Chapter 6. Of the Supremacy of the See of Rome

Hitherto we have rehearsed those orders of the Church, which were in the government of the old Church: but afterward corrupted in times, and from thenceforth more and more abused, do now in the Popish Church retain only their name, and indeed are nothing else but visors: that by comparison the godly reader might judge, what manner of Church the Romanists have, for whose sake they make us schismatics, because we have departed from it. But as for the head and top of the whole order, that is to say, the supremacy of the see of Rome, whereby they travail to prove that they only have the catholic Church, we have not yet touched it: because it took beginning neither from the institution of Christ, nor from the use of the old Church, as those former parts did: which we have showed to have so proceeded from antiquity, that by wickedness of times they are utterly degenerate, and have put on altogether a new form. And yet they go about to persuade the world, that this is the chief and in a manner only bond of the unity of the Church, if we cleave to the see of Rome, and continue in the obedience thereof. They rest (I say) principally upon this stay, when they will take away the Church from us, and claim it to themselves, for that they keep the head, upon which the unity of the Church hangs, and without which the Church must needs fall asunder and be broken in pieces. For thus they think, that the Church is as it were a maimed and headless body, unless it be subject to the see of Rome, as to her head. Therefore when they talk of their hierarchy, they always take their beginning at this principle: that the Bishop of Rome (as the vicar of Christ, which is the head of the Church) is in his stead President of the universal Church: and that otherwise the Church is not well ordered, unless that See do hold the supremacy above all other. Therefore this also is to be examined, of what sort it is: that we may omit nothing that pertains to a just government of the Church.

Let this therefore be the principal point of the question: Whether it be necessary for the true form of hierarchy (as they call it) or ecclesiastical order that one See should be above the other both in dignity and in power, that it may be the head of the whole body. But we make the Church subject to unjust laws, if we lay this necessity upon it, without the word of God. Therefore if the adversaries will prove that which they require, they must first show that this disposition was ordained by Christ. For this purpose they allege out of the law the high priesthood, also the high judgment, which God did institute at Jerusalem. But it is easy to give a solution, and that many ways, if one way does not satisfy them. First no reason compels to extend that to the whole world, which was profitable in one nation: indeed rather, the order of one nation and of the whole world shall be far different. Because the Jews were on each side compassed with idolaters: that they should not be diversely drawn with variety of religions, God appointed the place of worshipping him in the midst part of the land: there he ordained over them one head Bishop, whom they should all have regard to, that they might be the better kept together in unity. Now, when religion is spread abroad into the whole world, who does not see that it is altogether an absurdity, that the government of the East and west be given to one man? For it is in effect as much as if a man should affirm, that the whole world ought to be governed by one ruler, because one piece of land has no more rulers but one. But there is yet another reason, why that ought not to be made an example to be followed. No man is ignorant that that high Bishop was a figure of Christ. Now, since the priesthood is removed, that right must also be removed. But to whom is it removed? Truly, not to the Pope (as he himself is so bold shamelessly to boast, when he draws this title to himself): but to Christ, which as he alone sustains this office, without any vicar or successor, so he resigns the honor to none other. For the priesthood consists not in doctrine only, but in the appeasing of God, which Christ has fully wrought by his death, and in that intercession which he now uses with his Father.

There is therefore no cause why they should bind us by this example, as by a perpetual rule, which we have seen to be enduring but for a time. Out of the New Testament they have nothing to bring forth for proof of their opinion, but that it was said to one: 'You are Peter, and upon this stone I will build my Church.' Again, 'Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep.' But admitting that these be strong proofs, they must first show, that he which is commanded to feed the flock of Christ, has power committed to him over all Churches: and that to bind and to loose is nothing else but to be ruler of all the world. But as Peter had received the commandment of the Lord, so he exhorts all other priests to feed the Church. Hereby we may gather, that by this saying of Christ, there was either nothing given to Peter more than to the rest, or that Peter did equally communicate with other the power that he had received. But, that we strive not vainly, we have in another place a clear exposition out of the mouth of Christ, what is to bind and to loose: that is to say, to retain and to forgive sins. But the manner of binding and loosing, both the whole Scripture everywhere shows, and Paul very well declares, when he says that the ministers of the Gospel, have commandment to reconcile men to God and also have power to punish them that refuse this benefit.

How shamefully they wrest those places, that make mention of binding and loosing, I both have already shortly touched, and a little hereafter I shall have occasion to declare more at large. Now it is good to see only, what they gather of that famous answer of Christ to Peter. He promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven: he said that whatever he bound in earth, should be bound in heaven. If we agree upon the word keys, and the manner of binding, all contention shall by and by cease. For the Pope himself will gladly give over the charge enjoined to the Apostles, which being full of travail and grief, should shake from him his pleasures, without gain. Inasmuch as the heavens are opened to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, it is with a very fit metaphor expressed by the name of keys. Now, men are bound and loosed in no other way, but when faith reconciles some to God, and their own belief binds others. If the Pope did take this only upon him: I think there will be no man that would either envy it or strive about it. But because this succession being toilsome and nothing gainful pleases not the Pope, hereupon grows the beginning of the contention, what Christ promised to Peter. Therefore I gather by the very matter itself, that there is nothing meant by the dignity of the office of an Apostle, which cannot be severed from the charge. For if that definition which I have rehearsed, be received (which cannot but shamelessly be rejected) here is nothing given to Peter, that was not also common to his other fellows: because otherwise there should not only wrong be done to the persons, but the very majesty of doctrine should halt. They cry out on the other side: what avails it, I pray you, to run upon this rock? For they shall not prove, but as the preaching of one same Gospel was enjoined to all the Apostles, so they were also all alike furnished with power to bind and loose. Christ (say they) appointed Peter Prince of the whole Church, when he promised that he would give him the keys. But that which he then promised to one, in another place he gave it also to all the rest, and delivered it as it were into their hands. If the same power were granted to all, which was promised to one, wherein shall he be above his fellows? Herein (say they) he excels, because he received it both in common together with them, and severally by himself, which was not given to the other, but in common. What if I answer with Cyprian and Augustine, that Christ did it not for this purpose, to prefer one man above another, but so to set out the unity of the Church. For thus says Cyprian, that God in the person of one gave the keys to all, to signify the unity of all: and that the rest were the same thing that Peter was, endowed with like partaking both of honor and power: but that the beginning is taken at unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. Augustine says: If there were not in Peter a mystery of the Church, the Lord would not say to him, I will give you the keys. For if this was said to Peter, the Church has them not: but if the Church have them, then Peter, when he received the keys, betokened the whole Church. And in another place. When they were all asked, only Peter answered, you are Christ: and it is said to him, I will give you the keys, as though he alone had received the power of binding and loosing: whereas both he being one said the one for all, and he received the other with all, as bearing the person of unity. Therefore one for all, because there is unity in all.

But this, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, is nowhere read spoken to any other. As though Christ spoke there any other thing of Peter, than that which Paul and Peter himself speaks of all Christians. For Paul makes Christ the chief and corner stone, upon which they are built together that grow into a holy temple to the Lord. And Peter bids us to be lively stones which being founded upon that chosen and precious stone, do by this joint and coupling together with our God, cleave also together among ourselves. He (say they) above the rest: because he has the name peculiarly. Indeed I do willingly grant this honor to Peter, that in the building of the Church he be placed among the first, or (if they will have this also) the first of all the faithful: but I will not suffer them to gather thereupon, that he should have a supremacy over the rest. For what manner of gathering is this? He excels others in ferventness of zeal, in learning, and courage: therefore he has power over them. As though we might not with better reason gather, that Andrew is in degree before Peter, because he went before him in time, and brought him to Christ. But I pass over this. Let Peter truly have the first place: yet there is great difference between the honor of degree and power. We see that the Apostles commonly granted this to Peter, that he should speak in assemblies, and after a certain manner go before them with propounding, exhorting, and admonishing: but of his power we read nothing at all.

However we are not yet come to dispute of that point: only at this present I would prove, that they do too foolishly reason, when by the only name of Peter they would build an empire over the whole Church. For those old follies with which they went about to deceive at the beginning, are not worthy to be rehearsed, much less to be confuted, that the Church was built upon Peter, because it was said upon this rock. etc. But some of the Fathers have so expounded it. But when the whole Scripture cries out to the contrary, to what purpose is their authority alleged against God? Indeed, why do we strive about the meaning of these words, as though it were dark or doubtful, when nothing can be more plainly nor more certainly spoken? Peter had confessed in his own and his brethren's name, that Christ is the Son of God. Upon this rock Christ builds his Church: because it is (as Paul says) the only foundation, beside which there can be laid none other. Neither do I here therefore refuse the authority of the Fathers, because I lack their testimonies, if I chose to allege them: but (as I have said) I will not with contending about so clear a matter trouble the readers in vain, specially since this point has been long ago diligently enough handled and declared by men of our side.

And yet indeed no man can better resolve this question than the Scripture itself, if we compare all the places where it teaches what office and power Peter had among the Apostles, how he behaved himself, and how he was accepted of them. Run over all that remains written, you shall find nothing else but that he was one of the 12, equal with the rest, and their fellow, but not their Lord. He does indeed propose to the council if anything is to be done, and gives warning what is fitting to be done: but therewith he hears others, and does not only grant them place to speak their mind, but leaves the judgment to them: when they had determined, he followed and obeyed. When he writes to the Pastors, he does not command them by authority as superior: but he makes them his companions, and gently exhorts them, as equals are accustomed to do. When he was accused for that he had gone in to the Gentiles, although it were without cause, yet he answered and cleared himself. When he was commanded by his fellows to go with John into Samaria, he refused not. In that the Apostles sent him, they did thereby declare that they held him not for their superior. In that he obeyed and took upon him the embassy committed to him, he did thereby confess that he had a fellowship with them, and not an authority over them. If none of these things were so, yet the only Epistle to the Galatians may easily take all doubting from us: where almost in two whole chapters together Paul works to prove nothing else but that he himself was equal to Peter in honor of Apostleship. Then he recounts that he came to Peter, not to profess subjection, but only to make their consent of doctrine approved by testimony to all men: and that Peter himself required no such thing, but gave him his right hand of fellowship, to work in common together in the Lord's vineyard: and that there was no lesser grace given to him among the Gentiles than to Peter among the Jews. Finally, that when Peter did not deal very faithfully, he was corrected by him, and obeyed his reproving. All these things make plain either that there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or at least that Peter had no more power over the rest than they had over him. And (as I have already said) Paul on purpose labors about this, that none should prefer before him in the Apostleship either Peter or John, who were fellows, not Lords.

But, to grant them that which they require concerning Peter, that is that he was the Prince of the Apostles, and excelled the rest in dignity: yet there is no cause why they should of a singular example make a universal rule, and draw to perpetuity that which has been once done: since there is a far different reason. One was chief among the Apostles — forsooth, because they were few in number. If one were the chief of 12 men, shall it therefore follow that one ought to be made ruler of a hundred thousand men? It is no marvel that 12 had one among them that should rule them all: for nature bears this, and the wit of men requires this, that in every assembly, although they be all equal in power, yet there be one as a governor whom the rest may have regard to. There is no court without a Consul: no session of judges without a pretor or propounder, no company without a ruler, no fellowship without a master. So should it be no absurdity if we confessed that the Apostles gave to Peter such a Supremacy. But that which is of force among few is not immediately to be drawn to the whole world, to the ruling of which no one man is sufficient. But (say they) this has place no less in the whole universality of nature than in all the parts, that there be one sovereign head of all. And hereof (and God will) they fetch a proof from cranes and bees, which always choose to themselves one guide, not many. I allow indeed the examples which they bring forth: but do bees resort together out of all the world to choose them one king? Every several king is content with his own hive. So among cranes, every herd has their own king. What else shall they prove hereby but that every church ought to have their own several bishop appointed them? Then they call us to civil examples. They allege that saying of Homer, 'It is not good to have many governors': and such things as in like sense are read in profane writers to the commendation of Monarchy. The answer is easy. For Monarchy is not praised by Ulysses in Homer, or by any other, in this meaning, as though one ought to be Emperor of the whole world: but they mean to show that one kingdom cannot hold two kings: and that power (as he calls it) can abide no companion.

But let it be, as they will, that it is good and profitable that the whole world be held under Monarchy, which yet is a very great absurdity: but let it be so: yet I will not therefore grant that the same should take place in the government of the Church. For the Church has Christ her only head, under whose dominion we all cleave together, according to that order and the form of policy which he has prescribed. Therefore they do a great wrong to Christ, when by that pretense they will have one man to be ruler of the universal Church, because it cannot be without a head. For Christ is the head, of whom the whole body coupled and knit together in every joint, whereby one ministers to another, according to the working of every member in the measure thereof, makes increase of the body. Do you not see, how he sets all men without exception in the body, and leaves the honor and name of head to Christ alone? Do you not see how he gives to every member a certain measure, and a determined and limited function: whereby both the perfection of the grace and the sovereign power of governance may remain with Christ only? Neither am I ignorant what they are accustomed to cavil, when this is objected against them: they say that Christ is properly called the only head, because he alone reigns by his own authority and in his own name: but that this nothing withstands, but that there may be under him another ministerial head (as they term it) that may be his vicegerent on earth. But by this cavilation they prevail nothing, unless they first show that this ministry was ordained by Christ. For the Apostle teaches, that the whole ministration is dispersed through the members, and that the power flows from that one heavenly head. Or if they will have it any more plainly spoken, since the Scripture testifies that Christ is the head, and claims that honor to him alone, it ought not to be transferred to any other, but whom Christ himself has made his vicar. But that is not only nowhere read, but also may be largely confuted by many places.

Paul sometimes depicts for us a lively image of the Church, of one head he makes there no mention. But rather by his description we may gather, that it is disagreeing from the institution of Christ. Christ at his ascending took from us the visible presence of himself: yet he went up to fulfill all things. Now therefore the Church has him yet present, and always shall have. When Paul goes about to show the means whereby he presents himself, he calls us back to the ministries which he uses. The Lord (says he) is in us all, according to the measure of grace that he has given to every member. Therefore he has appointed some Apostles, some Pastors, some Evangelists, other some Teachers, etc. Why does he not say, that he has set one over all, to be his vicegerent? For the place [reconstructed: requires it] principally, and it could by no means have been omitted, if it had been true. Christ (says he) is with us. How? By the ministry of men, whom he has appointed to govern the Church. Why not rather by the ministerial head, to whom he has committed his stead? He names [illegible]: but in God, and in the faith of Christ. He assigns to men nothing but common ministry, and to every one a particular measure. In that commendation of unity, after that he had said that there is one body, one Spirit, one hope of calling, one God, one Faith, one Baptism, why has he not also immediately added one chief Bishop, that may hold the Church together in unity? For nothing could have been more fitly spoken, if it had been true. Let that place be diligently weighed. It is no doubt but that he meant there altogether to represent the holy and spiritual government of the Church, which they that came after called Hierarchy. As for Monarchy among ministers, he not only names none, but also shows that there is none. It is also no doubt but that he meant to express the manner of conjoining, whereby the faithful cleave together with Christ their head. There he not only speaks of no ministerial head, but appoints to every of the members a particular working, according to the measure of grace distributed to every one. Neither is there any reason why they should subtly dispute of the comparison of the heavenly and earthly Hierarchy. For it is not safe to know beyond measure of it. And in framing this government we must follow no other figure, than the Lord himself has painted out in his word.

Now, although I grant them another thing, which they shall never win by proof before sober men, that the supremacy of the Church was so established in Peter, that it should always remain by perpetual succession: yet how will they prove, that his seat was so placed at Rome, that whoever is Bishop of that Church, should be set over the whole world? By what right do they bind this dignity to the place, which is given without mention of place? Peter (say they) lived and died at Rome. What did Christ himself? Did not he, while he lived, exercise his Bishopric, and in dying fulfill the office of Priesthood, at Jerusalem? The Prince of Pastors, the sovereign Bishop, the head of the Church, could not purchase honor to the place: and could Peter, that was far inferior to him? Are not these follies more than childish? Christ gave the honor of supremacy to Peter: Peter sat at Rome: therefore he there placed the see of Supremacy. By this reason, the Israelites in old times might have set the seat of Supremacy in the desert, where Moses the chief Teacher and Prince of Prophets executed his ministry and died (Deuteronomy 34:5).

Let us see how cleverly they reason. Peter (say they) had the supremacy among the Apostles: therefore the Church where he sat ought to have that privilege. But where did he sit first? At Antioch, say they. Therefore the Church of Antioch rightly claims to itself the supremacy. They confess that it was in old time the first: but they say, that in removing from there, he removed to Rome the honor that he had brought with him. For there is an Epistle under the name of Pope Marcellus to the Bishops of Antioch, where he says thus: Peter's seat was at the beginning with you, which afterward by the Lord's commandment was removed here. So the Church of Antioch, which was once the chief, has given place to the see of Rome. But by what oracle had that good man learned, that the Lord so commanded? For if this cause is to be determined by the law, it is necessary that they answer, whether they will have this privilege to be personal, or real, or mixed. For it must be one of these three. If they say that it is personal, then it belongs nothing to the place. If they say that it is real, then when it is once given to the place, it is not taken away by reason either of the death or departure of the person. It remains therefore that they must say it is mixed: but then that place shall not be simply to be considered, unless the person does also agree. Let them choose whichever they will, I will by and by infer and easily prove, that Rome can by no means take the supremacy upon itself.

But be it, that as (they triflingly say) the supremacy was removed from Antioch to Rome: yet why did not Antioch keep the second place? For if Rome has therefore the first place, because Peter sat there to the end of his life: to whom shall the second place rather be granted, than where he had his first seat? How came it to pass then, that Alexandria went before Antioch? How does it agree, that the Church of one disciple should be above the seat of Peter? If honor is due to every Church, according to the worthiness of the founder, what shall we say also of the other Churches? Paul names three, that seemed to be pillars, James, Peter and John. If the first place were given to the see of Rome, in the honor of Peter: do not the sees of Ephesus and Jerusalem, where John and James sat, deserve the second and third place? But among the Patriarchs Jerusalem had the last place: Ephesus could not sit so much as in the outermost corner. And other Churches were left out, both all those that Paul founded, and those that the other Apostles were rulers of. The seat of Mark, which was but one of their disciples, obtained the honor. Therefore they must either confess that that was a preposterous order, or they must grant us that this is not a perpetual rule, that there be due to every Church the same degree of honor which the founder had.

However, as for that which they report of Peter's sitting in the Church of Rome, I see not what credit it ought to have. Truly that which is in Eusebius, that he ruled there twenty-five years, is very easily confuted. For it is evident by the first and second chapter to the Galatians, that about 20 years after the death of Christ, he was at Jerusalem, and that then he went to Antioch: where how long he was, is uncertain. Gregory reckons seven years, and Eusebius twenty-five. But from the death of Christ, to the end of Nero's Empire, (in whose time they say that he was slain) there shall be found but thirty-seven years. For the Lord suffered under Tiberius, the eighteenth year of his Empire. If you subtract 20 years during which Paul is witness that Peter lived at Jerusalem, there will remain but seventeen years at the most, which must now be divided between two bishoprics. If he tarried long at Antioch he could not sit at Rome, but a very little while. Which thing we may yet also more plainly prove. Paul wrote to the Romans, when he was on his journey going to Jerusalem, where he was taken and from there brought to Rome. It is likely that this Epistle was written four years before that he came to Rome. Therein is yet no mention of Peter, which should not have been left out, if Peter had ruled that Church. Indeed, in the end also, when he rehearses a great number of the Godly, whom he bids to be saluted, where truly he gathers together all those that he knew, he yet says utterly nothing of Peter. Neither is it needful here to make a long or curious demonstration to men of sound judgment: for the matter itself, and the whole argument of the Epistle cries out, that he should not have overlooked Peter, if he had been at Rome.

Then Paul was brought prisoner to Rome. Luke reports that he was received of the brethren; of Peter he says nothing. He wrote from there to many Churches, and in some places also he writes salutations in the names of certain persons, but he does not in one word show that Peter was there at that time. Who, I pray you, shall think it likely that he could have passed him over with silence, if he had been present? Indeed, to the Philippians, where he said that he had none that so faithfully looked to the work of the Lord as Timothy, he complained that they did all seek their own. And to the same Timothy he makes a more grievous complaint, that none was with him at his first defense, but all forsook him. Where therefore was Peter then? For if they say that he was then at Rome, how great a shame does Paul charge him with, that he was a forsaker of the Gospel? For he speaks of the believers, because he adds, God impute it not to them. How long therefore, and in what time did Peter keep that seat? But it is a constant opinion of writers that he governed that Church even to his death. But among the writers themselves it is not certain who was his successor, because some say Linus, and others say Clement. And they tell many fond fables of the disputation had between him and Simon the magician. And Augustine sticks not to confess, when he treats of superstitions, that by reason of an opinion rashly conceived, there was a custom grown in use at Rome, that they should not fast that day that Peter got the victory of Simon the magician. Finally, the doings of that time are so entangled with diversity of opinions, that we ought not rashly to believe where we find anything written. And yet by reason of this consent of writers, I strive not against this, that he died there; but yet that he was Bishop there, and especially a long time, I can not be persuaded, neither do I much pass upon that also. Forasmuch as Paul testifies that Peter's Apostleship did peculiarly belong to the Jews, and his own to us. Therefore, that the fellowship which they covenanted between themselves may be confirmed with us, or rather that the ordinance of the Holy Spirit may stand in force among us, we ought to have respect rather to the Apostleship of Paul than of Peter. For the Holy Spirit so divided the provinces between them, that he appointed Peter to the Jews, and Paul to us. Now therefore let the Romanists go and seek their supremacy elsewhere than in the word of God, where it is found not to be grounded.

Now let us come to the old Church, that it may also be made to appear plainly that our adversaries do no less causelessly and falsely boast of the consent thereof, than they do of the witness of the word of God. When therefore they brag of that principle of theirs, that the unity of the Church can not otherwise be kept together, but if there be one supreme head on earth, to whom all the members may obey, and that therefore the Lord gave the supremacy to Peter, and from there forward to the see of Rome by right of succession, that the same should remain in it to the end — they affirm that this has been always observed from the beginning. But forasmuch as they wrongfully wrest many testimonies, I will first say this beforehand, that I deny not but that the old writers do everywhere give great honor to the Church of Rome, and do speak reverently of it. Which I think to be done especially for three causes. For that same opinion, which I know not how was grown in force, that it was founded and ordained by the ministry of Peter, much availed to procure favor and estimation to it. Therefore in the eastern parts it was for honor's sake called the see Apostolic. Secondly, when the head of the empire was there, and that therefore it was likely that in that place were men more excellent both in learning and wisdom, and skill, and experience of many things, than anywhere else — there was worthily consideration had thereof, that both the honor of the city, and also the other more excellent gifts of God should not seem to be despised. There was beside these also a third thing, that when the Churches of the East, and of Greece, yes and of Africa, were in tumults among themselves with disagreements of opinions, the Church of Rome was quieter and less full of troubles than the rest. So came it to pass, that the godly and holy Bishops, being driven out of their seats, did often times flee there as into a sanctuary or certain haven. For as the Western men are of less sharpness and swiftness of wit than the Asians or Africans are, so much are they less desirous of alterations. This therefore added much authority to the Church of Rome, that in those doubtful times it was not so troubled as the rest, and did hold the doctrine once delivered them, faster than all the rest, as we shall by and by better declare. For these three causes (I say) it was had in no small honor, and commended with many notable testimonies of the old writers.

But when our adversaries will thereupon gather that it has a supremacy and sovereign power over other Churches, they do too much amiss, as I have already said. And that the same may the better appear, I will first briefly show what the old fathers thought of this unity which they enforce so earnestly. Jerome, writing to Nepotian, after that he had recited many examples of unity, at last descended to the Hierarchy of the Church. Each Bishop of every several Church, each Archpriest, each Archdeacon, and all the ecclesiastical order, do rest upon their own rulers. Here a Roman Priest speaks, he commends unity in the ecclesiastical order: why does he not rehearse that all Churches are knit together with one head as with one bond? Nothing could have more fitly served the matter that he had in hand: and it cannot be said that it was for forgetfulness, that he omitted it: for he would have done nothing more willingly if the matter had suffered him. He saw therefore without doubt, that that is the true reason of unity which Cyprian excellently well describes in these words: The bishopric is one, of which each has a part wholly: and the Church is one, which is with increase of fruitfulness more largely extended into a multitude. Like as there are many sunbeams, and one light: and many branches of a tree, but one body grounded on a fast holding root: and like as from one fountain flow many streams, and though the multitude seem to be diversely spread abroad with largeness of overflowing plenty, yet the unity is kept whole in the original: so the Church also being overspread with the light of the Lord, extends her beams abroad throughout the whole world, yet is it but one that is everywhere poured forth, and the unity of the body is not severed: she spreads her branches over the whole world, she sends out her overflowing streams: yet is there but one head and one beginning, etc. Afterward. The spouse of Christ cannot be an adulteress: she knows one only house, she keeps the holiness of one only chamber with chaste modesty. You see how he makes the universal bishopric to be Christ only, which comprehends the whole Church under him: and says that all they that execute the office of Bishop under this head, have their parts thereof wholly. Where is the supremacy of the see of Rome, if the whole bishopric remains with Christ only, and each Bishop has his part thereof wholly? These things therefore make to this purpose, that the reader may understand by the way, that the old fathers were utterly ignorant of that principle, which the Romanists do take for confessed and undoubted, concerning the unity of an earthly head in the Hierarchy of the Church.

Up to this point we have reviewed those church orders that existed in the governance of the ancient church — orders that were gradually corrupted over time, and have since been further and further abused, until today in the Roman church they retain only their names and are nothing but disguises. The purpose of this review was to give godly readers a basis for comparison, so they could judge what kind of church the Romanists actually have — the church for whose sake they call us schismatics because we have separated from it. But we have not yet touched the head and summit of their entire system: the supremacy of the see of Rome, by which they claim to be the sole holders of the catholic church. This supremacy was not traced back to Christ's institution or to the practice of the ancient church, as those earlier orders were. We showed that those orders, however much they degenerated under the wickedness of the times, at least had genuine roots in antiquity. Yet they try to persuade the world that this supremacy is the chief — and almost the only — bond of the church's unity: that to cling to the see of Rome and remain in obedience to it is what holds the church together. This is their main line of defense when they try to strip the church from us and claim it for themselves — they say they hold the head upon which the church's unity depends, and without which the church must inevitably collapse and break apart. Their view is that the church is like a crippled and headless body unless it is subject to the see of Rome as its head. And so whenever they speak of their hierarchy, they begin from this principle: that the bishop of Rome, as the vicar of Christ who is head of the church, presides in His place over the universal church — and that the church cannot be properly ordered unless that see holds supremacy over all others. This claim must also be examined, so that we leave nothing untouched that belongs to a proper understanding of church governance.

Let this, then, be the central question: whether the true form of what they call hierarchy — or ecclesiastical order — requires one see to stand above all others in dignity and power, as the head of the whole body. But if we impose this requirement on the church without God's word, we subject the church to unjust laws. So if our opponents want to prove what they claim, they must first show that this arrangement was ordained by Christ. For this purpose they appeal to the high priesthood in the Old Testament law, and to the supreme court of judgment that God established at Jerusalem. But the answer is easy — and answerable in several ways, if one way does not satisfy them. First, there is no reason to extend to the whole world what was useful for a single nation. In fact, the proper ordering of one nation and of the whole world will be very different. The Israelites were surrounded on every side by idolaters. To prevent the people from being pulled in different directions by a variety of religions, God appointed the place for worshipping Him in the center of the land, and over the people He set one high priest toward whom all looked, so that unity could be better maintained. Now that religion has spread throughout the whole world, who does not see it is completely absurd to place the governance of East and West in the hands of one man? It would be like arguing that the whole world should be governed by one ruler just because a single region has only one. There is yet another reason why this should not be used as a model. Everyone knows that the high priest was a figure of Christ. Now that the priesthood has been fulfilled and removed, that right must also be removed. But to whom has it passed? Certainly not to the pope — though he shamelessly claims this title for himself — but to Christ. Christ alone holds this office, without any vicar or successor, and He hands its honor to no one else. For the priesthood consists not only in teaching, but in making peace with God — which Christ fully accomplished by His death — and in the intercession He now makes with His Father.

There is therefore no reason they should bind us by this example as a permanent rule, since we have seen that it was only temporary. From the New Testament they can produce nothing to support their view except that one statement addressed to Peter: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.' And again: 'Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep.' But even granting these were strong proofs, they would still need to show first that the one commanded to feed Christ's flock was given authority over all churches — and that to bind and to loose simply means to rule over the entire world. But Peter himself, having received this charge from the Lord, goes on to urge all other elders to feed the church in the same way. From this we can conclude that either Christ's words gave Peter nothing more than He gave the others, or that Peter shared equally with the others whatever authority he had received. But to avoid fruitless dispute, Christ Himself provides a plain explanation elsewhere of what it means to bind and to loose: namely, to retain and to forgive sins. And the manner of binding and loosing is shown throughout all of Scripture, and Paul explains it well when he says that ministers of the Gospel are commissioned to reconcile people to God, and also have authority to discipline those who refuse this benefit.

How shamelessly they twist those passages about binding and loosing I have already briefly noted, and I will have occasion to show more fully a little later. For now it is enough to look at what they actually derive from Christ's famous answer to Peter. He promised Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and said that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven. If we could agree on what 'keys' means and what 'binding' involves, the entire controversy would end immediately. The pope himself would gladly surrender the charge given to the apostles — a charge full of labor and grief that would strip away his pleasures without bringing any profit. Since heaven is opened to us through the Gospel's teaching, it is well expressed by the image of keys. And people are bound and loosed in no other way than this: faith reconciles some to God, while unbelief binds others. If the pope were willing to take on only this, I think no one would envy him or dispute it. But because this succession is burdensome and brings no gain, and is therefore unappealing to the pope, here is where the dispute begins — over what exactly Christ promised Peter. I conclude from the matter itself that nothing is meant by the dignity of the apostolic office that can be separated from its actual duties. For if the definition I have described is accepted — and to reject it would be shameless — then nothing was given to Peter that was not equally shared by his fellow apostles. Otherwise, not only would wrong be done to the other persons, but the very majesty of the teaching would be undermined. Our opponents object: what good does it do to press this point? They cannot deny that the preaching of the same Gospel was charged to all the apostles equally, and that they were all equally equipped with power to bind and loose. They say: Christ appointed Peter as prince of the whole church when He promised him the keys. But what He promised to one in that place, He gave to all the rest in another place — delivering it into all their hands. If the same power was granted to all that was promised to one, in what way does Peter stand above his colleagues? Here is their answer: he excels because he received it both in common with the others and separately by himself — which was not the case for the others. But I answer with Cyprian and Augustine: Christ did not do this to exalt one man above the others, but to express the unity of the church. Cyprian says that God gave the keys to all through the person of one, to signify the unity of all — and that the rest were the same as Peter, endowed with equal share of honor and power. The point of beginning with one was to show that Christ's church is one. Augustine says: 'If there were not in Peter a mystery of the church, the Lord would not have said to him, I will give you the keys. For if this was said to Peter alone, the church does not have them. But if the church has them, then when Peter received the keys, he represented the whole church.' Augustine adds in another place: 'When they were all asked, Peter alone answered, You are the Christ — and it was said to him, I will give you the keys, as though he alone received the power of binding and loosing. But he, being one, spoke on behalf of all; and he received this power with all, as one who bore the person of unity.' Therefore one spoke for all, because there is unity in all.

But the words 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church' are found spoken to no one else. As though Christ said anything different about Peter here than what Paul and Peter himself say about all Christians. Paul makes Christ the chief cornerstone on which all believers are built together, growing into a holy temple to the Lord. And Peter calls us to be living stones, built upon that chosen and precious stone, and by this joining together with God we are also joined to one another. Our opponents say: Peter is above the rest because the name was given to him specially. I gladly grant Peter this honor: that in the building of the church he holds the first place among the faithful — or, if they insist, the very first of all. But I will not allow them to conclude from this that he holds supremacy over the rest. What kind of reasoning is that? He surpasses the others in fervent zeal, in learning, and in courage — therefore he has authority over them? By that logic we could argue with better reason that Andrew ranks above Peter, since Andrew came first and brought Peter to Christ. But I leave that aside. Let Peter truly hold the first place — there is still a great difference between an honor of rank and actual authority. We see that the apostles commonly granted Peter the role of speaking in assemblies and, in a certain sense, leading the way in raising proposals, urging, and exhorting. But of any governing power over the others, we read nothing at all.

We have not yet reached the full discussion of that point. My purpose here is only to show that they reason far too carelessly when they try to build an empire over the whole church out of one name — Peter's. Those old tricks by which they first tried to deceive people are not even worth repeating, much less refuting — such as the claim that the church was built upon Peter because Christ said 'upon this rock,' etc. Some of the fathers did interpret it that way. But when all of Scripture cries out against it, what use is it to appeal to their authority against God? And why argue over the meaning of these words as though they were obscure or uncertain, when nothing could be plainer or more definite? Peter had confessed — on his own behalf and on behalf of his brothers — that Christ is the Son of God. Upon this rock Christ builds His church, for it is, as Paul says, the only foundation, and no other can be laid. I am not dismissing the authority of the fathers here for lack of their testimony — I could produce plenty if I chose. But, as I said, I will not trouble readers with a dispute over something this clear, especially since this point has already been handled carefully and thoroughly by others on our side.

No one can settle this question better than Scripture itself, if we simply compare all the passages that show what office and power Peter had among the apostles, how he conducted himself, and how they received him. Read through everything that remains written, and you will find nothing other than this: Peter was one of the twelve, equal with the rest, their fellow but not their lord. He would indeed bring proposals to the council when something needed to be decided, and he would point out what seemed best — but he also listened to others, not only giving them room to speak their minds but leaving the judgment to them. When a decision was made, he followed and obeyed. When he wrote to pastors, he did not command them by authority as a superior. He called them his companions and gently encouraged them, as equals do. When he was accused for having gone in to the Gentiles — though the accusation was unjust — he answered and defended himself. When his fellow apostles commanded him to go with John to Samaria, he did not refuse. In sending him, the apostles made plain that they did not regard him as their superior. In obeying and accepting the commission given to him, he showed that he stood in fellowship with them, not in authority over them. Even if none of these examples were convincing, the letter to the Galatians alone would remove all doubt. In nearly two whole chapters Paul labors to establish nothing other than that he himself was Peter's equal in the honor of apostleship. Paul then recounts that he came to Peter not to profess submission, but simply to confirm that their teaching was in agreement — and that Peter himself required no submission, but instead gave Paul the right hand of fellowship to work together in the Lord's vineyard. And no less grace had been given to Paul among the Gentiles than to Peter among the Jews. Finally, when Peter was not acting faithfully, Paul corrected him — and Peter accepted the rebuke. All of this makes plain that Paul and Peter were equals, or at the very least that Peter had no more authority over the others than they had over him. And, as I said, Paul deliberately presses this point — so that no one would place Peter or John above him in the apostleship, since they were fellow workers, not lords.

But let us grant them what they want regarding Peter — that he was the chief of the apostles and surpassed the rest in dignity. Even then, there is no reason to make a universal rule from a single example, or to treat as permanent what was done once for a particular reason. One was chief among the apostles, certainly — but the apostles were a small group. If one man was the leader of twelve, does it follow that one man must therefore be made ruler of a hundred thousand? It is no surprise that twelve men had one among them to lead the group. Nature works that way, and common sense requires that in every assembly — even when all are equal in power — there should be one person to coordinate, toward whom the rest can look. There is no court without a presiding officer, no bench of judges without a chief justice, no company without a commander, no fellowship without a leader. So it would not be absurd to say the apostles gave Peter a certain preeminence. But what works among a small group cannot simply be extended to govern the whole world, for which no single man is sufficient. Our opponents say: this principle of one sovereign head over all applies not only to small groups but to nature as a whole. And for this — if you can believe it — they draw proof from cranes and bees, which always choose a single leader and not many. I accept their examples — but do bees gather from all over the world to elect one king? Each king is content with his own hive. And among cranes, each flock has its own leader. What does this prove, except that each church ought to have its own bishop? Then they turn to political arguments. They quote Homer — 'It is not good to have many rulers' — and similar praise of monarchy from secular writers. The answer is simple. When Ulysses in Homer — or anyone else — praises monarchy, he does not mean that one man should be emperor of the whole world. He means only that a single kingdom cannot hold two kings, and that power, as he calls it, cannot share its place.

But let us suppose — though it is deeply absurd — that a world monarchy is good and useful. Even then, I will not grant that the same applies to the governance of the church. For the church has Christ as her only head, under whose lordship we all hold together according to the order and structure He has prescribed. So they do great wrong to Christ when, on the pretext that the church cannot exist without a head, they require one man to rule the universal church. Christ is the head. From Him the whole body is joined and knit together through every supporting joint, as each member contributes to the others according to its proper measure — and so the body grows. Do you not see that Paul places all people without exception within the body, and leaves the honor and title of head to Christ alone? Do you not see that he assigns to every member a certain measure, a defined and limited function — so that the fullness of grace and the supreme authority of governance remain with Christ alone? I am well aware of how they typically dodge this objection. They say Christ is properly called the only head because He alone reigns by His own authority and in His own name — but that this does not prevent there being, under Him, another ministerial head (as they call it) who serves as His representative on earth. But this evasion accomplishes nothing unless they first show that Christ actually appointed such a ministry. For the apostle teaches that all ministry is distributed among the members, and that power flows from that one heavenly head. To put it plainly: since Scripture testifies that Christ is the head and reserves that honor to Him alone, it must not be transferred to another unless Christ Himself has appointed that person as His representative. But that appointment is not found anywhere in Scripture — and in fact can be thoroughly refuted by many passages.

Paul sometimes gives us a vivid picture of the church, and in that picture there is no mention of a single head on earth. His description actually suggests that such a structure contradicts Christ's institution. When Christ ascended, He withdrew His visible presence from us — yet He ascended in order to fill all things. The church therefore still has Him present, and always will. When Paul explains the means by which Christ makes Himself present, he points to the ministries Christ uses. The Lord is at work in us all, Paul says, according to the measure of grace He has given to each member. Therefore He has appointed some as apostles, some as pastors, some as evangelists, others as teachers, and so on. Why does Paul not say that Christ has set one man over all as His representative? The passage calls for it — and if it were true, it could not possibly have been left out. Paul says Christ is present with us. How? Through the ministry of people He has appointed to govern the church. Why not through a ministerial head to whom He has entrusted His place? Paul grounds everything in God and in faith in Christ. He assigns to human beings nothing more than common ministry, with each person given a particular measure. In that great declaration of unity — where Paul says there is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one God, one faith, one baptism — why did he not immediately add: and one chief bishop to hold the church together in unity? If it were true, nothing could have been more fitting to say. Let that passage be carefully considered. There is no question that Paul's purpose was to describe the holy and spiritual government of the church, which later writers called hierarchy. As for a monarchy among ministers, he not only mentions none — he actually shows that there is none. And there is equally no question that Paul meant to express the manner in which believers are joined to Christ their head. There he speaks of no ministerial head at all, but assigns to each member a particular function according to the measure of grace distributed to each one. There is no reason to speculate about some comparison between a heavenly and an earthly hierarchy. We dare not go beyond what is given to us. In forming the church's government, we must follow no other pattern than the one the Lord Himself has laid out in His word.

Now, even if I were to grant them something they could never prove to any reasonable person — that the supremacy of the church was so established in Peter that it should remain permanently by succession — how would they prove that his seat was so fixed at Rome that whoever is bishop of that city should be set over the whole world? By what right do they tie a dignity to a place, when the original grant made no mention of place? They say: Peter lived and died at Rome. But what about Christ Himself? Did He not exercise His episcopal ministry in life, and fulfill the priestly office in death, at Jerusalem? The chief of pastors, the supreme bishop, the head of the church — could not even He confer honor on a place. And Peter, so far inferior to Him, could? Is this not more than childish reasoning? The logic runs: Christ gave supremacy to Peter; Peter sat at Rome; therefore Rome is where the seat of supremacy was established. By the same reasoning, the Israelites of old could have established the seat of supremacy in the wilderness, where Moses — the chief teacher and prince of the prophets — carried out his ministry and died (Deuteronomy 34:5).

Let us see how cleverly they reason. Peter, they say, held supremacy among the apostles — therefore the church where he sat should hold that privilege. But where did he sit first? At Antioch, they say. Therefore the church of Antioch rightly claims the supremacy for itself. They admit that Antioch held the first place in ancient times, but they argue that when Peter moved to Rome, he carried the honor with him. There is in fact a letter under the name of Pope Marcellus to the bishops of Antioch, which says: 'Peter's seat was at first with you, but afterward by the Lord's command it was transferred here.' So the church of Antioch, which was once the chief, is said to have yielded its place to the see of Rome. But by what revelation had this man learned that the Lord so commanded? If this question is to be decided by legal reasoning, they must answer whether this privilege is personal, territorial, or a combination of both — for it must be one of those three. If it is personal, then it belongs to the person, not to the place. If it is territorial, then once given to a place it cannot be taken away by the death or departure of a person. The only remaining option is that it is a combination of both — but then the place alone is not sufficient; the person must also correspond. Whatever option they choose, I will immediately show and easily prove that Rome can claim the supremacy on none of these grounds.

But let us suppose, as they frivolously claim, that the supremacy was transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why did Antioch not keep the second place? If Rome holds the first place because Peter sat there until the end of his life, who more deserves the second place than the church where he had his first seat? How then did Alexandria come to rank above Antioch? How is it consistent that the church of a mere disciple should outrank Peter's own seat? If honor is due to every church according to the dignity of its founder, what shall we say about the other churches? Paul names three who seemed to be pillars: James, Peter, and John. If the first place was given to the see of Rome in honor of Peter, do the sees of Ephesus and Jerusalem — where John and James sat — not deserve the second and third places? But among the patriarchates, Jerusalem held the last place, and Ephesus could not even occupy the outermost corner. And many other churches were passed over entirely — all those Paul founded, and those the other apostles governed. The see of Mark, who was only a disciple, received honor. So they must either admit that the ancient ordering was completely disordered, or they must grant us that there is no fixed rule requiring every church to hold the same rank as its founder.

As for the claim that Peter sat as bishop in the church of Rome, I see no reason to give it much credit. The claim in Eusebius that Peter governed there for twenty-five years is easily refuted. It is evident from Galatians 1 and 2 that about twenty years after Christ's death Peter was still in Jerusalem, and that he then went to Antioch — where it is uncertain how long he stayed. Gregory counts seven years there, and Eusebius twenty-five. But from the death of Christ to the end of Nero's reign — during which time they say Peter was killed — there are only thirty-seven years. Christ suffered under Tiberius, in the eighteenth year of his reign. If you subtract the twenty years during which Paul witnesses that Peter was at Jerusalem, only seventeen years remain at most — and these must now be divided between two bishoprics. If Peter stayed long at Antioch, he could have been at Rome for only a very short time. This can be shown even more plainly. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans while traveling to Jerusalem, where he was arrested and later brought to Rome. That letter was likely written four years before he arrived in Rome. Yet there is no mention of Peter in it — which could not have been omitted if Peter had been governing that church. In fact, at the close of the letter, where Paul greets a long list of believers — gathering together everyone he knew — he says nothing at all about Peter. No lengthy proof is needed for anyone of sound judgment. The very argument of the letter cries out that Paul could not have overlooked Peter if he had been in Rome.

When Paul arrived in Rome as a prisoner, Luke records that he was welcomed by the brothers — but says nothing about Peter. Paul wrote from Rome to many churches, and in several letters he conveyed greetings from named individuals — yet in not one word does he indicate that Peter was there at the time. Who could believe that Paul would have passed over Peter in silence if he had been present? Indeed, writing to the Philippians, Paul said he had no one who cared as faithfully for the Lord's work as Timothy, and complained that everyone else was looking out for their own interests. And to Timothy himself he wrote the even more grievous complaint that at his first defense no one stood with him — everyone had deserted him. Where was Peter at that point? If they say Peter was in Rome at that time, Paul is charging him with the great shame of abandoning the Gospel — for Paul is speaking of believers, since he adds, 'May God not hold it against them.' How long, then, and during what period did Peter actually hold that seat? Ancient writers generally agree that he governed that church until his death — though even among those writers there is no agreement about who succeeded him: some say Linus, others say Clement. They also tell many fanciful stories about a disputation between Peter and Simon the magician. Even Augustine does not hesitate to admit, in a discussion of superstitions, that on the basis of a rashly conceived opinion, the custom arose at Rome of not fasting on the day when Peter was believed to have defeated Simon. The records from that period are so tangled with conflicting accounts that nothing should be believed without caution. For all that, I will not fight against the consensus that Peter died in Rome. But that he served as bishop there — especially for any significant length of time — I cannot accept. And in any case, it does not much matter. Paul himself testifies that Peter's apostleship was directed specifically to the Jews, while his own was directed to us Gentiles. So that the agreement they made between themselves may hold for us — or rather, so that the Holy Spirit's appointment may stand — we should look to Paul's apostleship rather than Peter's. The Holy Spirit divided their spheres: Peter to the Jews, Paul to us. Let the Romanists therefore look elsewhere than Scripture for the foundation of their supremacy, since it cannot be found there.

Now let us turn to the ancient church, and show that our opponents have no more legitimate basis in its testimony than they do in Scripture. They boast of this principle: that the church's unity can only be maintained if there is one supreme head on earth whom all members obey — and therefore the Lord gave the supremacy to Peter, and from there it passed by succession to the see of Rome, where it was to remain until the end. They claim this has been observed from the beginning. But since they badly misuse many testimonies, I will say this upfront: I do not deny that the ancient writers everywhere show great honor to the church of Rome and speak of it with reverence. I believe this happened primarily for three reasons. First, a widespread opinion — however it arose — that Rome had been founded and established through Peter's ministry gave it considerable favor and prestige. For this reason the Eastern churches called it the apostolic see as a mark of honor. Second, since the capital of the empire was located there, Rome naturally attracted men of exceptional learning, wisdom, experience, and ability. It was fitting that both the city's honor and these outstanding gifts of God should be duly recognized. Third, while the churches of the East, Greece, and even Africa were frequently torn by internal controversies, the church of Rome was calmer and less turbulent than the rest. Godly and holy bishops, driven from their own sees, often fled there as to a sanctuary or safe harbor. The Western temperament is less quick and eager for change than the Asian or African — and this steadiness greatly added to Rome's authority. In those turbulent times, Rome was not tossed about as others were, and held more firmly than any other to the teaching it had originally received, as we will show more clearly shortly. For these three reasons, then, Rome was held in no small honor and commended by many notable testimonies from the ancient writers.

But when our opponents try to conclude from this that Rome holds supremacy and sovereign power over other churches, they go far wrong, as I have already said. To make this clearer, I will first briefly show what the ancient fathers actually thought about this unity that the Romanists press so earnestly. Jerome, writing to Nepotianus, after reciting many examples of unity, finally comes to the church's hierarchy. Each bishop of each church, each archpriest, each archdeacon, and all the church's orders rest under their own rulers, he says. Here is a Roman priest speaking, commending unity in church order — so why does he not say that all churches are bound together under one head as under a single bond? Nothing could have served his point better. It cannot be said he forgot — if the matter had allowed for it, nothing would have suited him more. He evidently understood that the true basis of unity is the one Cyprian describes so well in these words: 'The bishopric is one, of which each bishop holds an entire share; and the church is one, which spreads more broadly into a multitude through the growth of her fruitfulness.' He continues: 'Just as there are many sunbeams but one light; many branches of a tree but one body rooted on a firm foundation; many streams flowing from one spring — though the abundance pours out in many directions, yet the unity is kept whole at its source. So the church, spread abroad with the light of the Lord, extends her rays throughout the whole world, yet it is one light that is shed everywhere and the unity of the body is not divided. She spreads her branches over the whole world and pours out her streams — yet there is one head and one beginning.' He goes on: 'The bride of Christ cannot be an adulteress. She knows one house alone, and guards the purity of one chamber with chaste modesty.' Do you see? Cyprian places the universal bishopric with Christ alone, who encompasses the whole church under Him — and says that all those who exercise the bishop's office under this head hold an entire share of it. Where is the supremacy of the see of Rome, if the whole bishopric belongs to Christ alone and each bishop holds his entire share of it? These observations serve to let the reader understand, in passing, that the ancient fathers were entirely unaware of the principle the Romanists treat as settled and beyond dispute — that the church's hierarchy requires one earthly head.