CHAPTER VI.04

X. Paul gives us a lively description of the church on various occasions, but without making any mention of its having one head upon earth. On the contrary, from the description which he gives, we may rather infer that such a notion is foreign from the institution of Christ. Christ, at his ascension, withdrew from us his visible presence; nevertheless “he ascended that he might fill all things.”

[884]

He is still, therefore, present, and will always continue present with the Church. With a view to show us the manner in which he manifests himself, Paul calls our attention to the offices which he employs. There is “one Lord,” he says, “in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. And he gave some, apostles; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.”

[885]

Why does he not say, that he has appointed one to preside over all as his vicegerent? For his subject absolutely required it, and it ought by no means to have been omitted, if it had been true. “Christ,” he says, “is present with us.” How? “By the ministry of men whom he has appointed to the government of the Church.” Why not rather, “By the ministerial head, to whom he has delegated his authority?” He mentions a unity; but it is in God, and in the faith of Christ. He attributes nothing to men but a common ministry, and to every individual his particular share. In that commendation of unity, after having said, “There is one body, one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,”

[886]

why has he not likewise immediately added, “one supreme pontiff to preserve the Church in unity?” For if it had been true, nothing could have been more proper. Let that passage be duly considered. There is no doubt that he intends there a representation of the sacred and spiritual government of the Church, which has since received the name of hierarchy. Monarchy among ministers, or the government of one over all the rest, he not only does not mention, but indicates that there is no such thing. There is no doubt also that he meant to express the nature of the union, by which the faithful are connected with Christ their Head. Now, he not only makes no mention of any ministerial head, but attributes to every one of the members a particular operation, according to the measure of grace distributed to each. Nor is there any foundation for their far-fetched argument from a comparison of the heavenly and earthly hierarchy; for, in judging of the former, it is not safe to go beyond the discoveries of the Scripture, and in constituting the latter, it is not right to follow any other model than that which the Lord himself has delineated in his word.

XI. Now, though I should make them another concession, which they will never obtain from judicious persons, that the primacy of the Church was established in Peter, and to be continued by a perpetual succession, how will they prove that its seat was fixed at Rome, so that whoever is bishop of that city must preside over the whole world? By what right do they restrict to one place this dignity, which was conferred without the mention of any place? Peter, they say, lived and died at Rome. What shall we say of Christ himself? Was it not at Jerusalem that he exercised the office of a bishop while he lived, and fulfilled the priestly office by his death? The Prince of pastors, the supreme Bishop, the Head of the Church, could not obtain this honour for the place where he lived and died; how then could Peter, who was far inferior to him? Are not these follies worse than puerile? Christ gave the honour of primacy to Peter; Peter settled at Rome; therefore he fixed the seat of the primacy in that city. For the same reason the ancient Israelites ought to have fixed the seat of their primacy in the desert, because it was there that Moses, their chief teacher, and the prince of their prophets, exercised his ministry, and died.

XII. Let us see how wretchedly they reason. Peter, they say, had the preëminence among the apostles. Therefore, the Church in which he settled ought to have this privilege. But where was he first stationed? They reply, at Antioch. Then I infer that the Church of Antioch is justly entitled to the primacy. They confess that it was originally the first, but allege that Peter, on his removal from it, transferred the honour which was attached to him to Rome. For there is an epistle of Pope Marcellus to the presbyters of Antioch, in which he says, “The see of Peter was at first among you, but at the command of the Lord was afterwards removed to this city.” So the Church of Antioch, which was originally the first, has given place to the see of Rome. But I ask, By what oracle did that wise pope know that the Lord had commanded this? For if this cause is to be decided on the footing of right, it is necessary for them to answer, whether this privilege be personal, or real, or mixed. It must be one of these. If they affirm it to be personal, then it has nothing to do with the place. If they allege it to be real, then when it has once been given to a place, it cannot be taken away from it by the death or removal of the person. It remains, therefore, for them to declare it to be mixed; and then it will not be sufficiently simple to consider the place, unless there be an agreement also with respect to the person. Let them choose which they will, I shall immediately conclude, and will easily prove, that the assumption of the primacy by the see of Rome is without any foundation.

XIII. Let us suppose the case, however, that the primacy was, as they pretend, transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why did not Antioch retain the second place? For, if Rome has the preëminence of all other sees, because Peter presided there till the close of his life, to what city shall the second place be assigned, but to that which was his first see? How came Alexandria, then, to have the precedence of Antioch? Is it reasonable that the Church of a mere disciple should be superior to the see of Peter? If honour be due to every Church according to the dignity of its founder, what shall we say of the other Churches? Paul mentions three apostles, “who seemed to be pillars, James, Peter, and John.”

[887]

If the first place be given to the see of Rome, in honour of Peter, are not the second and third places due to Ephesus and Jerusalem, the sees of John and James? But among the patriarchates, Jerusalem had the last place; Ephesus could not be allowed even the farthest corner. Other Churches also, as well those which were founded by Paul, as those over which the other apostles presided, were left without any distinction. The see of Mark, who was only one of the disciples, obtained the honour. Either let them confess that this was a preposterous arrangement, or let them concede to us, that it is not a perpetual rule, that every Church should be entitled to the degree of honour which was enjoyed by its founder.

XIV. All that they say of the settlement of Peter in the Church of Rome appears to me of very questionable authority. The statement of Eusebius, that he presided there twenty-five years, may be refuted without any difficulty. For it appears, from the first and second chapter to the Galatians, that about twenty years after the death of Christ, he was at Jerusalem, and that from thence he went to Antioch, where he remained for some time, but it is not certain how long. Gregory says seven years, and Eusebius twenty-five. But from the death of Christ to the end of the reign of Nero, under whom they affirm Peter to have been slain, there were only thirty-seven years. For our Lord suffered in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. If we deduct twenty years, during which, according to the testimony of Paul, Peter dwelt at Jerusalem, there will remain only seventeen years, which must now be divided between those two bishoprics. If he continued long at Antioch, he could not have resided at Rome, except for a very short time. This point is susceptible of still clearer proof. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans on a journey when he was going to Jerusalem,

[888]

where he was seized, and from whence he was sent to Rome. It is probable, therefore, that this Epistle was written four years before his arrival at Rome. Yet it contains no mention of Peter; which ought on no account to have been omitted, if he had presided over that Church. And in the conclusion, where he recites a long catalogue of pious persons to whom he sends his salutations, where, in short, he enumerates all that were known to him, he still says not a word of Peter.

[889]

It is unnecessary to use any long or laboured arguments with persons of sound judgment; for the case itself, and the whole argument of the Epistle proclaims, that if Peter had been at Rome, he ought not to have been omitted.