St. Robert Bellarmine. De Romano Pontifice: Book II

De Romano Pontifice: Book II 

Chapter I: A Question is Proposed, Whether St. Peter Went to Rome, Remained There as a Bishop and Died There 

Chapter II: That Peter was at Rome 

Chapter III: St. Peter Died at Rome 

Chapter IV: Peter was a Bishop at Rome, even to Death 

Chapter VI: The Second Argument of our Adversaries is Answered 

Chapter VII: Another Five Arguments are Answered 

Chapter VIII: Another Eight Arguments are Answered 

Chapter IX: The Sixteenth Argument is Answered 

Chapter X: The Seventh Argument is Answered 

Chapter XI: The Last Argument is Answered 

Chapter XII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven by Divine Law and by the plan of Succession 

Chapter XIII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is proven from Councils 

Chatpter XIV: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is proven from the Testimonies of the Supreme Pontiffs 

Chapter XV: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proved from the Greek Fathers 

Chapter XVI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Latin Fathers 

Chapter XVII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proved from the Origin and Antiquity of the Primacy 

Chapter XVIII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Authority Which the Roman Pontiff Exercised over Other Bishops. 

Chapter XIX: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from Laws, Dispensations and Censures 

Chapter XX: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Vicars of the Pope 

Chapter XXI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Law of Appeals 

Chapter XXII: The Arguments of Nilus on the Law of Appeals are Answered 

Chapter XXIII: The First Argument of the Lutherans is Answered 

Chapter XXIV: Another Three Arguments are Answered 

Chapter XXV: The Last Argument on the VI Council of Carthage is Answered 

Chapter XXVI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the fact that the Supreme Pontiff is Judged by No One 

Chapter XXVII: The Arguments of Nilus are Answered 

Chapter XXVIII: The Objections of Calvin are Answered 

Chapter XXIX: Another Nine Arguments are Answered 

Chapter XXX: The Last Argument is Answered, Wherein the Argument is Taken up, Whether a Heretical Pope can be Deposed 

Chapter XXXI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven From the Names, which Roman Pontiffs are Usually Given 

De Romano Pontifice: Book II On the Successors of the Supreme Pontiff N

 Chapter I: A Question is Proposed, Whether St. Peter Went to Rome, Remained There as a Bishop and Died There

 ow that those matters which pertain to the explication and defense of the primacy of Peter have been constituted, we turn to those which pertain to the primacy of his successors. Seeing that the right of succession of the Roman Pontiffs is founded on the fact that Peter placed his see with the Lord’s permission in Rome, and that he sat in that seat and died there. Therefore the first question arises: Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome, and did not thence ever transfer his see to another. Most of today’s heretics call this into doubt, that which has constantly been believed by the whole world for 1500 years, without a doubt St. Peter was a Bishop of Rome and gave up his ghost through martyrdom of the cross; some of those who treat this argument are more modest, while others are more mpudent. The first that I know of, who taught that St. Peter was neither Bishop of Rome or ever saw Rome itself was a certain William, the master of John Wycliff, as Thomas the Waldensian relates. 488 The Lutheran, Ulrich Velenus followed him, who published a whole book on the matter, wherein by 18 persuasions (as he calls them) he reckons he has demonstrated that Peter was never at Rome, and both Peter and Paul were not at Rome, but were killed in Jerusalem. At the end of the book he tells us that for his labor, he, without any doubt, was going to receive the rewards of the unfading crown by God. Now truly, if God deigns to reward lies with a crown, then there can be no doubt Velenus will receive a very splendid one. Illyricus also says in a book against the primacy of the Pope: “The proof is certain that Peter was never at Rome.” John Calvin, after he shows that there is doubt about the whole matter, concludes: “Nevertheless, on account of the consensus of writers, I do not quibble over whether he died there, but rather whether he was a bishop, especially for a very long time; of that I cannot be persuaded.” 489 The Centuriators hold similar things. 490 Moreover, it must be observed, that there are four things which are called nto doubt. First, whether Peter was at Rome? Secondly, whether he died at Rome? Thirdly, whether he was Bishop of Rome? Fourthly, did he ever move the Roman Episcopate once it was received? From these four alone the last is necessarily required and suffices to constitute the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. That is the reason why Calvin could by no means admit only the fourth, while he made little trouble about the other three. This is because it is clear that the first neither requires nor suffices since, although there are many Roman Pontiffs who never avoided that they should come to Rome, there are also many Roman Pontiffs who were never at Rome, such as Clement V, John XXII, Benedict XII, Clement VI, Innocent VI and Urban V, all who were ordained in France, and all remained in the same place. Likewise, the second is neither required, nor suffices for it is seen that many Roman Pontiffs died outside of Rome; for Clement I died in Pontus Pontianus in Sardinia, John I at Ravenna, Agapetus at Constantinople, Innocent III at Pergia, Innocent IV in Naples, John XX at Viterbo, and others in other places. The same is attested by the countless multitude, who daily die at Rome and still are not Roman Pontiffs. Moreover, the Third is required, but does not suffice, for it is gathered from it that Peter was bishop at Antioch, and nevertheless because he transferred that see to another place, the bishops of Antioch never thereafter held first place. Therefore, the fourth alone is required and suffices. Still, since all of them are true we will prove them individually by their proper arguments. 

Chapter II: That Peter was at Rome 

Now, so as to begin from the first point at issue, we will show that St. Peter was at some time in Rome, first from the testimony of Peter himself. He says as much at the end of the first epistle: “The Church gathered in Babylon greets you, as well as Marcus my son.” 491 Papias, a disciple of the Apostles witnesses that this epistle was written from Rome, which is called Babylon by Peter. Eusebius witnesses this: “Papias also says this, because Peter in his first epistle, which he wrote from the city of Rome, made mention of Mark whereby figuratively he named Rome Babylon, since he says; ‘The Church chosen in Babylon greets you, and Mark my son.’” 492 Jerome also witnesses in his book, de viris illust., on Mark, that: “Peter, in his first epistle, meaning Rome figuratively by the name of Babylon says, ‘the Church which is gathered in Babylon, greets you.’” Oecumenius, Bede and everyone else who published commentaries on this epistle express the same thing. Additionally, John the Apostle calls Rome Babylon everywhere in the book of the Apocalypse, as Tertullian observes. 493 It is obviously gathered from Chapter 17 of the Apocalypse, where Babylon is called the great seat upon many hills, and has dominion over the kings of the earth. Now in John’s time there was no other city, which had rule over the kings of the earth apart from Rome, and it is known rather well that Rome was built upon seven hills. Thereupon, our adversaries shout that Rome is Babylon from the book of the Apocalypse. Indeed, Luther himself titled his book: de Babylonica captivitate, and the Centuriators accept the Apocalypse in the number of the divine books, for no other reason than that in this book many things were said against Rome, under the name of Babylon. 494 For which reason, if Rome is Babylon in the Scriptures, as they would have it, and Peter writes “from Babylon,” he certainly writes from Rome. Velenus however responds: “The true Babylon was only in two places, one n Assyria, the other in Egypt, which now is called Chayrum; from which it follows that Peter wrote from Assyria, or from Egypt, not from Italy when he said ‘in Babylon.’” (loc. cit.) Yet Velenus says nothing of value, for we have shown from many writers that Peter speaks about Babylon not properly so called, but on that which in the Apocalypse is figuratively called Babylon. Whereby, it must be believed more than one Velenus, who could bring no author on behalf of his exposition Otherwise, let Velenus tell us if there was no Babylon outside of Assyria and Egypt, what indeed is that Babylon that is said in the Apocalypse to have rule over the kings of the earth? Indeed it is certain this fits neither Assyria nor Egypt. Yet Velenus insists: “If with Peter they understand Rome by the name Babylon, and even with John, therefore all who leave the Roman Church do so correctly. For in Apocalypse XVIII we read thus: “It fell, it fell, Babylon the Great and it was made the habitation of demons and the confinement of every unclean spirit.’ etc. And again: ‘Go out from that, my people, that lest you be made partakers of her crimes, and that you do not receive her misfortune.’” I respond: Babylon is not called the Roman Church, but the city of Rome such it was in the time of John. For, as Tertullian expresses it, just as the true Babylon was the head of an empire and had a king, Nebuchadnezzar, who persecuted the people of God and led them into captivity, so also in the time of the Apostles Rome was the head of an empire, and had an emperor, Nero, who cruelly persecuted the people of God. 495 John predicted that this Babylon would fall to ruin, because the Roman Empire had to be blotted out, which we now know was certainly done. Did not the Goths, Vandals, Huns and Lombards reduce the empire of the city of Rome almost to nothing? He calls the same Babylon the dwelling place of demons, and the charge of every unclean spirit, because (as St. Leo says in his sermon on the birth of the Apostles) when she lorded over all the Nations, she served the errors of all the Nations. He says concerning this: “Go out from her, o my people,” which is understood concerning the heart, not the body, as St. Augustine shows. 496 Indeed, John bids that the Saints should not be joined with the heathen and dolaters in the similitude of their customs and life, even if they might be able to be together with them in the same city. For which reason it is also certain that Christians never went out of the city on account of these words of John. This is why St. Jerome, in an epistle to Marcella, which, in the name of Paula and Eustochia, he exhorts her that she would migrate from Rome into Bethlehem, and after he brings to bear these words from the Apocalypse against Rome, he immediately adds: “Indeed, the Holy Church is there, where the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs are, the true confession of Christ, there the faith is preached by the Apostle, and there, with paganism being trampled daily, the Christian name lifts itself on high, etc.” By such words he teaches that John was not speaking against the Roman Church, but against Roman paganism. And Jerome addresses Rome thus in another place: “I speak to you who has blotted out the blasphemy written on the forehead by the confession of Christ.” 497 Secondly, this same thing is proved from the last book of Acts of the Apostles, as well as from the epistle to the Romans. It is established from those places that there were many Christians at Rome, nay more a full and flourishing Church, before Paul had come there. Therefore, I ask who made these Christians, if Peter was not at Rome? For, many fathers write about the fact that Peter preached to the Romans first of all, and founded a Church before Paul would have come there. Yet that someone else had done that, cannot be shown by any firm argument. Certainly, Irenaeus says that the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul, that is first by Peter, thereafter by Paul and together with Paul. 498 Eusebius, speaking about Peter, says: “He first opened the door of the heavenly kingdom with the keys of the Gospel in the city of Rome with the word of salutary preaching.” 499 Arnobius says that Rome converted to Christ because t had seen the fiery chariot of Simon Magus blow apart by the prayer of Peter and immediately vanish after the name of Christ had been invoked. 500 Epiphanius says: “Peter and Paul were the first in Rome.” 501 St. John Chrysostom says: “Peter the fisherman, especially because he occupied the royal city, shone more brightly than the sun after death.” 502 Paul Orosius writes: “In the beginning of the reign of Claudius, Peter the Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ came to Rome, and taught salutary faith with a faithful word to all, and confirmed it by the most potent virtues, and thence Christians began to be at Rome.” 503 Pope St. Leo says: “When the Apostles received the charge to be distributed throughout the parts of the world to imbue it with the Gospel, the most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostolic order, was destined to the capital of the Roman Empire.” 504 Theodoret writes: “The great Peter first offered the Evangelical doctrine to them (the Romans).” 505 Gregory of Tours in his History, after he had shown that Peter came to Rome under the rule of the Emperor Claudius, added: “From those days Christians began to be in the city of Rome.” 506 The Emperor Theodosius says: “The empire rules all people whom of our mercy, we wish to live in such a religion, as that religion which St. Peter the Apostle handed to the Romans, and still declares to be at work.” 507 Add the prophecies of the Erythraean Sybil, which among the other things it predicted that Christ was going to subjugate the city of Aeneas not in the sword or war but on the hook of the fisherman. Antoninus refers to this prophecy also. 508 Velenus responds, that after the passion of Christ, which was still in the time of the Emperor Tiberias, Christians began to be at Rome, as he says Orosius hands down, 509 as well as Tertullian in the Apologeticus, Plantina in Vita Christi, and Tranquillus in Vita Tiberii. From which it follows that the Roman Church was not founded by Peter, who of course is said to have first come to Rome in the time of Claudius. Let us add in favor of Velenus the testimony of Clement, where we read that Barnabas preached at Rome in the time of Tiberias. 510 In this Dorotheus Tyrensis followed, who says that Barnabas was the first who preached at Rome I respond: It is false that any Christians were in Rome in the time of Tiberias and what the Fathers say is very true, that Peter preached to the Romans, and that in the time of the Emperor Claudius. For, from four authors cited by Velenus, only two are ancient, Tranquillus and Tertullian, and they do not say this at all, thus Velenus clearly is lying, although in the preface he solemnly swears by his own conscience that he would thrust in no lie or deceit Tranquillus does not mention Christians in the life of Tiberias, but in the life of Claudius, where he says the Jews made a tumult over the instigation of Christ and were expelled from Rome by Claudius. This certainly favors our teaching for we contend that Christians began to be in Rome in the time of Claudius. Now Tertullian in the Apologeticus indicates the contrary. For, he says that Pilate wrote from Palestine to Tiberius about the resurrection of Christ, and that God was believed by many, which Tiberius related to the Senate, whether it seemed that Christ must be received as a God. Then the Senate refused, for the reason that he would have already been considered a God by the people, as Pilate had written, rather than that he should be consecrated by the Senate From such a tale it cannot be gathered that Christians were then at Rome, but rather more that they were not. If indeed they were, it would be from them that Tiberius first recognized the report of Christ than from a letter of Pilate. Next, Orosius, whom Platina followed, added to the words of Tertullian that the Senate decreed that Christians were to be banished from the city Orosius eloquently teaches in the same seventh book that Christians were not at Rome until after the arrival of Peter, who came while Claudius ruled. Therefore the sense of the edict was this, that the Christian religion should not be received n any way, and from the city should be banished if ever one who was a Christian should arrive. Still, such an edict would have no force, for, as the same Orosius relates, Tiberius established a penalty for the accusers of Christians. Now I respond to that about Barnabas. It is not true that Barnabas preached to the Romans in the time of Tiberius. It is certain that no one preached to the Nations before Peter was admonished in a vision in Acts X and XI. From that time, Barnabas was always together with Paul, and carried through to the Council of Jerusalem, as is clear from Acts XI-XV, and since Paul had not at that time gone to Rome, it is certain Barnabas did not go. The Council of Jerusalem however, was celebrated in the eighteenth year after the passion of the Lord, as is gathered from Paul in Galatians I and II, which was in the thirteenth year from the death of Tiberius; therefore, Barnabas did not come to Rome in the times of Tiberius. Add to this point that the book of Recognitions is held to be Apocryphal Hence, Dorotheus Tyrensi is incorrectly reckoned to be the author of the Synopsis, a book that is filled with fabrications and lies. For (that I might pass over others), by what reason can that author be defended, since he numbers among the seventy two disciples the Eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia, whom it s certain was converted by Philip after the Lord’s Ascension, and he makes Junia a bishop, even though it is certain she was a woman? Furthermore he says that Caesar, of whom Paul makes mention in his letter to the Philippians, was a disciple of Christ and a bishop, even though it is clear that Paul is speaking about Nero Caesar. Lastly, add that if we were to receive the books of Recognitions and the Sypopsis of Dorotheus, it would profit Velenus little, or nothing at all Likewise, therefore, Clement, whom Dorotheus followed, in the same place that he relates about Barnabas he says he accomplished nothing at Rome, and mmediately after the first sermon held without fruit, he returned to Judaea. Thirdly, the history concerning the Gospel of Mark it is proven. Serious authors constantly write that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, exactly as he had heard Peter preaching; indeed Eusebius writes this, as well as many other Fathers. 511 Lastly, Tertullian says that the Gospel of Mark is ascribed to Peter that in the very matter Mark was the interpreter and disciple of Peter, just as the Gospel of Luke is attributed to Paul: “What the disciples promulgated began to be seen to be of their masters.” 512 Velenus responds, that they are all deceived, because they failed to notice that there were two Marks. One, who was called John Mark, concerning whom a mention is made in Acts of the Apostles, XII-XV; the second, who was called Mark Aristarchus, about whom Paul speaks in his epistle to Philemon. From these two, the first wrote the Gospel, and was the Bishop of Alexandria, and was a disciple and follower of Peter, yet never saw Rome. The second, was at Rome with Paul, but did not write a Gospel. Next, the Fathers, who agree with the two Marks, attributed to one, and hence, fell into that error, that they should reckon Mark to have written a Gospel at Rome. But our Velenus has committed three errors. The first, is that he reckons in the Epistle to Philemon that Marcus Aristarchums is one man, when obviously they are two. Thus indeed Paul says: “Thus my fellow captives in Christ greet you Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke my helpers.” And more clearly in the last Chapter of Colossians: “Aristarchus my fellow captive greats you, as well as Mark, a relation of Barnabus.” The second error is that he would have it that Mark the Evangelist was never at Rome, because he was the Bishop of Alexandria; as if he could not be sent from Rome to Alexandria by St. Peter, or even as if he could not come from Alexandria to Rome, and again return from Rome to Alexandria. The third error asserts that the Gospel was written by John Mark. For John Mark was a relation of Barnabas, and a disciple of Paul, as is gathered from Acts XII-XV, and from the last Chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, that he even survived until the fourteenth year of Nero. Accordingly, Paul, in his second epistle to Timothy, which he wrote in the fourteenth year of Nero, with his martyrdom imminent, bid Mark to be sent to him. Yet Mark the evangelist and Bishop of Alexandria was killed in the eighth year of Nero, as Eusebius writes in his Chronicle, and Jerome in the book on Mark in De Viris Illustribus Fourthly, this same thing can be proved from the history of St. Peter’s glorious conquest over Simon Magus at Rome, which is true from the testimony of many Fathers, as we proved in the previous book. Lastly, all the arguments agree with those which we will make plain in the following Chapter that St. Peter underwent martyrdom for Christ at Rome, nor could anyone die at Rome who had never been there. 

Chapter III: St. Peter Died at Rome 

Now St. Peter not only came to Rome at some point, but also, together with Paul, laid down his life for Christ, as their tombs especially witness. For if Peter and Paul did not die at Rome, who brought their bodies to Rome? From where and when, and with what witnesses did someone bring them? If perhaps they would respond, that the bodies of the Apostles were not at Rome, I ask where in the world are they? Certainly they were never said to be any other place. Nor does it have the appearance of truth that the bodies of the greatest Apostles would be so neglected, since we see the bodies of so many other saints most diligently preserved. Eusebius made this argument to such a degree that he thought it was superfluous to seek any others. He says: “Therefore Nero, as he openly declared himself a host of divinity and godliness, asked for the death of those Apostles, indeed who were the generals and standard bearers in the people of God. Accordingly he condemned Paul to fall short by a head in the city of Rome itself, but Peter on the gibbet of the cross. I reckon it superfluous to seek testimony of them beyond this, since the deed is famous even to this day and their splendid monuments witness the event.” 513 Thereupon, the consensus of the whole world witnesses this same thing which is especially gathered by the pilgrimage ad limina Apostolorum. Pope Nicolas I writes in his epistle to Michael, that so many thousand men from the whole world daily rush upon the source of religion, to the tombs of the Apostles, that the city of Rome alone would sufficiently show the Church of Christ to be Catholic or universal, since many from every race are always seen coming to the tombs of Peter and Paul. Moreover, our adversaries cannot deny that all Christians were persuaded of this even to the times of John Wycliff, that is, even to the 14th century, that St. Peter was at and died in Rome. Furthermore it is not credible in any manner that for such a long time there was never someone who unmasked this error, if t were one, especially since that, which the whole world believed for so long was not some deed made into a cornerstone and a monument without witnesses which can easily be invented and refuted with great difficulty. Truly we say St Peter carried out his pontificate for many years, and at length after Simon Magus was publicly defeated, it is well known that he ended his life crucified upside down by the command of a most powerful emperor, known for his cruelty. How believable is that affair, which we said was so famous, were to be n fact false, and there was no man for fourteen hundred years who would have refuted it? Lastly, the testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers witness this same thing. Ignatius, who lived in the time of the Apostles, in his letter to the Romans, a great part of which is recited by St. Jerome, 514 asks the Romans est they would impede his passion, saying: “I do not command you as Peter and Paul, etc.” by which words he seems to allude to the passion of Peter and Paul, which came to pass a little before at Rome. Therefore, Roman Christians tried to impede their passions. For they compelled Peter with tears to leave the city when he was sought for the punishment of Nero. Therefore, Ignatius says although I cannot command you, as Peter and Paul were able, nevertheless I ask, lest you impede me, just as you tried to impede them. Dionysius the Corinthian, who flourished a hundred years after the death of the Apostles, when he was at Rome, as Eusebius relates, 515 says among other things: “Together, both teaching in the same city, were equally one in the same in martyrdom, and were crowned at the same time.” Cajus, who was nearly fifty years after Dionysius, says the same thing: “I have the trophies of the Apostles, which I shall show. If indeed you were to go forth on the royal road, which leads to the Vatican, or by the Ostian Road, you will discover the motionless trophy, whereby being constituted on each side the Roman Church is fortified.” Egesippus, as he was very near to the times of the Apostles, lavishly recites the whole history, adding to those which had said before, that Peter was crucified upside down, as he had demanded. 516 Eusebius in his Chronicle, in the seventy first year from the birth of Christ says: “First, Nero over all his crimes also made persecutions against Christians, in which Peter and Pau gloriously lie dead together.” Theodoret, speaking in an epistle to Pope Leo about Rome, says: “It has the tombs of their fathers in common, the teachers of truth Peter and Paul which illuminate the souls of the faithful.” Origen, as Eusebius relates, 517 says: “And Peter, tarried to the last in the city of Rome, there he was also crucified, with his head down, which he so asked to be done, lest he should seem equal with the Lord.” 518 Athanasius says in his Apologia pro fuga sua “Peter and Paul, since they had heard that it behooved them to undergo martyrdom at Rome, did not cast aside that departure, but departed with joy.” Chrysostom says: “The sky is not so bright, that when the sun sends forth ts rays, it would be as the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. Paul will be caught up from there, and then Peter. Just consider and shudder at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when suddenly Paul shall arise from that coffin, together with Peter, and they will be ifted up to meet the Lord.” 519 Now from the Latins. Tertullian says: “Since you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, whence comes even to us the authority itself. How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! Where Paul wins his crown in death.” 520 Lactantius says: “Christ, departing, opened all things to come to his disciples, which Peter and Paul preached at Rome . . . Since Nero killed them, Vespasian extinguished the name and nation of the Jews, and did all the things which had been predicted were going happen.” 521 Ambrose says: “At night, Peter began to go out from the wall, and seeing Christ approach him at the gate, and go into the city, he said: ‘Lord, where are you going?’ Christ responded: ‘I come to Rome to be crucified again.’ Peter understood the divine response pertained to his own cross . . . and immediately after being rebuked he honored the Lord Jesus by his cross.” 522 Jerome says: “Simon Peter proceeded to conquest Simon Magus at Rome and held the sacerdotal chair there for 25 years, even to the end, that is, in the fourteenth year of Nero, by whom he was affixed to a cross, crowned with martyrdom, with his head facing the ground.” 523 St. Augustine says: “The merits of Peter and Paul, on account of the same day of passion are more famous and solemn Rome commends.” 524 St. Maximus the confessor says “Peter and Paul endured martyrdom in the city of Rome, which as a head obtained the rule of nations, obviously that where the head of superstition was there the head of sanctity should rest.” 525 Sulpitius adds: “Divine religion strengthened the city, while Peter managed the Episcopate there, and Paul afterward was lead to Rome . . . Paul and Peter were condemned to die, one by the severing of his neck, Peter was lifted up on the cross.” 526 Paul Orosius, in book 7 of his Histories: “For the chief (Nero) at Rome, afflicted Christians by the penalty of death, and tried to root up that name, thus he killed the most Blessed Apostles of Christ, Peter on a Cross, and Paul by the sword.” Eutropius says: “Thereupon, he added even this to all his crimes, that he cut down the holy Apostles of God Peter and Paul.” 527 Paulinus says: “Rome itself, made powerful by the heavenly and lofty monuments to Peter and Paul.” 528 Isidore says on the life of Peter: “In the thirty seventh year after the passion of our Lord, he was crucified by Nero Caesar in the city of Rome, upside down as he wished.” St. Leo the Great says: “This very day, the feast must be venerated by a special and proper exultation of our city, apart from that reverence which it has earned from the whole world, that where it boasts in the death of the particular Apostles, there, on the day of their martyrdom, the first place should be given to joy.” 529 Gregory of Tours says: “Nero bid Peter to be killed on the cross Paul by the sword.” 530 Pope St. Gregory, speaking about the Roman Church says: “Peter made lofty the see, in which he also sat and deigned to end the present life.” 531 Prudentius in a hymn on St. Laurence, speaks thus: Discede adulter Juppiter stupro sororis oblite, Relinque Romam liberam, Plebemque jam Christi fuge. Te Paulus hinc exterminat, te Sanguis exturbat Petri Tibi id, quod ipse armaveras, factum Neronis officit. 532 Arator, at the end of Acts of the Apostles speaks thus: Dignaque materies Petri, Paulique coronae, Caesareas superare minas, et in arce tyranni Pandere jura poli, summumque in agone tribunal Vincere, ne titulos parvus contingeret hostis. 533 Elipis, the wife of Boethius, in a hymn on the Apostles: O felix Roma, quae tantorum principum Es purpurata precioso sanguine, Non laude tua, sed ipsorum meritis Excellis omnem mundi pulchritudinem. 534 I omit innumerable others, as Bede, Ado, Freculph, Bernard and the rest Accordingly, these can suffice, since all lived in the first five centuries, and since our adversaries can not even advance one who taught the contrary. Lastly add that the heathen authors, although they do not mention Peter and Paul by name, for they seemed contemptible to them, nevertheless agree with the cited Fathers in that, at Rome, Nero first commanded Christians to be killed, as is clear from Tacitus and Suetonius. 535 To these testimonies Velenus makes no answer, except that what was said by some Fathers, that Christ appeared to Peter at the gate of Rome and said “I come to Rome to be crucified again,” is a horrendous lie and a blasphemy against Peter himself and the Holy Spirit. For he says Christ was never going to come down from heaven again except on the day of judgment, as the Holy Spirit witnesses through the mouth of Peter: “Whom it is fitting receives heaven even to the times of the restoration of all things.” 536 Yet it is rather more Velenus that lies and blasphemes, that he seeks to pace shackles on Christ, lest he could move even to the Day of Judgment. For, that I might omit other apparitions of Christ, which are read in approved authors certainly in Acts of the Apostles Christ appeared to Paul while standing in the air. 537 For what then Paul truly saw with his corporeal eyes was Christ present and near to himself, and it is clear both from the light which shone all around him, and from the blindness, which came after seeing the glory of Christ, as it s said in the words of Holy Scripture. For in Acts IX, Ananias says to Paul “The Lord Jesus sent me, who appeared to you on the road.” And in the same place: “Barnabas taking Paul lead him to the Apostles, and told them how he had seen the Lord.” And Paul himself says: “Am I not an Apostle? Did I not see our Lord Jesus Christ?” 538 And again: “And lastly, to one as born out of time he was seen by me.” 539 Where he enumerates witnesses of the resurrection, who saw the Lord with corporeal eyes, and places himself among them. Now to that of Acts Chapter 3, I respond: Peter wished to mean, that Christ was not coming publicly and in the presence of all, except on the day of udgment: but hence it is not effected, that he could not appear privately, and to whom he should wish. 

Chapter IV: Peter was a Bishop at Rome, even to Death 

Now the last two points remain, which can be proven together. Therefore that Peter was a Bishop at Rome, and that he retained his episcopate even to death, firstly appears to be recommended by the supreme dignity of the Roman Church. It is always held as first in the consensus of all, and over all the others as even Calvin affirms. This excellence cannot, however, be accounted for by any reasoning apart from that the Prince of the Apostles was the proper pastor of that Church, as well as its bishop, as we showed above when we disputed on the twenty six prerogatives of St. Peter. Thereupon, if Peter was not the Bishop of Rome even to death, then let our adversaries show where Peter sat from that time in which he left Antioch. For Peter did not remain perpetually at Antioch, as the Antiochenes themselves confess, and it is sufficiently proved by the custom of the Church, which never attributes the first place to the Bishop of Antioch. Moreover, there is no Church, nor was there ever, that asserted Peter was its bishop, with the exception of Antioch and Rome; therefore, for what reason will we say that Peter was not the bishop of any place? But our adversaries cannot say this, of course, because they would have it that Peter was not the bishop of the universal Church, but only of some particular place, just as John was of Ephesus, and James of Jerusalem. Thus, let them say where Peter was a bishop, or if he was bishop of Rome and afterward changed his see; let them say, if they can, to where he transferred it? Let the testimony and consensus of all the fathers be added, in which Calvin is compelled to believe, unless he would oppose himself: indeed, he says he refuses to oppose it on account of the consensus of the writers, whether Peter died at Rome: therefore, since the same writers say with supreme agreement that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and no one from the Fathers ever denied that, why can they not be convinced that Peter lead the Episcopate of Rome? St. Irenaeus listed a whole catalogue of Roman Bishops, and in the first place puts Peter and Paul, secondly Linus, thirdly Anacletus, fourthly Clement and the rest even to Elutherius who sat, and from Clement, Sixtus and Elutherius he repeats, that they succeed the Apostles; saying Clement was the third from the Apostles, Sixtus the sixth, Eleutherius the twelfth, but certainly it cannot truly be said, that Roman Bishops succeed Peter, if Peter was not the bishop of Rome. 540 Tertullian says: “Let them unroll the order of their bishops, so through successions running down, that the first bishop would be one from the Apostles, or Apostolic men. . . Just as the Roman Church bears before it Clement, who was ordained by Peter.” 541 Moreover, he does not reckon that Clement himself was ordained by Peter, but that Peter afterward transferred the see to another, as is clear from the same book, where Tertullian writes that Peter was crucified at Rome, from which we understand that Clement was ordained by Peter while the passion of Peter threatened, and hence Clement succeeded after the death of Peter. St. Cyprian very frequently calls the Roman See the Chair of Peter, which he would not be able to say rightly if he believed Peter had established his see somewhere other than Rome. He says: “They dare to sail to the chair of Peter and to that principle Church, whence sacerdotal unity arises, bearing letters from schismatics and the profane. Do they not know that these are Romans, to whom treachery cannot have an entrance?” 542 And again: “It came to pass that Cornelius became the bishop when the place of Fabian, that is when the place of Peter and the step of the sacerdotal chair was emptied.” 543 Eusebius says in his Chronicle for the year 44: “Peter, a Galilean, the first Pontiff of Christians, although he had first founded a Church at Antioch, set out for Rome, where preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years, persevered as the bishop of the same city.” Epiphanius says: “In Rome, the succession of bishops has this sequence; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Evaristus Alexander, etc.” 544 Athanasius, in a letter to those leading a solitary life, says: “First, they did not even spare Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, moved by no reverence that is due to the Apostolic See . . . [speaking of Liberius] We never received such a tradition from the Fathers, who received it from the blessed and great Peter etc.” Where he numbers Peter amongst the predecessors of Liberius. Dorotheus says in his Synopsis: “Linus, after Peter the head, was bishop of Rome.” Sozomen: “It did not happen without divine providence, that after Felix died, Liberius alone was in charge of the Roman Church, lest the see of Peter should be sprinkled with any stain of dishonor.” 545 Eulogius the Alexandrian quoted by St. Gregory, 546 says that “Peter sits at Rome even now in his successors.” Optatus says: “Therefore, you would not dare to deny that you know that the first Episcopal Chair is placed in the city of Peter.” 547 And below that he enumerates the Roman Bishops from Peter even to Anastasius who sat in his time. Ambrose says: “Indeed, Peter the Apostle is the author of this our assertion, who was the priest of the Roman Church.” 548 Jerome says that Peter ruled the Sacerdotal Chair at Rome for twenty-five years. 549 He says the same thing in his first letter to Pope Damasus, on the term “hypostasis,” saying “I speak with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of the cross, I unite in your beatitude, that is in communion with the chair of Peter.” Augustine says “What do you suppose is the chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat and in which now Anastasius sits?” 550 Likewise, in Epistle 16, he enumerates the Roman Bishops from Peter even to Anastasius. Prudentius in a hymn on St. Laurence: Romae jam regnant duo Apostolorum principes: Alter vocator Gentium, Alter Catehdram possidens Primam, recludit creditas Aeternitatis januas. 551 Prosper of Aquitane from libro de ingratis: Rome the see of Peter, which for pastoral honor Was made head of the world, etc. Sulpitius says: “Divine religion strengthened the city, while Peter was in charge of the Episcopate.” 552 Peter, the Bishop of Ravenna, in a letter to Eutyches, which is contained among the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, says: “We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently attend to those things written by the Pope of the city of Rome, because Blessed Peter who both lived and presided in that seat as his own, supplies the truth of faith to all those seeking it.” Theodoret, in an epistle to Leo, after he had said that Peter and Paul died at Rome, adds: “They make your seat more famous, this is the chief of your possessions. Moreover, God now also rendered that seat beautiful and famous when he placed your holiness in it, which emits the rays of the Orthodox faith.” Isidore, in his life of Peter, says: “He, after founding the Church at Antioch continued to Rome against Simon Magus under the rule of Claudius Caesar and there, preaching the Gospel, held the pontificate of the same city for twenty- five years.” Bede 553 has the same, as does Freculph, 554 Ado of Vienna, 555 and all more recent authors. Let them agree also, apart from the authority of so many fathers, with the testimonies of the ancient Roman Bishops who were martyrs or confessors Pope Clement teaches that with death threatening he handed on the Roman Episcopate to him. 556 Anacletus in Epistle 3 teaches that on account of the see of Peter, the Roman Church is the head of all others. Marcellus I, in a letter to the Antiochenes, says: “The See of Peter was begun with you, and was transferred to Rome at the Lord’s command, etc.” Pope Damasus says that Peter was the Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, that is, even to his death 557 Innocent I, teaches the same thing, in a letter to the Council of Miletus. 558 Moreover, so do Pope Leo, Gelasius, John III, Pope St Gregory, Agatho Adrian and Nicholas I, and all others who wrote anything, affirm that their See s the Seat of Peter. 559 Their testimonies are still not received by our adversaries, because they say they wrote for their own purposes, yet certainly this is without cause, since these men were very holy, and none of the ancient fathers ever condemn them in this regard. Let the heretics of our time agree with the testimonies of the ancient Councils, which they themselves receive. First, the Council of 300 bishops of Sardica: “We honor the memory of the holy Apostle Peter, that these who would examine the case should write to Julius, the Bishop of Rome, and if he will have judged that the judgment must be restored, let it be restored, and let him give judgment.” 560 Likewise in the Council of Ephesus, The Roman Pontiff Celestine is called: “Ordinary successor and vicar of Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles.” 561 In the second act of the Council of Chalcedon, when the epistle of Pope Leo was read, all shouted: “Peter has spoken through Leo,” and in the 3 rd Act when sentence was imposed against Dioscorus, Leo is provided with the dignity of the Apostle Peter to have deposed Disocorus. And in an epistle of Leo the whole Council says that Leo is the interpreter of the voice of Peter, that s, Peter speaks through Leo. All of this obviously shows, that it was the persuasion of the 630 Fathers at the Council, that Leo as Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter. In the Fifth Council, Act 1, Menas, the Patriarch and president of the Council, bearing sentence against Anthimus and other heretics, says: “They had contempt for the Roman Church, in which there is succession of the Apostles which bears sentence against them.” In the Sixth Council, Act 8, the bishops titled a letter of Agatho, in different ways. Among others, a certain one thus says: “Suggestions were directed by our father Agatho, the most holy Apostolic Archbishop, of the ancient and principle Roman see, just as dictated by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of the Holy and most Blessed Prince of the Apostles, Peter, and written by the finger of the thrice most blessed Pope Agatho I receive and embrace.” From these five most approved Councils we have more than 1200 ancient bishops, mostly Greek, who witness that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter. 

Chapter V: The First Argument of our Adversaries is Answered

 Now let us rebut the objections of Velenus, which also contains arguments from Calvin and Illyricus. First, his persuasion is such: “The Authors who say Peter came to Rome do not agree among themselves about the time in which he came; for Orosius says he came in the beginning of the reign of Claudius, Jerome says in the second year of Claudius, Fasciculus says in the fourth year of the same emperor, while the Passionale on the lives of the Saints says in the 13th year of Claudius. “Besides, a wonderful variety is discovered in the numbering of the successors of Peter. For one places Clement immediately after Peter, as Tertullian says (loc. Cit.), and Jerome, 562 others place Linus after Peter, and after him Clement in the third places, as Optatus and Augustine; 563 others place Linus and Cletus, or Anacletus, after Peter, and at length Clement in the fourth place, as Irenaeus and Jerome. 564 “Add that all these make from Cletus and Anacletus one, therefore, nothing can be established for certain discord, and the argument of the authors is a falsity.” I respond to the first: the disagreement on the time, if it is such, in which Peter came to Rome, does not weaken our argument that Peter came to Rome For it most often happens that one establishes on some business, and still does not establish on the manner or other circumstances. For it is certain among Christians, that Christ died on the Cross for us: nevertheless, there is very great disagreement on the time in which he died. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Lactantius teach that Christ died in the 15th year of the emperor Tiberius, in his 30th year. 565 Ignatius, Eusebius, and others say he was crucified in his 33rd year of age, in the 18th year of Tiberius. Onuphrius, Mercator, and a few other more recent authors would have it that Christ suffered in his 34 th year of life Irenaeus contends that Christ was almost fifty, hence he would have suffered under Claudius, not under Tiberius. On the day and the month in which Christ died, there is such a disagreement of the Fathers, as well as more recent writers, the jury is still out See for example, the many arguments which Clement of Alexandria relates 566 but still, will we on that account deny that Christ suffered and died? For equal reasoning, although it should be established that the weeks of Daniel are fulfilled by the passion of Christ, nevertheless there are many opinions on the time in which they begin, and in which they are defined Likewise, on the years of the kings of the Persians, on the years of Samuel Saul and others, several leaders of the Jews, on the years of the Emperors and Roman Pontiffs. Thereupon, on the years of the world, which have passed to this point, there are as many opinions as there are Chronologies. Therefore, will we say on that account, that there were never kings amongst the Persians, that Samuel and Saul were not there, that the Roman Emperors and Pontiffs never existed, and the world itself did not begin, or has not endured even to this day? Therefore, the disagreement of writers is an argument for falsity, in regard to that in which they disagree, because necessarily some are mistaken by disagreements: but just as disagreement is a sign of falsity, so agreement is the greatest sign of truth, and there is agreement among all the Fathers, that Peter sat at Rome, and died there. Finally I respond, there is no disagreement among good authors. For Eusebius in his Chronicle, and Jerome in his book on Ecclesiastical writers, as well as Ado of Trier in his martyrology, they all say that Peter came to Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius. Orosius does not disagree with this, 567 when he says that he came in the beginning of the reign of Claudius. For if the reign of Claudius were divided into three parts, that is, beginning, middle and end, you will see the second year pertains to the beginning. All those former authors agree with the latter, who assert that Peter sat at Rome for twenty five years and died in the fourteenth of Nero, certainly Damasus, Isidore, Bede, Freculph Ado of Vienna, and the rest whom we cited above. Therefore, there are not twenty-five years even to the 14th of Nero, unless we begin from the second year of Claudius. Wherefore we rightly scorn Fasciculus and the Passionale of the season especially since Fasciculus followed Marianus Scotus, who is opposed to himself and the truth. Marianus Scotus says in his Chronicle, that Peter came to Rome in the 4th year of Claudius, and died in the last year of Nero, nevertheless he sat in the Roman Episcopate for twenty-five years and two months, which is n no way coherent in itself. For Claudius ruled for thirteen years, eight months and twenty days, while Nero reigned for thirteen years and seven months twenty eight days, as Dio Casius, Suetonius, Tranquilus, Eusebius and even Marianus Scotus himself witness. Truly, what is found in the Chronicle of Eusebius, that fourteen years, seven months and twenty eight days are attributed to Nero is plainly a copyist error, accordingly, since individual years are conted, they are not discovered to be apart from thirteen, and a little more. Furthermore, these times of Claudius and Nero joined together do not make a point greater than twenty-seven years, four months and eighteen days from which if you were to remove three years, five months and eighteen days which Marianus Scotus would have vanish from the Rule of Claudius, before Peter came to Rome, only twenty-three years and eleven months would remain Therefore, either Peter died after Nero, or he did not sit for twenty-five years. Now we move in regard to the second part of the argument, on the succession of the first four Popes. To the first I respond, even if we were completely ignorant about who next succeeded Peter, still it would not be called nto doubt whether someone had succeeded him. Just the same as the greatest question is treated among the writers, who was the husband of Esther, since some think Xerxes the Mede, others Cambyses the Persian, others Darius Histaspis, while still others Artaxerses Longimanus, and still others that it was Mnemonem. Nevertheless no one ever thought there could be a doubt as to whether Esther had a husband or not. Thus I respond: the whole matter can be thus arranged and explained. The Apostle Peter, while his passion was imminent, left the Episcopal seat to St Clement. Serious authors witness it, Tertullian, Jerome, Pope John III, and besides these Clement himself, Anacletus, and Damasus. 568 But yet, after the death of Peter, Clement refused to sit in the Apostolic seat, until Linus and Cletus lived, who were aids to St. Peter himself in the Episcopal Office. For that reason Clement was not the first Pope from Peter rather Linus was. We so gather this, first from Epiphanius, who handed down from the opinion of the fathers, that the seat was refused by Clement, while Linus and Cletus lived. Next from this ambiguity, if Clement or Linus or whoever else succeeded Peter without any contention, certainly no question would have existed about the first successor of Peter: just the same, on the first successor of James at Jerusalem, and of Mark at Alexandria, and of Peter himself at Antioch, there was never any question. But since in the Roman Church, after the death of Peter a holy contention was born from humility, and there was one and another that ought to be the first successor of Peter, thence some obscurity was discovered in this succession Also, from these the authors can be reconciled, who either place Clement ahead of Linus, or Linus ahead of Clement; accordingly Irenaeus, Eusebius Epiphanius, Optatus, Augustine and Jerome, when they assert that Linus was the next to have succeeded Peter, they assert what is true, but they do not deny that Clement had refused that Episcopate. Next Tertullian, Jerome, Ruffinus and the rest, who write that Clement was left behind as a successor to Peter they tell the matter truly: further, they do not deny that Clement in that time refused to receive the seat. Nor do certain writings on the life of Linus matter much to me, such as the Pontificale of Damasus, the writings of Sophronius and of Simeon Metaphrastes, where they say that Linus died before Peter. Sophronius and Simeon are more recent, and the Liber Pontificalis, which is attributed to Damasus, is of doubtful authority in the matter. Yet the authors, who write that Linus succeeded Peter, not only are most ancient, but even more they are many and esteemed. Moreover after Linus, Cletus, or Anacletus, after whom Clement must be placed fourth. The authors are Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome and ikewise, the most ancient Canon of the Mass, where we read of Linus, Cletus and Clement, and thereupon, Ignatius in his epistle to Maria Zarbensem, where he signifies Clement succeeded Anacletus. After Clement, another Anacletus must be added without a doubt, as Optatus, Augustine, Damasus and others add. Indeed there were two men named Anacletus, the second of whom is also called Cletus, although on account of the similarity in name, many fathers make one from the two. First, the authority of the Catholic Church persuades us, which celebrates two feast days in their memory; certainly of Cletus in the month of April, and Anacletus in the month of July; Cletus was a Roman and the son of Emilianus, while Anacletus was an Athenian, and the son of Antiochus. It is not believable that in such a matter that the whole Church would be deceived. Next, we gather the same from the fact that some fathers place Anacletus before Clement, as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Eusibius. Others add, like Optatus Damasus and Augustine, that is by argument that they were two not one. Hence the first Anacletus was also usually called Cletus; thence it is certian, that the same was Pope, whom Ignatius, Irenaeus and Eusebius call Anacletus Epiphanius, Jerome, Damasus, John III and the most holy Canon of the Mass tself name Cletus. It ought to be no wonder, on account of the similarity of the name that one Anacletus was made from two by certain Fathers, since it is certain that the Greeks in many places confused Novatus with Novation, and nevertheless it is quite certain that Novatus was a Carthaginian, while Novatian was a Roman Priest. Eusebius and Nicephorus of Constantinople in their Chronicles made one person both Marcellus and Marcellinus, though it is altogether certain and proven that they were two separate men. 

Chapter VI: The Second Argument of our Adversaries is Answered 

The second persuasion of Velenus is actually taken from Calvin and the Centuriators. “Peter could not have come to Rome before eighteen years after the Lord’s passion; for when the Council of Jerusalem happened in Acts XV Peter was still in Judaea; but that Council came to pass in the eighteenth year from the Lord’s passion, as St. Jerome gathers. 569 For Paul came to Jerusalem to see Peter three years after his conversion. Thereupon, it was after fourteen years he returned into Jerusalem to the Council, in which if you add one year which passed from the Lord’s passion, even to the conversion of Paul, they would be eighteen years. “Add, that Peter is said to have been in Judaea for five years, then seven years in Antioch, and as many years in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, and he could not preach in so many places in one day, there fore at east eighteen years would have passed before Peter could have come to Rome. “Besides, if before eighteen years Peter could have come to Rome certainly he would have come in the second year of Claudius, as we said above and that cannot be, both because in that year St. Peter was not yet freed from the prison in which Herod had thrown him in. That liberation happened in the third year of Claudius, as is gathered from Luke 570 and from Josephus, 571 and Christ had also commanded his Apostles, that they should not leave from Jerusalem before twelve years, but as Eusebius relates from Thrasea the martyr this fell in the twelfth year from the resurrection of Christ, in the third year of Claudius, therefore, Peter did not come to Rome in the second year of Claudius, but after the ninth year, which was the eighteenth from the passion of the Lord. “Moreover Peter is said to have sat at Rome for twenty-five years, by Damasus, Eusebius, Jerome and others, therefore, he lived even to the 43rd year after the passion of the Lord, but then he would not have died under Nero, nor even Galba, Otho and Vitellius, but while Vespasian reigned, therefore, Peter died in the reign of Vespasian. Yet Vespasian was a very meek emperor, and he did not kill any Christians at Rome, as all witness. 572 Therefore, Peter died somewhere other than Rome.” I respond: First, although the Fathers could have erred when they said the Apostle Peter sat at Rome for twenty five years, nevertheless on that account it would not follow that Peter never sat at Rome, as we proved above by bringing many like things. But there is not need to appeal to those arguments, since Peter truly sat at Rome for twenty five years, and seven at Antioch, and all things still be consistent. This is, then, the true and brief history of the life of St. Peter. St. Peter remained in Judaea for nearly five years, for which reason St Paul could easily meet Peter in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. And rightly, Eusebius places the journey of Peter to Antioch five years after the Lord’s passion. This is also not opposed to that tradition of Thrasea the martyr ndeed the Lord did not command that all the Apostles should tarry in Jerusalem for twelve years, it is certain that this is false from the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that Peter set out into Samaria, Lydda, Jopah and Caesarea, before he was cast into prison, and also to the point that, before the 12th year from the passion of Christ: rather, Christ commanded that not al should leave, that always some, or even some from the Apostles would remain n Jerusalem, according to the testimony of Hebrews. Therefore, in the 5 th year after the Lord’s passion, Peter set out into Syria, he set up his see at Antioch and remained nearly seven years as bishop of that city. Moreover, it is not probably, what Onuphrius teaches in the additions to Platina, that St. Peter did not st at Antioch unless it was after he returned from Rome. Accordingly he could produce no Father as an author on his behalf Rather, what we teach, is what they taught before us. 573 Still, this must not be so received, as if he never went out from Antioch in that whole time, nay more that he traveled in the same time to nearby provinces, Pontus, Asia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia, thence even he set out in the seventh year of the Antiochene Episcopate, which was the 11 th after the Lord’s passion, returned to Jerusalem, and there was taken by Herod and thrown into prison, on the days of the unleavened bread, 574 but a little after was freed by an Angel, in the same year, which was the second of Claudius and at the same time he came to Rome, set up his seat there, and held it for twenty-five years. Still, in that whole time, in which he was the Bishop of Rome, he did not remain at Rome; rather, after that he preached at Rome for seven years returned to Jerusalem, being expelled by Claudius from the city together with the rest of the Jews. Luke writes that Claudius had expelled all the Jews from the city, 575 and Suetonius writes the same thing about Claudius, likewise Josephus, as Orosius cites, and Orosius himself adds that this was done in the ninth year of Claudius, that is the 18th from the Lord’s passion. Therefore, they heard, who were at Antioch, that Peter came into Jerusalem, they sent to him Paul and Barnabas, and then the Council of Jerusalem took place. After Claudius died, however, Peter returned to Rome, and ended his life in the same place. Nor does the fact that Peter was at Jerusalem a little before the death of Herod contradict this, for it is certain that Herod died in the 3 rd year of Claudius. For St. Luke does not say Peter was in bonds a little before the death of Herod, but he rather more indicates the contrary, when he says that after the iberation of Peter from prison, Herod set out for Caesarea, and there, was delayed. This delay, not matter what extent of time means, that at the least it was a year. St. Luke relates after the death of James, and the imprisonment of Peter, immediately after the death of Herod, that he might show the horrible ruin of Herod was a penalty for sin he committed against the Apostles of the Lord. 

Chapter VII: Another Five Arguments are Answered 

The third persuasion of Velenus is thus: “Peter could not come to Rome even in the ninth year of Claudius, as we proved above, and he could not come afterward, for Claudius, who commanded the Jews to be expelled from the city without a doubt commanded that they should not be received again, therefore Peter never came.” Yet, we have already shown that Peter, in the 9 th year of Claudius, did not come to Rome, but left from Rome, and afterward in the time of Nero returned because in the time of Nero the Jews could be at Rome, as is clear from the last Chapter of Acts, where Paul preaches to the Jews at Rome. His fourth persuasion: “When Paul condemned Peter at Antioch, the Council of Jerusalem had already been carried out, and nevertheless Peter had not seen Rome.” I respond: He had gone and come back. The fifth persuasion: “Paul, writing to the Romans, bids greeting to many n the last Chapter; but he does not even mention Peter.” This is not only from Velenus, but also used by Illyricus to show that Peter was never in Rome. I respond: in the first place, this argument concludes nothing, for otherwise t would follow that John was never a bishop at Ephesus, nor James at Jerusalem, because Paul writing to the Ephesians and the Hebrews, makes no mention of John and James. Next, I say, Paul did not bid Peter to be greeted because he wrote the epistle in that time in which Peter returned from Rome and was living in Syria. For Paul writes the epistle on a journey in which he set out for Jerusalem, where he was also seized. Thus indeed he writes: “And now I set out for Jerusalem to minister to the Saints, as Achaia and Macedonia have provided some alms to make for the poor saints who are in Jerusalem.” 576 In Acts 24, the same Paul, when he made his case at the tribunal of Felix, the governor of Syria, he said: “I come intending to take alms into my nation, and offerings and prayers.” Next, this captivity of Paul happens in the middle of the period between the Council of Jerusalem and the death of Claudius. Accordingly, after that Council, Paul adds Macedonia and Achaia, where beforehand he had never been, as is clear from Acts XVI. He arrived in Jerusalem while Felix was governor, who was over Syria even to the death of Claudius, and in the beginning of Nero, as Josephus witnesses. 577 From which it follows, that the epistle to the Romans was written around the 11 th or 12th year of Claudius, in which time St. Peter returned to Rome, and again traveled and visited the regions of Syria. What wonder, therefore, if Paul, writing to the Romans, does not great Peter, who it is certain was not at Rome in that time. The sixth persuasion: “Ambrose says in his commentary on Romans XVI that Narcissus, whom Paul bids greeting, was a Roman Priest: but priest [presbyter] and bishop are the same in Paul’s writings, therefore, this Narcissus was the Bishop of Rome, hence Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome.” I respond: Narcissus may have been a Roman priest, but without a doubt he was not a bishop. Accordingly, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Optatus, Epiphanius Jerome, Augustine, and the rest who wrote a Catalogue of Roman Pontiffs make no mention of this Narcissus. Nor does that oppose the authority of Ambrose, for Ambrose says in his commentary on 1 Timothy III: “Every bishop is a priest, yet not every priest is a bishop.” Moreover, Cornelius is quoted by Eusebius as saying that at Rome there was one bishop, but forty six priests. 578 The seventh persuasion: “Paul struck an agreement with Peter, that the atter should be the Apostle of the Jews, while he himself should be the Apostle of the Gentiles. Therefore, how can it have the appearance of truth, that Peter should be so quickly forgetful of this pact, and invade another province, that is Rome, which was the mother of the Gentiles? “If you say Peter preached to the Jews who were there at Rome, we can say conversely, that while Paul came there and began to preach, they marveled at the novelty of the doctrine, as can be understood from their words in the last Chapter of Acts: “This sect is known to us, because it is gainsaid everywhere yet we ask to hear what you think;” and further down: “They believed these things which were said: but some did not believe, and when they say that they were not in agreement, they left.” I respond. Firstly, the “treaty” between Peter and Paul was not such that Peter could only preach to the Jews, or in Judea, while Paul could only preach to the Gentiles, or outside of Judaea: rather, that Peter should preach to all in every place he would, but principally to the Jews; and Paul to all and in every place he wished, but principally to the Gentiles, otherwise Paul could be said to have invaded a foreign province when coming to Rome, he soon began to preach to the Jews, as is clear from the last Chapter of Acts. Moreover, were this the case, Peter not only should not have come to Rome, but also neither to Antioch, Asia, Galatia, Pontus, Cappadocia and Bythinia, all places to which Velenus affirms that Peter went to. Velenus is also wrong when he says that the Jews at Rome marveled at the novelty of doctrine, on the occasion that Paul preached Christ to them, as though no one before had preached anything like it. For, if no one had preached to the Jews at Rome before Paul came there, who converted the Roman Jews to whom he wrote his epistle? Certainly, part of the Epistle to the Romans was written to the Gentiles, and part of it to the Jews who had converted to the faith of Christ, for therefore, he disputes in the first four chapters on justification from faith without works of the law, against the pride of the Jews, who attributed the coming of the Messiah to their own merits. And in Chapter XIV he treats on those who still Judaized, abstaining from certain unclean foods according to the law. And in Chapter XVI, he greets many Christians who were certainly converts from the Jews. Yet maybe someone will say, if the epistle to the Romans was written while Claudius, who expelled the Jews from Rome, was alive, who then are these Jews to whom Paul bids greeting? The Jews could scarcely return while Claudius lived. I respond, it is not only believable that a little after the expulsion the Jews were able to return, but they did so without a doubt. For, Paul in Acts XVIII discovered Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth, Jews who recently had come from the city, expelled by Claudius. Next, he stayed in Achaia for a year and six months, and in Asia for two years, then began a journey to Jerusalem; and also on that journey he wrote to the Romans and bid greeting to Aquila and Priscilla, who now had gone back to Rome. Now to the question of the words of the Jews: “We ask from you to hear what you think, etc.” I say these words were not of all the Jews who were at Rome, but only of those who were still not converted to the faith of Christ apart from which many others living at Rome whom Peter converted. Nor is it shown by those words, that they never heard the preaching of Christ, but still had not been persuaded, and therefore, wished to hear from Paul, and although they were efficaciously convinced by him, some were persuaded that they should believe, and part of them remained in their obstinacy. 

Chapter VIII: Another Eight Arguments are Answered 

Persuasions 8-15 are taken from the last Chapter of Acts of the Apostles and the epistles which Paul wrote from Rome, without a doubt to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Hebrews, Timothy and Philemon, and from letters of Paul to Seneca, and Seneca to Paul, for in all these writings there was an occasion of speaking about Peter, if he was at Rome: yet a marvelous silence is found everywhere. Our opponents say that it so happens, that not only is Peter not said to be at Rome in these places, but they even openly say he was not there. For Philippians II says about those who were at Rome: “All strive for what is their own.” And in the last Chapter of Collosians: “Aristarchus, my fellow captive greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas, and Jesus who is called Justus; these alone are my helpers in the kingdom of God.” And in 2 Timothy IV, “In my first defense, no one assisted me, rather all left me behind.” Therefore either Peter was not at Rome, or Paul did him a very great injury, since he numbers him among those who seek their own things, and who were not helpers in the kingdom of God; and who deserted him in a tight spot. Now this argument is not only of Velenus, but also of Calvin. I respond: Firstly, nothing is concluded from an appeal to a negative authority. Indeed, it does not follow that because Luke, Paul and Seneca do not say that Peter was at Rome, therefore, Peter was not there. Further, these three ought not to say everything, and something is more believed with three affirming witnesses than from a thousand who say nothing, they merely do not deny what others affirm. Otherwise, it would follow that because Matthew does not write in his Gospel that Christ was circumcised, that Mark did not recall the presentation, Luke does not mention the new star and John does not say that Christ was born from the Virgin Mary that all these will be false, which is absolutely absurd. In regard to those three citations from Scripture, they do not deny that Peter was then in Rome; for although in Colossians Paul says: “Only these are my helpers in the kingdom of God,” he is only speaking on his household, who usually ministered with him. It is in the same manner how when he says in 2 Timothy IV, he says: “Luke alone is with me,” it is concerning his household and ministers. Therefore, it is certain from the last Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that many others, both Jews and Gentiles, were converted to the faith at Rome, who promoted the kingdom of God. And in the epistle to the Philippians, when he says: “All seek what are theirs,” it is understood figuratively, he speaks only on certain ones, not on all absolutely. For he had said in the same place a little before, that Timothy was with him, who certainly was not seeking what was his own. He had also said in the First Chapter, that some preached the Gospel from charity, and hence did not seek what was there own, but that which is of Jesus Christ. Lastly, in 2 Tim. IV, where he says: “No one assisted me, but all left me behind,” which among other things, Calvin urges that he does not speak except about those who could help him with Caesar. For he says in the same place, that Luke was then with him, and nevertheless he speaks generally: “No man assisted me, rather all left me behind.” Certainly Peter could not help him since he was no less hated by Caesar than Paul. Therefore, he only speaks on certain Roman nobles, who could go to Caesar on his behalf, but did not for fear of the tyrant. Secondly, one could respond that in the time in which Paul came to Rome and in which he wrote his epistles, Peter was not at Rome. For, although he had set up his seat at Rome, nevertheless he often left, since it was fitting to establish the Churches in different places, as Epiphanius records. 579 For on that account, Peter took up for himself Linus and Cletus as helpers, who attended to his Episcopal duties in his absence.

 Chapter IX: The Sixteenth Argument is Answered 

Velenus gives as persuasion 16: “Ambrose says: ‘[Peter and Paul] died on the same day, in the same place under the sentence of the same tyrant.’ 580 But Linus, in the passions of Peter and Paul, says that they did not suffer in the same time, nor in the same place, nor at the pleasure of the same tyrant. “Besides, Josephus, who lived at the time of Nero, wrote a history at Rome on the Jewish war, and in that makes mention of those killed by Nero, yet still he does not mention Peter, whom he certainly would not have omitted if he was truly killed by Nero. Josephus was a friend of Christians, and gladly mentioned them when the occasion was given. He writes about the death of Christ 581 and John the Baptist in the same place, as well as James. 582 “Add that Peter was an old man when Paul was a youth; for after the passion of the Lord, Paul is called a youth in Acts VII, in which time Peter already had a wife and, as the oldest of all the Apostles, was held to be first among them: till Paul attained to old age, as he wrote in the epistle to Philemon, therefore, that they died at the same time lacks the appearance of truth.” This argument can be easily refuted. In the first part of the argument Velenus errs twice. First, he affirms elsewhere that the history of Linus was fabricated, and still from that he says the teaching of Ambrose is refuted. If ndeed the history of Linus was fabricated, it lacks all authority. If it lacks all authority, how can it thence refute the teaching of Ambrose, an author of very great Authority? Next, he errs, because in the same place Ambrose understands the same part of the city, and thence he would have it that Ambrose differs from others, who say the Apostles were killed in different parts of the same city. Yet Ambrose in the same place understands the same city, not the same part of the city. Thus he adds: “In the same place, for another Rome would be wanting.” Now to the argument from Josephus. First I say, Josephus himself responded in his work On the Jewish War, 583 where he says he wished to pass over in silence the crimes of Nero, that he killed his mother and wife and like things, since he knew the tale is troublesome and he says these things rightly for he dedicated the books to Roman Emperors, who do not gladly hear their predecessors reproached. Next the argument on the author can be turned back upon on itself; for Velenus says in the same place, that Peter was killed in Jerusalem, by the command of Ananus the Jewish High Priest. Therefore, I ask how it is that Josephus, who writes on the deeds of this Ananus and the men whom he killed, 584still makes no mention of Peter in that place? Thus Velenus s hoisted by his own petard. Now in regards to age, I say that Peter was not old when Paul was said to be a youth, rather a man of mature age. That he had a wife and was first of the Apostles is no argument except that he was of virile age. It is not credible in any way that old men were chosen by Christ to carry out the greatest labors and ourney through nearly the whole world. Just the same it is not believable that Paul as a teenager would be taken up to the Apostolic dignity, which pertained to the care of every Church. 585 At length, Peter was not beyond fifty years when Paul was around twenty five, that is, twice his age: nevertheless, they could still both be old and die together, indeed in the last year of Nero, Peter would have been about 86, and Paul 61. 

Chapter X: The Seventh Argument is Answered 

The 17th persuasion of Velenus. “Scripture and the Fathers openly teach that Peter and Paul were killed in Jerusalem by the Scribes and Pharisees, not at Rome by the Emperors. For Matthew XXIII says: ‘Behold I send to you Prophets and the Wise, and Scribes, and from them you will kill, and crucify and scourge them in your Synagogues.’ In which place Chrysostom says: ‘He understands the Apostles, and those who were with them.’ And Jerome on the same place: “Observe that according to each Apostle are different gifts of the disciples of Christ, some Prophets, who were coming to preach, others the Wise, who knew when they ought to advance a sermon, others, Scribes, learned n the law, among which was Stephen whom they stoned; Paul was killed, Peter was crucified, the disciples were scourged in the Acts of the Apostles. Likewise Nicholas Lyranus says on the same citation: ‘From them you will kill ust like James the brother of John, and Stephen and many others, and you will crucify them, like Peter and Andrew his brother.’” I respond: from the words of the Lord in Matthew XXIII, and the exposition of Chrysostom, one could gather nothing against our teaching. For the Lord and St. John Chrysostom do not say all the Apostles were to be killed by the Jews in Jerusalem, but only some. Indeed that is shown from the sentence: “From those you will kill and crucify, etc.” And that was fulfilled in Stephen, whom they stoned in Acts VII, and in James the Elder, whom Herod killed for the sake of the Jews in Acts XII, and James the Younger, whom the Jews themselves killed in Jerusalem, as Josephus witnesses, 586 as well as Simeon the successor of James, who was crucified in Jerusalem, as Eusebius teaches in his Chronicle. To that we could add Mathias, whom many think probably was crucified in Judaea. But if the Lord spoke about all the Apostles, as Velenus contends, then all histories must be denied, which witness that Andrew died in Achaia, Philip and John in Asia, Thomas in India, Bartholomew in Armenia, Matthew in Ethiopia as well as Simon and Jude in Asia. As for St. Jerome, he does not mean that Peter and Paul were killed at Jerusalem, since he eloquently taught in de Viris Illustribus that they were killed at Rome by Nero; rather he deduces from the words of the Lord different gifts, and different deaths of the disciples of Christ. Since the Lord had said that he was going to send Prophets, and Wise Men, and Scribes Jerome observed the different gifts of the Apostles, since again the Lord said: “Some you wil kill, some you will crucify,” the same Jerome observed that the disciples would pass from this life by different kinds of death, and places the examples of Stephen being stoned, Paul being beheaded, and Peter crucified. Therefore they do not press these examples in order that we would understand that certain of the disciples were going to be killed by the Jews, but only in that, rather only in that we might learn there were to be different kinds of martyrs. Next, Nicholas Lyranus is not of such authority, that he ought to oppose all the ancient Fathers and Histories, which hand down that Peter was killed at Rome by Nero, and Andrew in Achaia by Egaea. It happened, without a doubt that Lyranus followed Jerome, and wished only to say that Peter and Andrew were crucified for Christ, however less carefully he spoke. 

 Chapter XI: The Last Argument is Answered 

The last persuasion of Velenus is thus. “Since errors are often fabricated about recent deeds, concerning both distant and disturbed times, could not flatterers of the Roman Curia fabricate the coming of Peter to Rome, his Passion and Pontificate?” But if Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and thirty or forty other cited Fathers were flatterers of the Roman Curia, Velenus speaks rightly. But if, on the contrary, on their side they are very ancient, as Irenaeus and Tertullian are, in whose times the Roman Church was not yet so opulent that it could even have flatterers; some are Greeks, as Eusebius, Theodoret, Sozomen and others whose nation was rather more of the habit to envy than make obeisance to the Roman Church; besides, most of them were nearly all holy men, such as Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom and others, whose morals were far from the fawning of vices, certainly it follows, that Velenus, who calls these men flatterers of the Roman Curia, impudently lies. Besides, the argument has no value. For errors are fabricated both from recent deeds as well as from ancient ones, when matters are carried out secretly and without witnesses, or in regard to the number of years, or like circumstances, which are easily given to oblivion: but not in regard to the chief matter, as well as the substance of very famous matters, especially when, apart from the testimony of writers, there also exist stone monuments or much bronze, as in the matter on which we treat. And I have reckoned these can suffice for this disputation, from which I have received published in the famous book long ago of John of Rochester [St. John Fisher], a man of Blessed Memory, though I have never been able to see the book itself. 

Chapter XII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven by Divine Law and by the plan of Succession

 We have proven to this point, that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter in the Roman Episcopate: now we hasten to prove the matter on the succession to the primacy of the Universal Church. All of the heretics of our day deny this, and they especially oppose the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. 587 And before al these Nilus, the bishop of Thessalonica, in his book against the primacy of the Pope. Nilus, however, does not deny that Peter was the pastor of the whole Church, and managed the Episcopate at Rome until his death, but contends this alone, that the Roman Pontiff does not succeed Peter in command of the whole Catholic Church, but only in the Roman Episcopate. He adds that, afterward, a certain Roman Pontiff had first place in the decree of Councils, that he should be the first of bishops, the first to sit, the first to give his teaching; still, not that he should command the rest. Now since the arguments of our adversaries are such that they are taken from the same fonts and chapters, we shall reduce all disputation to a few points or kinds of arguments and together we will prove the truth and refute the objections of others. First, it will be proved that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter in the Pontificate of the Universal Church, by divine law and reason of succession. Someone ought to succeed Peter by divine law: he can not be any other than the Roman Pontiff, therefore, he succeeds. John Calvin denies each part of the argument. He argues: “Were I to concede what they ask with regard to Peter, that he was the Prince of the Apostles and surpassed the others in dignity, there is no ground for making a universal rule out of a special example, or wresting a single fact into a perpetual enactment” 588 And again: “I will now bestow on them another [concession], which they will never obtain from men of sound mind, that the primacy of the Church was so constituted in Peter, that it should always remain by means of a perpetual succession. Still, how will they prove that his See was so fixed at Rome, that whosoever becomes bishop of that city is to govern the whole world?” 589 Therefore, we shall prove each separately. First, that it is fitting for someone to succeed Peter in the Pontificate of the Universal Church, is gathered from the end of the Pontificate. For it is certain that there is a Pope because of the Church, not a Church because of the Pope. St. Augustine says as much: “That for which we are Christians, is on account of us; that which we are put in charge of, is on your account.” 590 The Church at present requires a shepherd no less than in the time of the Apostles, rather even more now, since there are more and worse Christians. For that reason, when Peter was at the point of death, the Pontificate ought not to have ceased, seeing that it had been established not for the brief time of Peter, but for the advantage of the Church Since it remains and perseveres, as long as the Church herself remains, or certainly as long as it sojourns on earth, it also has need of one supreme pastor for care and vigilance. Secondly, it is considered from the unity of the Church. For the Church is one and the same in every time, therefore, the form of rule ought not be changed, which is the form of the commonwealth and the state. Why, if in the time of the Apostles there was one supreme ruler and head of the Church, ought there not be now? Thirdly, from the words of the Lord in the last Chapter of John: “Feed my sheep.” For the duty of a shepherd, is an ordinary and perpetual duty accordingly from the nature of the thing, the office of pastor ought to endure for as long a time as the sheepfold. Moreover, the sheepfold remains and will remain, even to the end of the world, therefore, in the matter it is necessary for the successors of Peter to remain in that supreme pastoral office. Fourthly, from the same citation, for when the Lord says to Peter: “Feed my sheep,” he consigned all his sheep to him, as we showed above, not only all by reason of the citation, but even by reason of time, since Christ ought to provide for us no less than the ancients: but Peter was not always going to live n the flesh, therefore, when the Lord said to him: “Feed my sheep,” he spoke to all his successors in him. Therefore, St. John Chrysostom says: “For what purpose did he shed his blood? Certainly that he should acquire these sheep whose care he consigned both to Peter and the successors of Peter.” 591 And St. Leo says: “The disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter, persevering n that strength of the rock which he had received, did not leave behind the governance of the Church that he had received. Obviously Peter perseveres and ives in his successors.” 592 And St. Peter, the Bishop of Ravenna, in his epistle to Eutychus says: “St. Peter, who lives in and is in charge of his own see, furnishes truth to those seeking the faith.” Fifthly, the Church is one body, and has its own head on earth apart from Christ, as is clear from 1 Corinthians XII after Paul said the Church is one body, he adds: “The head cannot say to the feet ‘you are not necessary to me;’” which certainly does not agree to Christ. He can say to all of yours, you are not necessary to me, no other head can be assigned there apart from Peter; nor ought the body of the Church to remain without a head with the death of Peter therefore, it is necessary that someone should succeed Peter. Sixthly, in the Old Testament there was a succession of high Priests. For Eleazar succeeded Aaron, 593 and Phineas succeeded Eleazar, 594 and thus the rest. But the priesthood of the Old Testament was a figure of the priesthood of the New Testament, therefore, succession ought to be preserved in the see of Peter, the first and greatest of Christian bishops. Next, all arguments, whereby it is proved in the second question, that the rule of the Church ought to be a Monarchy, also prove this, which we are now treating. Moreover, that this successor of Peter should be the Roman Pontiff, can easily be proved. There never is or was one who asserted that he is the successor of Peter by any other way, or that he should be taken for such, apart from being the Bishop of Rome and Antioch. Yet, notwithstanding, the Bishop of Antioch does not succeed Peter in the Pontificate of the whole Church, for one does not succeed unless the place is yielded, either through natural death or through legitimate death, that is, deposition or renunciation. But while Peter was still living and managing the Pontificate, he relinquished the Antiochene Church and set up his seat at Rome, as we proved in a question above Therefore, it remains that the Roman Bishop, who succeeded Peter after he died in the city of Rome, succeeds to the same in its whole dignity and power. Besides, if the Bishop of Antioch succeeded Peter in the supreme Pontificate, it would be the first Church. But in the council of Nicaea, Canon 6 they declared the Bishop of Antioch to be in the third place, not the first or second, just as it had always been, nor did the Bishops of Antioch ever seek a higher place. In order that this whole matter might be better understood, a few things must be observed. First, succession is one thing, while the cause of the succession is another. The succession of the Roman Pontiff into the pontificate of Peter is from the establishment of Christ: moreover, the cause of the succession whereby the Roman Pontiff, instead of the Bishop of Antioch or someone else should succeed, has its beginning in act of Peter. I say the succession itself was established by Christ, and is of divine law, because Christ himself established in Peter a pontificate that was going to endure even to the end of the world, and hence, whoever succeeds Peter, receives the pontificate of Christ. But on the other hand, because the Bishop of Rome, since he is the Bishop of Rome, becomes the successor of Peter, he has his origin in the act of Peter not from the first establishment of Christ. For Peter could not have ever chosen any particular seat for himself, just as he did in the first five years, and then were he to die, could the Bishop of Rome or Antioch succeed; rather, that [see] which he would have chosen for himself as a Church. He could have always remained at Antioch, and then the Bishop of Antioch without a doubt would have succeeded, but since he set up his seat at Rome, and held it even to death thence it came to pass, that the Roman Pontiff succeeded him. Now, because Pope St. Marcellus writes in his epistle to the Antiochenes that Peter came to Rome at the Lord’s command, as well as many other Fathers 595 that Peter endured martyrdom at Rome by Christ’s command: it is not mprobable that the Lord openly commanded that Peter should so set up his seat at Rome that the Roman Bishop should absolutely succeed him. Yet whatever the truth of that, at least the cause of the succession is not from the first establishment of the Pontificate, which is read in the Gospel. The Second thing that must be observed, (although perhaps it may not be of divine law) is that the Roman Pontiff, because he is the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter in the rule of the whole Church; still, if anyone absolutely should ask whether the Roman Pontiff should be the pastor and head of the whole Church by divine law, it must altogether be asserted. For on this point nothing else is required, than that the succession itself should be of divine law this is, that the ordinary office of governing the whole Church with supreme power, is not from men, but was established immediately by God; besides, this was proven above. Thirdly, it must be observed, although by chance it might not be by divine aw, that the Roman Pontiff as Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter, nevertheless it pertains to Catholic faith. It is not the same thing, for something to be de fide and to be by divine law. It was not by divine law that Paul had a cloak, still this s de fide that Paul had a cloak. 596 Although, that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter may not be expressly contained in the Scriptures, nevertheless that someone succeeds Peter is deduced evidently from the Scriptures; that it is the Roman Pontiff, is contained in the Apostolic Tradition of Peter, the same tradition declared by the general Councils, the decrees of Pontiffs, and the consensus of the Fathers, as we will show a little later. The last thing which must be observed, is that the Bishop of Rome and the rule of the universal Church are not two Episcopates, nor two seats, except in power. For Peter was established as Pontiff of the whole Church by Christ, he did not add to himself the Episcopate of the city of Rome, in the manner whereby the bishop of some place might add to himself another bishopric, or Canonry, or Abbacy, rather, he carried the Episcopate of the city of Rome to the supreme Pontificate of the whole world, in the same way that a simple Episcopacy is raised into an Archepiscopate, or a Patriarchate. Therefore, the Archbishop or Patriarch is not twice or three times a bishop, but only once, and n the sign of this affair, no more than one pallium is given to the Supreme Pontiff, even if he is a bishop, archbishop, patriarch and Supreme Pontiff. All these are one in act, and merely many things in power. From which it follows, that one who is chosen as the Bishop of Rome, in the very matter becomes supreme Pontiff of the whole Church, even if by chance the electors do not express it. But now we shall respond to the objections of Nilus of Thessalonika and Calvin. The first objection of Nilus: “The Roman Pontiff has primacy from the Fathers because that city ruled the whole world, as we read in the Council of Chalcedon, act. 16. Therefore, he does not have a perpetual succession from Peter.” I respond: That decree was illegitimate, and was made by those protesting who presided over the Council. We will speak much more of this in Chapter XXVII. The Second objection of Nilus: “The Roman Pontiff is not an Apostle, but merely a bishop; as such, Apostles do not ordain Apostles, but pastors and teachers: therefore, the Roman Pope does not succeed Peter in Apostolic power which was over every Church, but only in the particular Episcopate of Rome. I respond: In the Apostolate three things are contained. Firstly, that one who is an Apostle should be immediately a minister of the word, so that he should be taught by God himself, and can write holy books; and we affirm that this is not appropriate to the Roman Pontiff. Indeed it is not necessary that he should have new revelations daily, and write new holy books. Secondly, that one who is an Apostle should constitute Church and propagate the faith in those places where it never was. Now this does pertain to the Roman Pontiff, which both reason and experience itself teach us. For, from Apostolic times, those who founded Churches in different parts of the world, and still found them were Roman Pontiffs. Thirdly, that one who is an Apostle should have supreme power over every Church, and we contend this also pertains to the Roman Pontiff, for this reason, because he succeeds Peter, in whom this power is ordinary, not delegated, as in the other Apostles. Nor does Nilus conclude the argument, when he says that Apostles do not constitute other Apostles, but pastors. The Apostles ought not create the Roman Pontiff as Pontiff of the whole Church, or Apostolic Pontiff, since Christ himself did this. This is why the seat of the Roman Pontiff is always called by all the Fathers the “Apostolic Seat”, and in the Council of Chalcedon itself in Act 1, which Nilus cites, the dignity of the Pope of Rome is called “The Apostolate”, and in act. 16 his seat is called “Apostolic.” The third objection. “Peter was pastor and teacher of the whole world, but the Pope is and was only called the Bishop of the city of Rome.” I respond That is false, and it can be seen from the Council of Chalcedon itself, omitting the rest. For in act 3, three epistles of the Eastern Bishops to Leo are read, and n all Leo is called “Pope of the universal Church”, and the same name is contained in act 16. The fourth objection: “Peter ordained bishops at Antioch and Alexandria but that is not permitted to the Roman Pope.” I respond: Although in this time the obstinacy of the Greeks does not allow it, nevertheless this was formerly permitted to the Roman Pontiff. For in the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 7, we read that Maximus, the Bishop of Antioch, was received by the Council because he had been confirmed by Pope St. Leo. Liberatus and John Zonara 597 also write that Anthimus the Bishop of Constantinople was deposed by Pope Agapitus, and in his place, Menas was ordained by the same Pope. But we will have many things to say about this in its proper place. The fifth objection. “Whatever Peter said or wrote, is an oracle of the Holy Spirit. But this is not fitting to the office of Pope. Therefore, the Pope does not have all the prerogatives of Peter.” I respond: We do not contend that point. The sixth objection: “It, was said to Peter without condition, ‘Whatever you bind will be bound, etc.’ But Peter commanded the Roman Pope, that he will only bind that or loose what rightly must be bound or loosed.” I respond Nothing is proved by this argument other than Nilus was truly a Greek, that is trifling and talkative. Who ever heard that it was permitted to Peter to bind what should not rightly be bound? And where is that prescription of Peter to a Pope contained which Nilus advances? Calvin objects firstly: “It does not follow that if Peter was in charge of twelve Apostles in the beginning, that now someone ought to be in charge of the whole world, for a few may easily and advantageously be ruled by one man, but many thousands cannot be governed unless it is by many.” 598 I respond: In the first place, Peter was not merely in charge of the twelve apostles, but also many thousands of Christians. In the last Chapter of John Christ consigned to Peter all his sheep, not merely the twelve apostles Moreover, we read in Acts II that the sheep of Peter increased to three thousand, and in Acts IV to five thousand in Jerusalem alone. Thereupon, in a place where there are many men, so much more do they require one ruler, by whom they should be contained in unity. But this was spoken of at length in the first question. Secondly, Calvin objects in the same place: “If therefore, the seat of the supreme Pontificate is at Rome, because Peter the Apostle died there while managing the Pontificate, therefore, the seat of the Jewish Pontificate should always have been in the desert, because there Moses and Aaron died while managing their Pontificate: and the Pontifical seat of Christians ought to be in Jerusalem, because there Christ, the High Priest [summus Pontifex] died.” 599 I respond, from the foregoing, the pontifical seat is not at Rome for the reason that Peter died there, but because he was the Bishop of Rome, and he never transferred the seat from Rome to another place. Moses and Aaron, on the other hand, did not set up a seat in the desert, but died there while they were on a journey. Furthermore, Christ did not set up a seat at Jerusalem, nor in any particular place, as we said above. The third objection of Calvin is from the same place: “This privilege concerning the primacy of the whole Church, is either local, or personal, or mixed. If the first, then it was conceded once at Antioch, it cannot be taken from there, even if Peter left there and died somewhere else. If the second therefore, it has nothing to do with place and Rome has no more right to the Pontificate than any other city. If the third, then it does not suffice for this to be the bishop of Rome, that someone should have the primacy. For if it is a privilege partly local, partly personal, it is not given to a place except for a time, in which such a person is there, namely Peter.” 600 I respond: when it was first established by Christ the Pontifical dignity was personal; nevertheless, by a deed of Peter, it was made afterward local, or rather mixed, not without divine assent. I say it was personal in the beginning because it was not bound to any particular place by Christ, but absolutely conferred to the person of Peter: thus, although I affirm it was personal, still it was public not private. Personal privileges are said to be private, which are given to some person merely for himself, but public privileges are those which are given for oneself and his successors. Still, since Peter set up his seat at Rome, it came to pass that this privilege was also local, and hence mixed. For it is bound to the city of Rome, as long as the successors of Peter retain the seat at Rome. For if the seat were to be transferred by divine law, then the Roman Bishops would no longer be the bishops of the whole Church. If the seat itself were to be transferred, I say, so that those who are now Roman Pontiffs would be called bishops of some other place. Furthermore, it is not said that the seat is transferred if the Pontiffs are merely absent from the city. Whereas these have been said hypothetically, we do not believe it is ever going to happen, that the seat of Peter will be transferred to another place. The fourth objection of Calvin is from the same place. “If the Roman Pontiff, because he succeeds Peter, is the first bishop, then Ephesus ought to be second, Jerusalem third, and thus for the rest: but we see that Alexandria was second, where no one succeeded an Apostle; Ephesus could not even cling to the outermost corner.” 601 I respond: The order and number of the Patriarchal sees does not depend upon the dignity of the first bishops, otherwise there would not be three, rather twelve for the number of Apostles, but solely from the dignity and will of Peter as we showed above from Anacletus, Leo and Gregory on the third question on the prerogatives of Peter. The fifth objection of Calvin is from the same book: “If the words which are said to Peter are also understood for his successors, then the Roman Pontiffs affirm that they are all Satans. For this was also said to Peter in Matthew XVI n the same place where it was said: ‘To you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’” 602 I respond: The words which are said to Peter differ in a threefold manner some are said to him in regard to him alone, some in regard to him and al Christians, some in regard to him and his successors. Now, that which is evidently gathered to have been said to him was for a different purpose. For those which are said to him, as to one from all the faithful, are certainly understood about all the faithful, as in Matthew XVIII: “If your brother will have sinned against you, etc.” Those which are said for the purpose of his own proper person, are said to him alone, such as: “Get behind me Satan,” and “You will deny me three times.” These were said due to his own imbecility and gnorance. At length, those which are said to him by reason of his pastora office, which hence are understood for all pastors, such as: “Feed my sheep,” and “Confirm your brethren,” and “Whatsoever you will have bound, etc.” Luther’s arguments are mere trifles, and can easily be answered from the foregoing: and besides, they were carefully answered by Eck, Fabro, St. John Fisher and Cajetan, whose books are in everyone’s hands; therefore, I pass them over.

 Chapter XIII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is proven from Councils 

 The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff must be proved in the second place from Councils. Indeed Luther, 603 Illyricus, 604 and Calvin 605 say, that the Sixth Canon of the Council of Nicaea opposes us, in which a certain region is assigned to the Roman Pontiff to govern, and at that a scanty region. He is declared to be just one of the Patriarchs, but not the head of the others; moreover, they could not discover the testimony of any Council on our behalf Just the same, there are as illustrious testimonies as there could be of the general Councils for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, from which nine were general, as in them, Latins and Greeks were present (with respect to which it must be remarked against the trifling and obstinacy of the Greeks). First we have the Council of Nicaea, and that 6 th Canon which are adversaries are using to object, but this canon requires some explanation in order that the argument can be taken up from there. The Sixth Canon of Nicaea s thus held in the volumes of the Councils which today are extant: “Let the most ancient custom endure in Egypt, or Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all of these, because at least the Bishop of Rome also has a like custom.” Some things must be noted about this canon. First, from Nicholas I, in a etter to [the emperor] Michael, the Council of Nicaea stated nothing about the Roman Church, because its power is not from men but from God. Rather, it only constituted the state of other Churches according to the form of the Roman Church. Therefore, the Council does not say: “Let the Bishop of Rome have administration of this or that region, but says: “Let the bishop of Alexandria have care of Egypt and Lybia, because the Bishop of Rome is so accustomed.” Obviously, the Roman Church should be the rule of the others, and nothing is stated about her properly. Therefore, Calvin, Illyricus, Nilus and the rest err when they say that certain boundaries were assigned to the Bishop of Rome that without a doubt he should only have care of the suburban Churches. Secondly, it must be observed that the beginning of this canon is missing in the ordinary books, which is thus: “The Roman Church always has primacy moreover let the custom endure, etc.” Thus this canon is cited in the Council of Chalcedon, Act 16, by the Bishop Paschasinus. Thus also it is altered in the Greek about a thousand years ago by Dionisius, a certain Abbot, as Alan Copus records in the first Dialogue. For that reason, in the same council of Chalcedon Act 16, after a reading of this canon, namely the Sixth Canon of Nicaea, the udges said: “We carefully assess all the primacy and particular honor according to the canons, preserved by our God-loving Archbishop of old Rome.” A third thing must be observed; the words “Because the Bishop of Rome has such a custom,” is usually explained in four ways. Firstly, as Ruffinus explains, The Council decreed that the Bishop of Alexandria should have care of Egypt, just as the Bishop of Rome has care of the suburban Churches. 606 But it is a false exposition, for if the Bishop of Rome is the first and particular Patriarch, how believable is it that he is assigned a very narrow region, while to lesser Patriarchs a very broad one is assigned? For Antioch had the whole East, and Alexandria three vast provinces, Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, but Rome would have had only the Churches around the city, that s, six Episcopates near to Rome. Next, that conjunction because [quoniam], is a measurable part of speech; but it is not a good cause for asserting that the Bishop of Alexandria would have care of three provinces, because the Roman Bishop has care of the Churches near the city. Therefore, either the reasoning of the Council avails to nothing, or Ruffinus did not correctly explain the opinion of the Council. Finally, the Churches around the city are not mentioned in the Council of Nicaea, neither as it is cited in the Sixth Council of Carthage, nor as t is read in the Sixteenth Act of the Council of Chalcedon, nor as it is contained in its own place in the volumes of Councils, or even as it is with Abbot Dionysius; rather, it says: “Let the most ancient custom endure in Egypt or Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all of these, because at least the Bishop of Rome also has a like custom.” Therefore, the opinion of Ruffinus is just pure divination, which Calvin follows, on the Churches near the city. The second explanation is of Theodore Balsamon, in his explanation of these canons, as well as in the book of Nilus against the Primacy, that the Council decreed that the Bishop of Alexandria should have care of all of Egypt ust as the Bishop of Rome has care of the whole west. This opinion is certainly more generous, but nevertheless false. For when the Council says: “Because the Bishop of Rome has such a custom,” it gives the reasoning as we said about why the ancient custom ought to remain in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of Alexandria should have care of those places. Moreover, that the Bishop of Rome has care of the west is not the origion of this affair. How does it follow that the Bishop of Rome has care of the west, therefore, Alexandria ought to have care of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis? Or why will the Bishop of Alexandria, and not of Carthage, or someone else have care of it? Add, that the Council does not mention the West nor the East, but it only says: “Because the Bishop of Rome has such a custom.” The third explanation is of the great historian of the Councils. He reckons from some ancient codex, that in place of the phrase we have, “Because the Bishop of Rome has such a custom,” the phrase, “Because a Metropolitan has such a custom” should be restored in place of it. Yet this is not a solid explanation either. There are no better copies extant of the Council of Nicaea than those possessed by the ancient Roman Pontiffs as we will show below when we will treat on titles; for the copies which were n Greek, were thoroughly burnt by the Arians, as St. Athanasius witnesses in his epistles to all the orthodox bishops, and therefore, it is no wonder if those which are cited by the Greeks and Ruffinus are mutilated and corrupted. Next those contained by the Roman Church are the ones from which Bishop Paschasinus brought as a legate to the Council of Chalcedon for Pope St. Leo where this canon was read to the Council, and likewise we read there: “Because the Bishop of Rome has such a custom.” Add that, it is not good reasoning why the Bishop of Alexandria ought to have such power, because Metropolitans had such a custom. For Metropolitans do not rule more than one province; and Alexandria had many provinces, and many Metropolitans were subject to it. Then the fourth explanation is the true one, that Alexandria ought to govern those provinces, because the Bishop of Rome was so accustomed, that s, because the Bishop of Rome customarily permitted the Bishop of Alexandria to rule Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis before the definition of any council; or it was his custom to govern those provinces through the Bishop of Alexandria. Nicholas I understood this canon in that way in his epistle to the Empoeror Michael, nor does any other probable explanation appear. The First General Council of Constantinople in its letter to Damasus which is extant in Theodoret, 607 says that it met in the city of Constantinople from the command of the letter of the Pope, sent to it through the Emperor. And n the same place, it affirms that the Roman Church is the head, and it is among the members. The Council of Ephesus, as it is found in Evagrius, 608 says that it deposed Nestorius by a command of a letter of the Roman Pope Celestine. Also, in the etter to the same Celestine, the same Council writes that it did not dare to udge the case of John, the Patriarch of Antioch, which was more dubious than the case of Nestorious, thus it reserved its judgment for Celestine. All of which especially indicates the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. The Council of Chalcedon, in Acts 1, 2, and 3, and in numerous other places, calls St. Leo “Pontiff of the universal Church.” And in an epistle to Leo: “And after all these things, and against him that was consigned care of the vineyard by the Savior he extended insanity, that is, against your Apostolic Sanctity.” You see that this great Council confesses that the Roman Pontiff was consigned care of the vineyard by God himself, that is of the universal Church. The Synod of Constantinople, which was gathered before the fifth Synod over the case of Antimus, so speaks in Act 4 through Menas, the Patriarch of the Council: “We follow the apostolic seat, and obey it. We hold those communicating with it as communicating with us, and we likewise condemn those condemned by it.” Now, if the whole Council professes itself to obey the Apostolic seat, certainly the Apostolic seat is over the whole Church with authority. The Third Council of Constantinople, in Act 2, receives and approves the epistle of Pope Adrian to Tharasius, in which these words are contained “Whose seat, it is becoming that it obtains primacy over the whole world, and as the head arises over every Church of God; From where even the blessed Apostle Peter himself, feeding the Church by a command of God, altogether overlooks nothing, rather obtained and obtains supremacy everywhere, etc.” Mark that it is said in the present: “it is becoming that it obtains the primacy;” and “As the head arises, etc.” The Third Lateran Council under Innocent III, in which the Greeks and Latins were present, says in Chapter 5, “The Roman Church, by a dispensation of the Lord, obtains supremacy of ordinary power over all others, in as much as she is the mother and teacher of all the faithful of Christ.” The General Council of Lyons under Gregory X, calls the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter, the Ruler of the Universal Church, and in this council both Greeks and Latins were present. 609 Next, the Council of Florence, stated with the agreement of both Greeks and Latins: “We define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and is the head of the whole Church, as well as the Father of all Christians, and is proven to be a teacher, for our Lord Jesus Christ handed full power to him in the person of St. Peter to feed, rule and govern the universal Church.” I omit five other general Councils, because the Greeks do not receive them, since they were not present, nor do the Lutherans since they were celebrated after the year 600. 610

 Chatpter XIV: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is proven from the Testimonies of the Supreme Pontiffs 

We take up the third argument from the teachings of the Supreme Pontiffs It must be observed that the epistles of the Pontiffs can be distributed as though they were in three classes. The first class contains epistles of the Pontiffs, who sat to the year 300, in which the Centuriators and Calvin profess that truly the primacy is asserted and these Popes were saints and true Pontiffs, but they say their epistles were contrived and recent, as well as falsely ascribed to those Pontiffs. The second class embraces the epistles of those Popes, who sat from the year 600 even to our times, in which our adversaries confess that truly the primacy was asserted and they were the authors of these in which they are entitled, but those Pontiffs were not worthy in regard to faith, and were Pseudopontiffs, not true Pontiffs. The third class takes up those epistles, in which the primacy is openly asserted, and which it is certain were written by saints and true Pontiffs, who flourished from the year 300 to the year 600, namely Julius I, Damasus Siricius, Innocent I, Sozomen, Leo the Great, Gelasius, Anastasius II, John II Felix IV, Pelagius II, and Gregory the Great. Therefore, in the testimonies of the first and second class, we will not devote attention to quotes, but it will be enough to mark the citations in parenthesis and respond to the objections of the heretics; whenever they affirm in those epistles that our opinion is clearly asserted. The quotes will only be conveyed in the testimonies of the third class. First: these holy Pontiffs openly assert the Primacy: Clement (Epistle 1) Anacletus (Epist. 3) Evaristus (Epist. 1), Alexander (Epist. 1) Pius I (Epist. 1 and 2), Anicetis (Epist. 1), Victor (Epist. 1), Zephyrinus (Epist. 1), Calixtus (Epist. 2), Lucius (Epist. 1), Marcellus (Epist. 1), Eusebius (Epist. 3) Melchiades (Epist. 1), Marcus, (Epist. 1). To these testimonies they make no response, except to say that they are recent and not genuine. But although I would not deny that some errors have crept into them, nor would I dare to affirm that they are indisputable, stil certainly I have no doubt whatsoever they are very ancient. Thus the Centuriators lie when they say that no worthy author before the times of Charlemagne cited these epistles. 611 For Isidore, who is two hundred years older than Charlemagne, says that by the counsel of 80 bishops, he gathered the Canons from the epistles of Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, and the rest of the Roman Pontiffs. Likewise, the Council of Vasense, Can. 6, cites the letters of Clement just as they exist now and they are also cited by a Council celebrated n the time of Leo I, that is, 350 years before the empire of Charlemagne Lastly Ruffinus, who preceded Charlemagne by four hundred years, in a Preface to the recognitions of Clement which he translated from Greek, recalls also the epistles of Clement to James, and says that he translated them out of Greek himself. Further, this version is truly of Ruffinus, as Gennadius witnesses. 612 In the Second class are the following Popes: Adrian I (epistle to Tharasius), Nicholas I (epistle to the Emperor Michael), Leo IX (epistle to Michael the Bishop of Constantinople), Paschal I (epistle to Bishop Panormitanus), Innocent III (Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople). All of these avowedly and in earnest teach that the Roman Pontiff is over the whole Church. Our adversaries respond to these by saying all these Pontiffs were Antichrists. Now that, we will refute in a later question. 613 Meanwhile, we say this alone, if these Pontiffs were Antichrists, the whole Church would have perished by nearly a thousand years; it is certain from the histories that the universal Church adhered to these Pontiffs, and followed their teaching. But if the Church perished, then Christ lied when he said in Matthew XVI that the gates of hell were not going to prevail against the Church. But on this we have said enough in the questions on the Church. Let us come to the third class, and we advance the twelve best and holiest Popes. The first is St. Julius I, who in his epistle to the Oriental Bishops, 614 speaks thus: “Why are you ignorant of the fact that it is customary that first it should be written to us, that hence what is just can be defined? For which reason, if a crime of this kind had been conceived against a bishop, it ought to be referred to our Church. . . What we received from Blessed Peter the Apostle that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest to everyone, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” In these words St. Julius affirms that the duty of judging the cases of bishops pertains to him, even in the East, although they are primary Patriarchs (for he treats on the case of St. Athanasius the Patriarch of Alexandria) and this right he received from St. Peter, which is known to everyone. What response, I ask, can be made? The author is a saint, and very ancient; the epistle certain and the whole written down by St. Athanasius; and at length his words are clear and eloquent. The second is St. Damasus, who, in a letter to all the Eastern Bishops which Theodoret relates, 615 says: “Because your charity distributed the reverence due to the Apostolic seat, you most beloved sons excel, as many of you as there are.” There, he recognized that due reverence and calls all the bishops sons. Likewise in Epistle 4 to the Bishops of Numidia: “Do not cease to bring all those things which can receive some doubt to us, just as to the head as has always been the custom.” The third witness is St. Syricius, in an epistle to Himericus, the Bishop of Tarragona, which Calvin also confesses is truly of Syricius: “For consideration of our duty, it is not for us to feign, nor to take the liberty to be silent, in which a zeal greater than all of the Christian religion depends upon. We bear the burdens of all who are weighed down. Indeed St. Peter carries these things among us, who protects and guards us as his heirs in all things, as we trust in his administration.” And below that in Chapter 15: “We have explained, as I believe, beloved brother, all those things which have been scattered into strife and to individual origins, on which through our son Bassianus, a priest of the Roman Church, in as much as he has reported to the head concerning your body, etc.” Next he commands the bishop, that he would direct these, his decrees, to all other bishops. The fourth is St. Zosimus, in an epistle to Hesychius the Bishop of Solons “We have chiefly directed these writings to you so that you will see to it that notice is given to all the brethren, our bishops . . . Let each one know this, that aying aside the authority of the Fathers and of the Apostolic See, he will have disregarded that which we have defended in earnest; if he thinks he can attempt this after so many prohibitions, he should scarcely doubt that it is inconsistent n his regard with the rule of his see.” The fifth is St. Innocent I, in his epistle to the Bishops of Macedonia “Turn to the Apostolic seat, the relation to which, just as to the head of Church they did run, being sent, when injury was done, etc.” 616 Likewise, in an epistle to the Council of Miletus, which is among the epistles of St. Augustine he says: “Diligently and agreeably consult the Apostolic honor. To the honor of that which is apart from those, which are on the outside, care remains of all the Churches: they followed the ancient form of the rule, which you know is always kept throughout the world.” Likewise, in an epistle to the Council of Carthage, which is 91, he says the Roman see is the fount and head of al Churches. To this the Centuriators make no response, except that Innocent arrogates too much for himself. For which reason, they contumaciously call him Nocentius. 617 But if that is so, why do the Fathers not condemn this error of Innocent? What does Augustine say about these two letters of Innocent: “He wrote on all things to us in the same manner, in which it was lawful, and also fitting for a bishop of the Apostolic see.”? 618 Why does Augustine appeal to the “blessed memory” of Innocent in the same place? Sixth is St. Leo. Because Luther and Calvin say the ancient Pontiffs had no authority outside of the West, we bring to bear the testimonies of Leo, in which the primacy is asserted, and shown that the Pontiff exercised jurisdiction in that time in Greece, Asia, Egypt and Africa. Therefore, in Epistle 84 to Anastasius the Bishop of Thessalonika, he says: “That you too, just like your predecessors should receive from us in our turn authority, we give our consent and earnestly exhort that no concealment and no negligence may be allowed in the management of the churches situated throughout Illyria, which we commit to you in our stead, following the precedent of Siricius, of blessed remembrance who then, for the first time, acting on a certain method, entrusted them to your ast predecessor but one, Anysius of holy memory, who had at the time well deserved of the Apostolic See, that he might render assistance to the churches situated in that province which he wished kept up to discipline. . . We have so trusted your charity in our stead, that you should be called into part of the care but not in the fullness of power.” At the end, where he had said that bishops archbishops and primates were constituted with great providence, he adds “Through which care of the universal Church flows to the one See of Peter, and should never be separated from the head.” From this, not only the Primacy, but even the authority of Leo appears in the Churches of Greece. The same Leo, in his letter to Anatholus, the Bishop of Constantinople “To you resident, in whom the execution of our disposition we enjoin, etc.” 619 You see, that he commanded the Patriarch of Constantinople. He also says, in Letter 62 to Maximus, the Patriarch of Antioch, advising him, the latter frequently writes to him about what should be done concerning the Churches Leo writes in the same place: “Juvenal, the bishop believed it could suffice for him to obtain rule of the province of Palestine. Cryil, of holy memory, rightly trembling at the fact, demanded much careful prayer, that no approbation should be offered to illicit attempts, etc.” You see how the Patriarch of Alexandria begged Leo, lest he would permit Palestine to be subject to Juvenal? And when this province looked to the Patriarchate of Antioch, why did Cyril not rather seek the aid of the Patriarch of Antioch than Leo? Leo further writes to Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria: “What we know our fathers preserved with greater care, we wish you also to safeguard etc.” Here we see Leo commands the Patriarch of the whole of Egypt and Lybia. Again, in Epistle 87 to the Bishops of Africa: “What we suffer, no matter how venial, cannot remain altogether unpunished, if anyone should presume to usurp that which we forbid. . . there we command the case of Bishop Lupicinus to be heard.” Therefore, Leo commanded the Bishops of Greece, Asia, Egypt, and Africa. There are also extant letters to the Bishops of Germany, France, Spain and Italy, in which he clearly understands that he is their Judge and Head. Lastly, in his first sermon he addresses the city of Rome thus: “By the holy Seat of Blessed Peter, Head of the World, you were set up to preside over divine religion more extensively than earthly dominion. Although increased by many victories, the right of your empire you brought by earth and sea, still, has bellicose labor not supplied less to you than what Christian peace has subjected?” 620 What could be more clear? Calvin responds to all these citations in two ways. 621 Firstly, he says that Leo was greedy beyond limit for glory and domination, and that many resisted his ambition. He cites proof of it in the margin of his Epistle 85. But in that epistle, no such thing exists, nor do we discover in any of his epistles any who resisted St. Leo, with the exception of one French Bishop named Hilary. This is only read in Epistle 89 of Pope Leo, that this bishop wished to withdraw from obedience to the Apostolic Seat; nevertheless, we read in the same place that he came to Rome to make his case, and was convicted in a Council, and punished. On the other hand, among the Epistles of Leo are extant Epistles to him from different Councils, bishops and emperors, and specifically the epistles of the Bishops of France, in which his piety and authority are wonderfully praised I do not believe that there was anyone before Luther and Calvin who condemned St. Leo for pride and ambition. Calvin responds in the second place: “Leo did not usurp the jurisdiction over other bishops, but as much as he interposed himself to settle their quarrels so also the law and nature of Ecclesiastical Communion suffered.” He attempts to prove this from the same epistle of Leo (84), where it seems as though he commands bishops, in fact Leo says that he would have it that all the privileges of Metropolitans were preserved, as though he were to say that he advises from piety, to relinquish authority to those whom it belongs. But if that is so, therefore, he was not more greedy of glory and domination, nor was he accused of ambition. Thereupon, the very words of Leo cited above teach clearly enough that he truly and clearly commanded bishops with authority. Moreover, the fact that he wishes that the laws of the Metropolitans be preserved does nothing to impede our case, for he wished them to be so preserved, that at the same time they might be subject to the Apostolic Seat and its Vicar. He says as much in the same Epistle: “Therefore, according to the canons of the holy Fathers fashioned in the spirit of God, and consecrated in reverence of the whole world, Metropolitan Bishops of individual provinces, in which our care of your fraternity is extended by delegation, the right of antiquity of the dignity handed down for it, we discern to hold undefiled, so that by predetermined rules they might withdraw neither by negligence, nor by presumption. . . If by chance, among those who are in charge of greater parts something would be missing, the case might be born in sins, which cannot be defined by a provincial test, your fraternity on the quality of the whole business the Metropolitan will take care to instruct, and if in the presence of equal parties, the matter will not have been insensible in your judgment, to our understanding, whatever it is that shall be transferred.” The seventh is St. Gelasius. He says in an epistle: “All the Churches throughout the world know that it is bound by the teachings of every Pontiff for the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should have the right of resolving; in as much as he should have the sacred right to judge those matters in regard to every Church, nor is it lawful for anyone to judge his judgment.” 622 Nor can any response be given for these, it is certain that these are truly the words of Gelasius, and Gelasius was a holy man, who was in charge of the Church a thousand years ago. The eighth is John II, who also sat a thousand years ago, who writes “Among the clear praises of your wisdom and custom, O most Christian of Princes, by a purer light, just as some star would twinkle, that is, by love of faith, because being learned by zeal for charity, you preserve the reverence for the disciplines of the Roman Seat, and being subject to it in regard to everything, being lead to its unity, to its authority, this is the first of the Apostles, commanded while the Lord was speaking: ‘Feed my sheep,’ which is truly the head of the Churches, and the rules of the fathers, and clearly established of Princes, etc.” 623 The ninth is Anastasius II, who wrote to the Emperor: “Through the ministry of my humility, just as the seat of Blessed Peter is always in the universal Church, its rule should be held by yourself as designated by the Lord.” 624 The tenth is Felix IV, who wrote: “I joyfully received the writings of your sanctity, which you sent to the Apostolic Seat just as to the head, that from there you would receive a response, whence every Church of the whole religion takes its beginning.” 625 The eleventh is Pelagius II, who in an Epistle to Eastern Bishops, writes “The Roman See, by the Lord’s institution, is the head of every Church.” The twelfth is St. Gregory the Great, who, no less than Leo, knew he was the Head of the whole Church. He writes in an Epistle: “From the Council of Numidia, if anyone will have longed to come to the Apostolic seat, permit him and if some of them should wish to gainsay their ways, meet them.” 626 From there it is clear what the authority of Gregory was in Africa. Likewise, he says n another epistle: “After the writings were directed to your beatitude, for the sake of my retirement in the cause of Honoratus the Archdeacon, that Honoratus uttered a condemned opinion on every side for his own degree is private. But if someone from the four Patriarchs would see to it, without grave scandal, that such a contumely should in no way transpire into contumacy.” Certainly in these words St. Gregory was put in charge of all the Patriarchs, he very obviously teaches. 627 Likewise he writes: “Know that We transferred the pallium of our brother John, the Bishop of Corinth, to one that it is exceedingly fitting for you to obey.” You see the authority of Gregory among the Greek Bishops, whereby he ordains the Bishop and Archbishop of Corinth by the transmission of the pallium? He also writes: “For concerning the Church of Constantinople, who doubts it is subject to the Apostolic seat? Or the fact that the Lord is the most pious emperor, which our brother Eusebius, bishop of the same city assiduously professes.” 628 And in Epistle 64, to the same Archbishop: “For because he says he is subject to the Apostolic seat, if some fault is discovered among the bishops, I do not know which bishop might be subject to him.” What is clearer? I omit the letters to the Bishops of Italy, France, and Spain, for there is no doubt concerning their subjection. Calvin responds, and says first: “Gregory granted to himself the right of correcting others, however, they did not obey him unless they wished.” 629 But this cannot be said, for Gregory was very holy and exceedingly humble, for which reason even the Greeks commemorate his feast day; and Calvin likewise professes that Gregory was a holy man, 630 but usurpation of someone else’s right is inconsistent with sanctity. Nor is it a venial blemish or stain, to make subject all bishops to himself, but, as they frequently teach, intolerable pride and the very mark of Antichrist; how therefore, was Gregory a saint, if he subjected all bishops to him unjustly? Secondly Calvin responds: “Gregory judged the Bishop of Constantinople by a command of the Emperor, as is clear from bk 7, epistle 64 of the same Gregory.” But in that epistle Gregory says the Emperor wished that patriarch udged by him because the Canons of Gregory himself require this. It is the same as if he were to say, the Emperor refused to impede since according to the canons a bishop, though he be of a royal city, was to be punished by Gregory This is the reason why in the previous epistle Gregory says the Emperor assiduously professes, that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the Roman Church. Thirdly Calvin responds: “He punished Gregory just as others, he was so prepared to be corrected by others, as he says himself, 631 and hence was not more over them than subject to them.” But Gregory, in that epistle, speaks on fraternal correction, not on a judicial censure, as he says: “Behold, your fraternity stands so sickly from banquets which I have condemned, since I, who although I do not transgress this by life but by place, corrupted by all things, I am prepared to be corrected by all, and only I reckon this man is my friend by whose tongue before the apparition of a busy judge I wipe away the stains of my mind.” Add that Calvin envelops the argument in contradiction, in asserting that at one and the same time the man is a Prelate for all, and nevertheless subject to some. He responds in the fourth place: “This state of the Pontiffs exceedingly displeases Gregory: hence he bewails,” Calvin says, “and under the heat of the episcopate he would return to the world, as he says in an epistle.” 632 But what Calvin misses here is that Gregory was given to exhaustion since he was brought from the quiet of the monastery to the Episcopal burdens: moreover, he was not displeased that the Apostolic Seat managed the care of every Church For he opposed bitterly the same thing for the honor of his Seat against John the Bishop of Constantinople. He also says to Eulogius: “We shall maintain humility in mind, and nevertheless preserve our dignity in honor.” 633 And in another epistle to John the Bishop of Panormus, he says: “We advise that the reverence due to the Apostolic seat be disturbed by the presumption of no one Thus, the state of the members remains whole, if no injury besets the head of faith.” 634 And in his explanation of the Psalms he says: “In such a man he extends the rashness of his frenzy, that he will claim for himself the head of al Churches, the Roman Church, and usurp for himself the right of power as Mistress of the Nations.” 635 

Chapter XV: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proved from the Greek Fathers 

Let us come to the testimonies of the Fathers who were not Supreme Pontiffs. Calvin and Illyricus make only three objections to us; Cyprian, Jerome and Bernard, about whom we will speak in their place. For the moment, we will object to them from nearly thirty three. Therefore, the first should be St. Ignatius, who records in his epistle to the Romans: “Ignatius, to the holy Church, which presides in the region of the Romans.” Why is the Church said to be presiding, except because it is the Head of all others? The second is St. Irenaeus: “The Church of Rome, of the greatest antiquity and recognized by all, founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, that which has tradition from the Apostles, and heralding the faith to all through successions of bishops attaining even to us we confound those men, who reveal that they gather it [the tradition] contrary to what is fitting by any manner or through their wicked charm, or vain glory or through blindness and wicked knowledge. It is necessary for every Church to agree with this Church, on account of a mightier principality, 636 this is, those who are faithful on every side, in which always, by these who are on every side this has been preserved, which is the Tradition from the Apostles.” 637 Mark that phrase It is necessary, and that For every Church to agree. And also: On account of a mightier preeminence, as well as: in which the Apostolic Tradition has always been preserved for all. For Irenaeus proves, that he can confound all heretics from the doctrine of the Roman Church, because it is necessary for every Church to agree with this Church, and by it, just as by a head and fount, the Church depends; and hence it s necessary that its doctrine is Apostolic and true. He proves the fact that al Christians necessarily depend upon the Roman Church. In the first place, a priori, because rule was given to this Church. In the second place, a posteriori, because insofar as all always preserve the Faith in this Church, that is, in union and adhesion to this Church, as to a Head and mother. The third witness is Epiphanius: “Ursacius and Valens doing penance together with little books professed to St. Julius, the Bishop of Rome, so as to be restored from their error and crime.” 638 Certainly they were bishops therefore, why did they seek forgiveness from the Roman Pontiff, if the Roman Pontiff were not also the judge and Head of bishops? The Fourth is Athanasius. In his Second Apology, he witnesses certain bishops sought forgiveness for their crime from St. Julius I. And in his epistle to Pope Felix he says: “On account of that you, and your predecessors, clearly Protectors [Praesules], He [God] constituted in the capitol of the highest point and commanded to have care over every Church, that you should come to our aid.” 639 Lastly, in his book on the Sentences of Dionysius of Alexandria, he says: “Certain men from the Church thinking rightly, but ignorant of the case That is why since it stood thus, it was written by him that they should go up to Rome, and there they accused Dionysius before the Prelate at Rome.” Why, I ask, is Dionysius the Patriarch of Alexandria accused by good men n the presence of the Roman Pontiff, except because they knew the Roman Pontiff is the common judge of all? The fifth is Basil the Great. In an epistle he says: “It appeared agreeable to write to the Bishop of Rome, that he might look to our affairs, and impose a decree of his judgment. As that is difficult, some thence asked for a sentence of the Council to be sent; these gave authority of the affair to wicked men, that they could not bear the labor of the journey, by a leniency and facility of morals. Then by a prudent and agreeable prayer they, who had returned by the right way, advised that every act of the Council of Armenia they should bear with them to get them rescinded, which were carried out with violence in that place.” Basil attributes to the Bishop of Rome authority of visiting the Eastern Churches, and from that authority of making and rescinding the genera Conciliar decrees which were at Arminia. The sixth is St. Gregory Nazianzen, 640 who says that the Roman Church always preserved the true teaching from God, as is fitting for the city which presides over the whole world. Nor is he speaking on the temporal empire, for n that time the capital of the Roman Empire was at Constantinople, not Rome. The seventh is St. John Chrysostom, who says in Epistle 1 to Pope Innocent: “I ask that you would write the fact that these things were done so wickedly that they have no strength, moreover that those who behaved so wickedly ought to be subjected to the penalty of Ecclesiastical laws.” Theophilus the Bishop of Alexandria had deposed Chrysostom from the Episcopate of Constantinople in a Council of many bishops: Chrysostom wrote to the Roman Pontiff, that he would discern with his authority, that the udgment of Theophilus was void, and punish Theophilus himself. Therefore Chrysostom acknowledged Pope Innocent as a the supreme judge even of the Greeks. Likewise, in his 2 nd epistle to the same: “We thank you in perpetuity because you have declared your paternal benevolence to us, etc.” Chrysostom acknowledged Innocent as a father, nevertheless he was older than Innocent, and the bishop of a royal city. Lastly, in the same epistle, he begs from Innocent, lest he would excommunicate his enemies, even though they deserved it: “I pray your vigilance, that although they have filled everything with tumults, still if they may wish to be cured from the malady, lest they be afflicted, or cast from the body.” The eighth is St. Cyril of Alexandria. In his tenth epistle to Nestorius, and his eleventh to the Clergy and people of Constantinople, he writes that Nestorius, unless he would recall his heresies within a set time, ought to be shunned by all as one excommunicated and deposed. And in Epistle 18 to Celestine, whom he calls “Most Holy Father” at the beginning, he asks from him whether he would have it that Nestorius was still communicated with at that time, or whether he was to be shunned by all. All of which sufficiently shows in what place St. Cyril held the Roman Pontiff, since in the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius, he showed that he was nothing other than the executer and administrator of the Roman Pontiff. Also in the book, Thesauri, he says: “Every head bows to Peter by divine law, and the primates of the world obey him just as they obey the Lord Jesus.” Likewise “We ought, as we who are members, adhere to our head, the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic seat.” Such words are not contained in the books Thesauri which are now extant but they are cited by St. Thomas, 641 and by Gennadius Cholarius, a Greek author, in a book on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Moreover, it is certain that many books from the work, Thesauri, have perished, for the same phrase is cited in the Sixth Council, Act 10, bk 32. Only fourteen books of the Libr Thesauri of Cyril are extent today. Besides, Andreas, the Bishop of Colossensis, affirmed at the Council of Florence, 642 that in the Thesauri of Cyril the authority of the Roman Pontiff was wonderfully preached, and not one of the Greeks contradicted him. The ninth is Theodoret, who in an epistle to Pope Leo says: “I await the udgment of your Apostolic seat, and I beg and entreat your holiness that you would impose the might of your just and right judgment to my appeal, and that t might bid you to hasten and show that my doctrine follows in the Apostolic footsteps.” 643 Yet here was an Asian Bishop who was in charge of 800 churches, as he says in the same place, nevertheless he acknowledges the Roman Pontiff as his supreme judge. He also says in a letter to Renatus, a Roman priest: “They have despoiled me of priesthood and thrown me from the cities; neither is age considered in religion nor reverence for grey hairs. This is why I beg you, that you might persuade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he would use his Apostolic authority, and that he might bid me to approach your Council. That holy seat holds the reigns of government over every church of the world.” 644 The tenth is Sozomen in his History. He says: “Since on account of the dignity of his own seat regards the care of all the faithful as his own, he restored each to their church.” 645 He speaks concerning Julius I, who restored Athanasius to his Episcopate in Alexandria, and Paul to Constantinople. The eleventh is Acatius, who says, in an epistle to Pope Simplicius, which s contained in a volume of the Second Council: “Carrying about the solicitude of all Churches, according to the Apostle, you exhort us without ceasing although watchful and anticipating of our own accord.” The twelfth. Concerning the Bishop of Paterna, Liberatus thus writes in his Breviary: “When Sylverius came to Patara the venerable bishop of that city came to the Emperor, and called to witness the judgment of God concerning the expulsion of a bishop of such a See, saying, ‘there are many kings in this world, and there is not one, just as that Pope is over the Church of the whole world, being expelled form his see.’” 646 The thirteenth is Justinian Augustus, the Elder, in a letter to John II, which s contained in the Codex, in the first title: “We will not suffer anything which pertains to the state of the Churches that is not also made known to your holiness, who is head of all the Churches of the world.” 

Chapter XVI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Latin Fathers 

Now from the Latins. St. Cyprian often teaches this [that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter]. But before we bring the proper citations to bear, the argument of his books on the Unity of the Church must be explained; from there his other testimonies shall be more easily understood. Therefore, in his book on the Unity of the Church, he proposes to show in what the unity of the Church consists, and he shows first from where division and heresy arise. “It happens in this way, that one does not return to the font of truth, nor seek the head, nor preserve the doctrine of the heavenly master.” There he proposes three things. Firstly, the font of truth is from the Church that is, from the Church whereby doctrine will have begun. Secondly, the Head of the Church is different from Christ: for a little before, he had said that all heretics seek Christ, and nevertheless here he says that all heresies are born because they do not seek the Head of the Church. Thirdly, the doctrine of the heavenly Master, is what the doctrine of Christ might be from the Church and ts Head. After these were proposed, he soon declares these three matters, saying “The Lord speaks to Peter: ‘I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it;’ ‘Feed my sheep, etc.’” In that place, Cyprian teaches that the font of truth is from the Church, which he had said must be sought in these words of the Lord Therefore, this doctrine begins from the Church: and similarly, the head of the Church, which he had said must be sought is Peter, and the doctrine of the heavenly Master are these same words. This is why, a little after, he adds and teaches, that the Church is one in its root and head, although it is multiplied in propagation, and he places three examples, one of a light, of a font, and a tree All these are one in root, and yet are multiplied in propagation. Therefore, we have from this place, that Peter is the Head of the whole Church. Moreover, this same thing is fitting for the Bishop of Rome; Cyprian declares the same thing in a letter to Pope Cornelius, where, speaking on the schism of the Novatianists, who did not recognize Cornelius as Pope, he speaks thus: “Heresies do not arise from any other source, nor are schisms born, than n that because they do not obey the Priest of God, or one priest in the Church at a time, or it is not thought that there is one judge in the stead of Christ at a time. To which if all fraternity would comply according to the divine magisterium, no man from the college of priests would ever oppose anything etc.” 647 Now our adversaries respond: “Here Cyprian speaks on individual bishops and particular Churches, and wishes to say, in each Church there ought to be one Judge and Priest at a time.” But if this citation were matched against the previous one, it is obvious that Cyprian is speaking on the universal Church For, just as in the first place he had said that heresies are born because the head s not sought, and he explained that the Head of the whole Church is Peter, so here he says heresies are born because it is not thought that there is one judge n the stead of Christ in the Church, which without a doubt is Cornelius, for he s speaking about him. For that reason, a little below in the same epistle, he calls the Roman Church the See of Peter and the Principle Church, whence sacerdotal unity arises. He also says in another letter to the same Cornelius: “We had recently sent our colleagues, that they might gather together the members of the torn body to the unity of the Catholic Church, but the obstinacy of different parties, and the unbendable pertinacity not only refused the lap and embrace of the root and mother, but even made an adulterous and contrary head outside the Church etc.” 648 Clearly this discourse is on the Catholic Church, of which the Novatianists are outside. But Cyprian says that the Novationists not only refused to return to the Church, and acknowledge the root and mother, or the Head of this Church; but even set up for themselves an adulterous and contrary Head. Therefore, just as Novatian was the head of all Novatianists, so Cornelius was the Head of all Catholics. Cyprian also teaches: “There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church and one Chair founded upon Peter by the voice of the Lord. One cannot set up another altar, or to make a new priesthood, apart from the one altar and one priesthood. Whoever does so gathers elsewhere, and therefore, scatters.” 649 Here, rightly, just as God is one and Christ is one, and the Church is one in number, not in species: so also the Chair is one in number, that is, there is a certain individual Chair, which teaches the whole Church, and that is of Peter outside of which whoever gathers, scatters. Next, in another epistle, 650 he again calls the Roman Church the root and mother of the Catholic Church. But our adversaries object. First, they bring up Cyprian’s book on the Unity of the Church, where he so speaks: “The Episcopate is one, part of which s held in solidity by individuals.” Therefore, they say, there is not one bishop of the whole Church. Secondly, they object on the basis of Cyprian’s epistle to Quintus, where Cyprian, while residing in Council, says: “No one constituted our bishop that he should be of bishops, or compel his colleagues by a tyrannical terror to the necessity of obedience, when every bishop has the right of liberty and his power of his proper judgments, just as he can be judged by no other, since he cannot judge the other. But we await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power of putting us in charge of the governance of his Church and judging it from our act.” I respond to the first: The Episcopate is one in that manner in which the Church is one. Furthermore, the Church is one in that manner, in which many branches of a tree are one tree, many rivers one water, and many rays one light and in the same place Cyprian says, just as in the branches, rivers and rays there is unity by reason of the one head, that is of the root, source and the sun even though the branches, rivers and rays are multiplied: so also the Church is one, and the Episcopate one in the root and Head, although there are many particular Churches, and many particular Episcopates. Therefore, part of one great Episcopate is held by individual bishops in solidity, but not equally, nor in the same way. For Peter and his successors hold that part which is just as the head, and the root and the source: the rest hold the other parts which are like the branches and rivers. This one Episcopate is (as we said) similar to a heterogeneous body, not a homogenous body, from which it follows that individual bishops do not hold part of this Episcopate in the same way. For just as the root, although it is a part, as the branch is also, nevertheless holds up and rules the branches, and everything which is in the branches, they are virtually in the root, not the other way around: so also, although the Roman Church and the Roman Episcopate are part of the universal Church, and the universal Episcopate, just like the Church at Tusculum 651 has its Episcopate, nevertheless the Roman Church rules Tusculum, not the other way around. Therefore, from the teaching of Cyprian it is rightly gathered, that the Roman Pope is not only the bishop of all Churches, as there are indeed other true bishops who received their part of the universal Church to rule nevertheless it is not rightly gathered, that the Roman Pontiff is not the Head and Pastor of all bishops, and hence also of the universal Church; seeing that the part which has been consigned to them to rule has that place in the Church which has the root in the tree, the head in the body and the font in rivers of waters. Now to the second objection I say: When Cyprian says: “No one makes himself a bishop of bishops,” he speaks on those who were present at that Council in Carthage, he does not include the Roman Pontiff in that teaching who truly is the Bishop of Bishops, and Father of Fathers, as we will show below when we treat on the titles of the Roman Pontiff. Now to that which he says, that a bishop cannot be judged except by God ust as he is constituted by God alone, I say: it ought to be understood in dubious and secret matters; thus St. Augustine expresses it when recalling these very words of Cyprian, “I think in these questions which have not yet been discussed with very refined examination, etc.” 652 In that place he teaches that Cyprian would have it mean that individual bishops in a Council, while a matter is discussed, can freely state their opinion nor ought they be compelled tyrannically by the President of the Council to his opinion, before a question may have been defined. For otherwise how could a Pope judge and depose heretical bishops, or manifest schismatics, as is clear from Cyprian’s letter to Pope Stephen, 653 where Cyprian exhorts him, that he should command the Bishop of Arles to be deposed, and constitute another in his place. The second from the Latin Fathers is Optatus of Miletus. He follows Cyprian’s opinion on the singular chair of the whole Church in his work Contra Parmen., where he says there are five dowries of the Catholic Church, and the first is the unique and singular Chair of Peter, in which unity ought to be preserved by all: but he showed that singular Chair is not only Peter’s but also his successors’ when he enumerated the Roman Pontiffs even to Siricius. And at length he concludes: “Therefore, on the aforesaid dowries, that Chair is first which we proved is ours through Peter.” The third is St. Ambrose, who says in his commentary on the first Epistle to Timothy: “When the whole world should be of God, nevertheless his house s called the Church, whose Ruler today is Damasus.” 654 He teaches likewise in his Oration on Satyrus: “Percunctatus is a Bishop, if he should agree with Catholic bishops, that is, if he should agree with the Roman Church.” Why, I ask, are they not Catholic bishops unless they agree with the Roman Church, except that the Roman Church is the head of the Catholic Church? Ambrose says the same thing elsewhere: “Are we not ignorant that the Church does not have some custom, whose type and form we follow in all things?. . . In all things, I desire to follow the Roman Church, but still even we men have the sense; therefore, what is rightly preserved elsewhere, we also rightly safeguard.” 655 In that place it must be observed, when Ambrose says that in all things he would follow the Roman Church, and still that he refuses to follow the custom of not washing the feet of the recently baptized: that all things must be understood on all necessary matters, and pertaining to salvation, otherwise he would be opposed to himself. The fourth is St. Jerome. He says in an epistle to Agemchiam of Monogamia: “A great many years ago, when I assisted Damasus, the bishop of the city of Rome, in ecclesiastical records and in synodal consultations of the East and West, I responded, etc.” You see how from the whole Church, and the whole world responses were then sought from the Apostolic See? Jerome says n an epistle to Damasus on the term hypostasis: “Although your magnitude terrifies me, nevertheless your humanity invites, I, a sheep, to ask aid from the shepherd. I speak with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of the cross I, following none first but Christ, unite myself with your beatitude, that is in the communion of the Chair of Peter. I know that the Church was built upon that rock. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house, is profane. Whoever was not in the Ark of Noah, perished while the flood reigned.” And below [speaking of schismatics]: “I do not know Vitalis, I spurn Meletius, and I ignore Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you, scatters: this is, who is not of Christ, is of Antichrist.” Observe firstly that Jerome, who was an Antiochene priest, nevertheless acknowledges himself as a sheep of the Bishop of Rome. Secondly, Jerome confesses Damasus to be the successor of Peter. Thirdly, when he says: “I, following none first but Christ, unite myself to your beatitude” he says that he would have it that he adhere first to Christ, then the Vicar of Christ. Therefore, it is the same thing as if he would have said: “I put no man before you, O Pope Damasus, except Christ himself.” Fourthly, the seat of the Roman Pontiff is made by Jerome the foundation of his [God’s] house and boat, which is the universal Church, and hence the Roman Pontiff is made the Head of the whole Church. Lastly, Jerome prefers more to adhere to the Seat of the Roman Pontiff than to his own Bishop Paulinus, who was not one from a crowd, but the Patriarch of Antioch. Thus he says: “I do not know Vitalis, I spurn Meletius, I gnore Paulinus.” For this reason, even Erasmus himself, who otherwise is usually more hostile to the Roman Church, says in an Annotation on this citation, that it seems to him that Jerome asserts by these words, that all Churches are subject to the Apostolic See. This ought to be noted against the new heretics, who hold Erasmus for an oracle. But Calvin objects to all this. Firstly, he brings the Epistle of Jerome to Nepotianus, wherein Jerome, while reviewing the examples of unity, says “‘Each bishop of the Churches, each Archpriest, each Archdeacon, and every Ecclesiastical order depends upon its Rulers.’ Nor does he add,” Calvin says “that all the Churches are tied together among themselves, just as by a bond, to one Head.” Secondly not only Calvin objects, but also Illyricus and Melanchthon, and others, that in his epistle to Evagrius, Jerome says: “If authority is sought, the world is greater than a city. Why do you bring to me the custom of one city? Why do you defend the paucity, from which arrogance arose, against the laws of the Church? Wherever was there a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubius, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, who is of the same merit and of the same priesthood; the power of riches and the humility of poverty does not make one a more lofty or lowly bishop.” Now I say to the first: Jerome did not omit one Head, for when he says “And every Ecclesiastical order depends upon its Rulers,” he indicates apart from one bishop, archpriest and archdeacon, that there are still other unities without a doubt in each province one Metropolitan; in greater particular regions one Primate; in the whole Church one Pontiff: otherwise, it will not be true that n every Ecclesiastical order there is one Ruler. I say to the second: Jerome in that citation rebukes a certain wicked custom which was at Rome, but not in the whole Roman Church, or in the Supreme Pontiff, but only among the Roman deacons. Because there were few deacons and they had care of the Ecclesiastical Treasures, little by little they began to put themselves before the priests, and to sit among them, since it was an ancient custom that while the priests and bishops were sitting, the deacons would stand not sit. Therefore, he says concerning these: “Why do you bring me the custom of one city? Why paucity, from which arrogance arises?” Moreover, the Roman Pontiff did not approve of this custom, as Jerome shows in the same place; therefore, he says that only while the bishop was absent did a deacon dare to sit among the priests. But that, which Jerome says “bishops are of the same merit and priesthood,” is true, yet it ought to be understood by reason of the Episcopal rank, not jurisdiction. For Jerome did not wish to deny a greater authority of the Bishop of Alexandria than Tanis since it is certain that the former was in charge of three vast provinces, while the latter was but a tiny city. The fifth from the Latin Fathers is St. Augustine. In Epistle 162 he says “In the Roman Church the rule of the Apostolic Chair always flourishes.” Likewise, in Epistle 92 to Pope Innocent: “Because the Lord has placed you for his sake in that unique office, in the Apostolic seat, and he furnished such for our times, that it should avail rather more a fault of our negligence, if with your veneration, which must be furnished for the Church, we were silent, than that you could disdainfully or negligently receive, in great danger to the weaker members of Christ, we ask that you would deign to apply pastoral diligence.” In such words Augustine asks, along with the whole Council of Milevitanus, that Innocent would apply his pastoral care to the Church, by coercing the Pelagians who particularly infested Palestine and Africa. But certainly he would not ask, unless he also believed that Innocent was the pastor of Palestine and Africa. Next, why did Augustine not write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, or the Metropolitan of Palestine, or rather more to the first bishop of the Church of Africa, namely Carthage, than to the Roman Pontiff, unless it is because he knew that the authority of the Roman Pontiff was greater in Palestine and Africa than that of their own bishops? Likewise he says: “They came to me while present at Caesaraea, in which Ecclesiastical necessity had derived for us what was enjoined upon up by the venerable Pope Zozimus, the Bishop of the Apostolic Seat.” 656 Without a doubt, Zozimus had commanded that the Bishops of Africa should celebrate a Council at Caesarea: and St. Augustine reckoned it must be obeyed, and necessarily Pope Zozimus must be obeyed. Likewise, he says to Pope Boniface “You did not disdain, who have the sense for higher things, although you should preside more loftily, because to be humble is to be a friend.” And below “It is common to all of us who exercise the office of the Episcopate, although you are preeminate in that as a lofty peak, the pastoral watchtower.” 657 You see here all bishops are held by Augustine to be subjected to the loftier peak of the Roman Pontiff. The sixth is St. Prosper of Aquitaine, who says in the Liber de Ingratis “The seat of Peter at Rome, which was made head of the world for pastoral honor, holds by Religion whatever it did not possess by arms.” And on the Calling of the Nations he says: “Rome, through the rule of priesthood was made more resplendent by the citadel of religion than the throne of power.” 658 The seventh is St. Victor of Utica, who calls the Roman Church the Head of all Churches. 659 The eighth is St. Vincent of Liren in his Commonitorium. “There certain epistles of St. Felix the Martyr, and of St. Julius, Bishops of the city of Rome were read to some. And that they should bear testimony not only as Head of the city, but even the sides in that judgment, St. Cyprian applied from the south and St. Ambrose from the north.” You see, the Roman Pontiff is called the Head of the world. The ninth is Cassiodorus, writing to Pope John: “You as scouts preside over the Christian people, you love all in the name of the Father.” And below “On which account, it behooves us to safeguard some things, but you everything.” 660 (For Cassiodorus was commanded to have care of the city of Rome by King Theodoric). And below: “That wonderful seat cleanses its own nhabitants in the whole world with affection, which, although it is furnished in general in the whole world, it is also recognized by you and allotted locally.” The tenth is St. Bede. He writes in his history of the English nation: “When the foremost(Gregory), managed the Pontificate of the whole world, and long ago turning to the faith of truth was prelate over the Churches, our nation which, to that point, had been held in the power of idols, he made the Church of Christ.” 661 The eleventh is St. Anselm. He dedicates his book on the Incarnation to Pope Urban II with these words: “To the Lord and Father of the universal Church journeying on earth, brother Anselm, a sinner in life to the Supreme Pontiff, Urban, a Monk in habit, whether at the command or pleasure of God called bishop of the city of Canterbury, giving due subjection with humble servitude, and devoted prayers. Because Divine Providence chose your sanctity whose it is to guard Christian faith and life, he committed to rule his Church, it s more rightly related to no other, if something arises in the Church against the Catholic faith, that it should be corrected by its authority, by no other more securely, if something should be responded or shown against the error, that it should be examined by its prudence.” 662 The twelfth is Hugh of St. Victor. He writes: “The Apostolic seat is given preference to every Church in the whole world.” 663 The thirteenth is St. Bernard, whom also Calvin relates on his behalf, and calls him a saint. 664 Bernard says in his book de Considerationis: “Well, let us still seek more diligently who you might be, what you are in charge of, for how ong you are a person in the Church of God. Who are you? A great priest, the supreme Pontiff, you the Prince of Bishops, you the heir of the Apostles, you are Abel in primacy, Noah in captainship, Abraham in the Patriarchate Melchisedech by rank, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in udgment, Peter in power, Christ by anointing. You are, the one to whom the keys were handed, to whom the sheep were entrusted, indeed there are also other porters of heaven, and pastors of the flocks, but as glorious as you are, so much also are you more different and apart from the rest in the name you have nherited. “The former have flocks assigned to them, individuals have their own, but to you all are entrusted, one over one body. You alone are not only shepherd of the sheep, but even of the shepherds. . . Therefore, according to your canons, of another care in part, you were called into the fullness of power. Power compels certain limits of the others; yours is extended on those, who received power over others. Couldn’t you, if a reason existed, close heaven to a bishop, can not you alone depose him from the Episcopacy, and even hand him over to Satan? Your unshakeable privilege stands to you, as in the keys which were given, than n the entrusted sheep.” This man, this holy man, as Calvin witnesses, and without Calvin nnumerable miracles witness: but true holiness cannot be without true faith therefore, St. Bernard believed with true faith, that the Roman Pontiff was Pastor over the universal Church. Moreover, many of the things that Calvin objects to, such as the vices and abuses of the Roman Curia, the same Bernard wrote against in the liber de Considerationis, that from the whole world the greedy, ambitious and simoniacal run to Rome, since they wish to be taken in authority to Ecclesiastical honors. But this does not lack a solution, for St. Bernard expressly teaches, the bad morals of Prelates do not impede to the extent that they be lesser Prelates, and we are less held to obey them, since the Lord said n St. Matthew: “Do what they say, but do not do according to their works.” 665 Lastly, we bring the testimony of a Latin [Roman] Emperor, just as above we related the testimony of a Greek [Roman] Emperor. Valentinian says, in an epistle to Theodosius, which is extant among the preliminaries to the Council of Chalcedon: “We ought to preserve the dignity of proper veneration to the Blessed Apostle Peter in our times, by far the most Blessed of the city of Rome to whom antiquity confers the rule of priesthood over all, let him have place and faculty concerning faith, and in judging priests.” Similar things are contained in the epistles of Gallia Placidia, and Licinius Eudoxius Augustarum to the same Theodosius in the same place. 

Chapter XVII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proved from the Origin and Antiquity of the Primacy 

Now to this point we have shown by divine law, the General Councils, the testimony of the Pontiffs and from a consensus of the Greek and Latin Fathers that the Ecclesiastical rule of the Roman Pontiff was received from Christ; this type of argument, which is called leading to the impossible, is what we now attempt to show. For, if it is not, as we said, in any time, or by any author that the Ecclesiastical rule of the Roman Pontiff began: but no time is assigned, no author can be noted, for in this we have shown this primacy was more ancient except that it comes about that Christ is the author and in the times of Christ therefore, it is necessary that we should arrive in that. Our Adversaries respond, that they can assign a time and an author. Thus John de Turrecremata places four opinions of the heretics. 666 First, are those who say, that the authority of the Roman Pontiff is from the Apostles. The second is the opinion of those who assert that it is from a general Council; which is the opinion the aforementioned Nilus follows. The third opinion is of those who reckon it is granted by Cardinal electors which is also similar to what the book of the Smalkaldic council teaches on the Primacy. Therein it tries to show that the Pope is not over the Church by divine aw, because the Church elects the Pope. The fourth opinion is of those who teach that this authority was introduced by the Emperors, which is embraced by many heretics. Therefore, we shal briefly strike each one individually. Now the first opinion has three testimonies on its behalf. One is of Anacletus, who says: “The rest of the Apostles with him (Peter) received an equal share of honor and power, and they wished him to be their prince.” 667 The second testimony is of Julius I, where, speaking on the Apostles, he says: “The Holy Roman Church would have primacy over all the Churches.” 668 The third is from the Canon I Louis, dist. 63, where the Roman Pontiff is called the Vicar of St. Peter. From which it would seem to follow, that not Christ, but Peter bestowed authority upon the Roman Pontiff. Yet this opinion is refuted with no trouble. For the same Anacletus in Epistle 3 speaks thus: “The most holy Roman Church obtained primacy not from the Apostles, but from our Lord and Savior himself, just as he said to Blessed Peter: ‘You are Peter, etc.’” For this reason the same author writes that the Apostles would have Peter as their prince, but does not speak on the will to establish him, but rather, on the approval and acknowledgment that the Lord had instituted him. It seems that Pope Julius I spoke the same. Moreover the response can also be made to the testimony of Julius: without a doubt, Peter has primacy from Christ alone Nevertheless, the Roman Church, concerning which Julius is speaking there has it in some manner from the Apostles. For (as we taught above), the Roman Pontiff, as he is the successor of Peter, has the primacy from Christ: nevertheless, the cause of the succession arose from a deed of Peter. For which reason St. Gregory says: “He elevated the seat, in which he deigned to rest and end the present life.” 669 Furthermore, it is added on the name of Vicar, that it presents no difficulty For if in one place the Roman Pontiff is called the Vicar of Peter, because St Peter still lives, and did not leave behind the government of the Church, as Leo says, 670 since nevertheless, St. Peter did not properly exercise pastoral office but ruled and protected the Church by merits and prayers; these are improper ocutions, and made only on account of the reverence for St. Peter that some time later were usurped. This is why St. Leo, in the noted place above, says that he is also an heir of St. Peter. The second opinion, which teaches that the primacy was established by Councils, Nilus tries to prove by two arguments. The first, is that in the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 28 (as he cites), or Act 16 in our codex, there he says the Council held the Primacy of the Roman Church from the Fathers, for the reason that this city commanded the whole world in the time of the Empire. Secondly, Nilus argues that in the law of Justinian we read: “We discern according to the decree of the holy Synods that the most holy Bishop of old Rome is first of all priests.” 671 Such reasoning of Nilus can be confirmed from the Fourth Council under Symmachus, where we read: “In the first place of the Apostolic See, the merit of Blessed Peter, thereafter, the authority of the Councils, must be venerated, and handed on singular power in the Churches.” Illyricus cites this same opinion in his book, 672 he proves with testimony from four citations: epistle 301 (as he cites it, still it is 288) of Aeneas Silvias afterward Pope Pius II; accordingly in that epistle Aeneas so speaks: “Before the Council of Nicaea everyone lived for himself, and scant respect was paid to the Roman Church.” But these arguments can be easily answered. That the Roman Pontiff, not by Councils, but by Christ has the primacy, besides so many arguments already added, Gelasius witnesses in his 70th Council of bishops: “The Holy Roman Church was not given preference by any synods constituted in the other Church, but obtained the Primacy from the Evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior.” This is how I respond to the first argument of Nilus: that decree is indeed of a great Council, but it was not done legitimately; hence it is of no strength or authority. For from Act 16 itself, of the same Council, it is certain that the decree was made while the Legates of the Apostolic See were absent, who presided over the Council; it is likewise certain that the same Legates clearly protested. A decree of a general Council is not legitimate, which is done without the Roman Pontiff or his Legate, as the Seventh Council witnesses (which Nilus also receives), in Act 6, that we would omit, meanwhile, other testaments. Not only did the Legates of St. Leo resist the Synod, in as much as it attained to that decree: but St. Leo himself, who confirmed the other decrees of that Council condemned and reproved that one, in Epistle 51 to the Bishops of Anatolia. 673 Why? Because in that decree there are two manifest falsehoods. One is, that the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea allotted primacy to the Roman Pontiff. For the Council of Nicaea did not allot primacy to the Roman Pontiff, just as before it had not, for Canon 6 of Nicaea begins thus (as it is recited in Act. 16 of the same Council of Chalcedon): “The Roman Church has always had the primacy.” Lastly, if before the Council of Nicaea the Pope did not have the Primacy: by what law was Dionysius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, around 60 years before the Council of Nicaea, accused in the presence of the Roman Pontiff? And did the Roman Pontiff deny himself to be the judge, or did Alexandria refuse that judgment, since, nevertheless, each man was a saint? That these things are so, St. Athanasius writes. 674 Lastly, there is no word in the whole Council of Nicaea, in which some new power is allotted to the Roman Pontiff, as we sufficiently showed above. The other matter which is asserted in that decree is no less false: namely that the reason why the Fathers had conceded the primacy of Rome, is that this city was the seat of the Empire. For the eloquent words of St. Leo and St Gelasius refute this, and the reason is in view. For, as Gelasius rightly remarked, Milan, and Ravenna, Sirmium, Trier and Nicomedia were the seats of the Empire for a long time: 675 nevertheless, the Fathers did not give any primacy to those bishops. Therefore, it should remain, that all the Fathers teach n a common consensus, that the Roman See is the first of all Sees, because it is the See of the Prince of the Apostles. The presence of the Emperor certainly does not confer it, any more than his absence could take it away. Now to the second argument I respond: the Canons of Councils granted authority to the Roman Church in a certain measure, because they declared and asserted. It is even said that in a certain measure, the Council of Nicaea defined the Son of God to be consubstantial with the Father. For that reason, John II, in an epistle to Justinian, after he had said the Roman Church is the head of Churches, he added: “Just as the rules and statutes of the Fathers declare.” And Nicholas I, in his epistle to the Emperor Michael: “These privileges were given to this Church by Christ, not by Synods, yet they are celebrated and honored by the same.” And in the Fourth Synod under Symmachus, three reasons are enumerated f anyone would prudently draw his attention to it, for the primacy of the Roman Church; thus we read, “His authority, that is, of Symmachus, remains first by the merit of Peter, next, following the Lord’s command, the authority of the venerable Councils handed over singular power over the Churches.” Firstly, “the merit of Peter” is posited, because Peter obtained the primacy on account of the merit of his confession. 676 Secondly, it is posited “by the Lord’s command,” whereby the Primacy was established and conferred upon Peter, when it was said to him: “Feed my sheep.” 677 Thirdly, the authority of Councils is posited, which declared this command of the Lord. Now to Illyricus’ objection we can easily respond. For, Aeneas Sylvius in that epistle attempts to show nothing else but that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff was established by Christ; thus the epistle begins to Martin Mayer “There are several men of your nation, having little thought, in whom the authority of the Roman Pontiff seems to be neither necessary nor established by Christ. Therefore, we have resolved to write this epistle against them and transmit it to you, in order that if ever such men should come to you, you shal have it from us, whereby it shall be the sword with which you shall slay their boldness.” Although when he says “before the Council of Nicaea each lived for himself, and there was little regard for the Roman Church,” he means nothing other than that on account of continual persecutions, the Roman Pontiffs could not freely exercise that authority which they had received from Christ; and on that account, the other bishops were compelled to look to themselves, and there was not much regard for the Roman Church. Now this opinion of Aeneas Sylvius is partly true, and partly false. On the one hand, it is true that the authority of the Pope at that time was not a little impeded, as is clear from the persecutions which arose in that time but on the other, it is not true that scant regard was held for the Roman Church as the examples which we brought to bear above clearly declare. The third opinion, from those four above, has almost no foundation. For it s certain that Pontiffs were earlier than Cardinals, and at least some true Pontiffs were not created by Cardinals. Certainly not the Cardinals, but Christ created Peter Pope, and Peter, not the Cardinals, chose Clement. Besides, if the Cardinals conferred power on the Pope, they could also take it away: however this is false by the consensus of all; for even a doubtful Pope is not deposed by Cardinals, but by a general Council. Yet you will say: Whatever is the case with Cardinals, it is certain that the Roman Pontiff is chosen by men and created; therefore, he receives power from them. Moreover, truly and properly, the Supreme Pontiff is made so by men and it is witnessed in the decree of election of Gregory VII, which is contained n his life with Platina in these words: “We, Cardinals of the Roman Church Clerics, Acolytes, Subdeacons, Priests, with bishops, abbots and many others present, both of the Ecclesiastical and Lay order, we choose today, on the 23rd of April, in the Basilica of St. Peter in chains, in the year of our salvation 1073 so will that the Archdeacon Hildebrand, become the true Vicar of Christ. He is a man of much doctrine, great piety, prudence, justice, constancy, religion modesty, sobriety, continence, governing his house, giving shelter to the poor educated in the lap of Holy Mother the Church from his tender youth even to his present age, a learned man, whom indeed we will to be in charge of the power of the Church of God, whereby Peter was in charge by a clear command of God.” From which it appears, two things can be deduced. One, the Pope is not above the Church, but is subject to it, seeing that the Church makes a Pope, the Pope does not make the Church, which is the analogy of the book of the Smalkaldic synod in Cont. Prim. The second, is that the Pontiff has all the power which he has by human law, not by divine law. And in the first there is no analogy, for electors of the Empire create an Emperor, and the people create a king; yet an Emperor is above the electors, and a King is above the people But nor does the second avail to anything. I respond: it must be observed, that in the Pontiff are three things: the Pontificate itself, which is, just as a type of form; the person, which is the subject of the Pontificate; and the union, of one with another. From such things the first is the Pontificate itself, which is from Christ alone: but the person is ndeed absolutely from natural causes; nevertheless as the person was chosen and designated to the Pontificate from electors, it is theirs to designate a person The true union is from Christ mediating the human act of the electors, while they choose and designate a certain person, they agree to the union of the pontificate with that person. Therefore, the electors are truly said to create the Pope, and to be the cause that there be such a Pontiff, and that he should have that power; nevertheless they did not themselves give that power, nor are they the cause of its power Just as in the generation of a man, because the soul is infused by God alone and still the father, begetting by disposing the matter, is the cause of the union of the soul with the body; a man is said to beget a man, and still he is not said to produce the soul of man. Hence those words of the electors: “Whom indeed we would have it be in charge with that power, etc.” only declare and express the perfect election of a man as the successor of Peter. The fourth opinion is held by many heretics, who still do not agree among themselves. For Marsilius of Padua, and afterward John Wycliff and John Huss said that the Pope received authority from Caesar. They appear to have understood by the name of Caesar, Constantine the Great, on account of the Canon which begins Constantinus, dist. 96, where Constantine decreed that the Roman Pontiff must be held in that place by all priests, like a king is held by ower judges of the whole kingdom. 678 John Calvin says that the primacy of the Pope over the Greeks was given by the Emperor Phocas: over the Gauls and Germans by Pepin the short, and afterward by Charlemagne, King of the Franks. 679 Luther says that it was Constantine IV who conferred primacy on the Pontiff, and in testimony of this affair he cites Plantina in his life of Benedict II 680 Nevertheless, the same Luther teaches in another place that the primacy of the Pope was introduced by the emperor Phocas; 681 which likewise the Centuriators teach, 682 as well as others. 683 They can all be easily refuted. In the first place, the opinion on Constantine s of no harm to us. For Constantine the Great gave his palace at the Lateran and many other temporal possessions to the Supreme Pontiff; still he never gave any spiritual dowry, nor could he. For in the same Canon Constantine declares that St. Peter was the Vicar of Christ, and for that reason his successors ought to be held as Princes and Heads of the whole Church Therefore, Constantine only declared an ancient law, and adorned the Pope with many added temporal gifts. Add what the Lutherans and Calvinists contend must be supposed by this canon; hence in this time there is no edict from Constantine for us with the heretics, in as much as to spiritual jurisdiction. They affirm it did not begin with Constantine. Next, the opinion of Luther rests upon a false foundation: Platina did not say that Constantine IV gave primacy to the Pontiff, but remitted his law that he had or thought he had in confirmation of the Pontiff. The predecessors of Constantine IV, from the times of Justinian, who freed the city from the Goths did not permit the election of a new Pope, unless they had confirmed it; and the Popes tolerated this for the sake of the good of the Church, because they saw he could not exercise his office against the will of the Emperor: that could be understood from St. Gregory. For in the explication of the fourth penitential Psalm, he vehemently detests the temerity of the Emperors, who usurped the right in the Roman Church to themselves. And still St. Gregory himself, as his biographer John the deacon writes since he was elected to the Pontificate by the clergy and the people, he wrote secretly to the Emperor, begging that he would in nowise give his consent: but the Prefect of the city sent men knowing the affair, who seized upon the letter of Gregory en route, and tore up his letter, which they also did: and he directed other messengers, who would point out the election of clergy and people to the Emperor, and beg his confirmation. 684 Therefore, Platina writes that Constantine IV, moved by the sanctity of Benedict II, sent to him sanction, whereby he would ask, that he whom clergy and people chose, should soon after be held as the true Vicar of Christ, without need to wait for any opinion of the Emperor. Therefore, the sanction of Constantine IV was not concerning the power of the Pope, as Luther thought but only in regard to his election. Now to that argument about Phocas, I respond: Phocas published a sanction, in which he declared the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches as Bede witnesses, as well as Ado and Paul the Deacon. 685 Yet it was not on that account that this primacy was introduced by Phocas, for Phocas ratified it by declaring and asserting, not by establishing a new thing: this can be proven by most certain reason. For Gregory says: “On the see of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See, since our most pious Lord and Emperor, as well as my brother Eusebius, the bishop of the same city, profess it in earnest.” 686 The epistle was written around five years before the reign of Phocas, as can be gathered clearly from a number of indications. Next, Justinian the elder, who was around 70 years before Phocas, in an epistle to Pope John II, affirmed the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches, and Valentinian, who preceded Phocas by around 140 years, asserted n an epistle to Theodosius, that the Roman Pontiff had the rule of priesthood over all. It is corroborated by the testimonies of Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril Theodoret, Sozomen, and other Greeks whom we cited above. The reason why Phocas reckoned that an affair so certain should be ratified again, was the pride of the Bishops of Constantinople, as Bede, Ado and Paul the deacon noted in the cited works. Since they wrote that they were universal Patriarchs, and first of all bishops against all law and right, and the excommunications which Popes Pelagius and Gregory, the Roman Pontiffs, had mposed upon them could not break their obstinance, it seemed good to the Emperor that he, whom the Greeks feared more, should interpose himself Therefore, he declared that the Roman Church is the head of all Churches hence the Bishop of Constantinople was not a universal bishop, but a particular one and subject to the Apostolic See. Now, I respond to the argument about Pepin the short: Calvin makes use of a wondrous artifice to summon a true historical account but roll it up in lies in defense of his heresies. For, on the one hand he says that by the suffrage of the Pontiffs, Pepin attained the kingdom of France, and Charlemagne the Empire of the Romans; it is true, and related by many historical letters. Yet what he says unjustly and wickedly, that the true King of France was despoiled of his kingdom by Pope Zachary and Pepin is false, and contumelious, not only against the Pope, but even the Kings of France and the Emperors of Germany who both descend from that Pepin. But he adds, for that reason the primacy was conceded to the Pope by Pepin and Charlemagne over France and Germany as the custom of thieves to divide the prey, so that to Pepin and Charlemagne he would cede temporal dominion, but to the Popes, rule of priesthood, is not only false, but even contrary to the first lie: therefore, lies oppose themselves, and one destroyed the other. And first, the fact that Zachary justly and legitimately deposed King Childeric, and bid Pepin be created, every historian who wrote anything about this event, both Greeks and Latins affirm 687 (with the exceptions of the Centuriators and Calvin). 688 They all relate that a little before the times of Pepin, the Kings of the Franks had so degenerated from their elders, that nearly every care of the kingdom had been transferred to the Masters of Horse, or the Prefect of the Hall, and the king was only seen once a year on the first of May when they would show him to the people: the rest of the time, they devoted themselves to pleasure and delight; and on that account, by the agreement of all the nobles, it was demanded from the Supreme Pontiff that he would permit them to transfer the title of the Kings to those who were truly in fact Kings, and ong ago had happily administered the business of the kingdom. What they rightly demanded was most just: indeed France labored on account of those serious monstrous infamies with all nations, and likewise the kingdom was replete with innumerable dissensions. Not only this, (as these authors relate) but there was no business of the kingdom that these kings took care of, rather, even on account of their inertia religion so labored in Gaul, that it had almost been extinguished, as is clear from St. Boniface, 689 who says for nearly 80 years, while this Sardanalpalus reigned, 690 there was no Synod celebrated. Episcopal Churches were possessed by laity and tax collectors, clerics had four or five concubines at once, and religion had been tread upon and dissipated. Therefore, since Zachary understood now that for many years the Kings of France were so in name only, and Childeric, who then reigned, not only neglected all the custom of his ancestors, but even lacked altogether every quality, and truly was said to be (and was) stupid: at the same time, he saw the kingdom and religion in France come to ruin, and all the Nobles of the Kingdom desired Pepin, at length, as he looked to that which would provide safety for all. The Pope judged it to be lawful to transfer the kingdom of France from Childeric to Pepin, and also absolved them from the oath which they had been obliged to make to Childeric. That his decision was just, no man of sound mind would deny: especially when the event taught the change was most happy; never was the kingdom of the Franks more powerful or religion more flourishing than in the time of Pepin and Charlemagne. Lastly, add the fact that nearly all the cited authors write, that the one who anointed and crowned Pepin as King at the Pope’s command was a very holy man, namely St. Boniface, Bishop and Martyr, who certainly was never the author of any public injustice or crime. But now, that it was never on account of Pepin or Charlemagne that the primacy of the Pope was brought into Germany and France, can easily be shown. First, because nobody writes this, apart from Calvin. Rather the cited authors, and especially Paulus Aemilius, say that the Kings of the Franks received the protection of the Apostolic See against the Lombards, and other enemies, and they gave to the Pope the exarchate of Ravenna, and certain other temporal things: but they never mention any spiritual dowry. Next, if the Nobles of the Kingdom sought from the Pope by Legates to be absolved from the oath, and that it would be lawful to transfer the kingdom from Childeric to Pepin, as Paulus Aemilius and others write; certainly they thought, that the Pope was in charge of the whole Church and specifically France: otherwise why did they not seek from their own bishops, or why did they not do what they wanted without a license from the Pope? Nay more, why did they wait that the Pope would command it, as Rheginus and others write? Therefore, if the Pope exercised the primacy in France before Pepin had been created king, how did he receive that primacy from Pepin? Do they not fight against themselves? Next, before the times of Pepin it is certain, that the Franks and Germans were subject to the Roman Pontiff in spiritual matters. For St. Boniface, the bishop of Moguntinus, wrote an epistle to Pope Zachary, from the Prince Caroloman, as he indicates in the same place: hence Pepin has already been made King; for it is certain that Caroloman, after laying aside his rule became a monk before the exaltation of Pepin in the kingdom: but in that epistle he clearly professes the Churches of Germany then were subject to the Pontiff, and also among other things, sought from the Pope that he should erect three Episcopates in Germany, and give him authority to call a council of bishops in France, and many other matters of this kind. Likewise St. Bede, who preceded Pepin by about a hundred years, says “Since Gregory leads the Pontificate in the whole world.” I believe Calvin would not say that France and Germany are not part of “the whole world.” St. Gregory, who preceded Pepin by nearly 200 years, committed all 52 bishops of France to Virgilius the Bishop of Arles in his stead, and commanded that more serious cases be referred to the judgment of the Apostolic See “Insofar as it should be fitting without a doubt for opinion to be finished.” St. Leo, who preceded Pepin by 350 years, writes: “Your fraternity recognizes with us, that the Apostolic See, was to be consulted by the nnumerable priests of your province, as well as for appeal of different cases, or retractions, or confirmation and judgments.” 691 St. Cyprian, who flourished more than 500 years before Pepin, writes to Pope Stephen so that he would depose the Bishop of Arles, and put another in his place. St. Irenaeus, who preceded Pepin by 600 years, said: “To the Roman Church, on account of a mightier preeminence, it is necessary for every Church to agree, this is, all who are faithful on every side.” He did not except France since he was a French Bishop, and we might not leave out the fact that when the Lord said to Peter and his successors: “Feed my sheep,” without a doubt he numbered Germany and France among his sheep.

Chapter XVIII: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Authority Which the Roman Pontiff Exercised over Other Bishops. The sixth argument is taken from the authority which the ancient Pontiffs always exercised over other bishops. Accordingly we read, that bishops were established throughout the whole world by Roman Pontiffs, or deposed, or restored, the singular events of which should suffice in themselves to show this primacy. And first, many examples can be brought to bear on the establishment of bishops. We read, for instance, in the Council of Chalcedon, Act 7, that Maximus was confirmed in the Episcopacy of Antioch by St. Leo the Great Likewise, Anatolius, the Bishop of Constantinople, was confirmed by Leo, who writes thus: “It should be enough that by the aid of your piety, and the assent of my favor, he obtained the Episcopate of such a city.” 692 Leo also writes in an Epistle to Anastasius, the Bishop of Thessalonika “On the person of the bishop to be consecrated, and from the consent of the clergy and people, the Metropolitan Bishop relates to your fraternity, that each s well pleased in his province, that he should see to it to know you that your authority should rightly strengthen the ordination which must be celebrated.” And further on: “Just as we wish in no way to importune the just elections by delays, so we permit nothing to be presumed without your knowledge.” And in Epistle 87 to the bishops of Africa: “Donatus Salicinensis, as we discovered was converted from Novation with his own, so we wish to preside over the Lord’s flock, that he was mindful to send us the profession of his faith.” St. Gregory taught, in his epistle to Constance Augusta: “The Bishop of the city of Salona was ordained without my knowledge and response, and the matter came to pass which happened under no earlier princes.” 693 And everywhere he shows in his epistles, that he sent the pallium himself, which is the insignia of an Archbishop, to different Archbishops in Greece, France Spain, etc. Still it must be remarked, the fact that although the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is proven from the confirmation of bishops, nevertheless, it is not necessary that he would have confirmed all bishops always; he could permit that this be done by Patriarchs and Primates, as it appears was the case n many places. Now, on the deposition there are many examples extant, and in the first place from St. Cyprian. He writes to Pope St. Stephen saying: “Let your letters be directed to the province, and to the people of Arles, in which Marcianus being avoided, let another be substituted in his place.” 694 And further: “You will make plain to us, who should be constituted in place of Marcianus of Arles, in order that we may know to whom to direct our brethren, and to whom we ought to write.” Calvin takes up the argument on this citation: “I ask, if Stephen was then over Gaul, can it be that Cyprian was going to say to those being coerced, that they are yours’? Yet by far, fraternal society is another thing, in which we have been subdued among ourselves, requiring that we advise each other.” 695 I respond: These words, which Calvin cites, are never discovered in Cyprian. Thereupon, if Cyprian thought that Stephen was not over Gaul, but could only advise in friendship, why did he not advise the Gauls himself? Nicholas I enumerates eight Patriarchs of Constantinople, in his epistle to the Emperor Michael, whom the Roman Pontiffs had deposed, among which was one Anthimus, whom Pope Agapetus deposed, not without the hindrance of the Emperor and Empress, and ordained in his place with his own hands Menas, as Liberatus and Zonaras write in their works. 696 Likewise, Pope Gelasius, in his epistle to the bishop of the Dardanelles: “The Apostolic See condemned Dioscorus, prelate of the Second See, by its own authority.” And ikewise: “The see of Blessed Peter did not receive Peter of Alexandria whom it had not merely condemned, but refused to absolve.” On that account Damasus deposed Flavian, the Patriarch of Antioch, as Theodoret writes. 697 And although the Emperor Theodosius strove to stabilize Flavian in the Episcopate, still he commanded him to continue to Rome to state his case. And Theophilus of Alexandria, though legates interceded with the Roman Pontiff on behalf of Flavian, as Socrates relates. 698 Sozomen witnesses that Chrysostom did his best to do the same. 699 Next, Flavian could possess that episcopate before him, which the Roman Pontiff, being pleased agreed, and he promised that he was going to admit his legates, who soon after sent many bishops and especially priests of the Antiochene Church to the Pope as the same Theodoret writes. Sixtus III also deposed the Bishop Polychronicus of Jerusalem, after sending St. Leo while he was an Archdeacon to Jerusalem. 700 Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff at some time deposed every patriarch, namely those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, certainly he is the supreme judge in the Church. Next, there are many examples on the restitution of bishops deposed by others. For St. Cyprian says: “He cannot rescind an ordination legally carried out, because Basilides, after his crimes were discovered, continued on to Rome where he deceived Stephen, our colleague, who is far removed and unaware of the affair and the truth, that he would solicit to be replaced unjustly in the Episcopate, from which he had been justly deposed, etc.” 701 Next, Athanasius of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, and Marcellus of Ancyra, all bishops who were deposed by an Eastern Synod, Pope Julius I restored, as Gelasius writes in the epistle to the bishop of the Dardanelles, and Sozomen records in his histories: “Since on account of the dignity of the seat which looks to the care of all, he restored each one to his own Church.” And further on: “Athanasius and Paul returned to their own sees, and they sent the etter of Pope Julius to the Eastern Bishops.” 702 Likewise, we read the following from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon on the deposition of Theodoret by the Council of Ephesus: “Even let the most Reverend Bishop Theodoret enter so that he may be a partaker of the Synod, because the most holy Archbishop Leo has restored him to his Episcopate.” 703 Many similar testimonies can be brought to bear, to which our adversaries altogether cannot respond, nor do they attempt to. On the other hand, Nilus proposes five arguments. The first argument, is that the Bishop of Rome is said to be first, because Constantinople is second from him, Alexandria is third from him, Antioch is fourth, Jerusalem fifth, but first and second are not said as one is superior and the other inferior, but only concerning those matters which are of the same rank and dignity; therefore, the Bishop of Rome is not said to be first by reason of Tusculum or Tiburtinus which are subject to her. I respond: The Roman Pontiff is Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch and Pope at the same time. As Bishop, he is first in this province by reason of Ostia, which s second, and Portus which is third, and of the rest, which can be counted in that order. Yet, as Archbishop, he is not first by reason of Ostia, which is not an Archepiscopate, but a simple bishopric subject to the Roman Archbishop Nevertheless, it is first by reason of the Archbishop of Ravenna, Milan and of the rest of the western Archepiscopates. Furthermore, as the proper Patriarch of the West, he is not first by reason of Ravenna and the rest, which are not Patriarchs, but by reason of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which are Patriachates And in this way the five Primary Sees can be counted, each of which presides over many great provinces. Lastly, as Pope and Head of the universal Church, he is not first by reason of Constantinople, or of any other, rather it is Prince and Pastor of all, nor does t have any second in power as a colleague. For, just in the same way as there ought to be among the Bishops of the same province one who is over the rest and is called an Archbishop, and among Archbishops of many provinces, there s one who should be over the others and is called a Patriarch, for equal reasoning, among the Patriarchs of the Catholic Church, there ought to be one who presides over the rest and is named the Pope or the Vicar of Christ. And this is the Roman Pontiff, as we have shown by many arguments. Now for the second argument of Nilus. He proposes that the Sixth Council n Canon 36 renewed the constitution of the Second and Fourth Council, which granted the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with those which the Bishop of Rome has. Therefore, the Bishop of Rome is not of greater authority and dignity than Constantinople, hence he cannot command all other bishops. I respond: In the Second General Council the Bishop of Constantinople was not equated to the Bishop of Rome, rather, he was only placed before Alexandria and Antioch, as is clear from Canon 5 of the same Council, whose words are these: “It is meet that the Bishop of the city of Constantinople should have the honor of primacy after the Bishop of Rome, due to the fact that it is the new Rome.” But in the Council of Chalcedon, Act 16, they added to the same canon that it is fitting for him to have equal privileges with the Roman Pontiff, but since the Legates of the Pontiff protested, the same Council wrote an epistle to Leo, in which it asked him to confirm the decrees of the Council: But the Fathers did not dare to make mention in that epistle of equal privileges, they merely wrote that they had renewed the Canon of the Second Council, in which second honor was attributed to the Bishop of Constantinople. 704 St. Leo also responded in an epistle to the Council, 705 in which, as in all other places where he wrote on this case, he makes no mention of equal privileges, but only bitterly condemns the ambitious lust of the Bishop of Constantinople because he wished to place himself before Alexandria and Antioch. Nicephorus also writes in his history, that when Pope John I came to Constantinople, the Pontiff was invited by the Emperor Justin that he would sit next to Epiphanius the Patriarch of Constantinople, so that it would appear as though they were equal. But the Pontiff did not wish to sit until a throne had been set up for himself over Epiphanius for the prerogative of the Apostolic See. 706 From that it appears, that the canon on equal privileges was not admitted, even a long time after the Council of Chalcedon, and it had not force even in that Council, otherwise Epiphanius could have cited the canon of that Council, for he would not have suffered a throne to be set up for the Roman Pontiff over himself in his own Church. Wherefore, there is only Canon 36 of the Sixth Council, which equates the Bishop of Constantinople with Rome. The rest of these canons are of no more force: for they are no canons of the true Sixth Council which was legitimate and ecumenical, but of another specific gathering, which was falsely named the Sixth Council. It is certain that the Sixth Council which was celebrated under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine IV, published no such Canons, rather five years after that Synod had been dissolved, again they came together with I know not how many Greek bishops under the authority of the Emperor Justinian the Younger, and it published many canons in the name of the Sixth Synod. 707 The fact is manifestly gathered from the very origin of these canons, and from the confession of Tharasius the Bishop of Constantinople in the VII Council, act 4 that these same canons which Bede calls the erratic Synod, and they were condemned by Pope Sergius who then sat, as Bede records. 708 From which it follows that same false Sixth Council, either was not general, or it was not egitimate: for it cannot be a legitimate general council, where the authority of the First See is lacking, as the Greeks themselves affirmed in the VII Council act. 6. And hence, for what reason can it be called a legitimate general Council, to which not even one of the Latins was called? Furthermore, if it was not egitimate, it is plain that it could have no authority. But if it was legitimate, but particular, not general, it could not impose laws except upon men subject to it t could not, therefore, reduce the position of the Roman See, and despoil it of privileges, which it tried in fact to do, when it attempted to equate the See of Constantinople with it, even though it was otherwise inferior and subject to it For the Roman See was never subject to a Greek Council; further in the very matter it is proved that not any Imperial Law or Ecclesiastical Canon, neither by reason or custom, that the Greeks could prove, ergo, there are no laws and canons, which subject the First See to the Second, it is contrary to all reason Lastly, no testimony can be brought into our midst, whereby it is certain something was done from the authority of the Greek Bishops in the Roman Church, or the rest of the Western Churches. Next, the primacy of the Roman Church, was either given by Christ, as we believe, or by the Council of Nicaea, as Nilus himself teaches, therefore, by what law could this particular Council in Trullo bring to bear upon that which Christ himself or a general Council had given? It is manifest that the primacy of the Roman Church, through that communication of privileges, which the Council in Trullo ratified with its decree, would be abolished: for one who has equality with someone cannot be over all. Besides, add that although the Second and Fourth Synod did not equate Constantinople to the Roman Pontiff, but made him only second to the Pontiff nevertheless, that very canon was not ratified as long as the Apostolic See opposed it. For that reason, in the fourth Synod, when the Greeks wanted to give second place to the See of Constantinople, and they suborned the decree of the Second Council from 80 years before to prove this, the Roman Legates said: “If they used this benefice for 80 years, why do they require it now? If they never used it, why do they require it?” By which words they showed that it was in vain to appeal to that decree, because as it was never in use so also it was void. The third argument. If the Roman Pontiff, because he is the first of Patriarchs, has rule over the second, that is in Constantinople, therefore, for equal reasoning Constantinople, because it is the second, will have rule in Alexandria because it is the third, and Alexandria the third in Antioch which is fourth, and Antioch in Jerusalem which is last. But no reasoning, no law and no custom admits this. I respond: The Roman Pontiff has rule in Constantinople and the other Patriarchates not because he is first patriarch, but because he alone is the Pope of the universal Church, the successor of Peter and the general Vicar of Christ In the same way, each Archbishop does not preside over the rest of the bishops of the same province because he is first bishop, but because he alone is an Archbishop of that province. But on that account, each Patriarch is not eminent n power over all Archbishops subject to him, but because he himself is the first Archbishop, rather because he might be in that region the supreme and only Patriarch. The fourth argument. The Roman Bishop does not ordain Patriarchs, just as Patriarchs ordain their own Metropolitans, and metropolitans their own bishops; therefore, he is not over the Patriarchs, as they are over metropolitans and metropolitans over bishops. I respond: Indeed the Roman Pontiff did not customarily ordain Patriarchs because it could not be suitably done, since either they would have to come to Rome, or the Pontiff himself would have to set out to them. Nevertheless, he confirmed it through letters, that we showed above from the example of Anatholius of Constantinople, and Maximus of Antioch. And this was no empty confirmation, as the case of Flavian clearly declares, because he could never obtain the Church of Antioch so long as the Bishop of Rome would not agree. On this point, it is no less a thing to depose or restore than to ordain a bishop: moreover the Roman Pontiff did not once, but as often as it was necessary, either depose or restore Patriarchs, as we proved above. Lastly Menas, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was ordained by Pope Agatho, and Nilus cannot be ignorant of the fact, since Zonaras hands down the letters in his ife of Justinian. The fifth argument is that The Council of Nicaea, canon 6, determined the regions assigned to all the Patriarchs; and certainly handed the West to the Bishop of Rome, Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis to Alexandria, Syria to Antioch as well as Mesopotamia; therefore, the one Roman Pontiff ought not rule everywhere, and command the other Patriarchs. I respond: The Council of Nicaea assigned no region to the Roman Pontiff What Nilus says about the West, he learned from the interpretation of Balsamon, not from the canon of the Council itself: for in that canon there is nothing about the Roman Pontiff, except this little sentence, which Nilus himself cites thus: Epeiv kai, tw/| e.n th/ Rw,mh evpismo,pw| pou/to sunhqe,j evsti,n. 709 When such words render the reasoning, why Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis ought to be subject to the Bishop of Alexandria according to ancient custom, they cannot yield any another sense than that the Roman Pontiff customarily consigned the governance of those three provinces to the Bishop of Alexandria. Thereupon, if the Council of Nicaea wished to determine the dowry to the Roman Pontiff, why did it not begin from that? Why does it begin from Alexandria, which was second? And why did it not name the region, which it gave to the Roman Pontiff? Add, lastly, that even if the Council of Nicaea spoke with eloquent words, that the West properly pertained to the Roman Pontiff, still Nilus would altogether gain nothing; for without a doubt, it was to be understood on the dowry of the Patriarchate of the Roman Pontiff, apart from which he would still have the same supreme power over every Church. It must be observed in passing what Nilus says, namely, that the West ought to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, is passed over by Illyricus in his very faithful translation, lest Illyricus would be compelled to be subject to the Roman Pontiff from the testimony of Nilus.

Chapter XIX: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from Laws, Dispensations and Censures A seventh argument can be introduced from the authority of imposing aws, dispensing them and punishing according to them, which the Bishop of Rome exercised over the sons of the Church, although they may have been very great and noble. Numerous examples can be advanced from laws: it was a rare thing that there were any Pontiffs who did not decree something. St. Leo the Great writes to the Bishops of Campania, Piacenza and Thuscia, and constituted through all provinces, speaking thus at the end of the epistle: “After our admonition, let them give notice that if anyone of the brethren will have come against these constitutions, or attempts to do so, and will have dared to admit those things which are forbidden, he will know that he must be removed from his office . . . All the decretals constituted by Innocent of happy memory, which were ordained of all by our predecessors on Ecclesiastical orders, and disciplines of the canons, so we command that your ove ought to safeguard so that if anyone will have scorned them, thereafter pardon will be refused to him.” In like manner, he prescribes two laws to Dioscorus the Bishop of Alexandria, and in each uses these words: “We wish it also to be guarded by you.” Pope Hilary, presiding in a Roman Council said: “It shall be lawful for no one without danger to his status or divine constitutions, even to make bold the decrees of the Apostolic see.” Pope Anastasius II said: “Let hard pride not resist the Apostolic commands, but through obedience to those matters which are commanded by the authority of the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolic See, may they be profitably fulfilled, if with the same holy Church of God which is your Head, you desire to have communion.” St. Gregory, in a privilege which he gave to the Monastery of St. Menard, is also wrote at the end of a epistle: “If anyone, of kings, judges, bishops, or of any secular persons, will have violated the decrees of this apostolic authority and our command, let him be deprived of his honor.” On dispensations, we have an example in Epistle 1 of Gelasius (for we pass over the infinite more recent examples for the sake of efficiency): “by the necessary disposition of things we are joined, and we are agreed upon the management of the Apostolic See, thus to balance the decrees of the paternal canons, and to measure the precepts of our prelates and retiring ones, so that such necessity of the present times demands to be relaxed from the restored churches, while loving consideration was applied, we refrained as much as it could be done.” And he dispenses the same in many ways. Likewise, St Gregory says in a letter 710 that he dispensed concerning Matrimony with the English in prohibited degrees: and again, with the Siculi, that they may only once celebrate a Council in a year, since otherwise the rule commands Councils to be celebrated twice in a year. Hence, this rule, which Gregory dispensed, is Canon 5 of the First General Council. On Censures there are many examples, and indeed they are very ancient For Innocent I, when he heard that Chrysostom died, he excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius and Eudoxia his wife, who did not permit Chrysostom to be restored to his see, as Innocent himself had commanded. The epistle of Innocent on this affair is contained in Nicephorus’ Histories. 711 Nor can it be objected that even Ambrose, who was not a Supreme Pontiff excommunicated the Emperor. For Ambrose did that in his Church, when the Emperor had a seat at Milan: but Ambrose would not have dared to excommunicate someone outside of the diocese of Milan. Moreover, Innocent also excommunicated Emperors at Constantinople, as well as those living there Next, Gregory III, in like manner, excommunicated the Greek Emperor Leo, as Zonaras witnesses in the life of Leo the Istaurian. Nicholas I excommunicated Lothar the King of Gaul and his concubine Vladrada, rather than his proper bishops, the Archbishops of Cologne and Trier On this point the Centuriators of Magdeburg tell the most impudent lies, when they say that King Lothar and the Archbishops were unjustly harassed by Pope Nicholas. For as many historians write, 712 Lothar, from hatred toward Thietberga, his wife, and for love toward his concubine, suborned false witnesses to convict his wife of incest, and then, on the authority of the Archbishop of Cologne and Trier, repudiated her and lead his concubine to wife, all of which those Archbishops confessed at Rome in Council. Therefore, if the Centuriators wish to make Lothar and the Archbishops ust, as they do, it is necessary that they accuse Paul, who in 1 Corinth. VII teaches that not even on account of the case of fornication could one marry another while the first wife is living. What about the fact that the wife of Lothar did not sin, but was only condemned by false testimonies, do the Centuriators ustify false testimonies so they can scold the Pope in some way? But we have the example of the most illustrious and ancient. For, when Pius I decreed that Easter should not be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month of the Jews, but on the following Sunday, and the Asians refused to acquiesce, Pope Victor I excommunicated all of them around the year 190, as Eusebius writes. 713 Calvin objects, however, that Victor was rebuked on this account by Irenaeus and rightly obeyed the one rebuking him, without a protest. 714 I respond: Irenaeus, along with many others, rebuked Victor, because it seemed that he had cut such Churches off from the unity of the Church for so trifling a cause (Eusebius witnesses the same thing), but the fact that Victor changed his sentence, we read nowhere. And even if Victor had changed his sentence, Calvin would gain nothing from that. We would say that the same power whereby Victor bound the Asians, he absolved them. Next, the rebuke of Irenaeus and others does not diminish, but rather more ncreases the force of our argument. For in the same measure, whereby there were many displeased by the sentence of Victor, so they could more easily condemn or rather more preferably excommunicate Victor, if they thought he was one from the number of bishops, rather than the head and judge of all. But n reality, there was not anyone who taught that the sentence was void, or thought that Victor must be condemned or excommunicated; nor was there anyone who warned him lest he might exceed his limits and lest he might judge those not subject to him; in fact, they ought to have warned him if Victor truly was not the judge of all. Moreover, they reckoned Victor did what he could, not what he ought. Their words sound thus in Eusebius: “Their letters are extant, in which they more bitterly rebuke Victor, as if consulting him that it was unprofitable to what was fitting for the Church.” Moreover, this must be observed, that although Irenaeus and others then thought that Victor had acted imprudently, nevertheless, really he acted very prudently, as the whole Church judged afterward. For one from those particular authors of that opinion, on the celebration of Easter with the Jews, was Blastus who in the very matter, little by little wanted to introduce Judaism, as Tertullian writes at the end of De Praescriptiones contra haereticos: “Blastus wanted to secretly introduce Judaism: indeed, he said Pascha should be kept in no other way than according to the law of Moses, on the fourteenth day of the month.” Here, however, Blastus began to sow his heresy at Rome in the time of Pope Victor, as Eusebius witnesses. 715 Therefore, because Pope Victor saw that truth on Easter was not only a diversity of observance, but bore the tallow of heresy, nay more, Judaism itself he reckoned the time was ripe to oppose it. Therefore, the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea approved of the judgment of Victor, as is clear from Eusebius, 716 and thereafter those who thought the contrary were held as heretics and called Quartodecimans, 717 as is clear from Epiphanius and Augustine. 71

Chapter XX: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Vicars of the Pope The eighth argument is taken up from the fact that the Supreme Pontiff had his vicars in various regions, either as an ordinary measure or only for a time still with the reservation of greater cases. For just in the very way that a King sends viceroys to provinces, we understand those provinces subject to the King, and likewise, in the same way the King enjoins judgments upon the governors of the provinces with reservation of certain cases, we yet understand that the King is the supreme udge, so also in the very matter the Apostolic See has vicars in nearly all far off regions, or consigns someone in their places for a time, and wishes more grave business to be referred to him; we rightly gather that the supreme udgement of the whole Church pertains to the Apostolic seat. There are many examples. Pope Leo makes Anastasius, the Bishop of Thessalonika his vicar for the East, just as his predecessors were the vicars for the predecessors of Leo, which he indicates in the same letter. 719 Such appears to be the reason why, in the Council of Sardica, Canon 20, it was declared, lest clerics from outside Thessalonika should tarry there long. Because there the vicar of the Pope sat clerics met there from the whole Greek world, and often stayed there longer than they should have. Leo also consigned their places to Potentius, the Bishop n the regions of Africa. Pope Celestine consigned to Cyril of Alexandria in his place in the case of Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, as well as the rule of that Church after the bishop was deposed. 720 Gelasius, in an epistle to the Bishops of the Balkans: “Why did Acacius not take care to relate this to the Apostolic See, by whom he knew care of those regions had been delegated to him?” Here he speaks of the Bishop of Constantinople, Acacius, to whom the Roman Pontiff had consigned care of Egypt and commanded that he should depose the Bishop of Alexandria. Pope Hormisdas, in an epistle to Salustius the Bishop of Spain, makes him his vicar for Boetica and Lusitania. 721 Justinian writes that the Bishop of Constantinople in certain places ought to be in charge just as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, because Vigilius constituted him such. 722 St. Gregory constituted the Virgilius, the Bishop of Arles, as his vicar throughout Gaul, and likewise reserved to himself more serious cases

Chapter XXI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the Law of Appeals The ninth argument can be made from the fact that whenever something was legitimately called to the Roman Pontiff from any part of the Christian world, no appeal from his judgment was conceded. Thus, it is a very certain argument of rule, as our adversary himself confesses. Calvin says: “It is certain that supreme power is in the hands of the one before whose tribunal a man is called.” But next he adds: “Often many appealed to the Roman Pontiff, he also tried to draw the examination of cases to himself, but was always mocked as often as he exceeded his boundaries.” 723 Therefore, Calvin would have it that many called upon the Pontiff, that they might flee legitimate judgments, but appeals of this sort were derided. Now how truly would someone be mocked who being condemned by Bishop of Florence, would appeal to the Bishop of Milan; or being condemned by the King of Spain, might appeal to the King of France? Thus it must be proved that one could rightly appeal to the Pontiff, and appeals were not derided, but rather, were received with honor and were efficacious. Firstly, it is proved from the Council of Sardica, which was general and always received in the Church. For Sulpitius writes that it was called from the whole world, and Socrates calls it a general Council. 724 On that account, as Athanasius and Hilary write, 725 there were in that Council more than three hundred Catholic bishops, from thirty six provinces of the whole Christian world, all of which Athanasius names; Italy, Gaul, Spain Britain, Africa, Egypt, Syria, Thrace, Pannonia, and the rest. The legates of Pope Julius were there, as Athanasius relates in the same place. Likewise, the fact that this Synod obliged every Church, is clear from those words which are contained at the end of the Council: “It shall safeguard every Church, which is constituted Catholic, diffused in the whole world.” Next, the Centuriators had described this Synod as legitimate. 726 In this Synod, two canons are contained on this matter, the Fourth and Seventh. The Fourth Canon reads: “When some bishop had been deposed by a judgment of other bishops, who remained in nearby places, and proclaimed the business was done to him in the city of Rome, another bishop in his seat, after its appeal who seems to be deposed, should altogether not be ordained, unless the case was determined in the judgment of the Bishop of Rome.” The Seventh Canon: “It pleased, that if a bishop will have been accused and the bishops of his region will have judged, and will have thrown him out from his rank, if he will have appealed, who was cast off and fled to the bishop of the Church of Rome, and will have wished himself to be heard; if he [the Pope] will have reckoned him just, that judgment should be restored. Let him deign to write these bishops, who in the bordering and nearby provinces, as they themselves may diligently require and define according faith and truth But if he who asks his case to be heard again, if he will have moved by his plea the Bishop of Rome, that he might dismiss the priest from the left: he will be in the power of the bishop, in what he might wish and what he might think. And if he will have decreed they must be sent, who, present with the bishops might udge, having his authority by which they were destined, will be in his udgment: but if he will have believed the bishops to suffice, that they might mpose a limit, let them make what he will have judged in his wisest counsel.” Secondly it is proven from Pope Gelasius, who, in an Epistle to Faustus says: “They are canons which would have it that appeals of the whole Church be related to the judgment of this see: from it, no appeal at all ought to be sanctioned.” And in an epistle to the Bishops of the Balkans: “To that place from whichever part of the world the Canons would have it appealed, yet no man is permitted to appeal thence.” The third is proven from the examples of those who have appealed. For even before the Council of Sardica, there was the custom in the Church of appealing to the Pontiff, as Leo deservedly relates in an epistle to the Bishops of Gaul, that this is a very ancient custom. In the year 142, Pius I being Pope, Marcion was excommunicated by his Bishop in Pontus, and came to Rome that he might be absolved by the Roman Church, as Epiphanius relates. 727 In 252, Cornelius being Pope, Fortunatus and Felix were deposed in Africa by St. Cyprian, and they sailed to Rome so as to appeal to Cornelius. Cyprian witnesses this. 728 Not long after, Stephen being Pope, Basilides was deposed n Spain, and appealed to Stephen. 729 In the year 350, Julius I being Pope, Athanasius was deposed by the Oriental bishops, and appealed to the Pontiff, and was restored by him, as we showed above from Sozomen, 730 and this judgment came to pass before the Council of Sardica, as Athanasius witnesses in his Second Apology. After the year 400, while Innocent I was Pope, St. John Chrysostom was deposed by Theophilus, and he appealed to the Pontiff, as is clear from his two epistles to Innocent. Likewise, in the same century, Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople, appealed to Leo, as Liberatus writes, 731 and Theodoret appealed to the same, as it appears from his epistle to Leo. After the year 500, Gregory deprived John, a Greek bishop, from holy communion, because he had judged the Bishop of Thebes, who had appealed to the Apostolic see. I omit the testimony of later times, because these are scorned by the heretics. Rather, now the arguments of Nilus, Illyricus and Calvin must be answered

Chapter XXII: The Arguments of Nilus on the Law of Appeals are Answered Nilus, in a book on the primacy, contends by two arguments that the Bishop of Constantinople can be called in that mode in which the Roman Pontiff is likewise called, and hence they are equals, and not one Roman Pontiff presides over the whole Church. The first argument is: Because the VI Council conceded to the bishop equal privileges with those which the Bishop of Rome has. But we refuted this argument above. Nilus takes the second argument from the Council of Chalcedon, Canon 9, where it is stated that if a cleric should have cause against another cleric, let him be judged by his bishop: if against a bishop, then let udgment be given by an archbishop: if against an archbishop, by the one of highest rank of that jurisdiction, or by the Bishop of Constantinople. Therefore the last judgment is deferred to the ecumenical Patriarch of the royal city. I respond: It is not altogether certain who is called the “one of highest rank of jurisdiction” [primas dioeceseos], and indeed John de Turrecremata 732 teaches that the one of highest rank of a jurisdiction describes a bishop more dignified and greater than an Archbishop, but lesser than a Patriarch. But Pope Nicholas I, in his epistle to the Emperor Michael, writes that by primas dioeceseos, nothing else can be meant but the Bishop of Rome. Such an opinion appears to be more true, both because the author has serious authority antiquity as well as being more learned, and because it will not easily have been proved that in the time of the Council of Chalcedon there was in the Church, and especially in the East, any Primates distinct from Archbishops and Patriarchs. Furthermore, the Greek term used in this canon is e;xarcoj [exarchos] which does not properly mean a primate, but a prince, and such a term is more suitably squared with the Supreme Pontiff than primates. He alone is truly a prince of any Christian diocese you like. With these having been noted, I respond: Firstly, that Canon is rightly shown by Pope Nicholas I (loc. cit), that the Council decreed that he who had cause with a Metropolitan, should go to the Prince of the Diocese, that is the Roman Pontiff: or if he was near to the city of Constantinople, and wished to be content with the judgment of that bishop, let him go there. Therefore, it is such that first the general law was constituted on going to the Roman Pope thereafter, a certain permission is present only for those who tarry near Constantinople. Secondly, the response can be made that all of these canons have no force with us, except to the extent that they were renewed by the Roman Pontiffs. For Pope Leo writes to the Council of Chalcedon, that he approved that Council only in regard to the explication of faith. 733 And Liberatus witnesses all those Canons were constituted while the legates of the Pope were absent nevertheless they otherwise governed the Council. 734 Next, custom, which is the interpreter of Laws, obviously teaches that it was never lawful to appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople, unless one was from those places subject to the same Patriarch. There is no example that can be proffered in which we might understand from the West, or the South, or even the North appeals were made to the Eastern Church. Thirdly, even if we were to concede that from the whole world one could have recourse to the judgment of the Bishop of Constantinople according to these Canons, still it would not follow that he were equal with the Bishop of Rome. For from the force of that Canon of Chalcedon, the Bishop of Constantinople can only judge those who believe they have been wounded by their Metropolitan: but the Pope of Rome can judge even those who are wounded by Patriarchs, or by a Council of bishops, whichever example you ike shows this is especially and frequently the case, specifically those of Athanasius, Paul, Chrysostom, Flavian and Theodoret. Lastly, add the fact that this Canon of Chalcedon is not on appeal, but on the first judgment, something that Nilus does not notice. Therefore, even if the Bishop of Constantinople could judge any case you like from the whole world nevertheless appeal could be made from him to the Bishop of Rome, according to the Canons of the Council of Sardica. Nor could the Canons of Chalcedon be opposed in any way to those of Sardica, thus as always, the last judgment remains in the power of the Bishop of Rome.

Chapter XXIII: The First Argument of the Lutherans is Answered Now we come to the arguments of the Lutherans. Our adversaries firstly object that St. Cyprian teaches: “For since it was established for all of us, and it should be right and equally just, that every case whatsoever should be heard in that place where the crime was carried out, etc.; it is indeed fitting that they, whom we are in charge of, should not go around us, etc.,” 735 and further on: “Except if the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa should seem less than a few desperate and lost men, etc.” Where he condemns those who appealed to the Roman Pontiff, and he tries to show that appeal ought not be made both because it had been established in a Council of bishops, and because the authority of the bishops of Africa is no less than that of the Romans. I respond: The appeals did not sit well with Cyprian, of those men who were manifestly judged and convicted of crimes; but he did not altogether abolish appeals. That is gathered from another epistle, where, speaking about Basilides, who was condemned in Spain but appealed to Pope Stephen, it says “Nor indeed must the former (Stephen) be blamed, who indifferently received this surprise visit, but rather the latter (Basilides) be detested, who deceitfully dropped in on him.” 736 But certainly, if it was not lawful for Stephen to admit appeals in any way, certainly he would have been exceedingly blamed, because he did not reject the appeal, even if Basilides would have had a just case. Therefore, to that which Cyprian says was constituted by all, “that the case should be heard in that place where the crime was carried out” I say it is constituted by this decree that the case should be judged first where the crime was carried out, still it is not forbidden that it might be judged again in another place. But you will say: Still, Cyprian proves from this decree that appeal ought not be made, therefore, appeals were forbidden. I respond: Cyprian does not argue from this decree alone, but from this decree concerning the circumstances of the manifest crimes of the guilty. Thus, Cyprian reasons, the case of anyone whatsoever ought to be heard, from the decree of a Council in that place, where the crime was carried out, the case of these now being heard, and manifestly their crimes were detected. Therefore, why appeal to Rome, except that by chance they might impose upon the Pope, or at least annoy the bishops who had udged concerning them? Add that, if by this decree it was meant to forbid all appeals, not only would it be forbidden to appeal to the Roman Pontiff, but also to any other udge; and that is the very thing the Centuriators affirm. 737 They try to make these words general, but it would be a most absurd and ridiculous law, which would forbid all appeal. Furthermore, in what inept state of this sort was a law ever tolerated, which did not permit appeal to any judge? Therefore, the Centuriators, when they grant this law to the Church of God, which is arranged as the wisest state, show themselves altogether ridiculous and absurd. Now, to that point which Cyprian adds, that the authority of the bishops of Africa is no less, I respond that no less does not refer to a comparison to the Roman Pontiffs, but to the case on wherein it was treated. The sense is that the bishops of Africa were not of a lesser authority than sufficed to judge that case.

Chapter XXIV: Another Three Arguments are Answered Secondly, they [The Lutherans] object that Pope Damasus, who in a letter to Theophilus and Anysius, which is 79 among the epistles of Ambrose, says “When there was a judgment of this sort of the Council of Capua, as of the border with Bonoso, and also the judges voted for his accusers, we turn away because the form of judgment cannot be relevant for us.” I respond: Firstly, that epistle is not of Damasus. In the works of Ambrose t is attributed to Ambrose, but it cannot be his, since in it mention is made of Ambrose just as he was someone else. Therefore, its authorship is uncertain Secondly, I say if it were a letter of Damasus, as many would have it, Damasus does not say he cannot judge, but that it is not fitting that he should judge which was said rightly. Although the Pope is the Supreme Judge, nevertheless i s not fitting that when a provincial council established something, he should udge otherwise without reason. Thirdly, Calvin objects 738 that the Council of Miletus, in Canon 22, states thus: “What if by them (that is neighboring bishops), they reckoned to challenge? Let them not challenge, except to the African Councils, or to the primates of their provinces. Moreover, one who crosses the sea, because he thinks it must be appealed; let him be received in communion by no one within Africa.” Some respond with Gratian, 739 that he added to this canon the exception unless by chance he should appeal to the Apostolic See. But this exception does not seem to square; for especially on account of the Roman Church, the Africans had established that it was not lawful to appeal beyond the sea Therefore, it was never the custom to appeal beyond the sea from Africa except to the Roman See. Nor is it fitting to take refuge in these narrow exceptions, since the real answer is at hand. Therefore, the response is that this Canon is not in regard to a summons For the question on appeals to the Roman Pontiff, it is not on appeals of priests and lesser Clerics, but on the appeals of bishops. Accordingly, the Council of Sardica, which would have it that bishops can appeal to the Pontiff in Canons 4 and 7, would also have it that the cases of priests and lesser clerics be settled by neighboring bishops, so that it would be lawful for minor clerics to appeal from their bishop to other bishops of the same province, as Canon 17 has it. Pope Zozimus willed to renew those two canons, and commanded their execution in Africa, as is clear from the Sixth Council of Carthage, and from the letter of the same Council to Pope Boniface. Hence, this Canon 22 of the Council of Miletus, speaks on Priests and esser Clerics, not on bishops, as is clear from Augustine, who was present at this Council, and still writes that it was lawful for African Bishops to appeal beyond the sea, but not for lesser Clerics: 740 and from the words of the Council itself, it begins thus: “It was pleased that Priests, Deacons or other ower Clerics in cases, which they had, etc.” For this reason, Pope Innocent I approved the whole Council of Miletus in his epistle to the Council, which is 93 among the epistles of St. Augustine. But certainly Innocent would not have done it, if there was something that derogated from the Apostolic See. Hence the ignorance and poor scholarship of Calvin appears, who says on the citation we noted, that Zozimus tried to cause it to be, that this canon of Miletus would be corrected in the VI Council of Carthage. Yet it is certain on the other hand that Zozimus commanded that the Canon should be confirmed, and rendered back to practice. But you will say: If that is so, by what law did the Roman Pontiffs receive the appeals of the Priests of Apia from Africa, and saw to it to restore his rank as the African Fathers relate in an epistle to Boniface, and in another to Pope Celestine? I respond: Although it was forbidden for Clergy of a lower order to appeal from the bishops of their province, still it was not forbidden, nor could it be forbidden for the Supreme Pontiff, that he could not admit them if he wished Besides, the Roman Pontiffs did not admit the appeal of the Apian priests, as much as listen to their complaints, and commanded the Africans that they should diligently examine their case, and faithfully judge it. Thus it appears from these two epistles, that the priests of Apia twice came to Rome, and each time in turn were sent back into Africa, and there it was judged after they returned from the city. Fourthly, Calvin objects using the Epistle of St. Augustine, where we read the case of Caecilianus was judged by the Pope, and certain others by the command of the Emperor, and thereafter again, judged a second time by the Bishop of Arles at the command of the same Emperor, and thirdly judged by the Emperor. But if the Pontiff is supreme judge by Divine law, why does he not judge himself instead of at the command of the Emperor? Likewise, if there can be no appeal from him, how was there an appeal in the case of Caecilianus and a judgment after the judgment of the Pontiff from the Bishop of Arles, and again by the Emperor? Then, why did he suffer colleagues to be joined with him by the Emperor in the first judgment? 741 I respond to the first point: the Pope did not judge, except when the Emperor enjoined it upon him, because the case of the Donatists was not brought to the Pontiff first, as it ought to have been, but to the Emperor. In this they acted wrongly, as St. Augustine teaches in the same work where he also says Constantine the Emperor by far acted in a more orderly manner, since he did not dare to judge what was brought to him, but sent it to the Pontiff. To the second point, I say the Pope permitted himself to sit with others assigned by the Emperor, that he might satisfy the Donatists, by whom the Roman Pontiff was suspect. Now I say to the third, after the Pontiff judged the Bishop of Arles, and afterward the Emperor did so, not because it was fitting, as Augustine says in the same place, but that the mouth of the Donatists should be altogether shut up. Therefore, the Emperor, as Augustine says in the same place, was going to aim at forgiveness from the bishops, and became acquainted with the case unwillingly.

Chapter XXV: The Last Argument on the VI Council of Carthage is Answered Lastly, Calvin, 742 the Centuriators, 743 and even the Greeks at the Council of Florence, 744 but above all Illyricus, 745 bring forth an argument that they believe is very strong from the history of the Sixth Council of Carthage, and this is the summary of the affair. Pope Zozimus sought from the Africans through legates, that they would command the execution of three Canons from the Council of Nicaea. One, was on the appeals of bishops to the Roman Pontiff; the second, on appeals of Priests and lesser clerics to neighboring bishops, the third, on not going to the constable, that is, lest the bishops of Africa might go to the hall of the Emperor After the Africans received these commands, they gathered a nationa Council of 217 bishops, and meanwhile, with Zozimus dead, Pope Boniface had succeeded him, and the Africans responded that they did not discover those Canons in the Council of Nicaea, and on that account, wrote to the Patriarchs of the East, at Constantinople and Alexandria, so that the latter would send to them authentic examples of the Council of Nicaea. In the meantime, they were going to preserve those Canons save for more due diligence in the inspection of the authentic copies. Then, copies of the Council of Nicaea came from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, and in those these three Canons were not discovered, rather only those twenty which are contained in the history of Ruffinus, 746 which Cyril also cites in his epistle to the Africans. Therefore, since the Africans did not discover those particular canons in the copies sent to them, they wrote to Pope Celestine, who had succeeded Boniface, seeing that those canons were not discovered, that thereafter they would not easily admit appeals from Africa. This is contained in the Sixth Council of Carthage, and in those two epistles. What the Pope might have said as a response is not contained there. Now, Illyricus and the Centuriators have heaped up over this history an mmense pile of abuse, lies and besides that two arguments. In regard to abuse Illyricus in his book on this history, insolently perverts the names of nearly every Pope involved. St. Innocent he everywhere calls “Nocentium”, St Boniface “Malefacium”, St. Celestine, “Infernalem;” St. Leo, in the manner of some hellish wolf, he merely calls the “roaring lion”. 747 The acts of the Council of Carthage itself will serve to blunt such petulance, as well as the epistles of the same Council to Boniface and Celestine, all of which Illyricus adds honestly to increase the size of his little book. The more scurrilously and rudely Illyricus speaks of these holy Pontiffs the more the African Fathers speak of them with honor and seriousness Besides, see Augustine on the praises of these Popes, as well as Optatus and Prosper of Aquitaine. 748 On the other hand, there are as many lies as there are sentences in this book of Illyricus. I will bring up a few from the many. In the beginning of the book, he says that at the Sixth Council of Carthage, Prosper, Orosius and other characteristic men were present with Augustine. But Prosper and Orosius are not named in the Council, and they could not be present, since they were not in fact Africans and the Council consisted of African Bishops alone. A little after that, Illyricus relates that, together with Pope Boniface, a man n schism named Eulabius was elected, but Eulabius, who was chosen by a greater part of the clergy and people was of such modesty, that he yielded of his own will, although in other respects he pertained to that Pontificate by law. But Illyricus asserts this without any source, and we can produce against it Anastasius the librarian, who wrote on the life of the same Boniface, that Eulabium was thrown out from the Council of 252 bishops, and unjustly ordained, while Boniface was confirmed by all. Illyricus says to this, and often repeats, that the Roman Pontiffs demanded from the African Fathers while that jurisdiction be conceded to them in Africa and in all other regions; and when it was deliberated on this affair for a whole five years, at length it was defined by the Council, that no right should be conceded to the Pontiff. But that is not only a lie, because there was no such demand, nor can such a definition be found in that Council, but it is even mpudent because it is asserted without any probability. Who would believe that Roman Pontiffs demanded jurisdiction from the Africans in Asia and Europe? Likewise who would believe that the African Fathers labored on this case for a whole five years, when they could respond in one word, that the Popes had no right over outside nations, hence they could not concede it to anyone? Would someone not be laughed to scorn, who sought jurisdiction from the King of France in Spain? And would not the King of Spain seem ridiculous f he placed the matter in deliberation for five years? Another lie, and it is the chief one repeated a thousand times in the book of Illyricus as well as by the Centuriators, is that Pope Zozimus busied himself in deception, and against his conscience, falsifying the Council of Nicaea that he might place a yoke upon the Africans by treachery. Concerning such a lie, we will give an answer by argumentation. Therefore, with these having been prefaced, let us proceed to the arguments [of Illyricus]. First, if the Pope is the supreme Judge of the whole Church by divine law why would the Pontiffs strive to confirm their right of appeals, not from divine aw, but from the Council of Nicaea? And why did so many Catholics, and the holy Fathers of the Council of Carthage, refuse to admit this right unless it should be found in the Council of Nicaea? We respond to this argument briefly: one could always appeal to the Supreme Pontiff by divine law, still, whether it was expedient to use this power even in all places without cause, was in doubt. For on every side reasons can be advanced. Indeed, if everywhere an appeal were conceded by all, it may easily happen that many would flee legitimate judgments, that they might trouble bishops, who had first judged the matter without cause, that cases which are otherwise easy and clear, might drag on for a very long time. And hence what St. Cyprian says in the aforementioned epistles is not once twisted from those who once legitimately judged and condemned, would call upon the Roman Pontiff. Even St. Bernard enumerates many troublesome results which arise from an excessive frequency of appeals. 749 On the other hand, if appeal were conceded to none, the occasion would be given to particular bishops, that they might easily and boldly judge and tyrannically oppress the people; and still, that they might reckon they had no superior to themselves, and thus need render an account to no one. The result of that would be nothing other than that the one body of the Church should be torn n as many parts as there are Episcopates. Therefore, when the matter was in doubt, the General Council of Sardica declared that it was expedient that ordinarily priests and other minor Clergy should be conceded an appeal from bishops to a provincial Council, and bishops on the other hand, to the Apostolic See. This declaration was not a new concession, for the examples of those who appealed to the Roman Pontiff before the times of the Council of Sardica and Nicaea witness. It is for that reason that in the Council of Carthage that the Roman Pontiffs advanced not divine right, but the Council of Nicaea, to stabilize the law of appeals. This was the case, because they wished to prove that not only could all appeal to them, but even that it was expedient for the Church that it should so happen, seeing that a general Council had thought so. For equal reason, the African Fathers desired to impede appeals of this sort, because they thought it was not expedient for their Church, even though they were not ignorant of the fact, nor did they deny, that they could not absolutely impede appeals. Wherefore, in each epistle which they sent to the Roman Pontiffs on this case, they witness their subjection to the Apostolic See while they relate the acts of the Council, and say they received its commands Moreover, they do not command, but ask that he not offer his ears too easily to everyone making an appeal. But all these will be more clear in the answer to the second argument. Thus, the second argument of the Centuriators and Calvin is of this sort the Roman Pontiffs, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, wished to prove the right of appeals to the Apostolic See from the Council of Nicaea. However after the case was struck down, they were caught falsifying and corrupting the canons of Nicaea, therefore, not even human law, to speak nothing of divine could call upon their judgment. We respond: First, the African Fathers were deceived by ignorance, while the Centuriators and Calvin sin from malice. For the Africans repeat twice in their epistle to Celestine, that in no definition of the Fathers, and in no Synod did they discover those canons; from which it appears they did not have the canons of the Council of Sardica, in which those three canons are contained with eloquent words, and if they did have them, without a doubt they would have acquiesced. The authority of Sardica is no less than of the Council of Nicaea. 750 And it was not a greater error to cite Nicaea for Sardica, than Matthew for John, or Jeremiah for Zacharia, as St. Matthew does in Chapter XXVII. Therefore, just as we cannot call Matthew a forger, because the same Holy Spirit spoke in Jeremiah and Zachary, so also here. But the Centuriators knew about the Council of Sardica, and just the same conveyed it as legitimate n its account of the fourth century; therefore, it is necessary that they affirm the Africans were deceived, and the case comes to nothing: therefore, not withstanding that they obstinately claim victory with these, they oppose themselves, and sin from malice. But you might say, in the Sixth Council of Carthage, ch. 6, they cite by name the Council of Sardica, therefore, the Africans were not ignorant of it. I respond: those words whereby the Council of Sardica is cited are not of the Africans, but of the Papal Legates. They cited these words, from nstructions given to them by Pope Zozimus. And besides, I believe, the citation was altogether corrupted, and either placed by Copyists, Sardica for Nicaea, or what I rather more suspect, taken up from a margin in the text, that “Ex Sardicensi Concilio.” Therefore, the Council of Sardica is placed in the margin because really the words which are cited there are not now discovered except in that Council. But, just the same, the name “Council of Sardica” ought not be in the text. Accordingly, the words that they cited were from the nstructions of Pope Zozimus, which the legates brought from Rome Moreover, these Legates said they cited the Canons from the Council of Nicaea. For which reason, soon after those words were recited, St. Augustine said: “We also profess that we are going to preserve this save for a more diligent inspection of the Council of Nicaea.” Whereby he shows that he received the Canon cited just as if it were from Nicaea. Add, that Augustine did not recognize another Council of Sardica apart from a certain heretical Council of Eastern bishops against St. Athanasius. 751 There were two councils in Sardica, as is clear from the historian Sozomen. 752 One was a general Catholic council of over three hundred bishops, which Augustine never saw; the other was a heretical council of seventy-six bishops which Augustine had seen. Secondly, I say, the Canons of the Council of Nicaea, which are found in Ruffinus, 753 and which were sent from the East to the Africans, without a doubt did not have all the canons which Nicaea published, and hence it is probable that these three Canons, which Zozimus cited from the Council of Nicaea, really were in that Council. The fact that these might not have been all several prove from the epistle of St. Athanasius to Pope Marcus, in which he begs for a copy of the Council of Nicaea from the library of the Roman Pontiffs, asserting that the copies which were in Alexandria were burned by the Arians. But this argument is ridiculed by the Centuriators, and truly it is not solid For that burning of books happened in the time of the Emperor Constantius when Athanasius was expelled from Alexandria and a certain Arian named George was ordained in his place, as Athanasius himself witnesses in an epistle to all the Faithful bishops. Moreover, it is certain from the Chronicle of Jerome that Pope Marcus was already dead in that time. Next, if Pope Marcus had sent a copy to the Alexandrians from the Roman treasury, certainly the copies of Rome and Alexandria would have agreed with each other. Therefore, how in the copy sent by St. Cyril of Alexandra to the African Bishops, would these three canons, which were found in the Roman copy, be wanting? Nevertheless, it can be proven that these canons were not whole, even omitting the epistle of Athanasius. Firstly, because one from the particular Canons of the Council of Nicaea, that Easter should be celebrated on the Lord’s day, 754 is not extant among the canons of Ruffinus. Secondly, St. Ambrose teaches that it was established in the Council of Nicaea, lest anyone married twice be received into the clergy. But this was not discovered among those 20 canons. 755 Thirdly, Jerome asserts in the preface to his commentary on Judith, that the book of Judith was received into the canonical books by the Council of Nicaea But this is not found among the canons of Ruffinus. Fourthly, Augustine asserts on the designation of a successor, that it was forbidden in the Council of Nicaea, that two bishops should sit together in the same Church, against which he imprudently did, as he sorrowfully relates. 756 But this Canon appears nowhere among those twenty. Fifthly, in the African Council, the Fathers assert in canon 14 from a canon of Nicaea, that it is not lawful to offer the Eucharist without fasting. But where s this among those twenty canons? Sixthly, at the end of the Council of Chalcedon, Atticus relates that in the Council of Nicaea, the origin of the format for how epistles were to be written was determined, and Optatus speaks on this, where he says: “With whom (the Roman Pope Siricius) the whole world communicates to us the business of forms in society of communion.” 757 Likewise, the Council of Miletus, canon 20, where it forbids clerics to leave unless accompanied with formal letters. But this never appears in those twenty canons of Ruffinus. Seventhly, Luther, Calvin, the Centuriators and the other heretics everywhere object to us based on a Canon of the Council of Nicaea found in the historian, Socrates, 758 in which they say wives are permitted to priests But this canon is not discovered in those twenty. Therefore, if Zozimus is a corrupter and forger of the canons of Nicaea because he cited in the name of the Council of Nicaea one canon, which is not discovered in those twenty, then by the same token, Constantine, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome Augustine, Atticus, Socrates, the African Fathers, as well as the Centuriators themselves and even Luther and Calvin are corrupters and forgers. For they all cite canons of the Council of Nicaea, which are not found among those twenty. Lastly, add that in the Council of Florence, sess. 20, a certain learned man named John asserted, that he could show many testimonies of the holy Fathers that at length the Fathers of the Sixth Council of Carthage knew that the canons of Nicaea were corrupted and false which were sent to them from Alexandria and Constantinople. Now, in the third place, I say it seems to me very probable, that in the Council of Nicaea these three canons were not expressly present, on which we are treating; rather, these were called Canons of Nicaea by Zozimus and Boniface because they held Nicaea and Sardica for one and the same, the canons of each council were joined in the same place in the Roman library just as if they were of the same Council. The ignorance of this affair disturbed the African Fathers. The reasons which convince me are these. First, because these Canons are contained in the same words in the Council of Sardica, that the legates of Zozimus allege, and it does not have the appearance of truth that the same Canons were in the Council of Nicaea, and still the Fathers at Sardica do not ndicate by any mode that they did not make the canons but renewed them Therefore, I reckon, that it was implicitly and obscurely decreed in the Council of Nicaea, that one should appeal to the Pontiff, because without a doubt in Canon 6, the Council commands the ancient customs to be preserved, and this one on appeals, as is clear from Pope Leo 759 and from the examples argued above: and also because the same Council commands that once a case has been adjudicated it can be judged again in another place, as is clear from the epistle of Julius that is contained in the second Apology of St. Athanasius, but the Council of Sardica eloquently explained the whole business. In the Second place, because all the Canons of the Council of Sardica are contained in a translation of the Council of Nicaea made from Greek by Dionysius, a thousand years ago which is extant in the monastery of St. Vedasti Atrebati, where they are contained together just as if they were of the same Council. In the third place, because, otherwise, a reason can not be given why the Council of Sardia, which is was certainly universal and approved, is not counted among the general Councils. Certainly it ought to be called the Second Council, but it does not add to the number of councils, because it is held for one and the same with Nicaea. Moreover, the reason why the two Councils were joined together, is because the same Fathers for the most part were present n each Council, and nothing new in regard to faith was defined at Sardica rather it only strengthened the faith of Nicaea, since in other Councils new heresies were condemned. Therefore, Zozimus did not cite Nicaea for Sardica by some deceit, but because they were held to be the same. I believe the same can be said for the letter of Pope Julius I to the Eastern Bishops, Innocent in his epistle to Victricium, and Leo in Epistle 25 to Theodosius: they all cite this canon in the name of the Council of Nicaea. Just the same, the creed of Constantinople is everywhere called “Nicene,” because it is an explication of Nicaea, so also the canons of Sardica, the Fathers usually call Nicene, because they are nothing other than an explanation and confirmation of the canons of Nicaea. I add fourthly, the Fathers at Carthage never stated, that no right was given to the Roman Pontiff in Africa, or that it was not lawful in any way for an African Bishop to appeal to the Roman Church. Nor was there ever such a separation between the Roman Pontiffs and the African Bishops, as Illyricus and Calvin say. For in the first place, a decree of this sort was never extant thereupon, the African Fathers themselves, in a letter to Pope Boniface, and in another to Celestine, very clearly witness their peace and subjection toward the Apostolic See. They write thus to Boniface: “Because it has pleased the Lord, that on these which our holy brothers have done among us, our fellow-bishop, Faustinus, and our fellow priests Philippus and Psellus, not of happy memory with Bishop Zozimus, from whom they brought to us the commands and letters, but to your veneration, who in his place are divinely constituted, our humility did write, we ought in short order to abor on those which are to determine peace on each side, in which, save for charity, but not without a little bitter labor we tarried.” Where, when they refer all things to the Pope, which were done, and they affirm that they received the commands from Pope Zozimus, can it be that they do not openly indicate that they acknowledge him as a Superior? But in an epistle to Celestine: “A due preface to the office of salvation, we ask for the expense; that afterward you would not easily admit those coming to your ears.” In such words, they do not absolutely refuse that law on appeals, nor do they say that the Pontiff cannot, if he wishes, admit those making appeals, but they merely ask that he would not easily offer his hears to everyone making an appeal. St. Augustine clearly preached the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in Africa and the whole Christian world, when he says, from the command of Zozimus he and the other bishops came to Caesar: and when he wrote that the Pelagian heresy was condemned throughout the whole world by Innocent and Zozimus 760 The same Augustine was subject to, and joined to Pope Boniface, as is clear from the beginning of the first of his first book against two epistles of the Pelagians to the same Boniface. He also relates to Pope Celestine the case of a certain African Bishop, and among other things says: “Work with us in piety, O most venerable blessed Lord, and having received due charity, O most holy Pope, bid for yourself to recite all those things which are right.” 761 And further on: “It arises in the example of the judgment of the Apostolic See itself as well as what has been judged firm of other matters, etc.” And on the other hand, Pope Celestine in a letter to the Gauls, brings out Augustine with wonderful praise, and also says he has always remained in communion with the Roman Church; and that he was always held to be the greatest doctor by him and his predecessors. Such a union of Augustine with the Roman Church convicts Illyricus of a manifest lie, when he writes that the Roman Pontiffs had been excluded from power in all of Africa, refuted by Augustine and his colleagues as wicked corrupters and forgers. Not long after that Council of Carthage, St. Leo wrote to the Bishops of the province of Mauritania in Africa, 762 and says that he restored communion to Lupicinus, the Bishop, because he had appealed to him from Africa. Likewise he sent Bishop Potentius as his legate, so that he would discern African affairs n his place. Therefore, either the Council of Carthage did not forbid it, or certainly those Fathers changed their minds. Again, around sixty years later, St. Eugenius, the bishop of Carthage, when he was compelled by the Arian King, Honoricus, to make a collation on the faith, he wrote to his colleagues across the sea. He could not establish something on the faith without a consensus of other bishops, and especially the Roman Church. Victor of Utica relates the fact. 763 Therefore, the Bishop of Carthage acknowledged the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches even after the Sixth Council of Carthage, and if of all, certainly also of Africa nor was he separated from the Roman Pontiff, to whom he declared he was going to write. Not long after, when Thrasimundus, the successor of Honoricus, relegated nearly all the African Bishops, that is 220, into Sardinia, the Roman Pope Symmachus maintained that all of those bishops were members [of the Church] and liberally provided for their expenses; 764 which certainly is not an argument for separation but of communion and unity. In the same time, St. Fulgentius, was easily the Prince of the African Bishops, although he was most joined to the Roman Church, as is certain from Chapter 12 of his life. For when he wished in Egypt to set out for the solitude of the Monks, he was warned by the Bishop of Syracuse not to do it, on account of the fact that all these monks were separated from the see of Blessed Peter, with which he was in communion. Therefore, after he left Egypt behind he came to Rome, to see the places of the Saints. The same Fulgentius, as we see from Chapter 29 of his life, faithfully written by his disciple, is assigned to the Church of Carthage, and had been joined to his bishop, from which it happens that the Bishop of Carthage was also joined to the Bishop of Rome, as St. Fulgentius could not lawfully communicate with two communions within himself. After those times, Blessed Gregory manifestly declared his union with the Bishop of Carthage, and the right of appeal and jurisdiction in all those provinces. 765 Yet Illyricus objects against this from the epistle of Boniface II to Eulabius the bishop of Alexandria as well as the epistle of Eulabius the bishop of Carthage to the same Boniface. From these epistles it is gathered, that after the Sixth Council of Carthage, the Bishops of Carthage were separated from communion with the Roman Church for nearly a hundred years, and then at ength reconciled when Eulabius subjected himself to the Apostolic See and anathematized his predecessors. I respond: First, those epistles are exceedingly suspect. For in the first place, they seem opposed with those things which we said above on the union of Augustine, Eugene, Fulgentius, and other African Bishops with the Roman Church. Next, Eulabius of Alexandria, to whom Boniface seems to have written, did not exist, or at least not at that time, which is clear from the chronology of Nicephorus of Constantinople. Besides, Boniface shows in that epistle that he writes in the time of the emperor Justin; but Justin died before Boniface began to sit, as is certain from all histories. Still, this epistle, which is ascribed to Boniface, is almost certainly made from two fragments, one of which is taken from an epistle of Pope Hormisdas to Bishop John of Constantinople, the other from an epistle of St. Gregory to the Bishops of Gaul which is the 52nd epistle in book four of the registry of Epistles. But St Gregory was not yet born in that time, so it is believable that Gregory took the words from Boniface, although the style is altogether of Gregory. Moreover, in that epistle, which is attributed to Eulabius of Carthage, a certain Gregorian sentence is inserted, from Book 4, Epistle 36 to Eulogius And there is nothing of the rest of the epistle, except a fragment of a letter of John, the bishop of Constantinople, to Pope Hormisdas. Yet, if by chance these epistles might be true (which I can scarcely affirm) without a doubt they must not be received in the sense as if all the predecessors of Eulabius, even back to Aurelius, who presided over the Council of Carthage were separated from communion with the Church of Rome, since that would be opposed to most certain and true history. Rather it would only mean that Aurelius first began to show disdain against the Roman Church, then by his example Eulabius himself, and maybe some others. In other respects Eulabius after the truth was recognized, again subjected himself to the Roman Church That much alone can be gathered from these epistles, should they be genuine. 

Chapter XXVI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven from the fact that the Supreme Pontiff is Judged by No One The tenth argument is taken from the fact that the Roman Pontiff can be udged by no man on earth. His rule cannot be more evidently shown than if he should so be shown to be in charge of all, that he is subjected to none. Thus three things must be observed before we shall come to the proof. Firstly, we do not dispute on this point about the Pontiff, as he is a temporal Prince, since in this mode not even our adversaries deny that he can not be judged in temporal cases, as it is common to absolutely all Princes that they recognize no one superior in temporal business. Therefore, we speak on the Pontiff by reason of the Pontificate alone, and we say that, even if he had no temporal power, he could not be judged in any way on earth by any Christian Prince, whether secular, or Ecclesiastical, nor even gathered together in a Council. Secondly, it must be observed, there were two errors on this matter. One is of those who taught the Pontiff can be judged by the Emperor, punished deposed, if he would not exercise his office rightly. A certain Marsilius of Padua 766 taught this, as well as Nilus. 767 Nilus differs, however, in that he teaches the Pontiff cannot be judged by a secular Prince, but rather, he contends he can be judged and punished by a Council of bishops. Next Calvin and the rest of the heretics of our time, join both errors together; they subject the Roman Pontiff to a judgment of the Princes as well as of the bishops. The third thing which must be observed, the especial reason why the Pope cannot be judged, is because he is the Prince of the whole Church, and hence he has no superior on earth. For because he is the Supreme Prince of the Church he cannot be judged by any Ecclesiastical ruler, and again, because the Ecclesiastical Commonwealth is spiritual, and hence greater and more sublime than a temporal commonwealth. On that account, the Supreme Prince of the Church can direct and judge a Supreme Prince of a temporal Commonwealth but not be directed or judged by him, otherwise right order and the very nature of the things would be perverted. I say this is the primary reasoning and, as the Scholastics say, a priori: still, because this reason assumes the fact that in the whole disputation we strive to prove that the Roman Pontiff is the Prince of the whole Church, and for this reason, even while omitting similar reasons, from the testimony of Councils, Popes, Emperors and Doctors of the Church we will show that the Bishop of Rome cannot be judged: that from there we might confirm our primary thesis, which is, the Roman Pontiff is the Head and Prince of the universal Church. Therefore, it is proved firstly from Councils. At the Council of Sinvessanus, the Fathers said: “The First see will be judged by no man.” These words are related from that Council by Pope Nicholas in his epistle to the Emperor Michael. Likewise in the Roman Council under Sylvester, 280 bishops were present, and the last canon reads: “The First See will be judged not by the Emperor, nor by Kings, nor by any of the Clergy or people.” 768 Likewise, in the Roman Synod under Sixtus III, Chapter 5, we read it was said “It is not lawful to give sentence against the Pontiff.” And Sixtus, who was accused, responded: “Although in my reckoning I may be a judge, whether or not I might judge, still the truth should not be hidden.” When Dioscorus, the Bishop of Alexandria, at the Council of Ephesus dared to judge and condemn Pope Leo I, the Catholic Church so shuddered at this deed that the Council of Chalcedon, in an epistle to the Emperors Martianus and Valentinian, and in a second to Leo himself, which is contained n Act 3 fo the same Council, it wrote that it condemned Dioscorus for many reasons, but above all, because he had presumed to impose judgment on the First See. Moreover, in the Second Council of Constantinople, under Symmachus, a book by Ennodius the Deacon was received, in which among other things had been written, “God willed the cases of men to be settled through men, but the bishop of this See, without question, reserves his own udgment.” The Roman Council under Pope Adrian II, whose words are related in the 8 th Synod, Act 7: “We read that the Roman Pontiff has judged the Prelates of every Church, but that anyone has judged him, we do not read.” Such rightly must be understood on legitimate judgment. And the Eighth Council itself asserted, it is not lawful for any earthly Prince to judge Patriarchs, and above all, the Patriarch of Rome. Thereupon, in the Council of Milevitanus, Canon 19, Clergy were grievously punished, who wished to be judged by the Emperor Therefore, if the Emperor could not judge Clerics, how much less the Pontiff? Secondly, it is proved from the testimonies of Popes. Gelasius, in an epistle to Anastasius the Emperor says: “There are two, O August Emperor, by whom this world is principally ruled: the sacred authority of the Pontiffs, and royal power. Wherein the weight of Priests is so much more grave than even for Kings themselves, when they go to render an account before divine examination. Know, therefore, that you depend upon their judgment; not that they can be reduced to your will.” St. Gregory says: “If blessed Peter were to be censured at some time by the faithful, he would have attended to the authority which he had received over the holy Church; he could respond that the sheep would not dare to rebuke the shepherd.” Nicholas I, in an epistle to Michael: “Enough is evidently shown that the Pontiff can neither be bound nor oosed by the secular power, that is, neither condemned nor absolved.” Innocent III in an epistle to the Emperor, which is contained ca. Solitae, tit. De majoritate, avowedly teaches this same thing. He also says it in serm. 2 de consecrat. Pontif. Boniface VIII acted in like manner in passing in his bull Unam Sanctam. John XXII, again in passing, in his document licet juxta doctrinam Apostoli. Thirdly, it is proved from the confession of Emperors. For Ruffinus writes about Constantine, 769 that he refused to judge bishops, but said he would rather that he was judged by the bishops. The Emperor Basil made a similar confession in a speech, which he held at the end of the Eighth Synod, and among all the remaining laity, in rank of whom he had placed himself a head of, lest judges might wish to judge or command their own pastors. Thereafter Nicholas, in the aforementioned epistle to the Emperor Michael, after bringing many testimonies, proves that pious Emperors never commanded Pontiffs rather, they merely entreated them as Fathers, if they wished something to be done by them. Lastly, a few testimonies of the holy Doctors. Ambrose, in his oration on the handing over of the Basilicas, says: “A good Emperor is under the Church not above it.” Certainly, if it is not above the Church; how much less above the Father and Pastor of the Church. Gregory Nazianzen, in an oration whereby he excuses himself because at ength he had abstained from his Ecclesiastical function: “You sheep, do not pasture the shepherds, nor elevate yourselves above their limits. It is enough for you, if you are rightly pastured, do not judge the judges, nor impose laws upon the legislators.” And lest you think that Emperors are excepted by Gregory isten to what the same Doctor says in his oration to the citizens overpowered with fear, and the angry Prince; he addresses the Emperor this way: “Why do you not take up a free voice? Even because the law of Christ subjects you to my power, and my tribunal? Let us command him, I add, by both a greater and more perfect imperium. Receive a freer voice, I know you are a sheep of my flock, etc.” St. Bernard, in a letter to the Emperor Konrad, says: “Every soul should be subjected to the law by a more sublime power. How I desire you to guard the udgment in showing reverence to the Vicar of Peter, just as I command you to preserve the very thing of countenance from the whole world.” Boniface the martyr, is quoted by Gratian 770 speaking on the Roman Pontiff, saying: “He who is going to judge all must be judged by nobody.” Lastly, Hugh of St. Victor says: “Spiritual power judges the earth, but the very thing was established first by God, and when it deviates, can be judged by God alone.” 771 

Chapter XXVII: The Arguments of Nilus are Answered Now it remains, that we answer arguments. The first is of Nilus; then of Calvin, lastly, that which John de Turrecremata and others bring from the older heretics. But before we propose the arguments of Nilus, we sense the reader must be advised, lest he would put any trust in the translation of Illyricus. For in other places, and especially in this chapter, he does not only distort the words of Nilus once. Let the beginning of this citation be an example: Nilus has: o`ti. de pa,ntaj avnacri,nwn avuto.j u`pV ou=de,noj avnacri,netai( tou/to kai. feu/doj( toi/j tw/n avposo,lwn hvqesin tou/ sumbai,nei) This is: “The claim, moreover judging all things, he is judged by none,’ is also false, and does not agree with the custom of the Apostles.” Now, Illyricus renders it thus: “What our adversaries babble about, that the Pope judges all, and hence is judged by no one, is full of vanity and lies, and is not in accord with a great many just and modest canons of the Apostles.” But certainly, “they babble” [blaterunt] is not in the Greek and what Nilus simply says is false, Illyricus for his own eloquence says: “In a word, is full of vanity and lies.” Next, for customs of the Apostles, our faithful interpreter renders: “just and modest Canons of the Apostles.” He failed to notice that he opposed that with the following words. For Nilus tries to prove what he says not by Canons, but by reviewing the deeds of the Apostles. Now with this being omitted, let us see the reasons of Nilus. He says “Firstly, if Paul confers his doctrine with the Apostles, and Peter patiently bore to be rebuked bitterly by Paul, by what law would the Roman Pontiff have it to render an account on his deeds and life to no mortal?” I respond: The example of Paul actually argues for our side; accordingly he runs to Peter, and confers the Gospel with him, because he recognizes Peter s greater than himself, and he would give the example to posterity that they should run to the See of Peter in matters of this sort. Jerome marks this on our side in his epistle to Augustine, 772 and Theodoret from the Greeks in his epistle to Nero. Hence, Peter suffered to be rebuked by Paul, because that was not a judicial censure, but fraternal correction. For, as St. Augustine teaches, as well as St. Gregory, Paul did not rebuke Peter, as superiors judge inferiors from authority; but the way inferiors correct their superiors from charity. The second objection: Pope Honorius was not only judged in the Sixth Council, but even condemned. I Respond: On Honorius we will treat more profusely in another place when we come to the question of whether the Pope could be a heretic Meanwhile, we respond; Honorius was judged and also condemned in a case of faith; (that is, if what was brought against him was in fact true), and we do not deny it, because the Church can judge an heretical Pope. Just the same however, it is consistent with what we said, that the Pope can be judged by no one, and will be clear in the last argument. Third; There are many broad laws about bishops, not only by the Apostles but even more by Councils, which certainly bind all bishops. Furthermore, the Pope is nothing other than a bishop, for that reason he is held by the laws Hence, he has a superior by which he is judged. I respond: The Pope is indeed restrained by Ecclesiastical laws, but in regards to direction, not in regards to their restraint, as Jurists usually speak about a Prince. Although both General and Local Councils should speak about bishops universally when they impose laws, still, they ought be understood only concerning those bishops who are subject to the Legislator and that fact can be made plain from particular Councils. Accordingly, these Councils often say: “If any cleric, if some bishop does that, etc.” still it is certain, that none are bound to those laws except for clerics or bishops of that province. Fourth: The Sixth Council prescribes laws for the Roman Church by name For in the Canon 13, it condemns the Roman Church, because it did not permit a priest, deacon and subdeacon the use of wives, and also it commands that thereafter it should permit it. And Canon 55 condemns the same Roman Church, because in Lent it also fasts on Saturday, and it commands that it no onger be done. I respond: We have already warned before about the canons falsely ascribed to that sixth Synod, since they were published afterward by a type of Ninth Synod, which the Roman Pontiffs not only did not approve, but even condemned. 773 And rightly these two canons indicate enough of what sort this Synod was For Canon 13 says that it proposes the doctrine of the Apostles and of the Fathers, when it permits to Clerics the cohabitation of wives, which is certainly quite false. For the Second Council of Carthage, by far more ancient and celebrated than that false Sixth Council, says in Canon 2: “All are pleased, that bishops, priests and deacons, or those who handle the Sacraments, be guardians of purity, even that they should abstain from their wives, as the Apostles taught and antiquity itself preserved, and we also safeguard.” Likewise Epiphanius, who was a Greek and a most ancient and approved author, says: “But (the Church) does not receive a man living with one wife and begetting children, rather, he who restrains himself from one wife, or lives in widowhood, as a deacon, priest, bishop and even subdeacon, especially where the Ecclesiastical Canons are genuine. But you will say to me: in some places still, priests, deacons and subdeacons beget children; but this is not according to the Canon, but according to the mind of men, which it has lost its vigor through time.” 774 But Nilus says, the Sixth Synod cites Canon Six of the Apostles, which commands lest Clerics should abandon their wives under the pretext of religion. I respond: It is commanded by that Canon that Clerics, who have wives should provide for them those things which are necessary to live, not that they should live together with marital relations. Nilus cannot deny such an explanation, both because the very Council in Trullo which he cites explains the same canon in the same way, 775 and also, because otherwise that same Apostolic Canon, whose authority we do not reject, will be opposed to those canons of Trullo. For that Canon of the Apostles not only commands minor clergy, but even bishops, lest they abandon their wives. And still the Canons of the Council in Trullo permit marital relations to minor clergy, but not to bishops. Yet there will be much more on this matter in another place. As to what he pertains to the Canon on fasting on Saturdays, since the matter is indifferent, and each region can preserve its own custom, as St Jerome and Augustine teach, 776 a Council of Greeks ought not, nor could mpose a law upon the Latins in this affair. Add the fact that Pope Innocent I takes our part, in an epistle where he teaches one must fast on Saturday, and also the Greek Epiphanius who in a compendium of doctrine, only excepts Sundays from the fast of Lent. Next, Canon 65 of the Apostles, forbids fasting on Saturday. I respond: that Canon appears substituted; The Church only receives 50 canons of the Apostles, as Cardinal Humbert testified in his book against Nicetas, and is quoted by Gratian. 777 Thereupon, if the Apostles truly commanded it, they certainly commanded it in hatred of heretics, who fasted on Saturday, lest they would appear to honor the creator, who rested on the seventh day. Therefore after that heresy was long extinct, it would then have been lawful on Saturday not only lawful, but even pious, on account of the memory of the Lord’s burial and so as to recede much further from Judaism. Fifthly, Nilus objects against this answer in two ways. First, because although these canons may not be legitimate, still reason itself manifestly teaches that the Pope can be judged. All bishops, as bishops, are equal, as is clear from Dionysius, who says, all are of the same order and dignity, yet the Pope is nothing more than a bishop; that is certain both from the fact that he is ordained by bishops, and from the fact that Dionysius acknowledged no dignity n Ecclesiastical Hierarchy greater than the Episcopal dignity: therefore, the Pope is held no less to the laws of the Councils, and can be judged, as the other bishops. Secondly, he argues, because those Canons are legitimate and of a universal Council is proven in many ways: First, because the Synod which made these canons is the Sixth Synod itself restored. The same Fathers, who gathered from the beginning to explain the faith, are the same gathered afterwards to fashion the Canons. Secondly, because a legate of the Roman Pope was not lacking in this Synod. Accordingly Gortynae the Bishop in Crete held the place of the Roman Pontiff, as can be seen from the history of Basil Thirdly; because the Council, which fashioned these Canons, is itself called a universal Council, nor is it believable that so many Fathers would wish to lie Fourthly, because the Seventh Council, Canon 1, receives the Canons of the six universal Synods, but the Sixth Council does not have other canons than those Fifthly, because Pope Adrian, in an epistle to Tharasius, praises him with admiration, because he constantly observed these decrees together with his own, and namely cited Canon 82 [of the Council in Trullo]. Ergo, it follows that these canons were confirmed even by the Roman Pontiff himself. I respond: That first argument on the equality of bishops proves entirely nothing. For the bishops are equal by reason of rank, as Dionysius says, but not by reason of jurisdiction. Accordingly even Nilus himself in this book affirms that the Bishop of Constantinople by far is no greater than the Bishop of Caesarea, and others who are subject to the See of Constantinople. Hence, the Supreme Pontiff therefore, cannot be judged, not because he should have greater dignity or ordination than the Episcopal rank; but because he has a fuller Episcopal jurisdiction, so that he is in charge of all, and subject to none. Moreover, the Canons of the Council in Trullo were not legitimate, and these arguments correctly prove the case. To the first I respond: This Synod cannot be called the “restored Sixth Council.” For the presidents of the Council were not the same, it was not the same Emperor, and it was not the same number of bishops. For in the Sixth truly universal Council, the Emperor Constantius was present, likewise, the egates of Pope Agatho, and 289 bishops, as we have it in the Seventh Council n the third action. Yet at the time of this pseudo-sixth Council, Pope Agatho was already dead as well as the Emperor Constantius, and there were only 228 bishops. Besides, from the beginning of the pseudo-sixth Council, they themselves said they restored the Fifth and Sixth Synod in a certain manner. Thus Theodore Balsamon called it not the Sixth, but the Quin-Sixth Council. But how can this be called a Council, or the Fifth believed to be restored, when no one from the Fifth Council was present? Accordingly, between the Fifth and “Quin-Sixth” Council, more than 130 years passed. Thereupon, to what end did the fifth and sixth Synod need to be restored, and not preferably a new Council called? Because, they said, they did not make canons. But they wished to make them. They were not convoked to make canons, but explain the faith. To the second argument I respond: Whoever that Bishop Gortyae was, and whoever gave him the place of the Roman Pope in that Synod, Nilus saw because he does not express his name and he brings up an altogether unheard of history, as I do not know which Basil. At length, I say it does not lack suspicion of falsity. But whatever the case on this, it is certain to us, that this Synod was condemned as wayward by Pope Sergius, who then sat; and as Bede and many others witness. 778 This Synod is the one which Sergius condemned, the one which fashioned the Canons, as is clear from Tharasius and Epiphanius, which in the Seventh Synod, Act. 4 and 6, speak. Five years after the Sixth Synod again, the Fathers came together and fashioned these Canons: hence in that time it is certain Sergius sat at Rome. Nor does the memory of any other Council celebrated in that time exist; on which matter we will argue more profusely in book 1 On Councils. Besides, Anastasius the Librarian, in his preface to a book on the Eighth Synod, writes that these canons are not contained either with the Roman Pontiffs, or with any Patriarchs, except that of Constantinople. From which he rightly concludes that this Council was compelled neither by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, nor of the other Patriarchs. Thus, Cardinal Humbert, a egate of Pope Leo IX, in a book against the Greeks, not only says that these same Canons were not received by the Apostolic See, but even calls them nonsense. To the third argument, I respond: It is not to be wondered at too much, if these Fathers ascribed an invented title for themselves, when they call it a universal Council. They knew it could not prescribe laws under the color of the Roman Church, unless they would like to make it a universal Synod Thereupon, when in Canon 2 they received the Synod held under Cyprian which was judged as clearly erroneous by the universal Church, and in Canon 19 they openly lie about the use of wives for Priests from Apostolic custom was permitted, and they have many other manifest lies, what a wonder, if they would lie even in the title? I respond to the fourth: when the Canons of the Six universal Councils were received in the Seventh Council, by the name of canons were not only understood the Canons on morals, but all Canons, whether they were decreed on customs, or on faith. For every Synod made Canons for this reason. On customs, however, or on the Ecclesiastical discipline, only the Council of Nicaea properly made any. For the Second and Fourth Canons published certain things, but they were not approved by the Apostolic See, as is certain from the Council of Chalcedon, act. 16. Hence these are not properly called canons of the general Councils. Moreover the Third, Fifth and Sixth Council published no canons on customs. To the Fifth point, I respond: Tharasius was commended by Adrian because he had seen him safeguard right faith, according to the decrees of the six general Councils; the fact that these Canons of the Quin-Sext Synod are contained in the Epistle of Adrian, recited from the epistle of Tharasius, and each is not refuted in its place by Adrian, because it was not an opportune time for doing so; still, he did not immediately approve them. But the fact that Adrian did, and after him, Nicholas, in an epistle to the Emperor Michael, after he wished to cite certain parts from these Canons, he learned from the Apostle even to use the testimonies of the Heathen, when it was fitting. Sixthly, and lastly, Nilus objects that it is intolerable, the fact that the Pope of Rome refused to be subject to the canons of the holy fathers, since he had his dignity from the Fathers, and he also published many Canons, and at length was unworthy, that he should be honored as Father, since he condemned so many holy Fathers. I respond: these reasons themselves prove that the Pope cannot be subjected to Canons, for he did not have his dignity from the Fathers, but from Christ, as we proved above. Hence he ought to be subject to Christ, not the Fathers. Next, when he may make Canons, it is a sign, that he is the Prince and Legislator: A Prince, however, cannot be obliged to his own laws, since he would not be superior to himself, and laws are only imposed upon inferiors by a superior. Then, if all honor him as Father, he does not have any Fathers in the Church, rather they are all sons. Why is it a marvel if a Father is not subjected to sons, but sons to the Father? Add that, the Pope neither condemned the Fathers nor their canons, although he could not be compelled by them. 

Chapter XXVIII: The Objections of Calvin are Answered Now Calvin, on the other hand, when he condemns what we have said, that the Pope is judged by no one, in turn proposes no argument, 779 which would be proper for this place; rather he merely says it can be gathered frm Councils histories and many writings of the Fathers wherein the Roman Pontiffs are compelled into regulation. At the same time, still nothing pleases him more to pluck from such copious testimonies. Moreover, he asserts that on the name of Supreme Priest and universal Bishop, it pertains to following the head. In another place, 780 he produces several citations of St. Gregory, who, although he was a Roman Bishop, still he recognized the Emperor as his Lord. For in an epistle, 781 he calls the Emperor his most Serene Lord, and calls himself his most unworthy servant Furthermore, in the same letter, he even confesses the obedience that he naturally owes. Likewise in another epistle, he says: “Our Lord more quickly deemed the priests unworthy, not from earthly power, but by a consideration of excellence on account of it, whose servants they are, it is so lorded over them that it even expends true reverence.” 782 In such a place Gregory speaks of himself, and numbers himself among those, over whom he affirms the Emperor has dominion. Likewise in another epistle: “Having trusted in almighty God the fact that he will grant long life to pious lords, and we will dispose under your hand according to his mercy.” 783 I respond: the fact that St. Gregory names himself the servant of the Emperor ought not to appear a marvel. For, as John the Deacon writes, he called all priests brothers, all clergy sons, all laity his lords. 784 Still, it is not right to gather from there that Gregory could be judged by all the laity. The fact attains to obedience and subjection, wherein by humility he said he was the servant of the Emperor, from the same, he requests just as commands, and he received commands. Nor did he hesitate to use the common manner of speaking, that we might say we obey when we do what the other desires although he did not command, nor maybe could command. Add, that Gregory spoke so humbly with the Emperor not without reason because in that time the Emperor obtained temporal dominion over the city of Rome, and Gregory very much required his help and friendship, so that both he and the temporal goods of his Church, and the Roman people would be defended from the swords and fury of the Lombards. In point of fact, the Emperor, who was far away, used the works of Gregory much even in the administration of the temporal affairs of the state, and certainly on those affairs which Gregory did in the name of the Emperor, he was held to account to the same Emperor. Nevertheless, should we compare absolutely person with person, the Emperor of the sheep, the Pontiff as shepherd, that the Pontiff judges the Emperor, not that the Pontiff ought to be judged by the Emperor. That can be clearly gathered from the fact that pious Pontiffs often judged pious Emperors Fabian did Phillipas, Ambrose did Theodosius, Innocent did Arcadius, but pious Emperors have never judged pious Pontiffs, nor is it read they commanded the same, which Pope Nicholas proves in a letter to the Emperor Michael with many testimonies. Nor was Gregory either ignorant or silent; for n that epistle 31 of Book 4 of the Registry of Epistles, which Calvin cites although he says he is the servant of the Emperor; still he adds that the emperor ought to show the reverence which is due to the priests, because certainly he is nferior to them, not superior. The Example of Constantine offers the same whom the bishops that were present begged to judge, and he did not dare to do so. Such an example certainly Gregory never would have brought forth, if he believed the Pontiff ought to be judged by the Emperor. Next, in the same place, although Gregory is called simple by the Emperor he was not silent, for a grave injury was made against him by that word: since simple and foolish seem to mean the same thing. But to what extent, I ask would it be an injury, if a Master should call a servant, or a Judge were to call a criminal, simple? Therefore, St. Gregory understood which person ruled the Church, and what reverence was due to himself from the Emperor; even if in the meantime he partly subjected himself from humility, and partly from necessity.

 Chapter XXIX: Another Nine Arguments are Answered Now the arguments follow, which John of Turrecremata and certain other heretics proposed. The first argument says, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself recognized Imperial power over himself, when he said to Pilate: “You would not have power over me unless it were given to you from above.” 785 Therefore, how much more should the Roman Pontiff, who himself is called the Vicar of Christ, be subject to the imperial power? It is confirmed by what St Augustine says on this citation from the Gospel, where he openly teaches that Pilate had power over Christ from God, according to what was said by the Apostle, “There is no power except from God.” 786 Likewise, St. Bernard agrees, who, in his epistle to Henry, the Bishop of Sens, wrote: “Say, if you dare, to his Prelate that God does not know ordination, since Christ affirmed himself also that he was under the power of the Roman governor, which was of a heavenly order.” 787 I respond: Christ, without a doubt, was not subject to any human law, since he was God and the Son of God: rather, from his own will, he subjected himself to the judgment of Pilate on account of us, not by consigning some authority over himself, but by humbly tolerating the power which he had de facto, not from law. That fact St. Matthew shows, 788 when asked for the tribute, he taught first that he himself was not bound by it; and thereafter commanded it to be given to avoid scandal. Now to that citation of John XIX, the response is made in two ways Firstly, with Sts. Cyril and John Chrysostom on this citation, the Lord does not speak on the power of jurisdiction, but on divine permission, without which sins could not even be done, that should be the sense: You cannot do anything against me, unless God decreed it was permitted, wherein the power is understood even that of Luke XXII; “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.” But you might say: If the Lord spoke on permissions, why does he add right away, “For that reason those who handed me over to you, have the greater sin.” Why did God permit Pilate to pass judgment on Christ and not the Jews that they had to hand him over to Pilate, and still they handed him over while God was unwilling, and on that account sinned more? I respond: It is best to follow the later opinion from the first. Accordingly when the Lord said: “For that reason,” he did not only give the reasoning why the Jews sinned more than Pilate, but even why Pilate himself had sinned although more lightly than the Jews. Therefore, this is the sense of those words “Because not by extending justice, but only by the permission of God, you crucify me, for that reason you certainly sin, but still he sins more, who not only while not furnishing justice, but even impelled with hatred handed me to you, and threatened you with their rancor, so that you would crucify me.” The second exposition is of Augustine and Bernard, who teach, that Christ speaks on the true power of jurisdiction, according to such an opinion, they best oin those words with the foregoing: “On that account, they who handed me to you, have the greater sin.” The sense is, “You crucify me, because you fear to offend Caesar, by whom you have your power, and you indeed sin, because you ought to obey God more than men: still the Jews sin more, who handed me to you, because he not out of fear of a higher power, but from hatred and envy crucify me.” And although the first exposition appears more literal, nevertheless, even this second holds nothing against our position. For Pilate is said to have had power over Christ, and he really held it, not per se but per accidens. He had power over all Jews per se, since they were subjects of the Roman Empire hence the Lord had been offered to him as some one from a number of private Jews: for that reason also, in the very matter as he was so offered, so he had power. Even if Pilate caught sight of the fact that Christ is the Son of God, still he judged him not as the Son of God, but as a private Jew. Just the same, if in this time any clergymen you like, after changing his habit for a secular official should be offered to be judged, the judge could punish him from his authority and be excused from fault, if it were probable that he were ignorant. The second argument. Paul appealed to Caesar: “I will stand before the tribunal of Caesar, it will be fitting for me to be judged there.” 789 And again “I appeal to Caesar.” If Paul recognized Caesar as a judge, certainly Peter did also; for Peter and Paul were equal. I respond: Firstly, it can be said that Paul appealed to Caesar because he had a judge de facto, even if he was not legally so. So John de Turrecremata responds. 790 Secondly, it can be said even better with Albert Pighius, that there is a distinction between princes of the heathen and Christians, for at some time there were princes of the Heathen, but not a Pontiff as their judge; but on the other hand, he had been subject to them in all civil causes, no less than the rest of men. But the Pontiff would not be their judge, clearly, because he is not judge except of the faithful, according to that which is said in 1 Corinthians VI: “Why do you bring to me to judge concerning these who are outside?” But on the other hand that he would be subject civilly to them, both de facto and by law is also clear. For the Christian law deprives no man of his right and dominion: just as, before the Christian law, men were subject to emperors and kings, so also afterward. This is why Peter and Paul everywhere exhort the faithful, that they be subject to princes, as is clear from Scripture. 791 Therefore, Paul appealed rightly to Caesar, and acknowledged him as a judge, since he was accused of exciting sedition and a tumult amongst the people. But when Princes are made Christians, and receive the laws of the Gospel of their own will, immediately they subject themselves just as sheep to the shepherd, and members to the head of the Ecclesiastical hierarchy; and hence, he is judged by it, thereupon, they ought not judge it. The third argument. Paul says: “Let every soul be subject to higher powers.” 792 1 Peter II: “Be subject to every human creature on account of God, just as to every distinguished king, etc.” In such places the sermon is on secular powers, and none are excepted from subjection, not the clergy, nor a bishop, nor the Pope when it is said: “Every soul should be subject.” Nor can the response be made that the Apostles only speak on princes of this world who were Heathen. For the Church, which always repeats the same readings, shows clearly enough that Paul and Peter speak on all princes, who were then and who were going to come. I respond: Both Peter and Paul speak generally, and exhort all be subject that they might obey their superiors, whether spiritual or temporal. From such an opinion it can not be deduced that the Pope is subject to a king, or a king to a Pope, rather, only that one who is subject owes obedience to his superior. Because those opinions are general, it can be proved, for Paul says: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.” In that place, he does not restrict his discourse to the secular power; rather, he speaks on every power. Nor does the example on kings who carry a sword impede our opinion. For Paul would have it speak more diligently and expressly on the King, because in that time Christians were accused of sedition, as well as rebellion by their calumniators For that reason he concludes generally in the end: “Render, therefore, to all what is due; to whom tribute, tribute; to one whom honor is due, honor; fear fear, etc.” For equal reason, Peter speaks generally: “Be subject to every human creature;” that is, to every creature having power. Soon he shall place an example on a king, and leaders, on account of the same reason as Paul Therefore, St. Bernard, (as we cited above) says: “It is read ‘let every soul be subject to the higher powers,’ which opinion I desire you to safeguard in showing reverence to the vicar of Peter, just as it is preserved for your countenance throughout the whole world.” 793 The fourth argument. In the old law the king judged and deposed a Pontiff for Solomon deposed Abiathar, and constituted Zadok in his place: for equal reasoning in the New Testament, there will be a Christian emperor to judge a Christian pontiff. I respond: Firstly the similitude cannot be denied, yet, although in the Old Testament there were only temporal promises, and in the New spiritual and eternal ones, as Sts. Jerome and Augustine teach. 794 It would not be a wonder f in the Old Testament the supreme power was temporal, but in the new it is spiritual. I say secondly, even in the old Testament the Pontiff was greater than the king, as Philo, Theodoret, and Procopius teach; 795 and it is deduced also from ch. 27 of Numbers, where it is said that Joshua the Prince, to the word of the Pontiff Eleazar, as all the people ought to have entered and left; and from Leviticus IV, where four sacrifices are established, from the order of which, and the magnitude the order is gathered, as well as the dignity of persons for whom they were made. First there was the holocausts for the Pontiff. Second, even the holocaust for the whole people. Third of he-goats, that is of a cheaper animal for the king. Fourth of she-goats, for each private matter. Now to the argument on Solomon, I say he, not as a king but as a Prophet and executor of divine justice deposed Abiathar, after substituting Zadok. For n the same place, it is said that Solomon removed Abiathar, “that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled.” 796 The fifth argument. Christian Emperors often judged and deposed Pontiffs For Constantius sent Pope Liberius into exile, Justinian Sylverius, King Theodoric threw John I into prison. Otho I deposed John XII, and substituted Leo VIII in his place. Henry III deposed Gregory VI, and commanded Clement II to be ordained. The histories of those times are full of such things. I respond: These things certainly happened, but by what law, they themselves see. Certainly Liberius was unjustly sent into exile, as Athanasius witnesses in his epistle treating on the solitary life. Liberatus says the same thing in his Breviary, ch. 22. St. Gregory writes about John I, 797 and it is certain that Constantius and Theodoric were Arians, while Justinian was a Monophysite. Therefore, it is no more a wonder that the heretical princes would depose Christian Pontiffs by a Tyrannical rule, than that the Heathen emperors everywhere killed the same. It is certain enough on Otho I, that he was motivated by good zeal, but he did not act according to knowledge when he deposed John XII, for this John was the most degenerate of all Pontiffs. And therefore, it is no wonder, if the pious Emperor, such was Otho I, but less experienced in Ecclesiastical matters udged that he could be deposed, especially since many teachers sensed the same thing. For this reason, Otho of Frisia expresses this history, and modestly evaluates the Emperor: “Whether each did licitly or not, now is not the time to say.” 798 On Henry III there is a smaller difficulty, for as it is certain from the same Otho of Frisia, 799 the Emperor Henry did not depose Gregory, rather persuaded him that he should yield, because it appeared he had been elected by simony. In point of fact, he had yielded of his own will and Clement was elected. Besides, add that Leo of Hostia, 800 who flourished at that time gathered a Council of bishops, and the Pontiff was invited by the Emperor that he should preside over the Synod; that whatever case of that Pontiff might be treated, still he was the supreme Judge. Moreover, sorrowful for his faults, he asked forgiveness in earnest, and abdicated from the Pontificate of his own will. The sixth argument. The Pontiffs affirmed they were in subjection to the Emperors. For Gregory, as quoted by Gratian, says: “If anyone should wish to refute us over these matters, let him come to the Apostolic See, that there he would justly dispute the issue with me before the confession of Blessed Peter nsofar as there one of our number there shall receive his opinion.” 801 Likewise Pope Hadrian I conceded to Charlemagne the law of electing the Roman Pontiff, and or ordering the Apostolic See, as is contained in dist. 63 Canon Hadrianus, and because Leo VIII conceded the same thing again afterward. The same dist. 63, as well as the Canon, are contained in a Synod by Otho I. Likewise Leo IV asked judges from the Emperor Louis, and promised that he was going to obey their judgment, as is contained in the Canon Nos s ncompetenter, 2, quest. 7. I respond: that quote of Gregory is not found in his works. Next, Gregory does not call upon the judgment of men, but of God. He seems to speak on the relation through the oath and on the expectation of a divine sentence, which is often imposed against perjurers. Hadrian and Leo did not concede to the Emperor except that he would confirm or annul the election of a new Pontiff and should order the Roman Church in regard to its temporal rule. It does not follow from that, that the Emperor had power over the Pontiff. Moreover, those two privileges were conceded to the Emperor on account of the frequency of schisms which occurred then; and on account of the frequent armies of the Lombards and Greeks, who continually disturbed the Roman Church; when all these causes ceased to be an issue, the privileges were recalled. Leo IV subjected himself to a distinguished judgment that was not forced by the Emperor, as is clearly gathered from that very chapter. The seventh argument. It is lawful for anyone to kill a Pontiff, if he invades any territory unjustly: for that reason, it will be much more lawful for kings or a Council to depose the Pontiff, if he should disturb a commonwealth, or endeavor to slay souls by his example. I respond: firstly by denying the consequent, because no authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, 802 and John de Turrecremata. 803 The eighth argument. The Pontiff was truly subjected in the forum of conscience to his confessor just as to a minister of God: why, therefore, could he not be subjected in the exterior forum as well, to some Prince who is also a minister of God? I respond: the reason for the diversity is, because in the forum of conscience, the confessor is a worthy instrument of God, so that it is rather more God who judges through a man, than the man himself; the fact appears both from the fact that the confessor cannot altogether compel the penitent against his will to undergo punishment, and from the fact that in confession he udges even concerning occult crimes, which pertain to the knowledge of God alone. But in the exterior forum, a man is truly a judge, even as a man, although he may be constituted by God, and for that reason he only judges on manifest affairs, and can altogether compel one to punishment against his will. The ninth argument. The Pontiff can give a certificate of repudiation of his own will to the Church through Renunciation; 804 therefore, the Church can give a certificate of its own will to the Pontiff, and elect another in his place. I respond: firstly, by denying the consequent. For the Pontiff is above the Church, not the other way around. For which reason even Deuteronomy XXIV a man could give a certificate of repudiation to the wife, but that the wife could give a certificate to her husband is discovered nowhere. Secondly, I say, the Pontiff cannot renounce the pontificate without the consensus of the Church 805 and hence if the Church could give a certificate of repudiation to the Pontiff, it could not without his consent: when, should he consent, he would abdicate of his own will, he would not be compelled against his will.

Chapter XXX: The Last Argument is Answered, Wherein the Argument is Taken up, Whether a Heretical Pope can be Deposed The tenth argument. A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff s subject to human judgment, at least in some case. I respond: there are five opinions on this matter. The first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case: 806 such an opinion is probable, and can easily be defended, as we will show in its proper place. Still, because it is not certain and the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile to see what the response should be if the Pope could be a heretic. Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, 807 but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1. The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope is not and cannot be deposed either by secret or manifest heresy. Turrecremata in the aforementioned citation relates and refutes this opinion, and rightly so, for it is exceedingly improbable. Firstly, because that a heretical Pope can be judged is expressly held in the Canon, Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent. 808 And what is more, in the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Act 7, the acts of the Roman Council under Hadrian are recited, and in those it was contained that Pope Honorius appeared to be legally anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors. Here the fact must be remarked upon that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived by corrupted copies of the Sixth Council, which falsely reckoned Honorius was a heretic, we still cannot deny that Hadrian, with the Roman Council, and the whole Eighth Synod sensed that in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be udged. Add, that it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd. The Fourth Opinion is of Cajetan. 809 There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus, 810 that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined? Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot n any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, 811 and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. 812 Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope. Cajetan responds in a defense of the aforementioned treatise, chapter 25 and in the treatise itself chapter 22, that a heretic is not a Christian simply; but s relatively. For since two things make a Christian, faith and the character, a heretic loses the virtue of faith, but still retains the character; and for that reason, still adheres in some way to the Church, and has the capacity for urisdiction: hence, he is still Pope, but must be deposed, because he has been disposed due to heresy; after being disposed at the last, he is not Pope, as such he is a man, and not yet dead, but constituted at the point of death. But on the contrary, since in the first place, were a heretic to remain joined with the Church in act by reason of the character, he could never be cut off and separated from her, because the character is indelible, yet everyone affirms that some can be cut off from the Church de facto: therefore, the character does not make a heretical man exist in the Church in act; rather, it is only a sign that he was in the Church, and that he ought to be in the Church. Just as the character mpressed upon a sheep, when it was in the mountains, does not make it to be n the sheepfold, rather indicates from which fold it fled, and to where it can be driven back again. This is also confirmed by St. Thomas, 813 who says that those who do not have faith are not united to Christ in act, but only in potency and there he speaks on internal union, not external, which is made through the confession of faith, and the visible Sacraments. Therefore, since the character pertains to what is internal and not external, according to St. Thomas, the character alone does not unite a man with Christ in act. Next, either faith is a necessary disposition as one for this purpose, that someone should be Pope, or t is merely that he be a good Pope. If the first, therefore, after that disposition has been abolished through its opposite, which is heresy, and soon after the Pope ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot be preserved without its necessary dispositions. If the second, then a Pope cannot be deposed on account of heresy On the other hand, in general, he ought to be deposed even on account of gnorance and wickedness, and other dispositions which are necessary to be a good Pope, and besides, Cajetan affirms that the Pope cannot be deposed from a defect of dispositions that are not necessary as one, but merely necessary for one to be a good Pope. Cajetan responds that faith is a necessary disposition simply, but in part not n total, and hence with faith being absent the Pope still remains Pope, on account of another part of the disposition which is called the character, and that still remains. But on the other hand, either the total disposition which is the character and faith, is necessary as one unit, or it is not, and a partial disposition suffices If the first, then without faith, the necessary disposition does not remain any onger as one, because the whole was necessary as one unit and now it is no onger total. If the second, then faith is not required to be good, and hence on account of his defect, a Pope cannot be deposed. Thereupon, those things which have the final disposition to ruin, soon after cease to exist, without another external force, as is clear; therefore, even a heretical Pope, without any disposition ceases to be Pope through himself. Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right.” 814 He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church. 815 Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind. 816 Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics.” 817 Pope Celestine I, in an epistle to John of Antioch, which is contained in Volume One of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 19, says: “If anyone who was either excommunicated or exiled by Bishop Nestorius, or any that followed him, from such a time as he began to preach such things, whether they be from the dignity of a bishop or clergy, it is manifest that he has endured and endures in our communion, nor do we judge him outside, because he could not remove anyone by a sentence, who himself had already shown that he must be removed.” And n a letter to the clergy of Constantinople: “The Authority of our See has sanctioned, that the bishop, cleric or Christian by simple profession who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy, shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated For he who had defected from the faith with such preaching, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” Nicholas I confirms and repeats the same thing in his epistle to the Emperor Michael. Next, even St. Thomas teaches that schismatics soon loose all jurisdiction; and if they try to do something from jurisdiction, it is useless 818 Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommunicated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy Moreover, the Council of Constance does not speak except on the excommunicates, that is, on these who lose jurisdiction through a judgment of the Church. Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it. Next, what Cajetan says in the second place, that a heretical Pope who is truly Pope can be deposed by the Church, and from its authority seems no less false than the first. For, if the Church deposes a Pope against his will, certainly t is over the Pope. Yet the same Cajetan defends the opposite in the very same treatise. But he answers; the Church, in the very matter, when it deposes the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only on that union of the person with the pontificate. As the Church can join the pontificate to such a person, and still it is not said on that account to be above the Pontiff; so it can separate the pontificate from such a person in the case of heresy, and still it will not be said to be above the Pope. On the other hand, from the very fact that the Pope deposes bishops, they deduce that the Pope is above all bishops, and still the Pope deposing a bishop does not destroy the Episcopacy; but only separates it from that person Secondly, for one to be deposed from the pontificate against his will is without a doubt a penalty; therefore, the Church deposing a Pope against his will without a doubt punished him; but to punish is for a superior and a judge Thirdly, because according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality they are the same, the whole and the parts are taken up together. Therefore, he who has so great an authority over the parts taken up together, such that he can also separate them, also has it over the whole, which arises from those parts. Furthermore, the example of Cajetan does not avail on electors, who have the power of applying the pontificate to a certain person, and still does not have power over the Pope. For while a thing is made, the action is exercised over the matter of the thing that is going to be, not over a composite which does not yet exist, but while a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over a composite as is certain from natural things. Therefore, when Cardinals create the Pontiff they exercise their authority not over the Pontiff, because he does not yet exist but over the matter, that is, over the person whom they dispose in a certain measure through election, that he might receive the form of the pontificate from God; but if they depose the Pope, they necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person provided with pontifical dignity, which is to say, over the Pontiff. Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases n himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church.” 819 There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches, 820 those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics He adds in the same work, 821 that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members, 822 and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.

Chapter XXXI: That the Roman Pontiff Succeeds Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy is Proven From the Names, which Roman Pontiffs are Usually Given The last argument is taken from the fifteen names of the Bishop of Rome namely: Pope, Father of Fathers, Pontiff of Christians, High Priest, Prince of Priests, Vicar of Christ, Head of the Body of the Church, Foundation of the Building of the Church, Shepherd of the Sheepfold of the Lord, Father and Doctor of all the faithful, Ruler of the House of God, Watchman of the Vineyard of God, Spouse of the Church, Prelate of the Apostolic See, and Universal Bishop. His primacy is obviously gathered from each individual one. The First and most common, as well as most ancient name of the Bishop of Rome is Pope [Papa]. For St. Ignatius, in his epistle to Mary the Proselyte near Zarbus, writes: “Since you are at Rome, with Pope Linus, etc.” Moreover Pope, or pa,ppaj as it is in Greek, is a name which charming or babbling children usually call their fathers; as it appears in Philemon, the comic writer quoted in Athenaeum: “cai/re pa,ppa fi,late,” 823 and in the Odyssey of Homer where a daughter says to her father: “pa,ppa fi,le,” 824 while among the Latins writers the likewise address a father or a grandfather. Juvenal for instance: Mordeat ante aliquis quidquid porrexerit illa quae peperit, timidus praegustet pocula Pappas. 825 Ausonius likewise to his Grandson: Pappos, aviasque trementes Anteferunt patribus seri nova cura nepotes. Hence Ecclesiastics began to call their spiritual father by the charming word, “Father.” This name was given by the Fathers now and then to a bishop; for Jerome n all his epistles to Augustine calls him Pope; just as even now every Priest is called Father. Still, just the same, in three modes, from this name, is the primacy of the Bishop of Rome gathered. Firstly, by its use as a proper name when Papa is absolutely pronounced, he alone is understood; as is clear from the Council of Chalcedon, Act 16, where we read: “The most Blessed and Apostolic man, the Pope, commands this of us.” Leo is not added, nor Roman or of the city of Rome, or something else. Secondly, because he alone is called Pope of the whole Church, as is clear from the same act of the Council of Chalcedon, where Leo is called Pope of the universal Church, and from Liberatus, 826 where we read that no one is Pope over the Church of the whole world except the Roman Pontiff. Thirdly, from the fact that the Bishop of Rome s called by the whole world, and by General Councils, Father or Pope; but he calls no man Pope or father, rather sons or brothers, as is clear from the epistle to the Second Council, 827 and from the epistle of the Council of Chalcedon to Leo. The second name is Father of Fathers, which is given to Pope Damasus by Stephen, the Archbishop of Carthage, in his epistle to Damasus which he wrote n the name of three Councils of Africa: “To the most Blessed Lord and lofty Apostolic summit, to the Holy Father of Fathers, Pope Damasus, etc.” Nor do we read any communication to anyone else with this name. The third is Pontiff of Christians, quoted by Eusebius in his Chronicle for the year 44. The fourth is Supreme Pontiff, which we read in the same epistle of Stephen of Carthage. It follows: “And to the Supreme Pontiff of all Prelates.” Even St. Gregory uses the title. 828 St. Jerome, in a preface on the Gospels to Pope Damasus: “You, who are the high priest.” And in the Sixth Council, Act 18, in an acclamatory sermon; the whole Council calls Pope Agatho: “Our most holy Father and Supreme Pope.” The fifth is Prince of Priests. We read concerning this in an epistle of Valentinian to Theodosius, which is contained before the Council of Chalcedon n Volume 1 of the Councils: “The Most blessed Bishop of the city of Rome, to whom the rule [principatum] of the priesthood all antiquity conferred over all etc.” And with Prosper of Aquitaine: “Rome, on account of the rule of the priesthood, was made greater in the citadel of religion, than in the lap of power.” 829 But Calvin objects, 830 that at the third Council of Carthage it was forbidden, lest anyone be called Prince of Priests or High Priest; rather, only bishop of the first see. 831 I respond: That Council only established on the Bishops of Africa, among whom there were many equal primates, lest any of them would be called High Priest, or Prince of others. Nor could this Provincial Council, or the bishops of any other provinces oblige the Roman Pontiff Therefore, Gregory, Anselm, Bernard and the Sixth General Council itself, not withstanding that Canon, called the Roman Bishop Supreme Pontiff. The sixth is Vicar of Christ; St. Bernard 832 uses such a title, as well as the Council of Lyon under Gregory X. 833 The seventh is Head of the Church, which the Council of Chalcedon uses n an epistle to Pope Leo: “Over whom you are in charge of, just as a head over the members,” and Act 1 of the same Council, it is said the Roman Church is the head of all Churches. But Calvin objects, 834 that St. Gregory in a letter to John, the Bishop of Constantinople says: “Peter, the first member of the holy and universal Church Paul, Andrew, James, what else are they than heads of individual peoples? Still all are members under one head of the Church.” 835 There Gregory condemned John, who wanted to make himself head of the Church, and he uses this argument: Because neither Peter, nor any other Apostle was head of the whole Church, but only heads of individual Churches, and members of the universal Church. I respond: That someone is the head of the whole Church can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the head should be such that he alone would be the head and prince, and all the rest of the lower would not be heads but princes, but only of their office. In the second way, that he indeed should be the head, but general, so that he does not abolish particular inferior places, and true heads: for that reason universal cases do not take particulars, and that is why in the army the Emperor does not remove particular generals of legions and cohorts. And in the first mode, Christ alone is head of all the Churches, accordingly being compared to Christ, all are vicars and administrators, nor can any be said to be his colleagues or fellow-bishops, and Peter in this mode is not the head except of the particular Roman Church. Therefore, only of this Church is there a sole particular bishop and head: the other particular bishops are heads bishops of their provinces, who are true Princes, and of Peter, not of vicar, but of colleague and fellow bishop, and on this meaning St. Gregory treats in this place. In the other way, Peter was and now is the Roman Pontiff, truly the head of every Church, as the same Gregory himself teaches in these words: “The reverence of the Apostolic See will not be disturbed by presumption of any man; then if the head of faith will pulsate without injury, the whole condition of the members will persevere.” 836 The eighth is the Foundation. Jerome, in his first epistle to Damasus on the term hypostasis, says: “I know that the Church was built upon this rock.” There he calls Damasus the rock of the Church. The ninth is the Shepherd of the Lord’s Flock: St. Ambrose says to Pope Siricius: “We recognize from the letters of your sanctity, the watch of the good shepherd, how you faithfully preserved the door entrusted to you, and that you guard the flock of Christ with pious care.” 837 The tenth is Ruler of the House of God: Ambrose says in his commentary on 1 Timothy III: “The House of God is the Church, whose Ruler today is Damasus.” The eleventh is the Watchman of the Vineyard, the Council of Chalcedon wrote in a letter to Pope Leo: “In addition, he extends insanity against him, to whom the care of the vineyard was consigned by the Savior, against your Apostolic sanctity.” The twelfth is Father and Doctor of all Christians. We so have it in the Council of Florence, in the last session, by the same reasoning the Roman Church is called mother and teacher of all Churches; as we have it in the Lateran Council under Innocent III, ch. 5 . The thirteenth, is Spouse of the Church. The Pope is thus called in the Council of Lyons. 838 But some object that St. Bernard 839 warns Pope Eugene, lest he should think of himself as the spouse of the Church, rather he should consider himself friend of the spouse and because it would seem absurd, that the Vicar of the king would be called the bridegroom of the queen. I respond: Just as the Pope is called the Head, Ruler and Shepherd of the Church, in place of Christ, so also is he called the Spouse in place of Christ, or as the Vicar and Minister of Christ. For Christ is the true and principle spouse as it is said in John III, he makes the Church fertile by his spirit, and by his seed alone (which is the word of God) are sons born. Popes are called spouses because they cooperate extrinsically in the generation of sons, just as of a Minister of the Word and of the Sacraments; and they generate sons not unto themselves, but unto Christ. Bernard, therefore, only intended to admonish the Pontiff, lest he would think that he was the Principle Spouse, and although it would be most absurd in the manner of carnal generation, for the king to be assisted by a Vicar, and one spouse to be of many: still in the spiritual order it is not absurd. The fourteenth is Prelate of the Apostolic See. First it must be observed that not only was Rome called the Apostolic See by the ancients, but also Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, and others which the Apostles founded, and in which they sat just as bishops. This is clear from Tertulian and St. Augustine 840 But the Roman Pontiff excels over those three in regards to this name Firstly, because when it is purely said: “Apostolic See,” and the name of Antioch, Ephesus or Rome is not added, it is always understood as Rome which is called apostolic through an epithet. St. Augustine shows this when he says: “They were sent relating on this matter from the two Councils of Carthage and Miletus to the Apostolic See.” 841 He did not add Rome, and stil he would have it so understood, that certainly, they were sent relating those affairs to Pope Innocent, is understood from other places of St. Augustine. 842 Secondly, because the Roman Pontiff is not only said to hold fast to the Apostolic See, as the Bishop of Antioch and Ephesus, but is even the rule of the Apostolic See. 843 Thirdly, because the Roman Pontiff is not only said to be the Prelate of the Apostolic See, as the Bishop of Antioch and others, but even his office is called an Apostolic office, as is clear from the Council of Chalcedon, Act 1, where we read the Vicars of Pope Leo said: “His Apostolic office has deigned to command that Dioscorus should not sit in the Council.” Likewise, the Emperor Honorius, in the epistle to Boniface: “We ask first, in order that your Apostolic office would deign to focus by means of daily prayers and its devotion for salvation, upon our rule.” Likewise an epistle of the Bishops of Gaul, which is number 51 among the Epistles of Leo, says: “Let your Apostolic office give pardon to our lateness.” Next, in an epistle of St Bernard to Innocent we read: “It is fitting that we relate the emergence of dangers and scandals emerging in the kingdom of God to your Apostolic office etc.” Such a name, we read about no one else, but the Roman Pontiff. Whereby it is deduced; the Sees of Antioch and Ephesus and the like, were bishops of Apostolic Sees; that is, of those in which the Apostles sat, but they did not succeed the Apostles in Apostolic office in any way, otherwise they would also be said to have the dignity of Apostolic office. But the Roman Pontiff is the Bishop of the Apostolic See and succeeded in some way in an Apostolic office, that is, in the care of the whole world, which was a certain part of the Apostolic office, and on that account, it is called a position of the Apostolic office itself. From which a certain objection of Nilus remains answered, which in his book on the primacy of the Pope he strives to prove that the Roman Pontiff does not have primacy over other bishops, because the Bishops of Antioch and Ephesus and Jerusalem were chosen to have Apostolic Thrones. The fifteenth is Universal Bishop. In the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 3 three epistles of different Greeks to Pope Leo were read, all of which begin thus: “To the most Holy and blessed and universal Archbishop and great Patriarch, Leo of Rome.” From such words, three lies of the heretics are refuted. One of Luther, where, when he said Gregory refused the name of Universal, he adds: “Why would someone speak of the name of Supreme and Most Holy?” Therefore, Luther 844 means in the time of Gregory, the name of Most Holy and Supreme were as yet unheard of. In that, the incredible nexperience of Luther, or at least his malice, is uncovered, for all the Fathers call the Pope of Rome “most holy,” and the citation clearly shuts the mouth of Luther. What of the fact, that in the second action of the same Council of Chalcedon, Aetius, the Bishop of Nicopolis, calls St. Leo “Our Lord and most Holy Pope”? By what title more displeases the heretics of our time, when nevertheless, it did not once displease a universal Council, and a senate, and udged such who listened to Aetius say: “Because now the epistle of our Lord and most holy Pope has been read, etc.” Gregory himself uses the noun “supreme” [summus] as we cited above, 845 and the universal Council of Chalcedon says it (summitas tua) in its epistle to Leo. The second is of the Centuriators, 846 who say the Roman Pontiff was created a Patriarch by Justin the Emperor in the year 700. But if that were so how comes it that Leo is called universal Patriarch very frequently in the Council of Chalcedon, which was celebrated in the year 454? The third is of Calvin, 847 who relates the words of St. Gregory, 848 that the title of Universal was offered to his predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon, and then he adds: “This has no species of truth, for such a thing is not seen in the acts of that Council.” But of course this is an impudent lie although certainly the Council decreed nothing on this matter, still Calvin knows well enough that this name is given to the Roman Pontiff, and it did not displease the Council, since in the third action, Pope Leo is most often called by this name, and no one in the Council condemned such an appeal. But Calvin objects against this name using the same words of Gregory, and very often repeats that the title of Universal Bishop is profane and a sacrilege the forerunner of Antichrist, and therefore, no one from his predecessors ever wished to use it. Even Illyricus 849 objects, and likewise Luther, 850 that in a canon of an African Council cited by Gratian, 851 Prima sedis, we read “Moreover the Roman Pontiff is not called Universal.” I respond: the name of universal Bishop can be understood in two ways. In one way, as he who is called Universal, should be understood to be the only bishop of all the cities of Christians; so that the rest might not be bishops, but only the vicars of the one who is called universal bishop, and in this manner the name is truly profane, a sacrilege, and of Antichrist. Gregory speaks concerning this meaning, based on the reason which he gives. Even in that epistle cited by Calvin which is to Constance: “It is exceedingly sad, that it should be patiently born, in regard to all being despised, my brother and fellow bishop being in charge only tries to be called a bishop.” And in a letter to Eulogius: “If one is called Universal Patriarch, the name of the other Patriarchs s diminished.” 852 And in an epistle to Eusebius: “If one is universal, what remains is that you would not be bishops.” 853 In another manner, a bishop can be called universal, who has care of the whole Church, but generally not so as to exclude particular bishops. And in this manner, this name can be given to the Roman Pontiff, which is also proven from the mind of St. Gregory. Firstly, because Gregory affirms that the name of Universal Bishop was given to the Roman Pontiff by the Council of Chalcedon, as well as to his successors, 854 which the same Gregory who was holy and Catholic teaches everywhere, therefore, he thought that in some sense this title was fitting for the Roman Pontiff. Secondly, because Gregory asserts in the same epistle, that care of the whole Church was consigned to Peter by the Lord, because it is the same thing, as if he would have said: “Peter is the Universal Bishop constituted by Christ.” Thirdly, because even if the Roman Pontiffs, as Gregory correctly says were never called Universal Bishops, still they often called themselves bishops of the Universal Church: as is clear from many Popes. 855 Such testimonies Gregory certainly read, nor was he ignorant in regard to the sense, of a bishop of a Universal Church, and a Universal Bishop. But you will say, if this name can have a good sense, why does Gregory absolutely pronounce it to be proud, sacrilegious, profane, and why does he absolutely avoid its use? I respond: for two reasons. Firstly, for caution, just as the name Christotocos, 856 has a good sense, and still the Fathers avoided the use of this name, lest it would seem that the Nestorian heresy lurked under it; for Nestorius called Mary the mother of Christ, but not the mother of God Secondly, because then the question was whether the name could be conceded to John, the Bishop of Constantinople, not, however, whether it would be conceded to the Roman Pontiff: because then the name “Universal” would in no sense be fitting for that John, and still he usurped it to himself; therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounced this name to be profane and a sacrilege, without a doubt, it was given in regard to the Bishop of Constantinople, and just the same, even he refused it, although it was fitting for him in some sense, so as to better and more easily suppress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople. From these the argument of Calvin is answered. To the second of Luther and Illyricus, I say, they did not notice, those words were not of a Council of Africa, but of Gratian who after he relates the Canon of the Council of Africa, in which a bishop of the first See was forbidden to be called Prince of Priests, he adds on his own: “Nor is the Roman Pontiff called universal.” Because such words are of Gratian, they do not have authority, and on that account can be understood in that manner which the words of St. Gregory are. It is a worthy observation to make in this place, such was and is even in this time the pertinacity and pride of the Greeks, and how severely they were punished by God. For when the See of the Bishop of Constantinople, which for more than 300 years had no place among the Primary Sees, not only elevated tself to the Patriarchate, but even ahead of the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch and wanted to make itself equal to Rome as well as Universal: Nor could it be reduced to sanity by the censure of Pelagius II and of other Popes, (more often for this reason they were excommunicated, as Leo IX writes in an epistle to the Emperor), nor even by the humility of St. Gregory, who, as John the Deacon writes in his life 857, that he began on account of this affair to write, not that he was an Archbishop, nor a Patriarch, but a bishop and Servant of the Servants of God; even an edict from the Emperor Phocas, on which we spoke of above could accomplish this purpose. At length, by a judgment of God from heaven the Greeks were handed over with their universal Patriarch into the hands of the Turks, which St. Birgitta had preached was going to happen to them, and also Pope Nicholas V, as Gennadius Scholarius relates in his book on behalf of the Council of Florence, ch. 5, § 14.