whoever is pressed into the servitude of this sort, is he not rightly the most miserable of all? ” 74 Even right reason agrees. For, can it not be but the worst government, where the wise are ruled by fools, the experienced by the inexperienced, the good by the bad, yet such a government is democracy; for where democracy flourishes, all are established in suffrage: however, it is certain that there will always be many fools as wise, wicked as good, inexperienced as experienced. To this, as Aristotle teaches, those who exert power from genius, these naturally are the lords of those who are less so 75 Moreover, as St. Augustine says: “It is better that, where many foolish men live, they ought to be the servants of the wise.” 76 Who cannot see what a disturbance of order it would be, to allow the governance of the state to be handed to the undisciplined multitude of the people? Lastly, if the people should have some authority in the governance of the Church, or should have it from themselves, or from another, yet this power is not of themselves, because it is not from the law of nature or nations, rather from divine and supernatural law. Indeed, it is not the same as civil power, which is in the people, unless it should be transferred to a prince. Nor do the people have it from another: they ought, indeed, to have it from God if they have it from another: but they do not have it from God; accordingly in God’s book, that is in the Holy Scripture, there is no place where the power of teaching, shepherding, ruling, binding and loosing is handed to the people, rather the people are always called the flock which ought to be put to pasture Moreover, it is said to Peter: “Feed my sheep,” and again, “The Holy Spirit placed Bishops to rule the Church of God.” 77 Therefore, we do not have popular government over the Church. Yet, against this proposition there are three arguments. The first is taken from the words of the Gospel of Matthew 18: “Say to the Church:” where it appears the supreme tribunal of the Church is constituted in the power of the whole body of the faithful.

We respond: that phrase: “Say to the Church” means, bring to the public judgment of the Church, that is to those who govern the public person in the Church. Thus also Chrysostom shows that “Say to the Church,” means to the prelate, because the custom of the Church rightly confirms it; nor even do we ever see or hear the cause of some criminal to be brought before the multitude of the people: but rather the case is judged by the bishop, as we often see and more often have heard. The second argument is deduced from Acts of the Apostles, Chapters 1 and 6. For in Acts 1 the whole Church chose Mathias: and in Acts 6, the same Church chose seven deacons, and the Fathers in passing teach, the election of bishops pertains to the people. We respond: on the election of ministers we must dispute in another place. Meanwhile, though we deny it from that law which held the people were at some time involved in the election of ministers, that this somehow proves there was democracy in the Church in any way: accordingly the people did not ever ordain, nor create the ministers, nor render to them any power, but merely nominated and designated, or as the Fathers say, asked for them, whom they desired to be ordained through the imposition of hands made by bishops Whereby the apostles say in Acts 6: “Consider seven men of good testimony, whom we shall constitute for this work.” Where they only grant to the people, that they should seek and offer some suitable to the office: but the Apostles created those who were offered as deacons, not the people. Cyprian also teaches this: “The Lord chose apostles, the apostles constituted deacons for themselves.” 78 On that account, where, even if the people were truly to create bishops, the ecclesiastical government would not be a democracy. For indeed that some government should be a democracy it is required that the people should constitute the magistracy, but many other things are required; and that alone does not suffice in itself. The first kings were chosen by the people, and nevertheless their government is monarchy, not democracy. Proportionately, Roman emperors were once chosen by their soldiers, and now they are chosen by certain princes: and just the same the empire pertains to monarchy, not to democracy. Should there be democracy, were it fitting, as was done in the election of a prince, still there would be a greater authority in the people than in the prince, and a judgment of the prince could be challenged by seeking a judgment of the people. This should not be in the Church, just as it should was not in be a kingdom or in the empire of the Romans Valentianus the elder, understanding this, as Sozomenus refers, when the soldiers wished to give him a colleague in imperium, he responded: “It was you who chose to put imperium in my power: but already when I was chosen by you, you demanded someone as a consort of imperium, but it was not placed in your power to choose, but in mine.” 79 The third argument comes from the authority of Saints Cyprian and Ambrose. Cyprian wrote to [his] priests and deacons on certain turbulent brethren: “Meanwhile, they should be forbidden to offer, and act both with us and with the whole people in their cause, etc.” 80 Ambrose, arguing on a judgment of faith: “The people have already judged.” and again: “Auxentius has run to your examination.” 81 I respond: St. Cyprian was accustomed to treat almost all major business in the presence of the clergy and the people, and did nothing without their consent. Moreover, he did this of his own will, he was not compelled by any law, as is certain when he said: “When I had decided from the beginning of my episcopacy to do nothing from my private judgment without your counsel, and without the consensus of the people, etc.” 82 But Cyprian was not subject to the clergy or the people on that account: just as king Xerxes was not subject to those wise men, with whom he made all his counsels, as we read in the book of Esther, Chapter 1. Even if Cyprian had subjected himself to the clergy and the people, which is not in the least credible, he could not have immediately prescribed a law for the whole Church. Yet for what pertains to St. Ambrose, he speaks in that place on a private judgment, in which each established that something should be followed for themselves, not on public judgment, which he had authority of binding the rest. This much can be seen in the words of the same Ambrose, when he says in the same place: “They should come openly, who are to the Church, let them hear with the people, not that each should reside as a judge, but that each should have an examination from his own disposition, let them choose which he ought to follow.” Chapter VII: That Ecclesiastical Government Should not be in the Power of Secular Princes Another proposition, which denies that ecclesiastical government pertains to secular princes, is opposed to two errors of Brenz. The first error is that aristocrats should be secular princes of the Church: for Brenz so disparages bishops, that he would have it that they were the possession of princes. The second is, that the care and government of the church particularly pertains to aristocrats. Such errors King Henry VIII of England also held: for he constituted himself as head of the English Church, and in the same way reckoned that other princes should be the supreme head of the Church in their dominions. Indeed, the first error is easily refuted from those prophetic words in the Psalms: “For your fathers sons are born to you, they established them as princes over all the earth.” 83 Thus St. Augustine teaches on this citation, for fathers, that is, apostles, sons are born, that is the many faithful, who God established as bishops, and in this way they are princes over all the earth. Also, St. Jerome says on the same place: “O Church, your fathers were apostles, because they gave birth to you, but now because they have passed on from this world, you have for them bishops as sons.” And further on: “The Princes of the Church, that is the bishops, were established.” The Greek Fathers say nothing different, Chrysostom, and Theodoret express patriarchs through fathers; through sons they understand princes as apostles. Likewise the Apostle says: “in the Church he placed first apostles, second prophets, third even teachers.” 84 If the first are apostles, who were bishops, and for whom bishops succeeded, certainly the first are not kings and secular princes. Rather, as St. John Damascene rightly noted, not only did the Apostle not place kings in the first place, but in no place, that he would show that kings are not the government of the Church, but only of the world. The second is refuted from the Fathers. Ignatius says 85 that nothing is more honorable than a bishop in the Church: and he added, the first honor should be to God, the second to the bishop, the third to a king. St. Gregory Nazianzen, that they were precluded from fear. 86 St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose most certainly prefer a bishop to a king. 87 In fact, Chrysostom subjects kings not only to bishops, but even to deacons; thus even to his deacon he speaks: “If any general you like, if a consul, if he is adorned with a crown, should come unworthily, restrain and punish him; you have greater power than he.” 88 St. Augustine proves, that Moses was a priest from the reason that Moses was greater, and nothing is greater than a priest. 89 And Gelasius says: “You know, O beloved son, that although you preside over earthly affairs with the dignity of the human race, nevertheless you devotedly submit to prelates as heads of the divine.” 90 And further on in the same letter: “It is supplied that you ought to recognize one in order of religion more than to be over them Therefore, know that your judgment depends upon them, that they cannot be ruled according to your will.” St. Gregory asserts the first members in the body of the Lord are priests. And he teaches that priests are like Gods among men, and on that account, must be held in honor by all, even kings; 91 Pope Nicholas I teaches and proves the same thing in his Epistle to Michael. Thirdly, from the deeds of bishops and kings. For Pope Fabian excluded the first Christian emperor from communion of the Sacrament of the altar on Easter, on account of some public sin he committed: nor would he admit him before he had purged it by confession and penance. 92 Likewise, Constantius openly professed that he could not judge concerning bishops, because they were Gods: but on the other hand he was chiefly to stand subject to their judgment 93 St. Ambrose expelled Theodosius the elder from the threshold of the Church, and compelled him to undergo a public penance. Another time when the emperor in the Church ascended to the places of the priests and also wished to sit in the same place, Ambrose commanded him to descend and sit with the people, which he did gladly. 94 Thereupon Sulpitius writes on the life of St. Martin, that the emperor Maximus, when he sat down to dinner, where St Martin was also sitting, and the cupbearer wished to offer the first chalice to the emperor, as to the most noble of all, he sent him to the bishop, who did not refuse, but first drank, and afterward he handed the chalice not to the emperor, but to his priest: obviously he esteemed no one more worthy who should drink after himself; he did not prefer the whole group to himself, neither the king or whose who were near him, but the priest. Lastly, the same error is refuted by a two-fold reason First, a bishop anoints a king, teaches, binds, absolves and blesses him: moreover, the Apostle says in Hebrews: “Without contradiction it is no less a thing to be blessed by a better man.” On that account, secular rule was established by men, and it is from the law of nations: but ecclesiastical rule was established by God alone, and is from divine law. The former rules men, as they are men, and more to the cause of the body than the soul; but the latter rules men, as they are Christians, and more to the soul than the body; the former has temporal rest and the safety of the people for his end; the latter has happy and eternal life for his end. The former uses natural laws and human institutions; the latter uses divine laws and divinely established sacraments. The former wages wars with a few and visible enemies, the latter with invisible and infinite enemies. But Brentz objects: Bishops are servants of the Church “We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ, furthermore we are your servants through Jesus.” 95 So much more should they be the servants of kings, especially when St Peter spoke about kings thus: “Be subject to every human creature on account of God, whether king as though preeminent, or leaders as though sent from him.” 96 I respond: there is a twofold species of servitude: for all who labor in the full measure of another, they are said to serve him, but indeed they labor and serve another by ruling him, and presiding over him; and there are those who labor and serve by submitting and obeying; such are properly in possession: bishops, however, are servants of the Church, but to the prior mode; just as even a magistracy serves the state, and a king the people (if he might be a king and not a tyrant), and a father his sons and a teacher his students. Whereby St. Paul had said he was the slave of those whom he said he was their father: “Through the gospel, I begot you.” And he added: “What do you want? Should I come to you in the rod, could it be in charity and the spirit of mildness? ” And again: “Obey those who have been placed over you, and be subject to them.” And “The Holy Spirit has placed bishops to rule the Church of God.” 97 For this reason St. Gregory called himself the servants of the servants of God. And St. Augustine says: “Inspire, O Lord, in your servants my brothers, your sons and my lords, whom I serve by voice, heart and letter.” 98 And St. Bernard says that Eugene, when he was made Pope, was elevated above nations and kings to minister to them, not lord it over them. 99 But you will say, kings are kings, even in the Church, and Christians ought to be subject to them, as though to ones preeminent. Indeed it is true, but only in those affairs, which pertain to the state. Certainly, Christian kings are preeminent over Christian men, not as Christians, but as men, just as they are even over Jews and Turks, but as men of state; for as Christians they are sheep subject to their pastors, the bishops, as St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Ambrose taught, whom we quoted above, and St. Basil, who taught nothing can be said to be of more honor, than that an emperor should be called a son of the Church: indeed a good emperor is within the Church and not over it. The second error of Brentz is easily refuted from the foregoing. If princes are not aristocrats of the Church, then aristocracy in the Church does not pertain to them Nevertheless, these arguments can be added on that account. First, the government of the Church is supernatural; it is fitting for no one except whom God has commissioned Moreover, we read in the Scriptures of what was entrusted to the apostles and the bishops, their successors. For it was said to Peter the Apostle, in the last Chapter of John, “Feed my sheep.” And on Bishops, it is said in Acts, “whom God placed as bishops to rule the Church of God.” We read nothing at all about kings. Thereupon, for the first 300 years there was no secular prince in the Church except for the emperor Philip alone, who lived for a very short time, and by chance someone else in provinces not subject to the roman empire; yet nevertheless, the same Church existed then which exists now and it had the same form of government, therefore secular princes did not rule the Church of Christ. In like manner, those who have supreme power in the state, can have all the things which lower officials can Indeed, can someone prohibit a king, if he wished to judge those reasons in themselves to recognize and judge, what he entrusted to viceroys, and magistrates, and lower judges? But kings cannot usurp the duty of a bishop, priest, or deacon to himself, as such things are to preach the word of God, baptize, consecrate, etc. Therefore, kings are not the supreme magistracy of the Church. Moreover, that kings cannot invade the duties of priests, we so prove. In the first place, kings are not only men, but they can even be women: and the Apostle prohibits women to teach publicly, 100 and the Peputians are numbered among the heretics by Augustine and Epiphanius, because they attributed the priesthood to women. 101 Thereupon, Josaphat the greatest king says: “Amarias will preside as a priest and pontiff, in those things which pertain to God: next Zabadias will be devoted to those things, which pertain to the office of king.” 102 And when Ozias the king wished to burn incense, the priest forbade him, saying: “It is not your duty, Ozia, that you should burn incense to the Lord, rather the priests’.” 103 But since he persevered, immediately he was struck with a very serious leprosy by God. Yet, if in the Old Testament a king could not exercise the office of priests, how much less in the New, where there are by far more august sacerdotal offices? Likewise, we read in the Synod of Autun (Matisconensis), in the Council of Miletus, and Toledo, that clerics are to be gravely punished if they would bring a subject of the Church to secular judgment. 104 And St. Ambrose says that to Valentinian: “Do not weigh yourself down, O Emperor, that you should think yourself to have some imperial right in those things which are divine.” 105 Likewise, as Theodoret relates, St. Ambrose said to the emperor Theodosius the same thing; “The purple makes emperors, not priests.” 106 Theodoret also relates about a certain Eulogius, on an occasion when Modestus, the prefect of the Arian emperor Valens, said to him: “Join with the emperor;” but he responded with wit: “Do you also attend on the bishopric with the emperor? ” St. Athanasius also rebuked Constantius, because he had mixed himself in with ecclesiastical affairs, and adds that Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova, said to the same Emperor: “Do not instruct us in this way, but rather learn from us: God entrusted imperium to you, but to us those things which are of the Church.” 107 Liontius the bishop said the same things to Constantius, as Suidas witnesses. Sulpitius relates that St Martin said to the Emperor Maximus, that it was unlawful, a novelty and unheard of, that he might as a secular judge make determinations on the business of the Church. St. Augustine teaches, that the duty of pious kings is to defend the Church, and to punish blasphemies, sacrilege and heretics with severe laws and penalties: but in the same place he rebukes the Donatists, because they brought an episcopal plea not to their brother bishops, but to an earthly king to pass judgment. 108 St. Gregory the Great, when speaking about the emperor Maurice, said: “It is known, for most pious lords to love discipline, and keep order, to venerate the canons and not get mixed up in the business of priests.” 109 St. John Damascene amply teaches the same thing. 110 Thereafter, the emperor Basil, in the Eighth General Council, eloquently asserted, that neither he nor any other laymen was allowed to treat on priestly business; because the same had been professed even by Valnetinan the elder, as Sozomen witnesses above. The arguments of Brentz are taken from examples of the Old Testament, where we read that Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, and Josias, who were generals or kings, often mixed themselves in the business of religion. Brentz even adds to confirm the argument, that the custody of divine laws had been entrusted to kings by God, and therefore the care of the Church pertains to them. Thus even the Apostle said: “He bears a sword not without cause. He is a minister of God, an avenger in anger to him who works evil.” 111 We respond: Moses was not only a general, but also the high priest, that in a question on the judgment of controversies, which is shown in my work de Verbo Dei, bk 3 The rest, however, now and then worked not just as kings, but also as prophets by an extraordinary authority. But not for that reason was that law to be blotted out from Deuteronomy, by which ordinarily in doubts on religion, men were remitted not to the king, but to a priest of the Levitical race. 112 What is more, as we said above, Oziah, the king, was punished by leprosy, when he assumed the office of the priest. Furthermore, we respond in confirmation of the fact that kings ought to be guardians of divine laws, but not interpreters; it is indeed for them to impede blasphemies, heresies and sacrileges by edicts. Moreover, since there are heresies, they ought to learn from the bishops what is in fact the Orthodox Faith, which pious emperors, Constantine Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius and Marianus, did, as can be recognized from history.

 

Chapter VIII: That Ecclesiastical Government Should not be Chiefly in the Power of Bishops

The third proposition follows, which teaches that the government of the Church should not chiefly be in the power of bishops and priests, against two errors of Calvin. The first error of Calvin is that bishops and priests are equal by divine law, while the second, is that supreme power in the Church resides in a body of elders. John Huss held to the same error, which can be understood from the condemnations of the Council of Constance. 113 Now the first error in that disputation will be more appropriately refuted than on clerics, and we will establish it in its place. In the meantime, it will be enough to refute the first error from the one that follows. Accordingly, these two errors are opposed among themselves. If the Church is ruled by aristocrats, as the second error would have it, certainly Priests are not aristocrats, but if Priests are aristocrats, then the Church is not ruled by aristocrats, since it is certain that there were never priests present in general Councils wherein the administration of the whole Church was conducted with authority to define, and where laws were imposed or abrogated whereby the Church is ruled, unless they were legates, and they held the place of some bishops. That is not necessary to prove otherwise than from the very acts of the councils which are still extant. Now the second error, which is more properly of this argument, is confounded for these reasons. First, it is never read in the scriptures that supreme power was conferred into a Council of priests: whatever authority was conceded to the Apostles and the rest of the disciples by Christ, was conceded not only to all but even to individuals; and it was not necessary to exercise it in Council. Indeed individual apostles, and without a doubt, individuals bishops could and can even now teach, baptize, loose, bind, ordain ministers etc. The only place is Matthew 18, where something is handed down in Council, when it is said: “Where there will have been two or three gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.” What the power of a Council might actually consist of, however, whether it is supreme, medium or lowest, shall not be explicated here. Calvin himself, does not make much of this reference in the gospel, that he would say that it is nothing less in whichever particular body you like to meet, than in a general Council. For that reason, we shall not labor much on this argument at present. Secondly, if supreme power of governance were in the hands of aristocrats, it would follow that the Church would almost always lack rulers, and most of all, there would be no one who would take care of the common good: hence, the ecclesiastical commonwealth would be very miserable, as indeed, aristocrats would be equal among themselves, as is proper, and could not administer the common good unless they were either gathered together, or choose, by a common consensus, some magistrate, whom they would all obey, in the fashion in which the Romans elected their consuls. But in the Church, aristocrats are rarely gathered in a general Council. For the first 300 years there was no general Council: afterward scarcely every 100 years, but a magistrate, whom the universal Church would obey at least for a time, was never created by these aristocrats; for if they would create someone, he would most likely be one of the five patriarchs, who were always prominent in the Church. But our adversaries contend that the Roman Patriarch never had this power: from the other four, this business is very certain: the Patriarch of Alexandria never had this power outside of Egypt, nor the others outside of their regions. This is why, St. Jerome asks: “Tell me, what in Palestine pertains to the bishop of Alexandria?” 114 And Chrysostom, who was asked about Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, who was conducting ecclesiastical business outside of his province, said: “It is not right, that those who are in Egypt, should judge those who are in Thrace.” 115 How absurd would this be, that the Catholic Church, which is so truly one, that in the Scriptures it should be called one city, one house, one body and still would have no one on earth, who should take care of it? Who can’t see it? For, if the particular Churches were not so united in themselves that they formed one body, it would suffice that each were its own ruler, but they could no more lack an individual ruler than one flock can lack a shepherd, and one body its head. Thirdly, if supreme power should be in a body of aristocrats, wherein were a greater number compelled to attend a Council, so much greater would be the authority: in that it could never turn out, that more authority could be given to a Council attended by fewer persons than one attended by more. But the Council of Rimini was attended by 600 bishops, and has never been held to have had authority in the Catholic Church. The first Council of Constantinople on the other hand, had 450 bishops, and has always been held to have enjoyed the greatest authority. And we recall this for the sake of the present controversy, because that was called by the Pope, whose supreme power in the Church has been rejected by our adversaries. Moreover, those who grant supreme power of the Church to aristocrats, can offer no reason why they condemn the council of Rimini, but embrace the Council of Constantinople. But, they say, the Council of Rimini erred, but the first council of Constantinople did not; on that account, they embrace the latter and condemn the former But what else is this, than to make onself the judge of Councils and of the whole Church? Fourthly, although democracy is absolutely the worst form of government nevertheless, it appears more pernicious for the Church than aristocracy. Accordingly, the worst thing for the Church is heresy: however, heresies are more often excited amongst the aristocrats, than among the common faithful. Certainly almost all Heresiarchs were either bishops or priests; therefore heresies are almost like factions amongst aristocrats, without which there would be no sedition in the Church of the people. But factions never arise more easily or frequently than when aristocrats rule, as can be proved not merely from example, and the testimony of philosophers, but even from the confession of Calvin himself 116 But our adversaries object based on the testimony of three Scriptures, joined even to three witnesses of the Fathers. The first is Acts 15, where we read that the first controversy of the Church arose, and was defined not by some individual supreme judge, but by the agreement of the apostles and elders: “They agreed, the apostles and the elders to consider on this word.” I respond: here no argument can be asserted for aristocracy. In fact, in that very council where that first question was defined, Peter was the president and head: nor indeed would Peter, who was in someone else’s diocese whose bishop, James, was present, dared to have spoken first, except that he was in charge of the whole council Moreover it is not opposed to monarchy that something would be decided upon in public assembly by the common counsel and agreement of princes, in the same manner as it usually happened in imperial assemblies at this time. The second testimony is Acts 20, where St. Paul admonishes the bishops with these words: “Attend also to your whole flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the Church of God.” The third is in 1 Peter 5, where St. Peter speaks thus: “I exhort the elders who are among you, as fellow elders and witnesses of the passion of Christ, pasture the flock of God which is among you.” I respond: neither citation proves anything; truly we do not deny that bishops and priests come together that they should feed and rule the Church of God: but our question is on the supreme power of the whole Church; does it reside in the body of ministers, or in some individual man? In these citations, neither Paul, nor Peter touches upon this question, rather they merely admonish bishops, so that they would vigorously exercise their pastoral office for the people. They already brought from the Fathers that first citation of Cyprian, who so wrote to a cleric: “Such a matter, although I have determined that it considers the counsel and opinion of us all, I do not make bold to claim every matter to merely decide by myself.” 117 I respond: Cyprian did not dare to render judgment, because he had obliged himself of his own will, when he received the episcopacy, that he was to do nothing without the counsel and consensus of his priests and people, as we taught above from the same book. 118 Next, they bring Ambrose, who so said: “Both the synagogue, and afterward the Church had elders, without whose council nothing was done.” 119 I respond, no more from these words can ecclesiastical aristocracy be proved, than from the existence of a senate and royal counsel in a kingdom that there is no monarchy. Certainly, even Solomon had a body of elders by counsels, 120 and also Xerxes used the counsel of the wise in all affairs; 121 nevertheless, it does not follow that they were not kings. On that account, because the old bishops would do nothing without the counsel of priests with respect to what was of advantage and salutary, still, it was not necessary, nor can it be understood from that citation that at the time of Ambrose were this not to be done that the Church would have ceased to exist. Lastly, they produce Jerome, who said: “By the inspiration of the devil, some became zealous in religion, and even said among the people: ‘I am of Paul, I Apollo, but I of Cephas, they were governed by the common counsel of priests of the Church. Yet, afterward, each one, whom they had baptized, was reckoning his own not to be of Christ, was decreed in the whole world, that one be supposed to be chosen from the priests above the rest, to whom every care of the Church would pertain, and the seeds of schismatics were abolished.” 122 Therefore, they argue, in the first period of the Church, (which I readily grant was the purest,) aristocracy flourished, and priests were the aristocrats. I respond: it seems that St. Jerome was in that opinion which reckons that, bishops, if it is a question of jurisdiction, are indeed greater priests, but with respect to ecclesiastical law, not divine law; such an opinion is false, and must be refuted in its place. Meanwhile, this in no way advances that aristocracy of priests which Calvin holds to, but considerably strikes against it. For Jerome does not say, that in the first age of the Church an aristocracy of priests flourished, and that it was good government, but little by little afterward, through some abuse, monarchy was introduced by wicked men; rather he affirms on the contrary that there was an aristocracy in the beginning, but since it was not advancing well, and thereupon many seditions and schisms arose, by the common counsel of the whole world, it was changed into monarchy. Nor can there be any doubt whether Jerome would have taken notice that this change came to pass in the times of the apostles, and from those apostolic authors. For in this citation he says, then a change occurred, when it began to be said: “I am of Paul, I of Apollo,” as Paul witnesses what happened in his own time in 1 Corinthians I. Next, Jerome says, that James was created the bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles immediately after the passion of the Lord, 123 and asserts that St. Mark was the bishop of Alexandria. 124 Add that Jerome does not speak about the universal government of the Church, but only of particular places, when he says, that from the beginning the Churches began to be governed by the common counsel of priests: besides, Peter was constituted as head of the whole Church, as the same Jerome teaches by means of eloquent words: “From the twelve one is chosen, that being constituted as the head, the occasion of schism should be abolished.” 125

 

Chapter IX: Why the Ecclesiastical Government Should Particularly be a Monarchy

The last proposition remains, which affirms that the government of the Church should particularly be a monarchy Certainly the first reason whereby the proposition is proved can be deduced from the aforesaid: for if there are three forms of rule, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, as has already been shown, the government of the Church ought not be either a democracy, or an aristocracy, therefore what else remains but that it might be a monarchy? Thereafter, if monarchy is the best and most useful government, as we taught above, and is certain, that the Church of God was established by the wisest of all rulers, Christ, to govern in the best way: who can deny that his reign ought to be a monarchy? Yet Calvin resists this and denies it, because for him, if monarchy were in fact the best form of government, it follows that the Church ought to be governed by some individual man, whereas it is certain that its king and monarch is Christ himself. 126 But this is easily refuted, for although Christ is the one and proper king and monarch of the Catholic Church, and he rules and moderates invisibly and spiritually, nevertheless, the Church, which is corporeal and visible, lacks some single visible supreme Judge, by whom controversies arising on religion might be settled, who would contain all lower prefects in office and unity. Otherwise, not only the supreme Pontiff, but even bishops, pastors, teachers and ministers, all would be redundant: for Christ is the shepherd, “and bishop of our souls.” 127 He is the single teacher, whom the Father of heaven bids us to hear. 128 He is the one, “who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.” 129 Therefore, in the same way in which Bishops, teachers and the remaining ministers are not redundant, even if Christ does what they do as ministers, so also one who as a supreme Steward manages the care of the whole Church is not abolished from the midst, even though Christ principally manages the same thing. The second reason is brought in from the similitude which the Church of mortal men has with the Church of immortal angels. St. Gregory the Great also uses this reasoning. 130 Accordingly it is certain, its exemplar is this and just as an idea, as the Apostle appears to indicate 131 and St. Bernard eloquently affirms, where he speaks of the militant Church in the Apocalypse, “the new Jerusalem descending from heaven,” he says has been addressed, and this is why it was established and conformed to the example of that heavenly city. Nor has it been less certain and explored among the angels, that besides God the supreme king of all, there is one who is over all others. But from the beginning that one was provided with this dignity, who now is called the devil; as many of the Fathers witness. 132 It can also be deduced from Scripture, in the book of Job, where Behemot, that is, the devil, is called the prince of the ways of the Lord and in Isaiah, 133 where he is compared to Lucifer, that is the greatest and most beautiful of the stars, and at least in regard to appearance, and by common teaching, to which the Scriptures customarily accommodate themselves. Moreover, St. Jerome and Cyril teach that this Lucifer is the devil on this citation, as does Augustine. 134 There is also the book of Ezekiel, where it is said: “Every precious stone is your covering;” 135 and soon nine stones shall be enumerated, whereby it is meant, as Gregory expresses, the nine choirs of angels, which stood around this angel just as their prince 136 But after the fall of the devil, St. Michael is taken to be the prince of all the angels, from ch. XII of the Apocalypse, where it is said: “Michael and his angels.” Certainly, what does “Michael and his angels” mean, but Michael and his army? Since it is said the devil and his angels in the same place, we understand all wicked angels to be his subjects, just as soldiers are subject to their general. So also, when it says “Michael and his angels,” we ought to understand all good angels acknowledge Michael as their prince, for which reason St. Michael has rightly been placed in ecclesiastical office of paradise, and has been named the prince of the heavenly host. Calvin has nothing other to say than that it is not fitting to speak on heavenly matters except with exceeding temperance, and that no type of Church must be sought than the one that is expressed in the Gospel and in the epistles of the holy Apostles. 137 But one need not speak with temperance, as it were, who says nothing from his own head, but follows the Apostles and the holy Fathers. The third reason is taken from the Church of the Old Testament. It is certain that the Old testament was a figure of the new, as the Apostle says: “All of these things were contained for them in figure.” 138 In the time of the Old Testament there was always one who was over all in those matters which pertained to law and religion, especially from the time in which the Hebrews began to be rendered into the form of a people, and be governed by laws, and magistrates, which was after the Exodus out of Egypt. Then indeed Moses ordered the commonwealth of the Jews, he wrote laws for them which he had received from God. He consecrated Aaron the priest and subjected all the priests and levites to one. And thereafter even to the times of Christ the one chief of the priests did not pass away, who governed all the Synagogues of the whole world. That can be easily proved, if it is conceded by our opponents. So speak the Centuriators of Magdeburg: “In the Church of the Judaic people there was only one high priest by divine law, whom all were compelled to acknowledge, and obey.” 139 Calvin affirms precisely the same thing. 140 Therefore, since the Church of that time was a figure of the Church of this time, reason altogether furnishes that, just as the former had one visible ruler besides God the invisible ruler, so also the latter also should have these; accordingly there ought to be no perfection found in a figure, which is not found more exactly in the embodiment [of the type]. Now Calvin applies two answers to this argument. The first is, that the one meager Jewish people and all Christians of the whole world are not at all the same thing. He says: “The one people of the Jews ought, beset all about by the idolatrous, to have one high priest, that he should maintain in unity lest they be dragged away by various religions. But to give the Christian people diffused throughout the whole world one head is absolutely absurd.” 141 And he adds the similitude: “Just as for this reason the whole world ought not be committed to one man, because one field is cultivated by one man.” To be sure, however, this first answer seems to not really answer the argument but to tie it more and more into a knot For if the reason why the Jewish people had one head, as Calvin says, was so that it would be contained in unity and not defect to idolatry, those who took possession of it, for a greater reason ought to have one head of the Church of Christians. For there it is more required to have one head, where it is more difficult for unity to be preserved, where there is greater danger lest people be pulled away to different religions: moreover it is more difficult for unity to be preserved in a greater multitude, than in a lesser one, and the danger is greater where there are many enemies of the faith, than when they were fewer. But the Christian people is much greater than ever the Jewish people was, and Christians have many enemies, who are not only besieged by Turks, Tartars, Moors, Jews, and other unbelievers, but they live among innumerable sects of heretics. Therefore, unity is much more difficult to preserve among Christians, and a greater danger threatens from the enemies of religion, than once among the Jews, either that unity be preserved or danger should threaten. Hence, by that reason whereby Calvin attributes a head to the people of the Jews, he ought to attribute the same or greater to the Christian people. Secondly the similitude on farming also effects nothing, nor do we wish that one man being put in charge should by himself rule the whole Christian world, to the extent that one farmer himself tills one field: but likewise we commit to one supreme shepherd to rule the whole Christian world, that he might rule through many other lesser pastors; just as one rich householder cultivates many fields through many farmers, and one king administers many cities and provinces through many viceroys and governors. Next, Calvin adds another response, and he says that Aaron bore the figure not of a priest of the new testament, but of Christ; hence, when Christ completed the figure in himself, there is nothing from it that the Pope can claim for his own. Indeed, we do not only press the argument with the figure of Aaron, but of the whole Old Testament: since the Old Testament is a figure of the New, just as there is monarchic rule in the old, so we say it ought to be in the new. I add besides, even Aaron himself not only bore the figure of Christ, but also of Peter to his successor: just as the sacrifices of the old law signify the sacrifice of the Cross, and at the same time they were a type of that sacrifice, which is now offered in the Church: so the high priest of the old Testament both refers to Christ the high priest, and at the same time was a type of his priesthood, which now we see in the Church, moreover this is the same reasoning of sacrifice and priesthood. Perhaps they will deny that the old sacrifices signify the passion of Christ, and at the same time our sacrifice, but St Augustine teaches this: “The Jews in the victims of cattle, which they offered to God, in many and different modes, just as it was worthy by such a matter, they celebrated a prophecy of the future victim, which Christ offered up. For that reason now Christians carrying out the memory of his sacrifice, celebrate it by the most holy offering and partaking of the body and blood of the Lord.” 142 He also says: “The whole thing which the faithful know in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, whose shadows were all the kinds of the first sacrifices . . . The Lord himself commanded a leper to the same sacraments, he sent to the priests that they would offer the sacrifice for him, since it had not yet succeeded them in sacrifice, which he wished to be celebrated afterward in the Church for all those, that he had pre-announced in all of them. 143 There is no other reason why St. Gregory interpreted all the things which are said on garments and decor of Aaron concern his virtues, which are required among Christian pontiffs: 144 and Cyprian expresses, concerning our priests which are called in the Old Testament Aaronic priests, which frequently all other Fathers make, except that because the new priesthood succeeded the old, and the Christian pontiffs the Jewish ones, just as [revelation] succeeded certain types and foreshadowings. The fourth reason is sought from those similitudes, in which the Church is described in the Scripture: moreover they all show that necessarily there ought to be one head in the Church. The Church is compared with the “arrayed army” in the Canticles, 145 to a human body or a beautiful woman, 146 to a Kingdom, a sheepfold, a house, a Boat or the Ark of Noah. 147 Now there is no well-ordered camp where there might not be one general, many tribunes, and many lieutenants, etc. St. Jerome says: “In every powerful army they await the sign of one.” 148 How therefore, is the Church a well ordered army, if all the bishops, nay more all the priests are equals, and by equal reasoning one head in the human body? Perhaps you might say: the Church has its own head Christ; on that account we cannot compare the Church with Christ in this place as the members with the head, even the bride with the bridegroom: whereby the Scriptures use the similitude. 149 And certainly if the Church, which is on earth, with Christ being far off, it is not ineptly compared to the bridegroom: even while Christ is absent, it ought to have one head, especially with the eloquent declaration of the Canticles, enumerating even the head among its other members, the bridegroom says to the bride: “Thy head is as Carmel.” 150 and the bride concerning the bridegroom “His head is the best gold.” 151 And truly the bridegroom compares the head of the bride to mount Carmel, because even if the High Priest is as vast as a mountain, nevertheless it is nothing other than the land, that is man. The bride compares the head of the spouse to the best gold, because the head of Christ is God. Now truly, was there ever a kingdom that was not ruled by one? And although the king of the Church is Christ, nevertheless we gather from him that the Church ought to have someone apart from Christ by which it is ruled, because kingdoms are always royally administered, that is, through one who is in charge of all. Accordingly, when the king is present he does it through himself; but if he is away, he does it through another, who is called a viceroy; often even with the king present, some general vicar is constituted. Moreover, one sheepfold also requires one shepherd, as is gathered from the Gospel: “There will be one flock and one shepherd.” 152 It must be noted in passing, that “one shepherd” can be understood concerning a secondary pastor, namely Peter and his successors, as Cyprian expresses it. For when the Lord said he has other flocks and other sheep who are not of this fold, he speaks on the Gentile people and the people of the Jews: but he teaches that he has among the nations many elect, who either are already faithful, or certainly are going to be, and nevertheless they do not pertain to that Judaic people. If it is a question of the shepherd of God, the people of the Jews and gentiles were always one flock, and one God was their shepherd: nevertheless there was not always one flock and one shepherd with respect to the governance of the human race; nor indeed the gentiles, or those among them pertaining to the Church, ruled by the priest of the Jews. But Christ wished after his arrival, that one flock be made from each people, and all men to be governed by one shepherd Hence, Cyprian says, while speaking about Novatian, who wished to be made bishop of Rome, when Cornelius had already been created such and sat: “Therefore, the Lord insinuating in us the unity coming from divine authority, so places it and says: ‘I and the Father are one:’ to which unity relegating his Church again he says: ‘And there will be one flock and one shepherd.’ But if one flock, how can he be counted in the flock, who is not in the number of the flock? Or how can the pastor be contained, who while truly remaining pastor, even in the Church of God succeeds to the presidency by ordination, succeeding nobody, and beginning from himself be foreign and profane?” 153 The similitude of the house and the boat remain, and indeed every house has one Lord and one steward, according to that of Luke’s gospel: “Who do you think is the faithful dispenser, and prudent, whom the Lord constituted over his household?” 154 These words are said for Peter, and about Peter himself, since a little before the Lord had said to him “Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord will discover watching when he will have come.” Peter asked: “O Lord, you speak to us this parable, can it be for all? The Lord responded to Peter: ‘Who do you think is the faithful and prudent dispenser? Whom the Lord constituted over his house?” It is just as if he were to say, where O Peter I say in the first place, it behooves you therefore to consider, what is required in a faithful and prudent steward, whom the Lord will establish over his household. And a little after, that he might show himself to speak concerning one, whom he will place over all that must be preserved, and who shall be subject to the Lord alone, he adds: “What if that servant will have said in his heart, ‘my Lord delays his arrival,’ and began to strike the servants and handmaidens, and to eat and drink and become drunk, the Master of that servant will come on a day he hopes not, and at an hour he does not know, and will divide him [from the rest], and will place him on the side of the treacherous.” The Lord openly marks out with such words, that he is intending to place one servant over the whole house, who can be judged by himself alone. Chrysostom eloquently teaches that this citation concerns Peter, and his successors, 155 agreeing with Ambrose, or whoever is the author of that commentary on Chapter 3 to Timothy: “The House of God is the Church, whose ruler today is Damasus.” Thereupon, concerning the boat, St. Jerome says “In the boat, there is one captain” and Cyprian a little after taught, that the ark of Noah was a type of the Church, and goes on to prove that Novation could not be made captain of the ark, because Cornelius already had been, and one boat demands one ruler, not many. The Fifth reason is brought in from the first age of Church government. It is certain, therefore, that the Church gathered by Christ began from the first to have a visible and external monarchical rule, not an aristocracy, or a democracy Indeed, Christ, when he lived on earth, visibly administered it, as its supreme shepherd and rector, as even the Centuriators affirm. 156 Even now the Church ought to have external and visible monarchical rule, otherwise what exists today would not be the Church. The same can be said with the city of God. As Aristotle teaches, the City is described by the same species, as long as the same form of the commonwealth remains, 157 that is, the same common mode of government, which if it were to be changed, the state would also be changed. The sixth reason is led in from a like thing. Individual bishops are rightly established in individual places, who are over all the rest of the ministers and pastors of the place Now Calvin affirms this in these words: “What else will this bring to pass except that individual Churches ought to be given their own bishops?” 158 Again, in individual provinces individual metropolitans are rightly constituted, who govern the bishops of their province; and in greater cities primates or patriarchs, who, as St. Leo says, receive a greater care. 159 Even Calvin has not dared to deny this. 160 Therefore it is equitable that there should be someone that is in charge of the whole Church, and to whom primates and patriarchs should also be subjected. For, if monarchical rule is fitting for one city, one province, one nation, why not even for the whole Church? What reason demands that only parts should be ruled by monarchies, while the rest is governed aristocratically? Thereupon, it is proved by such reasons, there ought to be a bishop in charge of priests, an archbishop in charge of bishops, a patriarch over archbishops; by the same it can be proven, that one supreme bishop ought to be in charge of the patriarchs. Why is one Bishop necessary in individual Churches, except that one city cannot be ruled well unless it is by only one? But the universal Church is also one. In like manner, why is one archbishop required, except that the bishops might be contained in unity, that controversies may be quelled, that they should be called to Synod, and compelled to exercise their office? But on account of the same causes one is required who is in charge of all archbishops and primates. Now Calvin will respond that the greater primacy of bishops over priests, and archbishops over the other bishops is from honor and dignity, not authority and power. 161 Yet, certainly he is deceived or else deceives: for (that I might omit others) when the Apostle says: “Do not receive any accusation against a priest unless it is under two or three witnesses,” 162 he makes a bishop the judge of the priest Further, one is not a judge without power. Besides, in the Council of Antioch, canon 16 states that if any priest or deacon should be condemned by his own bishop, and being deprived of honor comes to another bishop, he is by no means to be received. Therefore a bishop can condemn a priest and deprive him of honor, because it is certainly of his power and jurisdiction. Likewise, in the Third Council of Carthage, the Fathers asserted that it was lawful for primates of the bishops from whichever diocese to take up clerics and ordain them bishops where a need will present itself, even against the will of the bishop to whom the cleric was subject. 163 Here do we not obviously see that there is a greater primacy with respect to power over other bishops? Thereupon, St. Leo and St Gregory openly teach, that not all bishops are equal in power, but some are truly subject to others; and also, St. Leo rightly deduces that the rule of the universal Church pertains to the one See of Peter. 164 The seventh reason can be taken up from the propagation of the Church. For, the Church always grew and ought to grow, until the gospel has been preached in the whole world as is clear from Matthew 24: “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world, and then the consummation will come.” But this cannot happen unless there would be one supreme prelate of the Church, to whom the care of preserving and propagating this whole body depends, for no one ought to preach, unless he is sent. “How did they preach unless they were sent?” 165 But to send someone to foreign provinces is not a power of particular bishops; consequently, these have very certain boundaries of their own episcopacy, outside of which they have no right, nor does the care pertain to them, except of guarding the flock assigned to them. Wherefore, in the history of the Centuriators of Magdeburg, we hardly discover a Church propagated after Apostolic times through others, than through those whom the Roman Pontiffs sent to do the work of God. St. Boniface, being sent by Pope Gregory II, converted the Germans. St Kilian, sent by Pope Conon converted the Franks. St Augustine, being sent by Pope Gregory I, converted the English. Moreover, Pope Innocent constantly affirms, through all of Spain, France, and Africa, Churches were founded through them, whom Peter or his successors sent into this work. The eighth reason is brought in from the unity of Faith Indeed it is necessary that all the faithful altogether believe the same thing in matters of Faith: “There is one God, one Faith, one Baptism.” 166 But there can not be one Faith in the Church, if there were not one supreme judge, to whom all were held to acquiesce. The very fact of the dissension of the Lutherans, which we see, certainly teaches us sufficiently, even if there were to be no other reason, that they do not have one to whom all are held subject as his judge, thus they have been divided into a thousand sects, but still, they all descend from one Luther: and yet they could not compel one Council, in which all would come together. Rather, even the most obvious reason persuades it. Since there are many equals, it can hardly happen that in obscure and difficult matters in their judgment, any would wish to be placed before the other as a judge. The Centuriators respond, that the unity of the Faith can be preserved through the association of many Churches, which would help each other, and treat on questions of Faith through letters amongst themselves. 167 But that certainly does not suffice: for to preserve the unity of Faith, counsel is not enough; rule is required: otherwise what would happen if a bishop were erring and refuse to right to the others, or if after he had written he refused to follow their counsel? Was not Illyricus admonished by his colleagues, that he should retract that Manichean error on original sin which he had aroused again from the pits of hell, and was never able to be persuaded, or even patiently hear them? And if this meeting is so efficacious, why has peace and concord as yet still not been effected between soft and rigid Lutherans? You will say perhaps: The questions will be put to rest by a general Council: They will accept everything from a greater part of the Bishops. On the other hand, a greater part of a general Council can err, if the authority of a supreme shepherd is lacking, as is proved by the experiment of the Armenians and that of the 2 nd Council of Ephesus. Add that general Councils can not always be compelled, in the first 300 years no general Council could come about and nevertheless many heresies existed then. It remains that we should rebut the objections. First Calvin objects: “Contention happened among them [the Apostles], over who would seem to be greater? But the Lord said to them: Kings of nations lord it over their people; but it will not be so with you.” On that citation Calvin says: “The Lord taught that their ministry was not like that of a king, in which, one would not excel the rest in order that he might restrain this vain ambition of theirs.” 168 I respond: both in this place, and Matthew 20, the Lord does not remove monarchy from the Church, but rather more established it and advised it, being different from the civil monarchy of the nations. Firstly, the Lord does not say: “You will not be in charge of others in any way,” but rather “Thou will not be in charge as they,” that means you truly will be in charge, but in a different way than they. Thereupon, is it not clearly added in this citation: “He who is greater among you, let him be as the younger, and he who is leader, (in Greek that is h`gouvmenoj a general and prince), let him be made your servant”? Therefore one was designated by the Lord. Next, he declared the matter by his own example: “Just as I have not come to be ministered to, but to minister.” And “I am in your midst, just as one who ministers.” And, nevertheless, he says concerning himself in John’s Gospel: “You call me teacher and Lord, and you say rightly: I am indeed.” Just as Christ, therefore, did not lord it over, nor did he take charge even though he was the Lord: so also he wishes one from his own to truly be in charge, but without the lust for domination, such is in the kings of the nations, who are mostly tyrants, and command those subject to them like slaves, and refer all things to their own pleasure and glory. Therefore he wants his vicar to be over the Church as a shepherd and a father, who does not seek honor and profit, but the good of his subjects, and that, apart from the rest, he should labor and serve the advantage of all. Besides the kings of the nations, even those who are not tyrants, so administer their realms, that they might leave behind a proper heir which is in their sons: but prelates of the Church are not so; therefore they are not kings, but vicars, not householders, but viceroys. Hence, St. Bernard says: “Why do you not refuse to be in charge and reject lordship? Plainly thus, just as he does not rule well who rules in anxiety: you rule that you should provide, that you should consult, procure and serve: you are in charge that you should be in charge as a faithful and prudent servant, whom the Lord has established over his family.” 169 The Second objection of Calvin is such: “In Ephesians IV the Apostle delineates to us the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy that Christ left behind after his ascension from earth: however, there is no mention of one head, rather the rule of the church passed to many in common. Moreover, the Apostle says himself: ‘He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, but others evangelists, still others pastors and teachers.’ He did not say that first he gave one as supreme pontiff, and others as bishops, pastors, etc.” 170 Likewise: “‘Be solicitous to preserve unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling, there is one Lord, one Faith,’ and he did not say: there is one supreme pontiff to preserve the Church in unity.” Again the same thing: “‘To each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.’ And he did not say, to one was given the fullness of power and that in turn he governs for Christ, but his portion was given to individual men.” I respond: The supreme pontificate is eloquently posited by the Apostle in these very words: “And he gave some as apostles:” and more clearly in 1 Corinthians XII, where he says: “And he placed in the Church first the apostles, secondly prophets.” If ever a supreme ecclesiastical power was not only given to Peter, but even to the other apostles, therefore all could say that of Paul: “My daily urgency is the care of all Churches,” 171 but to Peter it was given as an ordinary shepherd, to whom men would succeed others in perpetuity, while to the others it was just as delegated, to whom men did not succeed. There was, therefore, in those first days of the Church, a necessity to disseminate the faith quickly throughout the whole world, that supreme power and freedom had to be conceded to the first preachers and founders of the Church: after the apostles died, however, the apostolic authority remained in the successor of Peter alone; indeed no bishop apart from the Roman Bishop ever had care of all the Churches, and he alone was called the Apostolic Pontiff by all, as well as his Apostolic See, and through the antinomasia and the office of his apostolate. We add here a few testimonies of this affair. Jerome says: “You who follow the apostles in honor, should also follow them worthily.” And again: “I wonder how the bishops received something which the Apostolic See condemned.” 172 Also, a great number of French Bishops wrote to Pope Leo, which is number 52 among the epistles to Leo: “Let your apostolate give pardon to our lateness.” And in the end of the letter: “Pray for me, O blessed Lord, to venerate the Apostolic Pope with merit and honor.” Likewise: “I venerate and solute your apostolate in the Lord.” Augustine declares: “The first place always flourishes in the Roman Church at the apostolic chair.” 173 Thereupon, (that I should omit an infinite number of similar things), the Council of Chalcedon, in an epistle to Pope Leo relates: “And after [having said] all these things, over and against the very one to whom the Lord had consigned care of his vineyard, he enlarged the insanity, that is against thy apostolic sanctity.” Hence, St. Bernard, speaking about all the apostles, concerning whom it is said in the Psalms: “You will constitute them princes over all the earth;” 174 he says to Pope Eugene: “You succeeded them in inheritance, so You, o heir, and inheritance of the world.” 175 And below this very citation: “And he himself gave some as apostles,” he understands concerning the pontifical authority.” This response can also be made: The Apostle does not delineate the hierarchy of the Church in this citation, rather he merely enumerates the different gifts which are in the Church. Hence, first he places Apostles, that is, those who were first sent by God. Secondly Prophets, that is, those who predict the future, as the fathers Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theophylactus put it. Thirdly, Evangelists, that is, those who wrote the Gospels, as the same fathers show. Lastly, Pastors and teachers, and by that one saying he signified, albeit confusedly, the whole hierarchy of ministers of the Church. Also, he adds in 1 Corinthians the types of tongues, duties and other things which are not ecclesiastical ministries, but charisms of the Holy Spirit. Next, to the objection on one body, one spirit, one Faith, one God, in which one Pope is not enumerated, I respond: one pope is taken up in those words one body and one spirit: as indeed the unity of the members is preserved in the natural body, that all obey the head, so also then in the Church unity is preserved when all obey the one. And although the head of the whole Church is Christ, nevertheless that he is away from the Church militant with respect to his visible presence, some one man is necessarily considered in the place of Christ, that he may contain this visible Church in unity. This is why Optatus of Miletus calls Peter the head, and places unity of the Church in him, so that all adhere with that very head. John Chrysostom also speaks thus on the Church: “whose pastor and head is a fisherman and of low birth.” 176 Now I respond to that argument on the fullness of power the supreme pontiff, if he might be compared with Christ, does not have a fullness of power, but only some portion, according to the measure of the donation of Christ. Therefore Christ rules all the Church, which is in heaven, in purgatory and on earth, and what was from the beginning of the world, and will be even to the end: and besides he can make laws from his own will, establish sacraments, and give grace, even without the sacraments. But the Pope only rules that part of the Church which is on earth, while he lives, nor can he change the laws of Christ, or establish sacraments, or remit sins outside of the sacrament [of penance]. Nevertheless, if the supreme Pontiff is compared with the other bishops, then he is rightly said to have the fullness of power, because they have definite regions over which they are in charge; even their power is defined The Pope, on the other hand, has been put over the whole Christian world, and he has the whole and full power, which Christ left behind for the utility of the Church on earth. The third objection is of Calvin, where he uses this argument: “Christ is the head of the Church, as we read in Ephesians IV, therefore one does an injury to Christ to call another the head.” I respond: No injury is made to Christ for the very reason that the Pope may be the head of the Church, rather more his glory is increased by it. For we do not assert that the Pope is head of the Church with Christ, but under Christ, as his minister and vicar: it does no injury to the king, if a viceroy should be called the head of the kingdom under the king, why it even increases his glory, therefore all who hear the viceroy is the head of the kingdom under the king, soon they think that the king is the head in a more noble manner. Add what Christ himself says concerning himself in the Scripture: “I am the light of the world,” nevertheless he does himself no injury. And the Apostle who said: “No man can place any other foundation apart from that which has been placed, which is Christ,” 177 also said “you are built on the foundation of apostles and prophets,” even though Christ may be the pastor and bishop of our souls, and the apostle of our confession, and a prophetic man, and doctor of justice, nevertheless Paul did him no injury when he wrote in Ephesians IV, that in the Church there are apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers. Thereupon, what name is there more august than that of God? Nevertheless men are more than once called Gods in Scripture without any injury to the true God. “I have said, ye are Gods.” 178 Why indeed will there be an injury to Christ the head of the Church if another might be said to be the head under him? But they say, there was never any Church called the body of Peter, or of the Pope, but of Christ. I respond, the cause of the matter is, that Christ alone should be the principle and perpetual head of the whole Church; that the kingdom is not said to be of a viceroy, but of a king, and the house is not of a steward, but of the Lord: thus the Church is not the body of Peter or the Pope, who only for a time, and in place of another governs it, but of Christ, who is the proper authority, and perpetually rules it. Besides, when the Church is called the body of Christ, that term “of Christ” can suitably be referred not just to Christ as head, but to the same Christ as a hypostasis of his body, just the same when we say, the body of Peter is in that place, of Paul in that place, we do not mean Peter or Paul are bodies, but persons whose bodies these are. Therefore Christ not only is the head of the Church, but he, as a certain great body constituted from many and different members. St. Augustine notes because of the very thing which the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians: “Just as indeed there is one body that has many members, although the members are many, the body is truly one;” he does not add, “so even the body of Christ”, but “so even Christ.” Now, therefore, the Church is the body of Christ, not of Peter, because Christ, just as all the members endure the hypostasis of this body, and all work in all, it sees through the eye, hears through the ears, he is indeed the one who teaches through a teacher, baptizes through a minister, does all things through all; certainly that is not asserted in Peter, nor in any other man. The fourth objection is of Theodore Beza, who argues that the burden of ruling the whole charge can be the duty of God alone; 179 hence, it is impossible for us to affirm the argument when we commit the rule of the whole Church to the supreme Pontiff. Luther says the same thing in his work de Potestate Papae, and a little book by the same name was written up during the Schmalkaldic synod agreeing with Luther’s opinion. I respond: It cannot be done without a miracle that one man alone could rule the whole Church in his own person, and there is no Catholic that teaches this: yet that one man might see to it through many ministers and shepherds subject to himself is not only possible, but we reckon even useful and advantageous. For, in the first place, did not the Apostle say that he himself had “care of every Church?” 180 He does not only speak about all the Churches which he had planted, but simply about all. For Chrysostom writes on this citation, that Paul took care of every Church in the world, and it can be proved from the epistles to the Romans, Colossians and Hebrews, where he writes to them whom he had not preached, and whom, nevertheless, he though pertain to his care. And although the apostles distributed among themselves those parts in which they would preach the word of the Lord with a peculiar zeal, nevertheless they did not confine their care to the boundaries of this or that province, rather each one managed the concern of the whole Church, as if that care pertained to themselves alone. Next, many secular princes have from God a very large kingdom, and certainly greater than the whole Christian world might be, which would never have been given by God unless they could administer it. We have the examples in Nebuchadnezzar, concerning whom we read in Daniel: “Thou art a king of kings, and the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, and strength, and power, and glory: And all places wherein the children of men, and the beasts of the field do dwell.” 181 Likewise we read in Isaiah about Cyrus: “Thus saith the Lord to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue nations before his face, and to turn the backs of kings, etc.” 182 How great was this kingdom, is obvious from the first Chapter of Esther, where the king of Persia, Xerxes, is said to have ruled over one hundred twenty seven provinces from India even to Ethiopia. On Augustus we read in Luke: “An edict went out from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be marked out.” 183 And certainly the world was never more happily administered, than in the times of Augustus. That kingdom had been prepared by God, that the Gospel should more easily spread through the whole world, as Eusebius and Pope Leo prove. 184 Therefore, since God willed almost the whole world to obey the rule of one man: why could he not also commend the universal Church to the prudence and care of one man? Particularly since ecclesiastical governance may prove easier than political and those kings did not have any other assistance apart from human prudence and the general providence of God, whereas our Pontiff has supernatural light of Faith, the sacred Scriptures, heavenly sacraments and the particular assistance of the divine Spirit. Add, that by far, democracy or aristocracy in the Church is far more difficult than monarchy. For democracy in the Church is not such as it was for the Romans or Athenians where men ruled one city alone, which is not difficult to come together in as one, and they could establish the vote for many. In the Church, however, if there were to be popular government, every Christian in the whole world would have the right to vote; but who could gather all Christians to decide something for the whole Church? For equal reasoning aristocracy would not be such in the Church as it is now for the Venetians, in which only one elite class rules the city, which can easily be gathered and determine what they wish: but such as it is it never was the type of thing in which every magistracy of the whole world, that is, every bishop and priest of the whole Christian world, would have equal right of governance, that even to gather them would either be very difficult or impossible without a miracle. The fifth objection is from a little book, which the Lutherans published at the Smalkaldic synod on the Primacy of the Pope. They say, that Paul equalizes all ministers, and teaches that the Church is over all ministers when he says: “All are yours, whether Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas.” 185 I respond: I am not so acute that I perceive the force of this argument. For, if on that account the ministers are equalized, because they are numbered together when they are named, either Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, also all generals, consuls, and emperors will also be equal, for Chrysostom says: “If any general, if a consul, if he who is crowned with a diadem should go out unworthily, restrain and repress him.” 186 And does it not follow, that the Church is above the ministers in authority and power, because they are established on account of the utility of the Church? Otherwise, what Paul meant by those words “All are yours” would mean both boys would rule their tutors and the people would excel kings in authority, but tutors are so because of boys, and kings for the people, not the other way around. The sixth objection is from the same book: “Christ sent all the apostles equally, as he says to them in John “I send you,” therefore no one is in charge of the rest. I respond: By those words one is not put in charge of the others, but we do not lack other citations whereby one man is put in charge. Certainly in John XXI it is said to only one man: “Feed my sheep.” Lastly, others object: If the world ought to be governed by one man in matters which pertain to religion, it would be useful that it would be ruled by one in those matters which consider to the political order: but this has never happened nor is it expedient, as Augustine teaches: “With respect to human affairs all realms should be small and rejoice in the peace of small communities.” 187 I respond: The purpose of political rule and ecclesiastical rule are not the same thing. Accordingly, the world ought not necessarily be one kingdom, hence, it does not necessarily demand one who is in charge of all: but the whole Church is one kingdom, one city, one house, and therefore ought to be ruled by one. That is the cause of this difference, that it is not necessarily required for the preservation of political realms, that every province should keep the same laws, and the same rites: they can indeed use laws and institutions for the variety and diversity of places and persons, and for that reason one man is not required, who would contain all in unity. Yet, it is necessary for the preservation of the Church, that all should come together in the same faith, in the same sacraments, in the same divinely handed down precepts, which can not rightly be done unless they are one people, and contained by one in unity. On the other hand, the question can be taken up whether it might be expedient that all provinces of the world are governed by one supreme king in political matters, although it may not be necessary. Nevertheless, it seems to me altogether expedient, if it could be attained by one without injustice and wars, especially if this supreme monarchy would have under it not vicars and viceroys, but true princes, just as the supreme pontiff has bishops under him. Nevertheless, since it does not seem that such a monarchy could come into being except by applying great force and many terrible wars; then St. Augustine speaks rightly; maybe human affairs would be happier if there were small kingdoms with happy peaceful communities, than if every sort of king were to contend through lawful and unlawful means to extend and propagate their kingdom. Add to that, what St Augustine proves is about small kingdoms, but he does not deny that it would be useful, if some one supreme ruler were over these very small kings; it seems he rather more affirms that when he says small kingdoms ought to be in the happy peace of small communities, just in the same way as there are many houses in a city: therefore it is certain that there is one man whom every house obeys, although each would have its own head of house.

 

Chapter X: A Third Question is Proposed, and the Monarchy of Peter is Proved from the Citation of the Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter XVI

Hitherto it has been explicated and, unless I am mistaken, sufficiently and diligently proven, that monarchy is the best of all governments, and a rule of this sort ought to be in the Church of Christ. Now the third question remains: Was Peter the apostle constituted head of the whole Church and its prince in place of Christ by Christ himself? All the heretics whom we have cited from the beginning skillfully deny this. On the other hand, the Catholics whom we have cited, affirm it. Really, it is not a simple error, but a pernicious heresy, to deny that the primacy of Peter was established by Christ. We shall undertake to confirm it by a threefold reasoning and manner. First, from two citations of the Gospel, in one of which it is promised, in the other it is shown. Then from the many privileges and prerogatives of St Peter. Lastly, from the clear testimony of the Greek and Latin Fathers. Now to the first. We shall begin with the first citation of Matthew XVI, where we read thus: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound even in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed even in heaven.” 188 The plain and obvious sense of these words is, as we shall understand, a promise to Peter of the supremacy of the whole Church under two metaphors. The first metaphor is the foundation and building: indeed there is a foundation in a building, that is a head in the body, a ruler in a city, a king in a kingdom, a head of house in a house. The second is that of the keys, one to whom the keys of the city are handed over, is established as a king or certainly the ruler of the city, who may wish to admit some, and exclude others. But the heretics distort this whole citation in wondrous manners, for they neither wish Peter to be understood through the rock nor concede keys as promises to Peter Likewise they are able to persuade themselves that the metaphors of the foundation and the keys do not mean supreme ecclesiastical power. Therefore, four questions must be explained to us. First whether Peter might be that rock upon which the Church shall be founded. Second: whether that foundation might be the ruler of the whole Church. Third: whether Peter might be the one to whom the keys are given. Fourth: whether the full power to govern the Church should be understood through the keys. On the first question there are four opinions. The first is the common teaching of Catholics, that the rock is Peter, that is, the person which Peter is called: nevertheless not as a particular person, but as the shepherd and head of the Church. The second on this citation is of Erasmus, that every faithful man is this rock. The third is of Calvin, that Christ is that rock. 189 The fourth is of Luther and the Centuriators, that faith or the confession of faith is the rock, concerning which the Lord spoke in this place. 190 The first opinion, which is most true, in the first place is obviously deduced from the text itself. For that pronoun, this hanc], when it is said “And upon this rock,” proves some rock, upon which the Lord spoke of a little before. Next, the Lord called Peter the rock; indeed he spoke Aramaic, and in the Aramaic tongue Peter is called Cephas, as we have it in John I:26. Moreover, Cephas means rock, as Jerome teaches, 191 and the matter is most certain: for in every place in the Hebrew text it is elS [Selah], 192 that is, rock, in Aramaic it is Cepha; Hence, the Hebrew word apK, [Kepha] means stone or boulder, where we read in Jeremiah “They went up to the boulders,” in Hebrew that is: wle mypkn [Nakapiym elo]. Therefore the Lord said: “You are Cepha, and on this “Cepha”: or in Latin, “Tu es petra, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam;” from which it follows, that the pronoun hanc can not refer to anything but Peter who in this place was called “rock” [petra]. But then why did the Latin Translator not put it, “Tu es petra, et super hanc petram”? Because it should follow the Greek codex: therefore it does not render it literally from Aramaic, rather from the Greek in which we read: su. ei=j Petroj( kai. evpi, tau,th| th|/ pevtra| eivkodomhvsw th.n evkklhsi,an mou) Why doesn’t the Greek use su. ei=j pe,tra kai. evpi. tau,th pe,tra|? The reason is because among the Greeks both pevtroj and pevtra mean a stone; it has been seen as more agreeable to the interpreter to render the name for a man in the masculine rather than in the feminine. Thus, to explain the metaphor, he did not wish to say in the second place, evpi. tw/ pe,trw|( which would have been ambiguous, but evpi. th| pe,tra|, which means nothing other than the rock 193 The consensus of the whole Church agrees, both of the Greek and Latin Fathers. The whole Council of Chalcedon in its third act, that was made up of 630 Fathers, appeal to Peter as the rock and the foundation of the Catholic Church. Likewise, today every mouth sings in the Church the verses of St Ambrose which have been sung for 1200 years in a hymn of praises of the Lord’s day: Hoc ipsa petra Ecclesiae canente culpam diluit. Moreover, St. Augustine witnesses in his time the beginning sung from the verses of St. Ambrose, that Peter is the rock upon which the Lord built the Church. 194 Besides, from the Greek Fathers Origen says: “Look to that great foundation of the Church and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church, why else would the Lord say ‘man of little faith, why did you doubt?’” 195 St. Athanasius wrote both in his name and in that of the Synod of Alexandria: “You are Peter, and upon your foundation the pillars of the Church, that is the bishops, are strengthened.” Athanasius elegantly makes Peter the foundation, upon which the Bishops rest and upon which as pillars, the whole building has been placed. St. Basil says: “Peter, on account of the excellence of faith has received the building of the Church in his person.” 196 Gregory Nazianzen says: “Peter is called the rock, and he holds the foundations of the faith believed by the Church.” 197 Epiphanius says: “The Lord established Peter as the first of the apostles, the strong rock, upon which the Church of God was built.” 198 St. John Chrysostom notes: “The Lord said, ‘you are Peter, and I will build my Church upon you.’” 199 Again: “But why is Peter the foundation of the Church? He is a vehement lover of Christ; he, unlearned in discourse, is the victor over orators, he inexperienced, who stops up the mouth of philosophers; he who was not otherwise trained in Greek wisdom, dissolved it like a spider’s web; he who sent a seine into the sea, and made a catch of the whole world?” 200 Cyril teaches: “Simon is not now his name, but Peter, he predicted, signifying fittingly by that word that in him, just as a rock and the strongest stone, the Lord was going to build his Church.” 201 Psellus: “His legs just as marble pillars: through the legs, understand that Peter is the prince of the apostles, upon whom the Lord in the Gospel promised he was going to build his Church.” 202 The commentary of Psellus is contained in the canticles of Theodoret. Theophylactus in ch. 22 of Luke says: “After me, [Christ], you are the rock of the Church, and the foundation.” Euthymius says: “I place you as a foundation of believers, I will build my Church upon you.” From the Latins, we begin with Tertullian in his work De Praescriptionis: “Was anything hidden from Peter, the one said to be the rock upon which the Church must be built?” 203 St Cyprian: “Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom he built his Church...” 204 he repeats similar things in passing. Hillary declares: “O happy foundation of the Church in the solemn vow of a new name! Its worthy building on the rock, which annuls the laws of hell. O happy porter of heaven!” 205 Still, here Erasmus makes the notation in the margin: “Faith is the foundation of the Church,” as if the name of “Faith” (Fidei) were changed, and not Simon, and the faith were the happy porter of heaven. Why indeed did Hilary not say “faith” in this place? Ambrose says: “At length, for the solidity of devotion he is called the rock of the Church, just as the Lord said: ‘You are Peter,’ etc. Therefore the Rock is called by him that first placed the foundations of faith in actions, and the immovable rock of the Christian work should contain the framework and the building.” 206 Jerome adds in his commentary on Matthew: “According to the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him: ‘I will build my Church upon you.’” And he also says, speaking on the See of Peter: “Upon that rock, I know the Church was built.” 207 Augustine also teaches: “Count the priests even from the very seat of Peter: that is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not conquer.” 208 Note how both Jerome and Augustine not only call the see of Peter the rock, but that upon which the Church is founded, and against which the gates of hell will not prevail, because Peter is the rock, not as a particular man, but as a pontiff. Likewise Augustine says “Therefore the Lord named Peter as the foundation of the Church; and therefore the Church adorns this worthy foundation, upon which the heights of the ecclesiastical edifice rise.” 209 Maximus the confessor says: “Through Christ, Peter was made the rock, when the Lord said to him: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock, etc.’” 210 Paulinus in his letter to Severus: “The rock is Christ, but he also did not refuse favor of this word to his disciple, to whom he said: ‘upon this rock’, etc.” Pope St. Leo: “The disposition of truth remains and Blessed Peter persevering in the fortitude received of the rock, did not relinquish the government of the Church which he had received. Thus, he was appointed apart from the rest, that while the rock is spoken of, while the foundation is pronounced, while he is constituted the porter of the kingdom of heaven; that there should be such society with Christ, through the very mysteries we recall the title.” 211 St Gregory: “Who does not know that the holy Church is strengthened by the solidity of the prince of the apostles?” 212 From all this it appears how great is the impudence of the heretics. Indeed, Calvin says in the place we already cited, that he refuses to bring in the Fathers, not because he can’t, but because he refuses to disturb the readers by disputing such a clear matter. Moreover, Erasmus marvels at this citation of Matthew; there have been some who would distort this reference to the Roman Church, and strive to excuse Cyprian and Jerome, because they said upon Peter the Church was founded, as if this were some unheard of paradox; nevertheless, since all the Fathers teach it, and many more recent theologians as well as canonists, and indeed the ancient pontiffs, Clement, Anacletus, Marcellus, Pius, Julius and others, whom we have omitted both for the sake of brevity, and because our adversaries do not receive them.

Now we shall examine the second opinion which is of Erasmus. He recommends that all the faithful should be understood by the name of Peter, from what Origen says on this citation: “Peter is everyone who is an imitator of Christ and upon every rock of this sort the Church of God shall be built. Therefore, the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, consists in individuals who have been perfected, who have in themselves the association of words and works, and the senses of all things.” 213 But Origen expresses this citation allegorically, not literally as Erasmus dreams up: for Origen expressed this citation literally in what was quoted above. Indeed, this citation could not be understood as concerning all the faithful if it were read literally. It is obvious because of the fact that the Lord, that he should indicate that he was speaking to Peter alone, described him in different ways. He called him Simon which was the name his parents had given him, and added the name of his father, calling him son of Jonah, or John, in order to distinguish him from Simon the brother of Jude. He says: “Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah,” then he adds the name of Peter, which he had given him. Besides he used pronouns distinguishing a certain person, saying: “I say to you, that you are Peter, etc.” Therefore, if it were permitted to still assert that here nothing peculiar was conferred upon Peter, or a promise which was not made to any others, certainly every place of Scripture could be twisted. Hence, if all the faithful are this rock, upon which the Church shall be founded; all will be a foundation. If all are the foundation, where will the walls and roof of this building be? In what organ, if the whole body is the eye, will it here? Where are the remaining members? 214 Add the fact that the same Erasmus considered it to be absurd that the Church is built upon the man Peter, but if that is so, how will it be built upon individual faithful? Aren’t they men also? Now the third explanation is of Calvin who, although he speaks more obscurely, nevertheless appears to understand Christ as the rock. And indeed it is an important matter to consider upon which rock the Church will be built, since the Apostle says: “No man can place another foundation, apart from that which was lain, which is Christ Jesus.” 215 Augustine also agrees, who says: “Upon this rock, which you confessed, I will build my Church.” 216 Likewise in the Retractions he had retracted what he had said elsewhere, that upon Peter the Church was built and teaches rather that it ought to be said to have been founded on Christ, 217 and the citation which we are treating must be understood thus. Nobody doubts whether Christ should be the rock, and the first foundation of the Church, and it is gathered in some way even from this citation: for if Peter is the foundation of the Church in place of Christ, Christ is much more the foundation But by no means is it a more proper sense, and I should say, that the Church is to be built upon Peter is immediate and literal: The proper arguments prove the reasons hitherto presented. Firstly, the pronoun this (hanc) cannot refer to Christ as the rock, but to Peter as the rock; moreover, it ought to be referred to something nearby, not to something remote: next it was not said to Christ, but to Peter: “You are Cepha,” that is rock. Next, although Christ can be called the rock, nevertheless in this place he was not called rock by Peter’s confession, rather Christ, Son of the living God. Moreover, the pronoun “this” ought to be referred to the one being called “rock”not to the one who is not called by this noun. Likewise if it were to refer to Christ, to what end was it said: “I say to you that you are Peter?” Obviously it is in vain, unless it follows that it refers to Peter. Finally, if it were to refer to Christ, the Lord would not have said “I will build” but “I am building my Church:” for he had already built up the apostles and many disciples in himself. He says “I will build,” because he had not yet constituted Peter the foundation, rather he was going to do that after his resurrection. Now I address the argument of Calvin: St. Paul speaks not on any particular person, but on the primary foundation, otherwise he would oppose himself when he says, “You are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” 218 Likewise, he would also be opposed to John, who describes twelve foundations in the building of the Church, and explains that the apostles are meant through these foundations. 219 Now I speak to that objection made from Augustine. In the first place he does not condemn our teaching, but only something places before it. Thus he speaks in the Retractions: “I said in a certain place concerning the apostle Peter, that on him, just as on the rock, the Church was founded, which sense is also sung by the lips of many in the verses of St. Ambrose, where he says on the cock crowing: ‘This, while the very rock of the Church sings, purges his crime.’ Yet I know that I had beforehand most wisely expressed thus, that upon this Peter who confessed him should be understood; but it was not said to him: ‘you are rock’ but ‘you are Peter:’ the rock was Christ Of these two teachings, let the reader choose which one is more probable.” 220 Thus Augustine. Therefore Augustine did not think it a blasphemy, as Calvin did, to assert that the Church was built on Peter. I further add, that Augustine was deceived only by his ignorance of the Hebrew tongue. For his argument (as he shows in this place) is that it was not said “You are rock” but “You are Peter.” Therefore he thought the rock, upon which the Church should be built, was not Peter, because he believed Cepha does not signify rock, but something derived from rock (petra) such as petrinum or petrejum, 221 just as “Christian” does not mean Christ, but something derived from Christ so the Church must be built upon the rock, not upon something petrinum or petrejum. Augustine reckoned that Peter is not understood by that rock. Yet, if he had noticed that Cepha means nothing other than rock, and the Lord said “You are rock, and upon this rock: he would not have doubted the truth of our opinion. The fourth opinion remains, which is common among nearly all Lutherans, and at first glance appears to be confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers. Accordingly Hillary teaches: “The building of the Church is the rock of confession . This faith of the Church is the foundation: through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it: this faith of the kingdom of heaven holds the keys.” 222 St. Ambrose says: “The foundation of the Church is faith.” 223 St. John Chrysostom: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, that is faith and confession.” 224 Likewise Cyril, explaining this citation: “I reckon he called the rock is nothing other than unshaken and firm faith of the disciple.” 225 Illyricus adds: “If it is founded upon Peter, and rather not upon the confession of Faith of the Church, then immediately it would have fallen. For Peter soon ran at the point of the Lord’s passion, and he fell. Moreover in the same Chapter of St Matthew, it is said to him: ‘Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal to me, because you do not have a sense of what is of God.’ Thereupon he denied Christ a third time, and not without a great curse.” I respond: Faith, or confession, is considered in two ways In one way it absolutely followed itself, and without any relation to the person of Peter: in the second way with relation to Peter. In the first way it appears our adversaries would have it that faith is the foundation of the Church, but certainly they are deceived. If it were so, why didn’t the Lord say, instead of “I will build upon this rock,” “I am building,” or “I have built my Church”? Many had already believed that he was the son of the living God, as early as the prophets, the Blessed Virgin Simeon, Zachariah, John the Baptist, the apostles and remaining disciples. Next, faith taken up absolutely, is rightly called the foundation of justification and of all strength, as Augustine says: “The house of God is founded by belief, erected by hope, perfected by love.” 226 But the foundation of the Church is not properly faith. There ought to be a foundation of the same kind, as well as the rest of the building. The Church is a congregation of men, just as of living stones, 227 therefore the stone, which is the foundation, ought to be also some man, not some virtue. Last, that pronoun this most clearly showed that through the rock faith cannot be understood absolutely: for it is referred more closely to the one named rock: next, it had been said to Simon: “You are rock,” not to faith; therefore it behooves us to accept faith in the second way is the foundation, and to say not any faith you please, but the faith of Peter, and not of Peter as a private man, but as the shepherd of the Church. It coincides with that, which we said in this regard, that Peter is the foundation. Therefore the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church for a two-fold reasoning. First, that on account of the merit of his faith Peter attained that he should be the foundation of the Church, as Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and others show on this place. Secondly, because Peter is chiefly in the very matter the foundation of the Church, that since his faith cannot fail, he ought to confirm and hold up all the others in faith. Thus, the Lord said to him: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, and when thou hast converted strengthen thy brethren.” 228 Therefore, by reasoning of his indefectible faith, Peter should be the firmest rock, sustaining the whole Church; it is the same thing to say “upon Peter” and “upon his faith” the Church was founded, and the Fathers cited speak in this manner. For St. Hilary, after he had said the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, and receives the keys of the kingdom, he adds on Peter himself: “He merited a preeminent place by the confession of his blessed Faith,” and a little after “Hence, he holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence, his earthly judgments are heavenly, etc.” 229 Therefore, as he had said, “faith is the foundation and holds the keys,” so now he says Peter by reason of his faith merited a preeminent place, that is, that he should be the head, or foundation, and should hold the keys. And he says the same thing most beautifully about Peter: “O happy foundation of the Church by the solemn decree of a new name.” 230 For equal reasoning St. Ambrose, where he says the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, he notes the same thing: “He did not refuse to his disciple the favor of this word, that he should also be Peter, who as the rock should have solidity of steadfastness and firmness of faith.” 231 Chrysostom explaining in both citations, why it is that the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, introduces the Lord speaking thus: I will build my Church upon you.” Next, Cyril also says the foundation is not any faith, but that unconquerable and most firm faith of St. Peter; and he writes that Peter himself is the rock, upon which the Church is founded. 232 Now I respond to the objection of Illyricus, firstly with the commentary of Jerome for this chapter: when Peter was told: “Get behind me Satan” and when he denied Christ, he was not yet the foundation. Therefore the place Christ promised him, he had intended to give to him after the resurrection. Add, that Peter did not err on the faith, but was merely ignorant of something, when he was told, “Get behind me Satan,” and he was lacking in charity, not in faith, when he denied Christ. That we will teach in its proper place in the treatise on the Church.

 

Chapter XI: Why the Church is Built upon the Rock in Matthew XVI

Another difficulty follows that must be explained, what it might be for the Church to be built upon a rock. Certainly our adversaries labor a little on this, for when they deny that Peter is the foundation of the Church, they reckon to refer it to a little thing, which the building should signify. On the other hand, Catholics teach that what is meant by this metaphor is that the government of the whole Church was consigned to Peter, and particularly concerning faith Therefore this is proper to the foundational rock, to rule and hold up the whole building. The Fathers also explain it in this way. Chrysostom, explaining this passage in Matthew, says: “He constituted him pastor of the Church.” 233 And below that: “The Father put Jeremiah in charge of one nation, while Christ put Peter in charge of the whole world.” Ambrose says: “The rock is called Peter just as an immovable boulder that it should contain the unified structure of the whole Christian work.” 234 St. Gregory says: “It is proven to everyone who knows the Gospel that care of the whole Church was consigned to St. Peter, prince of all apostles by the Lord’s voice. By all means it was said to him: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’” 235 Yet two arguments are usually objected against this. The first is that of Luther, who says: “that order does not avail: namely that the Church is built upon Peter; therefore Peter is the ruler of the Church. Just the same, it is rightly said that faith is built upon the Church, and nevertheless it does not follow that therefore, faith is the ruler of the Church.” 236 I respond: For that very reason we said, the Church cannot properly be said to be built upon faith. Next, although it might be said properly, it would never conclude the argument: for all things must be understood as accommodated to their natures Therefore, if one were to say the Church is built upon faith: the sense ought to be that the Church is understood to depend upon faith as by a principle of justification, and by a certain gift, without which she could not be the spouse of Christ Furthermore, if one were to say the Church is built upon Peter, the sense will be that the Church depends upon Peter as a ruler: therefore such is the dependency of one man upon another. The second argument is more difficult. Just as Peter is called the foundation of the Church in this citation, so all the apostles are called foundations. “His foundations in the holy mountains,” 237 that is, as St. Augustine shows, in the apostles and prophets. Likewise in the Apocalypse we read: “And the wall of the city, having twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” 238 Also in Ephesians: “Built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” 239 Alluding to such words, St. Jerome says: “But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter, although that is done in another place upon all the apostles, and equally upon them the strength of the Church is solidified.” 240 Therefore nothing near proper and particular was given to Peter. I respond: all the apostles were foundations in three ways, nevertheless without any prejudice to Peter. In the first way, because they first founded the Church everywhere, as Peter did not convert the whole world to the faith, but Peter led some regions to Christ; some regions, James others, and still the rest others. This is why St. Paul says: “Thus I preached, not where Christ was named, less I would build on someone else’s foundation.” 241 And again: “As a wise architect I placed a foundation, but another builds upon it.” 242 Also in this manner the apostles are equally foundations: that which is signified we believe. The second way apostles and prophets are said to be foundations of the Church, by reason of doctrine revealed by God. Accordingly, the faith of the Church rests upon revelation, which the apostles and prophets had from God. Moreover, new articles are not always revealed to the Church, rather the Church assents in that doctrine, which the apostles and prophets learned from the Lord, as well as by preaching, or letters they entrusted to posterity. We are also built up by this reason, as the apostle says to the Churches: “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Peter is not greater than the rest in those two, but as Jerome says, the strength of the Church is solidified equally in all. All the apostles are called foundations in the third mode by reason of government. All were heads, rulers and shepherds of the whole Church, but not in the same way as Peter: they had supreme and full power as apostles or legates, but Peter as an ordinary pastor: thereafter they so had the fullness of power that nevertheless Peter should still be their head, and they depended upon him, not the other way around. This is what is promised to Peter, in Matthew XVI, since it is said to him alone in the presence of the others: “Upon this rock I will build my Church.” In what Jerome teaches apart from the others cited above in his work against Jovinian, he explains why the Church was built upon Peter: “Although the strength of the Church is solidified equally upon all the apostles, nevertheless, in addition one was chosen among the twelve as the head, constituted so that the occasion of schism should be removed.”

 

Chapter XII: To Whom it is Said: To You I Give the Keys in Matthew XVI

A third uncertainty is over the person to whom it is said “To you I will give the keys.” Although the sense of these words appears most obvious to Catholics, nevertheless our adversaries so distort these words that they should now seem very obscure. Who, I ask, simply reading: “Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah,” and immediately after: “I will give you the keys,” would not say, “the keys were promised to the son of Jonah?” Just the same, Luther, 243 Calvin 244 and their followers, as well as the Centuriators, 245 the Smalkaldic council and all the other heretics of this time would have it that there is nothing specific promised to Peter the son of Jonah. Rather, whatever is said there pertains to the whole Church, the person of which Church Peter managed at that time. Yet it must be noticed, Peter could manage the person of the Church in two ways, historically and parabolically Certainly historically, he managed the person of another, which signifies in some matter truly conducted by itself a matter which must be managed by another, and he merely represents it: thus Abraham truly had two sons: He signified God, who was going to have two peoples, as the Apostle explains in Galatians. Thus Martha was anxious about the frequent service, and Mary sitting apart at the feet of the Lord, show two lives, of which one is action, the other is contemplation. Parabolically, it is signified through one thing, when truly no deed is put forth, but something similar is exercised to mean something else: how in the gospel, the one who sows good seed signifies Christ preaching. In such a way, ambassadors usually receive the keys of the city, but meanwhile they do not properly acquire anything for themselves, but merely represent the person of their prince. With such being so constituted, our adversaries reckon that Peter by the second reasoning signified the Church when he heard from the Lord: “I will give you the keys.” From which it follows, keys were given firstly to the Church itself, and through the Church they are communicated to pastors, and this is the literal sense of this place, as the Smalkaldic council says: “Therefore he gave principally and immediately to the Church, just as also on account of it the right of vocation should have the origin of the Church. But we believe that Peter managed the person of the Church in the first manner: so without a doubt, that he truly and principally received the keys, and at the same time signified by their reception that he was afterward going to receive the universal Church in that specific manner. A little after we will explain which manner, but now we will briefly show the matter in itself. First, Christ designated the person of Peter in so many ways, that (as Cajetan rightly remarks) notaries who devise public documents do not usually describe some certain man by as many circumstances. For in the first place he expressed the substance of a singular person, through the pronoun to you (tibi). Next, he adds the name given to him in birth, when he says “Blessed are you Simon:” he added the name of the father, when he said: “Son of Jonah:” nor did he wish to omit the name recently imposed by him so he says, “I say to you that you are Peter.” To what end does he make so exacting a description, if nothing is properly promised to Peter himself? Next, Peter was not a legate of the Church at that time, or a vicar: who placed upon him a province of that sort? Therefore we cannot suspect that he received the keys in the name of the Church, rather than his own. Besides, the keys were properly promised by Christ to the one who had said: “You are truly Christ, the Son of the living God;” and as St. Jerome says, true confession received the reward: whereas Peter made known that excellent confession, and in his person, therefore he received the promise of the keys in his person. To this, if on that account it must be denied that keys were promised to Peter, because he managed a figure of the Church; we will certainly deny by the same reasoning, that Abraham had two sons that represented two peoples, as the Apostle witnesses. Further, we would not be able to affirm that Martha being anxious for many things, while her sister Mary sat at the feet of the Lord, that without a doubt these two foreshadowed action and contemplation. But if it is so serious to call obvious history into doubt, it also ought to seem grave to doubt whether something unique was promised to Peter, since so singular an event is related in the evangelical history. In the end, it was said to him by the Lord: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” and a little after he heard from the same Lord: “Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal unto me,” and these second words are to Peter alone, and were said to his own person, as is clearly gathered from the Gospel, as even Luther himself teaches. 246 Therefore, who can deny, that the keys were promised to Peter in his person? Yet, maybe “I will give you the keys,” and “Get behind me Satan,” were not said to the same man. But more correctly they are altogether to the same man: for in the same chapter of that Gospel both are contained, and the name of Peter is expressed by both, and in this opinion all the Fathers agree Certainly Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom and Theophylactus eloquently teach on Matthew XVI, that “I will give you the keys” and “Get behind me” is said to the same Peter. For, although Hilary does not dare in this place to refer the word “Satan” to Peter; nevertheless he refers those which precede it to Peter, namely “Get behind me.” And he also refers the word “Satan” to Peter in his commentary on the Psalms: “He had so great an obligation to suffer for the salvation of the human race, that he reprimanded Peter, the first confessor of the Son of God, the foundation of the Church, the porter of the heavenly kingdom, the judge in the judgment of heaven, with the reproach of Satan.” 247 And Augustine says: “Is it possible that Razias 248 should be better than Peter the Apostle, who, after he said: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God,” was so blessed by the Lord that the latter declared that he merited to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nevertheless it is not believed that he must be imitated, where soon in the same moment he being condemned heard: “Get behind me Satan, you do not reckon the things which are of God, etc.” 249 St. Ambrose says a similar thing in his book on Isaac, where he expounds upon those words of the Lord to Peter: “You can not follow me now, but a little after,” 250 Ambrose relates: “He had entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and showed it would not be meet for Peter to follow him.” 251 Where St Ambrose altogether wished clearly to show the keys were consigned to the same man, to whom it was said “You cannot follow me now, but a little after;” it is certain that these words were said to Peter in his own person, and just the same when he will have been truly crucified in his own person, he followed Christ by dying. Yet Luther objects against these arguments in the same book, on the Power of the Pope. First, he argues, it is certain that the Lord said to Peter: “Get behind me Satan, you do not reckon those things which are of God,” but these words are not fitting to the one whom the Father revealed the secrets of heaven, and who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven Therefore, he heard the heavenly revelation not in his own person, but in the person of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. We respond: all these are fitting to the same person, as now we have already proven, but not for the same reason Peter indeed has revelation by a gift of God, and receives the keys. Yet scandal is caused by his own weakness concerning the passion and death of Christ. Nor should the name Satan trouble us: it does not signify the devil, but an adversary: accordingly ,sc [sat-an] with the Hebrews is nothing other than adversary. Therefore, although the devil is here and there called “Satan,” nevertheless, it does not indicate the devil everywhere. The Second objection. Peter said in the name of all the disciples: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God,” therefore he heard in the name of all: “To you I will give the keys.” Hence, in the name of all, Peter responded to Christ, it is certain, both from Chrysostom, who writes on this citation that Peter was the mouth of the apostles, as well as from Jerome, who says that Peter spoke for all, and Augustine, who says that one responded for all. 252 Even from that which Christ asked all the disciples: “Whom do you say I am?” For either all the disciples must be asked, which did not correspond to the question, or what is more believable, Peter responds in the name of all. I respond: Peter responded in the name of all, not as some herald, but as the prince and head, as well as the mouth of the apostles, as Chrysostom says. Moreover, he alone responded, since the rest were ignorant of the chief thing they should say, but they approved the confession of Peter by their silence, and in that way through the mouth of Peter all responded. Just the same, Peter alone responded, and the rest agreed with him: so Christ promised the keys to Peter alone, but after him they were communicated to the rest. We prove that it is so by this reason: If Peter would have responded in the name of all, or seen to it that the rest would have demanded this province from him, or that he should know what they were to respond, but neither is true. Not the first, because he learned this by revelation of the Father, not from human consultation, as the Lord says: “Flesh and blood have not revealed to you, etc.” Not the second, because revelation was made to him alone. Likewise, because if he knew the mind of the others, he would have indicated this in some way, just as he did when he said: “Where shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,” and: “We believe and we know, that you are Christ, the Son of God.” 253 In which citation, Chrysostom notes, that Peter said for all, “We believe, etc.” Therefore Christ admonished, that it is not true about all For Judas did not believe: “Didn’t I chose you, and one of you is a devil?” But when Peter said: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God,” since he did not mention the others, the Lord simply approved the confession of Peter. The testimonies of the Fathers agree, and they do not obscurely teach that Peter was the first who spoke, that he would not know what the others felt on the matter. Hilary on this citation says: “He was judged worthy, that he should be the one to recognize something in Christ of God, etc.” Therefore, if the first be true, then revelation was not made to the others at the same time. Hilary continues: “In the silence of all, understanding the Son of God by revelation of the Father, etc.” And the same: “He spoke, what the human voice had not yet mentioned.” 254 Chrysostom says: “Seeing that he sought for their common opinion, they all responded; when he asked them about himself, Peter immediately rose up and arriving at it first said “You are Christ, the Son of the living God.” 255 St. Cyril says: “As the leader and head, he was the first from the rest to express: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God.” 256 Augustine: “This Peter was the first of all of them to merit to confess by divine revelation, saying: ‘You are Christ,’ etc.” 257 St. Leo says: “The Blessed apostle Peter must be praised in the confession of this unity, who, when the Lord sought to discover what his apostles might think about him; it arrived first from his most excellent mouth: ‘You are Christ, the Son of the living God.’” 258 And again in his sermon on St. Peter and Paul: “So long as the word of those responding is common, the fogginess of human understanding is expressed: but where something may hold the sense of the disciples is examined: he is first in the confession of the Lord who is first in apostolic dignity.” It is manifestly gathered from these testimonies, that Peter responded for all by no other reason than that all the rest [of the disciples] assented to the opinion of Peter. The Third objection: the keys are promised to Peter, not as he is the son of Jonah, but as one who hears the heavenly Father; therefore, properly they are promised to anyone who is a hearer of the heavenly Father, therefore they are not promised to flesh and blood. It is certain that a true disciple of the Father is not concerned with any particular man, rather that the Church depends assiduously upon the mouth of God the Father; therefore the keys were promised not to some particular man, but to the Church. I respond: this argument of Luther is amazingly opposed to the very words of the Gospel. Christ says: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah.” And a little after: “I will give you the keys:” but Luther says they are not given or promised to Simon bar Jonah. Again, Christ says: “My Father has revealed to you, who is in heaven.” Luther says, however, “we are certain that it concerns no particular man, whether he should hear the Father,” hence, they do not concern Peter. Therefore, it is false or uncertain, when Christ says “The Father has revealed to you.” Why, therefore, did the father reveal to Peter, if Peter heard nothing? But if Peter also heard the testimony of Christ, it is also certain that the keys were given to Peter, the one who heard the Father of heaven. Next, to be a listener of the Father is not a formal reasoning for why the keys should be given; otherwise ecclesiastical power would depend on the goodness of the ministers, which is the heresy of the Donatists, which even in the Augsberg confession we see is rejected. 259 Rather, that excellent confession of Peter was the occasion, or the meritorious cause, why the keys were promised to him rather than to others, as is gathered from the commentaries of Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom and Theophylactus. The fourth objection, is that St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans, Chapter IV, says: “Since the faith of Abraham was reputed unto justice,” therefore justice must be reputed to all who will have believed; therefore in the same way, if because Peter confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God he receives the keys, certainly all the faithful who confess Christ have the keys. Luther says this argument is similar in form to the argument of Paul, and cannot be refuted, unless Paul’s argument is likewise refuted. I respond with Cajetan: this argument is similar in form, but unlike in matter, and on that account settles nothing. For faith leads to justice by its nature, and makes the just from the unjust, or more just from the just, if they would not fail in the remaining things which are required at the same time to be ustified. But the confession of faith does not lead by its nature to receive the keys, rather, although the confession of Peter could have been rewarded in six hundred ways, it pleased Christ to make a gift of the keys. And we see something similar in the example of Abraham: accordingly Abraham was justified not by faith alone, but also he merited to become the father of many nations, as the Apostle says in the same place, nevertheless not all who believe may be the father of many nations. Without a doubt, in itself there is not a natural connection between faith and the gift of the keys or fruitfulness; just the same it is naturally and in itself connected with justice. The fifth objection: Either while Peter died the keys remained in the Church, or they perished with Peter: if the first therefore they were given to the Church; if the second, men cannot now again be loosed and bound. Likewise, in another mode, when a Pope is chosen, the keys will either be present with him, or not; if the first, therefore he was already made Pope beforehand: if the second, whence, therefore does he have the keys? Are they brought to him from some angel from heaven? Or rather does he receive them from the Church, to which they were handed by Christ from the beginning? I respond: with the Pope being dead the keys do not perish, nevertheless they do not remain formally in the Church, except insofar as they are consigned to lower ministers, but they remain in the hands of Christ. When, however, a new Pope is chosen, the keys are not brought by him, nor given to him by the Church, but by Christ, not in a new handing on, but in the ancient institution. Accordingly, when he gave these to Peter, he gave them to all his successors. It would be similar if some king, when he places a viceroy over a province, he would publish at the same time, at his pleasure, that after the viceroy dies, they should choose and nominate another, and he concedes the same power as he had previously. The sixth objection of Luther and of Calvin is in the noted citations of Matthew XVI; the keys of the kingdom of heaven are not given, but promised: but in Matthew XVIII and John XX they are given, but in those citations they are not given to Peter alone, but to all the apostles. For Matthew 18 it is said: “Whatever you will have bound upon earth, you will bind even in heaven, and whatsoever you will have loosed on earth, will be loosed in heaven. And John XX has: “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you remit will be remitted to them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” Therefore, they were also promised not to one, but to all. I respond: Concerning the second citation there is no difficulty: for it is certain, that the whole power of the keys is not given through these words, but only the power of order to forgive sins: accordingly the power in this citation is limited to sins. In Matthew XVI it is not so limited, rather it is said: “Whatsoever you bind on earth,” but men are bound not only by sins, but even by laws. Thereupon, it is a lesser thing to retain sins, than to bind the sinner: for to retain is to relinquish a man in his state, or not to loose: but to bind is to impose a new bond on him, which is done through excommunication, interdict, law, etc. Lastly, the Fathers eloquently assert that this power to remit sins is given through the sacraments of Baptism and Penance. See Chrysostom and Cyril on this citation, and Jerome. 260 On the earlier citation there is a greater difficulty, and indeed, Origen in his commentary on this citation contends that ecclesiastical power was not handed over, rather, merely fraternal correction: moreover, in this place, the phrase “to loose” which, by his admonition, is the occasion that should the sinner come back to his senses, the penance due shall be loosed from the bonds of sinner; that phrase “to bind” which is the occasion of denunciation, that the sinner should be considered just as a heathen and a publican. Yet in the same place, Origin adds that it is not the same thing which is considered here, since in the explication of Origen on Matth XVI does not seem probable, nevertheless, it is sufficiently gathered from it that Origen in no way favors the Lutherans. Another exposition is that of Theophylactus, who reckons the words of the Lord are directed to those who suffer an injury, moreover to bind them, while they retain the injury; and loose while they remit, which is not an exceedingly true opinion. For either one who receives an injury remits the penitent, or does not: if the first, then certainly he will have been loosed in heaven, but not besides that which he shall remit, for although he refuses to remit, he shall be remitted in heaven; if the second, then he is not remitted in heaven, whom he freed on earth: and also the same can be said on binding; although the opinion might be true, nevertheless nothing impedes our case; therefore it is certain that something else was given to Peter than that he would remit injuries made to himself. Therefore the exposition of Hilary, Jerome, Anselm and others on this place, not the least Augustine, 261 is common The Lord spoke concerning the power of the keys, whereby the apostles, and their successors, bind and loose sinners. And although this seems especially treated on the power of urisdiction, whereby sinners are excommunicated, nevertheless, the Fathers we have named on this citation show both the power of order and of jurisdiction: and certainly it seems that it can be deduced from the text itself, for here it is said so generally: “Whatsoever you will have loosed,” etc. just as Matth. XVI has “whatever you will have loosed.” But if these are so considered, what will we respond to our adversaries? Is it not so that what was promised to Peter alone, is now given to all the apostles? Thomas Cajetan teaches that it is not the same keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loosing and binding: therefore the keys of the kingdom of heaven include power, both ordinary and of jurisdiction, which is signified by the actions of binding and loosing: and besides something further, it seems more obviously to mean to open and close than loose and bind. 262 But this doctrine seems to us to be more mundane than true. For keys apart from those of order and jurisdiction are unheard of in the Church. And the plain sense of those words: “I will give you the keys, and whatever you will have loosed upon earth, etc.,” that is, the authority first should be promised or the power designated through the keys, thereafter even actions or a duty is explicated through those terms “to loose and bind,” so that altogether it should be the same as to open and close. Further, the Lord expressed the actions of the keys by loosing and binding, not by shutting and opening, in order that we should understand they are metaphorical sayings, and that at length to open heaven for men, but even more that men should be freed from their sins, which blocks their path to heaven. Therefore with those opinions having been noted, we assert that by these words as they are contained in Matth. 18, nothing is given except in as much as it was promised or explicated and foretold, that the apostles and their successors were going to have the power. Next, it is plain, that the apostles were not made priests until the Last Supper, nor Bishops and Pastors until after the resurrection; hence, at the time in which the Lord said these things, they were private men, and they did not have any ecclesiastical power. Thereupon, if by these words: “Whatever you will have bound in heaven will be bound,” the power of binding is given in the very matter, it is also given by the former: “Whatever thou will have bound will be bound, etc.” power will be given, not promised, as the words are altogether the same. But our adversaries affirm that by the former words “whatever thou will have bound,” nothing is given, but only promised; therefore by those words “whatsoever you will have bound,” nothing is given, but only promised. It was with a view to this promise that the Lord had said one should be reckoned for a Heathen or a Tax Collector if he would not listen to the Church, lest one should think that the authority of the Church can be scorned, he joined to it such power of prelates of the Church, that what they might have bound on earth, shall be bound even in heaven. No doubt you will say: If the keys were not given to the Apostles in this place, but only promised, then where were they given? I respond: They were given in John XX and XXI For in John XX, when the Lord said to the apostles: “Peace be with you, just as the Father sent me, I send you,” he attributed to them the power, or the key of jurisdiction; therefore he made them just as legates by these words, and in his name governors of the Church; moreover in the following words: “Receive the Holy Spirit, whosoever’s sins you forgive, etc.” he gave to the same the power of order, as we said above. Indeed, that we might understand that this supreme power was conferred to all the apostles as legates, not as ordinary pastors, and with a certain subjection to Peter, it is said to Peter alone: “Feed my sheep,” just as in the same manner it had been said to him alone: “To you I will give the keys.” Therefore the keys of the kingdom as a principle and ordinary prefect, he then received alone, when he heard the words: “Feed my sheep;” then care of his brother apostles was consigned to him. Besides, just as in Matth. XVI he is called “Simon bar Jonah” in the promise of the keys, so also it is shown in the last Chapter of John that he is called “Simon of John”, or as it is in the Greek “Simon of Jonah.” And as in Matth. XVI the keys are not promised previous to his unique faith in Christ, so also in the last Chapter of John, “Feed my sheep,” is not said before he would be asked whether he believed Christ more than the rest. And there is simply no reason why it should be said to Peter so uniquely: “To you I will give the keys;” and “Feed my sheep,” and that on account of his unique faith and love, unless he was going to receive something apart from the rest. Thus St. Leo writes correctly, that the power of loosing and binding was handed to Peter apart from the rest. The last objection of Luther and Calvin is taken from the testimonies of the fathers. St. Cyprian teaches that the keys were not given to Peter for any other reason apart from the rest, which afterward were given to all, so that it should signify unity of the Church: “In this the rest of the Apostles were assuredly endowed with an equal partaking of both honor and power as was Peter; but the beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter so that the Church will be shown to be one.” 263 Also St. Hilary so speaks: “You, O holy and blessed men, on account of the merit of your faith you were appointed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and obtained the right of binding and loosing in heaven and on earth.” 264 St. Jerome also says: “You say the Church shall be founded upon Peter, although in another place it is made upon all the apostles, and they all received, etc.” 265 St. Augustine teaches: “If in Peter there would not be the sacrament of the Church, the Lord would not have said to him; ‘I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ If it was merely said to this man, Peter, he did not do this for the Church, therefore if this is not done in the Church, when Peter received the keys, it signified the Church.” 266 Finally, St. Leo, explaining these words, says: “‘To Thee I will give the keys, etc.’ The force of this power passed to the other apostles, and to all princes of the Church the constitution of this decree passed.” 267 I respond: St. Cyprian, when he says the apostles were equal in honor and power, teaches nothing against our opinion: we certainly affirm the apostles were equal in apostolic power, and held the same authority over the Christian people, but it was not equal in itself: that which St Leo says explains these words of Cyprian, when he teaches: “Among the most blessed apostles there was a discretion of power in the similitude of honor, and although the choice of all should be equal, nevertheless it was given to one that he should be preeminent over the rest.” 268 Moreover, St. Cyprian teaches the same thing in the same book and in other places. For when he says: “The beginning embarked from unity, that the Church should be shown as one,” he does not understand the logically prior order of time that this power was given to Peter alone, apart from the rest, that through it the unity of the Church should be signified: but that the Church began in the one Peter, just as in the foundation and head, that because of this very thing the Church should have one foundation and head, merely to show it is one: just as one house is described by one foundation, so also one body by one head. But this opinion is proved first in the matter from the words of Cyprian, which is false by order of time; prior ecclesiastical power was given to Peter apart from the rest, for it was given to all in John XX. Moreover, after that it was said to Peter alone: “Feed my sheep,” therefore the beginning is not understood to have embarked from one, because the keys should first be given to one, but because they were given only to one as ordinary, and the first Pastor and head of the rest. Thereafter the same is proved from the words of Cyprian himself, for in this very book On the Simplicity of Prelates, he explains the unity of the Church, and why the beginning was made by Peter alone; he writes that the Church is one in that manner, in which all are called one light of the ray of the sun, as they spring from the one sun, and many rivers from one water, because they are derived from one source, and many branches from one tree, because they all grow up from one root. Next, this root and this source, whence the unity of the Church is taken up, is the seat of Peter, and Cyprian teaches this in many places: “They dare to sail to the chair of Peter, and the principal Church, whence sacerdotal unity arises?” 269 What could be clearer? He also writes to Pope Cornelius, saying: “We know, we are exhorted that we should acknowledge the mother and root of the Catholic Church and hold fast to it.” 270 And below that, explaining what this root might be, he says: “For the Lord first gave this power to Peter, upon whom he built the Church, and whence he established and showed the font of universality.” Further down: “The Church, which is one, was founded by the voice of the Lord upon the one who received his keys.” etc. There you see clearly that the Church is called one, because it was founded upon the one Peter. Now we affirm the testimony of Hilary, that all the apostles received the keys, but not in the same manner in which Peter had. Hilary writes the reason why in the same place, that Peter, because he alone responded while all the apostles were silent, rose above all by the confession of his faith, merited the place; therefore Peter had a preeminent place among the apostles, if we believe Hilary; and in Chapter XVI of Matthew he speaks of Peter alone: “O blessed porter of heaven, to whose authority the keys of the eternal entrance are entrusted.” I speak to what Jerome says: the answer is in the same book, for Jerome says, that though all the apostles had the keys, still they needed to be subject to Peter the head. Now I speak to the argument from St. Leo: Certainly that authority of loosing and binding passed to many others, but nevertheless, it was given principally to Peter. For the same Leo says in the same place: “If Christ wished something to be in common with him and the rest of the princes, he never gave except through Peter himself, anything he did not refuse to the others.” And he also says: “The power of loosing and binding was entrusted to Peter apart from the rest.” 271 The testimony of Augustine remains, which, that it should be explained more diligently, three things must be prefaced First, when he says that Peter bore a figure of the Church when he receives the keys, speaks historically that he received this, not parabolically, so that in no way did he think it should be denied that Peter really received the keys in his own person. That is clear from his tract on Psalm 108, in which place Luther objects: “There, Augustine says, Peter was a figure of the Church when he receives the keys, just as Judas was a figure of the ingratitude of the Jews when he betrayed Christ;” but it is certain that Judas really betrayed Christ historically in his person. Likewise in the last tract on John, Augustine says that Peter bore the person of the Church militant and active life, when he heard: “Follow me:” and “let another accompany you, and he will lead in which you do not wish:” and when he receives the keys of the kingdom, just as John bore a figure of the Church triumphant and contemplative life, when he reclined at the Lord’s breast, and when it was said of him: “I wish him to remain thus.” But it is certain, that John historically and truly in his own person reclined at the Lord’s breast, and fulfilled the letter in that: “I wish him to remain thus,” whether he might die or not by a violent death, or another thing should be understood through those words: it is no less certain to the letter, that Peter heard in his person: “Let another accompany you,” etc., therefore it also ought to be understood historically, that Peter received the keys. Therefore, Augustine says in De Trinitate, that he bore a figure of the Church when he was baptized; 272 therefore Augustine does not exclude a historical narrative, when he says that one is a figure of another. But you may say, Augustine seems to think that not everything in psalm 108 can be understand concerning the person of Judas, and therefore it is fitting to show many things about Judas bearing in his person of the impious. And in the last tract of John, Augustine expresses figuratively those things which are said of Peter and John, because they did not seem to agree properly with their persons. For it is written about Peter, that Christ loved him more than John, and on the other hand it is written about John that he was loved by Christ more than Peter, which cannot be true to the letter, since Christ must be just, and always loved them more who loved him more, therefore when Augustine expresses something on Peter as bearing the person of the Church, certainly he does that, because he reckons that it does not properly fit Peter. I respond: Augustine nowhere says that what is said about Judas is not true to the letter, or on Peter and John in the Scriptures; nor was Augustine so inexperienced or impious that he would wish to deny that John historically reclined at the Lord’s breast, or that “this is the disciple whom Jesus loved;” or it was literally said to Peter, “Simon of John, do you love me more than these?” or: “Follow me.” Therefore Augustine does not deny that it can and ought to be understood literally about Judas, Peter and John, but he merely says that the literal sense is often obscure and is not easily understood: however the mystical sense is much more illustrative and clear, and besides he wished to express these places figuratively with the literal sense being left out. In the second place it must be observed that St. Augustine, when he says that St. Peter received the keys in the person of the Church, did not wish to signify that the keys were really and historically accepted by him, just as by a type of vicar or legate of the Church, but as the legate of a king, in the name of his prince, they usually say he received the keys of some city: but rather more as by a prince and moderator of the whole Church, by which agreement we say it is given by a kingdom, which is given by a king, especially if that should be ceded for public advantage. Furthermore, what the mind and opinion of St. Augustine are can be clearly gathered from the fact that in almost every place where he says that Peter was a figure of the Church, he explains that he says this by reason of the primacy. “Whose Church Peter the apostle bears the person in a figurative generality on account of the primacy of his Apostolate,” and also: “He is recognized to have born the person of which (of the Church) on account of the primacy which he had among the disciples.” 273 And: “Peter is named after the rock, blessed, bearing the figure of the Church, holding the rule of the apostolate.” 274 Lastly it must be observed, that in Augustine Peter bore a figure of the Church in two ways. First Peter, as the supreme Prelate of the Church, receiving the keys, signified all prelates that were going to have the same keys, but from Peter, and they were not shared without measure for Peter did not receive them so that he alone would use them, but that he would share them with all bishops and priests. Clearly, at any rate, the Apostles were merely excepted, since they would receive them by a certain extraordinary plan immediately from Christ, as we spoke of in another place. Therefore Peter was first a figure of the whole body of ecclesiastical ministers, and in this Augustine would have it understood: “If this was only said to Peter, it gives no ground of action to the Church. But if such is the case also in the Church, that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven, —for when the Church excommunicates, the excommunicated person is bound in heaven; when one is reconciled by the Church, the person so reconciled is loosed in heaven:—then such is the case in the Church that Peter, by receiving the keys, signified the Holy Church.” In that place Calvin omits the adverb only (tantum), in order to persuade us that nothing was said or given to Peter, except insofar as it signified the Church. But Augustine does not say “if this was said to Peter, then such is the case in the Church,” but, rather he says: “If this was only said to Peter, etc.,” and the sense of those words is: if it had been so said to Peter alone, “I will give the keys” that he alone ought to bind and loose, it follows that the rest of the Church, that is, the other ministers, do not do this: but if they also do this, as we see, certainly Peter when he received the keys, represented the universal Church in figure. In another manner, the same Peter receiving the keys was a figure of the whole Holy Church, that is, of all the just and living members of the body of Christ: for St. Augustine devised a new manner of speaking about the keys and the remission of sins on account of the Donatists; hence, besides that mode of speaking, in which we say sins are remitted by the priests in the administration of the sacraments of baptism and penance, is the manner of speaking he uses everywhere with the other Fathers, he frequently says sins are remitted by the charity of the Church, by the groans of the dove, by the prayers of the saints, and in this way the keys of the kingdom are merely of the just, and this was signified when Peter received the keys. He says: “Charity of the Church, which is diffused by the Holy Spirit in our hearts, forgives the sins of his partakers: furthermore he retains the sins of those who are not his partakers.” 275 Likewise Augustine says: “Whoever will baptize did not remit sins, which is given by the prayers of the Saints, that is through the groans of the dove, if he does not pertain to the peace of the dove whereby it is given. Therefore, would the Lord have said to thieves and usurers: ‘When you forgive sins they are forgiven, but when you retain they are retained’? Indeed, outside [the Church] nothing can be bound or loosed, where there is no one who can either bind or loose: but he is loosed who makes peace with the dove, and he is bound who does not have peace with the dove.” 276 And again: “For it is manifest that the Lord gave power to Peter in a type, that whatever might be loosed on earth is something he loosed, because that unity even should be said to be perfected together with the dove.” 277 And further down: “Through the prayers of the spiritual saints, who are in the Church, just as through the abundant cry of the dove, a great sacrament is born, and a secret dispensation of the mercy of God, that their sins should also be absolved, which are not through the dove, but by the hawk they are baptized, if they draw nigh to that sacrament with the peace of catholic unity.” Similar things are in other works. 278 For what remains, St. Augustine does not mean by these words that the Church of the just remits sins of its own authority, rather, no man’s sins are remitted, except in as much as he will be baptized and reconciled, unless the charity of the Church is extended to him, and he is made a living member of the dove, and hence, a partaker of the prayers of the other just. Therefore by the prayers of the saints, just as by the groan of the dove, interior penance is procured, as well as charity through which whoever is formally justified, is justified formally. Again St. Augustine devised this manner of speaking on account of the Donatists, to whom it seemed a wonder that heretics can justify men through baptism, and be introduced into the Church, since they are covered in sins and outside the Church. Augustine speaks to demolish this admiration, both that he who baptizes does not remit sins, but the groan of the dove; because he who is baptized is not justified because he is baptized by this one or that one, but because it is shown through baptism, no matter who administers it, that the charity of the Church is extended.

 

Chapter XIII: What Should be Understood by the Keys in Matthew XVI.

A fourth remains: what forsooth should be understood by the keys: for Calvin contends that rule of the Church was not given to Peter, even if he could be convinced that the keys of the kingdom of heaven should be given to Peter alone. 279 He attempts this argument by this reasoning: What it may mean to loose and bind, the Lord shows in John Chapter XX, when he gave authority to the apostles to remit and retain sins: to loose therefore, is to forgive sins, to bind is to retain them. Further, the Scripture everywhere teaches how sins shall be remitted and retain, since through the preaching of the Gospel men illuminated are witnessed freed from the depravity of their sins. “He has placed among you a word of reconciliation; we exercise legation for Christ, with God, as it were, exhorting us. We preserve for Christ; you are reconciled to God.” 280 Therefore he is said to remit sins that converts men to God by announcing the Gospel: he is said to retain that declares those whom he sees are obstinate must be surrendered to everlasting punishment. For which reason it follows, that to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven is not to receive rule or power over others, but is the pure and sole word of God. Calvin says that this exposition is not cunning, not coerced, not twisted, but germane, logical and obvious. The Centuriators attempt to prove the same thing for another reason: to them without a doubt if primacy was given or promised to Peter in these words, the apostles would not have doubted afterwards about who seemed greater among them. 281 On the contrary, when they sought the answer from him, the Lord at least would have responded: “Do not quarrel further, for I have established Peter as the chief.” But the Lord said nothing of the sort; therefore that promise of the keys confers nothing with regard to the primacy. 282 Yet we and all Catholics understand that power over every Church was given to Peter by the keys, and we confirm it for three reasons. First, the metaphor of the keys itself, as it is customarily received in Sacred Scripture, accordingly, Isaiah describes the deposition of one high priest and the establishment of another in these words: “Go, get thee in to him that dwells in the tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the temple: and you shall say to him: What do you here, or as if you were somebody here? . . . I will drive you out from your station, and depose you from your ministry. And it will come to pass on that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim, the son of Helcias, and I will cloth him with your tunic, and will strengthen him with your belt, and will give your power into his hand, and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the house of Juda. And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.” 283 Here remission of sins obviously is not understood by the keys, but ecclesiastical rule. Isaiah IX also pertains to such a purpose: “The rule was made upon his shoulders.” Therefore, rule is said to have been placed upon the shoulders, because the keys, by which rule was designated, were customarily placed upon the shoulder. And one cannot deny that the keys signify the rule of Christ, if one reads this about Christ in the Apocalypse: “He who is holy and true says these things, who has the key of David, who opens, and no man closes, and closes and no man opens.” 284 Common custom also agrees, even in profane matters: for when cities are given to some prince, they offer him the keys as a sign of subjection, and the keys are usually handed over to one who is established as a steward in the house. Secondly, it is proved by these words: “Whatsoever you will have bound, etc.” for in the Scriptures one is said to bind who commands and punishes. The Lord speaks thus concerning precepts: “They bound heavy and unbearable burdens on the shoulders of men, etc.” 285 And on punishments: “Whatever you will have bound upon earth, etc.” 286 Here, even Calvin witnesses that the Lord speaks about a censure of excommunication, therefore the Church binds those whom she punishes with the penalty of excommunication. We also speak commonly to this, that men are obliged to keep the law, and even obliged to undergo punishment should they fail to do so Furthermore, one is said to loose who remits sins, who frees from a penalty, who dispenses in law, in vows, takes oaths, and like obligations. Therefore, when it is said to Peter generally, “Whatsoever you loose, etc.” the power of commanding is given to him, as well as of punishing, dispensing and remitting; hence, he is a judge and prince of all who are in the Church. The third proof is from the Fathers: for Chrysostom, while giving exposition on this promise, says that the whole world was consigned to Peter, and he was made pastor and head of the whole Church. 287 St. Gregory said: “It is established that while all know the Gospel, that care of the whole Church was consigned to Peter, the holy prince of all apostles, by the Lord’s voice.” 288 The argument of Calvin does not conclude anything. For especially it is not true, that the keys promised to Peter in Matthew XVI were given to him in John XX, since that is more to bind and loose than to remit and retain sins, as we taught above. And rightly in vain were the keys promised to Peter, as a reward for a singular confession, if nothing was singularly given to him afterward. Then accordingly, it is also false, that to remit sins is nothing other than to preach the Gospel. And it is a marvel, that so obvious an exposition was obvious to none of the fathers, but rather, at length, only occurred to Calvin Certainly Chrysostom and Cyril, in this place of John, as well as Jerome, 289 understand by the authority of remitting sins, the power of conferring the sacraments of baptism and penance, not the power of preaching. Moreover it is not the same to preach and to baptize, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians I, where he says that he was sent by the Lord, “not to baptize, but to evangelize.” 290 Furthermore, to that which is said on the word of reconciliation, I respond: in that place a sermon is indeed understood by the word reconciliation, but Paul does not wish to say a sermon suffices to reconciliation, but through a sermon men can be moved to this, that they would wish to be reconciled to God, so that afterward it happens through baptism and penance, as it is said in Acts II. For after the sermon Peter says: “Do penance and be baptized, each and every one of you.” 291 To the argument of the Centuriators I respond: The apostles are obviously not understood by the promise of the Lord made to Peter, except after the resurrection of Christ, nevertheless they mistrusted when Peter was constituted as the prince of all, and therefore contended among themselves Nor is it a wonder that they did not understand, for the Lord had spoken metaphorically: they were so unlearned, that they did not understand many things properly. Therefore Mark writes: “While they descended from the mountain, he commanded them lest they would tell what they had seen to anyone, until that time when the son of man will have risen from the dead. And they kept the word among themselves, seeking what it might mean, that he was going to rise from the dead.” 292 Yet from that suspicion which they had about the primacy of Peter they contended amongst themselves, as Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome witness on Matth. 18. Nor is it true what the Centuriators say, that the Lord did not already respond that he was designated a prince: Luke XXII, “Who is greater among you, let him be your younger, and whoever among you is in authority (h`you,menoj) among you, let him be as your master”? Did not he splendidly call one a greater and a leader?” 293

 

Chapter XIV: It was said to Peter Alone: Feed my Sheep. John XXI

Now we treat in regard to those words of the Lord, whereby supreme ecclesiastical power was promised to the apostle Peter. Now on those words there will be a dispute, in which that same power was given to the same Peter. These words are: “Simon [son] of John, feed my sheep.” In the explication of such words, three things must be proven. First, that it was said to Peter alone: “Feed my sheep,” and that by the word “Feed” (Pasce) supreme ecclesiastical power was handed over. Lastly, that by those terms: “my sheep” the universal Church of Christ was designated. Accordingly all our adversaries deny this. Thus we proceed to the first where we prove, “Feed my sheep” was said to Peter alone. First by that name “Simon of John,” for by that name only Peter was called, nor without a mystery, as we presaged above, in the same way in as much as Christ calls Peter and promises him the keys, so also he consigns the feeding of the sheep to him in the last Chapter of John, that without a doubt we might understand that the very thing which had been promised in Matthew XI is given to this same Simon, to whom it had been promised beforehand. Secondly, it is proved by those words: “Do you love me more than these?” He said “Feed my sheep” to the same one to whom he said: “Do you love me more than these?” Furthermore, this is manifest that it is said to Peter alone, since the rest are excluded by those eloquent words given by way of comparison: “More than these.” Next, they who are excluded are not every man, but particularly the apostles: they were indeed present then with Peter; Nathaniel, whom many think is Bartholomew, James, John, Thomas, and to other disciples, of which another is credible, namely Andrew; therefore “Feed my sheep,” was not said to all the Apostles, but to Peter alone. Thirdly it is proved from the threefold question. For, we learn from Cyril, and Augustine, as well as others on this place of Scripture, that Peter was asked three times whether he loved more than the rest, because he had denied three times, but only he denied him three times; therefore he alone is asked; hence, [the Lord] said to him alone “Feed my sheep.” Fourthly, it is proved from those words “Peter wept, etc.” On that account, Peter wept, if we believe Chrysostom, because he feared, lest by chance he had been deceived, when he said: “You know O Lord, that I love you.” Just the same, it had been false when he had said: “And if it will be fitting for me to die with you, I will not deny you.” But this origin of the sadness of Peter alone is fitting, since he had denied the Lord; therefore, Peter alone was sorrowful, and Christ spoke to Peter alone when he said: “Feed my sheep.” Fifthly from those words: “When you will have grown old you will spread out your hands, etc.” “Feed my sheep,” is said to the one, whose crucifixion is foretold: hence, death was predicted to Peter alone and in his proper person. Sixthly, from those words: “But what hence?” and from the response of the Lord: “What is it to you? Follow me.” Peter never would have asked what John was going to do, if he had understood “Feed my sheep,” to have been said to all: nor would the Lord have said: “What is it to you? Follow me;” rather he would have said he will do the same thing which you do. The Seventh proof is from the Fathers. For apart from Chrysostom, Cyril and Augustine on this place of Scripture, who say it was said to him, “Feed, my sheep” who had denied three times, who without a doubt was Peter alone, Ambrose has the same in the final Chapter of Luke, explaining these very words: “Therefore, that he alone will profess from all, should be born before all.” Maximus the confessor likewise says: “Now I judge it necessary that we speak of their proper and special virtues. This is Peter, to whom Christ, while he prepared to ascend into heaven, entrusted to feed his sheepfold and lambs:” 294 therefore this was proper and special in Peter. Likewise, Pope St. Leo teaches: “The one whom the power of binding and loosing had been consigned apart from the rest, he commanded nevertheless, the more special care of feeding the sheep.” 295 But on the other hand, Calvin argues 296 that Peter exhorts his fellow priests that they should feed the flock of God; 297 therefore either those words “feed my sheep” were said to all, or certainly Peter transferred his right to others. I respond: Peter exhorts his fellow priests that they might feed the flock, not a universal one, but a particular one, when he says: “Feed the flock which is among you.” Just the same, when St. Paul exhorts the Asian Bishops, that they should attend themselves to the whole flock he immediately adds, “in whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops,” that is, not simply a universal flock but to that whole flock which has been commended to you. Therefore these words of Peter do not prohibit that general power to feed the whole flock would be consigned to Peter alone, and that he would not transfer his right full right to anyone. Thereafter, Augustine and Chrysostom can be presented For Augustine wrote: “When it is said to him (Peter), it is said to all, ‘Do you love me. Feed my sheep.’” 298 Chrysostom, trying to persuade Basil that he should take up the episcopate to which he was called, chose this citation, and said: “Then, going to show Basil his excellent speech in Christ, if he would feed his flock, since it was written: ‘If you love me, feed my sheep.’” Therefore, Chrysostom would have it that these words of the Lord pertain not to Peter alone, but all bishops. I respond: Although these words properly and principally pertain to Peter alone, nevertheless it is fitting for them to pertain to all bishops in their own way, because all who are called into the lot of the solicitude by Peter ought to imitate the form of Peter in shepherding the flock. Therefore, what is said by the supreme pastor, that even in his manner, after his proportion has been preserved, is said about other lesser shepherds. And as the Lord was going to make Peter the shepherd of the Church, he asked him whether he loved him more than the rest, that they would be reminded to whom pertains the right to choose and constitute shepherds, so that they would choose such men for the episcopate, as excelled the others in charity. What Pope Leo says pertains to this “Therefore, this is universally believed from Peter, that the form of Peter is proposed to all rulers of the Church.” 299

 

Chapter XV: What the Word “Feed” Might Mean in John XXI

Indeed, since it is certain that Peter is the one to whom it is said: “Feed my sheep;” it follows that we ought to see what this word to feed [pascere] means. Martin Luther contends that nothing new is given by that term Feed, but only a duty of loving, preaching and teaching is enjoined upon Peter, who had already been constituted an apostle and pastor, though not of the whole Church, but of a certain portion, just as the rest of the apostles and pastors. 300 He tries to prove it with these reasons. First. “To feed is not to be in charge, but to offer food and minister, which can also be done by an inferior; therefore he is not immediately established as a bishop to whom it is said “Feed.” Thereupon, the Lord does not command Christians to obey Peter, but he commands Peter that he should offer nourishment to Christians; therefore a minister, not a prince, is constituted through this word “Feed.” Lastly, if the pontificate were established by these words, it would follow that those who neither love nor feed could be pontiffs; hence, often we would have no pope: therefore the greater part of popes neither love the flock nor feed with word and example; for that reason the institution of the papacy is not contained in this word Feed, but a simple precept to love and teach.” Yet there will be little difficulty for us to show that by this term Feed, the supreme power is attributed to him, to whom it is said: “Feed my sheep.” First, to feed [pascere] 301 does not properly mean to feed another, who ministers food for any reason, but one who procures and provides food for another, which certainly an overseer or captain does. “Who do you think is the faithful and prudent dispenser, whom the Lord constituted over his household, that he would give them in due season a measure of wheat?” 302 Therefore, it is of this word, to feed, that one who is constituted over a household. It is also understood by this word, feed [Pasce], from the common use of speech every for pastoral act: therefore to feed is that which a shepherd does. Hence, a pastoral act is not only to offer food, but also to lead, lead back, guard, be in charge, rule and castigate. Why? Do shepherds of sheep only offer them fodder? Don’t they also rule and compel them with a rod that they might obey? Hence, everywhere in the Scriptures “to feed” is received on behalf of one that is to rule, as we read in Psalm II: “You rule them with an iron rod.” In Hebrew .erj [Tarem], that is “feed them.” Rightly they cannot deny that those who feed with an iron rod most truly have power as pastors. Also the Prophet Isaiah calls Cyrus yewr [Roey], that is, “you are my pastor.” Nevertheless in that place the aforesaid Cyrus was not in an office to offer food, rather over the greatest kingdom. Next it can be more efficaciously shown in this place from that word which John places in his gospel. He wrote po,imaine( that is “feed” by ruling and guiding. For even Homer frequently calls Agamemnon poime,na law/n( that is shepherd of the people. 303 We also read in Scripture: “A leader will go out from you, who shall rule [po,imaine] my people Israel.” 304 And it must be noted in the Hebrew of the prophet Micah, ch. 5, from where Matthew takes it up, there is no verb her [Raah] which means to feed, rather the word lcm [Mashal], which is to dominate. Therefore “larcyb lcwm hwyhl axy yl ]mm” [Mamal Liy Yatsa Lahiyot Moshal Biysaral] - “Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel.” After we read in the book of the Apocalypse: “And he will rule them with an iron rod,” 305 in Greek that is: kai. auto.j poimanei/ a,utou,j en pa,bo/w| sidhrw/) Therefore with poimaivnw does not mean to feed by any mode, but to rule and to be in charge of, and it was said to Peter by the Lord, poivmaine tav pro,bata; it manifestly follows, that Peter was constituted as the ruler and protector of the Church. Lastly the testimonies of the Fathers agree. St. John Chrysostom not once calls the duty consigned to Peter a prefecture through that term “Feed” and therefore expresses by that other Scripture: “Faithful and prudent servant, whom the Lord set up over his household.” St. Augustine says in this place: “The sheep themselves must be fed, that is he consigned them to be taught and ruled.” Thereupon, Gregory calls pastors rulers, and the care as pastoral rule, nay more the summit of ruling, is interpreted itself to feed, rule and be in charge. 306 Nor do these petty syllogisms of Luther bring anything to bear. To the first the response is: to feed is not the duty of a servant who waits on tables, but of a ruler: therefore masters are not fed by servants, although these carry food to the tables of their masters, but on the other hand the servants are rather more fed by masters, by all means who are living at the expense of the masters. I respond to the second: to be in charge and to be underneath as well as to rule, to be ruled, to feed and be fed, contain a certain relation amongst themselves, so that one cannot exist without the other; hence, by such a word it is said to Peter, that he should be put in charge, rule and feed, in the same manner we are bid to be under Peter, and also allow ourselves to be ruled and fed by him. I respond to the third: “feed” is indeed a precept, but by that precept ecclesiastical rule is instituted: power itself is signified by the act, from where that act proceeds. Just the same, when God says: “Let the land sprout living grass:” and for the animals, “let them be fruitful and multiply,” he attributes fertility to things, and established their natures suitable to regeneration. Not only God, but also men usually establish prefect by a word of commanding in some manner Thus if a king should say to someone: “Go, rule such and such a province,” everyone understands that he is constituted a prefect of that province. But Luther says: “If through that precept a pontificate is established, therefore one ceases to be a pontiff if he does not fulfill the precept.” I respond: by those words of precept a pontificate is so established, that nevertheless the power that was conferred does not depend on the observation of the precept. We see that also in human affairs: a viceroy does not cease to be a viceroy, as long as he is not recalled by the king, even if he does not rule the province rightly. Lastly, what Luther assumes, is not true, that Roman Pontiffs have not fed the flock for a long time. For, although many of them did not preach, nevertheless they exercise many other pastoral acts, while they bind, loose, dispense, judge controversies, create bishops, and what they do not do by preaching, they do by others. Just the same, both Valerius, the bishop of Hippo, and several others, either impeded by old age, or by a hindrance of the tongue, fulfilled their duty of preaching through their priests.

 

Chapter XVI: How the Whole Church is Signified by those words: “My Sheep” of John XXI

A third question remains, which is whether the whole Church may be understood by “My sheep.” All Lutherans deny this, and especially Luther himself: 307 likewise Illyricus, 308 and the Centuriators, 309 as well as the book of the Smalkaldic council on the primacy of the Pope, and Calvin. 310 On the other hand, for us it has been explored and is certain, altogether all Christians, as well as the apostles themselves, are commended to Peter as the sheep of Christ’s flock, when it is said to him: “Feed my sheep.” Moreover it must be observed, that Christ said twice: “Feed my lambs” and once: “Feed my sheep.” Although in the Greek text he says once “Feed my lambs” and twice “feed my sheep.” It seems that the citation was corrupted by the vice of copyists, who in the second place wrote pro,bata( when they ought to have written proba,tia( that is little sheep or lambs: how easy it is for one iota to disappear! 311 And so I find it to be the case, firstly from Ambrose and Maximus the Confessor. Ambrose on the last Chapter of Luke, says that Christ first entrusted to Peter the lambs (agnos) which in Greek is: a.rni,a) Secondly, little sheep (oviculas) which in Greek is: proba,tia) Thirdly sheep (oves) which in Greek is pro,bata) Maximus the Confessor says, that the oviculas and oves were consigned to Peter. Certainly he would not have said this, except that he read proba,tia and pro,bata) Next, I gather the same from our version: for if in Greek it was twice pro,bata( lest some very unlearned boy would have altered it to lambs (agnos): who doesn’t know that lambs are a.rnia( not pro,bata? Therefore, although all Latin codices read agnos, this reading was never from Jerome, or disproved by any other; it is necessary to say that the interpreter read proba,tia( that is little sheep (oviculas) and turned it to lambs (agnos) because oviculae and agni are often received for the same thing. With these having been noted, from this variation, which does not lack a mystery, we prove that all Christians were subjected to Peter. For, if by little sheep we understand lambs, we will say that lambs are repeated twice to mean two people, the Jewish people and the Nations: but the sheep being named once mean the bishops, who are just like mothers of the lambs Therefore the Lord consigned to Peter the care of the lambs (agni) that is, the Jewish people, and of the lambs (agni) that is the Gentile people, and of the sheep (oves) that is of those who would give birth to those lambs in Christ, which are the apostles and bishops. But if by little sheep (oviculae) we understand small sheep greater than the lambs, the smaller are perfected by the sheep; it will need to be said with St. Ambrose (loc. cit.), that the lambs (agni), small sheep (oviculae) and sheep (oves) were consigned to Peter, that is, beginning, effecting and being perfected, so that there would be none in the Church, no matter how spiritual, erudite and holy, who would not be under Peter. We will even understand by lambs the people who have no pastoral care, only each are sons, not parents: by little sheep we shall take up lesser priests, that is priests and pastors, who thus are parents of the people, that they may be sons of bishops: through sheep, at length, we will interpret greater priests, that is bishops, who are in charge of the lambs and the small sheep: and nevertheless, who are also subject to Peter himself. It seems Pope St. Leo regarded this when he says that Peter was put in charge of all nations, all the Fathers, all the Apostles by Christ. 312 The nations are lambs, the fathers small sheep, the Apostles great and perfected sheep. Thereupon, another reason, and at that a characteristic one, he supplies to us with that pronoun “my.” For, when it is added without any restriction to the word “sheep” the pronoun “my,” it is manifestly meant, that all these sheep are consigned to Peter, to which the pronoun “my” is extended: moreover it is certain that word “my” extends simply to all, nor was there ever in the Church one who would not boast that he was a sheep of Christ; therefore, all Christians without exception, the Lord commended to Peter. We also see similar sayings everywhere in common speech For he who says: “I leave behind my goods to my sons,” without a doubt excludes nothing from his sons. And the Lord, when he says in John: “I know my sheep, and my sheep hear my voice, and I lay down my soul for my sheep,” 313 even though he does not say “all sheep,” and “for all sheep,” still, nobody can deny whether he spoke about all of them. Besides, what else is “Feed my sheep,” than “have care of my sheepfold?” There is only one sheepfold of Christ, “There will be one fold and one shepherd,” 314 therefore Christ consigned the whole flock to Peter. To this end, when the Lord said “Feed my sheep,” he either consigned all his sheep to Peter, or none, or some certain and defined ones, or some indefinite ones. But no man will have said none or certain ones were consigned, that is manifestly false: nor even certain indefinite ones, because it is not for a wise provider to relinquish indefinite care, when he could define it, especially when certain confusion and disturbance arises from that lack of definition. Besides, to commend some, and not include some, appears to be the same thing as if none were to be consigned. Which ones, I ask, will he feed, who does not know his own flock? Therefore it remains that Christ altogether assigned all his sheep to be fed by Peter. Furthermore, this is the teaching of all the Fathers Epiphanius says: “This is the one who heard, ‘Feed my sheep,’ to whom the sheepfold was entrusted.” 315 There is one fold and one shepherd, as we proved a little before from the Gospel. St. John Chrysostom says on that citation: “While disregarding the others he spoke simply to Peter, and consigned to him care of the brethren.” And further down: “For the Lord communicated to Peter, he entrusted to him the care of the whole world, etc.” St. Ambrose says on the final Chapter of Luke, that the Lord relinquished us to Peter by these words: “Feed my sheep,” just as a vicar of his love: “Needing to be lifted up into heaven he left behind one as the vicar of his affairs;” that without a doubt we should have Peter, who will maintain us in paternal and pastoral love, just as Christ himself had done: and likewise he says: “Because, he alone will profess among all, and is born before all.” Pope Leo the great in the aforementioned sermon says: “From the whole world Peter alone is chosen, that he should be put in charge of all nations, and all apostles, and all Fathers of the Church; so that although there may be many priests in the people of God, and many pastors, nevertheless Peter properly rules all whom Christ rules.” 316 St. Gregory says that the care of the whole Church was consigned to Peter, and he gives the reason saying: “Naturally it is said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’” 317 Theophylactus, in the last Chapter of John, says: “After the meal was ended he consigned to Peter command of the sheep of the whole world, but not others, rather he handed it to this one.”And in ch. XXII of Luke he says: “You, O Peter, being converted, you will be a good example of penance to all, since when you were an apostle, and denied, again you received the primacy of all, and command of the world.” St. Bernard says: “There are, indeed, other porters of heaven, and other shepherds of flocks, but as you have received both names in a manner different from the rest, so for you they bear a more glorious meaning. Other pastors have each their several flocks assigned to them; to you all the flocks have been entrusted, one flock under one shepherd. Do you ask for proof of that? It is the Lord’s word. For to whom, (and I do not say of bishops, rather of the apostles), have all the sheep been so absolutely and indiscriminately consigned? If you love me, O Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? The people of this or of that city, or region, or of some kingdom? He says ‘my sheep.’” 318 In that place, is it not plain that he did not designate some, but assigned all? Nothing is left out where nothing is distinguished. Now let us refute the arguments of our adversaries. First the objection of Luther. “Christ does not say: ‘Feed all my sheep,’ just as he said in another place: ‘Teach all nations; therefore he did not hand all his sheep over to Peter to feed.” I respond: the pronoun “My” exerts itself over a universal sign, as we showed above. The second objection of the same Luther, and also even of Illyricus, is that if the care of feeding all the sheep were consigned to Peter; Peter ought to feed all the sheep: that not withstanding he does not do this, the rest of the apostles also feed their part of the Lord’s flock, and they were sent by Christ, not by Peter. I respond: St. Peter fed the whole flock of the Lord, partly by himself, partly through others, as he had been commanded: for although the Lord sent all the apostles to preach and feed his flock, nevertheless in the very matter of their care (as Chrysostom says) he consigned to Peter, what they did, Peter did through them, they depended upon him just as the body on its leader. The third objection is common to Luther and the rest, which we cited at the beginning of the Chapter. The Apostle Paul in Galatians recognizes no subjection to Peter, or James, or John: “To whom we did not yield in subjection, not for an hour.” 319 Likewise: “It is of no importance to me, of what quality some were, who appear to be something.” Likewise: “Those who seemed to be something, gave no commands to me.” And again: “They conferred nothing upon me . . . They embraced me in friendship.” 320 I respond: What was proposed by Paul in the epistle to the Galatians, was not to show he was not subject to Peter (that he attained governance he makes no mention of this matter), but rather that his gospel was equally true and divine, and received immediately from Christ himself, just as the gospel of Peter, James and John. Therefore, the reality is the Pseudoapostles boasted that since Peter, James and John were taught by Christ, Paul was a disciple of men, hence, it seemed to them that the Gospel of the former was more true than that of Paul. Therefore against the calumnies of the Pseudo-apostles Paul arranged his epistle: “Paul, an apostle, not by men, nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, . I make known the gospel to you, that I preached, because there is no second man. Nor do I receive it from a man, nor did I learn it, rather I received it through the revelation of Jesus Christ.” It also pertains to this: “Those who seemed to be something, conferred to me nothing.” Therefore Paul means by these words, that he received no doctrine from the rest of the apostles, but he was diligently instructed in all things by Christ. Moreover he adds: “They received me in friendship.” Indeed, he compels us that we should believe that Peter and Paul were companions in the same office of preaching, but he does not forbid that we understand Peter was greater than Paul in the office of governing. For also in the first book of Kings, the Scripture says: “Saul and his companions.” 321 Nevertheless the same Scripture makes Saul the king, and the rest his servants. But that: “To whom we did not yield in subjection” does not refer to Peter and James, but to the Pseudo-apostles. Thus we read: “But on account of the fact that false brethren were led in to investigate our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might relegate us to servitude, to whom we do not yield in subjection. Next, to that citation: “It is of no importance to me, of what quality were some who seemed to be something,” is not said in contempt of Peter and John, as the Smalkaldic book would have it but in praise and honor. The reason Paul gives for why he wished to compare his gospel with the Apostles who were at Jerusalem, although at sometime they were unlearned men and fishermen, and says that he is equal with them, such as were at one time, is that God does not receive persons, but he set out to them himself, so that they who were already great apostles by the grace of God would seem like columns of the Church. Next, that citation, “Who seemed to be something they gave no commands to me,” no doubt the Smalkaldic Synod of the Lutherans saw some place where they read it, and from there copied out those words into their little book on the primacy of the Pope, for it is certain it is not found anywhere in Paul. Yet no doubt that is the familiarity which our adversaries have with God, that they boldly add to his word, nor fear the wound which God threatens those who add to his word. The fourth objection of the same. The Apostle teaches in Galatians, that by divine and human law, jurisdiction was divided up between Peter and Paul, and to Peter was allotted the Jewish people, while to Paul the Gentiles: therefore not all the sheep of Christ were consigned to Peter. These are the words of the Apostle: “Since they saw that the Gospel for the uncircumcised had been entrusted to me, just as for the circumcised to Peter, it was for me also to labor amongst the Gentiles, thus they received Barnabas and me in friendship, that we should labor among the Gentiles, and they amongst the circumcised.” 322 Therefore the Apostolate of Peter does not pertain to us, for we are of the Gentiles. I respond: the division of which Paul speaks in his epistle to the Galatians, is not of jurisdiction, but of provinces more suited to preach the Gospel of Christ. Therefore, although all the Apostles could, even as individuals, preach the Gospel in the whole world, nevertheless that it would be done more quickly and easily, a twofold distribution of provinces was made amongst the Apostles. Origin says, that the twelve Apostles together so divided the world among themselves, that Andrew should receive Scythia, Thomas Parthia and India, Bartholomew and Matthew Ethiopia, John Asia, 323 and the rest other places to imbue them with the Gospel of Christ. 324 A second distribution was made between Peter and Paul, without a doubt that Peter especially should work for the conversion of the Jews, though still, he was not forbidden from the conversion of the Gentiles; while on the other hand, Paul was chiefly zealous for the conversion of the Gentiles. Still, it was not out of his power to seek the conversion of the Jews We will confirm all of this from the divine letters with a little labor. First, it was permitted to Peter to preach to the Gentiles although he was an Apostle for the Jews, it is certain from many places. He preached to Cornelius and his whole house, 325 concerning which he speaks later: “You know because God elected that through my mouth from the earliest days the Gentiles should hear the word of God, and believe.” 326 Thereupon, in the last Chapter of St. Matthew, the Lord said to all the Apostles: “Going therefore, teach all nations.” And in the last of Mark: “Preach the gospel to every creature.” Therefore, by divine law, all the Apostles could preach to all the Gentiles. And certainly the prince of the Apostles is not excluded from that law, because it is given to all the Apostles. Besides, Innocent I teaches that in the whole of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Sicily, Churches were established by Peter, or by some, whom he chose and others whom he sent. 327 Yet it cannot be denied that these Churches were mostly of Gentiles. Therefore, if Peter was only an Apostle of the Jews and not of the Nations, why did he not make his seat at Jerusalem, which was the capital city of the Jews, but first at Antioch in Syria and afterwards at Rome, which were cities of Gentiles? And why did the Gentiles who were at Antioch not take their question on the laws to Pau, who was the Apostle of the Gentiles, but to Peter and James, who were Apostles of the Jews? Indeed Paul could also evangelize the Jews, even though he received the principle mandate concerning the Gentiles, as is seen in his deeds. For wherever he went he evangelized in the Synagogues of the Jews. He preached in a Synagogue of the Jews at Salamis and in Antioch at Pisidia; likewise at Iconium, Thessalonika, Corinth, Ephesus and at Rome, the very first thing he did was announce the Gospel to the Jews. 328 And in 1 Corinthians he says: “I have been made for the Jews as a Jew that I should win them over.” 329 Lastly he writes to the Hebrews, having care for them, and in 2 Corinthians II affirms, that he bears the solicitude of all Churches, and if of all, then certainly of the Jews. Therefore, both Peter and Paul could preach by divine law, both to the Jews and Gentiles, even though Paul was especially the Apostle of the nations. For that reason the Lord himself said concerning Paul: “This one is my vessel of election, that he should carry my name in the sight of the Gentiles, and Kings, and the sons of Israel.” 330 Where “sons of Israel” is placed at the end, Gentiles in the first. Moreover, it is said to Peter with the other Apostles: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all of Judaea and Samaria, and even to the end of the earth.” 331 There the Jews are placed first and the Nations last. This is what Paul means in Galatians II, that Peter was the Apostle of the circumcised, and he was of the uncircumcised And thus Jerome expresses it in this place, where the question is proposed, whether it was not lawful for Peter to bring the Gentiles to the faith, and Paul the Jews. He responds, that it was altogether lawful. Nay more, this was put forth to both, that they should gather the Church in the whole world, but still Peter had the principle mandate for the Jews, and Paul the Gentiles. Furthermore, it must be observed, that the munus of Peter was more to be honored than of Paul, since the Lord himself willed for him alone to preach to the Jews; whereas, through the other disciples to the Gentiles. “I am not sent except to the sheep, who are lost from the house of Israel.” 332 And the Apostle says: “The ministry of Christ Jesus was of the circumcised.” 333 The same Paul compares the Jews to olive oil, and the Gentiles to a wild olive tree grafted onto a good olive, that they might be made partakers of the fat. 334 The fifth objection is that the same Apostle in the same letter to the Galatians, Chapter II, says: “I resisted Peter to the face,” therefore he was not subject to him, rather he was either superior to him or certainly equal to him, hence, not all the sheep of Christ are subject to Peter. I respond: I know Clement of Alexandria suggests that it was not Peter the Apostle, but a certain other man condemned by Paul. 335 I also know that Jerome and many others would have it that it was not truly Peter, but some counterfeit Peter: but the opinion of Augustine is more probable, that Peter was condemned in earnest, thus I say it is fitting for an inferior to condemn a superior, only when the matter demands it, and due reverence is preserved. Therefore, Cyprian praises the humility of Peter, not because he had been condemned by Paul, but because he held the primacy and yet even more it was fitting for him to be submissive to the young and successors, where he indicates that Peter was condemned by an inferior. 336 And Augustine speaks thus: “Peter offered a more rare and holier example to posterity, whereby they should not disdain to be corrected by inferiors: as Paul, by whom inferiors confidently dare to resist superiors for the defense of truth, with charity still being preserved.” 337 Gregory also says: “He gave himself also to consensus from an inferior brother, and followed in the same matter business of his inferior, that in this he would go before him, insofar as he was first in the summit of the Apostolate, he should also be first in humility.” And further down: “Behold he is condemned by his inferior, and he did not disdain to be condemned.” 338 The Sixth objection, is that “the Apostles, without any mandate from Peter, constituted Deacons, 339 and again, they sent Peter into Samaria, 340 therefore Peter was not the head and pastor of the Apostles, but he rather was subjected to their command. Besides, Peter hesitated about whether it was lawful to evangelize the Gentiles, 341 and because he did that, he is condemned by the other disciples, 342 who therefore would easily believe that his sheepfold pertained to the Gentiles?” I respond: The fact that all the Apostles took counsel amongst themselves to constitute Deacons is nothing especially prejudicial to the primacy of Peter. It must be believed, that it was done with Peter’s authority, or certainly his consent. It would, however, derogate from his primacy if it could be proved that the deed was done when he refused and against his will. To that argument on the mission of Peter and John which is in Acts VIII, I respond: the term of “Mission” (missio) does not necessarily mean subjection in the one who is sent. Thus, one is said to “send” who is the authority for someone that he should go, or, that he should do it by precept; just as the Lord sent servants, on which it is said in John “The servant is not greater than the master.” 343 One can also be said “to send” by counsel and persuasion: as an equal at some time sent to an equal, and an inferior to a superior. For in St. Matthew, Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem, over whom he had no command; and the people of the Jews sent Phineas the priest to the sons of Ruben and Gad, 344 even though by divine law the high Priest was over the whole people, as the Centuriators affirm Therefore the Apostles sent Peter to the Samaritans by consultation and persuasion, because the matter was very great, to confirm that Nation in the faith. Now to those objections which are brought from Chapter X and XI of Acts, I say many are deceived who think that Peter did not know the Gospel must be preached to the Gentiles, except that he had that revelation in Acts XI. Indeed it is very absurd, for in the last Chapter of Mark and Matthew, the Apostles are bid to teach all Nations, and lest someone would say the Apostles did not understand, Luke says: “He opened the sense to them, that they would understand the Scriptures.” And next, while explaining he added some Scriptures: “because it was fitting for Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and to preach in his name penance to all the Gentiles.” And Peter shows everywhere in Acts I, II and III, that he understood the Scriptures, citing the Psalms, Joel, Deuteronomy and namely that in “Genesis: In your seed every household in the land shall be blessed.” 345 Then Peter saw that in a vision partly because of himself and partly because of others: on account of himself, it was not that he should learn that it was lawful to preach to the Gentiles, but that he would understand that it was the proper moment to preach to them. For, the Lord had said: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all of Judaea, and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth.” He had prescribed an order to the Apostles by those words, that they should first preach in Jerusalem, then in the rest of Judaea, then in Samaria, lastly in the regions of the Nations. Up to that point, Peter was irresolute about the time when he should preach to the Gentiles, and whether it would be lawful for them to take the occasion to preach before it was preached to the whole of Judaea and Samaria. The Holy Spirit removed this doubt by showing that vision. This is how St. Cyril explains the vision: “Immediately Peter understood, that the time was at hand to transform shadows into truth.” 346 On account of others, however, Peter saw the vision, because there were many converts from the Pharisees to the faith, who reckoned it was not fitting to preach to the Gentiles, and who also were going to blame the deed of Peter, if he had preached to Cornelius, just as they did after in Acts XI. Therefore, that Peter should have the best reasons of treating the matter to those condemning him, God showed him this vision, as Chrysostom properly explains: “He said this for the sake of others, and that he should prepare satisfaction to those accusing him.” 347 And in his commentary on this Chapter of Acts, Chrysostom says: “Did not Peter fear to eat? God forbid, rather, he said by divine dispensation this whole thing was done on count of them, who were going to condemn him.”

 

Chapter XVII: The First Prerogative of Peter is Explained from the Change of his Name

Thus far we have brought to bear those things which pertain to the promise and the establishment of the primacy of Peter: now we bring to bear the singular and different prerogatives in confirmation of the same primacy. Yet we do this more joyfully than the Centuriators, who diligently labor to enumerate the fifteen sins and horrendous falls (as they say) of St. Peter, which they say are present in the divine Scripture by God’s plan, lest we might attribute too much to Peter. 348 Although apart from the denial of Christ, which was a very grave sin, it cannot be denied that the rest of the fourteen sins of St. Peter are not to be abhorred, but rather the lies and blasphemies of the Centuriators should be, as we will prove a little later. Meanwhile, for the fourteen false crimes we bring to bear twenty eight true prerogatives. The first prerogative is the change of name, for in the first Chapter of John’s Gospel the Lord says to Peter: “You are Simon son of John, you will be called Cephas.” It must be observed in this place with Chrysostom, that God never imposes new names except for very great reasons, and to signify privileges conceded to those whose names are changed. Thus with Abraham, since he was called mr6b5a1 [Abram], that is, “lofty father,” God wished him to be called mh2r2b5a1 [Abraham], that is, “father of the multitude,” 349 that he should become the father of many sons, or rather more nations, and peoples. Additionally, there is a twofold prerogative in this change of name of Simon into the name of Peter. One, that he changed the name of Peter alone among all the Apostles. For although he imposed a name on the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges [sons of thunder], nevertheless that was rather more a type of surname than a proper name, and they are never again called Boanerges by the Evangelists, but merely James and John as they were before. But Peter is thereafter almost always called Peter. Even Paul often names him Peter, and never calls him anything but Peter or Cephas, just as John often names him, but John is always John, never Boanerges. The second is that the Lord gave a specific name to him For in Aramaic Cephas means rock, as we taught above and St. Jerome witnesses. 350 Moreover in Greek it means “head” [kefha/lh,], as Optatus notes. 351 And at length it is one of the most famous names of the Christ. Nothing is more frequent in the Scriptures except that the Christ is called rock (petra). 352 Therefore, when Christ communicates this name to Peter alone, and that name which signifies himself, as a foundation and head of the whole Church, what else did he desire to show other than he made Peter the foundation and head of the Church in his place? St. Leo says: “This, taken up in consort of undivided unity, that which he was, would have him so named, by saying: ‘You are Peter,’ etc.” 353 And in a sermon he so introduces Christ speaking to Peter: “Just as my Father has manifested to you my divinity, so even I make known to you your excellence, because you are Peter, that is, since I am the inviolable rock, I am the cornerstone, I am the one who makes each one, I lay the foundation apart from which no man can place another: nevertheless, you are also rock, because you are solid by my power, that those things which are proper to me may be yours by common participation with me.” 354

 

Chapter XVIII: The Second Prerogative is Explained from the Manner in which the Apostles are enumerated by the Evangelists

The Second prerogative of Peter is that when the Apostles are named by the Evangelists, whether all or some, Peter is always put in the first place. “These are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter, etc.” 355 We read the same in Mark III, Luke VI, and Acts I, but this was not done because Peter was called first by Christ, that is certain. For the Lord first called Andrew, as John witnesses in Chapter I. But the Centuriators of Magdeburg oppose this and say “Peter was called first either on account of his manifest gifts, or on account of age since he was exceedingly older than the others, not because he was the head of the others.” 356 Moreover, they write in another place: “Peter was placed first in the Catalogue because of his fall. Someone ought to be in the first place, and Peter comes to mind on account of his fall.” 357 But nothing validates any of these reasons. Not the first, for either they speak concerning the characteristic gifts which Peter had in rank for the Church, that he singularly receives the keys, which made him the foundation of the Church, that he was constituted shepherd of all the sheep of Christ, etc. and thence they speak for our part. Or, they speak on his own personal gifts, that is, on his virtues, and then what they say is false. For the Evangelist could not easily know, nor would have dared to judge, who should be the best among the disciples, especially since he knew that John was a virgin while Peter was married; and the same John seemed to be so loved by the Lord, that he was called, “The disciple whom Jesus loved.” Nor would he be ignorant that James the younger was provided with such holiness, that he should be called “just” and “a brother of the Lord” apart form all the others. Now, when they speak of Peter’s age, they oppose ancient tradition. For Epiphanius says: “Running to meet him, it came to pass that Andrew was first, since Peter was younger in age.” 358 Indeed, Jerome says that John was not chosen as the head of the others, because he was almost a boy: but he does not say Peter was older than all the others. 359 Add what the Centuriators themselves say on the life of Andrew, that it is probable that Andrew was older than Peter. 360 Further, to the objection that the fact of his fall is the reason why one should be placed first in the Catalogue, and Peter comes to mind: Rather Peter may be placed first by reason of dignity, and it is clear from the manner in which he is made first among the twelve. Namely, when Matthew calls him first, then he does not call the others second, then another one third, etc., but without any observation of rank he names them. Therefore among Peter and the rest, Matthew teaches there is an order; that Peter is superior, the rest are lower, but among them he states no order, because they are all equal, as St. Albert the Great notes in his commentary on this citation From this name first, the Fathers deduce the primacy, which is a term the heretics hate so much. For just as rule (principatus) comes from prince, and a consulship (consulatus) comes from consul, so primacy comes from first (primus). Hence, Ambrose says: “Andrew followed the savior first, but he did not receive the primacy, rather Peter.” 361 And Augustine says on the last Chapter of John: “Peter, on account of the primacy of his Apostolate, etc.” Certainly primacy is not spoken of concerning the one who it is written fell first in the Catalogue, but who duly and meritoriously is written first, on account of his degree and authority. Secondly, the same is gathered from that which is changed in the order of the others: Peter is always put in the first place For in Matthew X, Andrew is put after Peter, in Mark III, James is after Peter, in Luke VI, Andrew is named after Peter, but the order is changed for the rest: for Matthew puts Thomas ahead of himself, and Simon the Zealot ahead of Thaddaeus. Luke moreover, puts Matthew ahead of Thomas, and Thaddaeus before Simon. Acts of the Apostles places John after Peter, and in the others a great change is discovered. For equal reason, where two or many are named, Peter is always put first. Mark V and Luke VIII: “He did not admit any to follow him, except Peter, James and John.” And in Luke XXII: “He sent Peter and John.” While in Matthew XVII: He took up Peter, James and John.” Mark XIII: “Peter, James and John as well as Andrew asked him.” In the last Chapter of John: “Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, and the sons of Zebedee were together, as well as two others from his disciples.” You see everywhere Peter is first, which without a doubt cannot be due to the fact of the fall. Still, there is one citation where Peter is not named in the first place, certainly in Galatians II, where it is said: James, Cephas and John. But it is not especially certain whether Paul spoke thus. For Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome read in this citation, both in the text and in their commentary, Peter, James and John. In addition, Chrysostom says in his commentary on this place: “Peter, James and John;” indicating that he so read it, and thus it is credible that Paul spoke in that manner. But if we admit it ought to be read James, Peter and John, it may be said, even with St. Anselm and St. Thomas on this place, that it was done because James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, where the Apostles were then, from where Paul is speaking; or that Paul preserved no order in this place. For in any case, that Paul understood Peter to be greater than James is clear from the very same epistle, in Chapter I, where he says: “Thereafter three years I came to Jerusalem to see Peter.” He does not say, “I came to see James,” although he was also the bishop of Jerusalem. He says: “Whoever says I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas, I of Christ, etc.” 362 Obviously he proceeds by ascending and constitutes Peter next under Christ. Yet Peter is not only put in the first place and called first, rather he is also described everywhere in the Scriptures as a householder (paterfamilias), as a general and prince of the rest. For just as it is said in the Apocalypse, “The Devil and his Angels, Michael and his Angels,” that is, a general and his soldiers, so also it is said in Mark I:36 “And Simon followed after him, as well as those who were with him.” Luke VIII: “Peter and those who were with him spoke, etc.” Luke IX: “But Peter and those who were with him.” Mark XVI: “Tell his disciples and Peter.” Acts II: “Peter standing with the eleven.” And in the same place: “They said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles.” Acts V: “Peter and the Apostles said.” 1 Cor. IX: “Do we not have the power to go about with a sister, just as the other Apostles and brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Now I ask, was not Cephas a disciple? Was he not an Apostle? Why, therefore, is it said Peter and the Apostles? To Peter and the disciples? The Apostles and Cephas? The only reason is that Peter was the prince and head of the others. For that reason, St. Ignatius says that Christ came to them after the resurrection, who were around Peter. 363 It pertains to the same prerogative that Peter almost always speaks in the name of all, as in Matthew XIX: “Behold, we have left all things behind, etc.” Luke XII: “Do you speak this parable to us, or to all?” John VI: “O Lord, to whom shall we go?” On that place, Cyril so writes: “Through one who was in charge, all responded.” Hence, Chrysostom also calls Peter the “mouth of the Apostles.” 364

 

Chapter XIX: Four Other Prerogatives are Explained form the Gospel of St. Matthew

The third prerogative is related in St. Matthew, where Peter alone walks with the Lord over the waters. 365 St Bernard speaks concerning this prerogative: “He [Peter] is the counterpart of the Lord, walking over the waters; he designated him as the unique vicar of Christ, that he should be in charge of not one people, but all people, and accordingly many waters, and many people.” 366 A like thing is related in John, where while the rest of the disciples are coming in a boat to the Lord (who is waiting on the shore), Peter throws himself into the sea, and comes by swimming. St. Bernard says in the same place: “What is this? Truly a sign of Peter’s singular Pontificate, by which he does not receive one boat, as the rest, as his own to govern, but the world itself, for the sea is the world, the boats the churches.” The fourth prerogative, is that peculiar revelation made to Peter alone in Matthew XVI, a characteristic privilege, that Peter, the first of all the Apostles, being thoroughly instructed by God, recognized the greatest mysteries of our faith, the distinction of the persons in God and the Incarnation. For, though often beforehand Christ had been called the Son of God, as in Matthew XIV, when the disciples said: “truly you are the Son of God” and John I when Nathaniel said: “You are the Son of God,” nevertheless they called Christ the Son of God in the way in which all the Saints are called Sons of God. But Peter understood that Christ was the true and natural son of God. This is clear in the Greek text, where they are expressed by all the articles having emphasis: su, o` Criso,j o` u-io.j tou/ Qeou, zw/ntoj, and from the great approval of Christ, when he said: “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven,” and even from the testimonies of the Fathers. For Hilary calls Peter the first confessor of the Son of God, 367 and he also says that he spoke what the human voice had not yet brought forth. 368 He also says that Peter was made worthy, who is the first to have recognized something of God in Christ.” Athanasius says that Peter first recognized the divinity of Christ, and only after him did all the other disciples. Other fathers say similar things. 369 The fifth prerogative is in Matthew XVI where it is said “And the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Whereby the stability of the whole Church is not only promised forever, but even of the rock upon which the Church is founded, as Origen notes in this place. Therefore, by a special privilege promised to Peter, his seat will never fall into ruin, a promise that, should the other Apostles have had it, the seat of James would still stand in Jerusalem, and John at Ephesus, Matthew at Ethiopia and Andrew in Scythia, but yet all these little by little gave their hands to the gates of hell. Hence, Augustine says against the Donatists: “Count the priests even from that seat of Peter, that is the rock, which the proud gates of hell do not conquer.” The sixth prerogative is from Matthew XVII, where the Lord bid that the tribute be paid for himself and for Peter: “Give to them for me and you.” From which words was gathered the Apostles, and Peter was preferred before all the others, as Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome write Furthermore, Chrysostom eloquently asserts in this place that Peter was placed before all the others, affected with such honor, that he refused this to be written about himself by his disciple Mark. Therefore Mark most diligently writes of Peter’s denial in his Gospel, but those things which especially establish Peter’s glory, either he omits or very briefly constrains them. In that matter there can be no other reason given, except that Peter wished it thus. Lastly the author of the questions of the old and new Testament, which is contained in the fourth volume of Augustine’s works, q. 75, says that Christ paid two drachma, one for himself and the other for Peter, because just as in Christ, so also in Peter all are contained: “He set him up to be their head, that he would be the pastor of the Lord’s flock.” But Jerome in ch. XVIII of Matthew, after he had said the Apostles gathered drachma to pay, Peter was going to be the chief of all, he immediately adds: “The Lord, understanding the reason for the error, cleansed the desire of glory by the contention of humility.” Therefore the Apostles erred reckoning Peter to be the head. I respond: Indeed the Apostles erred, but not in that they received Peter as one going to be their chief, but because they dreamed of temporal rule. Therefore at no later time did they reckon something promised to them, since they had heard many things about the kingdom of Christ. The Lord corrected this error often, warning that the prefects of the Church would not be like the kings of the Gentiles, and that they should prepare themselves for persecutions and death in this world, not honor and glory.

 

Chapter XX: Three Other Prerogatives are Explained from the Gospel of Luke

The Seventh prerogative is taken from Luke and John, 370 wherein two miracles of Christ are explained, that took place while Peter was fishing. The first of which manifestly indicates, as St. Augustine shows us, the Church militant, and the second, the Church triumphant; 371 for on that account, the former was done before the resurrection of Christ, and the second afterwards. Likewise, in the first miracle the nets are not cast to the right side of the boat, nor to the left, lest we would believe that only the good or the bad were to come into the Church, rather it is said indifferently: “Let go the nets,” while in the second place, the nets are only cast from the right side of the boat, since only the good are gathered into eternal life. Besides, in the first the nets broke, and the boat was almost sunk, which signifies schism and heresy, as well as scandal, which compel the Church to be restless: but in the second miracle the nets were not broken, as the Evangelist himself notes, as though looking back to the first fishing, in which the nets were broken. Nor is the boat restless, because in the next life there will be no schisms or scandals. To this, in the first, the first are understood without number, that it should be fulfilled what was written in the Psalms: “I announced and spoke, and they were multiplied beyond number.” 372 But in the second miracle, they were not beyond number, rather a certain number, 153, for none were gathered apart from the number of the elect for the kingdom. Lastly, in the first miracle the fish are introduced into the boat that is still restless, in the second they are brought onto the shore, so as to designate by that stability, immortal and blessed life. Therefore, the characteristic prerogative of Peter is that in each boat and each occasion of fishing (which certainly signifies the state of the Church), Peter is always found to be their chief. For in Luke V, when the Lord saw many boats, “he entered into one, which was of Simon,” and from that one taught so that we would understand the Church through that boat, whose captain is Peter, is where Christ teaches. Ambrose says: “The Lord boarded only this boat of the Church, in which Peter was constituted as the master.” 373 In the same place, it is said to Peter alone: “Cast out into the deep, and let down the nets for capture.” Peter is bid just as a ship’s captain, and a fisher, to lead others to fish. In the same place, the Lord explaining the figure, says to Peter alone: “Do not be afraid, from this moment you will be fishers of men.” Thus even in John, Peter says: “I go to fish, and the others said to him: ‘We are coming with you.’” 374 Also: “Simon Peter came up and dragged the net onto the land.” What else is meant by these figures, than Peter is the one who leads men from the world to faith and the Church militant, and who, reigning, leads and guides them to the Church triumphant? The Eighth is from Luke XXII, where the Lord said: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has asked for you, that he might sift you ust as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail. And when thou has been converted, strengthen thy brethren.” By such words, the Lord clearly shows that Peter is the prince and head of his brethren. Thus the Greek and Latin Fathers express it. Theophylactus says in this place: “Because I have you, as a prince of the disciples, after you will have denied me, strengthen the rest, for it behooves you, who are the rock of the Church after me.” Pope St. Leo says: “For the faith of Peter, he properly supplies that the future state of the rest would be more certain, if the mind of the prince were not conquered.” 375 The Ninth is, that Christ, after his resurrection, offered himself first of all to the Apostles for Peter to see him, which is gathered from the words of Luke: “The Lord has truly risen, and appeared to Simon.” 376 There Ambrose notes that Christ appeared to Simon first before anyone else. For before he had appeared to Mary Magdalene, as Mark writes in the last Chapter, and this same thing is manifestly seen in the words of St. Paul: “I handed onto you what I had first received, that Christ died, and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, that he was seen by Cephas, and afterward the eleven; next he was seen by more than five hundred of the brethren, thereafter by James, and all the Apostles: last of all he was seen by me, as one born out of time.” 377 In which place St. John Chrysostom says: “Therefore, he was not seen by all in the beginning, nor even most, but only one, and to that prince worthy by the greatest faith.” And further: “Therefore, he first appeared to Peter, for since it was he who had first confessed Christ, for what reason would he not also be the first to see the risen one?” Theophylactus has similar things in this place.

 

Chapter XXI: Two Others are Explained from the Gospel of St. John

The tenth is, that Peter was first to have his feet washed by the Lord, as Augustine shows in Chapter XIII of John. And although Chrysostom and Theophylactus reckon in the same place that Judas was first and Peter second, nevertheless they also gather the primacy of Peter from this place. Indeed, they say that no other was going to suffer apart from Judas, that his feet should be washed before the prince of the Apostles: Moreover, Judas impudently constituted himself before Peter But just the same, it seems the opinion of Augustine is more probable. The eleventh is of John XXI, where Christ foretold his death and death on a cross to Peter alone, that just as he had given him his name and imposed upon him a duty, so also he would have him as an ally in death: “When you are old, you will extend your hands and another will gird you, and he will lead you whither you do not wish. But he said this,” adds the Evangelist, “Meaning by what death he should give glory to God.” Thereupon, in the same place the Lord adds, speaking to Peter: “Follow me.” Such words they receive from the pastoral office, as Theophylactus shows; follow me, I who lead you to preach, and who hand the whole world into your hands Others receive them as a similitude of death, as Euthymius, who explains that “sequere me,” that is “imitate me” by suffering on the cross. Yet there will be a full commentary, if we join each sentence. When the Lord consigned the sheep to Peter, and foretold the nature of his death, just as when concluding everything in one word he says: “Follow me,” that is, be that which I was both living and dying, lead as a pastor of souls while you live, and afterward through death on the cross be carried over from this world to the Father. And lest we might suspect that these were said to all, the Lord eloquently excludes John, who then followed bodily: “Thus I wish him to remain, what of you? Follow me.”

 

Chapter XXII: Another Nine Prerogatives are Explained from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians

The Twelfth prerogative is found in Acts I, where Peter, just as a householder, gathers all into one body of disciples and teaches that one must be chosen in place of Judas. Chrysostom says concerning this: “How does Peter acknowledge the flock was consigned to himself? How is he the prince in this choir?” Oecumenius says: “Peter, not James rises, as one to whom presidency of the disciples had been consigned. Nor does anyone oppose the prayer of Peter, but soon they constituted two according to his precept, whom they reckoned most worthy in regard to degree, that God himself should designate one of them.”

The Thirteenth is from Acts II, where after they receive the Holy Spirit, Peter is the first of all to promulgate the Gospel, and he converted three thousand men by that first sermon Chrysostom notes: “Peter was the mouth of all, but the eleven stood near, corroborating these by their testimony, which were taught by him.” The Fourteenth is from Acts III, where the first miracle in testimony of the faith is done by Peter. Although Peter and John were together, nevertheless Peter alone said to the lame man: “Gold and Silver I have not, but what I do have, I give this to you, etc.” Ambrose remarks beautifully, that Peter rightly published the first miracle by the strengthening of feet, that he should show himself to be the foundation of the whole Church. The Fifteenth is from Acts V, where Peter just as a supreme and divine judge discerned and condemned the hypocrisy and fraud of Ananias and Saphira, and slew them by his word. The Sixteenth is from Acts IX, where we read thus: “It came to pass, when Peter passed through all.” In which place Chrysostom says: “Just the same, the general traversing in the army considered which part might be joined, which was in need at his arrival, see that everywhere he runs he is discovered first.” The Seventeenth is from Acts X, where Peter first of all begins to preach to the Gentiles, just as he was first of all to preach to the Jews. And the vision was shown to him alone, whereby he was advised that it was the time to preach to the Gentiles, where it is also said to him: “Kill and eat.” For it is of the head to eat, and through eating to drag down food into the stomach, and incorporate it into itself. Moreover it is signified by this metaphor that it is fitting, that he as head of the Church should convert infidels, and effect them members of the Church. But you might object: In Acts VIII didn’t Philip convert the heathen eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia? And Didn’t Paul in Acts IX speak to the Gentiles, and dispute with the Greeks? Therefore how is Peter said to be the first to have preached to the Gentiles? I respond: The eunuch was a Proselyte, that is, he had already been converted to Judaism, so was not obviously a Gentile as Cornelius was. For Peter does not lie in Acts XV when he indicates that he was the first to preach to the Gentiles. Thereafter in Acts XI, Luke writes that those, who were dispersed by the tribulations which arose under Stephen, to walk abroad to different regions evangelizing, “speaking a word to no man, but to the Jews alone,” and one among them was Philip, as is clear from Acts VIII. Besides, if Philip had already preached to a Gentile man, and no one had condemned him, why would Peter later hesitate, whether it might be the time to preach to the Gentiles? Why is he inspired by a heavenly vision for this? Why, after this was heard, some from the Jews gaped, and others accused Peter as of bold insolence? Add that the Eunuch himself went into Jerusalem to the Temple, and was reading Isaiah in his cart, which are obvious signs of Judaism. Next, Jerome, speaking about Cornelius, says: “First baptized by the Apostle, he proclaimed salvation of the nations.” 378 And Chrysostom: “You see, from where the beginning of the Nations was made? By a pious man who was held worthy in regard to his works.” 379 But if, at some time, the Fathers say that the Eunuch whom Philip baptized was a Gentile, they understand it to be so by nation and not by religion. Concerning Paul there is no difficulty following the Greek manuscripts. In Greek it is not “He spoke to the Nations”, but only: “He spoke and disputed against the Greeks.” But here he calls Jews Greeks that were born in Greece and spoke Greek, as Chrysostom and Oecumenius show. Besides, it does not have the appearance of truth that Paul would have preached to the Gentiles in Jerusalem itself, especially since no rumor was stirred up by the Judaizers, who afterward so forcefully rose up against Peter, because he had preached to Cornelius. Nevertheless, seeing that the Latin manuscripts have it that he spoke to the Nations and disputed with the Greeks, it can be said that he spoke and disputed with the Gentiles, not by bringing them to the faith, but by defending the faith from their calumnies. Therefore, Luke adds in the same place, not that some were converted, but so serious a hatred was roused against Paul, that they sought to kill him. Therefore, the first Father of both Jews and Gentiles was Peter. The Eighteenth is from Acts XII, where “Prayer was made without ceasing by the Church” for Peter after he had been shut up in prison. Wherefore, he was also liberated by a characteristic miracle. We know before this, both when Stephen was in danger, who afterward was stoned and also James, who in like manner was shut up in the same prison and afterwards killed, that the Church did not make prayer without ceasing for them, as we now see it was done when Peter was in danger. What other reason can be assigned, except that there is a great difference between one member and the head itself when in danger? Therefore, Chrysostom says: “Prayer is a mark of great love and all beseeched the Father, etc.” The Nineteenth prerogative is in Acts XV, where Peter speaks first in council, and James and all the rest follow his opinion, as Jerome teaches in a letter to Augustine Furthermore, Theodoret, in an epistle to Pope Leo, speaks on the same affair: “Paul, the herald of truth, the trumpet of the most Holy Spirit, ran to the great Peter, that he might bring resolution from him to those contending about the legal institutions at Antioch.” The Twentieth is from Galatians I, where Paul says: “After three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.” In which place Oecumenius says, “Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter because he was greater.” Chrysostom: “He was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles, and on that account Paul went up to see him apart from any other.” 380 Ambrose says: “It was worthy that he should desire to see Peter, because he was first among the Apostles, to whom the Savior had delegated care of the Churches.” 381 Jerome in an epistle to Augustine, cited above: “Peter had such authority, that Paul wrote in his epistle, ‘after three years I came to Jerusalem to see Peter.’” 382

 

Chapter XXIII: The Other Prerogatives are Proposed from Various Authors

To this point we have reviewed these prerogatives which are gathered from Holy Scripture: we shall now add another eight, which we take from various authors. Therefore the Twenty first prerogative is, that Christ baptized Peter alone by his hands. Evodius writes, that the successor in the Episcopate of Antioch, in a letter, which is titled to. fw/j( that among women, Christ only baptized his Virgin mother, among men only Peter; and Peter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and the rest were baptized by them Euthymius 383 refers to that, as well as Nicephorus. 384 The Twenty second is that Peter alone was ordained a bishop by Christ: the rest, however, received episcopal consecration from Peter. That is what John Turrecremata 385 proves with many reasons, but particularly two. The first is because either the Lord ordained no one a bishop, or all, or some, or one. It cannot be said he ordained no one. For if that were so, we would have no bishop now, since no man can give to another what he does not have himself. Therefore, a nonbishop cannot ordain a bishop, so if the Lord ordained nobody, and did not leave behind Peter ordained a bishop, who afterward ordained Peter and the others? But that all the Apostles were not immediately ordained by the Lord is obvious. For at least Paul, whom he called from heaven, and made an Apostle, he did not ordain a bishop, but bid to be ordained through the imposition of the hands of ministers of the Church, as is clear in Acts XIII, and from Leo’s epistle to Dioscorus. 386 Moreover in the volumes of Councils, 79, Leo brings this example of Paul, and from Chrysostom, who says on this place of Acts, that there was a true ordination of Paul, in which place they changed his name. It is immediately added, Saul, who is also Paul. On that account, that James the younger, one of the twelve, was ordained a bishop at Jerusalem by the Apostles, and not immediately by Christ, Anacletus teaches in an epistle, 387 where he writes, that a bishop ought to be ordained by three bishops, just as James the younger was ordained a bishop by Peter, James the elder and John. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria hands down the same thing, that James was ordained a bishop by Peter, James and John. 388 Jerome says: “James, immediately after the passion of the Lord, was ordained a bishop by the Apostles at Jerusalem.” 389 Nor can it be said this James was not the Apostle from the twelve, for Jerome opposes that in his book against Helvidius, and we showed the same thing in another place for the reason that it would not follow that no memory is made of an Apostle from the twelve in the Church. And the Lord did not ordain some and not ordain others, for that is proved because the Apostles, with the exception of Peter, were equals among themselves, and had no rights over another, and all power that was handed to them, was commonly handed to all, in as much as it can be gathered from the Gospels. Therefore, if the Lord did not ordain none, nor all, nor a portion of some then it follows that he ordained only Peter. The Second reason is that the Fathers teach everywhere that the Roman Church is the mother of all Churches, and that all bishops had their consecrations and their dignity from her But it would not seem that this could be the case except in the sense that Peter himself, who was bishop of Rome, ordained all the Apostles, and all other bishops, either by himself or through others whom he had ordained. Otherwise, when all the Apostles constituted many bishops in different places, if the Apostles were not made bishops by Peter, certainly a great part of the Episcopate would not deduce their origin from Peter. Why is it, therefore, that Anacletus says: “In the New Covenant after Christ the Sacerdotal order began from Peter”? Furthermore, he cannot be speaking on a lesser order of Priests, that is of Presbyters. For it is certain that the Apostles were all ordained priests together at the Last Supper, therefore he speaks on the order of greater priests, that is, of bishops, whom he would not correctly say began from Peter, if all the Apostles were immediately ordained bishops by Christ. Why is it that Cyprian also says, that the Roman Church is the mother and root of the whole Catholic Church? 390 Why is it that Innocent I says in his epistle to the Council of Carthage, 391 “By whom (Peter) the Episcopate and the whole authority of this name emerges?” Likewise what he writes in his epistle to the Council of Miletus: “As many times as the reasoning of faith is brandished, I reckon all our brothers and co-bishops ought to bring no authority except for that which pertains to Peter.” 392 What of what Pope Julius I wrote to the Orientals: “How could you not incur blame, if the place from where you receive the honors of consecration, and whence you take up the law of the whole observance is also the seat of blessed Peter, which is for us the mother of sacerdotal dignity, and should be the teacher of ecclesiastical reason?” 393 Lastly, what of that which St. Leo says: “If he wished for the other princes to be in common with him (Peter), he never gave anything he did not deny to the others except through Peter.” 394 And again: “The Sacrament of whose office the Lord so wished to pertain to the duty of all the Apostles, that he principally placed it upon the blessed Peter, greatest of all the Apostles, that by him just as a head, he would diffuse his gifts through the whole body”? 395 Yet our adversaries reject this specific argument by saying: “Episcopacy is included in the Apostolate, otherwise it would not be true what Anacletus writes in the aforementioned epistle, that bishops succeed the Apostles; but Christ made all of them Apostles, not just Peter. Therefore, Christ also ordained them bishops, not just Peter. In addition, how is what is said in the Psalms: ‘Let another receive his Episcopate,’ 396 understood concerning Judas the traitor, as Peter explains in Acts I, when Peter did not ordain Judas; therefore Peter did not ordain all.” I respond: Episcopacy is contained in the Apostolate, and bishops succeed Apostles, not for the reason that someone who is an Apostle should also be a bishop, (since the Lord chose twelve disciples in Luke VI, and named them Apostles, although it was before he made them priests, still less bishops), therefore, the right of preaching properly pertains to the Apostolate, to which was connected the fullest delegated urisdiction, such cannot also be said of bishops, because all the Apostles were bishops, nay more they were even the first bishops of the Church, although they were not ordained. 397 Now I respond to that part about Judas in Psalm CVIII. It is not called an Episcopate the way we now speak of Episcopate, but any prefecture in Hebrew is hd2nqP5 which means a visitation or a prefecture, and it is believable that Peter deputed this Psalm and that name to a prefecture to accommodate the Apostolate of Judas. Moreover, Luke, relating these in Greek, followed the interpreters of the Septuagint, which turned th.n e.piscoph.n( which is a term that the Interpreters could not understand except as a prefecture in general, since in their time the establishment of the episcopate was still not properly so called. Add what even Cicero says in a letter where he uses this noun, when he says that he was constituted a bishop by Pompey of the whole of Campania. 398 This response can also be made: that Psalm speaks on a properly called Episcopate, not the one which Judas had, but that which he was going to have if he had not betrayed the Lord. The twenty-third is that Peter first detected the Heresiarch Prince and Father of all heretics who would come after, namely Simon Magus, as we read in Acts VIII, and afterward he condemned and destroyed him. It was altogether fitting that the prince and father of the Church should conquer the prince and father of all heretics. Simon was indeed the father of all heretics, as Irenaeus writes. 399 Yet we bring the testimony of the Fathers to bear on this matter, because Calvin holds the contest between St. Peter with Simon Magus to be a fable. 400 Egesippus, and Clement broadly explain the whole history as well as Arnobius, who says: “In Rome herself, mistress of all, in which, although men are busied with the practices introduced by King Numa, and the superstitious observances of antiquity, they have nevertheless hastened to give up their fathers’ mode of life and attach themselves to Christian truth. For they had seen the chariot of Simon Magus, and his fiery car, blown into pieces by the mouth of Peter, and vanish when Christ was named. They saw him, I say, trusting in false gods, and abandoned by them in their terror, born headlong by his own weight, lie prostrate with his legs broken.” 401 Damasus relates the same thing in the life of Peter, as well as numerous other fathers. 402 Augustine relates on the matter: “In the city of Rome, the Blessed Apostle Peter destroyed Simon Magus by the true power of almighty God.” 403 Whereby we understand the same Augustine says: “Indeed this is the opinion of many, although many Romans hold that it is false, that the Apostle Peter intended to do battle with Simon Magus on the Lord’s day, on account of the danger of a great trial, since the day before the Church of the same city fasted, and after such a prosperous and glorious outcome followed, it kept the same custom, and several Western Churches imitate it.” 404 Here he did not wish to say the opinion on the contest between Peter and Simon Magus was uncertain, as Calvin reckoned, but on the origin of fasting on the Sabbath. Although the authors cited hand down in unison that Peter fought with Simon at Rome, and conquered him, nevertheless, none hand down that this deed happened on the Lord’s day, neither did they fast the day before, nor did they on that account institute fasting on the Sabbath, concerning which Augustine disputes in that epistle. The Twenty-fourth is, that Peter placed his chief seat at Rome by divine command. The obvious sign of the Principate of Peter seems to be that when the Apostles were sent by him into the whole world, Peter was sent to that head of the world, the queen of cities. That is what St. Leo also teaches: “For, when the twelve Apostles, having received the speech of tongues of all by the Holy Spirit, took up the parts of the world distributed to themselves to imbue it with the Gospel, the most Blessed Peter, prince of the Apostolic order, was destined to the capital of the Roman Empire, that the law of truth, which was revealed for the salvation of every nation, he should more efficaciously pour himself out from that head through the whole world.” 405 Also, Maximus the Confessor: “In that place where the world had head of empire, there God placed the princes of his kingdom.” But more on this in a following question. The Twenty-fifth is, that at the end of the life of Peter, Christ himself appeared to Peter, and when the latter asked: “O Lord, where are you going?” he deigned to respond: “I come to Rome to be crucified again.” Egesippus witnesses, along with Ambrose: “By night,” Ambrose says: “he began to enter by the wall, and seeing Christ in his place he ran to the gate, entered the city and said; ‘O Lord, where are you going? Christ responded: ‘I come to Rome again to be crucified.’ Peter understood that the response pertained to his own divine cross.” 406 Thereafter St. Gregory relates the same thing, in his explanation of the Penitential Psalms: “He said to Peter, ‘I come to Rome again to be crucified,’ he who had already been crucified in his own person, said he must be crucified in Peter.” What did the Lord wish to show, when he said, to be crucified again in the crucifixion of Peter, except that Peter is his vicar, and that it should be done to Peter, just as it was done to himself? Thus, before he had said to Samuel: “Non te abjecerunt, sed me, ne regnem super eos.” 407

 

Chapter XXIV: The Three Last Prerogatives are Brought to Bear

The Twenty-sixth prerogative is that only those Churches that Peter had founded were always held to be Patriarchal and first. Accordingly, among the Fathers, only three Churches were properly Patriarchal and first; Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. 408 Neither Luther nor Calvin deny that. Of old, Jerusalem was held as a fourth patriarchal see for nearly 500 years, but in name, not in fact, which is to say in honor, not in power. For the Patriarch of Alexandria not only sat in a second place in Councils, but was even in charge of all archbishops and bishops of Egypt and Libya: and the Bishop of Antioch not only sat in the third place, but was also in charge of all the Archbishops of the East: The Bishop of Jerusalem was in the fourth place, but he was in charge of no archbishop or bishop, nay more, that see was subject to the Archbishop of Caesarea, who was the Metropolitan of Palestine, and besides that the Antiochene Patriarch was over the whole east, as we said. That is so clear from the council of Nicaea, can. 7, where it is discerned that the Bishop of Jerusalem should have honor after Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, but nevertheless, nothing is taken away from the authority of the Metropolitan, who was at Caesarea. For this reason, St. Jerome thus speaks: “You, who seek Ecclesiastical rules and use the canons of Nicaea, answer me this; does Palestine pertain to the Bishop of Alexandria? Unless I am mistaken, there it is discerned that Caesarea is over the capital of Palestine, and Antioch of the whole East. Therefore either you had ought to relate to the Archbishop of Caesarea, to whom, spurned from your communion, you had known to communicate with us, or if it was judged far from expedient, rather more letters should have been directed to Antioch. But I know why you refuse to send to Caesarea and Antioch. You preferred to cause aggravation by means of busy ears, than to render due honor to your metropolitan.” 409 Here Leo also says: “Juvenal, the Bishop, so as to obtain rule of the province of Palestine, believed that he could suffice, and dared to strengthen the insolent through fabricated writings.” 410 Lastly, neither Anacletus, nor Leo, nor Gregory cited above, where they enumerate the Patriarchal sees, make any mention of Jerusalem. From these afterward the Patriarchate of Constantinople arrives. For in the time of the Council of Nicaea, Constantinople did not yet exist, still less was it a Patriarchate For in the twenty-fifth year of Constantine’s rule, that is, in the fifth year after the Council of Nicaea, Constantinople had been dedicated, as St. Jerome writes in his Chronicle. Nevertheless, afterward, in the first Council of Constantinople, and thereafter at Chalcedon, the Bishop of Constantinople tried not only to secure a Patriarchate, but even to obtain second place among the Patriarchs. But not before the times of Justinian did he obtain it from the Roman Pontiffs. Moreover, at the time of Justinian, that is, after the year of the Lord and the works of the emperor, and by the permission of the Roman Pontiffs, the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem began to be considered in the number of the Patriarchates, without further protest. After these were so constituted, Calvin wonders, and not without cause, why so few, and why in this order the patriarchal sees were gathered. 411 For if you look to antiquity, the see of Jerusalem ought to be placed in the first place, and nevertheless it is in the fourth. If you would consider the dignity of the first bishop, certainly after the Roman See, the see of Ephesus ought to be which was founded by St. Paul, ruled by St. John even to his death. Jerusalem also, in which see James the Apostle the brother of the Lord, first sat, and after him Simon, the brother of the Lord, ought to go before Alexandria, in which Mark, the disciple of the Apostles sat. Besides, why should Alexandria go before Antioch, when Antioch was more ancient than Alexandria and at Antioch Peter himself sat, while at Alexandria the disciple of Peter sat? What if you were to say that Calvin suspected that in constituting the Sees of the Patriarchs, the Council of Nicaea only had the purpose of listing the most noble royal cities? 412 St. Leo the Great would oppose him, who in an Epistle, responded to the argument of the Greeks, who asserted that Constantinople ought to be a patriarchal see after Rome, because it was an Imperial See, and thus says: “Let the city of Constantinople have its glory, and while the right hand of God protects it, may it enjoy long-lasting rule in your mercy Nevertheless, there is, on the one hand, the reasoning of secular matters, and on the other hand, of divine affairs. For apart from that rock, which the Lord placed in the foundation, no other construction will be stable.” 413 And Gelasius says: “Concerning the royal city, some power is of the secular kingdom, the other distribution of Ecclesiastical dignities. Just as each little city does not diminish the prerogative of the king, thus an imperial presence does not change the measure of religious dispensation.” 414 Thereupon, we ask, why there were only three Patriarchal sees constituted, when there might be many more noble and royal cities? Thereupon, the most noble and royal cities always were held to be where the seat of the emperor was; but in the times of the Council of Nicaea, the imperial seat in the East was at Nicomedia, which is by far the most famous city of Bithynia. In the West, there were Trier and Milan, of which Trier in Transalpine Gaul and Milan in Cisalpine Gaul were considered the most famous cities. Accordingly in the same time of Diocletian sitting at Nicomedia, thence ruled the whole east. Maximian governed Italy from Milan, as well as Africa and Illyria; Constantius, the father of Constantine, moderated Gaul and Britain from Trier. Hence, Gelasius says: “We laughed, because they wish a prerogative to be established in Acacia, because the bishop was of a royal city, but did not the Emperor constitute Milan, Ravenna, Sirmium and Trier such many times? Did not the priests of these cities surpass them in their dignities, reputed without measure, in antiquity?” 415 Why therefore were Nicomedia, Trier and Milan not made Patriarchal sees? Add that the Council of Nicaea did not institute, as Calvin falsely teaches, patriarchal sees, rather it only confirmed them. Thus the Council has the words in Canon 6: “The ancient custom endures in Egypt, or Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all these.” And below: “Likewise, however, with Antioch, and the remaining provinces, the honor of each is preserved in the Church.” And below in Canon 7: “Because ancient custom obtained that ancient tradition, that in Heliae, that is, Jerusalem, the honor given to a bishop; consequently he ought to have honor.” Therefore, the true and only origin of that number of Patriarchal sees is the dignity of Peter. Only those Churches are properly held as Patriarchates where Peter sat. Morever, Peter sat in his own person at Antioch and Rome, while in Alexandria he sat either in himself, as Nicephorus 416 witnesses, or through his disciple Mark, whom he sent in his place, and founded the Church in his name, as St. Gregory teaches when he says: “Although there were many Apostles, nevertheless, for rule itself, only the seat of the prince of the apostles is valid in authority, which in three places, is one. He lifted up the seat, in which even he deigned to rest and even end his present life: he honored the seat, in which he sent his disciple the Evangelist: he strengthened the seat, in which he sat for seven years, although left it. Therefore, since they are of one man the seat should be made one, to whom three bishops now preside by divine authority, whatever good I hear about you, I impute this to me.” 417 In the same place he says: “He speaks to me about the chair of Peter, who sits upon a chair of Peter, etc.” There he affirms that the Bishop of Alexandria sits upon a chair of Peter, because Mark, the first bishop of Alexandria, sat in the name of Peter. St. Leo gives the same reason in a letter: “Nothing should perish from the dignity of the see of Alexandria, in which it merits through St. Mark the Evangelist, the disciple of St Peter. Likewise the Antiochene Church, in which the name Christian first arose from the first preaching of the Apostle Peter, let it preserve in the paternal rank of constitution placed in the third level, and may it never become lesser.” 418 Likewise Anacletus says in his third Epistle: “The Second See, at Alexandria, was consecrated in the name of Peter by his disciple Mark. Moreover, the Third See at Antioch of the same Blessed Peter the Apostle is held in the name of honor.” Therefore this is the reason of the number of these sees. But the reason for the order is that while all three were sees of Peter, nevertheless he administrated the Roman See in his own person even to his death; while Alexandria was administered through Mark the Evangelist, and Antioch through Evodius. Therefore, just as Peter is a greater Apostle than Mark the Evangelist, and Mark the Evangelist greater than Evodius, who was neither an Apostle nor an Evangelist, so also the Roman Church surpasses Alexandria, and Alexandria Antioch, in authority and dignity. The Twenty-seventh is the feast of the Chair of Peter. For the fact that a feast day is celebrated publicly in the Church in honor of the establishment of the Episcopate of Peter, and nothing such as that is done for the sees of the other Apostles, is an argument; that the See of Peter singularly excels all the others, nay more; it is, itself, the only and singular Chair, from which the whole world ought to be taught as Optatus says. 419 Moreover, that the feast of the Chair of Peter is very ancient, can easily be known from the Martyrology of Bede, and from a sermon St. Augustine gave to the people. 420 The Twenty-eighth prerogative is that in the style of letters, after the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the ancients joined the name of the prince of the Apostles. The Bishop of Nicepolis, Atticus, writes, as is read at the end of the Council of Chalcedon in this place: “What the Latin custom puts into practice must not be done in Canonical epistles, lest some fraud of falsity may rashly be presumed This has been salubriously reached and constituted by the three hundred eighteen gathered here, that letters so formed according to this calculation, or computation might have the plan, that is, that they ought to take up this computation first with the Greek letters that from “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, this is p( u( a, 421 which respectively by number signify 80 th, 400 th and 1 st . Additionally, the first letter of Peter the Apostle, that is p, which means the number 80.” Optatus of Miletus also recalls the format of letters in these words: “The whole world communicates with him (Pope Siricius) and us in the same style of letters, in one society of communion.” 422 And the Council of Miletus, Canon 20, forbids clerics, lest they might go without being accompanied by letters properly formatted. 423

 

Chapter XXV: The Primacy of Peter is Confirmed from Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers

It remains that we bring the testimonies of the ancient Fathers to bear for the primacy of St. Peter. Moreover, it must first be observed, that if the Fathers said Peter was the head of the Church, or primate amongst the Apostles, or held the Church, that ought to be sufficient to show from the opinion of the Fathers that it is as we would have it. Our Adversaries affirm by these two names, head (caput) and primacy (primatus) is meant supreme power in the Church. Thus the Centuriators say, that it is a proper mark of Antichrist to have primacy [primatus] in the Church. 424 And Calvin says: “Certainly, as long as the true and pure face of the Church endured, all those names of pride, whereby the Roman See afterward began to grow so haughty, were altogether unheard of.” 425 He speaks there about the terms of “head” and “primacy”. And in the same place he indicates, in the time of Jerome, the true face of the Church still endured. Origen is the first to appear from the Greeks (for I must omit Dionysius, Clement the Roman, Anacletus and others like them, because our adversaries do not receive them), who speaks thus: “Since the chief affair of feeding the sheep was handed down to Peter, and upon him just as upon strong ground the Church was founded, the confession of no other power is extended except of charity.” 426 Eusebius in his Chronicle of the forty fourth year from the birth of Christ, says: “Peter the Apostle, a Galilaean by nation, and first Pontiff of Christians.” 427 There the distinction must be observed which Eusebius places between Peter and the bishops of other cities. For he does not say of Peter, “first Bishop of the Romans” as he says in the same place about James: “James, the brother of the Lord, first bishop ordained from the Apostles of the Church of the people of Jerusalem.” Moreover he says about Evodius: “Evodius ordained the first bishop at Antioch.” He does not speak thus about Peter, rather “First Pontiff of Christians;” without a doubt that we would understand that James was the Pontiff of one city, but Peter of the whole Christian world. He calls Peter the same thing in the Ecclesiastical History, the most proved and greatest of all the Apostles, the prince and general of the first, and the master of the militia of God. 428 Moreover, what else is it to be the general of the militia of God, than to be the head of the Church militant? St. Basil says, speaking on Peter: “That blessed man who was born ahead of the disciples, to whom the keys of the heavenly kingdom were consigned, etc.” 429 St. Gregory Nazianzen, wishing to show that there ought to be an order in all things, takes the argument from the Apostles, who, although they were all great, nevertheless had one put in charge: “You see in just the same way from the disciples of Christ, were all great and lofty, and worthy by election, this one is called the rock, and he holds the foundations of what is believed by the faith of the Church, and the remaining disciples bore themselves afterwards with a peaceful spirit.” 430 St. Epiphanius says: “He [Christ] chose Peter, that he should be the leader of the disciples.” And again: “This is the one who heard, ‘Feed my lambs,’ to whom the sheepfold was entrusted.” 431 St. Cyril of Jerusalem calls Peter “the most excellent prince of the Apostles.” 432 St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “As a prince, and head of the rest he first exclaimed: ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God.’” 433 And in Thesauro (if we follow St. Thomas in an Opisculum Against the Greeks), he says: “Just as Christ received the scepter of the Church of the Nations from the Father, going forth as a general of Israel, over every principality, and power, over everything whatever it is, that all things would be bent to him: thus both to Peter and his Successors he plainly consigned, and to no other than Peter, Christ what was his in full, but he gave it to him alone.” St. John Chrysostom says: “He constituted Peter the pastor of the Church that was going to be,” and a little further down: “God alone can concede that the future Church should remain immovable in the face of the attack of so many and so great waves rushing in, whose pastor and head (behold the name of HEAD [CAPUT] that is unheard of for Calvin), a fisherman and without nobility.” And further down: “The Father put Jeremiah over one Nation, but Christ put this one over the whole world.” 434 And in a homily on the last Chapter of St. John, he repeats it several times, that care of the brethren, that is the Apostles, was entrusted to Peter, as well as that of the whole world. Euthymius repeats twice on the last Chapter of John, that Peter received presidency over all the Apostles. And he says in the same place: “If you were to say, how did James receive the see of Jerusalem? I respond, this one (Peter) was constituted the master of the whole world.” There Euthymius teaches just as James was the bishop of Jerusalem, so Peter was the bishop of the whole world. Theophylactus says, on that verse: “Strengthen thy brethren,” in Luke XXII: “The plain meaning of this verse is understood. Because I have you as a prince of disciples, after you will have wept on account of denying me, and will have done penance, strengthen the others; it is fitting for you, because after me you are the rock and foundation of the Church.” And a bit further: “You, o Peter, having converted, you will be a good example of penance to all, who since you were an Apostle and denied, you again received primacy over all, and prefecture of the world.” Here also you hear the name of PRIMACY [PRIMATUS] unheard of to Calvin. Next, Oecumenius says: “Peter rises, not James, and just as if more fervent and just as if that presidency of the disciples had been consigned to him.” 435 Hugh Etherianus, or Heretrianus, around the year 1160, in the time of the Emperor Emmanuel, wrote books on the procession of the Holy Spirit against his own Greeks: in which he speaks thus: “From the very evidence of the matter, it seems clear, that Christ constituted Peter and his successors in perpetuity as prince and head not only of the Latins and Greeks, of the West, and the whole North, but even of Armenians, Arabs, Jews, Medianites and of the whole world, even over the southern climates.” 436 From the Latins, St. Cyprian says, 437 that Peter refused to say when he was condemned by Paul, that he held the primacy, and he was to be obeyed. From which words, he indicates that he had the primacy, and could command all others. And, lest by chance our adversaries might say that Peter, in the opinion of Cyprian, did not say he had the primacy, because he would have spoken falsely, let us listen to Augustine explain this passage of Cyprian: “The same Cyprian, in his epistle to Quintus so speaks; ‘For Peter (whom the Lord first chose, and upon whom he built his Church), when Paul disputed with him on circumcision, afterward did not haughtily vindicate himself, or arrogantly assume that he should say he held the primacy, and thus should be obeyed by newcomers . . . Behold, where Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle, Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was possible for Peter at some point to not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, so as to compel the Gentiles to Judaize, etc.” 438 The same St. Cyprian, in a book on the unity of the Church, or on the simplicity of Prelates (as we cited it above) makes Peter the head, the font, the root of the whole Church And he says on the same in an epistle to Juba: “We hold fast to one head and root of the Church.” Therefore, Cyprian joyfully usurps these two terms, which Calvin had said were unheard of in the ancient Church. St. Maximus the Confessor says: “Of how many merits was Peter with his Lord, that later the rule of the little boat, the governance of the whole Church should be handed over to him?” 439 Optatus says: “The chair is one, and you would not dare to deny that you know it was to Peter, first in the city of Rome, that the chair was conferred, where Peter the head of all the Apostles sat, thence called Cephas, in such a one the unity of the chair is preserved by all, nor do the remaining Apostles defend individual chairs, each to himself, that one would already be a schismatic and a sinner who should place another chair against that singular one. Therefore the chair is one, which is the first from the dowry. In that Peter first sat, Linus succeeded him, then Clement, Linus, etc.” 440 You see the name of HEAD and CHAIR [CATHEDRA] of Peter, and of successors, a unique chair of the whole Church is named, which was altogether unheard of to Calvin. St. Ambrose in the last Chapter of Luke calls Peter the VICAR of the love of Christ towards us, and says that he is the prelate of all. And again he says: “Andrew did not receive the primacy, rather Peter did.” 441 Behold again that term unheard of to Calvin. He says the same about care of the Church of God entrusted to Peter by the Lord, in Chapter 1 to the Galatians, and at length in Sermon 11: “The Lord boards this boat of the Church alone, in which Peter is constituted the master, while the Lord says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Which boat so floats into the deep of this world, that while the world lays waste all whom it receives, will be saved unharmed, the figure of which we have already seen in the old Testament? Just as the ark of Noah, while the world shipwrecked, preserved unharmed all whom it had taken up, so the Church of Peter while the world burns, will manifest unharmed all whom it embraces. And just as then, the flood carried on the dove brought the sign of peace, so even while the judgment is carried out Christ shall bring the joy of peace to the Church of Peter.” St. Jerome says: “Among the twelve one was chosen, constituted as the HEAD so that the occasion of schism should be abolished. But why was John, a virgin, not chosen? It was conferred to age, because Peter was older, lest still an adolescent and nearly boy should be preferred to men of age.” 442 Thus you also hear the name of head, which was unheard of to Calvin. St. Augustine says everywhere that Peter held the primacy, and especially in De Baptismo. Where he also adds: “I reckon it is no slight to Cyprian to compare him with Peter with regard to his crown of martyrdom; I rather ought to fear lest I show disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? Yet, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom.” 443 It must be observed in this citation, altogether much from the opinion of Augustine, that the chair of Peter excels the chairs of particular bishops; although he fears lest it would seem he makes some contumacy against Peter, if he would compare Cyprian with him, who was still not only a bishop, but also the first of the whole of Africa. It must also be noted that Augustine thought the martyrdom of Cyprian can be compared with the Martyrdom of Peter, although Peter’s should be much more noble, because the palms of the martyrs are all of the same type: but the seat of Cyprian cannot be compared with the See of Peter, because the See of Peter is not only more noble than Cyprian’s, but is, in a certain measure, of a different kind, for they differ, as a whole and a part. Not only was Peter the Bishop of Rome, as Cyprian was of Carthage, but Peter was also the Pontiff of the whole world, while Cyprian was the pontiff of only one part of it. Augustine says the same thing on the penance of Peter, saying: “It cures the plague of the whole body of the Church in its head, it composes the health of all the members in its crown, etc.” 444 The author of the questions of the old and new testament, which are found in volume four of the works of Augustine, says: “Just as in the savior were origins of office, so even after the Savior all are contained in Peter. He constituted him as head of all, that he should be the shepherd of the Lord’s flock.” And below that: “It is manifest, in Peter all are contained, therefore asking for Peter, is understood to ask for all things Therefore the people are always either corrupted or praised in their leader.” St. Leo everywhere teaches this, especially in Sermon 3 “From the whole world, one Peter is chosen, who is put in charge both of the calling of all Nations and over all the Apostles and Fathers of the Church, that each in the people of God might be priests, and many shepherds, nevertheless, Peter properly rules all, whom Christ principally rules.” 445 And he also says: “It was provided in the great disposition, lest all should claim all things for themselves, rather that each one should be in each province, among whose brethren the first teaching might be held: And again, certain men among the elders were constituted in the greater cities that they might receive greater care, by whom the care of the universal Church will be brought to the one See of Peter, and nothing shall ever leave from his head.” 446 Behold, you also have the name of head, and care of the universal Church. St. Prosper of Aquitaine: O Rome, See of Peter, which for pastoral honor Made head in the world, whatever it doth not possess by arms It maintains by religion, etc. Arator, in Chapter 1, of Acts, speaks thus on Peter: -to whom the lamb had handed Having suffered he saved such sheep, and the whole world He increases the flock by this shepherd, In which office he rises supreme, etc. 447 St. Gregory the Great says: “Since everyone knows the Gospel, it is clear that, the Lord’s voice had consigned the care of the whole Church to the most blessed Peter, Prince of all the Apostles.” And below: “Behold the keys of the heavenly kingdom he receives, the power of binding and loosing is given him, the care of the whole Church to him, and the rule is granted.” 448 Bede says: “He saw the simplicity of his heart, he saw the sublimity of the soul, of him who was rightly to be put over the whole Church.” 449 And in another homily: “Therefore Blessed Peter, who confessed Christ with true faith, but followed by love, specially receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the rule of judicial power, that all believers through the world would understand, that whoever would merely separate themselves from the unity of faith of that society in any way, such men are neither absolved neither from the bonds of their sins nor can they go in the door of the kingdom of heaven.” 450 St. Bernard teaches: “The place in which you stand is holy ground, the place of Peter, the place of the Prince of the Apostles, where his feet stood; it is his place, whom the Lord constituted as master of his house and the prince of his every possession.” 451 And again: “The counterpart of the Lord walking over the water, he designated the unique Vicar of Christ, who ought not be over one people, but all, accordingly many waters, many people.” 452 By these twenty-four testimonies of the Fathers, just like the twenty-four voices of the Elders in the book of the Apocalypse, the consensus of the ancient Church is obviously shown, both Greek and Latin, against which no response can be made altogether, except what Luther and Calvin say about Pope Leo, that they suffered the concerns of men and were deceived. But if that were so, why did no man ever correct them? Certainly Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine and Damascene, detected the token bearers of heresies and heretics, and in their number they even placed Origen. But why, I ask, in the errors of Origen, did they not record what he said about Peter being handed the chief duty to feed the sheep by Christ? Why do they not number amongst the heretics Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Optatus, Leo, and others, since they so clearly taught that Peter held primacy and was head of the whole Church and that the whole world had been entrusted to him? Certainly such an error, which is for Antichrist, as they say, which is so obviously favored by the pens of all their writers, would behoove them to turn up. Why do the fathers shout as though with one mouth, that Ecclesiastical primacy was given to him by Christ, why do the same testify to so many characteristic prerogatives of Peter; why do we find in the sacred and divine scripture, that this very primacy was so liberally promised, which we see was faithfully given? Certainly we will be exceedingly obstinate, if we were to close our eyes against so clear a light of truth.

 

Chapter XXVI: The Argument from a Comparison of Peter with James is Refuted

The Arguments, which our adversaries usually make against the primacy of Peter, are for the most part answered in the explication of two passages of Scripture, Matthew XVI and the last Chapter of John, where we have treated on the rock, the keys and the sheep. Nevertheless, three things remain One on a comparison of Peter with James: the second, from a comparison of the same with Paul: lastly, the argument on the foul falls of Peter to be abhorred, which the Holy Spirit wished to be committed to letter by divine counsel, lest we would render too much to the Apostle Peter. Now the first argument is of Luther, from his book on the power of the Pope, where he tries to prove that James was greater than Peter for these reasons. First: “Christ was Bishop of Jerusalem, not Rome, and his apostles were priests: therefore James, who after the passion of Christ was assigned the episcopate, succeeded Christ, or certainly was his Vicar, not Peter.” Thereupon, “Jerusalem is the mother of all Churches; for ‘the law will go out from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’ Therefore James is father of all Churches, not Peter.” On that account: “The Council of Nicaea gave primacy to the bishop of Jerusalem, and confirmed that from ancient custom and tradition.” We can add two serious testimonies. One of Clement the Roman, quoted by Eusebius: “Peter, James and John, after the Assumption of the Savior, although given preference by him in nearly all things, nevertheless they did not claim glory for themselves; rather James, who was called Just, they established as bishop of the Apostles.” 453 Luther regarded this in his book on the power of the Pope, when he said: “Peter, James and John, rejected the primacy, and they constituted James the younger. Another is of Chrysostom, who says: “See the modesty of James. He received the duty of bishop of Jerusalem, and nevertheless says nothing. Consider, moreover, even the singular modesty of the other disciples, they concede to him by agreement, lest disputing amongst themselves they might hesitate.” 454 I respond to the first argument: Christ was not the bishop of any particular city, rather, he was and is the Pontiff not only of Jerusalem, but of the whole Church: Nor does anyone succeed him, since he always lives. Next, it was more fitting for his general Vicar, that he should constitute somewhere else besides at Jerusalem, because just as through the coming of Christ the law and priesthood were changed, so even it was fitting that the place of the high priest should be changed, and truly all things would be made new. Moreover, by chance the temple and Jerusalem were to be overturned and burned in short order after the Ascension of the Lord. To the second argument I say: the Church of Jerusalem is the mother of all Churches in antiquity, and distinguished by many privileges, on account of the presence of the Lord and the Apostles, which it had for a long time and especially on account of the mysteries of our redemption completed and consummated in that place; but still this is nothing prejudicial to the primacy of Peter. For just the same, James was the pastor and bishop of Jerusalem, so Peter was the pastor and bishop of the whole Church; and hence even of Jerusalem, which is a portion of the universal Church. Thus Chrysostom and Euthymius answer this argument, 455 whereby St Bernard takes their arguments, saying: “James, content with one Jerusalem, yielded all to Peter.” 456 To the third argument of Luther, I respond: Luther did not read the Council of Nicaea right. For, as we proved above, in the Council of Nicaea, the fourth place is given to the bishop of Jerusalem among the Patriarchs, in as much as it was an honorary concession, but no place was given in regard to true urisdiction. Therefore, as a simple bishop he is subjected to the bishop of Caesarea, the Metropolitan for the whole of Palestine. Now I respond to the testimony of Eusebius: That citation of Eusebius has been corrupted without any doubt. For although it is in the Codex of Basel, the version of Ruffinus contains the words which we cited above; nevertheless, in the Cologne version, edited by a Catholic man, the name primacy is not contained, and for in place of the words: “Apostolorum Episcopum,” “Hierosolymorum Episcopum.” are contained 457 Such a reading agrees especially with Nicephorus, and while alleging this citation in book 2, Chapter 3, still it does not agree with the opinion of Eusebius in the same book, of the Ecclesiastical History, where he says Peter was the greatest apostle, and the prince of the first. Lastly it agrees with what is in the Greek Codex, both from the Vatican Library, and the recent edition of Paris. Thus the Greek is contained in each text: “Pe,tron ga,r fh`si kai Ia,cobon kai. Iwa`nnen meta. th.n ana,lhyin tou/ Swteroj w`j a/n kai. u`po. tou/ Kuri,ou protetimhme.nouj me. evpidica, zesqai do.xhj avlla, Ia.cwbon to.n di.coton evpi,shpon Ieroslu,mwn e`le,sqai)” Therefore, Clement of Alexandria does not say that Peter, James and John conferred primacy of the whole Church upon James the younger, and made him a bishop of the Apostles, which is most absurd, but he merely says the Apostles in particular did not seek their own glory, and therefore did not assume for themselves the most noble Episcopate of them all in that time, but conferred it upon James the younger Therefore, although the Episcopate of one city would not derogate from the primacy, nevertheless it was no small glory to be made bishop of Jerusalem at that time, in which there was no particular Episcopate more noble than it. To the citation of Chrysostom, I say that he speaks on the seat of a particular bishop, when he says: “The Apostles conferred the see upon James.” For Chrysostom absolutely puts Peter ahead of James, which is manifest from many of his citations. For in his last homily of John on the words “Follow me,” he says: “By such words, again he shows care and familiar affection for him. What if someone were to inquire how James received the seat of Jerusalem? I would respond that he [Christ] constituted this Peter teacher of the whole world.” Likewise, Chrysostom says, after these words which are thrown out in the objection, adding about Peter: “Rightly, he first seizes upon the authority of all in this business, that he might have all in hand. Christ said to this one: “And when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren.” 458

 

Chapter XXVII: On the Comparison of Peter with Paul

The second argument is taken from the fact that Paul is called an Apostle through an antinomasia; thence it appears to follow, that he, rather more than Peter, was made Prince of the Apostles. “It happened that on ancient seals, whereby diplomas of the supreme Pontiff were signed, that images of Peter and Paul were discovered, but the latter on the right and the former on the left. But Thomas also observes this fact in the epistle to the Galatians, in the first lectio, as well as Peter Damian in a treatise on this matter.” I respond: Paul is called an Apostle by an antinomasia, not because he was greater than Peter with respect to power or authority, but for two other causes, which never detract from the primacy of Peter. One was, because he wrote many things, and was more learned and wiser in the other matters. Then indeed we nearly call him an Apostle by Antinomasia, when we cite the letters he wrote. The second was, because it pertains properly to the Apostle as it is for an Apostle to plant the faith Moreover, Paul planted the faith in many more places than any other. For the remaining Apostles were sent to certain provinces, while Paul was sent to the Gentiles, without any determination of province. And he speaks about himself: “I have labored more than all.” 459 Jerome also witnesses in Chapter 5 of Amos, concerning those words: “He who calls the waters of the sea, and pours them over the face of the earth,” that not only did Paul plant the faith of Christ throughout that whole very long journey, which went from Jerusalem even to Croatia, as Paul himself also says, 460 but even from the Red Sea to the ocean, through nearly the whole world, as beforehand the earth had been wanting for the zeal of preaching. Therefore, in that matter, by what is proper of an Apostle, Paul excelled, and just as Peter is called the Prince of the Apostles, because he was established as the head and shepherd of the sheep, so also Paul can be called the Prince of the Apostles, because he carried out the Apostolic duty most excellently. In the same manner Virgil is called the prince of Poets, and Cicero the prince of Orators. St. Augustine embraces each reasoning in a few words “When he is called the Apostle, and some Apostle is not named, no one is understood apart from Paul, because he is more known in many epistles and labored more than all the others.” 461 Moreover, to the objection on the images of Peter and of Paul, that they customarily so arrange it, that Paul is seen to the right of Peter, can be answered in many ways. Therefore, the first, although it is sufficiently certain, that Peter was greater than Paul in regard to authority, as we taught above from the testimony of the Fathers, 462 still, it is certain, that Paul is placed before Peter in all names, but this impedes nothing from the Roman Pontiffs or even from the pontificate of Peter himself. Not even to the Roman Pontiffs, because they acknowledge both Peter and Paul as a predecessor and parent Accordingly, each Apostle founded a Church at Rome and governed it, as among others Irenaeus observes, 463 and each ended in the city by martyrdom. Therefore all the glory of Paul pertains to the Roman Pontiffs. The supreme dignity and authority of Paul also does not check the pontificate of Peter, because it was extraordinary, such as it was. For that reason, it is just like the people of Israel; Moses was older than Aaron, and just the same Aaron truly and properly was the high priest and not Moses, but the children of Aaron succeeded in that supreme dignity, because the power of Moses was extraordinary, but of Aaron it was ordinary: so also if we were to admit by an extraordinary privilege Paul was greater than Peter, we would not on that count deny that Peter was the ordinary and supreme Pontiff of the Church. Thereupon, the response can be made, that it is not perpetual, that in the ancient images Paul takes up the right side. Accordingly in those which are still in Rome, as in certain ones Paul is discerned at the right, so in several others he is seen on the left, and as in charters Paul occupies the right, so also in coins he occupies the left. And perhaps by design, that which the fathers observe, that from the two supreme Apostles they put only one before the other. Without a doubt, the very manner should signify that these Apostles are either equal amongst themselves, or certainly they do not know whether one is better than the other. For although Peter is greater in power, Paul is greater in wisdom: as St. Maximus elegantly preaches, that Peter holds the key of power, but to Paul holds that of wisdom. 464 Hence, St. Leo says: “These, the grace of God has carried to such a height among all the members of the Church, that they in the body, whose head is Christ, it constituted as a twin light of the eyes, on whose merits and virtues there is nothing different, we ought to think distinguished, because them even by election are equal, and similar labor, and their end makes them equals.” 465 And St. Maximus says: “Similarly, Blessed Peter and Paul emanate among all, and they excel all by a certain peculiar prerogative: but among themselves, who is before the other is uncertain. I reckon indeed that these are equal in regard to merits, because they are equal in regard to their suffering.” 466 St. Gregory says: “Paul the Apostle is the brother of Peter first in the Apostolic rule.” 467 The third response can also be applied. For, as Anthony Nebrissensis records in an annotation to five hundred places of Scripture, when two fall together, it was once observed, that the older and more honored should be at the left; but the younger confined to the right side, and something would precede to yield in the sign. Thereupon, those who are at the sides [laterones] and by contraction, thieves [latrones] those who covered the right side of more noble men for the sake of their defense. He proves that by many arguments, but especially from the testimony of two famous Poets. For Ovid says on an old man: Et medius juvenum non indignantibus illis, Ibat et interior si comes unus erat. 468 Next, he is said to be more intimate, who is at the left side, as we learn from Virgil, who says in the Aeneid about Cloantho, who sailed to the left side of Gyae: Ille inter navemque Gyae scopulosque sonantes radit iter laevum interior, subitusque priorem praeterrit. 469 We can add the testimony of Eusebius, who writes in the life of Constantine, that he saw Constantine as a youth in Palestine going to the province with the elder Augustus, and always marched along his right. Nor can there be any doubt, whether Constantine was a youth, and almost a privatus in should be in a less honored place than the elder Augustus. Nor is what Ambrose 470 says opposed to these, nor Jerome, 471 that to sit at the right is a greater sign of honor For it is absolutely more honorable at the right, and especially in seats gathered by right order. That if two seats might be placed to the wall, and one does not cover the other, there can be no doubt, whether the right ought to be held to be more excellent: nevertheless there is a second reason from the assault, when one covers the side of another with his body. No, therefore, it is believable in the beginning that Paul began at the right of Peter, as a younger and lesser; for that reason in pontifical charters Paul is thus placed to the right of Peter, that he should go before him, and nearly cover the whole which is an argument on the obedience in Paul, and the dignity in Peter. Moreover, what afterward began to be designated to the right, even when he did not cover Peter, or since Christ, or the Blessed Virgin hold the middle place: and it appears to have been done from inexperience, without a doubt they had seen Paul depicted thus somewhere at the right, nor did they notice, that he was at the right to cover Peter; he merely reckoned it was done on account of honor done for Paul, and for that reason, even in seats, or when they might stand much amongst themselves, to give the right side to Paul. It remains that, not on account of the honor of Paul, that it was done by the Fathers; or thence could be proven, that in all other matters Peter is put before Paul. If they must be named, Peter goes before; if they are invoked in prayers, Peter goes before, if a feast day is celebrated in their honor, Peter is first Why therefore, in images is that otherwise perpetual order changed? Next, if this is not proved from someplace, it can be admitted that for the sake of honor that Paul is placed to the right of Peter in signs and images, and this seems to be for three reasons. First, because he appears to be of more profit to the Church than Peter, for he led many from the Gentiles to the faith of Christ; he traveled to more provinces with the greatest labor, and left behind many writings, and these are very useful to us. But the Church in cultivating the memory of the Saints, does not so look upon degree of honor, which they had on earth, as upon the advantage which they brought to the next generation. Therefore, since for the sake of gratitude she honors them, she brings a greater devotion to those, whom she owes more. Certainly Stephen and Lawrence the Deacon were such, the former of which ministered more than St James as a bishop and apostle, the latter, more than St. Sixtus, a Roman Pontiff, and still the Church honors Stephen more than James, and Laurence more than Sixtus, because these martyrs are the most famous of these Deacons and marvelously light the way for the whole Church. For equal reason, St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas were simple priests; Anthony of the desert, Benedict and Francis, were not even Priests, and nevertheless, in regard to veneration, they are put forth by the Church ahead of many holy bishops, Martyrs, and even Supreme Pontiffs, because in their written works, they are advantageous to the Church by the establishment of a great many of the religious orders. The second reason is that Paul was especially the Doctor of the Gentiles, Peter of the Jews, that therefore the Church would signify that the Gentiles were at length put ahead of the Jews, by that which he said: “The greater will serve the lesser,” thus Paul was put ahead of Peter. The third reason can be, because Peter was called by Christ while he was still in this mortal life, and for that reason is placed on the left, while Paul was called from heaven by Christ in his glorified body, and while reigning and seated at the right of the Father. Moreover, this reasoning Peter Damian also touches upon in an epistle to Desiderius, when he writes on this very question; Innocent III and St. Thomas also speak on it. 472 Peter Damian adds also a fourth reason, that certainly Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, and in the very matter Benjamin was shown and expressly by a type in the Scriptures: hence, although Benjamin was last amongst his brothers, nevertheless he was called to the right hand of his father, and was put before all the brethren by Joseph. 473

 

Chapter XXVIII: The Objection of the Fifteen Sins of St. Peter is Refuted

The last argument is taken from the dreadful falls of St Peter, which the Centuriators of Magdeburg enumerate. 474 They also say that the memory of these were handed down by the counsel of the Holy Spirit, lest too much be granted to Peter, which God foresaw was going to happen in future ages. The first fall that they bring, is found in Matthew XIV from the curiosity of Peter, as they say, he sought from the Lord, that he should be called forth onto the sea, and therefore was later punished, and fell into greater sins, certainly wavering. I respond: There is no sin of Peter in this place, rather more, singular faith. For if Peter had sinned by asking that he should be called forth onto the sea, he would not have obtained what he asked for. For the miracles of God do not cooperate with our sins. For this reason, St. Maximus says: “This is Peter, who was so trusting of Christ, that the sea proved itself subject to his footprints. For new steps were given to him in the waves by his Lord, as faithful he asked, so beloved he merits. It seemed that he was afraid on account of this alone, that human frailty recognized how great a distance it was between the Lord and the servant.” And below: “Truly blessed faith of Peter, and while he wavered, wondrous, whom dread of the danger could not disturb. Therefore, by shouting while he sank, ‘O Lord, save me,’ he despaired of himself, not the Lord when he doubted, lest someone would argue this fear of the most glorious Peter was a vice, etc.” 475 Secondly, they place what Peter said to Christ in Matthew XVI: “Far be it O Lord, may it not be so for you.” The Centuriators argue that by these words, St. Peter committed a foul and dreadful fall. “By these words a grievous fall is described, in which he merited eternal damnation, unless he were to be retrieved by the vastness of Christ’s mercy. Nor is there a doubt, whether what he had asked in earnest was a sin.” I respond: By far St. Jerome reckoned this event otherwise For he says, commenting on the 14 th Chapter of St. Matthew: “In all places, Peter is discovered with the most ardent faith The disciples, after being asked whom men said Jesus was, Peter confessed that he was the Son of God: wishing to forbid him to continue to his passion, although he erred in sense, nevertheless he did not err in affection.” And he says in the sixteenth Chapter: “It seems to me, this error of the Apostle comes from a feeling of piety, since will never appear in tune with the Devil.” The third sin they bring to the fore is what Peter says in Matthew XVII: “O Lord, it is good for us to be here, if you wish, let us make here three tents, etc.” Now the Centuriators say: “Peter sinned, because the memory of this thing, and the cult he would think to establish outside the word of God; nay more, even the voice of the heavenly Father castigates Peter’s superstition.” I respond: that Peter in no way sinned is clear from Mark Chapter 9, which says: “He did not know what to say, they were indeed extremely terrified.” Therefore Peter was taken up in some measure outside himself, when he said these things, and although in such an excess of mind he could have erred, certainly he could not sin in any way. Nay more, Chrysostom teaches on this citation, that Peter’s words proceed from very great fervor: “You see with what fervor he burned for Christ, thus you ought not seek how prudently he exhorted, but rather how fervent he was in the charity of Christ, and how inflamed he was.” Besides it is a wonder how a new cult in memory of the transfiguration should smell of superstition to the Centuriators, since Peter clearly said: “It is good for us to be here,” and hence “tents,” not in memory of a past thing, rather he wished to erect tents for the present dwelling with the glorious Christ. Wherefore St. Leo says, that what Peter asked was good, but of a lesser order, because it was not yet the time to come up into his glory. 476 Nevertheless, he did not sin in begging for the glory before its time, because he did not know what he said. The fourth fall they bring, is that Peter was the one, and perhaps not the last from their number, who agitated the question of who was going to be the greatest of them; the ignorance and ambition of which Christ was compelled to repress with a great discourse in Matthew XVIII. Yet, Scripture nowhere says that Peter was in their number, and the Fathers commenting on Chapter eighteen of St. Matthew, namely Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome and others all eloquently teach, that not Peter, but the other disciples advanced the question, because they suspected Peter was put before all the others, and this very thing is gathered from the Gospel. For when he said lastly in Chapter Seventeen that Peter was sent to the sea, they added in the beginning of Chapter XVIII: In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: “Who do you reckon is greater?” By such words it indicates, that while Peter was absent, that question was advanced Accordingly in that hour, whereby Peter was sent away to the sea, the rest of the disciples were present with the Lord. The fifth fall the Centuriators bring, is found in Matthew XVIII. Peter wished to restrict the remission o sins to the number seven, saying: “How often will my brother sin against me, and I should still forgive him? Even to seven times?” I respond: These are puerile trifles nor did Peter wish to restrict anything, but asked a question of his master. The sixth fall they constitute against him is in Matthew XIX: Peter broke out in these words: “Behold we have left all things behind, what will we receive?” There it seems to them that Peter dreamed of certain carnal rewards, and even spoke arrogantly. Let us hear the commentary of Chrysostom: “He does not speak by ambition, or inane glory, but that he might lead in the people of the poor.” The Lord himself also does not convict Peter as of sin, but rather, great rewards are promised to him. They enumerate for the seventh fall, what Peter says in John XIII: “You will never wash my feet,” they say this is a certain ignorance and by a depraved devotion he denies that he is going to allow that Christ shall wash his feet.” I respond: The Fathers by far judge differently about the acts of Peter. St. Augustine says here that Peter acted in refusing it, which every other Apostle did. St. John Chrysostom notes on this citation: “It was not an argument of small love or reverence, but on account of excessive love he spoke thus.” Likewise, “By vehemently refusing, Peter was also more vehement in permitting, both were done out of love.” St. Basil, in a sermon on the judgment of God, which is put forth in morals, says on the matter: “He gave nothing meaning sin or contempt, but rather he used the most excellent honor towards the Lord, showing the reverence agreeable of a servant and disciple.” St. Cyril says: “Rightly, under such a weight of the matter, the faithful disciple became very scared, and using for himself the fruit of the customary reverence, he refused.” 477 They would have it that the Eighth fall is what Peter said in Matthew XXVI: “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.” It seems that he alleged the Lord to be a liar, who had predicted he was going to deny him. But let us hear Jerome on this citation: “It is not rashness, nor a lie, rather the faith of the Apostle Peter, even burning with affection toward the Savior.” And Chrysostom: “For what reason did it happen to you? Certainly from much love, and much desire.” Therefore there was either no fall, or it was an excess of piety and love. Now they would have it that the Ninth is that he slept when he was bidden to watch in the garden. But the Evangelist excuses him and the remaining Apostles, saying: “For their eyes were heavy.” And rightly, although they should have watched much of the night, I do not see why it was so grave a sin to be conquered by sleep. They enumerate the tenth fall, from Matthew XXVI. Peter cut off the ear of Malchus: “Against the command of Christ,” the Centuriators say, “he boldly used a sword, and in an impious attempt, cut off the ear of Malchus, the minister of the High Priest.” And further on they say: “With violent force, he [Peter] tried to impede the aforesaid counsel of God in Scripture, in as much as he could.” But in the first place it is a lie to say that Peter used a sword against the command of Christ. The Lord had said nothing about the use of the sword before, apart from that which is contained in Luke: “Whoever does not have a sword, let him sell his tunic and buy one.” 478 And when the disciples said: “Behold there are two swords here,” Christ responded: “It is enough,” that is, two are sufficient. By such words, in reality he commanded nothing concerning the use of a sword, much less did he forbid it. And even though the Lord afterward expressed disapproval of Peter’s deed, because he did not lack defense, nevertheless neither the Lord, nor the holy Fathers blame Peter’s intention, nay more, they praise it. Chrysostom says: “You consider love, piety and humility of the disciple Therefore, it is one thing to strike Malchus from a fervor of love, it is another to put the sword back in its sheath, and to do so out of obedience.” 479 St. Cyril says: “The intention of Peter, who took up the sword against enemies, was not foreign to the command of the law.” 480 Ambrose tells us that: “Peter was well instructed in the law, and by the affect of need, who knew the repute unto justice of Phineas who destroyed the sacrilegious and struck the servant of the priest.” 481 Therefore, what the Centuriators say is blasphemous, that Peter impiously attempted that and violently impeded the counsel of God. Therefore, he prepared that defense not from hatred against the counsel of God, but from love for his master. For the eleventh, they place the denial of Peter, which we do not deny was a great sin, but far be it that such a sin should be against his primacy, as it rather more confirms it. So St Gregory says: “It must be considered for us, why almighty God had arranged that he, born before the whole Church, should become scared of a handmaid and permitted himself to deny him. Yet without a doubt we recognize in the act, by a dispensation of great piety, that he who was going to be shepherd of the Church, should learn in his own fault, how he ought to have mercy on others.” 482 They make the twelfth fault, that after the Lord was taken by the Jews, “the excellent, courageous hero Peter picked up and fled.” But first, not only did Peter do this, but as it says in Matthew XXVI: “All the disciples left him behind and fled.” Thereafter, although Peter fled in the beginning, nevertheless he soon returned, “And followed him from afar,” as we read in the same place. Add the last, that there does not seem to be sin in flight. For if they ought to have followed the Lord, or thrown themselves down to die for him, then they should have followed. But they already understood, that the Lord refused any defense be made for himself: nor were they held to lay themselves down to die, since rather more they had received the command to flee: “When they persecute you in one city, flee to another.” 483 The thirteenth fall which the Centuriators enumerate, is that after the resurrection of the Lord, when Peter ran to the tomb with great ardor, still he had not yet rightly received the point of the resurrection as John shows. 484 But in the same place John defends himself and Peter together from that incrimination, when he says: “They did not yet know the Scriptures, that it was fitting for him to rise from the dead.” Therefore Peter labored in a certain ignorance at that time, but without his own fault. Nor was he among those who refuse to understand that they might do well, but simply was ignorant. The fourteenth fall they place in those words from John XXI:21, where he asks curiously about John: “What of this man?” For which the Lord scolds him: “What of you? Follow me.” In other respects, if that curiosity must be said, forgiveness is very worthy. For, as Chrysostom writes in this place, from the exceeding charity of Peter toward John. Peter reckoned John to desire to ask concerning himself, but did not dare to do so; for that reason, that he might oblige him, he asked the Lord. The last fall the Centuriators constitute, is on the event at Antioch where he did not walk in the truth of the Gospel, and for that reason was rightly condemned by Paul. In referring to that as a sin, the Centuriators sufficiently imitate their elders, Marcion the heresiarch and the apostate Julian, who said Peter was marked and scolded on account of a very grave sin by Paul. Now their calumnies had already been refuted by Tertullian and Cyril. 485 The matter, however, is considered this way. The Apostle Peter, when he had carried on at Antioch, took food with Christian liberty with the gentiles: Now certain Jews came upon him who were sent by James the Apostle to Peter Then Peter began to think, that he could scarcely evade an offense, either of Gentiles or of Jews. For if he continued to eat food with the Gentiles, without a doubt he would offend the Jews, who still were weak in faith and could not yet persuade themselves that it was lawful for Jews to use the food of the nations: but on the contrary, were he to separate himself from the Gentiles, and eat food apart from them with the Jews, he should incure offense against the Gentiles, of course, who either would argue the shallowness of Peter, or begin to Judaize after the example of such a man. Therefore, in this disturbance of mind St. Peter chose that, which he thought the least bad, as it was plain to see he was an especial Apostle to the Jews rather than the Gentiles, than that he should offend the Jews. Now Paul ridiculed that choice, and sharply scolded Peter with sufficiency. Now in regard to this deed of Peter, the Greek Fathers will to be free from every sin, as is certain from their commentaries on Chapter 2 to the Galatians, and St. Jerome wrote under the Greeks, both in commentaries of the same epistle and in an epistle to St. Augustine, 486 but many of the Latins recognize some sin in this deed of Peter. 487 It remains, that though it was certainly a sin, it was either venial, that is it was very light, or only material, that is it was a certain error, without any fault of Peter. Accordingly, it is certain that he did what he did with the best intentions. With respect to this, he erred in his choice. The reason was either some inconsideration, and thus the sin would have been venial, or from a lack of knowledge, and then it would be an involuntary ignorance, and consequently he committed no fault. Moreover, it is believable that divine providence was at work, so that in this businesses the mind of Paul would be made more clear than the mind of Peter, and we would be furnished with a very useful example both of the liberty in Paul, and of the patience and humility in Peter.