(increased by the author). *)
Bor the 27th of June 1519. The increased edition after the 18th of August 1519.
Translated from Latin.
Jesus.
Martin Luther wishes the godly reader salvation in Christ!
About my thirteen theses I have recently published my explanations in the greatest haste, as the circumstances of the time and my business brought it with itself. For in this way I am forced to meet almost unprepared the most evil slander, which is thought of me by many. Since I now see that one with
I have been looking for something in them [the explanations] with greater zeal than I had expected, so it has seemed good to me to undertake them again and to increase them or at least to improve them, so that they may come before the public in a somewhat more dignified form. Above all, I ask you, dear reader, not to be surprised that my way of writing is so different in this [from my other]. I am sometimes really too coarse, and not at all like myself; but I do it with
*The first edition was printed by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg. After that, a reprint by Johann Frobenius in Basel, and two others without indication of place and printer. The second edition, increased by Luther, which appeared after the disputation, towards the end of August, was printed in Leipzig by Melchior Lotther and reprinted by Valentin Schumann in Leipzig in 1520. From the Baseler Allsgabe, the writing is in the Baseler Sammlungen of March 1520, sheet oo 2 a and Äl. Intirorii Irlorlkrationurn xars una. Lasileas apuck Xclarn?otri 1520. msnstz lulio. P. 300 passed. In the collective editions and erasers, the text is included according to the increased edition printed by Lotther. The writing is found in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1545), Dorn. I, toi. 110 d; in the Latin Jena (1556) Dorn. I, 311 d; in the Erlanger, opx. var. arA. Ill, 296; in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, vol. Ill, 123; in the Weimar edition, vol. II, 183. Our translation is based on the latter.
I have never sought such a thing, but, as I have been dragged by force before the public, so I am always anxious how I could return to my corner as soon as possible and keep my good Christian name. For I believe that my public appearance (neuter) has its time. After me, if the Lord wills, another will follow; I will have done enough for my time. I also seem to many to have been a bit too hard on the opponents and to have forgotten theological moderation, as it were. If other faults should be found in me, I do not ask for much forgiveness, because I am aware that I am doing this for no other reason than out of excessive weariness and hatred of the public, into which they drag me and steal a great deal of extremely precious time from me; Furthermore, because I have to endure such obstinate and obdurate complainers against me, that from every syllable they seek shame for me, but for themselves the victory that they are true Christians (Christiani nominis), quite deceitfully and quite persistently, so that it seems to me that for an evil branch an evil wedge is necessary, although it seems to me as if I have always done much violence to my displeasure, so that I do not do what I could have done. And I do not know whether those can be treated mildly and at the same time with benefit who, through a long ingrained habit of reproaching [others] with the name of a heretic, have become so senseless in judging the writings of others, and have become hard of hearing the truth and deaf in their opinions, that it seems as if they could hardly be awakened by some divine herald's staff. To say nothing of how intolerable it would be to mildly rebuke those who have made of the temple of God a den of thieves and of the Scriptures of God a human trade. Christ also expelled this abomination from the holy place with scourges [John 2:13 ff], and Paul [Titus 1:10] judged that these useless babblers should be harshly rebuked. For this they must confess,
they may or may not want that the holy scripture has been completely neglected in all universities without distinction, although they boast to understand the scripture in a more conscientious way (religiosius) by human understanding, which is brought from others, than by their own [the scripture]. I do not want this song to be sung to me, nor will I dance to it; I do not want to understand the Scriptures according to the judgment of a human day, but according to the judgment of the Scriptures the writings, sayings and deeds of all men. After all, it is praise if someone bears the shame of all accusations humbly and patiently: but if someone knows that the name of a Christian is stolen from him, that his honor is taken away from him, that Christ is denied - with which those deal who so easily and sacrilegiously declare a man to be a heretic - and does not rather [instead of bearing it patiently] cry out against it to the death with all his might, let him be accursed! Therefore, let those who wish me to be patient first accuse me with another name than that of a heretic, a faithless man, an apostate, or, what they are guilty of, first convict me that I am such a man. For I do not believe that I would have repaid any of those who have made such accusations against me. I would have repaid the same, even if I had called him a thousand evil names. For there is no abomination equal to heresy, since the latter is the sin against the Holy Spirit. But when I consider the example of all the saints, and the weak mind (impotentem animum) of those who so often make this accusation, I would almost persuade myself that the name of heretic should be tolerated as well as that taken from any other infirmity. For the Jews raged that Christ also had the devil [John 7:20] and thought that they were doing God a favor [John 16:2]. But be that as it may, the person of no man shall be abhorrent to me, since I hope that one day we shall all live eternally in peace in the kingdom of Christ. If, however, I should put the matter of the Holy Scriptures in too
I hope that I will not be denied a cheap pardon, since there can be no equally great injury or insult that could be compared with the injustice committed against the divine Scriptures. For here our eternal life is violated, there only the wretched name of a perishable man. But may the Lord Jesus rule and keep us all, and guard our hearts and minds. Amen. Farewell, dear reader. 1)
Glory to God in the highest. 2)
Eck's thesis.
That the Roman Church before the times of Sylvester was not higher than other churches, we deny; but he who had the chair and the faith of St. Peter, we have always acknowledged to be the successor of Peter and the general governor of Christ.
1) In the first edition, instead of the above, there is the following preface: To the reader. I alone, almost among all people, either do not have to insert anything strange into my disputations or am immediately forced to reveal my entire secret at once. All others, even if they go about in strange things that are too high for them, and not only put forward the strangest things, but also the most false doctrines, have this permission to such an extent that a wide distinction is made between what they thus display and what they simply teach before the people or chatter about at home. It is only Luther who is challenged and forcibly dragged into a dispute, into a disputation; of whom it is demanded that he should speak and at the same time also give his reason for it before the time, or that when he disputes, he should speak in such a way that even a craftsman can understand it: if I do not do this, I am immediately a heretic, a blasphemer, one who gives offense; I have such a fate, dear reader. But I am not afraid, as long as Christ lives, who had to endure a similar, even a greater envy, since he deceived the arrogant with his divine, strange speeches, so that those who were seeing would become blind, which he, however, only wanted to reveal after the ascension to heaven in his time through the Holy Spirit. These theses of mine against Johann Eck, especially the thirteenth one, about the power of the pope, are of such a nature that they should ape his extremely spiteful arrogance by their appearance, especially since I realized that I would have to deal with a slippery wrestler. Therefore, dear reader, I choose you as judge, whoever you may be, so even I fear no danger for me with this thesis, as far as the truth is concerned. By the way, if envy should do something else, it will only do its own work: you judge only honestly and freely. Farewell.
2) These words are missing from the first edition.
Luther's thesis.
That the Roman Church was higher than other churches is proved by the very cold decrees of the Roman popes; against them are the text of the divine Scriptures, the proven histories of 1100 years and the decision of the Council of Nicaea, which is the holiest of all.
First of all, my reader, you see that we do not differ much on the matter itself, but on the causes and origin of the matter. For even I do not deny that the Roman pope is, has been, and will be the first, nor do I dispute it. Nor is this the question, but whether the grounds of proof by which this is asserted are valid. Of all things, I confess, I am most displeased that anything asserted in the church should be proved by flattering pretenses or by lies, by which we would expose the church and our faith to the ridicule of our opponents. The Church of Christ has no need of our lies. She is firmly founded on the rock of faith. She is not afraid of being debated and investigated. Hence it has come about that the flatterers of the Roman popes have long since brought upon themselves the suspicion of tyranny in this supremacy (primatu), in that, as if they had no real confidence in this matter, they have not allowed the truth of this matter to be freely investigated and discussed, which they have quite willingly allowed in all matters, even divine ones (if only they did not touch this supremacy).
I therefore pass over Eck's thesis: Firstly, because I do not believe to understand it correctly as one set up out of envy and deceit. For he has publicly aroused this hatred against me without any cause, although I have not treated this subject in any of my sayings. But the flatterer has sought his own, even with his brother's undoing. Secondly, because the lovely person claims that someone is not Christ's governor and Peter's successor, unless he also has faith. In this he is either crazy or he denies from many Roman popes that they were Christ's governors.
And what is most intolerable for the Roman popes is that he imposes holiness and godliness on them as something necessary, while in our country even his governorship and papacy is considered valid who is without faith and holiness.
But well! I want to dissect this slippery eel and do two things in my thesis: First, I want to bring the solid evidence by which this supremacy, as it seems to me, can be established in a reliable manner, so that by means of it, even heretics and red spirits can be effectively resisted. Secondly, I will show that the decrees and proofs on which those who have asserted this supremacy have so far based themselves prove nothing.
From the first one first.
The first thing that moves me, that the Roman Pontiff is higher than all the others, at least than all those of whom we know that they are pontiffs (gerere), is the will of God Himself, which we see in the existence of that. For without the will of God, the Roman pope could never have attained this autocracy. But the will of God, in whatever way it may have become known, is to be received with reverence, and therefore it is not permitted to resist the Roman Pontiff in his supremacy. This reason, however, is so strong (tanta) that even if there were no Scripture and no other cause, this alone would be enough to keep the insolence of the resisters in check, and of this single reason the glorious martyr Cyprian boasts in many letters with the greatest confidence against all opponents of any bishops, as we read in 1 Kings 12. 12. that ten tribes of Israel had fallen away from Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and yet, because it had happened according to the will of God without legal cause (autoritate), this was valid with God. For even according to all the theologians, the revealed will (voluntas signi), as they call that which God works, is not we
Therefore, I do not see how those can be excused from the accusation of rioting who, acting contrary to this will, evade the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
Behold, this is the first and, as it seems to me, already alone an insurmountable reason that subjects me to the Roman Pontiff and compels me to confess his supremacy.
The second reason is: If according to the commandment of Christ we are commanded [Matth. 5, 25. 41.] to yield to the adversary, and we are to go with him who compels us one mile also two other miles, how much more should we yield when the Roman pope demands [something] in his rule, may he do it rightly or wrongly! For this rule is an incomparably lesser thing than that for its sake unity and love and humility should be abolished from us. Therefore I do not doubt that those sin who go into disunity and dissolve the eternal unity of the spirit in order to escape this temporal, earthly sovereignty (excellentiam), for everything must be borne that is not sin.
The third [reason] is: How, then, if God wanted to afflict us with many princes for our sins, as Solomon says in Proverbs [28:2], should one resist the scourge of God? For the sin of the people, he says, his princes become many. Therefore, since it is not for us to decide whether God has given us any princes in wrathful or gracious will, that is our business to receive His will in godly sincere fear. In this way, even if he wanted us to be under the Turk, we should gladly be subject to the Turk.
The fourth reason is: The apostle [Rom. 13,1. ff.] says: Every soul should be subject to the higher authorities, because there is no authority without from God. But whatever [powers] there are, they are ordered by God. Therefore, those who resist authority resist God's order, but those who resist God burden themselves with condemnation. Through this
strongest cause of all, as far as I can see, we are subject to the Roman Pontiff, in which he clearly asserts that no power is, nor can be, without from God. But since the power of the Roman Pontiff is already most strongly established, as we see, we must certainly not challenge this divine order, but humbly uphold it in its entirety, even if it were unjust, and leave the judgment to God.
The fifth reason is: St. Peter teaches [1 Pet. 2, 13. 15...] that we should be subject to all human order, because it is the will of God. But human order he calls the authorities appointed by human arbitrariness, as is clear from what follows, where he says: "Let it be to the king as the ruler, or to the captains as the messengers from him." But since we believe that even the Roman Pontiff's authority is instituted by human decision and so strengthened by God's order, he who evades it by his own power is not without grave sin.
The sixth reason: This also includes the unanimous agreement of all believers who are nowadays under the Roman Pontiff. For since this authority is a temporal matter and is far inferior to the unity of the faithful, he cannot be without the most shameful sin who, because of a temporal matter, disparages this common opinion of so many believers, that is, denies Christ and despises the church. Or is it possible that Christ should not be among so many and so great Christians? But if Christ is there and the Christians, then one must stand by "Christ and the Christians in every thing that is not contrary to God's commandment. This, I say, is a strong and irrefutable reason. And from this many others can be formed, indeed, all Scripture can be drawn, since it everywhere inculcates love, humility, unity of mind, and fear of God, which are not to be violated on account of any cause of the world, much less on account of the papacy or the supremacy of a person alone, even if the same were instituted only by human right. And with this reason, as it seems to me, the sovereignty (monarchia) of the Roman
It would be far better for the Roman Pontiff's will to be fortified if not only the subordinates, but also the Roman popes were compelled to pay attention to the will of God and the agreement of the faithful and to fear the same, than if, while they want to have the same, as it were, by divine right, they enforce it by force and terror and only generate hatred against themselves in the subordinates and, through security, gradually strengthen themselves in tyranny.
From the last piece.
That the proofs which have been held up to now are nothing, I will show in three ways: first, by setting forth the scriptural passages cited; second, the void (inefficacem) proof of the canons or decrees; third, by giving very strong reasons of reason.
In relation to the first, there are two sayings of Scripture with which it was believed that the supremacy of the Roman Church could be established.
First, the saying Matth. 16, 18. f. is used: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 2c For from this text, they cry, Peter alone received the keys before the other apostles.
But that this serves nothing to this cause, I prove:
First, that the jurists themselves, who assert this supremacy, depart from this opinion and deny that by this word the supremacy is given to Peter, consequently also to the Roman Pontiff, fei, as the gloss has it to the Cap. Considerandum in the 1st Dist., and Panormitanus äo oloet. eap. LiZiüücrLsti, whence they say, not by this word, butu by that word [John 21:16.], "Feed my sheep," was Peter given the pabbacy over the church. If, then, the jurists are permitted to deny so many clear passages (textus) of the decrees and to deviate from everything that is so abundantly and persistently set forth in the 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st and 22nd Distinction from this word of Matthew, why should I, as a theologian, not be at liberty to call the decrees quite cold,
since the jurists are allowed to deny and nullify them? They may first prosecute themselves, since they are guilty of a greater offense, or, if those who deny and nullify the decrees deserve mercy, he who claims that the evidence of the decrees is without probative force and cold will be without sin. For I have not denied them, as those do, but I have only said that they are cold to prove, as indeed they are cold, only that they serve to bring up much about the passage [in Matthew], after the manner of that which is forcibly spoken of and drawn to a remote (alienam) opinion. By this text, therefore, from which they themselves depart, nothing is proved; nothing is proved by these decrees, which they themselves deny; and to neither of them have they any right confidence. And they are induced to do this by a very strong reason, which makes the opponents insurmountable, namely, by this, that Christ, as St. Jerome also declares in this passage, does not hand over the keys to Peter, but only promises them, therefore one must go back to such a passage in which he really hands over the keys. And then the passage in the last chapter of John [20, 22. f.] is introduced, that he does not say to Peter, but to all: "Receive the Holy Spirit, to whom ye remit sins. 2c From these words it is not only clear to whom he promised the keys in the person of Peter, namely to the whole church, but also what he wanted to be understood by the promised keys, namely forgiveness and retention of sins.
Secondly, that the decrees draw this word only to Peter and the Roman pope. For in the holy fathers it is asserted that Christ spoke this word to the church and all the apostles in the person of Peter. The first of these is St. Jerome, who, interpreting the word "Peter" in this passage, says: Peter makes his confession in the person of all the apostles, saying: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." And in this he follows, as he is wont to do, his Origen, who expresses the same opinion at this point.
Chrysostom, however, although he exploits this whole passage for the glorification of Peter, saying that he was the head and ordained shepherd of the future church and set before the whole world, nevertheless also calls him the mouth of the apostles, who answered instead of all, saying: Peter, as the mouth of all the apostles and the head (vertex) of the whole [apostolic] community, answers alone, since all were asked. Therefore, this passage does not refer to Peter alone, but to all, even though he was the first and foremost among the apostles.
St. Augustine says about the 109th Psalm: Just as some things are said, which, since they seem to concern the apostle Peter quite properly, have nevertheless no quite suitable sense, unless they are referred to the church, whose person he, as is recognized, led in the image for the sake of the first place he had among the disciples, as this is: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and others of the kind: so Judas represents, as it were, the person of the enemies of Christ 2c You see that he claims that the keys were given to the church in the person of Peter. The same says also in the first book de doct. ollrist., Cap. 17: These keys he gave therefore to his church, that all things which they loosed on earth might be loosed also in heaven.
And why do we ourselves not rather consider the text and words of Christ, who will best instruct us through Himself?
It is said [Matth. 16, 13. ff.]: Jesus came into the region of the city Caesarea Philippi, and asked his disciples and said: "Who do the people say that the Son of Man is?" 2c, where St. Jerome notes quite significantly (significanter) that Christ asked differently with respect to Himself when He desired the opinion of men than when He asked that of the apostles. Those he calls men, of these he indicates that they are gods. Further, when he asks in regard to men, he calls himself the Son of man, as it were by an indefinite (vago) name. But since he asks the apostles, he says, "I," pointing to a definite, particular person. And since he asks in relation to men, no disciple called by name answers to indicate that the
are without name, who have improper opinions of the Son of God. Add to this the fact that people's opinions of Christ are unstable. But where he asks the apostles about themselves, a certain person, named by name, answers and pronounces a short, constant confession of faith, in order to teach that the right knowledge of Christ consists in unity and firmness and is not moved to and fro like a reed by the opinions of many. So you see also here that nothing really refers to Peter, but that he is the common tool of all apostles.
Now behold also this, that I myself have learned that the remark was also made by laymen (even in the laymen is the Spirit of Christ), that this word of Christ could not be understood as spoken to Peter alone, because Christ did not ask Peter alone, but all the apostles, saying, "Who do you say that I am?" He did not say, "You, Peter, who do you say that I am?" Therefore, if all the disciples had not answered through Peter, they certainly would not have been disciples, nor would they have heard the Master, nor would they have satisfied the questioner, and it would be ungodly to have such an opinion of the apostles. It remains, then, that Christ did not accept Peter's answer for Peter alone, but for the whole company of apostles and disciples. Otherwise he would have asked the others anew. From this it follows further that, just as Christ assumes the person of the answering Peter for all, so also in the sequel he does not say to Peter alone, but to all in whose person Peter speaks, "You are Peter, to you I will give the keys. "2c Otherwise the Scriptures will not be rightly understood unless the preceding and the following are rightly compared. And that this might be all the more certain, that not to Peter alone was anything said of Christ, Christ Himself has declared to whom He speaks, and to whom He gives the keys, saying, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
I ask you, what can even be invented here against it, what can be more clearly
be said than that Peter in this person is not Peter, that he is not flesh and blood? But he is the one to whom the Father reveals. Peter is here placed completely outside of man, and is now no longer any person for himself, but the hearer of the revealing Father. Not Simon, Jonah's son, answers this, not flesh and blood, but the hearer of the fatherly revelation. Can any slanderer here still twist the word of Christ on the man Peter? What follows then? The one who is the hearer of the fatherly revelation is the one to whom the keys are given, not Peter, not the son of Jonah, 1) not flesh and blood. Now if this be so, it follows already inescapably (pronum) that the keys are not given to any private person, but to the Church alone; for we are not certain of any individual (privato) man whether he has the revelation of the Father or not. But it is the Church with respect to which one must not doubt, for it is the Body of Christ, One Flesh, living in the same Spirit as Christ. She is the Peter who hears the revelation and receives the keys; for this creed stands firm: "I believe a holy church, the congregation of the saints"; not, as some now dream, "I believe that a holy church of dignitaries (praelatum) is", or any other thing they may invent. The whole world professes to believe that a holy Catholic Church is nothing other than the communion of saints. Therefore, this article, "the congregation of the saints", was not prayed before ages, as can be seen from Rufinus' explanation of the Creed (symbolo exposito), but some interpretation (gIossa) has given this explanation that the holy Catholic Church is the congregation of the saints, which in the course of time has been put into the text and is now prayed at the same time. But this is a necessary and highly desirable thing for the sake of those who today give the Church any other name than: the congregation of the saints.
But it follows, And upon this rock I will build my church. If we now look under
1) In Latin: ^oknnnis. So Peter is also called Joh. 21,16. Simon Johanna.
If we understand "this rock" to mean the authority of the pope, then see what we do. First, it follows that the original church of the apostles was not a church, because Peter (to prove it with solid reasons) was still in Jerusalem in the eighteenth year [thereafter] and had not yet seen Rome, which is evident from Paul's letter to the Galatians [1, 17. f.]. The latter writes that after his conversion he first went to Arabia, then after three years he came to Jerusalem to see Peter, and [Gal. 2, 1.] afterwards, after fourteen years, he went out (to Jerusalems and discussed with Jacobus, Peter and John about the gospel of the foreskin [i.e. to the Gentiles]. Dear, but who should thus race, and even if it were an Orestes, that the church at Jerusalem and the Catholic had not been one church, because the authority of the Roman church, and perhaps also its faith, had not yet existed? So it was not built on the rock, that is, on the authority of the Roman church, as some decrees interpret it, but on the faith that Peter confessed in the person of the whole church, since also the general and catholic church had been so long before the Roman church.
Furthermore he speaks Matth. 18, 17. f. in the plurali numero not to Peter, not to the apostles, but to the church, saying: If he does not hear the church, consider him a Gentile and a tax collector. Verily I say unto you: Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Now come here, if you will, and compare this passage with that. The former passage says that the keys were given to Peter alone; the latter denies it and claims that they were not given to him alone. Now how can both exist? The one word must be brought into agreement with the other, for the same Christ spoke both. If they [the keys] are given to Peter alone, then it is a lie what he says here, that they are given to all. But who should not see that this latter passage interprets the former, and that in the latter the matter is clearly explained, but there the unity of many in the church is praised to Peter? It is clear, then, that the keys of the church are given to all.
are, and there is nothing to be opposed to this passage, since he says, "Tell the church; if he does not hear the church"; he does not say, "Tell Peter; if he does not hear Peter. "2c Yes, behold a wonderful thing: There he begins with all, saying, "Who do you say that I am?" and concludes with One Peter, saying, "You are, and to you I will give." Here, on the other hand, He begins with One, saying, "Does your brother sin against you? "2c, and Ceases with all, saying: "All ye shall bind" 2c Is it not clear that he intended the same thing there with the One Peter, as here with all, and that the keys do not belong to any particular man, but to the church and commonwealth, so that it is certain that the priest does not use the keys by his own power, but by the ministry of the church (for he is the minister of the church), yet not as if they were his or given to him, but to the church?
I believe that this alone will almost create the belief that this saying of Matthew does not refer to Peter, nor to his successor, nor to any individual church, but to all churches. For, as I have said, who can deny that the keys are given to him who confesses Christ at the revelation of the Father? If this is accepted, then where the revelation of the Father and the confession of Christ are, there are necessarily also the keys. But this [confession] is in every church, but not in any particular one and in a particular person. In order for Christ to impress this on us, immediately after this glorious praise of Peter, when Peter refused to die, Peter heard [Matth. 16, 22. f.]: "Get behind me, Satan, for you do not mean what God means. What is this? Peter does not mean what is God's? Has the Father not revealed it to him? If this had happened before Peter's praise, it would have some meaning that Peter was praised for his person and that of his followers or a church. But now, since after the praise he is rebuked as one who does not know God, it becomes clear that the former Peter, who had the keys to the church, was not the one who was praised.
was not Peter, the son of Jonah, but the Church, the daughter of God, who, begotten by the Word of God, hears the Word of God and confesses it constantly until the end, who does not sometimes mean what is God's and who is not commanded to stand aside, as Peter was. Or, if this concerns the Roman pope and the church, which is said to Peter: "I will give you the keys", then also, according to an irrefutable conclusion, that word must refer to the same: "Get behind me, Satan; for you do not mean what is of God", because this was also said to Peter, the future bishop of the Roman church. Or, if they believe that this does not concern them, they already cannot convince by any reason that what was said before refers to them.
But well, still more. If they rely entirely on literal reason (ad grammaticum rigorem se recipiunt), that it was said to Peter alone, "Thou art Peter, I will give thee the keys," 2c, how shall we resist the heretics, if, supported by our sharp insistence on the words, they should urge us and say, "Granted, this was said to Peter alone, therefore not to his successor, therefore the keys of the church came with Peter and are there with him; where then is the church now?" For it cannot concern several what is said to one, as the word, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself 2c, which is said to Peter alone, so that it is fulfilled and finished with Peter, referring to none of his successors.
But if it is said to his successors and to any church, it can no longer be denied by any reason that it should not be said to all, even that it should not be assumed that it was necessarily said to all the apostles who were present more than to the successors of the one Peter who were not yet there. If it is said to all the apostles, then it must also be understood that it is said to the successors of all the apostles and not only to one apostle.
But may it answer me, whoever can, from whom one should believe that he also has the keys in the Roman church? Does the church itself or the pope have them? and note what I say: When a pope is elected, does he bring the keys or not? If he brings them, then he was pope before he was elected. If he does not bring them, from whom does he receive them? From an angel from heaven? Does he not receive it from the Church? Likewise, when a pope dies, to whom does he leave the keys? Does he take them away with him? If he does not take them away, to whom does he leave them but to the Church from which he received them? What, then, can be said against this quite convincing experience, the best interpreter of the Gospel, that the keys are given neither to Peter, nor to his successor, but to the Church alone, from which the priest receives them as a minister for use? Where then is it that it is thought to have been said to Peter alone, "I will give you the keys"? Yes, where is it that the keys are given to the Roman Church alone? It is necessary that the keys be in every church, as I said above.
I want to say one more thing and use the reason of the apostle Paul, Rom. 4, where he proves from the circumstances of the time and the fact that Abraham was not justified by circumcision, but by faith, by using no other reason than that Abraham was justified before circumcision by God through faith. If this reason of his has validity, as it must have validity, then what I now present in this way must necessarily also have validity. When Peter received the keys from Christ - if you certainly claim that he received them for his person alone - he was not yet bishop of the city of Rome (in fact, he was never bishop of any city, but an apostle, an appointor of bishops, greater than all bishops), but he was one of the apostles. Therefore, the keys are not given to him according to what he became afterwards, or according to what is connected with him either by place or by office.
Just as righteousness was not imputed to Abraham according to what he became by faith, but in accordance with the fact that he was only an apostle and had the revelation of the Father. Therefore, this saying does not refer to the Roman pope at all, even if it had been said to Peter alone: how much less does it concern him now that it is shown that it was not spoken to the person of Peter alone either!
I add another reason of a similar nature, which Paul uses in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, saying that just as righteousness was imputed to Abraham through faith, so righteousness should be imputed to all who believe. Therefore the keys are also given to them, as to Peter, who has the revelation of the Father and confesses Christ. Thus it is necessary that the keys be given to everyone who confesses in the same way and has the revelation [of the Father], which cannot come to anyone but the church, that is, the congregation of the saints, since no individual believer can constantly and surely and persistently have this confession, since even Peter himself did not persist in it, because he erred not only once, but soon after receiving the keys. And yet the keys were not taken away from him again, because he received them not in his person, but in the person of the church. If these reasons of proof are not valid, then also those of the apostle Paul, which have been mentioned, have no power.
But to throw the opposing opinion completely over the heap, well then: If these words: "I will give you the keys" 2c refer to Peter and his successor, then the preceding and the following and that which stands in close connection with it must necessarily also refer to them. For in the case of the holy words of the Gospel, such people must not be admitted who, in order to bring out their meaning, twist and turn one part here, another part there, but according to the testimony of Hilarius, the right understanding is to be derived from the connection of the meaning and the words, and from the
circumstances. Since Christ did not want to hand over the keys until all the disciples had been questioned by him about the confession, nor until he had received and approved the answer of Peter, who spoke from the revelation of the Father, it is clear that the keys belong only to him who is of the same nature as Peter was at that time. From this would follow the most inconsistent inconsistency, that a bad pope or bishop would not be a pope or bishop, because he would not have the faith on which it is based that someone could be a recipient of the keys. Then it would also follow, against the text and against their opinion, that Peter neither received nor kept the keys. For Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, nor against the faith which Peter then had. But against Peter even the maid who was waiting at the door had the upper hand. Matth. 26, 69. ff. If, therefore, the opinion of the latter were firm, it would follow as an absolutely necessary conclusion that either the Roman and all popes must be holy and have the revelation of the Father, and must not be flesh and blood, or they would not be popes and would not have the keys. I do not see what could be said against this, since this so clear text stands there that the keys are given only to him who does not hear flesh and blood, but the Father in heaven, that is, to one who is holy and righteous in spirit. Otherwise, every pope would be a Satan who does not mean what God means. But if we say this, we immediately renew the error of the old Donatists, who claimed that an evil bishop is not a bishop. This is far from us who confess that a minister of the holy and righteous church can be godless and evil. Thus, while they want to make the Roman Pontiff the only and the whole and the general Pontiff, they do not leave us a Pontiff, so that they may see what reward flatterers and ambitious people receive for doing violence to the Scriptures. So it only remains that the gospel at this point does not refer to Peter, nor to his successor.
I do not refer to any bishop or any individual person, but to the congregation of the saints, which is the Church. The latter can then give the keys both to a worthy and to an unworthy one; to an unworthy one, I say, before God, because she does not know whether he is worthy before God; otherwise she must give them only to one who is worthy before men.
Therefore, I think it is sufficiently clear, since certain decrees drag this text on the Roman See and the Pope, that they treat the word of Christ not only quite coldly (which I have even said modestly), but also contrary to the sense of the Gospel. We will make this clearer when we examine them below. In the meantime, enough has been said briefly about this saying that if the keys are given to someone, Peter's faith is also necessary for him. For if it were denied that Peter's faith was necessary, it would also be denied for the same reason that the keys were given to him, since Christ combines and expresses both, and indeed demands faith more and first. Therefore, it is clearly understood that Christ spoke only of the church, not even of one in particular, but of each in every part of the world.
Secondly, the passage of John is drawn at the last [21, 15. ff.]: Simon, do you love me? Feed my sheep. For from this (false) assumption, that it is said to Peter alone, it is thought that he is set over all. But I show that this also proves nothing:
First, because it is quite certain that none of the apostles was neither made [an apostle] nor sent by Peter, it is neither true nor possible that all the sheep were commanded to Peter, but it is said in a general utterance to all, "Feed my sheep." For he does not speak "all," as he speaks to all the apostles: Go into all the world and teach all nations. But I cannot wonder enough that so many and so great men, against the Scriptures so explicit, against the experience so manifest, claim for Peter all sheep, since they are compelled to confess unanimously that every one of them is a sheep.
Peter was sent as an individual apostle to his assigned territory, and that Paul was called from heaven to be an apostle to the Gentiles. How can we still dare to claim that Peter is nevertheless the shepherd of all? Since he did not send any of them, especially not Paul, as the latter strongly maintains in many words in the first chapter to the Galatians (contendit). This is so obvious that a refutation does not seem necessary. They, says Marcus, went out and preached in all places [Marc. 16, 20].
It follows, then, either Peter and his successor are not commanded all of Christ's sheep, or the sheep which Peter did not feed, but Paul and the other apostles did, do not belong to Christ's sheep. How could there be a greater blasphemy? So the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Philippians, and other Gentiles, because they were not fed by Peter himself, nor by his sending them shepherds were they fed by him, are not to be considered Christ's sheep? But what am I still dwelling on such a manifest thing?
If you say, "But the word of Christ says to Peter alone, Feed my sheep," I answer, he did not say, "All my sheep," or Peter would have sinned if he had not fed them all alone, without the other apostles; the Roman Pontiff also sinned today by not feeding and not sending shepherds to the Turks and other Gentiles.
I will even say something else: From this word nothing else can be forced than that Peter should feed the sheep, which were from the sheepfold of the Jews, and so [the feeding of the Gentiles] 1) does not concern him, nor the Roman pope and his successor, or it does not refer to him alone. This I prove from the apostle Paul, Gal. 2, 7. where he calls Peter the apostle of the circumcision and himself the apostle of the Gentiles. So, if someone were stubborn, he could not be forced by any force to understand anything else by this word of Christ.
1) In order to make sense of it, we have added this addition, which arises from the context.
as the feeding of the sheep which were of the circumcision, or if it be extended to the Roman Pontiff, then neither can it be denied that it concerns all and can be extended to all with equal justification (pari negotio).
Secondly, I would ask that the flatterers of the Roman Pontiff refrain from invoking this quite terrible word to establish his supremacy. For I have not yet read a more terrible word in the whole of Holy Scripture, which could frighten the Roman Pontiff and every bishop more: First, because "to pasture" does not mean the same thing as to be first or a prince. Therefore, nothing else is proven from it than that the Roman Pontiff should preach and teach the Word of God. If he has to do this, he already has to give up all this supremacy, he has to occupy himself day and night with the holy scriptures, to pray holy (pure). He must suffer dangers and death for the word; in short, the whole of Rome, as it is today, would have to be brought to a completely different appearance. So they may desist, for God's sake, from adapting the most spiritual words of Christ to their desires. For if this is applied to the Roman Pontiff, it follows irrefutably that it is necessary for him to teach the word, or, if he does not teach, it does not apply to him.
But notice even more: Christ lays pasture on Peter only after he loved before. I pray thee, what is this? Does it not follow that if he loves not, he shall not be heard? But who will make us sure of the shepherd's love? Shall we then doubt whom we shall hear? For if it is necessary for us to hear the shepherd, it is also necessary for him to love Christ; or if it is not necessary to love Christ, it is also not necessary to hear the shepherd, since Christ has joined the two and commanded only the one who loves to feed. Now what shall we do here? I know that if he were to consider this word of Christ, any bishop would despair of being able to feed even half a city.
So we have shown that nothing is proved by this passage, and that it is
is not fit to prove supremacy: but if it serves this purpose in the least, it will also enforce that he who does not teach is not a bishop in the church, and that no one should teach unless he loves. This, I say, and nothing else, do these words prove, if thou wilt not use a new grammar, and say, "If thou lovest me, feed my sheep," be the same as, "If thou lovest thyself, be first over the. whole church."
You will therefore act more correctly if you take this word of Christ for an exhortation, even for a command, not to bind the sheep into submission, but the shepherds to love Christ and feed the people. Furthermore, the love of Christ (as St. Augustine interprets it here) also requires dying for Christ's sheep.
And would God that the Roman popes believed that this word concerned them! For this is the complaint of the whole world, that they command love and doctrine to others and think that it is none of their business. For they think that these words belong to the people, so that by them they want to force all to submission, and no one hears from the same [words] that yet they should be shepherded and the word heard (what the words say). O happy ambition, if only someone could be found somewhere who desired to be a shepherd of all, who would not most willingly admit him? But now they gladly allow everyone the office of loving and shepherding, but they reserve for themselves the title of loving and shepherding and what follows the title, namely profit and honor. Finally, refrain from twisting the words of Christ, for they take away completely what you attach to the priest by this, and impose on him everything that you do not approve of him and that he detests beyond measure.
But you say, "He cannot shepherd unless he is a superior. So although he does not perform the service of a shepherd, he does not thereby lose the place of a superior." I answer: What is that to me? Find other words, then, by which you may assert the doctrine of authority: these words require either one who is
loves and feeds, or they absolutely do not fit for anyone, if you do not again take "love more than these" [Joh. 20, 17.], according to a new way of speaking Latin, for "be set above all others" and "feed" for "possess the rights and goods of all". Therefore it is not to be wondered at if they seek supremacy with such great heat: if they should establish the same, taken according to the words in their proper meaning, they would not want even God Himself for a reward. Do you see, then, what it is to mock the Scriptures or, as I have said more reservedly, to prove this supremacy from the very cold decrees?
It follows that to be higher than others and neither to love nor to feed is not an evangelical nor Christian office, but a worldly and human one. Tell me, if the subordinates would rise up against the pope and say: "We do not want to hear you, nor have you as a pope", with what words would you keep them in check? With these words: "Feed my sheep"? But they will say, "But when do you feed? when do you love? where is the work and the cause for this word?" So they would have to be forced with another word, not with this one. Therefore it also follows that by these words neither is any power, much less supremacy, given, but to him who has the power is laid the ministry of loving and teaching, as Peter, who had already been called to the apostleship, is told this. And this is what keeps these flatterers, who read Christ's words sleepily and snoring, from a sound understanding, that they do not distinguish the word ministry and the word authority. The calling of Peter has made him first and such as they would like to raise up. But the imposition of the office by the word "pasture" did not give him a higher position (gradum), nor could it confer it on him, unless they wanted to say that Peter was also exalted above himself by the word "pasture".
But you say, "It is enough that he teaches and loves through another; it is not necessary that he do this personally." I answer: I admit that, but that is not made possible by
This word of Christ is not pronounced, and this permission (licentiam) must be justified by another word. This word insurmountably establishes that there must either be shepherds who also love and teach in their own person, or, if they do not love and teach in their own person, then this word is of no concern to them. And so nothing is proven from it for the Roman sole rule, but it is rather argued against, since it is impossible that so much could be loved and pastured by one.
We see, indeed, that the office of loving and feeding is given by the Roman Pontiffs to the bishops, while they retain the title of shepherd and lover, and the bishops retain the same name and confer it on the parish priests, the parish priests on the caplains: the name passes through all and remains, the office passes through and adheres to none. But also the mendicant friars, who have accepted the office from them, eagerly imitate them: the superiors and the magisters impose the office of teaching on the mendicant friars and are themselves content with the name of the office. So burdensome is it to teach, love and shepherd the word of God, for the sake of which the Son of God alone came into the world and sent the Holy Spirit and did everything so that this office would be rich in service (esset officiosissimum).
If it is enough to teach through another, what does a bishop do more than a layman? Can not even the Turk command or permit another to love and feed? Why, then, was it necessary to charge Peter so often with this ministry and to inculcate it so earnestly? Is this the way to interpret the Gospel: "Feed my sheep, that is, allow, command that another may feed"? If this other should likewise feed through a third, and the third through a fourth, and so on without end until no one, where is the word of Christ? Or how much will it be the others' duty (qua decentia) to feed, since the most high and those who owe it more than they do, do not feed? Why did not Christ do the same? Why is
Did not Peter also remain idle and pasture through others?
Therefore, if you want to force those words to be useful to the papal authority, your cause will go badly and you will conclude that from the time of Gregory the Great there was no shepherd in the Roman Church. For this was almost the last of those who treated the sacred Scriptures. Therefore, if you say to Peter, "Do you love me better than these?" do so, and you will live; love more than others, feed more than others, and the fields will be full of sheep, and the meadows will be thick with grain, so that people will shout and sing. But if by "love more than these" you want to understand that you are greater than others, then you bring into the word of Christ an opinion foreign to Him. For by these words something is not commanded to the subjects, but to Peter. He does not say, "Ye shall be sheep under Peter," but, "Peter, feed the sheep." And yet they want that, they do not want this:
I therefore believe that it is quite obvious that these two sayings of the gospel serve nothing to the matter and that what has been raised from them so far in this matter is quite cold and ineffective.
From this, it is easy to judge the decrees themselves, how weak they prove their things. In order to make this clear, I will cite a few.
The first is Leo, Dist. 19, Cap. (Ita dominus noster): "Thus our Lord Jesus Christ," he says, "the Savior of the human race, ordained that the truth, which before was contained in the preaching of the law and the prophets, should go forth by the apostolic trumpet for the salvation of all mankind, as it is written [Ps. 19, 5.]: Their sound and their words have gone forth into all lands to the end of the world. But the Lord wanted the secrets of this gift to belong to the office (officium) of all apostles in such a way that he wanted to let them rest mainly in the most holy Peter, the highest of all apostles, so that he would pour out his gifts from him, as from one head, as it were, into the whole body.
and who wants to recognize that he is not partaker of the divine mystery, who deviates from the firm foundation of Peter. So much for him.
Who, I pray you, does not see that something human has happened to this holy and learned man? For if he understands by the solid foundation of Peter the faith in which Peter confessed Christ, Matth. 16, 16, then he speaks rightly and evangelically. For this faith is the rock (petra) from which Peter takes his name. Whoever deviates from it is rightly not partaker of the divine mystery. But if he understands by the solid ground of Peter the jurisdiction and the power of Peter and the Roman pope, then everyone easily grasps that he misuses the word of the gospel and is mistaken. Were not all the apostles on the firm ground of Peter? and yet they were not under the Roman church. St. Stephen and others who suffered persecution from St. Paul were on the solid ground of Peter before the Roman Church came into being.
Further, from the same frailty of human mind, he says that in the apostle Peter rested chiefly the office of teaching, drawing upon the One Peter what the prophet said in the majority and without distinction of all: Their sound and their words.
But also this is obviously wrong, that Peter is the head of the whole body, from which Christ pours his gifts into the whole body, if he does not understand the part of the church, which is instructed by Peter as a teacher, as this has taken place in the Latin and occidental church. For also through the other apostles, especially Paul, he poured out his gifts to many more people than through Peter, so that it is a wonder to me that the mind of this pope was so much clouded (profunde occupatam) that, when he wrote this, he could not think of Paul and the other apostles. Therefore, if he had said, "through whom he poured out his gifts into the body," he would have spoken rightly, but "into the whole body" is too much to say.
The same Leo continues, "For this (Peter)' who had been received into the community of personal unity (in consortium individuae unitatis), he also wished to be associated with the
To know by name [who expressed] what he was, saying: 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,' so that the building of the eternal temple may stand on the firm foundation of Peter through the miraculous gift of God's grace."
Again, by the firm foundation of Peter he does not designate the faith of the general Church, but the power of the Roman Church, and takes the word of Christ as one spoken under Peter's own person, but not as one spoken to the Church, as is clear from the following, where he says: "But this most holy firm foundation of this Peter, which (as we have said) was laid by God as Master Builder, he wants to injure with too ungodly presumption who seeks to damage its power by giving place to his lusts and not following what he received from the ancients."
See, here he interprets himself that the firm foundation of Peter is the power of the Roman church, understanding the same under the completely hidden faith of the spirit and under the outward power of jurisdiction, not without doing violence to the word of the gospel. So he does not violate the solid ground of Peter who does not live under the laws of the Roman church, but he who does not believe what Peter confessed.
But I solemnly testify that I do not condemn decrees of this kind, for nothing is lost to me in regard to my blessedness if I tolerate a forcible interpretation of Scripture by anyone, if only the true and rightful understanding is preserved alongside it. But I insist that we should learn to fortify our cause and our faith by a constant and well-founded understanding. For although such abuse of Scripture may be tolerated by those who already believe, even when a struggle arises with disputants, we must have the simple and genuine mind of Christ, which can stand victorious in the struggle, lest we expose the church and all of us to ridicule. For I do not agree with those who think that the Roman popes were not mistaken and that they alone have the right mind.
of Scripture, since here and in many other passages one sees quite the opposite: they were men, just like the other bishops. And it is really no great wonder that these holy popes, out of human weakness, sought to attain supremacy for themselves, since even the apostles in the presence of Christ not only desired it, but also more than once argued about which of them should be considered the greatest. As Christ has graciously borne their human weakness (humanitatem), so the church also learns to bear the remnants of ambition in such popes and therefore does not reject such decrees altogether. But those are to be resisted tooth and nail who are not satisfied that we bear such decrees humbly, but race to such a degree that they dare to interpret them as necessary articles of faith and to proclaim any other opinion heretical, as if there were no other meaning in Scripture, reading everything without any judgment. Through such sacrilege, we inevitably lose the right understanding of Christ and are built on human arbitrariness and sand.
For if it were true what this Leo says here, and one had to obey his words as a divine commandment, then the whole Oriental church from its beginning to its end would not be partaker of the divine mystery, because it has never been under the power of the Roman church. Therefore, the error of this Leo can be tolerated, but for his sake one must not abandon another and more correct sense.
The second is Leo IV, Dist. 20, Cap. Oo libolli.], in which he says: "For this cause I am not afraid to proclaim quite plainly (luculentius) and with a loud voice, that he who is convicted of not accepting without distinction those statutes of the holy fathers of which I have said, which with us are given the name 'Canones,' whether he be a bishop, or a clergyman, or a layman, is also convicted of not accepting without distinction those statutes of the holy fathers of which I have said, which with us are given the name 'Canones,' whether he be a bishop, or a clergyman, or a layman, is also convicted of not accepting without distinction either the Catholic or the
apostolic faith, nor the four evangelia useful and effectual, so that they may effect what they ought (ad effectum suum), keep or believe."
Truly, dear Leo, you are not too afraid to proclaim, daring to make human statutes equal to the Gospels, and even boldly claiming that if they are not kept, the Catholic faith will not be kept either. When you spoke of despisers and those who are under you, you spoke rightly: but now that you mix life and faith, superstitions with the gospel, the word of men with the word of God, are you not a man? Who would tolerate that the gospel and the faith should not be kept, if someone had not been under those statutes? You and yours keep the ordinances and canons: those who are in the East have other ordinances, but the same gospel.
The third is Dist. 21, Cap. Cleros. I will never believe that this chapter is decreed by any Roman pope, but it seems to me to be a little finding of Jsidor, who describes Metropolis as the measure of a city 1) and an acolyte as a candlestick bearer 2) and other scales with excellent ignorance, and yet finds faith. "The pope," he says, "is the prince of priests, or it is said that he is, as it were the way of the following. He is also called the highest priest, also supreme Pabst. For he makes the priests and Levites; he disposes of all ecclesiastical dignities (ordines), he indicates what each one must do. In former times the popes were also kings. For the ancestors had this custom that the king was also priest and pope, therefore the Roman popes were also called emperors."
I would have passed over this presumption (divivatorem) with contempt, together with its errors, if I did not see that from this some nowadays take that they consider the pope as emperor and supreme pope.
1) ----- μίτραν πόλεως.
2) Probably from αγειν λνχναν
boast. Therefore, I do not refer it to the canons, but to the dogs (canes), and so that I do not do this without good reason, I want to oppose it with decrees that say the opposite, which at the same time will support our opinion. For it is said in the 99th Dist., Cap. Primae, it is said: "The bishop of the first see shall not be called prince of priests or supreme priest or anything of the kind, but only bishop of the first see." And' it follows: "But a general [bishop] shall not himself be called the Roman Pontiff."
Here I also summon (in judicium voco) the Canons themselves and the teachers of law (canonistas): they may instruct me, I ask what I am to say here. This Canon is accepted, but see how much greater offences against the Roman Pontiff he is guilty of than I would ever have dared to think. First, he not only asserts that they are cold, but he denies and forbids and condemns those canons and canonists which call the Roman Pontiff a prince, the head, the highest, the greatest [bishop]. Then he takes away his supremacy altogether, and makes him equal to the rest of the bishops of the first sees, that is, to the patriarchs. Now where are those who gossip that I have exhibited something new by saying that the above decrees are quite cold, and, as I believe, not wrongly? For this Canon of the African Council is all the more preferable to those, the further it is from ambition and the more it has evangelical modesty about it.
Those who accuse me as a heretic may at least spare this canon, I ask for it, if they do not want to spare mine. I have admitted everything that is attributed to the Roman Pontiff today: I do not deny the matter, I do not contradict the fact, but I dispute his right, and hold that it is not by divine right, but by decree of men that such is attributed to him. What more shall I do? Must I not only confess the fact, but also confirm it with lies and distortions of Scripture? Let that be far off!
Therefore, I may be damned as much
Here I have the canon which condemns the Roman pope being called the general pope, which I have never condemned. But we want to add more.
In the same way, Pelagius writes to all the bishops: "None of the patriarchs should ever use the word 'general'. For if one patriarch is called a general, the others are deprived of the name of patriarch. But let this be far from the faithful, that anyone should wish to appropriate to himself that by which he would seem to diminish, even in the least, the honor of his brethren. Therefore, let your love never call anyone a general, even in letters, lest it deprive itself of what is due to it by attaching to another the honor that is not due to him."
You see, it is a diminution of fraternal honor when One is preferred to all, even according to what a Roman pope says about it.
There, St. Gregory writes to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria: "Behold, in the inscription of the letter which you addressed to me, since I forbade it, you have put the proud name that you call me the general pope. I ask that your most beloved holiness may not do this to me anymore, because you are deprived of what is given to another more than a reasonable reason demands. Nor do I consider this an honor, wherein, as I perceive, my brethren lose their honor. For my honor is the honor of the general church, my honor is the complete welfare of my brethren. Then I am honored if each one of them is not denied the honor due to them. For if your Holiness calls me a general pope, she denies that she is what she professes me to be, namely, general. But let this be far off: let the words fall which blow out truth and wound love."
I beg you, what shall we say here? Am I still sinning for calling coldly the decrees issued by some Roman
1) In Latin veritatem, which Luther must have read instead of vanitatem. (Weimar edition)
What if I had said that the words of the popes come under fictitious names, since if I had followed this [last decree], I would have had to give them the name that they are words that blow out truth (that is, make it insignificant and void) and wound love? How, if I had said this, namely, that they were not only powerless, but also hostile to truth and contrary to love?
In addition, take the approximately six letters of St. Gregory in his Regesten [i.e., Collections], in which he quite zealously pursues the same to the emperor at Constantinople and the patriarch there and testifies that this supremacy was offered to the Roman pope by the Council of Chalcedon and yet was not accepted by anyone.
If then the new teachers of spiritual law say that this has been abolished or has ceased through custom, I say to them in gratitude: this I have willed. It follows, then, that it is not by the words of the gospel and by divine right that this supremacy is corrupted, but by human right and custom: this I allow, this I confess. Otherwise, if it existed by divine right, it would always have to be and would always have been, and Pelagius and Gregory would have committed a mortal sin here, as those who abrogated divine right and falsified the gospel. Now, if human rights assert it in such a way that they seek to prove it by the word of the gospel, is it not necessary that they do it quite coldly and quite invalidly and forcibly? as we see in the foregoing and will now immediately see further.
The fourth is Anaclet, 21st [Dist.], Cap. In novo. "In the New Testament," he says, "according to the Lord Christ, the priestly dignity (ordo) took its beginning from Peter, because the pontificate in the Church of Christ was first given to him, the Lord saying: 'You are Peter' 2c"
If he understands this to mean that the priestly dignity had its beginning in the Latin Church, this can be maintained to some extent, just as St. Cyprian in the Third Epistle calls the chair of Peter the most important, and the one from which the priestly dignity derives its
If he understands it in such a way that the whole priesthood comes first and only from the Roman See, it is clear from what has been said how erroneous this is. But if he understands it in such a way that the whole priesthood comes first and only from the Roman chair, then it is sufficiently clear from what has been said how erroneous this is, and then this is not a decree of Anacletus, but the chaff (palea 1) of some invented Anacletus.
The fifth is Pelagius in the same 21st Dist. "The holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church (perhaps because he considers the others neither holy, nor catholic) is not set above the other churches by any decisions of the concilia (synodicis). But by the evangelical word of our Lord and Savior she has attained supremacy: thou art, he says, Peter."
Here he comes out more clearly and not only brazenly opposes the previously mentioned decrees of the 99th Dist., but also twists the word of Christ to Peter completely from faith to the power of jurisdiction and the pomp of supremacy; furthermore, he assumes in the words of Christ only the person of Peter with rejection of the person of the church, which Peter demonically presented truly. Therefore, "thou art Peter," according to a new art of speech, means "thou art the first," and "I will give the keys to thee," that is, "to the Roman church alone, the other churches having nothing." But I am weary of mentioning anything. In short (as I have said), if Christ by these words signified the Roman Church, since the Roman Church arose scarcely in the twentieth year of the original Church, it follows that the original Church itself was not a Church, and consequently all who did not receive the keys from the Roman Church were disobedient to Christ. And so it would have to be judged that St. Stephen was condemned with so many thousands of martyrs of the Oriental Church. To pass over the fact that if, by the word of Christ, the power of the Roman
1) A whole number of chapters in the first part of the papal canon law, the. Decrees of Gratian, have the superscription palen. (Cf. Col. 247 of this volume.) These contain later additions that are mostly missing in the oldest manuscripts.
If the Roman church should be called the church, as he wants here, and Christ promised to build his church on this rock, it would follow that the general church would not be built on faith, but on the power of the Roman church. What then is the Roman church itself built on? Not on the rock, that is, its violence, nor on faith, that is, on.nothing. Who can tolerate this? So you see how I could set out against these opinions of men if I wanted to act freely; but now it is enough for me to show that nothing can be done by these decrees against the enemies and in the dispute: for they are quite dull, quite cold, and quite unfit for dispute. It is enough that they are tolerated according to brotherly love, but they should not also be worshipped as founded and genuine truth.
But even this is not to be tolerated, that he concludes: "In all this, the higher the dignity (gradus), the greater is the power. Since with the superiors the power is to rule and to command, so with the inferiors the necessity is to obey."
See how he interprets necessity for all and arrogates freedom to himself alone (against the duty of love), but with a very bad conclusion. For there is not immediately a greater power where there is a higher dignity. For Peter was the first among the apostles, but he never had any authority over them; on the contrary, the apostles had authority over Peter, as Apost. 8, 14, that the apostles sent Peter and John, who were the chief among the apostles at that time, and yet they were sent by the apostles, as chiefs, to the believers in Samaria. So Pelagius is obviously mistaken in this place, although I believe that these and similar canons have nothing else from the Roman popes except the name, but that they were written by their officials (officialibus) and scribes, who were completely unlearned in theology. Therefore nothing evangelical, nothing ecclesiastical lives in them, but human inclination, flesh and blood.
The sixth, Pope Nicolaus, in the same Distinction, Cap. Inferior, since he is most strongly
to prove that a lower cannot absolve a higher (but he understands by the lower the church at Constantinople, because this was the cause of many canons about this supremacy), introduces the word Is. 10,15: May an axe also boast against him who hews with it, or a saw rise against him who draws it? "With this," he says, "which has been adduced from divine Scripture, we have proved brighter than the sun, that no one who has a lesser power can subject him who has a greater power to his judgment." Who should not be surprised? so very skillfully does this author treat the Scripture under the name of the pope: he makes of the pope a god, he makes the other bishops not brothers, not -once- men, but instruments. That is, of course, to prove clearer than the sun: that is, to pour out darkness.
To say nothing of the fact that he proves with this final speech that a lower man cannot be the judge of a higher man, since he had undertaken to prove who was the higher and the lower man: to be discussed in such a skillful and astute way deserves this supremacy of the most shameful ambition.
Furthermore, at the end, he calls the Roman church the mother of all churches. It is wonderful that her daughters and disciples were the churches in Judea, of which Paul says to the Galatians [1, 22.]: I was unknown to the churches in Judea; and [v. 13.] which was the church that Paul devastated, because the Roman church was then still in the loins of her father Peter, who was in Jerusalem. What, I pray thee, did the church at Jerusalem learn from the Roman? Why does Paul lie, Rom. 15, 25. f., by saying that the poor saints in Judea rightly receive a common tax from the Romans and other Gentiles, because they have been made partakers of the spiritual goods of those? With this word the apostle clearly describes the church at Jerusalem as the mother, the origin and the root of all churches in the whole world, also of the Roman church, which is also true. For who can deny that the church of the Gentiles is later than the church of the Jews, and that the latter sprang from the former? since the prophets have said this
in so many places about the Gentiles, since we read in Acts [8, 1. 4.] that the scattered disciples preached the word to the Jews alone, and [10, 45.] that they were astonished about the salvation that happened to the Gentiles, and Paul Rom. 15, 8. f. teaches that Christ was a servant of the Jews, and that the Gentiles received mercy from the fall of the Jews [Rom. 11, 11.] . But also Christ, Joh. 4, 22. says: Salvation comes from the Jews. He would have said "a mother of churches", but "a mother of all churches" is an exaggeration.
The seventh is Nicolaus again, in the 22nd Dist., Cap. Omnes. I do not know what to say about this text. For I almost want to improve my thesis and say: that the Roman Church is higher than others is proved from the insane stuff of a certain quite ludicrous palea 1) who, under the name of the Roman popes, mocks the Church of Christ. Listen, I beg you, for the sake of Christ, to what this one says.
"All," he says, "whether the highest offices of each patriarchate, or the supremacy of the metropolises, or the seats of the bishoprics, or the dignities of the churches of every rank (ordinis), have been instituted by the Roman Church, but these alone He has founded and set upon the rock of the just-rising faith, who delivered to St. Peter, the key-bearer of eternal life, at once the rights of the earthly and the heavenly kingdoms."
I beg you, my reader, of the Roman Popes and even of the Roman Church, which shines with so many thousands of martyrs in heaven and on earth, may you think everything else that you can, but Christ have mercy on you, that you do not believe that this decree was issued by any Roman Pontiff, at least with his knowledge.
First of all, this godless one, who pretends the Roman name in a lying way, whoever he may be, blathers that by the word of Christ alone the Roman church is founded. But the others, he continues, were not founded by Christ, but by the Roman church, because he had the Roman name.
1) Cf. note Col. 754.
mical church on the rock of faith. On what rock, I pray you, did he set the other churches? On sand? Don't the Roman Church and other churches believe the same thing? Are they not also churches? If they are also a church of Christ, why do you, with a completely ungodly mouth, resist Christ who says, "On this rock I will build my church? What does my church mean? Is only the one Roman church his church? But if every other church is also a church of Christ, and Christ assures that it is to be built on the rock of faith, then it is already said with godless error that this belongs to the Roman church alone and not to all others as well. I now call upon you, my reader, to judge whether I have called these decrees modest or immodestly quite cold, since I should more properly have called them quite impious, not because they are from the Roman popes, but because they are spread under their name, and by them for so many years now the Roman popes have been flattered, who do not care about these follies, even like to hear them. -Thus, according to this interpreter, we will understand and enrich the Gospel thus: "Upon the rock of faith I will build my Roman Church. But the Roman church will build her churches on her opinion, not mine, because I will build mine on the rock of faith." Behold, now the flatterers may go and charge us that the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures belongs to the scribes of the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, see what it means that in the Roman court the jurists rule and, without theologians and holy Scripture, are presumed solely on their power and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that is, they treat Scripture solely by force. By the way, according to the rule of Augustine, both the Roman and every pope is subject to the judgment of every believer, especially in matters of faith.
Then also this, how evangelically it is said that he has handed over the rights of the heavenly and the earthly kingdom to Peter! I pray you, is not this thing worthy of all tears, that we should not read this alone, but that we should read it again?
are also urged to believe as revelations of the Holy Spirit, and are urged in such a way that they also threaten with fire, if we only murmur against them in the slightest? But so it happens that we take this with greater fear and reverence than any other divine commandment about faith or life, where no one threatens with fire, indeed [such] is glorified; and yet we dream that it is well in the church, and do not recognize the Antichrist who sits in the midst of the temple. Therefore this word is the most ungodly blasphemy, that Peter holds the rights of the heavenly kingdom, while he alone has the ministry of the word on earth, and Christ alone is the Lord of heaven and earth. Furthermore, both Christ and Peter taught to despise the earthly kingdom: this [author of the decree] not only says no, 1) he [Peter] has it, but has also placed the rights of it in Peter's hand. From this has followed the evil that the flatterers make the Roman pope lord in both kingdoms, which was not even given to Christ, since he says his kingdom is not of this world. But it is marvelous that Peter suffered Nero as prince, not only at Rome, but also at his crucifixion (in sua cruce), since he could take away from him the rights of the earthly kingdom; or it is certainly silly and ungodly that the successor of Peter should claim this, whereof it is seen that it was not with Peter. Away, then, with these exceedingly presumptuous words dominion, rights of dominion, heavenly and earthly kingdom! Only GOtte is entitled to this: a servant of the church and a priest, a servant of Christ, should be given more modest things.
The same palea continues, "So not any earthly opinion, but that Word by which heaven and earth were built, by which also all elements were created, founded the Roman Church."
1) Nie non 8olum non NuNsre, seä etium ete. That the translation given by us here is correct can be seen by comparison with the end of the following third paragraph: Nie vero non, ete. After the second non in the first row of this note a comma should be placed.
Behold the monstrous thing: either this is said of the Roman church alone, and it follows that all other churches are established by earthly opinion and without the word of God, without which nothing has become what has become, and so all other churches are nothing: or it is to be understood at the same time of other churches, namely, that they are ordered by the Word of God, which created all things, and from this it follows that nothing is said of the Roman church that is especially due to it, but an empty pomp of meaningless words (syllabarum), and that thus this decretista either denies the other churches at the same time as Christ with intolerable impiety, or that he quite obviously makes a mockery of himself with his ignorance.
If he now speaks of the establishment of the churches according to degrees of dignity, not according to their essence, it is evident from what has been said before how wrongly he twists this word of Christ from the faith of the whole general church to the power of one man. Christ says that he builds his church on the rock, but the latter says no to it, but only the Roman one; that is, to make the other churches nothing and to deny Christ.
Further, if the other churches are established by earthly opinion, and he has said that this opinion is that of the Roman church, he condemns himself with his own mouth by saying that their opinion is earthly, not divine. And where is this, that Peter's voice must be heard as a divine one, and not as an earthly one? Further, who built the church at Jerusalem before the Roman church was there? Or did Peter not establish the Roman church by the word of God?
But if he speaks of the institution of dignity, not of the essence of the church, then I conclude thus: the Roman church is instituted by the divine word as one that is higher than others, so it will be necessary that by the same word the other churches are so instituted that they are lower than it, because it cannot be "instituted" as a higher one if there are not such over which it could be instituted as the higher. Where, then, is that which he said above, that the
are the lower ranks (ordinos) of the churches appointed by the Roman church? not by "God's word, by which it itself wants to be established? For how could Christ have been appointed as the Lord, if the Gentiles and the end of the world had not been subject to him at the same time, and Mount Zion, over which he was to be set as king?
If someone wants to say: "If the Roman Church is established above all by the divine word, then other specific [churches] must also be named, which are to be subject to the divine word". Well, this is the divine opinion: "the Roman Church is higher than others", say, where is written what must belong to it (ejus correlativum): "the Church of Milan shall be lower than it, or any other"? If none is mentioned, then none must be below it, at least not according to divine command. What better can be said here than that the word of Christ can be understood neither from the superiority nor from the inferiority of the churches, but from the one, the same and unconquerable faith and from the authority of all churches in the same way? Do you not see what it means to treat the Scriptures according to human inclination and without fear of God?
It follows: "It certainly administers the prerogative of him on whose authority it is founded."
See what conclusions he draws from this! Christ's word of faith, twisted to mean "power," becomes a prerogative of the Roman church in the word that is generally given to all churches, because Christ says, "Upon this rock I will build my church;" "my," he says, "mine. If any other church is a church of Christ, it is certainly built on the same rock and none has any privilege. If it is not a church of Christ, and Rome alone is the church, this privilege has no standing, because there is no church over which the Roman could be higher. Again, I say, the pronoun "my" denotes either the Roman church alone, or every church. If it denotes it alone, it does not have a privilege over others. If each, it again does not have a privilege over others.
So let him choose what he wants, so by this word of Christ the Roman. Church will either be alone, or it will not be the first. In another way, therefore, this supremacy must be proved, for you see how beautifully the gospel of Christ escapes this mockery of his, and as it is written in the Proverbs of Solomon [Cap. 3, 34]: He mocks his mockers.
And yet there are so many who, out of this wretched chaff (palea), boast of the privilege of the Roman church without distinction as an article of faith, even as the first and greatest of all, and would rather suffer you to deny Christ than not to worship this privilege, perverting the words of Christ.
There follows again a conclusion which is worthy of such a sentence (themate): "Therefore it is not doubtful, because whoever takes away the right of any church commits an injustice. But he who undertakes to take away from the Roman Church the prerogative which has been handed over to her by the supreme head of all the churches (see, however, how far this crybaby runs his mouth), falls without doubt into heresy."
The Roman Church has not a right, but a privilege. Which? That it is built on the rock of faith, because according to this writer, this belongs to the Roman church alone. Then by the rock of faith he understands this privilege of earthly supremacy. For these two things this palea constantly mixes and confuses.
I beg you, how great patience is needed to endure this! First of all, as I said, if rock denotes faith, then all churches have it and no privilege remains. But if not all churches have the same, the Roman church will be alone, having none to be preferred. Secondly, if the rock of faith denotes dignity, it immediately contradicts itself in the same word and falsifies the word of Christ, turning the meaning of "faith" into the meaning of "power" and drawing the spirit to the flesh, Christ to the world.
So he is not a heretic who denies this prerogative of the Roman church, but
He is a falsifier of the word of God, who understands the rock of faith as the prerogative of temporal power.
But that at the end he cites Ambrose, who claims that he follows the Roman, the mother of the churches, God wanted him to do the same as Ambrose! The Roman Church is a mother, but not of all churches. For also every metropolis is a mother of churches according to the statutes of the fathers. Furthermore, the Roman Church has never done to the words of Christ this dishonor that this palea does to them, but understands by the rock the faith, but not the ambition of tyranny.
The eighth (to make an end with these deplorable interpreters of the divine scripture) is again Anacletus in the same Distinction, Cap. Sacrosancta (for so foolish was this quite illiterate scribe, whoever he may have been, to attribute such great ignorance and sacrilege even to so great a pope, as we shall see): "The most holy Roman Church (because others are not holy, or not the most holy, though sanctified in the same faith, words, sacrament, spirit, and by all means in the same holiness) has received supremacy not from the apostles, but from the Lord and Savior Himself, as He says to St. Peter. 'You are Peter' 2c"
If any pagan heard the words of Christ interpreted in this way, when would he become a Christian? So he also understands here the supremacy under the words "you are Peter" or under "this rock". But they may choose (to repeat again the same thing) which of the two they will. By "Peter" he means in this place either the faith of the Spirit or the supremacy externally, for it cannot mean both at the same time. If it means faith, then all churches are also built upon it, for Christ says: upon this rock I will build my church. So it comes to every one that it is called "my church" by Christ, to which rock (petra) and Peter refer, on which it is built. Thus the Roman church has nothing of its own, but everything is common, for where the same faith is,
there is also the same power of the keys. For to the faith and to the rock the keys are given, as is clear. If it means a power, then again all churches are the same, because it is said by Christ to each one: "my church", and at the same time it is said: "I will build you from the rock", that is, the power. Therefore, by this word, every church will be the first of all, because it has the same rock by which the Roman church boasts itself as the first. Therefore, wherever you turn, Christ always confronts you and resists you by building his church on the rock, and does not allow any particular church to have this rock, that is, not even Peter. You see, then, that this single pronoun "my" like a heavenly crystal 1) makes all these decrees so cold that none can stand before its coldness, since it makes the rock common, the power common, the keys common, Peter common, and everything common. So also all that the Roman church has by divine right has any church, however small, because he speaks to all. Paul also, 1 Cor. 3, 21. ff, says, All things are yours; whether Paul or Apollos, whether Cephas or the world, all things are yours. But you are Christ's,
It would really be ridiculous that all churches have the same baptism, the same Lord's Supper, the same confirmation, the same Word of God, the same priesthood, the same sacraments of penance, last rites, marriage and all sacraments, the same faith, hope, love, grace, death, life, glory, and only this temporal power should have been given to only one through the Word of God, which is common to all.
Therefore, wherever the Word of God is preached and believed, there is also true faith, that immovable rock; but where faith, there is the Church, where the Church, there is the Bride of Christ, where the Bride of Christ, there is everything that belongs to the Bridegroom. So faith has everything with it that is based on faith.
1) This word is derived from cold and I pull together. Hence Pliny says, Nist. uat. lid. XXXVII, eap. VII, a crystal arises through violent contraction by means of cold.
The keys, the sacraments, the violence and everything else.
I also ask, if the keys are given to Peter alone, and not to the general church, why are they not called the keys of Peter? why are they not called the keys of the Roman church? why does the pope himself call them in his letters the keys of the holy mother, the church? For either this expression, which is common to the whole Church, does injustice to the Roman Church in its prerogative, which arrogates the keys to itself alone, or the Roman Church seeks a division by saying, "I am Cephas'," and robs the whole Church of a thing which it itself professes to be a common one. It is clear, then, from the public testimony of all, that it is not to Peter but to the Church that the keys are given, not to the Roman, but to the general and to any one. Moreover, see how properly they understand by the rock a power. For since a violence cannot be unless the Church is founded beforehand, which could receive the violence, how can the Church be built upon the violence, that is, the former upon the later? Finally, Christ does not understand a violence by "rock," but by "key," which He gives to the Church previously built on the rock (that is, faith), as the order of the text clearly proves. So you see how ambition blinds the eyes of the mind, so that, not satisfied with the violence of the keys, it makes a violence out of the rock of faith, which is the essence of the Church.
But that this Anacletus calls the Roman chair the first, the one at Alexandria the second, and the one at Antioch the third, he refutes himself again, not only because this order has long been changed, but also because it follows from this that either the one at Alexandria is the second according to divine order, and the one at Antioch the third, or the one at Rome would not be the first either, because it must be the first according to the same right as the second and third. But it is obvious that Rome orders the second and third by her own authority, so she also puts herself in the first place by her own authority.
He is also mistaken in history, because he writes that Ignatius was appointed by Peter as bishop of Antioch as his successor, since church history shows that Evodius followed Peter, and Ignatius followed Evodius. Therefore, it is not credible that Anaclet is the author of this canon.
Now hear again the sure, that is, the sacrilegious assertor: "Among the holy apostles," he says, "there was a certain difference in power, and though they were all apostles, yet it was granted to Peter by the Lord, and they among themselves willed the very same thing, that he should preside over all the other apostles."
I pray you, what difference was there in the power? Did Peter ordain apostles? did he send them? did he confirm them? Where did you read, you beast, that it was granted by the Lord to Peter to have a power distinct from the others? When did they want it themselves?
But now even, here make you a sign: "The supremacy is twofold, of honor and of power. That Peter was the first in rank, no one denies. For even among the cardinals, bishops, priests, teachers, and princes, though none is subject to the others, it is nevertheless necessary that in the assembly some one should sit on high, even though he has nothing to command them. Thus we confess that Peter is the prince of the apostles, the first member of the church, the head of the apostolic community (collegii) and other things that the holy fathers have said about him. Thus we see that also the Roman popes have always been honored as successors of Peter and that they have been considered the first. And in this they have done rightly and praiseworthily, and so they act now, and so they must act without complaint."
But the second supremacy, that of authority, was never given to Peter, for each of the apostles preached the gospel without Peter's command, appointed bishops and elders in his places; all were sent by Christ alone in the same way and directly. This supremacy these very righteous canons covet and abuse of the
Words of God to fortify this tyranny. For they do not want anyone to become a bishop in the whole world if he does not have the pallium 1) and the authority of the Roman Pontiff. And where Peter did not rise above the apostles, one apostle's successor, who is far inferior to his predecessor (like a bishop against an apostle), not content with the supremacy of honor, wants to rule over the successors of all the apostles in force and violence, but not also to pasture himself 2c
I oppose this insurmountable reason to all those who flatter the Roman Pontiff because of his dominion over the whole world, and I await with confidence what they can raise or deliver against it. I also trust in this as the most certain truth, known to all, and confidently proclaim that the decrees which state anything to the contrary are not only quite cold, but also contrary to the divine Scriptures, the Gospel and Acts, and the letters of the apostles, in which he is so frequently and so clearly described as being like the apostles, and that a special territory has been assigned to him in the world, so that I cannot wonder enough that .that there ever could have been such sacrilegious flatterers, who should dare to raise their earthly smoke against this thunder of the Scriptures and to arrogate to the successor of Peter, a bishop, what even his predecessor, the apostle Peter, was never allowed. But I would not be surprised if they only presumed this to him, would not complain about it either, but about the fact that they rather wanted to falsify the scripture, which argues against this presumption, than to give up this temporal supremacy of authority in the face of their contradiction.
Add to this that even in this the Roman popes do not act rightly and evangelically, that they rule the bishops who have emerged from the Roman church, that is, the Latin church, in such a way that they alone decree and confirm all bishops. For in this they do not seem to Christ,
1) What the pallium is and what it costs is explained Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1412 s., tz 203 and 204.
but to arrogate to themselves the churches of Christ, since, according to the example of the apostle Paul, they should also leave the appointment of bishops to others, namely, to archbishops and neighboring [bishops] They should therefore entrust them to GOtte and by no means force them to send to Rom for a new bishop, for this has no small appearance of avarice and tyranny, by which they would like to lord it over their faith; this Paul did not want to take upon himself over the Corinthians [1 Cor. 3.] For it would be enough to have once given a bishop, and thereafter to command them to the grace of God and leave them to their own procreation, or only to see to it that they did not depart from the faith, as the apostle gave an example in Galatians. Now we see how, under the pretext of this benefice and sovereignty, the bishoprics and priesthoods of all are torn into the maw of Roman avarice, covering so many abominations of the most insolent simony with this one lid.
It follows: "And Cephas, that is, the head, was also to hold the chief place in the apostleship." 1)
This passage at least shows that this supremacy was sought more out of desire for power than out of love for truth. For how should they use so many false reasons, if they once had one, and indeed a well-founded cause? But a lie needs many to appear true. Therefore, this scenicus et poeticus 2 Anaclet is so ignorant that he interprets Cephas as "head", contrary to the very clear and apostolic testimony of the apostle John, who says John 1:42: "When Jesus saw him, he said, 'You are Simon, the son of Joanna; you shall be called Cephas,' which is interpreted, Peter. I am ashamed that such a great trade is built on this very gross error, in which they show at the same time that they are industrious readers of the Gospel.
1) We have deleted the comma after principiuiri, and in this we have followed the Basel edition and also the papal law book itself.
2) I.e. he who pretends to be the Anaclet and puts fictitious words into his mouth.
It is therefore not surprising that they also misunderstand it. Leo understood it better before 3), namely petram (rock) as "solid ground" and knew the word Cephas well. But this one understands neither the Gospel nor the Canons correctly. According to the testimony of Jerome, Cephas is a Syriac word that means solidity, which the Greek translated as petrum or petram, that is, stone or solid rock. But our Pofsenmacher has understood κεφαλήν in Greek for Cephas in Syriac, and [this Canon] is nevertheless considered even the first among the sacred Canons. For in the Decretals, which Gregory X and Boniface VIII have brought together, such great prestige is attached to this Canon and its like that there is hardly one which does not contain (spiret) it entirely within itself.
I pass over what he says afterwards, that this conception (formam) is handed down to the successors and must be observed by the other bishops, since he announces nothing but the greatest ambition.
There follows a beautiful similitude: "And not only is it ordered in the new testament, but it was also in the old, as it is written [Ps. 99, 6.], Moses and Aaron among his priests, that is, they were the first among them."
What do I hear? I do not read these canons in vain! How wonderfully I learn to understand the Scriptures! First, since I knew of only one high priest in the old law, I have now learned that two were the first. Secondly, notice also the new art of speech: "among his priests" is the same as: "they were the first among them", while I understood it so far that by this verse of the Psalm nothing else was said than that Moses and Aaron were priests or from the number of the priests, just as also Samuel was among those who call on his name, and I did not even have thoughts of the supreme place. The third testimony is that the high priest in the old law was a model of the Roman pope. For the apostle in the letter to
3) Above Col. 747.
Hebrews [7, 26. ff.] has deceived me wonderfully, since he teaches all the teachers of the Church that not the Roman pope, but Christ alone is signified by the highest and only priest.
To pass over the fact that we know that everything happened to them in the model, and that in the new testament the model again imposes itself, so that in both testaments the same pictures are to be, and no more difference between both takes place. I am extremely annoyed that the divine Scriptures are so brazenly trampled on by these swine, especially under the name of the Roman pope and the Roman church.
But what is this, that he hath set two first priests in the old testament, to the great disadvantage of his supremacy? Follow what thou sayest, though it be false; the like shall be, and now provide thou also two firsts: how canst thou prove one to be the first by two firsts? So you see that these people were those who abused the simplicity of our faith and dared to exhibit everything they could even dream of.
Finally, he concludes and with the same skill calls the Roman church the pivot through which all churches are governed, since the Lord so decrees. And there it shall have an end here. For the other canons, which say the same, are, by taking their poison from them, naturally poisoned in the same way.
However, I cannot refrain from mentioning a Decretal, even if only one, so that it may become apparent what good it does to govern churches and not understand the Holy Scriptures. For there are also very many quite matte (admini- strationem) Decretales, especially those which are now most in use. I pass over the de constitutione, Cap. Translato, which I believe has been so punished by me before 2) that it is not necessary to repeat it. However, I take this trouble upon myself with respect to the Cap. Significasti, de electione, where the Archbishop of Palermo (?a-
1) I.e. papal decree or law.
2) In the ^ULustana, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 748, § 4.
normitanus), when he quite justly wondered with the king and the kingdom of Sicily that an oath should be required of him who was to receive the pallium, and there with beautiful modesty cited against this quite shameful requirement the command of Christ and the decisions of the Conciliar, received the following answer and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures from Paschalis, the Roman pope, that is, from the Roman scribes:
"You may wonder," he says, "that our Lord Jesus Christ, when he commanded Peter to care for his sheep, added a condition, saying: If thou love me, feed my sheep 2c"
The great ones of the pope and the Roman court were so upset by the question of this one bishop that they could not find what to answer until the Spirit of the Lord turned them to where they had to show everyone that their thoughts and actions were not in the law of the Lord. I want to play the role of the archbishop.
If the example of Christ pleases you and applies to you, O Paschalis, why do you not imitate the same? If it does not please you, why do you follow it? Why are you not content to ask whether he loves Christ, and entrust Christ's sheep to him without an oath? Since you like the example, why are you not satisfied with the condition? Or is the condition of the oath better and holier than that of love? Or do you hope that he who swears out of compulsion will do more than he who loves freely? Christ detaches Peter from the law and constraint of the vow and the oath, seeks in him only the assurance of voluntariness and love, and you take away freedom and constrain him with the law of the oath; where is the example of Christ? where the similarity of condition? Is the word "love" to be understood as an oath?
Did Christ ask Peter to take an oath for the Roman church? What business is it of Christ's sheep to swear to you and your church? Are they your sheep or Christ's? But you, best father, do not care at all whether he loves Christ, that is of little importance to you, as a completely worthless
Condition: You bind him with an oath that he will be faithful [to you]. The archbishop's question is still there; you have not satisfied it.
Furthermore, the question arises, by what right do you enforce this loyalty? Your answer brings you deeper into it and entangles you. Furthermore, I ask you, to whom do you swear allegiance? Why do you impose a burden on another, which you do not want to touch even with a finger, both against love and against the law of nature?
Furthermore, this question also remains: Why did the previous popes not demand the oath? Why did others not take it? Where does this new demand come from? Do you want me to say it? The conscience is afraid because of the unjustly imposed violence, because justice is not at hand. Therefore, consolation and fortification are sought in every possible way.
Thus, even today, one cannot be a bishop (pontificari) if one does not swear allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. But as soon as you have sworn allegiance, you are immediately worthy to be a bishop, whether you love and pasture or not: for these conditions Christ may demand, what is that to our time? Nor need we care whether he be holy and learned or not, if he be but a servant of the Roman Church. You must not serve Christ, the teacher of freedom, unless you first become a sworn slave of the Roman court. It is enough, when one has learned from Christ's example, to interpret to the brethren any condition, however unreasonable, at will, but not to remember Christ's condition with a single syllable.
But answer again, Paschalis: with your own judgment I attack you. If Christ has set the condition there, as you say, then we now establish, according to your own saying, that no one is a Roman pope if he does not love and pasture, because it is a conditional contract and commission; if the condition does not hold, then the same does not apply. So I use your conclusion. 1) The Archbishop of Palermo, without the fulfillment of the
1) enthymemema == a short conclusion of reason from the
Antithesis.
You are not a bishop unless you really fulfill the condition of love and pasture first. If this is true, we have not had a pope in six hundred years. For no one has taught us God's word, and it is not enough for you to promise that you will love, because it is not enough for you to promise that someone will swear. But just as you require of the brother the condition by deed, so we in the name of Christ require this greater condition by deed, or we deny, upon your proof, that you are the pope. What do you want to do here? So you see how the Scripture does not put up with falsification at all, how it shows those to be void (vanos) who defile it. - Paschalis did not want to be convicted by the question, nor even to appear as if he had done evil, and without knowing it, he convicts himself of being unworthy of the whole papacy, and while he pulls out the splinter from the brother, he shows us his beam. So this is the pasture, that the Romans draw all things to themselves, lay all things upon all, withdraw themselves from all, and, what is still more terrible, force us not to Christ but to themselves, not demanding a condition by which we promise the freedom of Christ, but by which we swear servitude to them. But what greater misery can there be in the church than that it is held together not by love but by force? than that the popes rule not by goodness but by force? than that the subjects serve compelled not by love but by hatred and fear?
But there follows a worthy application of the parable: "If he who made conscience, and knows all things that are hidden, used this condition, not once only, but also the second time, and until he [Peter] was afflicted, with what anxiety must we lay so great a ministry of overseership (praelationem) in the church upon the brethren whose consciences we see not?"
This, of course, is no wonder, for Peter, Paul, and the other apostles were not as concerned as the Romans are now, and further, they may have known the consciences of those who were
They made them priests, and did not make much of the example of Christ. Is this not making a mockery of themselves? But even Christ, whose sheep are his own, even though he gave himself up for them, was not so concerned that he demanded an oath from Peter, but sleepily demanded only love, a very small thing indeed. Admittedly, if Paschalis did not hold the oath higher than love, he would undoubtedly be satisfied with Christ's example and would not complain that he had to bear greater concern than Christ himself, who also set Judas over the sheep to be fed, whom he knew to be evil, and that without condition. For you see how he concludes from the lesser to the greater: "Christ has demanded how much more we", as if this had anything to do with the fact that Christ knows the consciences, but the Roman pope does not know them, since in this Christ has given an example for all to imitate. Finally, we do not know the conscience of the Roman Pontiff either; let him therefore swear to us the condition, at least that of Christ.
Again I ask: If not knowing conscience is the only cause for the requirement of the oath, why don't you force him to swear that he has sworn right, and so without end, since you don't know his conscience for any oath, whether he swears right or not? But if this not knowing the conscience does not cause the demand of the oath, how can you be so bold as to cite the not knowing the conscience as the cause? What is this marvelous toleration and non-toleration of the non-knowing of conscience in One man in relation to the same man? If, after taking the oath, you give up such a great office (admini- strationem) to him, why do you not, which would be easier, give up the oath? Or do you think that the oath you have taken is a greater thing than the administration of such a large church?
In addition, not knowing conscience should make you quite confident of obtaining the prelate's dignity (praelationem), that the less you know conscience, the more you should refrain from taking the oath, so that you do not force him to perjure himself.
you would like. So you should have been glad that Christ gave you this freedom, that you could entrust to him the sheep whose hearts you do not know. Now, through the oath, you are investigating secret things, or putting the brother in danger, both of which are something highly questionable; and without cause, not for the sake of God, but because of loyalty to the Roman church.
Finally, if not knowing is the cause of the oath, it follows that if you knew the conscience, you would have demanded the oath wrongly. But since everyone should assume the best of each other, and since it is the duty of love to believe everything, this very confidence in the brother's good conduct is better than all knowledge, which, even if you knew it, you could not know for long, but you could believe at all times.
Finally, do you know his conscience after the oath? Why then does he not swear to you all the time, since he gives you cause to swear all the time?
I have said this so that we may see what it is not to yield to the word of God and to conform the Scriptures to His meaning. How could I hope that the Roman popes have the right to interpret the Scriptures, who so obviously treat the Scriptures in a foreign sense? Or what would the Romans not like to gain on earth? What would the flatterers not dare to do under their name, if this opinion of theirs were to captivate and pervert us, namely, that their sayings should not be read with judgment, and that to them alone was given the right to interpret the Scriptures? For then (to use Augustine's word) a game is really being played in the church without danger to this supremacy, but it would be surprising to Hu if God's and also ours were not mocked. But away, away with this more than Babylonian captivity!
There now follows [in the Decretale] the resolution of the objections: "They [the Archbishop of Palermo and the King of Sicily] say that every oath from the Lord in the Evan-.
1) Instead of ooexerit in the Weimar edition, oexerit will probably be read.
gelio Match. 5, 34.] was forbidden, nor could such a provision be found either by the apostles according to (pc>8t) the Lord, or in the Conciliar."
Now let us hear what he [the pope Paschalis] will say, since he is prostrated by these irrefutable blows: "What is it, then, that the Lord says hereafter Match. 5,37.What is above that is of evil? For this above compels us to require this evil, since he permits it to us." 1)
What Christ forbids and says no to, this one says yes to and commands. Christ says: What is above this is from evil, that is, it does not have to happen. For he speaks of the inclination to swear without the necessity of the brother's need, that is, of the desire to swear; just as he forbade the desire of a wife, since he did not forbid the husband and wife to be friends, so he forbade the desire to swear, not the oath. This one says "this about it compels us", that is, it must happen in any case. But let us hear what this "evil" is, which no one has ever thought of in the words of the Gospel:
"Is it not an evil," he says, "to depart from the unity of the Church and obedience to the apostolic See, and to rise boldly against the provisions of the canons? Many have presumed to do so, even after taking the oath."
I meant that he would interpret this "evil", not loving Christ, not feeding the sheep, and being urged by Christ's example to demand the oath because of the care for them. But this is what Christ may demand of Peter: nowadays, it is necessary to take care that the bishops do not depart from obedience to the apostolic chair.
1) We have, just as the Weimar edition, left the incorrect interpunction of Luther, because the following argumentation of Luther is somewhat excluded from it. In the Decretale itself is so mterpungirt: Koo enim EF/ES ut 6XIMMU8, muluna QO8 Mo perruittsntD eompellit, i.e. that we demand that/ what is above it [namely the oath], the evil [the rebellion against the supremacy of the pope] forces us to. This shameful distortion is also sufficiently refuted by Luther's splendid interpretation in the following.
Then I say, "My bishop has not yet done anything of this sort; why then do you demand the oath? Is it because you do not know whether he will not do it? Why don't you demand an oath for every commandment of God? Why does not evil force you here? Or isn't it an evil to break off from the commandments of God? Yes, you fill the church with oaths! But if you are so lenient with God's commandments that so many evils, which prevail before everyone's eyes, even in your own court (in domesticis tuis), do not drive you to oath, how can evil, which neither exists nor perhaps will ever occur, drive you to oath with your commandments? Is it not obvious] that the more self-love is glossed over, the more it betrays itself? There is absolutely no reason why, if you demand oaths for your own benefit in your commandments, you should not demand them for God's benefit, or if you do not do it here, you do not do it there without fault.
So here you have an evil that the Romans see in the gospel, which is the evil suspicion concerning good brothers, for whether the transgressions of God's commandments are evil, let others see. Oh, about the eye of ambition and avarice!
It follows: "By this evil and adversity we are driven, of course, to demand the oath because of fidelity, because of obedience, because of unity."
Not also because of faithfulness to Christ, because of obedience to God, because of unity with the brethren? No, but this one thing is good and necessary for the church, that Rome may reign securely and all others serve in captivity.
That is why the Christians in India still suffer from a great evil. Thus, the most shameful suspicion regarding the best brothers is the cause to demand an oath, which they do not take, for the commandments of God, which they presume to be kept.
Again, by unity of the Church he understands fidelity and obedience to the Roman Church, not faith, hope, love, sacraments, word, and other of the same kind, but only the One,
which they do not want any other church to have but their own, and yet they call it unity. Only the Roman church today has this, probably its highest good, and yet all other churches agree precisely that they do not have it, and thus become one in a matter which is not common to them, but which is quite peculiar and is attributed to only one man. For thus in our times we have new words to learn in the Scriptures and in the Church of God. How much more correctly did Cyprian understand love as this unity, as Christ also prayed, John 17:21, that they might be one in us, even as we also are one: "one", he says, "in us", not "in the Roman Church".
At the end: "They say that in the Conciliar Churches such a provision is not sound, as if any Conciliar Churches had imposed a law on the Roman Church, whereas all the Conciliar Churches have both been held by the prestige of the Roman Church and have received power from it, and in their decisions the power of the Roman Pontiff is evidently excepted."
Who can tolerate this, I pray you? Did the Council of Nicaea receive strength or was it held by the prestige of the Roman church? or also many others, which were held by Augustin and Cyprian before in Africa? Finally, even if the decisions would exclude the Roman pope, he should not want to be excluded for the sake of the edification of the church. Here, however, he boasts that he owes nothing to anyone, so that God owes nothing to him.
Truly, I would not have answered the Archbishop of Palermo with such harsh and uneven speech, full of strife and pomposity, arousing fury and hatred, but would have said, "Let it go now, dear brother, it is a great thing, for your sake alone, to cancel so suddenly what we have not ordered." For thus peace and love would be preserved. But this decree breathes only pride and unbending defiance.
1) Now let us add a second decree, in order to prove all the more firmly that not only the Roman popes have the right to interpret the Holy Scriptures, and that Christians must not be forced under their words as prisoners, but that all theirs must be read with free judgment.
In the Decretale de majoritate et obedien- tia, Cap. Solitae, we find this. When the Emperor at Constantinople had held up to the Roman Pontiff the word of Peter [1. Ep. Cap. 2, 13.]: Be subjects of all human order 2c, by which he wanted to prove that the Patriarch at Constantinople was under him, Innocent III answered him, or it may have been some trusted scribe of his, who was completely ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, and said:
"But if you had paid more careful attention to the person of him who speaks, and of those to whom he speaks, and to what this speech contains in itself (vim locutionis), you would not have brought out such a mind of the writer."
Behold, I beseech thee, this shepherd of Christ's sheep, who, in interpreting the word of God, sets out to establish a distinction of persons, when the word of God opposes nothing so much as the respect of persons. For with God there is no respect for the person [Acts 10:34], but what He commands, He commands to all, great and small [Romans 2:11]. But now, let us
1) In the first editions, the entire section on the second Decretale, which comprises the following 44 paragraphs, is missing, up to the words: "since, on the contrary, all the words of men must be judged according to the word of God, which judges everything." Instead of this, they have the following addition: "Besides this (Decretales, there are also some others, especially the äe masoritutk et odväisutlÄ, Cap. Kolitae, which are so completely devoid of theology that it takes me the Church, which is only occupied with the traditions of men, so that it is not allowed to see the completely pure sense of the Gospel. But I will refrain from this now, since it is enough for me to have shown why I believe that I have sufficiently honored the Roman pope when I tolerate his decrees, but do not also follow their opinion as the sole and true one, lest, when I examine them in more detail, one might get the idea that I have censured the pronouncements of such highly placed people (tuuti vsrtiois) out of pleasure. I do not want to condemn them, but I also do not want to be forced by them against the truth of the Scriptures.
780 V- a. Ill, 349 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, Kwo-IE. 781
see what kind of person of the speaker this new interpreter of Scripture presents to us.
"For it wrote the apostle to his subjects, provoking them to the merit of humility."
So you have the person of the speaker and those to whom he wrote, that is, the greater and the lesser, then also what the speech contains in itself, namely, an incitement to the merit of humility. He says that.
First, I ask you, what new thing does this interpretation bring forward? For who ever commands others, or teaches others, but his subjects? Why, then, is a distinction of persons necessary in order to understand this passage of Peter alone, before others which he has written, and before the writings of all teachers? Or do in others the subordinates teach the superiors, the disciples the teacher, the Gentiles the apostle? But so they must speak, lest they should be silent, since they are both defending a very bad cause, and ignorant of the holy Scriptures. But this deceives this speaker, that he takes the words of Peter for all that they concern his human law, in which the superiors sometimes order something for the salvation of the subordinates, which does not concern them themselves. And this, of course, is the reason why he makes us a counsel out of Peter's divine command, saying that he incited the subjects to humility, namely, that he neither commanded nor advised, but incited, as it were, to the superfluous (as they call it) merit of humility. Namely, the shepherds of the sheep find this content in the speech of God, while Peter commands a divine and necessary command by adding: For this is the will of God [1 Petr. 2, 15].
But we want to pursue his opinion further, which is that against these persons distinguished by the content of the speech, not Peter, not his successors, not the rulers in the church, but only the subordinates are encouraged to submit. Let us see what follows from this.
First: 'Peter and the popes are exempt from the commandment of God. For them it does not befit to obey God, but to obey God.
Although the law, or the divine word, is prescribed to all, great and small, and leaves none exempt, yet a scribe of the pope has the power to exempt whichever he pleases. Thus you see that by the Decretals the Gospel is blotted out, that by the word of a man the Word of God is abrogated: and this abomination we Christians in the Church of Christ worship as the Word of God. Who, I pray thee, should not be inflamed?
But what other man should be so foolish as to believe that Peter, by his own authority, imposed this submission on his subjects, that he might exempt himself from this commandment? If he did this, he taught by word other things than he showed by example, that is, he destroyed what he taught. Or must the subjects of Peter and his successor be subject to the emperor, but they themselves contradict them with the opposite example? Or was Peter not subject to the authorities, as he taught? Was not Christ under the emperor? Were not all the apostles and saints likewise? Or may not the Roman Pontiff be encouraged in the merit of humility? Is he alone free to rise to the sin of pride? Therefore, popes are already something else than Christians, because the law of Christians does not bind them: elsewhere they themselves go, elsewhere their subordinates, elsewhere the shepherds, elsewhere the sheep, elsewhere the leaders, elsewhere the herds, according to a completely new way to lead, to pasture, to govern. They may henceforth no longer say "come", but "go": they need not go ahead, but they may yet only leave the people in the commandments of God.
Now if this wisdom is valid in this passage, it will also be valid in every other commandment of Peter, where he teaches the faith of Christ, and the whole reputation of Peter will be destroyed, because everywhere it will be said that he commanded this to the subjects, not to himself, nor to his followers, since he could only speak to subjects. So we also want to
here say, "if thou hadst taken heed to the person of him that speaketh, and of them to whom he speaketh, thou wouldest not have so construed his mind, for he speaketh to his subjects, encouraging them to the merit of faith, hope, and love: he willed that he himself should be exempt, and we also." And quite rightly, for the Romans nowadays pay such exceeding careful attention to the person of their Peter when he speaks, that they understand him to mean that they are at liberty to hold nothing of what he has spoken, not even to believe Christ, and to be Christians, and to live as Christians, so that after rejecting the Christian word of Peter they become such Christians as are worthy of this decree: as the law, so also the people.
Where, then, will this remain, that in all that is taught in the sacred Scriptures, the popes should be first and the light of the world, so that their works may be seen by men? How now, if the subjects were to say, "We can neither do nor be guilty of anything but what we see being done by our shepherds"? Where then will the word of Peter remain? Where then the person of those to whom he speaks? since the subjects have greater cause to reject it, precisely because they see that it is not only not kept, but also rejected by those after whose example they should live. I can hardly refrain from calling this most impious and perverse decree a blasphemy.
But now that we have come to know the person of the speaker and the hearer and what this speech contains in itself, let us see further how it carries this out.
"For if by what he said, Be subject, he had intended to put the yoke of subjection on the priests, and to attach the prestige of preeminence to those 1) whom he recalled to be subjects, it would also follow from this that any servant would have received dominion over the priest, since it is said, to every human creature (creaturae).
1) ackkerrs, not autsrrs. The latter reading occurs in some older prints of canon law and was also presented by Luther (Weim. Ausg.).
What a bitter word: "Be subject"! Therefore he also repeats it in as spiteful a manner as possible, calling it a yoke of subjection, in contrast to the prestige of precedence, and, as it were, lamenting the rule of a servant. Further, he says, "he remembered," abhorring the word commandment, and desiring nothing else but that he might not be compelled to be subject to any man, but that he might rule all, or at least that he might make a council of the commandment.
But how far is it inconsistent that a priest is subject to a servant? Did not Christ come to serve in the midst of all [Matth. 20, 28.] and take on the form of a servant? [Does this encouragement to the merit of humility belong only to Christ's subordinates, whose subordinates the Roman popes do not want to be? Christ commanded to be placed below [Luc. 14, 10.], and Peter [1 Ep. 5, 5.] commands that all should be subject to one another and hold fast to humility, and Paul that one should esteem another more highly and [Rom. 12, 10.] that one should precede another with reverence. But this the persons of the speakers have said to their subordinates and have judged themselves according to other things!
However, if Peter does not speak of this submission, which reigns among the Christians through the mutual demonstration of the humility of the spirit, he does speak of that, by which they were subjected to the worldly authorities, sovereigns and judges, which the power of the Roman Empire had ordered. For this institution Peter calls a human order (creaturam), because these authorities are instituted by men (creentur). But this Decretenmacher does not even understand the words of the Scriptures and yet dares to interpret them. But that this human creation is what I have said, he could have understood if he had sought Peter's opinion as [eagerly] as he sought his ambition from what immediately follows, where Peter, handing out to the individuals what he had previously summarized, declares to himself: of every order (creaturae), I say, be it to the king, be it to the
Captains, as if to say, "Therefore I have said that you should be subject to every creation and to all the ordinances of men, lest any of you should rise up against the inferior superiors, as if to obey the king only; but also to those who are sent by him, give, do, keep what must be given, done, and kept." As it is said in Rom. 13:7, Honor to whom honor is due, fear to whom fear is due, duty to whom duty is due. He does not speak of the creature of God [that is, of a person whom God created], which Innocent imagines in his opinion, but of a human creation [i.e., order], as the words expressly read; but such a one is not a servant, who, as he fears, would like to obtain dominion over the priests, although according to the Gospel we are to humble ourselves under every servant. Yes, this whole tangle of Innocent's words does not serve the cause at all and only gives evidence of his ignorance.
Now follows: "But that it follows, be it to the king as to the chief, we do not deny that the emperor is the chief in temporal things, but only over those who receive temporal things from him."
Now if you were to ask here by what power he so constrains the word of Peter that he refers what is said to all, as a falsifier, only to some, he will answer nothing else than: "So we will: our word must be believed, even more than the express text of the words of God."
First, this scribe labors where he is not pressed, and flees where no one pursues him, namely, because he is tormented by his dishonesty and his evil conscience. Peter says that one must be subject to the king as to the chief, that is, because he is first and more than the captains sent by him. But the decretary is offended by the word "chief" and since he fears that it might be read as if the emperor had a supreme power over the popes, he opposes it fearfully and disputes the supreme power of the king and the pope in a completely different way than Peter's opinion entails. He has not
Pay attention to the word of Peter, who commands that one should obey not only the king, as the supreme, but also the captains, as the messengers of him, yes, all human order. The decree-maker does not care about this at all, because the word of the supremacy with princes and with human order did not sound terribly in his ears. In short, this Roman scribe, whoever he may be, does not understand a word in this saying of Peter, and yet he claims to teach all the sheep of Christ:
But we want to follow his smoke.
I say: The emperor is supreme in all temporal things, even in sacred ones, and this by divine right, as the words of Peter enforce; but, because it is in his will, and they are human orders, he can voluntarily either retain or let go this supreme power, and in both cases he has a divine right. Thus, from the times of Constantine, not by the authority of the popes, but by the human orders of the emperors, exemption [from taxes] has been given to the persons and goods of the ecclesiastics, and no one can answer anything else to this that is any good. Therefore, if the emperor or the captains should revoke this, which they have given by their authority, they cannot be resisted without sin and impiety. Therefore, the counterfeiter does not do anything here by only subjecting to the emperor those who have received temporal things from him, by obviously and insolently tearing up the word of Peter. From whom, I ask, did he receive the temporal things? From the devil even by robbery? And where is that which he said above, that one must pay attention to the person of the speaker, that Peter wrote this to his subordinates? Who are Peter's subordinates? Are they the laity alone? Why then does he boast that all Christ's sheep are commanded to him in Peter? Therefore all the sheep of Christ, that is, all the subordinates of the pope, whether they be laymen or clergymen, and thereby both the leader and shepherd himself, and the goats of the flock, are subject to the emperor and the captains. For so enforce it even the
Words of this Decretenmacher, if one compares them with each other. So either only the clergy are the hares of Christ, who are commanded to Peter, or the clergy are subject to the emperor together with the laity, because all who are subject to Peter are made subject to the emperor and the captains by Peter.
"But the pope is supreme in spiritual things, which are as much more glorious (digniora) than the soul is more excellent than the body."
Why is it not added here: "but only for those who receive spiritual things from him"? Namely, because he wants to be the supreme in the temporal, so that he is not forced to be subject to the emperor in any way, since Peter submits him completely to the emperor. Thus the holy and terrible word of God must sit below and give way to our inclinations. But one says:
Didn't Peter know that spiritual things are higher than temporal things? Why, then, does he subject himself and all to the temporal authorities? But this is much more sweet: the subjects of Peter and the pope are spirituales, therefore they are not subjects of the emperor. From this it follows that the laity, because they are not spiritual, are also subordinates of Peter, not sheep of Christ, because he has subjected all of them to Peter. But since Peter, according to this decree-maker, wrote this to his subjects, the consequence will be that only the clerics must be under Caesar, and not laymen, or, what they most abhor, not all the sheep of Christ in the world are under Peter, or all the subjects must be equally spirituales, if all the sheep are also subject to Peter: and thus this distinction of temporal and spiritual things entirely coincides. What else should he deserve who dares to treat and defile the sacred Scriptures with human traditions, but to fall into such monstrosities of confusion and contradiction? Thus the subjects of the pope are no other than those of the emperor, only insofar as the emperor's determination and order [something] is not changed.
has given. 1) By this word of Peter and by divine right we all become subject to the sword and the temporal power, as it is also written in Rom. 13:1 ff. and Titus 3:1. Every soul, he says, shall be subject to the authority that has power over him. For it does not bear the sword in vain; it is God's servant, for your benefit. I believe that the one who said: "every soul" will not have excluded the soul of the pope or his own. But let us consider this individually, in order to see today's Roman interpretation of the Holy Scripture.
If the spiritual is so much higher than the temporal, as the soul is higher than the body, and therefore the spiritual must not be subordinated to the temporal, but every man has a soul, that is, a spiritual, then no man must be subject, not even the sheep of Christ to Peter, since Peter is a man, as well as those. Paul says: "Let every soul be subject", which is certainly spiritual. Or was Christ not spiritual, since he paid the emperor the interest groschen with Peter [Matth.17, 24. ff.]? Or did he exempt the popes when he said [Matth. 22, 21]: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's"? But with this conclusion (syllogismo) we want to conclude that what is more spiritual should be higher than what is less spiritual. Then a holy virgin who is a handmaid will rule over a godless pope, and a ragged beggar over the emperor. I beg you, what foolish antics would finally follow from this? This is certainly true: in the dispensation of word and sacrament (for these are spiritual things) the popes are higher than all, but in temporal things, offices, customs, interest, treasury and all burdens of the temporal state, the popes and the clergy are absolutely subject to the authorities, by divine right and not exempt, except by the grace of this human order.
Now if he had said "by spiritual I do not understand the persons themselves (for we want all the sheep of Christ to be subject to us
1) Namely, the freedom of the clergy from taxes.
and spiritual), but the spiritual things, as under temporal things temporal things," I answer, I catch thee in thine own snare. If thou putest authority over all temporal things in the hands of Caesar, why then dost thou take away thy temporal things from him, and wilt not that they should be subject to him? And what is still greater, and a monstrosity not to be thought of, why dost thou hold, take, lend, and transfer emperorships, kingdoms, and dominions? Why do you bother with them? Does this mean to give the temporal to the emperor and to reserve the spiritual to you? What do all deceitful men want to say here, but that they are known from their words as well as from their works, as from leaves and fruits, namely, that they do not know either what is temporal or what is spiritual, yes, that they have lost the spiritual and love only the temporal, as precedence, wealth and pleasure. For if the emperor exalts himself in temporal things, the ecclesiastical pontiff must not presume to do so, but let it be his subject, pay the emperor duty for it, and serve the captains and the temporal state with it as often as they are called upon to do so.
"Whereas it is not simply said, be subject, but added, for the sake of God."
What is this? Will the commandment in turn become a council? Or is not simply the person of the speaker to be taken into account? Or did not Peter simply encourage his subjects to humility? Is not the emperor simply the supreme in temporal things? O miserable and fearful evasion, yes, deplorable ignorance, which does not even understand what "for God's sake" means! Peter's opinion is clear, as he immediately explains: "For," he says, "such is the will of God, that is why one must be a subject for the sake of God, not because the authorities deserve it, but because God has willed it so. But the decree-maker (decretætor) perhaps undertakes to teach by this word that a servitude of the kind is not necessary, as if Peter were asking those who do not owe it, namely for the sake of the merit of humility.
Woe to you who so boldly corrupt the exceedingly wholesome Word of God, you utterly wretched Decretenmacher!
"Nor is it written quite naked: to the king, to the chief, but it has been interposed, perhaps not without cause: 'as it were' (tanquam)."
A lie needs so much make-up to at least appear as true. How miserably this slippery writer writhes to make a mockery of God's commandment! If this "tanquam" 1) is the truthfulness ent
neither of the king nor of the commandment diminishes, why has he not said above in the same way: "Be subject as it were of all human order"? Why does he command to be subjects without "as it were"? Why did he not say, "Be as it were subjects, feigning submission," as that one feigns the king, as it were as if he were king? This interpretation is too hackneyed to merit refutation. Peter wants this "as it were" to be a connective word that gives the reason by showing why one should be subject: "because," he says, "he is supreme and because the captains are sent by him," that is, this sovereignty and this power, because it is exercised according to God's will, is the cause why you must be subject to him for God's sake.
"But what follows: For vengeance upon evildoers, and for praise to the pious [1 Pet. 2:14.], is not to be understood that the king or emperor has received the power of the sword over good and evil, but only over those who, using the sword, are committed to his jurisdiction."
O a very necessary gloss for the Roman court and for the completely unpunished licentiousness of the clergy. Of course, it was necessary to direct attention to this, here the ulcer was touched, but in vain. Here again he comes out with his "only" and twists the general word of God to a part of the people of Christ. Therefore, we also want the same [their] inconsistent things.
1) From the papal scribe is tanquam in the
Luther, as he will explain in a moment, had to translate it by "as" according to the meaning of the passage.
for God's word against this vain pretense against him, and ask: whether all of Christ's sheep are subject to Peter, and whether he wrote this only to his subjects, and whether Peter's subjects are different people than those of the king? For these three things he must necessarily confess to be true, as is clear from what has been said before. Therefore, if he has written this to his subjects, and they are different from the subjects of the emperor, then by the word of Peter the power of the sword will extend only over the clergy, for vengeance on the wicked and for praise of the pious, and all laymen, and these alone, will be excluded from it. Why then do we see that the opposite happens, and to such an extent that the clergy are handed over to the secular court only after they have been expelled from the spiritual state? But if all are subject to Peter, and he has written this to all those who are Christ's sheep, then either the clergy, who are exempt from the sword, are not Christ's sheep, or this falsification and differentiation of Peter's words is absolutely ungodly and contrary to the truth.
Finally, this gloss will bring it to the point that there will no longer be any power of the sword, since they submit the whole world to the pope, but those who are subject to him are not under the emperor's jurisdiction, unless a new and indeed man-ordered jurisdiction excludes the clergy alone and leaves the laity under it. But this is not to interpret the word of Peter, who subjects to the sword all who are subject to him. Thus the laws of men dispute against the law of God. Therefore, no one is exempt from the power of the sword, whether he be a layman or a clergyman, except in so far as the power of the sword itself has given and abated, as once in the time of Augustine the heretics were punished by the power of the sword, and [this happens] also now by fire. This should not happen at all if the ecclesiastical jurisdiction were divine right, namely, that by which the clergy are exempted from the violence of the sword.
are exempt from the sword. And as it stands today with the clergy, it would be better if the exemptions were abolished and all clergy were again subjected to the sword, according to the commandment of Peter and Paul, so that they could be punished, then it would stand better with the church, in that the sins would be kept in check by the fear of the sword, but now they are led by their laws to all evil with impunity (aluntur). The power of the sword of the clergy can, however, of its own free will let up some of its sharpness. But if it did not want to do so, it could not be forced to do so, nor could it be prevented by any decrees of the popes. For they do not have the power to limit the sword, which God alone has given. Nor is it true that it is in the hands of the pope to command that the sword be drawn or put away: the power of the sword has been conferred by God as a free one, as he also said above that the emperor has it in temporal matters, when he should have said "in all". Thus, he could not deny that the sword was not in his hand.
"Thou mightest rather have known the privilege of the priesthood from this, that it was said, not of any at random, but of GOtte, not to a king, but to a priest, who was not of a royal stock, but of a priestly family, even of the priests of Anathoth [Jeremiah 1:1, 10.], Behold, I have set thee over nations and kingdoms, to pluck up and to destroy, to build and to plant."
What is this? Is it not said by GOtte, what Peter and Paul said: "Be subject"? Is it not said to the priests, is it not said to all, when Paul says: "every soul" [Rom. 13, 1.]? As when the emperor said, "I have the two first apostles for myself, who must be believed more than Jeremiah, because those have the revealed truth of the New Testament, but this one, after a prophetic manner, has spoken the same yet darkly: therefore nothing is proved against me thereby"? What
one wanted to say here? But take to it: If this is true, then Jeremias is a pope, since only the Roman popes arrogate to themselves this title, that they are set over nations and kingdoms.
God has thus spoken of the prophet and of the work of the prophet, nothing of a priestly primacy. There is no other primacy in the Church than the ministry of the Word, which is well preserved when the priests are subject to the power of the sword in all temporal things, as it was with Christ, the apostles and the first bishops.
Finally, why does he not tear up, disturb, build and plant, if he thinks that this is his right? These are words, not of dignity and precedence, but of work and service, which are set here. And where is the high priest in the law, if Jeremiah is appointed by this word as a priest over nations and kingdoms, over which he was not appointed? And where is it also that he said that the pope is only supreme in spiritual matters, when he shares the rule with the emperor, when according to this opinion he is appointed over nations and kingdoms?
"Moreover, you should have known that God has made two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; both are great, but the one is greater. So in the firmament of heaven, that is, of the universal Church, God has made two great lights, that is, He has established two dignities, that is, the papal power and the royal power. But the one that rules the days, that is, spiritual things, is the greater, but the one that rules in carnal things is the lesser. And as great a difference as there is between the sun and the moon is known between popes and kings."
By whom is he recognized? By the gloss, quite worthy of this text, which says that the pope is seven and forty times greater than the. King. They are so certain about the measure of these two sizes, namely the sun and the pope, only that here a big question arises: How are in the old testa-
mente were the kings over the high priests? if one is not to believe, it was not yet a church, that is, the firmament of the sky at that time, since nevertheless One church of God is from the beginning of the world to the end. But granted that he may understand the Christian church, what does he want to say then? Who can make us sure whether the sun means the new or the old priest? For, of course, an allegory is doubtful and proves nothing. Yes, with what reason can we condemn the emperor when he says that his power is meant by the sun, the greater light, since by the word of Peter 1) every soul, no matter how spiritual, has been subjected to him?
What [will one say to this], that from this reason it follows that Julius [Caesar], Augustus and other pagan emperors were in the church, because they were the lesser light of the church, which is made by God? And, what is even cuter, Julius and Augustus were the lesser light before the firmament came into being, that is, the Church, indeed, before Christ was born, the head and author of that firmament; but even the general Church was long without this greater light, as it still is in Greece and India. These are perhaps still in darkness, although they are in the firmament of heaven.
It is really to be deplored that one perverts God's words with these gimmicks and antics in order to confirm such serious things (as they mean): away with this empty pretense! an image proves nothing. Furthermore, the simile (allegoria) contained in these words is this: The sun is Christ, the moon the Church, the sky the apostles, the stars the saints. The power of the emperor does not concern the Church, no more than any secular matter.
"But we are commanded Christ's sheep in St. Peter, when the Lord says, Feed my sheep [John 21:17], making no distinction between these sheep and others, that he may show that he who does not belong to his fold is not one of them.
1) Instead of Peter we should read Pauli, because the word omnis anima is found in Rom. 13,1. but not in Peter.
794 L. v. s. m, 36i f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, ioi6-iois. 795
Peter and his successors would not recognize as his masters and shepherds."
It was really necessary to add this, so that the ambition would be openly shown. But who will accept this gloss? By what support will it be corroborated, since you say: "he makes no distinction between these and others"? Whose sheep did Paul and the other apostles feed? Their own? Rather, why not say he made no distinction between Peter and other shepherds, since it was impossible for all to be shepherded by the One Peter? But if he can feed through another, what is there in the way that the sheep can also listen through another? But then where will both the shepherd and the sheep remain? Is it permissible to play games with God's words in this way? But why do those who think that the word "pasture" concerns them alone not go to the Turks, yes, why not at least to the Bohemians? But why do I bother with that? Why did not this Paschalis pasture this Decretenmacher and his court, that he might rightly understand the words of Christ for the food of his soul, and not stain it so miserably? Or are there no souls to feed in Turkey and Bohemia? Or does he think that he alone is commanded to feed those who have already been fed? Why, then, was Peter not satisfied with the sheep pastured by Christ, and himself sought throughout the world for such as he might pasture and teach? Why, I say, do they presume to feed, and yet do not? Only because they wish us to know what they mean by the word "feed," as often as they boast that the sheep belong to them, namely: to rule, to shear the sheep in all leisureliness, and to have the upper hand in the church with pure tyranny. Therefore it is a mistake that he does not belong to the sheepfold of Christ who does not acknowledge Peter and his successors as his shepherds and masters: first, because they themselves neither feed nor rule. Otherwise all Christians would already be far from Christ, because none of them sees, even if they would like to, that the Roman popes are shepherds and teachers, but they see them and recognize them as such.
who rule and make a show, and yet by such knowledge they do not enter better into the sheepfold of Christ, but are thrown out almost by force: such is the power of their aversions. Then, because it is enough to acknowledge Paul, even any priest, as a shepherd and teacher, wherever he may be. For the latter shepherds and rules, but those shear and slaughter those who have already been shepherded. But this may be enough, so that it does not seem as if I am doing this out of a desire to rebuke, since I seek nothing else than to shut the mouths of those who dare to imprison the completely free understanding of Scripture, which is given by Christ, under the opinion and the word of men, the popes, by wanting to judge the words of God according to the words of men, since, on the contrary, all the words of men must be judged according to the word of God, which judges everything.
With regard to the third, with regard to the reasoning, this must be dealt with first, that I have said that the decrees - by which, as I have indicated, the supremacy of the Roman Church is proved - have arisen in the last four hundred years, and against this are the stories of eleven hundred years.
First. I knew that this would cause offence and appear to everyone as something obviously wrong. For it is certain that through the decrees of the Roman popes this supremacy was argued for a thousand years ago.
But I have had this in mind, that the Roman Church has never been, nor is, nor ever will be, over all the churches of the whole world, though it is over very many, for it has never been over the churches of Greece, Africa and Asia, nor confirmed their bishops, as it now confirms ours, as the histories sufficiently prove. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly Christians in the East, since Christ's kingdom is the world, according to the second Psalm [v. 8], and yet their bishops are neither installed nor confirmed from Rome; nor is this necessary.
Furthermore. From this time on the laws and rights began to be made much. For if Gregory IX, Boniface VIII, and Clement V had not patched them up and taken out some letters, added others, and given them to the schools to read and teach, there would undoubtedly not have been so many seas of glosses, nor the quite unfortunate study of the law, but both the decrees and the decretals would have remained hidden in the closets of the Roman Pontiff for the great profit of the Church and the benefit of the Gospel. But we can see more than enough how the Church is by the existence (vigore) of these laws; but this is not enough: such books are multiplying daily, and yet they accomplish nothing except to make more nets for souls. Hence comes the exceedingly shameful annual market with dispensations, letters of confession, indultoruiri and exemptions; hence the robbery and most outrageous sale of bishoprics, priesthoods, offices, pallia sbishop's cloak] and annuities (annatarum 1); hence the ecclesiastical punishments, threats, lightning (ful-
mina == rays of banishment), violence, deceit, deceitfulness and innumerable monstrosities, of which none would be, or at least would rarely occur, if such letters had remained, as it should have been, among the yearbooks and collections (regestis) and they had left the Gospel its place in the public. Therefore, the world has never felt the Roman statutes as in these last four hundred years. That is why I believe that all their weight and power are due to Gregory IX, through whom they were, as it were, born and born. For from him their use has received strength and validity, so that through these laws and traditions the offices of all, the regulations of the church, the orders in these four hundred years have been thrown together in a confusion, so that the present church is more confused than Babel itself. No one goes along in his own order, each one buys a law from Rome, according to which he may live: the one as an exempt, the other as a ruler.
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 285.
as a privileged person, this one as a trusted servant, this one as an official, this one, I don't know under what pretext: all of them have the freedom to be, to do, to dare anything by these Roman laws. And in Rome, nothing else is taken care of than that through this greatest misfortune of the church, its power and its rule alone be strengthened, in each of its individual members. And if we sigh at this decay of the Church, if we grieve over it, if we complain, we are heretics, we are disrespectful to the Roman Church, we are angry, rebellious, we are audacious, because we cannot complain without touching the rights and the power of the Roman Pontiff, yes, so great an injustice against the people of God at the same time. For here is the source for either preserving or destroying the church. But since nowadays in Rome everything is completely defiled and corrupted, and at the behest of the exceedingly ungodly flatterers, one may not make a sound about these things, unless one praises, justifies and glorifies these abominable things: what is it to be wondered at, if under the venerable name of the Roman church so many evils have swamped the whole church with full impetuosity and in a sudden rush, which no one can resist?
Finally, with the study of the Roman laws and the neglect of the Gospel, they had to conclude in the last Council 2): The soul of man is immortal. What do you think this decision indicates?
Therefore, everyone may think himself very wise [Sir. 19, 21.], for me the authors of the decrees are Gregory IX, Boniface VIII, Clement V and the popes of the extravagant, because they have been published, commanded and all established on their operation. If they had been left as letters of Gregory, Augustine, Jerome, Bernard and others, either in libraries or archives, that each one could have consulted them at his pleasure, without any commandment, the Church would be better off. But now that they have been given over to the highest articles of the faith
2) In the Lateran Council at Rome 1512-1517. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 908. Table Talks, cap. 27, § 119.
But if the flatterers put them even higher, we have as fruit the confusion of the ecclesiastical order, the terrible torture of consciences, ignorance of the gospel, quite unpunished freedom to commit shameful deeds, the most hateful tyranny of the Roman flatterers, until they have deserved that under the wide sky there is no more hateful and stinking name than that of the Roman court.
From this, I think, one can see that I was not so grossly ignorant that I did not know that the decrees of the Roman pope were written long before four hundred years ago. How else could I have stated four hundred years and not more or less? how to make the judgment that they were quite dull? how to refer to the histories? how to assert that the text of Scripture was repugnant to them? if I had not perused and compared everything most carefully? With these hints I wanted to do enough for the intelligent (nasuto) reader, so that he would recognize that I did not put it that way without cause, nor out of ignorance, but with diligence, at the same time also so that I would like to repay Eck's deceitful and flattering thesis in all respects. Since he had stated that before the times of Sylvester, the Roman Church had been higher than the others, and I was firmly convinced that Eck was not so insolent as to lie publicly, nor so ignorant of history as to believe this, I suspected deceit, since I know thoroughly the manner of the sophists and the slippery ways of these people of changeable form (proteorum), who, if they want, make the false true and change the true into false, while they demand from others such accuracy in speech that even God's words are not safe from them. Therefore, I wanted to make him more confident and certain of victory before the time, as he tried to make me completely fearful.
Since it may now be enough for me that the prestige of the Holy Scripture is on my side, by which it is proved that there is no supremacy in the church by divine right, let us also hear the opinions of others with their reasons, since
so that it does not seem as if I boast only of the Scriptures.
The first is St. Jerome, who writes in the Letter to Evagrius: "We read in Isaiah [32:6]: 'A fool speaks foolishness.' I hear that someone has committed such foolishness as to prefer the diacones to the elders. For since the apostle clearly teaches that elders is the same as bishops, how can it be tolerated of one who ministers to tables and widows to puff himself up and exalt himself above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is ministered (conficitur)? Are you asking for a scripture? Hear the testimony [Phil. 1, 1.]: Paul and Timothy, servants of JEsu Christ, to all the saints who are at Philippi, together with the bishops and deacons. Do you want another example? In the Acts of the Apostles [20, 28] Paul speaks thus to the priests of one church: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the host, among whom the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, that you may govern the church of God, which He purchased by His blood. And lest anyone should argue that there were several bishops in one church, let him hear another testimony, in which it is quite evident that bishop and elder are the same [Titus 1:5 ff.For this reason I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set up what was lacking, and appoint bishops 1) in the cities to and fro, as I commanded thee, where there is one blameless, a wife's husband, having faithful children, not notorious for revelry and disobedience: for a bishop ought to be blameless as a steward of God. And to Timothy [1 Ep. 4, 14.]: Do not disregard the gift given to you by prophecy and by the laying on of the hands of the elders. But also Peter in the First Epistle [5,1. f.]: "The elders who are among you, I exhort, being fellow elders and witnesses of the passion of Christ and partakers of the future glory that is to be revealed, rule the host of Christ and watch carefully, not forcibly, but willingly, as God wills, which, of course, in the Greek, is not the case.
1) According to the original text, xresb^teros is to be read. (Weim. Ausg.)
schen more significantly expressed is ίπισχοποΰν- τες (Episcopuntes), from which the name έπί- ιτχοπνς (Episcopus) is derived. Do the testimonies of such great men seem small to you? Let the evangelical trumpet be sounded, the son -of-thunder (Marc. 3, 17], whom Jesus loved most, who drank from the breast of the Savior the rivers of doctrine [2 John 1]: The eldest of the chosen woman and her children, whom I love in truth, and in another letter [3 John 1]: The eldest, Gaius the beloved, whom I love in truth. But that afterwards one was chosen who should be above the others, was done to prevent a division, lest every one should draw (ad se) [the people] to his own person, and divide the church of Christ. For even in Alexandria, from the time of the evangelist Marcus until the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius 1), the elders always chose one of their number and assigned him a higher position, whom they called bishop, in the way an army chooses a commander. The deacons, however, are to choose one from their number, of whom they know that he is diligent, and call him Archidiaconus. For what does a bishop do, except ordination, that an elder does not do? For the church of the city of Rome is not to be taken for a church other than that of the whole world, and in Gaul, and in Britain: for Africa also, and Persia, and the Orient, and India, and all foreign nations, worship One Christ, hold One standard of truth. But if reputation is asked, the world is greater than Rome. Wherever a bishop may be, whether in Rome or in Eugubium (now Gubbio), whether in Constantinople or in Rhegium (now Reggio), whether in Alexandria or in Tanis, 2) he has equal prestige (ejusdem meriti) and equal priesthood. The power of wealth and the lowliness of poverty make one higher or lower,
1) Both in the 3rd century. In several editions Lfüruru is written, probably a reading error for Llradam. (Weim. Ausg.) -The Jenaische and Wittenberger editions and Löscher correctly read Hsrucüum.
2) Tanis, city in Lower Egypt, now Samnah or 'San; in the Bible Zoan, Num. 13:23. and Ps. 78:12.
by the way, are all successors of the apostles." So much for St. Jerome.
I speak nothing of the change of times, nothing of the given (positivo) right. This is what I claim: If one bishop is preferred to the others by divine right, Jerome obviously teaches a heresy here, not only he (for I would not believe him), but Peter, Paul, John, Lucas, whom he cites as irrefutable warrantors. Who, I pray you, will resist these? Why does the flatterer deny that the Roman bishop is a fellow bishop in relation to the others, since the first, Peter, calls himself a fellow elder? If they are successors of Peter, why are they ashamed of the title of their predecessor? If they inherit the extremely hopeful name of a most holy, supreme, greatest bishop (maximi pontificis - Pabsts) from the later ones, why not the name of a co-elder and co-bishop from the first one? I ask you, if Peter, Paul, John, Lucas and all the apostles did not know what the word of Christ meant: "You are Peter", and "I will give you the keys", and "feed my sheep", that they did not take care that Peter was given the supremacy by God? If they call me a heretic by all means, who ascribes everything they want to the Roman Pontiff, only that I am not forced to do it by the prestige of the Scriptures, that is, lying, then they may spare St. Jerome, who, supported by such great guarantors, proclaims far more impudently in public that the bishops are either higher or lower in relation to each other by the power of wealth and by the lowliness of poverty. I put this up. in agreement with the faithful and the decrees of the people, why don't the quite vicious inquisitors of heretical malice burn this dishonorable, blasphemous, rebellious man ten times (bissepties)? Meanwhile, you may let me keep it with Jerome. You may allow to have the same opinion with Paul, Peter, John and Lucas. If this is not enough, let them burn their decrees first. For this
This letter is cited in the Decrees, 93rd Distinction, Cap.: it is read, heard, taught, approved by all in the Roman Church. Why am I alone forbidden to speak and hold what they themselves all speak, hold and command to be held? Jerome not only equates the bishops with each other, but also equates the elders with the bishops, stating that one name denotes age, the other the office. I have spoken most reverently, and desire nothing but that I may not be forced to mock the Scriptures and the Word of God against this truth. The Roman pope may be anything they want, if only they do not claim this on the basis of the Scriptures: but I will also tolerate that the Scriptures are adapted to their opinion, if only they do not want to claim that this is the true and only meaning. So it is enough that by the very cold decrees the supremacy is asserted, which is denied by the most ardent words of God. But we want to hear the same again in his interpretation about the letter to Titus.
St. Jerome, in his interpretations of the Letter to Titus: "So an elder is the same as a bishop, and before parties (studia) arose in religion by the devil's operation, and it was said among the people [1 Cor. 1:12]: I am Paul's, I am Apollo's, I am Cephas', the churches were governed by the common council of the elders. But when every one thought that those whom he had baptized were his, not Christ's, it was determined throughout the world that one should be chosen from among the elders, and set over the others, to whom should be committed the care of the whole church, and so the seed of division taken away." If anyone thinks that this is not Scripture, but our opinion, that bishop and eldest are one and the same, and 'it is another name for age, another for office: let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, and other things which he has quoted above in the Epistle to Evagrius. And at the end: "How then the elders know that according to the custom of the church, they are to the one who is set over them,
subjects, let the bishops know that they are greater than the elders by custom rather than by the truth of divine decree, and that they are to govern the church collectively."
See, then, whether my thesis has spoken evil or well, it is against the wording of Scripture that the Roman Church is higher than others, since this is also against the decrees themselves. For these words of St. Jerome are also cited in the 95th Distinction, Cap. Olim, and even if they should not be approved by you, yet, because they contend with the strong weapons of divine Scripture, even by the contradiction of the whole world and of an angel from heaven, nothing could be said against them. And so I believe that both our thesis is sufficiently proven and all reasons refuted which can even be conceived against it. The opinion stands firm that not by the truth of divine order, but by the custom of the church, the bishops are higher than the elders.
I also add the third decree from the same 95th Distinction, Cap. Episcopus: "When the bishop sits in any place, he shall not suffer the elder to stand." And again in another Cap. Episcopus, "The bishop may sit higher in the church in the assembly of the elders, but in a house he shall consider himself an officiant of the elders." There it is said that these are decisions of the fourth council of Carthage. This is certainly heretical, vexatious, and seditious (as they call it), when the bishops by divine right are higher than the elders, whom they decree to be the bishops' bailiwicks: much more, when one bishop is higher than the others. So let them first eradicate their decrees, which they force us to learn: what then do they condemn in us that they themselves teach us? Hence it is evident that in fact the bishops are equal among themselves and the elders, and that only by custom and for the sake of the church one must be preferred to the other. It follows that if the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff begins to be detrimental to the Church, it must be completely removed from the Church.
because human rights and customs must serve the church, but do not wage war against the church. If this does not happen, human tradition already abrogates the commandments of God before God. Therefore, see on how thin a thread hangs the tyranny of the Roman flatterers, which, since it undertook to fortify itself by divine prestige, completely overthrows itself by this reason.
Here I also call upon Cyprian, whom St. Augustine also cites, that in the 2nd book, Cap. 2, "Of Baptism," he says: "For no one among us pretends to be a bishop of bishops, or with tyrannical terror compels his fellow bishops to the necessity of obeying, since every bishop has his own will according to the liberty and power due to him, so that he cannot be judged by another, just as he himself cannot judge another: but let us all await the judgment of our Lord JEsu Christ." This glorious martyr publicly confesses that it is tyranny for one bishop to force others to obey. But this tyranny almost all the syllables of the Decretals set up as a justice and preserve it as if it were a divine power. Furthermore, it is surprising that St. Augustine did not rebuke Cyprian, whom he cited, if he thought that he was speaking against divine right; rather, he agrees with him that all bishops are equal.
But we want to see more.
Since the same Cyprian in his first book of letters, in the fourth letter to the elder Felix, wants to prove with divine testimonies that it is not in the power of the bishops, but mainly in that of the people to choose or reject a bishop, he says: "Therefore the people, who obey the divine commandments and fear God, must separate themselves from a sinful superior, nor participate in the sacrifices of a godly priest, since they themselves have primarily the power either to elect worthy priests or to reject unworthy ones. We also see that it comes from divine power that the priest in the presence of the people before all eyes
And if he be worthy and skillful, he shall be confirmed by public judgment and testimony, as in the fourth book of Moses the Lord commanded Moses, saying, Take Aaron thy brother, and Eleazar his son, and bring them up into the mount in the presence of the whole congregation, and take off Aaron his priestly garment, and put it on Eleazar his son. And Aaron shall gather there and die. God commands that the priest be ordained before the whole congregation, that is, He teaches and shows that the ordination to the priesthood must not be done otherwise than with the knowledge of the people standing by, so that through the present people either the transgressions of the wicked may be exposed, or the merits of the good may be praised, and that this is a right and lawful ordination, which has been tested by the vote and judgment of all. This is subsequently observed according to divine teaching in Acts [1, 15. f.], when Peter speaks to the people in the place of Judas because of the ordinance of a bishop. Peter appeared, it is said, in the midst of the disciples; but there was a multitude. But we perceive that the apostles observed this not only in the ordinance of the bishops and priests, but also in that of the deacons, which is also written of in the Acts of the Apostles [Cap. 6:2]: And it is said that the twelve called together the whole multitude of the disciples, and spake unto them. This, however, was done so carefully and cautiously, summoning all the people together, lest an unworthy person should creep in to serve the altar or to hold the position of a priest. For this reason, this divine tradition and the custom of the apostles must be carefully observed, and what is also observed in our country and in almost all countries must be maintained, namely, that all the neighboring bishops of the country come together for the ordinations to be performed in the proper manner among the people to whom a superior is ordained, and that the bishop is ordained in the presence of the people, who know the lives of the individuals very well. We see that this has also happened with you at the
Ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the vote of all the brethren (universae fraternitatis), and according to the judgment of the bishops who had personally hired themselves, who had written letters to you about him, the bishopric was conferred upon him, and the hands were laid on him in place of Basil."
This ordinance (ritum) is also mentioned by the same Cyprian in many other letters, always citing the vote of the people and the judgment of the neighboring bishops in such a way that he confidently states that this ordinance (ordinationem) is from God. What this custom is in comparison to the one that is desired today from Rome, in which not only the people are excluded, but even the election of priests is not enough, I leave to others. Nor is it necessary to state how much better it would be to keep this divine way today, especially since there are so many bad priests, who are also imposed against the will of the people. For we see that through the Roman court, by means of its grace of expectation (gratias expectativas - expectances), priests are also imposed everywhere in the world. Let this happen. I deplore that these people of ours want to consider this sacred and ancient custom, which agrees in all respects with the divine right, as heretical and condemned against their newer custom, since it is certain to all that St. Nicholas, St. Martin, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and all the ancient fathers were ordained in this way. Therefore, today's custom may be what it can be, but we should not think that the Roman Pontiff could do this by divine right, lest we condemn the saints and martyrs of so many centuries as if they had acted against divine right.
Although Gregory the First, in the 4th book of the Register, in the 32nd Epistle, says that by those sayings, "Feed my sheep" and "thou art Peter," Peter, the prince of the apostles, was given the care of the whole Church by the Lord, yet in this care he suffers no bishop to succeed him, nor does he say that Peter is called the general apostle, thus addressing the
Emperor Mauritius writes about John at Constantinople: "The care of the whole church and the supreme office (principatus) is given to Peter and yet he is not called general apostle: and the very holy man, my fellow priest, submits that he wants to be called general bishop. I must exclaim: 'O times, O manners!'" And further down: "If anyone in the church usurps that name, then the whole church (which is far) falls from its proper state (a statu suo), if he falls who is called the general. But far be from the hearts of Christians this blasphemous name, by which the honor of all priests is taken away, while one usurps the same nonsensically."
See, there you have that it is a blasphemous name "general bishop". What do you think he would have said about the name of the highest, the greatest, the most holy?
It follows: "Certain it is that this was offered in honor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, by the venerable Conciliar of Chalcedon to the Roman Pontiff, but none of them ever accepted this name, that it was singular (singularitatis vocabulum), nor admitted that it was used, lest, while something special was given to one, all the priests should be deprived of the honor due to them."
It is clear that this Gregory, who prefers to call himself a servant of all priests rather than a lord and the servant of the servants of God, did not believe that the Roman pope alone was the successor of Peter, since he abhors being called a prince of priests and of bishops, since he calls the latter the prince of the apostles.
In the following letter to Constantia, he compares the same John to Lucifer, saying: "because he imitates him who, despising the multitudes of angels in their common joy, wanted to soar to such majesty that he alone was something (ad culmen singularitatis).
The same says in the 36th letter to the bishops Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: "As your venerable saints have said, I do not want to be a part of it.
As I know, by the Holy Council of Chalcedon, the bishop (pontiüei) of the Apostolic See (which I serve by God's providence) was given this name "universal". But never any of my predecessors wanted to use this so unholy word, because if one is called the general patriarch, the others are deprived of the name of a patriarch. But let this be far from a Christian mind, that anyone should wish to usurp it, by which he would seem in the least to diminish the honor of his brethren." But if the supremacy of the pope is divine right, are not the Roman popes just as much heretics as the Conciliar? The former because they did not accept divine right but trampled it underfoot, the latter because it proposed what it had no right to propose.
And further on: "He tries to ascribe to himself all things and all members which are connected with the only One Head (namely Christ): [all members] of this Christ he endeavors to force under himself by the pride of a pompous speech." I ask you, what would he deserve who would speak like this today? This Gregory, a Roman pope, pursues this as something unholy, which our people set up as if it were a divine right.
And in the 38th Epistle to the Bishop John himself, repeating and more abundantly explaining what has gone before, he speaks: "Surely the Apostle Paul, when he heard that some said: 'I am Paul's, I Apollo's, but I Cephas', most vehemently abhorred this rending of the body of the Lord, by which his members joined, as it were, other heads, and exclaimed, saying: "Is Paul crucified for you? Or are you baptized in Paul's name?' If, then, he expressly willed that the members of the body of the Lord should not be subject, as it were, to certain heads apart from Christ, nay, not even to the apostles: what wilt thou answer Christ, the Head of the universal holy Church, in the trial of the last judgment, since thou undertakeest to subordinate to thyself all his members by the appellation 'universal'?" But, O Gregory, do and undertake
for this is not your followers with the highest impetuosity?
And further down: "Certainly Peter is the first member of the holy and universal church. Paul, Andrew, John, what are they but heads of individual nations? and yet all under One Head are members of the Church."
But this is enough. Now we want to hear the head of all himself, what he has determined about the nature (statu) of this single rule (monarchiae). For he foreknew what was to come, and of all first and with great care settled this question, and yet for so many centuries it is still argued over, as if the words of Christ were smoke and a vain fable.
So it says Lucas 22, 24. ff.: There was also a dispute as to which of them should be considered the greatest. But he said to them: The kings of the nations rule over them, and they that have power over them are called benefactors: but ye are not so. But he that is greatest among you, let him be as the least; and he that is chiefest, as a servant. And he adds his example: For which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is it not he who sits at table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves. You see that Christ evidently says that it is kings of the nations (gentium), not bishops, who want to be the greatest, and condemns that worldly power (that is, without the word and love) altogether. But I believe that since it was necessary that the church should always be oppressed by the Gentiles, as Ezekiel 5:5 says: I have set them in the midst of the Gentiles, and Psalm 110:2: Rule in the midst of your enemies, therefore, when other Gentiles are not present, in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled, kings must become Gentiles in the church and tyrannize over the church by force, while the office of loving and teaching is given to others.
Likewise Marci 10, 35. ff., where the sons of Zebedee strove for authority that one might sit on the right and the other on the left, they truly received the right answer, namely, that they should drink the cup, received
but still no certainty where they would sit. What is it to wonder that this infirmity of ambition was also in the Roman popes, however holy they were, even martyrs, since Christ had to bear the same in the apostles? At last, when those two apostles by this presumption had moved the others to displeasure, and again a dispute arose as to precedence, JESUS called them together and said to them: Ye know that they which are seen to be the chiefest (principari) among the Gentiles lord it over them, and their princes have authority over them. But it is not so among you; but whosoever will be greatest, let him be your servant; and whosoever will be first among you, let him be servant of all. Again he gives an example of himself: For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life for the redemption of many. But who should not see that neither the popes nor their flatterers seek this service, but only power? For it is difficult to imitate the serving Christ.
Likewise with the same, Cdp. 9, 33. ff.: And they came to Capernaum. When they were at home, he asked them: What were you doing on the road? But they kept silent. For on the way they had been arguing among themselves as to which of them was the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and said unto them, If any man be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all. And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and after he had embraced him, he said unto them: Whoever receives one in my name receives me.
The same has Lucas Cap. 9,46. ff: There came also a thought among them, which would be the greatest among them. But when Jesus saw the thoughts of their hearts, he took a child and set it beside him, and said to them: Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is greatest.
Likewise Matth. 18, 1. ff.: At that same hour the disciples came to JEsu and said:
Who do you think is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And JESUS called a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, He that humbleth himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Now see with how many words, with how many examples, with how much care Christ has forestalled and resisted this ambition, which the decrees and deretals boast of with such great fervor and repeat and inculcate as if feeding Christ's people is the same as boasting of power and seeking to attain it. So not power but service is imposed on the bishops. But who would not gladly let them serve, if they only wanted to?
Therefore, according to my judgment it is like this: As the apostles argued until the end of Christ's life and by so many examples and words of Christ did not abstain from this human inclination, and yet he did not allow anyone to attain supremacy until they all left him scattered [Matth. 26, 56.]: so in the church now for so many centuries they argue about it forbidden supremacy, and Christ is not heard, who nevertheless resists it with so many words and does not allow anyone to attain it, until perhaps they too are scattered by the coming of the Antichrist and deny Christ.
For the apostles at first held this very well, when they appointed Jacob the Less as bishop in Jerusalem, and Peter, Jacob and John threw off their supremacy. After them, however, both Christ's and the apostles' example was soon set aside, and they fought without end, not for the word, in order to teach all the more, but so that they could command, bind, loose and profit all the more far and wide. For thus we too are forced to bear the infirmities of the popes not without many aversions, for Christ's sake. For if Peter's supremacy were by divine right, then he would have acted completely ungodly, along with John and Jacob, by preferring Jacob the lesser and making him bishop of the church at Jerusalem, of which they were all members; therefore Paul, too, in Gal. 2:9, where he lists the pillars of the church, gives Jacob preference over Peter.
Now [follow proofs from the stories and reasons.
The first is from the history of the apostles themselves, where it is written about Peter that he was equal to the other apostles and finally received the confirmation of his speech, Cap. 15, 13. ff, from Jacobus. Furthermore, he did not appoint any of the apostles himself, and none was under him. So how can the successor of Peter have the successors of all the apostles under him? What, I pray you, can be said to this by any man? Yes, neither he, nor all of them together, dared to appoint Matthias as an apostle [Apost. 1, 15. ff.], but they requested him from God alone; this is the most convincing proof that no apostle was above the others, but that each one, in the same way as the others, was called and appointed by God alone.
The second is Gal. 2, 11. ff: Peter was punished by Paul at Antioch, from which it is clear that the Roman pope is subject to anyone who has a better opinion. And something is not true or good because he says or does so, but he is required to give an account, yes, he cannot give it all the time, but he sometimes errs, just like Peter.
The third is in dex ecclesiastical history book 5. Victor the First, Roman pope, wanted to banish the bishops in Asia: but he was punished, not by Paul, but by Irenaeus of Lyons, and also by all the others, put in check, reminded, and ordered to keep peace and not to disturb the church; to them he yielded, as it was due. Likewise, Anicetus also yielded to Polycarp, bishop of Smyma, and could not force him under his decrees. Likewise, in the Historia tripartita, Book 4, Julius the First tried to forbid that the Oriental bishops should not assemble a council without his order, but tried in vain, because they did not care and gave him a very sharp answer.
The fourth: That the Roman bishop is higher than all is established by a human decree, namely by Constantine the
Fourth, Emperor of Greece, as Platina writes in the biography of Benedict ll, but it has not been so held by other bishops.
The fifth: Did the pope confirm Cyprian, Augustine and other bishops in Africa who belonged to the Latin Church? Did he prevent their conciliations? Or were they conciliabula, because they were held without the permission (au- toritate) of the Roman pope, as it is clear in their books?
The sixth: When did he appoint the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and others in Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Asia, and throughout the Orient? Were all these heretics, then? Let that be distant j
The seventh: Even today, those who are in Persia, India, Scythia and all the Orient are not under the Roman Pontiff. Or do you think that there are no Christians there and that the kingdom of Christ, whose possession is the end of the world, Ps. 2:8, 22, 28, is limited to Rome? Or are they not bishops because they do not put on [bishop's] vestments, do not have palaces, do not have horses and other Roman splendor? It is enough that they teach the word of God, that they love and feed, because in such a way you would also not confess that the apostles were bishops, if you wanted to start looking at the outward appearance of things, not at the things themselves; indeed, the farther they are from pretending to outward appearance, the better are the bishops, and the less bishops, the closer they are to it.
The eighth: Jerome writes "of famous men" that Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, a disciple of Eusebius of Pamphylia, when Constantius reigned, deposed the pope Liberius and installed Felix. Likewise, that John Chrysostom was not deposed by a Roman pope, but by the bishops Theophilus of Alexandria and Epiphanias of Cyprus, as is told in the Tripartita. The same Epiphanius of Cyprus, a lesser bishop than Bishop John of Jerusalem, excommunicated the latter and repented of having held communion with him, as Saint Jerome
writes against the same. And if you look at the stories of how the emperors changed the pope, how the pope changed the emperors, how the pope changed the bishops, and how the bishops changed, appointed, and deposed the pope, you might think you are looking at a kind of Iliad 1). This is not to be wondered at: because they have not heard Christ, who forbids ambition, that is why they are so often divided and troubled.
The ninth: What shall we say to this: is the opinion not true, which the whole church, also all decrees, all teachers hold, namely that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, as in the 21st Dist. Cap. In novo? If it is false, why is it exalted with such great prestige? If it is true, how can the Roman Pontiff alone be the successor of the One Apostle Peter, and all others the subordinates of the Roman Pontiff? Why don't the other apostles also have successors? Were the other apostles the successors of the One Peter? Why is the honor of the other apostles taken away and attached to Peter alone? Why do not all the bishops have what their apostles had, since the Roman one has what his predecessor Peter had? So change the word and say: that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, but the bishop of Rome alone is the successor of an apostle. This reason, I confess, otherwise I would have to be more senseless than a log, forces and clogs everyone's mouth that all bishops are equal, and just as the Roman pope is ordained by no one, so also every [bishop] should be ordained by election alone, as he is, by divine right. For the opinion stands firm that none of the apostles was sent by Petro, but that all of them received the same from the Lord Christ in the same way for the district assigned to them: thus the bishops who are their successors. The same with the Roman Pontiff, except the privilege of honor or dignity, as Paul clearly writes to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11, 5. 12, 11.]: For what have I done less than the high apostles?
1) A poem full of strife and war.
The tenth: Answer: If the Roman pope, by God's command, is God's general? governor in the whole Church, it follows inevitably that those sin, indeed that they are heretics, who have not been under him. But then the whole original church, at least to the four hundred years, with so many martyrs and saints, would be heretics. I beg you, what is the use of exhibiting such a great blasphemy in the Church for the pomp of an incense 2) violence? Finally, St. Peter would also be a heretic, who was with the apostles in Jerusalem before the Roman Church. This insurmountable reason overcomes me.
The eleventh: If any church is the first and the mother of all, it is none other than that of Jerusalem, as I said above. For what would Rome not do if it had for itself what that has? Namely, that Isaiah [2:3] and Micah [4:2] and all the prophets proclaimed that from Zion should go forth the law of the gospel, and from Jerusalem the word of the Lord. Likewise, that the Lord gave glory there in his last house, as Haggai [2:10] says. That Christ was bishop (pontifex) there, but the apostles as it were elders; that Christ was sacrificed there and sent the Holy Spirit. And in short, from here the Word of God went out into the whole world, from here all the churches came into being. And no one has such an impudent forehead that he could deny that this is truly the mother of all churches, the source, root and womb, also of the Roman church. Therefore, as it is written in the 9th book of the Tripartita, Cap. 14, the bishops assembled at the Conciliar of Constantinople indicate to the Roman bishop Damasus, among other things, what they decreed. The following: We announce that in the mother of all churches, -Jerusalem, which has been chosen (constituta), the very venerable Cyril, beloved of God, is bishop, who was formerly ordained by the regional bishops in the proper manner 2c From this it is clear that at that time the church at Jerusalem was considered to be the mother of all churches, and that the con-
2) D. i. of which is written in the ranch hole.
cil has been held without the authorization of the Roman Pontiff, which would be heretical if the Roman bishop's authority was based on divine right. If, therefore, this [church] has not the supremacy, indeed, since they have hardly assigned to it the fifth [place], how much less has the Roman church the same, which is its disciple! Say something against it, whoever can!
The twelfth: The Council of Nicaea, as written in the History of the Church, Book 10, Cap. 6, has established in the sixth article the following: "And in Alexandria as well as in the city of Rome, the old custom shall be kept, that as the one over Egypt's churches, so the other over the churches near the city shall have the oversight" (solicitudinem gerat). Answer: This Concilium is probably the holiest of all, and behold, it not only does not give the Roman Pontiff supremacy and sole rule, but according to ancient custom, not by divine right, it assigns to him the care of the Italian churches and those near Rome. And this I touched upon in my thesis when I said that the decision of this Council was contrary to the very cold decrees.
If, then, I am a heretic, let them first revoke this council, which, like a gospel, the decrees themselves compel me to obey. I cannot serve two vile masters.
The thirteenth: The same Council of Nicaea has determined that not by the Roman bishop should all bishops be ordained, but by the provincial bishops, saying: "And that if, for instance, at the ordination of a bishop two or three should disagree because of some dispute, the reputation of the rest, and especially of that in the capital with the others, may be the more firmly maintained." I beg you, what more can I do? Is it not enough that I willingly concede to the Roman Pontiff everything he arrogates to himself? Do I still have to prove above that these decisions are to be despised and considered as nothing for the sake of the human arbitrariness of a bishop?
The fourteenth: The same Council of Nicaea attributes the honor of supremacy to the Bishop of Jerusalem, not to the Roman one, in that
It is said there: "And that the bishop of Jerusalem may retain the privilege of honor conferred from time immemorial, while at the same time retaining the dignity of bishop of the capital of that province. Teach me, dear reader, what to do if it is not enough for me to confess today that the Roman Pontiff was the first, if I should not lie and say that another was not the first from time immemorial, and resist the prestige of such a great council. Finally, it is written that at the Council of Nicaea Eustachius sat at the top, the bishop of the church of Antioch, not the Roman, not an envoy of the Roman bishop, in the Tripartite Book 2, Cap. 5, which would be offensive to the present right of the Roman bishop, and yet he was not therefore a heretic, nor did the Council of Nicaea act contrary to divine right.
The fifteenth: If the Roman church is the first, because of the first apostle Peter, we must also confess that the church at Compostella is the second, because of the holy apostle Jacobus, and that at Ephesus the third, because of the third apostle John, and so on through the whole series of apostles. But is this order kept? By what right, then, does Peter alone make a church the first, but by a human right? Why is the one at Constantinople, which has no apostle, preferred in second place to the one at Compostella? Why is that of Alexandria, which also has no apostle, preferred to that of Ephesus? Why is the one at Antioch, without an apostle, preferred to the one at Edessa, which has the apostle Thomas? Why is the one at Jerusalem followed after all these, in the fifth place, which had Christ, Peter, Jacob, John, likewise Jacob [the lesser], as pillars (as Paul writes Gal. 2, 9.), and all the disciples? You see how there is no reason for it, how Christ, with great effort, has forestalled the ambition of this supremacy and has utterly put to shame the causes of it.
The sixteenth: If to the followers of Peter alone comes the word of Christ, "You are Peter," and, "Feed my sheep," then might
One can conclude with the same conclusion that the successors of John alone are the sons who were commanded to Mary at the cross [Joh. 19, 26.], who alone are loved more than the others, because he alone addressed him at the cross and commanded the mother: thus the others receive it from the bishops of Ephesus that they are children of the church and of Mary. Likewise, only the successors of Jacob and John would be children of thunder, and only the successors of Jacob the Less would be brothers of the Lord. And in general the successors of all, to whom Christ once spoke, would have the same by divine right. What can be said that is more inane than this?
The seventeenth: If the pope were by divine right over all the faithful of the church, no one could absolve him, nor hear his confession. For everything that is divine right is immutable, and he could in no way submit to another and suffer a power over himself without violation of divine right. For a lower cannot become a superior under any condition, except by human arbitrariness: the divine right stands firm in what it is.
Finally, I say that I do not know whether the Christian faith can suffer that another general head of the church is set up on earth than Christ. There are people who reject Christ in the triumphant church, so that they can set up the Roman pope as the head of the contending church, contrary to the explicit gospel of Matthew in the last [28:20]: "Behold, I am with you until the end of the world, and the word, Apost. 9, 4.: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? For therefore the
Church is called a kingdom of faith, because our King is not seen, but believed, as it says in 1 Cor. 15, 25. 24: He must reign until he makes his enemies the footstool of his feet, and then he will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father. But these make a kingdom of earthly (praesentium) things out of it, since they set up a visible head. For even if a pope has died, the church is not without a head; why, then, is Christ alone not held to be the head during the lifetime of a pope? Or does he, for instance, step down when the pope is alive, and follow him when he has died, as it were as a kind of alternate pope? But if he is also the head, since the pope is alive, why then do we set up two heads in the church?
Closing:
Every priest is a bishop in case of death and need, he is a pope, and has the greatest possible power over the one who confesses, as the general opinion of the whole Church states and is clearly proved by the letters of St. Cyprian. Therefore, by divine right, neither the pope is higher than the bishops, nor the bishop higher than the elders. This conclusion is certain, because the divine right is unchangeable, both in life and in death.
End. 1)
Should you ask for more, you can find it elsewhere.
And peace on earth and goodwill toward men.
1) Instead of the following lines, the first editions contain only: Glory to God alone.