Nor is it less certain that in the Church militant there is, by divine right, a Supreme Pontiff whom all Christians are bound to obey, and who, indeed, has the power of granting indulgences.
PROOF. — It was said to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock,” etc.
But when the Lutherans say that Peter is there praised as one among the number of the faithful, and that the Rock, which ought to be the
foundation of the Church, is Christ, since Peter, in as much as he denied Christ, would not have been a good foundation, and, according to Paul, no other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid, viz., Christ, never yield this to them. For, seeing there is a different interpretation in favor of the Roman see, the well known rule of law is, that favors ought to be liberally interpreted.
The Lutherans have also another answer, viz., that, supposing Christ gave the primacy to Peter, it does not follow that he gave it to his successors, unless, indeed, they are all to be also called Satans, it having been said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan.” Their argument is, that those who succeed to the one title succeed equally to the other. But answer, that, by the rule of law, odious terms are to be strictly interpreted. Or, give another
explanation, viz., that in the first instance Christ spoke to Peter as a future or incipient Pope, in the second spoke to him as a private individual.
They argue besides in this way; why did Peter confer the inheritance of the primacy on the Roman see rather than on that of Antioch, since he was bishop in both? Answer, that the place acquires dignity from his having died in it, especially from its being the place where the blood of martyrs, which is dear in the sight of the Lord, was shed, according to the
Antiphone which is sung on his festival. They also object, why did not James and John acquire for the Churches in which they presided the second and third degree of primacy and dignity, in the same way as Peter acquired the first at Rome, since Paul says that those three were
considered pillars? To this answer, that if others were not sufficiently zealous or magnanimous in maintaining their right, it does not follow that this ought to prejudice Rome. Therefore, Jerusalem and Ephesus, on account of their negligence or false shame, were deservedly put into the back-ground. But Rome, which stood stoutly up for her honor, deserved to remain first.
They also use ridicule, saying, that if Rome ought to be the prime see because Peter preached and died there for the same reason the desert ought to have been the prime see to the ancient people for there Moses, the prince of the prophets, both preached and died; likewise Aaron, the first high priest, there exercised his office until death. Nay, they maintain, that Jerusalem ought rather to take precedence of Rome and all other cities, for there our Lord fulfilled his ministry, and there died. But answer, that under the old dispensation, the succession to the priesthood was a personal, but is now a real right, and goes with the place. As to Christ, solve the
difficulty thus: That he did not choose to found a primacy in his own person, for he himself says, I came not to be ministered unto but, to minister. Still, however, they object, that even if there had been a primacy at Rome it could endure only so long as the Church remained there and as long as the Pope was a bishop. But they deny that there now is a Church there because there is the greatest confusion, and they deny that the Pope is a bishop, because he does nothing episcopal. But tell them that this objection is not to be admitted, because the thing is impossible; for it is written, “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not.”
ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE 23
Scripture often mentions Christ the universal Head, but no where mentions the Pope. And when Paul portrays the Church, he does not make it the universal bishopric of one, but says that Christ governs the Church by his ministers. And yet the passage especially required that one should be named as over the others, if that were the fact,
(<490122>Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; <510118>Colossians 1:18; 2:20.) In
commendation of unity, he mentions one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
(<490411>Ephesians 4:11.) Why does he not add one Pope the ministerial
head? Moreover, the hierarchy, which, as the flatterers of the Pope pretend, consists chiefly in the primacy of the Roman see is there
professedly described. Why, then, does he omit; what would have been most appropriate to the subject? He elsewhere says, (<480208>
Galatians 2:8,) that his office of apostle towards the Gentiles was equal to that which Peter received towards the Jews. Whence we infer two things — that Peter was not his head, and that the apostleship of Peter does not properly extend to us. He there also relates that he had entered into fellowship with Peter, but not to acknowledge him as superior. And Peter himself, when he writes to pastors, does not command with authority, but makes them his colleagues, and exhorts them in an affable manner, as is usual among equals, (<600105>
1 Peter 1:5.) When he is accused of having gone in to the Gentiles, though this accusation was unfounded, yet by clearing himself before the Church, he professes subjection, (<441104>
Acts 11:4.) And being justly reprimanded by Paul, he does not claim exemption, but obediently suffers himself to be corrected. Being ordered by his
colleagues to go to Samaria with John, he obeys the order.
Let us, therefore, hold fast what Paul says, (<490415>
Ephesians 4:15,) that Christ is the head, “from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” For he there places all men, without a single exception, !in the body, and leaves the name and honor of head to Christ alone. Besides, to each of the members he attributes a certain measure and a definite and limited function, in order that the supreme power of
government may reside with Christ alone.
Cyprian, too, when he describes the unity of the Church, says, (De Unitate Ecclesiae, cap. 2.F8) “There is one bishopric, a part of which is held as a whole by each bishop, just as there are many rays, yet one light, and many branches in a tree, yet only one trunk: fixed by its root; and as several streams flow from one fountain, and being more than one seem divided, yet notwithstanding of the apparent numerical diffusion through the copiousness of the discharge, unity is preserved entire in the source; so also the Church, pervaded with the light of the Lord, sends its rays over the whole world, yet it is but one light which is everywhere diffused; it extends its branches, it pours out its refluent streams over the entire globe;
still there is but one head, and one original.”
We see how he makes the bishopric of Christ alone universal, and teaches that portions of it are held by his ministers. For this reason it was
forbidden by the Council of Carthage, (cap. 47,) to give to any one the name of chief of the priests, or prime bishop, or more than bishop of the prime see. And Gregory execrates the name of universal bishop as profane, nay, blasphemous, and the forerunner of antichrist, terming it an invention of the devil, (Epist. 76, ad Maur., Augustin. Epist. 78, ad Const., Augustin.
sequenti ad Euodium.) Cyprian does not honor the Roman bishop with any other appellation than that of brother and co-bishop and colleague. In writing to Stephen, the Roman bishop, he not only makes him the equal of himself and others, but even addresses him in harsher terms, accusing him of arrogance and ignorance. Nay, even Jerome, a Roman presbyter, hesitates not to make that see subordinate. If, says he, (Epist. ad Anien.) the question of authority is raised, the world is greater than a city. Why talk to me of the custom of one city? Why, against the laws of the Church, vindicate the few, from whom superciliousness has sprung? Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, there is the same merit, and the same priesthood. The power of riches, and the humbleness of poverty, do not make one bishop superior, and another inferior. Lastly, were every thing else conceded to the
Romans, he cannot be the chief of the bishops who is no bishop at all.