Chapter 7. Of the Beginning and Increasing of the Papacy of Rome, Until It Advanced Itself to This Height, Whereby Both the Liberty of the Church Has Been Oppressed, and All the Right Government Thereof Overthrown

As concerning the ancientness of the supremacy of the see of Rome, there is nothing had of more antiquity to establish it, than that decree of the Nicene Synod, wherein the Bishop of Rome both has the first place among the Patriarchs given to him, and is commanded to look to the Churches adjoining to the city. When the Council makes such division between him and the other Patriarchs, that it assigns to every one their bounds: truly it does not appoint him the head of all, but makes him one of the chief. There were present Vitus and Vincentius in the name of Julius, which then governed the Church of Rome: to them was given the fourth place. I beseech you, if Julius were acknowledged the head of the Church, should his legates be thrust into the fourth seat? Should Athanasius be chief in the Council, where principally the image of the Hierarchical order ought to be seen? In the Synod at Ephesus it appears, that Celestinus which was then Bishop of Rome, used a crooked subtle means, to provide for the dignity of his seat. For when he sent his deputies there, he committed his stead to Cyrillus of Alexandria, which should notwithstanding otherwise have been the chief. To what purpose was that same committing, but that his name might by whatever means abide in the first place. For his legates sat in a lower place, and were asked their opinion among the rest, and subscribed in their order: in the mean time the Patriarch of Alexandria joined Celestinus's name with his own. What shall I say of the second council at Ephesus: where when Leo's legates were present, yet Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria sat the chief as by his own right? They will take exception that it was no upright council, by which both the holy man Flavianus was condemned, and Eutyches acquitted, and his ungodliness allowed. But when the Synod was gathered, when the Bishops took their places in order, verily the legates of the Bishop of Rome sat there among the rest none otherwise than in a holy and lawful Council. Yet they strove not for the first place, but yielded it to another: which they would never have done, if they had thought it to be theirs of right. For the Bishops of Rome were never ashamed to enter into the greatest contentions for their honors, and for this only cause oftentimes to vex and trouble the Church with many and hurtful strifes. But because Leo saw that it should be a too much unreasonable request, if he should seek to get the chief place for his legates, therefore he [reconstructed: conceded it].

Then followed the Council of Chalcedon, in which by the grant of the Emperor the legates of the Church of Rome sat in the chief place. But Leo himself confesses that this was an extraordinary privilege. For when he made petition for it to the Emperor Marcianus, and Pulcheria the Empress, he did not affirm that it was due to him, but only pretended, that the Eastern Bishops, which sat as chief in the council at Ephesus, troubled all things, and ill abused their power. Whereas therefore it was needful to have a grave governor, and it was not likely that they should be meet for it, which had once been so light and disordered: therefore he prayed, that by reason of the default and unfitness of others, the office of governing might be removed to him. Truly that which is gotten by singular privilege and beside order, is not by common law. Where this only is pretended, that there needs some new governor, because the former governors had behaved themselves ill, it is evident that it neither was so before, nor ought to continue so forever, but is done only in respect of present danger. The Bishop of Rome therefore had the first place in the Council at Chalcedon: not because it was due to his see, but because the Synod was at that time destitute of a grave and fit governor, while they that ought to have been the chief, did through their own intemperance and corrupt affection, thrust themselves out of place. And this that I say, Leo's successor did indeed prove. For when he sent his legates to the fifth Synod at Constantinople, which was held long time after, he brawled not for the first seat, but easily suffered Menna the Patriarch of Constantinople to sit as chief. So in the council at Carthage, at which Augustine was present, we see that not the legates of the see of Rome, but Aurelius Archbishop of that place sat as chief: when yet the contention was about the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Indeed there was also a general council held in Italy itself, at which the Bishop of Rome was not present. Ambrose was chief there, which was in very great authority with the Emperor, there was no mention made of that Bishop of Rome. Therefore at that time it came to pass by the dignity of Ambrose, that that see of Milan was more noble than the see of Rome.

As concerning the title of supremacy, and other titles of pride, upon which it now marvelously boasts itself, it is not hard to judge, when and in what sort they crept in. Cyprian oftentimes makes mention of Cornelius. He sets him out with no other name, but by the name of brother, or fellow bishop, or fellow in office. But when he writes to Stephen the successor of Cornelius, he does not only make him equal with himself and the rest, but also speaks more harshly to him, charging him sometime with arrogance, sometime with ignorance. Since Cyprian we have what all the Church of Africa judged of that matter. The Council at Carthage did forbid that any should be called Prince of Priests, or chief Bishop, but only bishop of the chief see. But if a man turns over the more ancient monuments, he shall find that the Bishop of Rome at that time was content with the common name of brother. Certainly so long as the face of the Church continued true and pure, all these names of pride, with which since that time the see of Rome has begun to grow outrageous, were utterly unheard of: it was not known, what was the highest Bishop, and the only head of the Church on earth. But if the Bishop of Rome had been so bold as to have taken such a thing upon him, there were stout and wise men that would have by and by repressed his folly. Jerome, forasmuch as he was a priest at Rome, was not unwilling to set out the dignity of his own Church, so much as the matter and state of the times suffered: yet we see how he also brings it down into fellowship with the rest. If authority (says he) be sought for, the world is greater than a city. Why do you allege to me the custom of one city? Why do you defend smallness of number, out of which has grown pride, against the laws of the Church? Wherever there be a Bishop, either at Rome, or at Engubium, or at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, he is of the same merit and of the same priesthood. The power of riches or baseness of poverty makes not a Bishop higher or lower.

About the title of universal bishop the contention first began in the time of Gregory, which was occasioned by the ambition of John bishop of Constantinople. For he (which thing never any man before had attempted) would have made himself universal bishop. In that contention Gregory does not allege that the right is taken away which was due to himself: but stoutly cries out against it, that it is a profane name, yes full of sacrilege, yes the forewarner of Antichrist. The whole Church (says he) falls down from her state, if he falls, who is called universal. In another place: It is very sorrowful, to suffer patiently, that our brother and fellow bishop, despising all others, should only be named Bishop. But in this his pride what else is betokened but the times of Antichrist near at hand? because indeed he follows him, that despising the fellowship of Angels, went about to climb up to the top of singularity. In another place he writes to [reconstructed: Eulogius] of Alexandria, and Anastasius of Antioch. None of my [reconstructed: predecessors] at any time would use that profane word: for if [reconstructed: one bishop is] called universal Patriarch, the name of Patriarchs is abated from the [reconstructed: rest]. But far may this be from a Christian mind, that any should have a will to take that upon him, whereby he may in any part, be it never so little, diminish the honor of his brethren. To consent in this wicked word is nothing else but to lose the faith. It is one thing (says he) that we owe to the preserving of the unity of faith, and another thing that we owe to the keeping down of pride. But I say it boldly, because whoever calls himself or desires to be called universal Bishop, he does in his proud advancing run before Antichrist, because he does with showing himself proud prefer himself above the rest. Again to Anastasius bishop of Alexandria: I have said that he cannot have peace with us, unless he amended the advancing of the superstitious and proud word, which the first apostate has invented. And (to speak nothing of the wrong done to your honor) if one be called universal Bishop, the universal Church falls when that universal one falls. But whereas he writes, that this honor was offered to Leo in the Synod at Chalcedon, it has no color of truth. For neither is there any such thing read in the acts of that Synod. And Leo himself, who with many Epistles impugns the decree there made in honor of the see of Constantinople, without doubt would not have passed over this argument, which had been most to be liked of all others, if it had been true that he refused that which was given him: and being a man otherwise too much desirous of honor, he would not have omitted that which made for his praise. Therefore Gregory was deceived in this, that he thought that that title was offered to the see of Rome by the Synod at Chalcedon: to speak nothing, how foolish it is, that he both testifies it to have proceeded from the holy Synod, and also at the same time calls it wicked, profane, abominable, proud, and full of sacrilege, yes devised by the devil, and published by the crier of Antichrist. And yet he adds that his predecessor refused it, lest all priests should be deprived of their due honor, when anything were privately given to one. In another place: No man at any time willed to be called by that word: No man has taken to himself that presumptuous name: lest if he should in the degree of bishopric take to himself a glory of singularity, he should seem to have denied the same to all his brethren.

Now I come to the jurisdiction, which the bishop of Rome affirms that he has over all Churches. I know how great contentions have been in old time about this matter: For there has been no time when the see of Rome has not coveted to get an empire over other Churches. And in this place it shall not be out of season, to search by what means it grew then by little and little to some power. I do not yet speak of that infinite empire, which it has not so long ago taken by force to itself: for we will defer that to a place convenient. But here it is good to show briefly, how in old time and by what means it has advanced itself, to take to itself any power over other Churches. When the Churches of the East were divided and troubled with the factions of the Arians under the Emperors, Constantius and Constans the sons of Constantine the Great, and Athanasius the chief defender there of the true faith was driven out of his see: such calamity compelled him to come to Rome, that with the authority of the see of Rome he might both after a sort repress the rage of his enemies, and confirm the godly that were in distress. He was honorably received of Julius then Bishop, and obtained that the Bishops of the west took upon them the defense of his cause. Therefore when the godly stood in great need of foreign aid, and saw that there was very good succor for them in the Church of Rome, they willingly gave to it the most authority that they could. But all that was nothing else, but that the communion thereof should be highly esteemed, and it should be counted a great shame, to be excommunicated from it. Afterward evil and wicked men also added much to it. For, to escape lawful judgments, they fled to this sanctuary. Therefore if any priest were condemned by his bishop, or any Bishop by the Synod of his province, they by and by appealed to Rome. And the Bishops of Rome received such appeals more greedily than was meet: because it seemed to be a form of extraordinary power, so to intermeddle with matters far and wide about them. So when Eutyches was condemned by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that he had wrong done to him. Leo without delay, no less indiscreetly than suddenly, took in hand the defense of an evil cause: he grievously inveighed against Flavianus, as though he had, without hearing the cause, condemned an innocent: and by this his ambition he caused that the ungodliness of Eutyches was for a certain space of time strengthened. In Africa it is evident that this oftentimes chanced. For so soon as any lewd man had taken a foil in ordinary judgment, he by and by flew to Rome, and charged his countrymen with many slanderous reports: and the see of Rome was always ready to intermeddle. Which lewdness compelled the Bishops of Africa to make a law, that none under pain of excommunication should appeal beyond the sea.

But whatever it were, let us see what authority or power the see of Rome then had. Ecclesiastical power is contained in these four points, ordering of Bishops, summoning of Councils, hearing of appeals or jurisdiction, chastising admonitions or censures. All the old Synods command Bishops to be consecrated by their own Metropolitans: and they never bid the bishop of Rome to be called to it, but in his own Patriarchy. But by little and little it grew in use, that all the Bishops of Italy came to Rome to fetch their consecration, except the Metropolitans, which suffered not themselves to be brought into such bondage: but when any Metropolitan was to be consecrated, the bishop of Rome sent there one of his priests, which should only be present, but not president. Of which thing there is an example in Gregory: at the consecration of Constantius Bishop of Milan after the death of Laurence. However I do not think that that was a very ancient institution: but when at the beginning for honor and good will's sake they sent one to another their Legates, to be witnesses of the consecration, and to testify communion with them: afterward that which was voluntary, began to be held for necessary. However it be, it is evident that in old time the Bishop of Rome had not the power of consecrating, but in the province of his own Patriarchy, that is to say in the Churches adjoining to the city, as the canon of the Nicene Synod says. To the Consecration was annexed the sending of a Synodical Epistle, in which he was nothing above the rest. For the Patriarchs were wont immediately after their consecration, by solemn writing to declare their faith, whereby they professed that they subscribed to the holy and catholic Councils. So, rendering an account of their faith, they did approve themselves one to another. If the Bishop of Rome had received of other, and not himself given this confession, he had thereby been acknowledged superior: but when he was no less bound to give it, than to require it of other, and to be subject to the common law: truly that was a token of fellowship, not of dominion. Of this thing there is an example in Gregory's epistle to Anastasius, and to Cyriacus of Constantinople, and in other places to all the Patriarchs together.

Then follow admonitions or censures: which as in old time the Bishops of Rome used toward other, so they did again suffer them of other. Irenaeus grievously reproved Victor, because he indiscreetly for a thing of no value, troubled the Church with a pernicious dissension. Victor obeyed, and spurned not against it. Such a liberty was then in use among the holy Bishops, that they used a brotherly authority toward the Bishop of Rome, in admonishing and chastising him if he at any time offended. He again, when occasion required, did admonish other of their duty: and if there were any fault, rebuked it. For Cyprian, when he exhorts Stephen to admonish the bishops of France, fetches not his argument from the greater power, but from the common right that priests have among themselves. I beseech you, if Stephen had then been ruler over France, would not Cyprian have said: Restrain them, because they be yours? But he says far otherwise. This (says he) the brotherly fellowship, with which we be bound one to another requires that we should admonish one another. And we see also with how great sharpness of words he being otherwise a man of a mild nature inveighs against Stephen himself, when he thinks him to be too insolent. Therefore in this behalf also there appears not yet, that the Bishop of Rome had any jurisdiction over them that were not of his own province.

As concerning the calling together of Synods, this was the office of every Metropolitan, at certain appointed times to assemble a Provincial Synod. There the Bishop of Rome had no authority. But a General council the Emperor only might summon. For if any of the Bishops had attempted it, not only they that were out of his province would not have obeyed his calling, but also there would by and by have risen an uproar. Therefore the Emperor indifferently warned them all to be present. Socrates indeed reports that Julius did expostulate with the bishops of the East, because they called him not to the Synod of Antioch, whereas it was forbidden by the Canons, that anything should be decreed without the knowledge of the Bishop of Rome. But who does not see that this is to be understood of such decrees as bind the whole universal Church? Now it is no marvel, if thus much be granted both to the antiquity and honor of the city, and to the dignity of the see, that there should be no general decree made of religion, in the absence of the Bishop of Rome, if he refuse not to be present. But what is this to the dominion over the whole Church? For we deny not that he was one of the chief: but we will not grant that which the Romanists now affirm, that he had a dominion over all.

Now remains the fourth kind of power, which stands in appeals. It is evident that he has the chief power, to whose judgment seat appeal is made. Many oftentimes appealed to the Bishop of Rome: and he himself also went about to draw the hearing of causes to himself: but he was always laughed to scorn, when he passed his own bounds. I will speak nothing of the East and of Greece: but it is certain that the Bishops of France stoutly withstood him, when he seemed to take to himself an empire over them. In Africa there was long debate about that matter. For where at the Mileuitane Council, at which Augustine was present, they were excommunicated that appealed beyond the sea, the Bishop of Rome labored to bring to pass, that that decree might be amended. He sent his legates to show that that privilege was given to him by the Nicene Council. The Legates brought forth the acts of the Nicene Council, which they had fetched out of the storehouse of their own Church. The Africans withstood it, and denied that the Bishops of Rome ought to be credited in their own cause: and said that therefore they would send to Constantinople, and into other cities of Greece, where copies were to be had that were less suspicious. It was found that therein was no such thing written, as the Romans had pretended. So was that decree confirmed, which took the chief hearing of causes from the Bishop of Rome: in which doing the lewd shamelessness of the Bishop of Rome himself appeared. For when he guilefully did thrust in the Synod at Sardes in place of the Nicene Synod, he was shamefully taken in a manifest falsehood. But yet greater and more shameless was their wickedness, that added a forged Epistle to the Council, wherein I know not what bishop of Carthage, condemning the arrogance of Aurelius his predecessor, for that he was so bold to withdraw himself from the obedience of the Apostolic see, and yielding himself and his Church, humbly craved pardon. These be the goodly monuments of antiquity, whereupon the majesty of the see of Rome is founded, while they so childishly, under the pretense of Antiquity, that very blind men may find it out by groping. Aurelius (says he) puffed up with devilish boldness and stubbornness, rebelled against Christ, and Saint Peter, and therefore to be condemned with a curse. What said Augustine? But what said so many Fathers that were present at the Mileuitane Council? But what need is it to spend many words in confuting that foolish writing, which the Romanists themselves, if they have any face left, cannot look upon without great shame? So Gratian, I cannot tell whether of malice or of ignorance, where he rehearsed that decree, that they should be excommunicated that appeal beyond the sea, adds an exception: Unless perhaps they appeal to the see of Rome. What may a man do to these beasts, which are so void of common reason, that they except that only thing out of the law, for whose cause every man sees that the law was made? For the Council when it condemns appeals beyond the sea, forbids only this, that none should appeal to Rome. Here the good expositor excepts Rome out of the common law.

But (to determine this question at once) one history shall make plain what manner of jurisdiction the bishop of Rome had in old time. Donatus of the black houses accused Cecilian bishop of Carthage. The man accused was condemned, his cause not heard. For when he knew that the bishops had conspired against him, he would not appear. Then the matter came to the Emperor Constantine. He, forasmuch as he willed to have the matter ended by ecclesiastical judgment, committed the hearing of it to Miltiades bishop of Rome. To whom he adjoined fellow commissioners many bishops of Italy, France, and Spain. If that belonged to the ordinary jurisdiction of the see of Rome, to hear an appeal in an ecclesiastical cause: why does he suffer others to be joined with him at the will of the Emperor? Indeed, why did he himself take the judgment upon him rather by the Emperor's commandment, than by his own office? But let us hear what happened afterward. There Cecilian got the victory: Donatus of the black houses was condemned for slander: he appealed. Constantine committed the judgment of the appeal to the bishop of Orleans. He sat as judge, to pronounce what he thought, after the bishop of Rome. If the see of Rome has the chief power without appeal: why does Miltiades suffer himself to receive so great a shame, that the bishop of Orleans should be preferred above him? And what Emperor does this? Even Constantine, of whom they boast that he employed not only all his endeavor, but in a manner all the riches of the empire to increase the dignity of their see. We see therefore now, how far the Bishop of Rome was at that time by all means from that supreme dominion, which he affirms to be given to him by Christ over all Churches, and which he lyingly says that he has in all ages possessed by the consent of the whole world.

I know how many epistles there be, how many writings and decrees, wherein the bishops do give much, and boldly challenge much to it. But this also all men that have but a very little wit and learning do know, that the most part of those are so unsavory, that by the first taste of them a man may soon find out of what ship they came. For what man of sound wit and sober, will think that that goodly interpretation is Anacletus his own, which is in Gratian reported under the name of Anacletus: that is, that Cephas is a head? The Romanists do at this day abuse for defense of their see, many such trifles, which Gratian has patched together without judgment: and yet still in so great light they will sell such smokes, wherewith in old time they were wont to mock out the ignorant in darkness. But I will not bestow much labor in confuting those things, which do openly confute themselves by reason of their unsavory folly. I grant that there remain also true epistles of the old bishops, wherein they set forth the honor of their see with glorious titles: of which sort are some epistles of Leo. For that man, as he was learned and eloquent, so was he also above measure desirous of glory and dominion: but whether the churches then believed his testimony when he so advanced himself, that in fact is what is in controversy. But it appears that many offended with his ambition, did also withstand his greedy desire. Sometimes he appointed in his stead the bishop of Thessalonica throughout Greece and other countries adjoining: sometimes he appointed the bishop of Orleans, or some other throughout France. So he appointed Hormisdas bishop of Hispalis to be his vicar in Spain, but everywhere he excepts, that he gives out such appointments upon this condition, that the Metropolitans may have their ancient privileges remaining safe and whole. But Leo himself declares, that this is one of their privileges, that if any doubt happen about any matter, the Metropolitan should first be asked his advice. Therefore those appointments of vicars in his stead were upon this condition, that neither any bishop should be hindered in his ordinary jurisdiction, nor any Metropolitan in being judge of appeals, nor any provincial Council in ordering of their churches. What was this else but to abstain from all jurisdiction: but to intermeddle to the appeasing of discords only so far as the law and nature of the communion of the church suffers.

In Gregory's time that ancient order was already much changed. For when the Empire was shaken, and torn in pieces, when France and Spain were afflicted with many overthrows received, Slavonia wasted, Italy vexed, and Africa in a manner destroyed with continual calamities: that in so great a shaking of civil affairs, at least the integrity of faith might remain, or yet not utterly perish, all the bishops from each part did the rather join themselves to the bishop of Rome. Thereby it came to pass, that not only the dignity, but also the power of that see greatly increased. However I do not so much pass by what means it was brought about. Truly it appears that it was then greater than in the ages before. And yet it then greatly differed from being an unbridled dominion, that one man might bear rule over other after his own will. But the see of Rome had this reverence, that it might with her authority subdue and repress the lewd and obstinate that could not by the other bishops be kept within their duty. For Gregory does often times diligently testify this, that he does no less faithfully preserve to other men their rights, than he requires his own of them. Neither do I (says he) pricked on by ambition, pluck from any man that which is his right: but I desire in all things to honor my brethren. There is no saying in his writings wherein he does more proudly boast of the largeness of his Supremacy, than this: I know not what bishop is not subject to the Apostolic see when he is found in fault. But he by and by adjoins, Where fault requires not, all according to the order of humility are equal. He gives to himself power to correct them that have offended: if all do their duty, he makes himself equal with the rest. But he himself gives himself this power: and they assented to it that would: and other that liked it not, might freely gainsay it, which it is well known that the most part of them did. Besides that he speaks there of the Primate of Constantinople: which when he was condemned by the provincial Synod, refused the whole judgment. His fellow bishops informed the Emperor of this stubbornness of him. The Emperor willed Gregory to be judge of the cause. We see therefore that he both attempts nothing, whereby he may break the ordinary jurisdiction, and the same thing that he does for the helping of other, he does not but by the commandment of the Emperor.

This therefore was the all the power of the Bishop of Rome, to set himself against obstinate and untamed heads, when there needed any extraordinary remedy: and that to help and not to hinder Bishops. Therefore he takes no more to himself over all others, than in another place he grants to all others over himself, when he confesses that he is ready to be corrected of all, to be amended of all. So in another place he does indeed command the Bishop of Aquileia to come to Rome, to plead his cause in a controversy of faith that was risen between him and others: but he does not command him of his own power, but because the Emperor had so commanded. Neither does he give warning that he alone shall be judge, but promises that he will assemble a Synod by whom the whole matter may be judged. But although there was yet such moderation, that the power of the see of Rome had her certain bounds, which it might not pass, and the Bishop of Rome himself was no more above than under others: yet it appears how much Gregory disliked such state. For he now and then complains, that under color of Bishopric he was brought back to the world: and that he was more entangled with earthly cares, than ever he had served them while he was a layman: that he was in that honor oppressed with tumult of worldly affairs. In another place: so great burdens (says he) of business do hold me down, that my mind can nothing at all be raised up to things above. I am shaken with many waves of causes: and after those leisures of rest I am tossed with tempests of troublesome life: so that I may rightly say, I am come into the depth of the sea, and the tempest has drowned me. Hereby gather, what he would have said, if he had happened to be in these times. Although he fulfilled not the office of a Pastor, yet he was doing it. He abstained from the government of the civil Empire, and confessed himself to be subject to the Emperor as others were. He did not thrust himself into the cure of other Churches, but being compelled by necessity. And yet he thinks himself to be in a maze, because he cannot apply himself altogether only to the office of a Bishop.

At that time the Bishop of Constantinople strove with the Bishop of Rome for the Supremacy, as it is already said. For after that the seat of the Empire was established at Constantinople, the majesty of the Empire seemed to require, that that Church also should have the second place of honor after the Church of Rome. And truly at the beginning, nothing more availed to cause that Supremacy to be given to Rome, but because the head of the Empire was there at that time. There is in Gratian a writing under the name of Pope Lucius, where he says, that cities were no otherwise divided, where Metropolitans and Primates ought to sit, than by the reason of the civil government that was before. There is also another under the name of Pope Clement, where he says, that Patriarchs were ordained in those cities that had had the chief Flamines in them. Which, although it be false, yet is taken out of a truth. For it is certain, that, to the end there should be made as little change as might be, the provinces were divided according to that state of things that then were: and that Primates and Metropolitans were set in those cities that excelled the others in honors and power. Therefore in the Council at Taurinum it was decreed, that those cities which in the civil government were the chief cities of every province, should be the chief sees of Bishops. And if it happened the honor of the civil government to be removed from one city to another, that then the right of the Metropolitan city should therewith be removed there. But Innocent, Bishop of Rome, when he saw the ancient dignity of his city to grow in decay, after that the seat of the Empire was removed to Constantinople, fearing the abasement of his see, made a contrary law: wherein he denies it to be necessary that the ecclesiastical mother cities should be changed as the Imperial mother cities change. But the authority of a Synod ought of right to be preferred above one man's sentence. Also we ought to suspect Innocent himself in his own cause. However it be, yet by his own proviso he shows, that from the beginning it was so ordered, that the Metropolitan cities should be disposed according to the outward order of the Empire.

According to this ancient ordinance, it was decreed in the first Council at Constantinople, that the Bishop of that city should have the privileges of honor next after the Bishop of Rome, because it was a new Rome. But a long time after, when a like decree was made at Chalcedon, Leo stoutly cried out against it. And he not only gave himself leave to esteem as nothing that which six hundred Bishops or more had decreed: but also bitterly taunted them, for that they took from other sees that honor which they were so bold to give to the Church of Constantinople. I beseech you, what other thing could move a man to trouble the world for so small a matter, but mere ambition? He says that that ought to be inviolable, which the Nicene Synod has once decreed. As though indeed the Christian faith were endangered, if one Church be preferred before another: or as though Patriarchies were there divided to any other end, but for policies. But we know that policy receives, indeed requires diverse changes, according to the diversity of times. Therefore it is fond that Leo pretends, that the honor, which by the authority of the Nicene Synod was given to the see of Alexandria, ought not to be given to the see of Constantinople. For common reason tells this, that it was such a decree, as might be taken away according to the respect of times. Indeed none of the Bishops of the East withstood it, whom that thing most of all concerned. Truly Proterius was present, whom they had made Bishop of Alexandria in the place of Dioscorus. There were present other Patriarchs, whose honor was diminished. It was their part to withstand it, not Leo's, which remained safe in his own place. But when all they hold their peace, indeed assent to it, and only the Bishop of Rome resists: it is easy to judge, what moves him: that is, he foresaw that which not long after happened, that it would come to pass, that, the glory of old Rome decaying, Constantinople not contented with the second place, would strive with Rome for the Supremacy. And yet with his crying out he did not so much prevail, but that the decree of the Council was confirmed. Therefore his successors, when they saw themselves overcome, quietly gave over that stiffness: for they suffered that he should be accounted the second Patriarch.

But within a little after, John which in Gregory's time ruled the Church of Constantinople, broke forth so far that he called himself the universal Patriarch. Here Gregory, lest he should in a very good cause fail to defend his own see, did constantly set himself against him. And truly both the pride and madness of John was intolerable, which desired to make the bounds of his Bishopric equal with the bounds of the Empire. And yet Gregory does not claim to himself, that which he denies to another: but abhors that name as wicked, and ungodly, and abominable, whoever takes it upon him. Indeed also in one place he is angry with Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, which had honored him with such a title. Behold (says he) in the preface of the Epistle which you directed to my self that have forbidden it, you have cared to imprint the word of proud calling, in [reconstructed: naming] me universal Pope. Which, I pray that your holiness will no more do because that is withdrawn from you, which is given to another more than reason requires. I count it no honor, wherein I see the honor of my brethren to be diminished. For my honor is the honor of the universal Church, and the sound strength of my brethren. But if your holiness calls me the universal Pope, it denies itself to be that which it confesses me to be wholly. Truly Gregory stood in a good and honest cause. But John, helped by the favor of Maurice the Emperor, could never be removed from his purpose. Ciriacus also his successor never suffered himself to be entreated in that behalf.

At the last [reconstructed: Phocas], which when Maurice was slain, was set in his place (I know not for what cause being more friendly to the Romans, but because he was there crowned without strife) granted to Boniface the third, that which Gregory never required, that Rome should be the head of all Churches. After this manner was the controversy ended. And yet this benefit of the Emperor, could not so much have profited the see of Rome, unless other things also had afterward happened. For [reconstructed: Greece] and all Asia were within a little after cut off from the communion of Rome. France so much reverenced him, that it obeyed no further than it pleased. But it was then first brought into bondage when Pepin usurped the kingdom. For when Zachary Bishop of Rome had been his helper to the breach of his faith, and to robbery, that thrusting out the lawful king, he might violently enter upon the kingdom as laid open for a prey: he received this reward, that the see of Rome should have jurisdiction over the Churches of France: As robbers are accustomed in parting to divide the common spoil: so these good men ordered the matter between themselves, that Pepin should have the earthly and civil dominion, spoiling the true king: and Zachary should be made head of all Bishops and have the spiritual power: which, when at the beginning it was weak, (as it is accustomed to be in new things) was afterward confirmed by the authority of Charles, in manner for a like cause. For he was also indebted to the Bishop of Rome, for that by his endeavor he had attained to the honor of the Empire. But although it be credible, that Churches everywhere were before that time much deformed, yet it is certain that the old form of the Church was then first utterly defaced in France and Germany. There remain yet in the records of the court of Paris brief notes of these times, which, where they treat of the matters of the Church, make mention of the covenant both of Pepin and of Charles with the Bishop of Rome. Thereby we may gather that then was an alteration made of the old state.

Since that time, when things did everywhere daily fall from worse to worse, the tyranny of the see of Rome was now and then also established and increased, and that partly by the ignorance, and partly by the slothfulness of the Bishops. For when one man took all things upon him, and without measure proceeded more and more to advance himself against law and right: the Bishops did not with such zeal as they ought endeavor themselves to restrain his lust, and though they wanted not courage, yet they were destitute of true learning and knowledge: so that they were nothing fit to attempt so great a matter. Therefore we see what and how monstrous an unholy defiling of all holy things, and a scattering abroad of the whole order of the Church, was in Bernard's time. He complains that there resort by heaps to Rome out of all the world, ambitious men, covetous, Simonians, robbers of God, keepers of concubines, committers of incest, and all such monsters, to obtain or retain ecclesiastical honors by the apostolic authority: and that fraud and undermining, and violence were grown in force. He says that that manner of judging which was then used, was abominable, and unseemly, not only for the Church, but also for a judicial court. He cries out that the Church is full of ambitious men: and that there is none that more dreads to commit mischievous acts, than robbers do in their cave, when they divide the spoils of wayfaring men. Few (says he) do look to the mouth of the lawgiver, but to his hands. But not without cause. For those hands do all the Pope's business. What a thing is this, that they are bought of the spoils of Churches, that say to you, oh well done, well done? The life of the poor is sown in the streets of the rich: silver glistens in the mire: men run to it from all places: not the poor, but the stranger takes it up, or perhaps he that runs fastest before. But this manner, or rather this death, came not of you, I would to God it might end in you. Among these things you a Pastor go forward surrounded with much and precious array. If I dare say it, these are rather the Pastors of devils, than of sheep. Truly Peter did not do this, Paul did not play this role. Your court is more accustomed to receive men good than to make them good. For the ill do not there profit, but the good do decay. Now as for the abuses of appeals that he rehearses, no godly man can read them without great horror. At the last he thus concludes of the unbridled greediness of the see of Rome in the usurping of jurisdiction: I speak the murmur and common complaint of the Churches. They cry out that they be mangled and dismembered. There are either none or few that do not either bewail or fear this plague. Do you ask what plague? The Abbots are plucked from the Bishops, the Bishops from the Archbishops, and so forth. It is marvelous if this may be excused. In so doing you prove that you have fullness of power, but not of righteousness. You do this, because you can do it: but whether you also ought to do it, is a question. You are set to preserve, not to begrudge to every man his honor and his own degree. These few things of many I chose to rehearse, partly that the readers may see, how sorely the Church was then decayed, and partly that they may know in how great sorrow and mourning this calamity held all the godly.

But now, although we grant to the Bishop of Rome at this day that preeminence and largeness of jurisdiction, which that see had in the intervening times, as in the times of Leo and of Gregory: what is that to the present state of the papacy? I do not yet speak of the earthly dominion, nor of the civil power thereof, which we will afterward consider in a place fit for it: but the very spiritual government that they boast of, what has it like to the state of those times? For they define the Pope none otherwise than the Supreme head of the Church on earth, and the universal Bishop of the whole world. And the Bishops themselves, when they speak of their own authority, do with great stoutness of countenance, pronounce that to them belongs the power to command, and others are bound to the necessity to obey: that so all their decrees are to be held as confirmed with the divine voice of Peter: that the provincial Synods, are without force, because they lack the presence of the Pope: that they may order clerks of any Church that they will: and may call them to their see that have been ordered elsewhere. Innumerable of that sort are in Gratian's collection, which I do not now rehearse, lest I should be too tedious to the readers. But this is the sum of them, that only the Bishop of Rome has the Supreme hearing and determining of all ecclesiastical causes, whether it be in judging and defining of doctrines, or in making of laws, or in establishing of discipline, or in executing of judgments: it were also long and superfluous to rehearse the privileges that they take to themselves in reservations, as they call them. But, (which is most intolerable of all others) they leave no judgment on earth to restrain and bridle their outrageous lust, if they abuse so immeasurable power. It is lawful for no man (say they) to revoke the judgment of that see, because of the supremacy of the Church of Rome. Again: the judge shall be judged neither by the Emperor, nor by kings, nor by all the clergy, nor by the people. That is indeed too imperiously done, that one man makes himself judge of all men, and suffers himself to obey the judgment of no man. But what if he uses tyranny over the people of God? If he scatters abroad and wastes the kingdom of Christ? If he troubles the whole Church? If he turns the office of Pastor into robbery? Yes though he be never so mischievous, he says that he is not bound to yield account. For these are the sayings of the Bishops: God's will was to determine the causes of other men by men, but he has without question reserved the Bishop of this see to his own judgment. Again: the doings of subjects are judged by us; but ours, by God only.

And that such decrees might have the more weight, they have falsely thrust in the names of the old bishops, as though things had been so ordained from the beginning: whereas it is most certain, that whatever the Bishop of Rome gives to himself more than we have rehearsed to be given him by the ancient Councils is new and lately forged. Indeed they are come to so great shamelessness, that they have set forth a writing under the name of Anastasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, wherein he testifies that it was decreed by the old rules, that nothing should be done even in the furthest provinces, that were not first moved to the see of Rome. Besides this, that it is certain that this is most vain, what man shall think it likely, that such a commendation of the see of Rome proceeded from the adversary and envier of the honor and dignity thereof? But truly it was fitting that these Antichrists should be carried on to so great madness and blindness, that their wickedness might be plain for all men to see, at least so many as will open their eyes. But the decretal epistles heaped together by Gregory the 9th, against the Clementines, and Extravagantes of Martin, do yet more openly and with fuller mouth everywhere breathe forth their outrageous fierceness and, as it were, the tyranny of barbarous kings. But these are the oracles by which the Romanists will have their papacy to be weighed. From this arose those notable principles which at this day have everywhere in the papacy the force of oracles: that the Pope cannot err; that the Pope is above the Councils; that the Pope is the universal bishop of all bishops, and the supreme head of the Church on earth. I pass over the much more absurd follies which the foolish Canonists babble in their schools — to which yet the Roman divines not only assent, but also clap their hands at them, to flatter their idol.

I will not deal with them by extremity of right. Some other man would set against this their so great insolence the saying of Cyprian, which he used among the bishops, at whose council he sat as chief: None of us calls himself bishop of bishops, or with tyrannous fear compels his fellow bishops by necessity to obey. He would object that which a little afterward was decreed at Carthage: that none should be called prince of priests, or chief bishop. He would gather many testimonies out of histories, canons out of synods, and many sentences out of the books of old writers, by which the Bishop of Rome should be brought down into the fellowship of the rest. But I pass over all these, lest I should seem too precisely to press them. But let the best patrons of the see of Rome answer me: with what face they dare defend the title of universal bishop, which they see so often to be condemned with a curse by Gregory. If Gregory's testimony ought to be of force, they thereby declare that Antichrist is their bishop, because they make him universal. The name also of head was no more usual. For thus he says in one place: Peter is the chief member in the body; John, Andrew, and James are heads of particular peoples — yet they all are members of the Church under one head; indeed the holy ones before the law, the holy ones under the law, the holy ones under grace, are set among members, altogether making up the body of the Lord; and no man ever wished to have himself called universal. But whereas the Bishop of Rome takes upon himself the power of commanding, that thing agrees little with what Gregory says in another place. For whereas Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, had said that he was commanded by him, he answered in this way: I pray you, take away this word of commanding from my hearing. For I know what I am and what you are. In place, you are to me brothers; in manner, you are to me fathers. Therefore I did not command, but I cared to tell you those things that I thought profitable. Whereas he so extends his jurisdiction without end, he does therein great and heinous wrong, not only to the other bishops, but also to all particular churches, which he so tears and plucks in pieces, that he may build his seat of their ruins. But whereas he exempts himself from all judgments, and will so reign after the manner of tyrants, that he accounts his own lust alone for law, that truly is so heinous, and so far from ecclesiastical order, that it may in no way be borne: for it utterly abhors not only from all feeling of godliness, but also from all humanity.

But that I be not compelled to go through and examine all things particularly, I do again appeal to them, who will at this day be accounted the best and most faithful patrons of the see of Rome, whether they be not ashamed to defend the present state of the papacy: which it is certain to be a hundred times more corrupt than it was in the times of Gregory and Bernard: which state yet did then so much displease those holy men. Gregory everywhere complains that he is too much diversely drawn away with foreign business: that he is under the color of the bishopric brought back to the world: in which he serves so many cares of the world as he never remembers that he served when he was a layman: that he is pressed down with tumult of worldly affairs, that his mind is nothing raised up to things above: that he is shaken with many waves of causes, and tossed with tempests of troublesome life: so that he may worthily say, I am come into the depth of the sea. Truly among those earthly businesses, he might yet teach the people with sermons, privately admonish and correct such as it behooved, order the church, give counsel to his fellow bishops and exhort them to their duty: besides these things there remained some time to write: and yet he laments his calamity, that he is drowned in the deepest sea. If the government of that time was a sea: what is to be said of the papacy at this time? For what likeness have they together? Here be no preachings, no care of discipline, no zeal to the churches, no spiritual doing, finally nothing but the world. Yet this maze is praised, as though there could nothing be found more orderly and better framed. But what complaints does Bernard pour out, what groans does he utter, when he looks upon the faults of his age? What then would he do, if he beheld this our age of iron, and worse if any be worse than iron? What obstinate wickedness is this, not only stubbornly to defend as holy and divine, that which all the holy men have with one mouth condemned: but also to abuse their testimony to the defense of the papacy, which it is certain that they never knew of? However, of Bernard's time I confess, that then the corruption of all things was so great, that it was not much unlike our time. But they are without all shame, that fetch any pretense for it out of that mean age, that is, the time of Leo, Gregory, and such other. For they do like one who, to establish the monarchy of the Emperor, would praise the old state of the Empire of Rome: that is, would borrow the praises of liberty, to set forth the honor of tyranny.

Finally, although all these things were granted them: yet there arises afresh a new strife for them, when we deny that there is a church at Rome, in which such benefits may be resident: when we deny that there is a bishop, which may bear these privileges of dignity. Admit therefore all those things to be true, (which yet we have already wrung from them) that Peter was by the mouth of Christ appointed head of the universal church: and that he left the honor that was given him, in the see of Rome: that the same was established by the authority of the ancient church, and confirmed with long continuance: that the supreme power has been always by one consent given of all men to the Bishop of Rome: that he has been the judge of all both causes and men, and himself subject to the judgment of none: let them have also more, if they will: yet I answer in one word, that none of these things avail, unless there be at Rome a church and a bishop. This they must needs grant me, that it cannot be the mother of churches, which is not itself a church: that he cannot be chief of bishops, which is not himself a bishop. Will they therefore have the apostolic see at Rome? Then let them show me a true and lawful apostleship. Will they have the chief bishop? Then let them show me a bishop. But what? Where will they show us any face of a church? They name one indeed, and have it often in their mouth. Truly the church is known by her certain marks: and bishopric is a name of office. I speak not here of the people: but of the government itself, which ought continually to shine in the church. Where is the ministry in their church, such as Christ's institution requires? Let us call to remembrance that which has before been spoken of the office of priests and of a bishop. If we shall bring the office of cardinals to be tried by that rule, we shall confess that they are nothing less than priests. As for the chief bishop himself, I would like to know what one thing at all he has bishop-like. First it is the principal point in the office of a bishop, to teach the people with the word of God: another and the next point to that is, to minister the sacraments: the third is to admonish and exhort, indeed and to correct them that offend, and to hold the people together in holy discipline. What of these things does he do? Indeed, what does he pretend to do? Let them tell therefore, by what means they would have him to be counted a bishop, that does not with his little finger, not once so much as in outward show, touch any part of a bishop's office.

It is not so of a bishop as it is of a king. For a king, although he does not execute that which belongs to a king, does nevertheless retain the honor and title. But in judging of a bishop, respect is had to Christ's commandment, which always ought to be of force in the Church. Therefore let the Romanists loose me this knot. I deny that their high bishop is the chief of bishops, inasmuch as he is no bishop. They must needs prove this last point to be false, if they will have the victory in the first. But how say they to this, that he not only has no property of a bishop, but rather all things contrary? But here, O God, where shall I begin? At his learning, or at his manners? What shall I say, or what shall I leave unsaid? Where shall I make an end? This I say: that whereas the world is at this day stuffed with so many perverse and wicked doctrines, full of so many kinds of superstitions, blinded with so many errors, drowned in so great idolatry — there is none of these anywhere that has not either flowed from there, or at least been there confirmed. Neither is there any other cause why the bishops are carried with so great rage against the doctrine of the Gospel newly springing up again, why they bend all their strengths to oppress it, why they kindle up kings and princes to cruelty, but because they see that their whole kingdom decays and falls down, so soon as the Gospel of Christ comes in place. Leo was cruel; Clement was bloody; Paul is a fierce murderer. But nature has not so much moved them to fight against the truth, as that this was their only means to maintain their power. Therefore since they cannot be safe, till they have driven away Christ, they labor in this cause, as if they did fight for their religion and countries, and for their own lives. What then? Shall that be to us the apostolic see, where we see nothing but horrible apostasy? Shall he be Christ's vicar, who by persecuting the Gospel with furious enterprises, does openly profess himself to be Antichrist? Shall he be Peter's successor, that ranges with sword and fire, to destroy all that ever Peter has built? Shall he be head of the Church, who cutting off and dismembering the Church from Christ the only true head thereof, does in it pluck and tear it in pieces? Admit truly that in the old time Rome was the mother of all churches: yet since it has begun to be the seat of Antichrist, it has ceased to be that which it was.

We seem to be too much evil speakers and railers, when we call the bishop of Rome Antichrist. But they that so think, do not understand that they accuse Paul of immodesty, after whom we so speak, indeed out of whose mouth we so speak. And lest any man object that we do wrongfully wrest against the bishop of Rome these words of Paul that are spoken to another intent, I will briefly show that they cannot be otherwise understood, but of the Papacy. Paul writes that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). In another place also the Holy Spirit, describing his image in the person of Antiochus, shows that his kingdom shall consist in haughtiness of speech, and blasphemies of God (Daniel 7:25). From this we gather that it is rather a tyranny over souls, than over bodies, that is raised up against the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then, that it is such as does not abolish the name of Christ and the Church, but rather should abuse the presence of Christ, and lurk under the title of the Church, as under a disguised visor. But although all the heresies and sects that have been from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist: yet whereas Paul prophesies that there shall come a departing, by this description he signifies that that seat of abomination shall then be raised up, when a certain universal departing shall possess the Church — however many members of the Church here and there continue in the true unity of faith. But where he adds that in his time he began in a mystery to set up the work of iniquity, which he would afterward show openly — by this we understand that this calamity was neither to be brought in by one man, nor to be ended in one man. Now whereas he does set out Antichrist by this mark, that he should pluck away from God his due honor, to take it to himself — this is the chief token that we ought to follow in seeking out of Antichrist, especially where such pride proceeds even to the public dissipation of the Church. Since therefore it is certain that the bishop of Rome has shamelessly conveyed away to himself that which was the chief proper thing to God alone and Christ, it is not to be doubted but that he is the captain and standard-bearer of the wicked and abominable kingdom.

Now let the Romanists go, and object antiquity against us. As if in so great an alteration of all things, the honor of the see might stand where there is no see. Eusebius tells how God, that there might be place for his vengeance, removed the Church that was at Jerusalem to Pella. That which we hear to have been once done, might be more often done. Therefore so to bind the honor of supremacy to a place, that he who is indeed the most hateful enemy of Christ, the highest adversary of the Gospel, the greatest waster and destroyer of the Church, the most cruel slaughterman and butcher of the saints, should nevertheless be accounted the vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, the chief bishop of the Church, only because he occupies the see that was once the chiefest of all — that truly is too much to be scorned and foolish. I speak not of how great a difference there is between the pope's chancery, and a well-framed order of the Church. However, this one thing may well take away all doubt of this question. For no man that has his right wit will think the bishopric enclosed in lead and bulls, much less in that school of frauds and deceits, in which things the pope's spiritual government consists. Therefore it was very well said by a certain man, that that Church of Rome which is boasted of, is long ago turned into a court, which only is now seen at Rome. Neither do I here accuse the faults of men: but I show that the Papacy itself is directly contrary to the true order of a Church.

But if we come to the persons of men, it is well enough known what manner of vicars of Christ we shall find. Julius forsooth, and Leo, and Clement, and Paul, shall be pillars of the christian faith, and the chief expositors of religion, which never knew any other thing of Christ, than that which he had learned in Lucian's school. But why do I reckon up three or four Popes? as though it were doubtful, what manner of form of religion the Popes with their whole college of Cardinals have since long ago professed, and at this day do profess. For first this is the principal article of that secret Divinity that reigns among them, That there is no God: the second, That all things that are written and taught concerning Christ, are lies and deceits: the third, That the doctrine of the life to come, and of the last resurrection, are mere fables. They do not all think so: and few of them speak so. I grant. But this has long ago begun to be the ordinary religion of Popes. Whereas this is very well known to all that know Rome, yet the Romish Divines cease not to boast, that by Christ's privilege it is provided, that the Pope cannot err, because it was said to Peter: I have prayed for you, that your faith should not faint. What, I pray you, do they win by mocking so shamelessly, but that the whole world may understand, that they are come to that extremity of wickedness, that they neither fear God, nor stand in awe of men?

But let us imagine, that the ungodliness of those Popes whom I have spoken of, is hidden, because they have neither published it by preachings, nor by writings: but only have revealed it at their table, and in their chamber, or at least within walls of houses. But if they will have this privilege to be of force, which they pretend, they must needs wipe John the 22nd out of the number of Popes, who openly affirmed that souls are mortal, and that they die together with the bodies until the day of resurrection. And, that you may perceive that the whole See with her principal stays was then wholly fallen: none of all the Cardinals withstood so great a madness, but the school of Paris moved the king of France to compel him to recant it. The king forbade his subjects to communicate with him, unless he did out of hand repent: and the same, as the manner is, he proclaimed by a herald. The Pope compelled by this necessity, abjured his error. This example makes it so that I need not to dispute any more with my adversaries about this that they say, that the see of Rome and the Bishops thereof, cannot err in the faith, because it was said to Peter, I have prayed for you, that your faith may not faint. Truly he fell with so foul a kind of fall from the right faith, that he is a notable example to them that come after, that they are not all Peters which succeed after Peter in the bishopric. However this is also of itself so childish, that it needs no answer. For if they will draw to Peter's successors whatever was spoken to Peter, it shall follow that they are all Satans, for as much as the Lord said this also to Peter: Go behind, you Satan, because you are an offense to me. For it shall be as easy for us to turn back this later saying against them, as it shall be for them to object the other against us.

But I wish not to strive with them in playing the fool. Therefore I return there from where I made digression. So to bind the place, and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and the Church together, that whoever sits in that place, although he be the devil, yet he must be judged the vicar of Christ, and the head of the Church, because it was once the seat of Peter: I say this is not only wicked and slanderous to Christ, but also too great an absurdity and against common reason. It is already long since the bishops of Rome are either without all religion, or the greatest enemies of religion. Therefore they are no more made the vicars of Christ, by reason of the seat which they occupy, than an idol, when it is set in the temple of God, is to be taken for God. Now if their manners be to be judged upon, let the Popes themselves answer for themselves: what one thing at all there is in them, wherein they may be known for bishops. First whereas there is such life at Rome, they not only winking at it, but also as it were with secret countenance allowing it, this is utterly unfit for bishops, whose duty is with severity of discipline to restrain the licentiousness of the people. But I will not be so rigorous against them, to charge them with other men's faults. But whereas they themselves, with their own household, with almost the whole college of Cardinals, with the whole flock of their clergy, are so given over to all wickedness, filthiness, uncleanness, to all kinds of lewd and mischievous doings, that they resemble rather monsters than men: therein truly they betray themselves to be nothing less than bishops. And yet they need not to fear lest I should further disclose their filthiness. For both I am weary to have to do in so stinking mire, and I must favor chaste ears, and I think that I have already enough and more proved that which I went about: that is, that although Rome had in old time been the head of Churches, yet at this day she is not worthy to be judged one of the smallest toes of the Churches' feet.

As concerning the Cardinals (as they call them) I cannot tell how it has come to pass, that they have so suddenly risen up to so great dignity. This name in Gregory's time belonged to bishops only. For so often as he makes mention of Cardinals, he means it not of them of the Church of Rome, but of any other: so that briefly, a Cardinal Priest is nothing else but a bishop. In the writers before that age I find not this name at all. But I see that they were then less than bishops, whom they are now far above. This saying of Augustine is well known: Although according to the names of honor, which the use of the Church has already obtained, bishopric is greater than priesthood, yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome. Here indeed he makes difference between a priest of the Church of Rome and other: but he indifferently sets them all behind the bishops. And that was so long observed, that in the Council at Carthage, when there were present two legates of the see of Rome, the one a bishop, the other a priest, the priest was thrust back into the last place. But not to follow too old examples, there remains a Council held under Gregory at Rome, at which the priests sat in the lowest place, and subscribed severally by themselves, as for the Deacons, they had no place at all in subscribing. And truly they had then no office, but to be present and under the bishop at ministering of doctrine and of the sacraments. Now the case is so changed, that they are become the cousins of kings and Emperors. And it is no doubt but that they grew up by little and little together with their head, till they were advanced to this high top of dignity. But this also I thought good to touch shortly by the way, that the readers might the better understand, that the See of Rome, such as it is at this day, does much differ from that ancient one, under pretense whereof, it does now maintain and defend itself. But of whatever sort they were in old time, forasmuch as they have now nothing of the true and lawful office in the Church, they retain only a deceitful color and vain visor: indeed forasmuch as they have all things utterly contrary, it was necessary that that should happen to them, which Gregory writes so often. I say it (says he) weeping: I give warning of it, groaning: that since the order of priesthood is fallen within, it shall also not be able to stand long without. But rather it behooved that this should be fulfilled in them which Malachi says of such (Malachi 2:8): You have gone back out of the way, and have made many to stumble in the law. Therefore you have made void the covenant of Levi, says the Lord. Therefore behold I have given you out of estimation, and vile to all the people. Now I leave it to all the godly to think of what sort is that supreme height of the Hierarchy of Rome, to which the Papists with abominable shamelessness do not stick to make subject the very word of God, which ought to have been honorable and holy both to heaven and earth, men and Angels.

Regarding the historical roots of Rome's supremacy, the oldest evidence they can produce is the decree of the Nicene Council, in which the bishop of Rome is given the first place among the patriarchs and charged with overseeing the churches near the city. But when the council divided the patriarchs and assigned each his own region, it did not appoint Rome as head of all — it made Rome one of the chief. Vitus and Vincentius attended the council as representatives of Julius, who then governed the church of Rome, and they were assigned the fourth place. If Julius had been acknowledged as head of the church, would his legates have been placed in the fourth seat? Would Athanasius have presided over a council where the church's hierarchical order was supposed to be most clearly on display? At the Council of Ephesus, it appears that Celestinus, who was then bishop of Rome, used a devious tactic to protect his see's dignity. When he sent his delegates there, he entrusted his place to Cyrillus of Alexandria, who would otherwise naturally have presided. What was the point of this arrangement, if not to keep his name in the first place by whatever means possible? His legates sat in a lower seat, were asked their opinion in turn, and signed in their proper order — while the patriarch of Alexandria simply joined Celestinus's name to his own. What shall we say about the second Council of Ephesus, where Leo's legates were present and yet Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, sat in the first place as though it were his by right? Our opponents will object that it was not a valid council — it was there that the saintly Flavianus was condemned, Eutyches was acquitted, and his heresy was approved. But when the council gathered and the bishops took their places, Leo's legates sat among the rest just as they would in a legitimate council. Yet they did not claim the first seat — they yielded it to another. They would never have done this if they believed that seat was rightfully theirs. The bishops of Rome have never hesitated to enter the fiercest disputes over their dignity, and for that cause alone have frequently troubled the church with damaging conflicts. But Leo saw that it would be too unreasonable a demand to seek the first place for his legates — so he conceded it.

Then came the Council of Chalcedon, where by the emperor's grant the legates of the church of Rome sat in the first place. But Leo himself admitted that this was an exceptional privilege. When he petitioned the Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria for it, he did not claim it as his due — he argued only that the Eastern bishops who had presided at Ephesus had thrown everything into disorder and badly abused their authority. Since a sober presiding officer was needed, and since those who had behaved so carelessly and corruptly at Ephesus were obviously unfit for the role, Leo asked that the task of governing the council fall to him by reason of the others' failure and unfitness. What is obtained by special exception and outside of normal order is not part of the common law. When the only grounds given are that a new governor is needed because former governors behaved badly, it is clear that this arrangement was not the prior practice and is not meant to continue permanently — it was done only in response to the immediate situation. The bishop of Rome therefore presided at the Council of Chalcedon not because it belonged to his see by right, but because the council lacked a capable and sober presiding officer, while those who should have presided had through their own recklessness and bias disqualified themselves. And Leo's own successor proved as much. When he sent his legates to the Fifth Council of Constantinople, held long afterward, he did not quarrel over the first seat — he readily allowed Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, to preside. Similarly at the council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, it was not the legates of Rome but Aurelius, the archbishop of Carthage, who presided — even though the very authority of the bishop of Rome was one of the matters under discussion. There was even a general council held in Italy itself at which the bishop of Rome was not present. Ambrose presided, being held in very high regard by the emperor, and no mention was made of the bishop of Rome. At that time it was the dignity of Ambrose that made the see of Milan more distinguished than the see of Rome.

As for the title of supremacy and the other titles of pride in which Rome now so magnificently boasts, it is not difficult to judge when and how they crept in. Cyprian frequently mentions Cornelius. He refers to him with no other title than 'brother,' 'fellow bishop,' or 'colleague in office.' When Cyprian writes to Stephen, Cornelius's successor, he not only treats him as an equal but speaks to him more sharply — at times accusing him of arrogance, at other times of ignorance. From Cyprian we can also see what the whole church of Africa thought about this matter. The Council of Carthage forbade anyone to be called 'prince of priests' or 'chief bishop' — only 'bishop of the chief see.' If one reads the older records, one finds that at that time the bishop of Rome was content with the ordinary title of 'brother.' As long as the church retained its true and pure form, all these titles of pride — with which the see of Rome has since become so outrageous — were completely unheard of. There was no concept of a 'supreme bishop' or 'sole head of the church on earth.' And if the bishop of Rome had dared to claim such a thing, there were men of enough courage and wisdom to have immediately put down the presumption. Jerome was himself a priest at Rome and was not reluctant to speak well of his own church's dignity — as much as the circumstances of the times allowed. Yet we see how even he brings it down to equality with the rest. 'If authority is what we are seeking,' he says, 'the world is larger than a city. Why do you appeal to the custom of one city? Why do you defend the pride of a small number against the laws of the church? Wherever there is a bishop — whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or at Rhegium — he is of the same merit and the same priesthood. The power of wealth or the lowness of poverty does not make a bishop greater or lesser.'

The dispute over the title 'universal bishop' first arose in Gregory's time, triggered by the ambition of John, bishop of Constantinople, who tried — a thing no man before him had attempted — to make himself universal bishop. In that dispute Gregory does not argue that a right belonging to himself is being taken away. He speaks out forcefully against the title itself, calling it a profane name — indeed, full of sacrilege, and the herald of antichrist. 'If he who is called universal falls,' Gregory says, 'the whole church collapses with him.' Elsewhere: 'It is deeply grieving to endure patiently that our brother and fellow bishop, despising all others, should be called bishop alone. What else does this pride signal but that the times of antichrist are drawing near? For he follows the one who, despising the fellowship of the angels, sought to climb to the summit of singularity.' He writes to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: 'None of my predecessors ever used that profane word. For if one patriarch is called universal, the name of patriarch is diminished for all the rest. Far be it from any Christian mind to desire anything that would lessen — even slightly — the honor of his brothers. To agree to this wicked word is nothing less than to lose the faith.' 'I say it boldly,' he continues: 'whoever calls himself or desires to be called universal bishop, in his proud self-exaltation runs ahead of antichrist — for he lifts himself above the rest in arrogance.' To Anastasius of Alexandria: 'I have said that he cannot be at peace with us unless he abandons that arrogant and superstitious title, which the first apostate invented. And — setting aside what it takes from your own honor — if one man is called universal bishop, the universal church falls when that one man falls.' Now, Gregory claims this title was offered to Leo at the Council of Chalcedon — but this has no basis in fact. Nothing of the kind appears in the council's records. And Leo himself, who opposed in many letters the council's decree honoring the see of Constantinople, would certainly not have passed over such an argument — it would have been the strongest point of all — if it were true that he had refused the title when offered. Being a man not exactly deficient in love of honor, he would not have omitted anything that spoke well of him. So Gregory was mistaken in thinking the title was offered to Rome at Chalcedon. And it is rather absurd that he both credits a holy council with this offer and at the same time calls the title wicked, profane, abominable, proud, full of sacrilege, devised by the devil, and proclaimed by the herald of antichrist. He adds, though, that his predecessor refused it so that no single bishop would receive privately what belonged to all — lest all priests be stripped of their due honor. Elsewhere Gregory writes: 'No one at any time has wished to be called by that word. No one has seized that presumptuous name — for to claim in the episcopal office a glory of singularity would seem to deny that same standing to all one's brothers.'

Now I come to the question of jurisdiction — the authority over all churches that the bishop of Rome claims for himself. I know there have been great controversies about this for a long time. There has never been a period when the see of Rome was not reaching for an empire over other churches. It is worth tracing here, briefly, how it gradually acquired some degree of power. I am not yet speaking of the vast empire Rome has seized in more recent times — that I will address at a more fitting place. Here I want to show how in ancient times, and by what means, Rome extended its reach over other churches. When the Eastern churches were torn apart and troubled by the Arian factions under the emperors Constantius and Constans, sons of Constantine the Great, and when Athanasius — the chief defender of the true faith — was driven from his see, his situation compelled him to come to Rome. He hoped that through Rome's authority he might somewhat restrain the fury of his enemies and give encouragement to the godly who were under pressure. He was honorably received by Julius, then bishop of Rome, and succeeded in getting the Western bishops to take up his cause. When the godly were in desperate need of outside help, and saw that the church of Rome could offer real assistance, they willingly granted it as much authority as they could. But all of that amounted to nothing more than a high regard for Rome's fellowship and a sense that excommunication from it was a serious disgrace. Wicked people also added to Rome's power afterward, for their own reasons — they fled to it as a refuge to escape lawful judgments. Whenever a priest was condemned by his bishop, or a bishop by his provincial synod, they immediately appealed to Rome. The bishops of Rome received these appeals more eagerly than was fitting, since it gave them the appearance of extraordinary authority to reach into affairs far beyond their own territory. So when Eutyches was condemned by Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that he had been wronged. Without delay — and no less rashly than presumptuously — Leo took up the defense of a bad cause. He fiercely attacked Flavianus as though he had condemned an innocent man without a hearing. This ambition caused the heresy of Eutyches to gain strength for a time. The same pattern was clearly repeated in Africa. Whenever a corrupt man lost his case in a lawful judgment, he immediately fled to Rome and loaded his countrymen with accusations — and the see of Rome was always ready to interfere. This abuse compelled the bishops of Africa to pass a law that anyone who appealed beyond the sea would be excommunicated.

But whatever happened, let us examine what actual authority the see of Rome held in that era. Church authority has four components: consecrating bishops, summoning councils, hearing appeals and exercising jurisdiction, and issuing admonitions and censures. All the ancient councils directed that bishops be consecrated by their own metropolitans — they never called on the bishop of Rome to participate except within his own patriarchate. Over time, however, a custom developed in which all the bishops of Italy came to Rome to be consecrated — except for metropolitans, who refused to submit to that kind of dependence. When a metropolitan was to be consecrated, the bishop of Rome would send one of his priests to be present — but only as a witness, not as the presiding officer. Gregory provides an example of this at the consecration of Constantius as bishop of Milan after the death of Laurence. I do not think this was a very ancient practice. It likely began as a courtesy — sending delegates to witness and celebrate a consecration with their colleagues — and what started as voluntary gradually came to be treated as obligatory. Whatever the case, it is clear that in ancient times the bishop of Rome held no power of consecration outside his own patriarchate — that is, the churches near Rome — as the canon of the Nicene Council states. Attached to consecration was the practice of sending a synodical letter, in which the bishop of Rome stood no higher than anyone else. The patriarchs, immediately after their consecration, would issue a solemn statement of faith, by which they declared their agreement with the holy and catholic councils. By giving this account of their faith, they confirmed their fellowship with one another. If the bishop of Rome had received such a confession from others without giving one himself, he would have been recognized as superior. But since he was just as obligated to give it as to require it from others, and subject to the same common standard — this was clearly a mark of fellowship, not of dominion. Gregory's letters to Anastasius, to Cyriacus of Constantinople, and in other places to all the patriarchs together, provide examples of this.

Then there is the matter of admonitions and censures. Just as the bishops of Rome administered these to others in ancient times, they also received them from others. Irenaeus sharply rebuked Victor for recklessly troubling the church with a harmful division over a matter of no importance. Victor accepted the rebuke and did not push back. Such freedom existed among the holy bishops — they exercised a brotherly authority toward the bishop of Rome, admonishing and correcting him whenever he went wrong. And he in turn, when occasion called for it, would admonish others and rebuke their faults. When Cyprian urges Stephen to admonish the bishops of France, he does not appeal to superior authority — he appeals to the common right that priests share among themselves. Consider: if Stephen had actually been the ruler over France, would Cyprian not have said, 'Discipline them, because they are yours'? But he says nothing of the kind. He says: 'The brotherly fellowship by which we are bound to one another requires that we admonish each other.' And we see with what sharp language even the mild-tempered Cyprian attacks Stephen himself when he thinks Stephen is being too arrogant. So here again there is no evidence that the bishop of Rome held any jurisdiction over those outside his own province.

As for the calling of synods, it was the duty of every metropolitan to assemble a provincial synod at appointed intervals. The bishop of Rome had no authority in this. Only the emperor could summon a general council. If any bishop had attempted to do so, not only would those outside his province have refused to come — it would immediately have caused an uproar. So the emperor summoned all of them impartially. Socrates does report that Julius complained to the Eastern bishops for not inviting him to the Synod of Antioch, claiming that the canons forbade any decision to be made without the bishop of Rome's knowledge. But who cannot see that this refers to decrees that bind the whole universal church? It is no great surprise that, given the antiquity and prestige of the city and the dignity of the see, so much was granted as to say no universal decree on religion should be made in the bishop of Rome's absence — provided he was willing to be present. But what does that have to do with dominion over the whole church? We do not deny that he was one of the chief. What we deny is what the Romanists now assert — that he had authority over all.

The fourth kind of power concerns appeals, and it is clear that the one to whose judgment seat appeals are made holds the chief authority. Many people appealed to the bishop of Rome, and he himself tried to draw cases to himself — but whenever he overstepped his bounds, he was rebuffed. I will say nothing about the East and Greece. In France, the bishops firmly resisted him when he appeared to be claiming an empire over them. In Africa, the dispute went on for a long time. At the Council of Mileve — at which Augustine was present — those who appealed beyond the sea were excommunicated. The bishop of Rome then worked to have this decree reversed. He sent his legates to argue that the Nicene Council had granted him this privilege, and they produced acts of the Nicene Council — drawn from their own church's archives. The Africans opposed this, arguing that the bishops of Rome should not be trusted in their own case. They said they would send to Constantinople and other cities in Greece for copies that were less open to suspicion. It was found that the Roman copies contained nothing of the kind the Romans had claimed. So the original decree was confirmed — the one that removed the chief hearing of cases from the bishop of Rome — and in the process the bishop of Rome's shameless deception was exposed. By craftily substituting the Council of Sardica for the Nicene Council, he was caught in a plain and shameful lie. But even greater and more brazen was the wickedness of those who added a forged letter to the council's records — a letter in which some bishop of Carthage condemned the arrogance of his predecessor Aurelius for having dared to withdraw from obedience to the apostolic see, and humbly begged pardon for himself and his church. These are the fine monuments of antiquity on which the majesty of the see of Rome is built — forgeries so clumsy that even a blind man could detect them. The forged letter declared that Aurelius, 'puffed up with devilish boldness and stubbornness, had rebelled against Christ and Saint Peter and was therefore to be condemned with a curse.' What did Augustine say about this? What did so many of the fathers present at the Council of Mileve say? But why spend many words refuting a foolish document that even the Romanists themselves — if they have any shame left — cannot read without great embarrassment? Then there is Gratian, who — whether from malice or ignorance — in summarizing the decree of excommunication for those who appeal beyond the sea, added an exception: 'Unless perhaps they appeal to the see of Rome.' What can one do with such men, so devoid of basic reason that they exempt from a law the very thing the law was clearly made to address? The council, in condemning appeals beyond the sea, was forbidding appeals to Rome — and here the clever interpreter exempts Rome from the law.

To settle this question once and for all, one historical episode will make plain what kind of jurisdiction the bishop of Rome actually held in ancient times. Donatus of the Black Houses accused Cecilian, bishop of Carthage. The accused was condemned without being heard — he knew the bishops had conspired against him and did not appear. The matter then came before the Emperor Constantine, who, wishing it to be settled by ecclesiastical judgment, assigned the hearing to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and joined to him many bishops from Italy, France, and Spain as fellow commissioners. If hearing an appeal in a church matter belonged to the ordinary jurisdiction of the see of Rome, why did Constantine appoint others alongside him as he pleased? And why did Miltiades himself accept the role by the emperor's command rather than by his own office? Here is what happened: Cecilian prevailed; Donatus of the Black Houses was condemned for slander and then appealed. Constantine assigned the hearing of the appeal to the bishop of Orleans, who sat as judge after the bishop of Rome to pronounce his verdict. If the see of Rome holds supreme authority with no appeal above it, why did Miltiades suffer the humiliation of having the bishop of Orleans placed over him? And who did this? Constantine — the very emperor the Romanists boast of as having devoted not only all his efforts but nearly all the empire's wealth to advancing the dignity of their see. We see plainly, then, how far the bishop of Rome was from that supreme dominion over all churches which he claims was given to him by Christ — and which he falsely asserts he has always possessed by the universal consent of the whole world.

I know there are many letters, writings, and decrees in which bishops give and boldly claim great authority for the see of Rome. But everyone with even a little wit and learning knows that most of these are so obviously fabricated that a single reading reveals where they came from. What person of sound judgment would believe that the interpretation in Gratian, attributed to Anacletus — that 'Cephas means head' — actually came from Anacletus? The Romanists still use many such worthless documents today, patched together by Gratian without any critical judgment. And yet, even in broad daylight, they continue to peddle these forgeries with which they once deceived the ignorant in darker times. I will not spend much effort refuting things that openly refute themselves by their own obvious absurdity. I grant that genuine letters of the early bishops remain, in which they speak of their see with grand titles — some of Leo's letters are of this kind. Leo was a learned and eloquent man, but he was also excessively hungry for glory and power. Whether the churches at that time actually accepted his self-promotion is precisely what is in dispute. And it is clear that many were offended by his ambition and actively resisted his grasping. At times he appointed the bishop of Thessalonica as his representative throughout Greece and neighboring regions; at other times he appointed the bishop of Orleans or another for France. He appointed Hormisdas of Seville as his vicar in Spain — but always with the condition that the metropolitans would retain their ancient privileges intact. Leo himself explains that one of those privileges was that whenever any question arose, the metropolitan was to be consulted first. So these appointments of vicars were made on the condition that no bishop would be hindered in his ordinary jurisdiction, no metropolitan in hearing appeals, and no provincial council in governing its own churches. What was this, then, but staying out of all jurisdiction — intervening only to help resolve conflicts, and only as far as the law and nature of church fellowship allowed?

By Gregory's time, the ancient order had already changed considerably. When the empire was shaken and torn apart — France and Spain suffering repeated defeats, the Slavic regions devastated, Italy troubled, and Africa almost destroyed by relentless disasters — the bishops from every region attached themselves more closely to the bishop of Rome, hoping that in such political upheaval the integrity of the faith might at least survive. As a result, not only the dignity but also the power of that see grew substantially. Still, however that came about, there was still a great distance between what existed then and the unchecked dominion in which one man rules over others by his own will. The see of Rome's authority was such that it could bring pressure to bear on the unruly and stubborn who could not be kept in line by their own bishops. Gregory frequently and carefully testifies to this — that he preserved others' rights just as faithfully as he claimed his own. 'I am not,' he says, 'driven by ambition to take from any man what belongs to him. I desire in all things to honor my brothers.' The most sweeping claim of supremacy found in his writings is this: 'I know not what bishop is not subject to the apostolic see when he is found in fault.' But he immediately adds: 'Where fault does not require it, all are equal according to the order of humility.' He claims authority to correct those who have offended — but when all are doing their duty, he places himself on equal footing with the rest. And he assumed this authority on his own terms: those who agreed, agreed; those who did not were free to refuse — and most of them clearly did. Beyond that, the specific case he was addressing concerned the primate of Constantinople, who had been condemned by his provincial synod and refused to accept the judgment. His fellow bishops informed the emperor of this stubbornness, and the emperor asked Gregory to adjudicate the case. We see, then, that Gregory attempted nothing that would undermine ordinary jurisdiction, and that what he did to assist others he did only at the emperor's direction.

This, then, was the full extent of the bishop of Rome's power: to set himself against obstinate and unruly individuals when an extraordinary remedy was needed — and to help bishops, not to hinder them. He therefore claimed no more authority over others than he elsewhere granted others over himself, for he openly acknowledged he was ready to be corrected and instructed by all. In one instance he did summon the bishop of Aquileia to come to Rome to answer for a controversy of faith that had arisen between him and others — but he did so not by his own authority, only because the emperor had directed it. And he did not appoint himself as sole judge; he promised to assemble a synod by whom the whole matter would be decided. Yet even with such restraint — even when the see of Rome's power had clear limits it could not exceed, and the bishop of Rome stood no higher than the others — Gregory himself clearly disliked this state of affairs. He complained at times that the bishopric had drawn him back into the world, and that he was more entangled in earthly concerns than he had ever been as a layman. He felt crushed by the weight of worldly business. Elsewhere he writes: 'Such great burdens of business weigh me down that my mind cannot lift itself at all toward things above. I am tossed by many waves of disputes, and after any brief moment of rest I am thrown into the storms of troublesome life — so that I can rightly say, I have gone into the depths of the sea, and the tempest has overwhelmed me.' From this, judge what he would have said had he lived in our times. Though he did not always fully carry out the duties of a pastor, he was striving to do so. He kept out of civil government, and acknowledged himself subject to the emperor like everyone else. He did not involve himself in other churches except under the compulsion of necessity. And yet he felt he was lost in a maze, because he could not give himself wholly to the bishop's office.

At that time the bishop of Constantinople was contending with the bishop of Rome for supremacy, as has already been mentioned. After the seat of the empire was established at Constantinople, it seemed natural that this church should have the second place of honor after Rome. And indeed, what first gave Rome its supremacy was precisely the fact that the seat of the empire had been there. In Gratian there is a writing under the name of Pope Lucius, stating that the boundaries of metropolitans and primates were arranged according to the pre-existing civil government. There is also another under the name of Pope Clement, saying that patriarchs were ordained in cities that had previously held the chief flamens. Though this claim is false in itself, it is derived from something true. It is certain that, to minimize disruption, provinces were divided in accordance with the existing political order, and that primates and metropolitans were placed in cities that already held civil prominence and power. The Council of Turin decreed that cities which were the chief cities of their provinces in civil government should also be the chief episcopal sees — and that if civil preeminence moved from one city to another, the metropolitan rights should move with it. But Innocent, bishop of Rome, seeing his city's ancient prestige declining after the seat of empire had moved to Constantinople, and fearing the diminishment of his see, issued a contrary ruling: that ecclesiastical mother-churches need not change as imperial capitals change. But the authority of a council rightly outweighs the judgment of one man — and we should be suspicious of Innocent's opinion in his own case. Nevertheless, even his own rule shows that from the beginning, the arrangement of metropolitan sees followed the external order of the empire.

In keeping with this ancient arrangement, the First Council of Constantinople decreed that the bishop of that city should have privileges of honor second only to the bishop of Rome, since it was the 'new Rome.' Much later, when a similar decree was made at Chalcedon, Leo raised a fierce objection. He took it upon himself to set aside what more than six hundred bishops had decreed, and bitterly criticized them for giving to Constantinople an honor taken from other sees. What could move a man to trouble the whole church over such a matter, except pure ambition? He argued that what the Nicene Council had once decreed must be treated as inviolable — as though the Christian faith were in danger if one church ranked above another, or as though patriarchates had been divided for any purpose other than practical administration. But we know that practical arrangements are changed — indeed, must be changed — as times change. So Leo's argument that the honor given to Alexandria by the Nicene Council could not be given to Constantinople was groundless. Common sense tells us that such a decree was the kind that could rightly be adjusted as circumstances required. And none of the Eastern bishops — who were most directly concerned — opposed the change. Proterius was present, having been made bishop of Alexandria in Dioscorus's place. The other patriarchs whose honor was diminished were also present. If anyone should have objected, it was they, not Leo, whose own position remained unaffected. But when all of them stayed silent — indeed, assented — and only the bishop of Rome resisted, it is easy to see his motive: he foresaw that what shortly came to pass — that as old Rome's glory declined, Constantinople would not be content with second place but would challenge Rome for the supremacy. Yet his protests did not prevail, and the council's decree was confirmed. His successors, seeing they were overruled, quietly abandoned their resistance and accepted Constantinople as the second patriarchate.

Not long after, John, who governed the church of Constantinople in Gregory's time, went so far as to call himself the universal patriarch. Gregory, not willing to fail in defending his own see in so just a cause, stood firmly against him. John's pride and arrogance were indeed intolerable — he wanted the boundaries of his bishopric to extend as far as the empire itself. And yet Gregory does not claim for himself what he denies to another. He rejects the title as wicked, ungodly, and abominable, whoever takes it. He even rebuked Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, for honoring him with the same title. 'Look,' he says, 'in the preface of the letter you addressed to me, you have used the word of proud address in calling me the universal pope — though I have forbidden it. I beg your holiness not to do this again, for what is given to another beyond reason is taken from you. I consider it no honor if I see my brothers' honor diminished in it. My honor is the honor of the universal church, and the full strength of my brothers. But if your holiness calls me the universal pope, you deny yourself to be what you acknowledge me fully to be.' Gregory stood in a right and honest cause. But John, supported by the favor of the Emperor Maurice, could never be moved from his position, and Cyriacus, his successor, never allowed himself to be persuaded in this matter either.

In the end, Phocas — who seized power after murdering Maurice, and who was more friendly to Rome for reasons I cannot say, though perhaps because he had been crowned there without opposition — granted to Boniface III what Gregory had never sought: that Rome should be the head of all churches. That is how the controversy was resolved. Yet this imperial grant could not by itself have benefited the see of Rome so greatly, had other things not followed. Greece and all of Asia were soon afterward cut off from Rome's communion. France gave Rome some reverence, but obeyed no further than it pleased. It was not fully brought into subjection until Pepin seized the kingdom. The bishop of Rome, Zachary, had helped Pepin break his oath and seize what was not his — supporting the overthrow of the lawful king so that Pepin could violently enter upon the kingdom as plunder. His reward was that the see of Rome would have jurisdiction over the churches of France. Like robbers dividing their spoils, these two arranged the matter between themselves: Pepin would have earthly and civil dominion, taken from the rightful king, and Zachary would be made head of all bishops with spiritual power. This power was at first weak, as is common with newly established things, but was later strengthened by the authority of Charlemagne, for a similar reason — he too was indebted to the bishop of Rome, whose efforts had helped him attain the honor of the imperial title. Although the churches everywhere were likely already badly deformed before this, it is certain that the ancient form of the church was first utterly destroyed in France and Germany at that time. Brief records from those days still survive in the archives of the Paris court, and where they deal with church matters they mention the agreements of both Pepin and Charlemagne with the bishop of Rome. From these we can conclude that a fundamental change in the old order was made at that time.

After that, as things continued to worsen everywhere day by day, the tyranny of the Roman see was gradually established and increased -- partly through the ignorance and partly through the laziness of the bishops. For when one man seized control of everything and kept pushing to advance himself beyond all limits and against all law and right, the bishops did not resist his ambition with the zeal they should have. Though they did not lack courage, they lacked true learning and knowledge, and so they were completely unfit to take on so great a challenge. Because of this, we can see what a monstrous and unholy corruption of all sacred things, and what a scattering of all church order, existed in Bernard's time. He complains that from all over the world there flocked to Rome in crowds the ambitious, the greedy, those guilty of simony, robbers of God, keepers of mistresses, those guilty of incest, and every kind of such monster -- all seeking to obtain or hold onto church offices through papal authority. He adds that fraud, scheming, and violence had become the norm. He says that the manner of conducting trials at that time was disgraceful, unworthy not only of the church but even of a civil court. He cries out that the church is full of ambitious men, and that none of them fear committing wicked acts any more than robbers in their den fear dividing the spoils of travelers. Few, he says, look to the lawgiver's mouth; they look to his hands. And not without reason. For those hands do all the Pope's business. What kind of thing is this -- that they are bought with the plunder of churches, these people who say to you, "Well done, well done"? The livelihood of the poor is scattered in the streets of the rich. Silver gleams in the mud. People run to it from every direction -- not the poor but the powerful snatch it up, or perhaps whoever runs fastest. But this practice, or rather this death, did not begin with you. I wish it might end with you. In the midst of all this, you as pastor go forward, surrounded by much costly display. If I dare say it, these are the pastors of devils rather than of sheep. Peter certainly did not do this. Paul did not play this role. Your court is more accustomed to receiving good men than to making them good. For the wicked do not improve there, but the good deteriorate. Now, as for the abuses of appeals that he describes, no godly person can read about them without great horror. At last he concludes his account of the unbridled greed of the Roman see in seizing jurisdiction with these words: I am voicing the murmur and common complaint of the churches. They cry out that they are being mangled and torn apart. There are either none or very few who do not either mourn or fear this plague. Do you ask what plague? The abbots are torn from the bishops, the bishops from the archbishops, and so on. It would be remarkable if this could be excused. By doing this you prove that you have the fullness of power, but not of righteousness. You do this because you can. But whether you also ought to is the question. You are appointed to preserve, not to begrudge, every person's honor and proper place. I chose to quote these few things out of many, partly so that readers may see how badly the church had deteriorated, and partly so that they may understand what great sorrow and grief this disaster caused all the godly.

But now, even if we grant the bishop of Rome today the same prominence and breadth of jurisdiction that the Roman see held in the intervening centuries -- such as in the times of Leo and Gregory -- what does that have to do with the current state of the papacy? I am not yet speaking about the earthly dominion or civil power of the papacy, which I will address later in its proper place. But regarding the very spiritual government they boast of -- what does it have in common with the state of those earlier times? For they define the Pope as nothing less than the supreme head of the church on earth and the universal bishop of the whole world. And the popes themselves, when they speak of their own authority, boldly declare that they have the power to command and others are bound to obey. They insist that all their decrees should be treated as if confirmed by the divine voice of Peter, that provincial synods have no force because the Pope is not present, that they may appoint clergy in any church they wish, and that they may summon to their own see those who were ordained elsewhere. Countless claims of this sort are found in Gratian's collection, which I will not rehearse now so as not to bore the readers. But the sum of it all is this: that only the bishop of Rome has the supreme authority to hear and decide all church matters -- whether in judging and defining doctrine, making laws, establishing discipline, or carrying out judgments. It would also be tedious and unnecessary to list the privileges they claim for themselves in what they call "reservations." But most intolerable of all, they allow no court on earth to restrain or check their unchecked power, even if they abuse such immense authority. No one, they say, may overturn the judgment of that see, because of the supremacy of the church of Rome. Again: The pope shall be judged neither by the emperor, nor by kings, nor by all the clergy, nor by the people. This is indeed imperious in the extreme -- that one man makes himself judge over everyone else and refuses to submit to anyone's judgment. But what if he acts as a tyrant over God's people? What if he scatters and devastates the kingdom of Christ? What if he throws the whole church into turmoil? What if he turns the pastor's office into robbery? Indeed, even if he is the most wicked man alive, he says he is not obligated to give an account. For these are the popes' own words: God's will was to have the cases of other men decided by men, but He has without question reserved the bishop of this see to His own judgment alone. Again: The actions of our subjects are judged by us, but ours by God alone.

And to give such decrees more weight, they have falsely attached the names of ancient bishops, as though things had been arranged this way from the beginning. But it is absolutely certain that whatever the bishop of Rome claims for himself beyond what we have shown was granted by the ancient councils is new and recently fabricated. Indeed, they have reached such brazenness that they have published a document under the name of Anastasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in which he supposedly testifies that the ancient rules decreed that nothing should be done even in the most remote provinces without first being referred to the Roman see. Besides the fact that this is clearly a complete fraud, what reasonable person would believe that such a commendation of the Roman see came from the very man who was its rival and envied its honor and dignity? But truly it was fitting that these antichrists should be driven to such great madness and blindness, so that their wickedness would be plain for everyone to see -- at least for all who are willing to open their eyes. But the decretal epistles compiled by Gregory IX, along with the Clementines and Extravagantes of Martin, breathe out their outrageous ferocity even more openly and fully on every page -- like the tyranny of barbaric kings. But these are the oracles by which the Romanists want their papacy to be measured. From this arose those well-known principles that today hold the force of oracles throughout the papacy: that the Pope cannot err, that the Pope is above the councils, that the Pope is the universal bishop of all bishops and the supreme head of the church on earth. I pass over the far more absurd nonsense that the foolish canonists babble in their schools -- claims to which the Roman theologians not only agree but even applaud, flattering their idol.

I will not press them with the full force of the argument. Someone else might set against their great arrogance the words of Cyprian, which he spoke at a council where he presided as chief bishop: None of us calls himself bishop of bishops, or uses tyrannical fear to compel his fellow bishops to obey. That person might also cite what was soon afterward decreed at Carthage: that no one should be called prince of priests or chief bishop. He could gather many testimonies from histories, canons from synods, and many statements from the works of ancient writers, all of which would bring the bishop of Rome down to the level of his fellow bishops. But I pass over all of these, so that I do not appear to press the point too hard. But let the best defenders of the Roman see answer me this: with what face do they dare uphold the title of universal bishop, which they see Gregory so often condemned with a curse? If Gregory's testimony carries any weight, then by their own logic they are declaring that their bishop is the Antichrist, since they make him universal. The title of "head" was equally uncommon. For Gregory says in one place: Peter is the chief member in the body. John, Andrew, and James are heads of particular peoples. Yet they are all members of the church under one head. Indeed, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, and the saints under grace are all set among the members, altogether making up the body of the Lord. And no one ever wished to be called universal. But the bishop of Rome's claim to the power of commanding fits poorly with what Gregory says elsewhere. For when Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, said that he had been commanded by Gregory, Gregory answered in this way: I ask you, take that word "commanding" away from my hearing. For I know what I am and what you are. In rank, you are my brothers. In character, you are my fathers. Therefore I did not command; I simply took care to share what I thought was useful. When the pope extends his jurisdiction without limit, he does great and serious wrong not only to the other bishops but also to every individual church, which he tears apart and dismembers so that he may build his own seat on their ruins. And when he exempts himself from all judgment and rules like a tyrant, treating his own whim alone as law, this is so outrageous and so far removed from proper church order that it cannot be tolerated in any way. It goes against not only every sense of godliness but also basic humanity.

Rather than going through everything point by point, I appeal again to those who today consider themselves the best and most faithful defenders of the see of Rome: are they not ashamed to defend the present state of the papacy? It is certainly a hundred times more corrupt than it was in the days of Gregory and Bernard — and yet those holy men were already deeply troubled by what they saw. Gregory complains throughout his writings that he is pulled too far in too many directions by outside business; that the bishopric has brought him back to the world; that he carries more worldly anxieties as a bishop than he ever did as a layman; that he is crushed by the weight of earthly affairs and his mind cannot rise toward heavenly things; that he is tossed by many waves of disputes and the storms of a troubled life, so that he can rightly say, 'I have gone into the depths of the sea.' And yet, amid all those earthly burdens, Gregory was still able to preach to the people, to privately admonish and correct those who needed it, to organize his church, to counsel and encourage his fellow bishops — and even to find time to write. And still he mourned that he was drowning in the deepest sea. If the governance of that time was a sea, what words describe the papacy today? There is no resemblance between them. Today there is no preaching, no concern for discipline, no zeal for the churches, no spiritual activity — nothing but the world. And yet this maze is praised as though nothing more orderly or well-structured could be imagined. But what complaints does Bernard pour out, what grief does he express, when he surveys the failures of his own age? What would he say if he could see our age — the age of iron, or something worse if anything can be worse? What stubborn wickedness it is to not only defend as holy and divine what every holy father has condemned with one voice — but to use their very testimony to defend a papacy they never knew and would never have recognized. I will grant, though, that by Bernard's time the corruption of everything had grown so severe that it was not very different from our own day. But to claim any justification from the intermediate period — the time of Leo, Gregory, and their like — is shameless. It is like someone who, to establish the emperor's absolute monarchy, praises the old Roman republic — borrowing the praises of liberty to glorify tyranny.

Even if all their claims were granted, a new problem immediately arises: we deny that there is a true church at Rome in which such privileges could reside, and we deny that there is a true bishop there who could carry these marks of dignity. So suppose we concede everything — though we have already taken it all from them by argument: that Peter was appointed by Christ as head of the universal church; that he left his honor in the see of Rome; that this was established by the authority of the ancient church and confirmed by long continuance; that supreme power has always been given by universal consent to the bishop of Rome; that he has been judge of all cases and all persons, accountable to no one's judgment. Grant them even more if they wish — my answer in a single word is: none of it matters unless there is actually a church and a bishop in Rome. This they must grant: a body that is not itself a church cannot be the mother of churches. A man who is not himself a bishop cannot be the chief of bishops. Do they want an apostolic see at Rome? Then let them show me a true and lawful apostleship. Do they want a chief bishop? Then let them show me a bishop. But where will they find even the outward form of a church? They name one — it is always on their lips. But the church is known by certain marks, and 'bishopric' is the name of an office. I am not speaking of the people — I am speaking of the governance itself, which ought always to be visible and active in the church. Where in their church is the ministry that Christ's institution requires? Let us recall what was said earlier about the office of priests and bishops. If we evaluate the cardinals' office by that standard, we will have to admit they are anything but priests. And as for the chief bishop himself — I would like to know a single thing about him that is actually episcopal. The principal duty of a bishop is to teach the people with God's word. The second is to administer the sacraments. The third is to admonish and exhort, to correct those who sin, and to hold the people together in holy discipline. Which of these does he do? Which does he even pretend to do? Let them explain, then, by what reasoning they would have this man counted a bishop — a man who does not touch even a single part of the bishop's office, even with his little finger, even in outward appearance.

A bishop is not like a king in this respect. A king, even if he fails to do what belongs to a king, still retains the honor and title. But in judging whether someone is a bishop, Christ's commandment is the standard — and that commandment must always hold authority in the church. So let the Romanists untie this knot for me. I deny that their high bishop is the chief of bishops, on the grounds that he is no bishop at all. They must disprove this second point if they hope to win the first. But what will they say to the fact that he not only lacks all the qualities of a bishop, but actually embodies the opposite? Where shall I begin, O God? With his teaching, or with his conduct? What shall I say? What shall I leave unsaid? Where shall I stop? This I say: the world today is filled with so many corrupt and wicked doctrines, so many kinds of superstition, so much blindness of error, so deep in idolatry — and there is not one of these things anywhere that has not either originated in Rome or been confirmed there. The only reason the bishops attack the newly recovering Gospel with such fury, strain every effort to suppress it, and stir up kings and princes to cruelty — is that they see their entire kingdom crumbling the moment the Gospel of Christ enters. Leo was cruel; Clement was bloodthirsty; Paul is a merciless killer. But it is not so much their natural temperament that drives them to fight the truth — it is that this is their only means of holding onto power. They cannot survive unless Christ is driven away, so they fight for this cause as men fighting for their religion, their country, and their very lives. What then? Shall that be to us the apostolic see, where nothing is visible but horrible apostasy? Shall he be Christ's vicar who, by persecuting the Gospel with furious assaults, openly declares himself to be antichrist? Shall he be Peter's successor who ranges with sword and fire to destroy all that Peter ever built? Shall he be head of the church who cuts the church off from Christ — the only true head — and tears it to pieces? Even if Rome was once in ancient times the mother of all churches — since it became the seat of antichrist, it has ceased to be what it once was.

We may seem to be too harsh and abusive when we call the bishop of Rome antichrist. But those who think so do not realize they are accusing Paul of immodesty — for we speak after Paul, or rather from Paul's own mouth. And to prevent anyone from objecting that we wrongly apply Paul's words to the bishop of Rome when they were meant for something else, I will briefly show that they cannot be understood in any other way than as pointing to the papacy. Paul writes that antichrist will sit in the temple of God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Elsewhere the Holy Spirit, describing antichrist's character in the figure of Antiochus, shows that his kingdom will consist in lofty speech and blasphemies against God (Daniel 7:25). From this we understand that the kingdom being raised up against Christ's spiritual kingdom is a tyranny over souls rather than bodies. And it is a tyranny that does not abolish the name of Christ and the church — but rather exploits Christ's name, lurking under the title of the church as under a disguise. Now while all heresies and sects that have ever existed belong in some sense to the kingdom of antichrist, Paul's prophecy of 'a great falling away' points to a specific time when the seat of abomination would be established — when a widespread apostasy would overtake the church, even while many individual members remained in the true unity of faith. And when Paul adds that in his own time the work of iniquity was already beginning in secret, before it would later be revealed openly — by this we understand that this disaster was not to be brought in by one man, nor ended with one man. Since Paul identifies antichrist by this mark — that he would steal from God the honor due to God alone and claim it for himself — this is the chief sign we must look for in identifying antichrist, especially when such pride goes so far as to openly devastate the church. Since it is certain that the bishop of Rome has shamelessly seized for himself what belongs to God and Christ alone, there is no doubt that he is the captain and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom.

Now let the Romanists appeal to antiquity against us — as though in so total a collapse of everything, the honor of a see could remain where there is no longer a true see. Eusebius tells how God, to make room for His judgment, transferred the church that was at Jerusalem to Pella. What happened once can happen again. So to tie the honor of supremacy so firmly to a place that someone who is in truth the most hateful enemy of Christ, the greatest adversary of the Gospel, the worst destroyer and ravager of the church, the most cruel killer of the saints — that such a man should still be considered the vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, and the chief bishop of the church, simply because he occupies what was once the highest see — that is too foolish to be taken seriously. I will not even speak of how vast the difference is between the pope's chancery and a rightly ordered church. But this one thing alone should settle all doubt: no one in his right mind would locate a bishopric in lead seals and official bulls — much less in that school of fraud and deceit in which the pope's so-called spiritual governance consists. Therefore it was well said by someone that the church of Rome everyone boasts about has long since been turned into a court — and a court is all that now exists in Rome. I am not here accusing the faults of individual men. I am showing that the papacy itself stands directly opposed to the true order of a church.

But if we come to the actual persons, it is well enough known what kind of vicars of Christ we will find. Julius, Leo, Clement, and Paul are to be pillars of the Christian faith and the leading interpreters of religion — men who never knew anything about Christ except what they learned from Lucian's school of mockery. But why single out three or four popes? As though it were in any doubt what kind of religion the popes together with their whole college of cardinals have long professed — and still profess today. For the first article of the secret theology that reigns among them is this: there is no God. The second: everything written and taught about Christ is lies and deceit. The third: the doctrine of the life to come and the last resurrection is pure fable. Not all of them think this way, and few say it openly — I grant that. But this has long since become the ordinary religion of the popes. And yet, though this is perfectly well known to everyone who knows Rome, the Roman theologians do not stop boasting that by Christ's special provision the pope cannot err — because Christ said to Peter, 'I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail.' What do they gain by such shameless mockery, except to let the whole world see that they have reached such a depth of wickedness that they fear neither God nor man?

But suppose we imagine that the ungodliness of those popes I mentioned is hidden — they did not publish it in sermons or in writing, only revealing it at table, in private chambers, or at least within the walls of their houses. Even then, if they want this privilege of infallibility to stand, they must erase John XXII from the list of popes — the man who publicly declared that souls are mortal and die with the body until the day of resurrection. And so you may understand that the entire see had by then completely collapsed at its foundations: not one of all the cardinals opposed so great a madness. It was the university of Paris that moved the king of France to force him to recant. The king forbade his subjects to have any dealings with John unless he immediately repented — and proclaimed this by herald, as was the custom. Compelled by this pressure, the pope abjured his error. This example alone removes any need to dispute further over their claim that the see of Rome and its bishops cannot err in faith, because Christ said to Peter, 'I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail.' John fell from right faith in so disgraceful a manner that he stands as a clear warning to those who come after — not everyone who succeeds Peter in the bishopric is a Peter. But the argument is so weak on its own that it needs no answer. For if every statement made to Peter is to be applied to his successors, it will follow that they are all Satans — since the Lord also said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan, you are an offense to me.' It is just as easy for us to turn that saying against them as it is for them to use the other against us.

But I have no wish to compete with them in foolishness. So I return to where I digressed from. To bind the place, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the church so tightly together that whoever sits in that seat — even if he is the devil himself — must be judged the vicar of Christ and the head of the church, simply because the seat was once Peter's: this is not only wicked and an insult to Christ, but also absurd beyond all reason. For a long time now the bishops of Rome have been either utterly without religion or the most active enemies of religion. They are therefore no more made vicars of Christ by the seat they occupy than an idol set up in God's temple is to be received as God. Now if their conduct is to be judged, let the popes answer for themselves: what single thing is there about them by which they could be recognized as bishops? First, the kind of life common at Rome — which they not only ignore but appear to quietly approve — is completely incompatible with the bishop's duty, which is to restrain the people's licentiousness with firm discipline. But I will not be too hard on them by holding them responsible for other men's sins. Yet when they themselves — with their own households, with nearly the whole college of cardinals, with the whole multitude of their clergy — are so given over to every kind of wickedness, filth, depravity, and corrupt behavior that they more closely resemble monsters than men: in this they plainly show themselves to be anything but bishops. Yet they need not fear that I will expose their filth any further. I am weary of wading through such foul mud, I must have some regard for my readers' decency, and I believe I have already more than sufficiently proved the point I set out to make: that even if Rome was once in ancient times the head of the churches, today it is not worthy to be counted even the smallest toe of the churches' feet.

As for the cardinals — as they are called — I cannot explain how they have so suddenly risen to such great dignity. In Gregory's time the title belonged to bishops only. Whenever Gregory mentions cardinals, he refers not to those of the Roman church specifically, but to any bishop anywhere — so that in short, a cardinal priest was simply a bishop. I find this title nowhere in writers before that period. But I see that those who then held it ranked below bishops — whereas today cardinals stand far above them. Augustine's well-known saying is relevant here: 'Although in terms of the titles of honor which church custom has established, a bishopric is greater than a priesthood — yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome.' He does distinguish the priest of the Roman church from others — but he places all priests below bishops without exception. This was observed so consistently that at the Council of Carthage, when two legates of the see of Rome were present — one a bishop, the other a priest — the priest was placed in the last seat. And to avoid going too far back: there is a council held at Rome under Gregory at which priests sat in the lowest place and signed separately; deacons had no place in the signing at all. At that time priests had no office other than to assist the bishop in the ministry of teaching and the sacraments. Now everything has changed — cardinals have become the cousins of kings and emperors. There is no doubt that they grew step by step alongside their head, until they were elevated to this pinnacle of dignity. I thought it worth noting briefly in passing, so that readers might better understand that the see of Rome as it exists today differs enormously from the ancient see under whose pretense it now defends itself. But whatever they once were — since they now hold nothing of a true and lawful office in the church, retaining only a deceptive appearance and an empty disguise, and having everything turned into its opposite — it was inevitable that what Gregory so often wrote would come upon them. 'I say it weeping,' he writes, 'I give warning of it with groaning: since the order of priesthood has fallen within, it will not be able to stand long without.' But more fittingly, what Malachi says should be fulfilled in them: 'You have turned aside from the way and have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord. So I also have made you despised and abased before all the people' (Malachi 2:8). I now leave it to all the godly to judge what kind of thing this supreme height of Rome's hierarchy is — to which the papists with shameless audacity do not hesitate to subject the very word of God, which ought to be held in honor and reverence by heaven and earth, by men and angels alike.