Book 7

Here begin the chapters of the seventh book, in which it is shown that the Roman church is the head of the whole Christian people. The whole book contains three articles, with many objections, and has 26 chapters.

The first chapter objects against the primacy of the apostle Peter from chapter 20 of the Gospel of John, from 18 of Matthew and from 22 of Luke.

The second chapter objects also by argument, and by the second chapter of Galatians, and by arguments taken from the Acts of the Apostles and the 18th chapter of Matthew.

The third chapter proves that Peter held the primacy among the apostles, from Luke 22.

The fourth chapter proves the same from the last chapter of John, from a saying of St Dionysius, and from three other chapters.

The fifth chapter proves the same from Peter's works.

The sixth chapter distinguishes a twofold power in the apostles.

The seventh chapter applies the distinction of the preceding chapter and resolves the first objection of the first chapter.

The eighth chapter resolves the objection of the first chapter from the Gospel of Luke, and the objections of the second chapter.

The ninth chapter resolves other objections.

The tenth chapter objects against the proofs of the second and third chapters.

The eleventh chapter resolves the objections of the preceding chapter.

The twelfth chapter treats the second article, namely that someone succeeded Peter in the primacy.

The thirteenth chapter proves the same.

The fourteenth chapter proves the same more generally than before.

The fifteenth chapter proves the third article, namely that the Roman pontiff succeeded blessed Peter in his pontificate.

The sixteenth chapter contains an objection against the preceding chapter, with its resolution.

The seventeenth chapter objects against the annexation of the supreme pontificate and the Roman [pontificate].

The eighteenth chapter resolves the objection of the preceding chapter and proves the annexation.

The nineteenth chapter objects concerning succession to the supreme pontificate by nomination by his predecessors or by himself, and resolves it.

The twentieth chapter objects concerning succession by lot, and rejects it, resolving the objections.

The twenty-first chapter objects concerning hereditary succession of the supreme pontiffs, and resolves it.

The twenty-second chapter objects concerning the unity of the supreme pontificate with the Roman, and resolves it.

The twenty-third chapter objects concerning a multitude of heads of the Roman church, and resolves the objection.

The twenty-fourth chapter seems to object against the primacy [?] of the Roman church.¹⁰

The twenty-fifth chapter resolves the objection of the preceding chapter.

The twenty-sixth chapter sets out a general argument for the many questions of the Armenians.

Here begins the seventh book.

John. Now I know what the Armenians ask: show from Sacred Scripture, or by sufficient reason, if you can, whether the Roman church is the head of all Christians. I do not desire to know what the Latin doctors have held among themselves, or what our Roman church holds of itself,¹¹ but what can be proved from Sacred Scripture and from open reason.

Richard. I see three articles that must necessarily be made clear to show this: first, that the apostle Peter was prince and held the primacy among Christ's apostles; second, that the apostle Peter had, and will have to the end of the world, successors of equal pontificate with Peter; third, that the Roman pontiff who succeeded blessed Peter succeeded him not only in the Roman pontificate but in the supreme pontificate. From these it will appear that the Roman church is the head of the whole Christian people. You, then, say what seems to you on the first article according to the Gospel and apostolic Scripture.

John. Why Peter should be called prince I do not see, nor do I understand [it] in such a way that the other apostles were subordinate or subject to his obedience as to their superior. First, because all the apostles seem to have had and received equal power from Christ, when he says to them, as is read in John 20[:22–23], after his resurrection: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they shall be forgiven; and whose sins you shall retain, they shall be retained";¹² and Matthew 18[:18]: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." For if one had ampler power than another, he could restrain and coerce the lesser power, and "whatsoever you shall bind", etc., and "whatsoever you shall loose", etc., would not be verified in those of lesser power. It is evident, therefore, that none of the apostles received from Christ a principate over the others. Again, it is read in Luke 22[:24–27] of the twelve apostles themselves: "there was a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so: but if any is the greater among you, he shall become as the younger: and he that is the leader, let him be as the servant. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth."¹³ Here, from the fact that they were contending among themselves about greaterness, it seems that they reckoned no one prince among them. Again, the Lord so resolved their contention, as is said, that each should reckon himself less than the others, which they could not do if one had the principate; for he could not esteem himself less than the others. Hence it seems that among them no one obtained primacy or principate.

Chapter 2.

Again, if anyone is to be greater and prince,¹ he ought rather to be called prince who succeeded Christ immediately in the church of Jerusalem, in which Christ held the pontificate and which he glorified by his passion. Therefore James of Alphaeus ought rather to have been called Christ's vicar and his successor and prince of the church than Peter. Hence the apostle Paul, in Galatians 2, seems to put James before Peter, saying thus: "And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship", calling Peter Cephas according to that text of John 1: "Thou shalt be called Cephas." Again, in the same place blessed Paul the apostle says of Christ's apostles: "For to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing. But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision (for he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles)"; and then follows what I set down above, "And when they had known" etc., where Paul calls himself and Barnabas companions of James and of Peter, or Cephas, and of John, and says that they gave them the right hands of fellowship; but a primate and prince by no means seems to be the companion of his subject. Again, here he affirms that his power among the Gentiles is equal to Peter's power among the Jews; indeed he plainly restricts Peter's apostleship to the circumcision: "he wrought," he says, "in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision." Therefore Peter had no power over him such that he was his superior. Again, here he says expressly that he received nothing from any of the apostles, saying "they added nothing to me"; but if Peter had been prince and primate, Paul and all who have power in the church would have had it from Peter, as it seems. Again, if Peter was Paul's prince, Paul, knowing the precept of the law, "Thou shalt not speak ill of the gods, and the prince of thy people thou shalt not curse" (Exodus 22:28),² would by no means have cursed or rebuked Peter; yet it is evident that he reproved Peter publicly, for he says in Galatians 2: "But when I saw that he walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Again, if Peter received the apostolic primacy, he ought not to have concurred with others inferior to him in the election of inferiors, but to have instituted others by his own authority, as it seems. Yet we read in Acts 1 that the eleven apostles appointed Matthias and Barsabas,³ and praying gave them lots, and so Matthias was chosen by the eleven, that is, by Peter and by the others. Again, [we read] in Acts 6 that when Stephen and six other men had been chosen by the whole multitude, the multitude of the faithful set them before the apostles, and they imposed hands upon them. But if Peter held the primacy, those elected ought to have been presented to him and not to all the apostles, and the confirmation or imposition of hands ought to have belonged to him and not to all the apostles. Again, it is against reason that inferiors should send superiors, nor is it to be believed that the apostles did anything contrary to reason; but in Acts 8 we read that "when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." Therefore Peter was not greater than those who sent him. Again, if Peter had the supreme power in the church and among the apostles, he had neither the church nor the college of the apostles nor anyone in the church as superior or judge; [which is] against that text of Matthew 18: "Jesus, looking upon his disciples, says to Simon Peter: But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two, that in the mouth of two or three every word may stand. And if he will not hear you, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."⁴ See: Peter had to refer his brother's case to the church; hence it seems that the church was superior to him. These things seem to show that the apostle Peter was not prince or primate among the apostles, but was their companion and equal, etc.

Chapter 3.

Richard. Looking to few things, you have judged too lightly, since holy Scripture plainly foretells that Peter held the primacy among the apostles and in the whole church. For see, we read in Luke 22 thus, as you too objected, though less fully: "And there was a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the lesser: and he that is the leader, as the servant. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth. And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: and I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; that you may eat and drink at table in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said to Simon Peter: Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."⁵ Is it not apparent here that one among them was greater than the rest, and leader and prince? "But he that is the greater among you," he says, "let him become as the lesser, and he that is the leader, let him become as the servant" — the matter on which a strife had arisen among them, what the decision should be. Yet by this first part of Christ's answer their question is not resolved here; rather, it is asserted that there is one prince among them, and how he ought to behave toward the rest is made known, namely that he should serve them, as the Lord himself did. But who that one was he did not prove until he said to Simon — wishing to make plain to all, from the office of the leader, which was that he was to confirm the others, that he was the one about whom they had been disputing — "Simon, behold Satan" etc. Nor indeed, according to the sequence of the text, was the question resolved otherwise than by saying to Simon: "Behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren"; so that from this — that when faith failed or wavered in the others after Christ's death, it did not fail in Peter, through his prayer, as he plainly foretold them — they should understand that he was greater than they; and from this, that he commanded Peter before them that, when faith failed or tottered in them, he should confirm them, they should manifestly understand that he was the leader, ruler and prince. Hence John, who seemed foremost among the rest, writes of himself in John 20 that when he and Peter, having heard from blessed Mary Magdalene that Christ's body had been taken away from the tomb, ran to the tomb, although John himself outran Peter, Peter nevertheless went in first; for John did not then have faith in the resurrection, as he himself expresses there: "Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw and believed. For he knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." And so it is evident that Peter, by his very entry into the tomb, [?] John his brother, in whom faith had failed.⁶ It seems, therefore, that this article was discussed here among Christ's disciples and resolved by the Lord himself in favour of Peter's primacy. Hence in Matthew 10, numbering the apostles, Matthew himself says thus: "And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother" etc., showing manifestly that Peter had the primacy of apostolic dignity; for Matthew does not speak of priority of calling, since his brother Andrew followed Jesus before Peter, as we read in John 1. In support of this is what the Saviour says to him singly, as we read in Matthew 16: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Nor does Scripture anywhere have it that he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to any other than Peter. So too we read in John 1 that at his first calling the Lord says to him thus: "Thou art Simon Bar-Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas." Now Cephas does not only mean the same as Peter, but those skilled in languages say that it means the same as "head";⁷ hence in that giving of the name it seems altogether that Christ intended to set him over [them] as head, so that he should be the captain of the apostles. Hence blessed Dionysius, in book 8 On the Divine Names, chapter 3, calls him "Peter the topmost",⁸ that is, the head or captain; and in book 8 On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 7, he calls him "the topmost of the disciples", that is, head or captain, in this way:⁹ "For indeed the topmost of the disciples himself, coming with the ordered and hierarchical decad to the priestly consummation of the twelvefold [body] of the disciples, religiously left the election to the hierarchy, showing [it] by saying, 'Show whom I shall choose', and received the one divinely shown by the divine lot into the hierarchical number of the holy twelve."¹⁰ Here the words of this holy and great doctor, who was Paul's disciple, not only affirm that Peter was topmost but show that he was topmost from the fact that Peter himself chose Matthias — "Show," he says, "whom I shall choose" — and from the fact that he himself received into the apostolic number the election shown by divine lot; for he who chose and received was prince over all.

Chapter 4.

Again, after the resurrection, Christ, appearing to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James and John and two other disciples, as we read in the last [chapter] of John, and having taken food with them, specially committed to Peter the care or feeding of his lambs and sheep, saying to Peter alone, though the others were present: "Feed my lambs" and "Feed my sheep".¹¹ Hence it is evident that in his own place he committed to him the care of his sheep, just as he gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, generally, since he says to him simply: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." This care he did not commit to John his beloved, nor to James his brother. Hence it is evident by this that he willed Peter to hold the primacy in his place over the flock simply; indeed, if we look at the sequence of the text, see, a plain reason for this appointment presents itself: he who by God's law was to succeed in Christ's place in the general care [was] the one who loved Christ more than the other apostles, who without doubt would watch more solicitously over Christ's flock, [being] the one who loved Christ more. Hence Christ here put first the question: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?" This saying could be taken in two ways: either so that the sense is "lovest thou me more than these", that is, "lovest thou me more than [thou lovest] these", or so that the sense is "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these", that is, "more than these love me". Yet since the first sense of the question would have been inept [when put] to Peter, who for Christ's sake left wife and children and the rest, as he says of himself and the others in Matthew 19, "Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee" — because, since there was no doubt with Peter or any other of the apostles that he loved Christ more than wife and children, there was no doubt that he loved Christ more than his fellow apostles — therefore the second sense seems to me the one to hold. And it is evident that Christ would by no means have asked him [the question in] this sense unless he had seen in his heart a greater love toward Christ than [in] the others. Hence by the merit of the greater love he alone received the general care of Christ's sheep and lambs. Again, blessed Dionysius, blessed Paul's disciple, who was with him at his death, writes in the letter on the death of the apostles Peter and Paul to Timothy, blessed Paul's disciple,¹² that Paul said to Peter, when they were separated from each other, being led to the places of execution, this word: "Peace be with thee, foundation of the churches and shepherd of the sheep and lambs of Christ." Conversely, Peter answered Paul thus: "Go in peace, preacher of good things, mediator of salvation and leader of the just." Dionysius writes there that he heard this from them at that time. And it is evident that Paul reckoned Peter the foundation of the churches and also [?] among the apostles.¹³ Again, to Peter alone was shown the sheet let down from heaven, and upon him alone it was let down, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things and fowls, as we read in Acts 10 and 11, and to him alone was it said concerning all those animals: "Arise, Peter. Kill and eat."¹⁴ No one doubts that this sheet signifies the whole world with all men of diverse rites; nor is there doubt that to kill and eat was nothing else for Peter than to cut away the perverse ways in them and to incorporate them in his own person into the whole church. Hence his primacy over all appears; in token of which we likewise read in the last [chapter] of John that Peter drew the net to land full of great fishes. Again, why the collectors of the didrachma, Christ's disciples being present, say to Peter, "Doth not your master pay the didrachma?", as we read in Matthew chapter 17, I see no reason at all but that they reckoned Peter greater than the rest; and Christ, wishing to show [this] more effectively, [namely] that Peter would be his successor, joined him [to himself] in the payment. "Go," he says, "to the sea, and cast in a hook: and that fish which shall first come up, take: and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater: take that, and give it to them for me and thee." This is clear from what follows, for there follows: "At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?"¹⁵ — where it seems that they were troubled because Peter had been reckoned greater than the rest in [that] act, and for this reason they ask the cause of greatness, as it seems to me. Again, what but Peter's principate under Christ is shown when Christ willed the teaching which he gave to all the apostles to be derived to them through Peter? Matthew 18; for it writes thus: "Jesus, looking upon his disciples, said to Simon Peter: If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone" etc. Again, his principate among the brethren is described in this, that he wished to know from Christ, concerning Christ's teaching, whether he gave it to the disciples alone or to all: Luke 12, where it is written thus: "And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or to all?" Again, he alone was bidden to come to Christ over the sea, so that it might be given to understand that he would hold under his dominion the whole sea, by which the world is designated. To him alone, at the time of the passion, was it said: "Simon, sleepest thou? Couldst thou not watch one hour with me?",¹⁶ to show that he, beyond the others, had to watch by the office committed to him, etc.

Chapter 5.

This office of primacy or principate Peter exercised immediately after the Lord's departure from them, that is, after his ascension into heaven, as we read in Acts 1: namely that Peter, rising up in the midst of the brethren, spoke and showed by the scripture of the Old Testament that Judas was to be the betrayer, and how another was to succeed in his place and take his bishopric. Hence he said: "Wherefore of these men who have companied with us" etc. "one of these must be made a witness with us of the resurrection."¹ See the defining sentence of a superior: "must" etc. Thereupon they chose Matthias. Again, next, when the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the disciples on the tenth day after the Lord's ascension, and many mocked them, saying they were full of new wine, we read in the second chapter of Acts that Peter, standing with the eleven apostles, lifted up his voice and spoke to them, showing from the scripture of Joel that they were not drunk, but filled with the Holy Spirit. Again, next, in keeping with the effect promised, he preached on the resurrection of Christ and showed them from Scripture that he had been appointed by God judge of the living and the dead; and so they were pricked in heart, and three thousand were converted, asking — as we read in the second chapter — of Peter and the others what they should do; to whom Peter answered that every one should be baptized. Here it is evident that Peter, the others being present, exercised the office of primacy for them and before them. In like manner, it seems, as we read in Acts 3, when Peter and John were healing the lame man who sat daily at the gate called Beautiful, he says for both: "Look upon us"; and next, for them, as we read in chapter 4,² "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit," answered the magistrates of the temple. Again, as we read in the fifth chapter, Peter pronounced for all the sentence of death on Ananias and Sapphira, and in like manner on Simon Magus, as we read in Acts 8. Again, as we read in Acts 15, when there arose a great question among the converts, whether the converts from the Gentiles ought to be circumcised and keep the other legal observances, the apostles and ancients came together to consider of this matter; "and Peter, rising up, said to them" etc. Here Peter pronounced the sentence in the general council that the converts from the Gentiles were not bound to be circumcised or to observe the ceremonies of the law. All of which Peter would by no means have exercised for all the others had he not had it by office; since Christ commended humility above other things, it would also have been a kind of presumption thus daily to answer for all and before all the others and to pronounce definitive sentences for them, if that had not befitted him. Hence it is evident that this befitted him by his office.

Chapter 6.

Nor ought the things you objected above to move you. First, understand that in Peter and in each of Christ's apostles there was a twofold power and a twofold dignity: namely, one dignity or power of order, and another dignity or power of rule.³ The power of order has [as its acts] to consecrate, to preach, to hear the confession of sins and to remit the sins themselves, or to retain them as regards the temporal penalty owed for them. The power of rule has [as its acts] to order and govern subjects according to Christ's teaching and reason, as it shall seem, on sound counsel, to him who has the power to befit the salvation of the subjects. These two powers you see in all the pontiffs and priests of the Christian church, descending to them from Christ's apostles and disciples, to whom these powers had been committed for themselves and their successors, as will appear in the next article. As to the dignity or power of order, I understand that an equal power was given by Christ then to the apostles, since there was one order for all, namely the priestly; nor in matters belonging to order could any one apostle, by reason of order, do more than another, as is shown more fully in book 11.⁴ But the power of rule was not equal in all; in this Peter preceded all and was set over all. Hence in many respects he could bind and restrain in all the others the first [power], namely the power of order, so that the others would not exercise that power of order everywhere, nor upon any persons whatever, nor as much as they would or could by the power of order; so that they would have committed the sin of disobedience had they not obeyed Peter in things lawful and useful to salvation. Therefore, I think, he put first "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" when Christ adds, as we read in Matthew 16: "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"; nothing of the kind is put first or added in Matthew 18, where it is said to all, "Whatsoever you shall bind" etc. — so as to show, not only to the apostles but, in my judgment, to us all, that on the apostle Peter was conferred the power of order and also the universal power of rule, because both are contained under this general name of keys, in the plural number; but that this general power of rule was not conferred on the others, only the general power of order. And this seems to me the reason why, according to the gospel history, this general power of order was conferred on Peter simply before [it was conferred] on the others and on Peter in common: namely so that it might be clear to us that Peter, if he excelled in gifts, was also greater in command, as the patriarch Jacob's blessing of the firstborn contained: "Ruben," he says, "my firstborn ... excelling in gifts, greater in command" (on this, Genesis chapter 49). In token of this spiritual primogeniture in Peter, Peter, as I said above, paid the didrachma for Christ and for himself and by no means for the others, as we read in chapter 17.

Chapter 7.

Here understand that, although in Peter alone there was the universal power of rule, nonetheless in each of the apostles there was an equal power of order, though that power in them could be ordered through the power of rule in Peter and restrained as to persons and places in the manner stated. And so the superiority in Peter is not repugnant to the power of binding and loosing in all the apostles, as you seemed to show above; for none of them, no doubt, had power to bind or loose anyone anywhere against Peter's decree, or even in derogation of the honour of any other of them. Hence Paul, in chapter 15 of his epistle to the Romans, writes thus: "And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation."⁵ And in Galatians 2 it is said: "And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we [should go] among the Gentiles, they [unto] the circumcision."⁶ Here it is evident that Paul received a certain people into his care, or rule, by Peter's will. And he puts James first in the order of speaking, not because he believed him greater than Peter, as you seemed to understand in your objection, but because he was then specially bishop and shepherd of that place, namely in Jerusalem; for Peter by that time — namely, as Paul says there, after the fourteenth year from his calling — was presiding over the Roman church, although he had then come to Jerusalem by reason of a visitation and of holding conference with his brethren the apostles, as Paul himself says there of himself. But although Paul then knew that he was lawfully primate, nonetheless he could and should reprove him publicly when he erred, where it was a matter of danger to souls among the brethren, as it then was, as I showed at the end of the fourth [book] of this [work].⁷ Nor was this against the law, because such reproof of a lawful person is not cursing of a prince, nor any detraction, but brotherly correction and zeal for the house of God. Yet it is not to be understood that Paul thought Peter's power so restricted that it could extend only to the circumcised; for Peter sat in Antioch and in Jerusalem and converted many there and elsewhere from the Gentiles, as is clear from Acts 10, concerning Cornelius, and 11; whence Peter was reproved by the brethren of the circumcision for eating with converts from the Gentiles; and Paul, as you objected above, reproved him at Antioch because he first ate with converts from the Gentiles and afterwards dissembled when certain circumcised men had come to him at Antioch from James, as Paul himself writes in Galatians chapter 2. And in Acts 9 it is written that Peter passed through cities and regions as far as Lydda, and in chapters 10 and 11 it is said that through Peter's preaching the grace of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the nations. Indeed, it is evident that before that time Peter exercised the apostleship at Rome, because, as the chronicles say, he did not stay in the eastern parts until the full twelfth year after Christ's death;⁸ and that deed of Paul's was written [as being] after fourteen years from his conversion, as I said above, as he himself said in Galatians 1;⁹ and his conversion was after Christ's passion and after the stoning of Stephen. Hence there is no doubt that Paul by no means believed Peter's apostleship to be so restricted, nor did he believe himself equal to Peter; but he meant to say in Galatians that the office of apostleship had been committed to him from the beginning so that he should exercise it from the beginning among the nations, that is, the Gentiles, namely in the cities and regions of the Gentiles, first; and that each had received this office of apostleship from God. From which there follows neither a restriction of Peter's power nor an absolute parity of Paul with Peter, but only parity in evangelizing, and that at the beginning; so much only do Paul's words convey: "when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision" etc. And this parity pertains to the power of order, which I said above is equal in all the apostles. Hence he can lawfully be called Peter's companion and brother, although Peter was his primate; and true brotherhood, such as was in them, requires this name. Yet Paul received this office of apostleship from Christ, as he says, not from Peter; and therefore Paul says that they who seemed to be some thing added nothing to him. Nor was it necessary that all should receive this office from Peter after Christ's death, since Barnabas too was sent by the Holy Spirit and made an apostle, as the Holy Spirit says in Acts 13: "Separate me Barnabas and Paul for the work whereunto I have taken them."¹⁰ For Christ so conferred the primacy on Peter that he took nothing from him [Paul]. Let these things suffice you here for the objections you set out from Paul's sayings.

Chapter 8.

But that which you object from Luke's gospel, that there was a strife among the apostles or disciples which of them should seem to be the greater, does not stand in the way of Peter's being greater and prince, preordained by their master; for Peter did not yet have the principate in act while he [Christ] lived, although he had been instituted or ordained prince. Yet he was prince as the firstborn is called prince among brothers, though he does not rule in act, but either by the father's institution or by right of nature. Yet the apostles, as you concluded above, had not yet perfectly known this, namely that Peter was to preside after Christ in all things as prince; they were therefore disputing. Christ resolved their dispute, so that from the description of his future office — namely that he was to confirm the others, as I showed above — they should all plainly learn that Peter was the one of whom he himself spoke; for he called him greater and leader among them when he said to them: "He that is the greater among you, let him become as the lesser: and he that is the leader, as he that serveth" — not in the way you asserted above, namely that each should reckon himself less than each, but "let him become as the lesser and as he that serveth".¹¹ Otherwise, if he meant to urge this by his own example — because he served all and so became as the lesser, as he that served — it follows that he reckoned himself less than they, which could not be. Hence what is to be understood here is not a reckoning, as you try to take it, but the form of ministry, so that each should render service or ministry to each and with honour prevent one another; which is not repugnant to principate. And as for your objection that he ought to be prince among them who succeeded Christ immediately: that is true if understood of succession as general vicar, and in this way Peter succeeded Christ, as was shown above — not James of Alphaeus, bishop in Jerusalem; for if that place was more glorious through the consecration of Christ's blood, yet for the succession of the supreme prince Rome was higher, as will be shown below. And for this reason it is not [true], as you affirm, that James succeeded Christ immediately in Jerusalem, since Peter succeeded Christ immediately, inasmuch as he there first of all exercised the office of supreme pontiff as to preaching, as to the substitution of Matthias, and as to the other things expressed above, as is clear enough from the foregoing. Again, it does not oppose Peter's principate, as you object, that he chose Matthias together with his inferiors, or that he was sent to Samaria by the apostles, or that Stephen and three¹² others chosen with him were presented to Peter and the others¹³ and that they all imposed hands; for all these and similar things are done by many, even though the right of principate, and of substituting and instituting others, lay with Peter. And besides this, there is no doubt that the whole college, namely Peter with the rest, was greater than Peter, namely by a greatness of discretion,¹⁴ and so not by priority or superiority of principate; and therefore that same [Peter] could be sent by the whole college, so that he might fulfil that scripture, or the teaching of his master: "He that is the greater among you, let him become as the servant" etc. But whether in the whole college without the head there is any superiority with respect to the head need not be discussed at present;¹⁵ yet that there is a greatness in the head together with the body which is not in the head or prince alone cannot be denied at all. Hence it is not to be said, as you seemed to understand above, that the other apostles sent Peter, but that all together sent him and John; for the words themselves set this forth: "When the apostles," it says, "who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." Those, then, who heard sent; and there is no doubt who heard, namely all the apostles who were in Jerusalem; they therefore sent those two.

Chapter 9.

Again, that the Saviour told Peter to tell the church the state of his brother who will not be corrected after secret correction has been applied does not argue a superiority in the church with respect to Peter, but a certain greatness of discretion; and it is a certain teaching for him and the others, that every ecclesiastical judge may know what mode of punishment he ought to carry out toward any persons whatever, who are all meant by [the name of] "brother",¹ and this especially for a sin committed against his own person, as these words intimate. For it is put first thus: "Jesus, looking upon his disciples, said to Simon Peter: But if thy brother shall offend against thee", and, the teaching [being set out],² "let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"; straightway there follows: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth" etc.³ Hence it is evident that he speaks to all the apostles and of a sin committed against one's own person, and yet he directed the discourse to Peter because, as I said above, he willed his teaching to be derived to the others through Peter, so that from this his principate over the others might become known to them. Hence I think it is shown well enough by this teaching that the supreme pontiff ought not to judge an offence committed against his own person only, but after the admonitions described in this place he ought to make that sin public to the church, so that it may be punished at the church's discretion, lest he should seem to take vengeance rather than to correct if he alone punished by his own authority. From which no superiority in the church with respect to the supreme pontiff can be argued. But if these things had been said on account of the church's superiority, the Lord would have added in vain and irrelevantly, "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth" etc., since that preceding teaching would plainly show that the church, not the apostles themselves, ought to bind. It is evident, therefore, that Christ's teaching aims at this: that Peter and the others, after the last correction, by the church's discretion or counsel, should punish offending brothers, and should by their binding cast out⁴ as publicans and heathens, with whom it was not lawful for the Jews to have dealings, so that it should by no means be lawful for the other Christians to have dealings with them. And therefore it is to be understood here that the power of excommunicating Christians generally, any who offend, whether they be emperors or kings, was conferred on all the apostles, since he says universally: "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth" etc.

Chapter 10.

John. Your foregoing proofs do not seem cogent to me. For if, from the fact that Christ gave Peter specially, as we read in Matthew 16, the power of loosing and binding and the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it could be proved that he gave him the primacy, why can it not be proved that he gave the primacy to all, since he said to all, as we read in Matthew 18: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven"? For the keys of heaven seem to be nothing else than the power of binding and loosing. Again, if from the fact that he said to Peter, as we read in Matthew 16, "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" — if by "rock" Peter is taken there, and if from this it could be proved that Peter obtained the principate because he obtained [the place of], or was, the foundation of the church — the same could equally be proved of the twelve apostles, since John, in the last [chapter] of the Apocalypse, says of the city of Jerusalem, which without doubt he calls the church, that its wall had twelve foundations, "and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles and of the Lamb".⁵ Hence it is evident that Christ's church was built upon each of the apostles as upon a foundation; although some, with probability, take "rock" in this saying of the Saviour to mean not Peter but Christ, according to that text of 1 Corinthians 10, "and the rock was Christ", from which rock Peter was called Peter, so that the sense is: "Thou art Peter", supply "named from Christ the rock", "and upon this rock I will build my church". In favour of this sense is that text of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 3: "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus." From this saying, therefore, it seems that it can by no means be proved that Peter was prince among the apostles. Again, neither could this be proved from the fact that the Saviour said simply⁶ in the last [chapter] of John, "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep", since this feeding ought to be understood especially as the Saviour's teaching and instruction; and Christ said to his disciples at his ascension, as we read in the last [chapter] of Matthew: "Going therefore, teach ye the nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, amen; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."⁷ Again, in the last [chapter] of Mark⁸ we read that he said to them: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature." Hence it is evident that he enjoined this feeding on all the apostles more generally than it is taken in the saying addressed singly to Peter; for there he spoke only of his own sheep, and none are called his sheep but the faithful, according to that text of John 10, "My sheep hear my voice"; but in these places he enjoins that the gospel teaching, which is called feeding, is to be given by the apostles themselves to all nations, or all men, whom we take under the name of "every creature".

Chapter 11.

Richard. I did not prove that Peter was primate from the fact that he said to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", but from the fact that Christ said these things to Peter singly, and to him earlier in time than to his other disciples in common. From this I meant to conclude the prerogative of principate in Peter, because I do not see to what other effect he would have said this to him earlier and singly — and this with all the others present, according to the sequence of the gospel — since he afterward said almost the same to him in common with the others, unless to show him as the first and proper one among all, and, after himself, the principal foundation of his church. Nor does that text of Apocalypse 8,⁹ that the wall of the city, namely of the church, had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles and of the Lamb, show that all the apostles ought equally to be called foundation, since among them it names the Lamb, who was the principal foundation of the city; and therefore, just as this saying of John does not take the principate from the Lamb himself, so neither does it take it from Peter himself.¹⁰ As for your saying that some understand here by "rock" not Peter but Christ, neither does it seem to me that it should be so understood, because, according to the sequence of the text, to Peter, who first and simply confessed, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God", [Christ,] wishing to repay so great a confession with another noble [gift], answered: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." Again, he would seem to have said this to Peter in vain, since he had received by revelation that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God; for by this he had sufficiently marked for himself that he would be the foundation of his church; indeed, everyone knows that every inventor or founder of any sect is the foundation of that sect. Therefore it does not seem to me that Christ meant to foretell this to Peter. Hence I think that Peter was there called "rock" from Christ the rock, whose successor he had there been named, although Christ is principally called or said to be the rock, and so to be the principal foundation of the church, as you alleged from the apostle. Again, as to your objection that it cannot be proved from that text in the last [chapter] of John, "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep", that Peter succeeded in Christ's place as head and prince of the apostolic college: even if you spoke the truth, you would yet not break the proof I adduced, since I did not mean to affirm this merely from the fact that Christ said that to him as to the others,¹¹ but from the fact that, having first put those three questions to Peter — John, whom he loved, and the other disciples being present — "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?", and again, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?", and a third time, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?", and having had the answer of his solid love, such as befitted to come from the rock, he committed to him singly and not to the others the care or feeding of his sheep and his lambs. For Christ would by no means have done this unless he had set him over this work singly in his own place. Indeed, if you consider acutely the things you object, this will appear more clearly to you. For see: as you object, he commanded the disciples together to preach the gospel to every creature, that is, to all men generally, but about feeding or care he expressed nothing; for feeding — I mean feeding sufficient for salvation — includes more than the preaching of the gospel which he committed to the apostles joined together, namely competent rule, which is intimated neither in the word "teach", which you object from Matthew, nor in the word "preach", which you object from Mark, but is conveyed in this word "feed". Hence it follows that in that saying, "Feed my sheep" and "Feed my lambs" — whether by the sheep we take the apostles and by the lambs the others, simpler and lower, or whether we understand generally by the sheep the stronger and by the lambs the weaker — he committed something more to Peter than in the places you object, where he committed [the work] to all the apostles in common, although perhaps he committed to them a more general act, as you said, than to him singly in this saying; and of that commission too he himself was the prince, together with the others, since those sayings were addressed to him and the others together. From this saying, then, with the circumstances of this saying, it is evident that Peter was substituted by Christ as his vicar.

Chapter 12.

John. Now show from Scripture, if you can, that someone succeeded Peter in the apostolic primacy; for nothing about the transfer of his power to posterity meets me expressed in holy Scripture.¹²

Richard. If no successor had Peter's power, no one after the apostles received the power of any apostle, and so the apostolic order would have failed straightway at its very beginning — which no one who believes Christ to be wisdom would affirm. For why and how the dignity and power of the others should, when they fell, be raised up again in their disciples, and not Peter's power, there is no reason. Again, [Christ's] care for his church — which he calls bride in the Canticles and in Apocalypse chapter 21, and which in Psalm 44 the prophet calls queen, saying, "The queen stood on thy right hand" etc.¹³ — was not less after Peter's time than it had been in the time of the apostle Peter. Therefore, just as in Peter's time he governed and fortified his church with one vicar or prince presiding in his place as its head, namely the apostle Peter, so also after Peter he governed or fortified it in such a way; for after the times of blessed Peter, Christ's church, multiplied in persons, needed one such governor much more than while Peter and the other eleven apostles were alive; and precisely because after the times of Peter and the other apostles a greater tribulation was to come upon the church than while they lived, and especially about the end of the world, as the Lord himself told James, Peter, John and Andrew beforehand, as we read in Mark 13. Again, since in the time of the law he willed there to be one supreme pontiff or priest for the whole time of the law, whose command if any of the Jews contradicted he should die, as is clear from Deuteronomy 17,¹⁴ since the same reason requires that there always be one supreme [priest] in the time of grace — indeed, that supreme [priest] was a figure of this one — it follows without doubt that the supreme priesthood of the new law was so continued while the law lasts, or at least that Christ willed it to be so continued as the continuation of the supreme priesthood was then made. Again, since natural reason dictates, and the philosophers of the Gentiles confess, that the best mode of rule of any community is that one be prince, as it is in the whole universe,¹⁵ it is not likely that the supreme Wisdom, namely Christ the Son of God, would leave his church, or the community of his elect, whom he acquired for himself with his blood, without such a mode of rule; but rather, just as he governed and ruled it first by himself, and next in his place through Peter, so he will govern it by a like rule until the consummation of the world, except in so far as such rule happens to be interrupted by the law of nature through the death of the one presiding, until another is ordained. This view seems to me expressed by the Lord himself in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, where, when Christ's disciples asked him privately about the signs of the destruction of the temple and of his coming to judgment at the end of the world — which disciples they were Mark 13 expresses: they were Peter, James and Andrew¹⁶ — he answered them, foretelling wars and the seditions of false prophets and at length the darkenings of the sun and moon and stars before his coming, adding the likeness of the fig tree thus: "And from the fig tree learn a parable: When the branch thereof is now tender and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is nigh. So you also, when you shall see these things come to pass, know ye that it is nigh, even at the doors. Amen I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass: but my words shall not pass"¹⁷ — which same words Mark and Luke say. In which saying, although different men have thought different things, having weighed the circumstances of the text, I do not see what could be understood by the generation of which he speaks except the spiritual generation of the apostolic order, namely in Peter, to whom he spoke, and in the other apostles. For the carnal generation cannot be understood, as it seems to me, which he himself wished to show when, having spoken thus, he immediately added: "Heaven and earth shall pass: but my words shall not pass", calling "his words" the spiritual effect of his words, which would never pass; for the spoken words of his preaching themselves, like the words of others, will pass, no doubt. Hence, since from the permanence of the words, namely of the special fruit which his words had produced, he meant to show that the generation of which he spoke would not pass before the end of the world, it is evident that he was speaking of a spiritual generation, namely the spiritual holiness and power of the apostolic order begotten by his words; since the permanence of his words did not make the carnal generation of the Jews or of others remain. That apostolic power, therefore, as much in the college as in the head, since the whole of it belonged to one spiritual generation, he foretold would not be lacking or cease before his coming. Here too you can gather two things from the fact that the supreme Wisdom there calls this apostolic order a generation. First, gather from this that the persons of this order had a spiritual generative power, and likewise their spiritual offspring; hence it was fitting that this whole spiritual progeny until the end of the world should be called a generation, as he said to them in John 15: "I have chosen you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain."¹⁸ Second, gather that all who were then present and their successors were to be of one spiritual nature and of like vigour for procreating others, since they are all called one generation, not several, so as to intimate that predecessors and successors [are] of the generation of one spiritual power.

Chapter 13.

That Mark and Matthew, after these words, report that the Lord added for them the parable of the man who went into a far country, where each concludes: "Watch ye therefore, because you know not what hour the Lord will come",¹ confirms the sense I give. And Mark added: "And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch." Hence it is evident that the Lord spoke not only for the apostles themselves but also for their successors and their generation, since it did not befit the apostles in their own persons [to be told], "When you shall see all these things come to pass, know ye that it is nigh, even at the doors",² since they had been dead for a thousand years before these present times, and many of those signs are still to come. For although some of them were to see the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian, and all were to see false prophets, yet none of them was to see the other future signs of his coming. Hence "When you shall see all these things come to pass" etc. befitted only them and their posterity disjunctively,³ not the apostles themselves simply; nor did it befit them for their own sake, what the other three evangelists say in agreement: "But when you shall see these things come to pass", or "when these things begin to come to pass, lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand",⁴ calling redemption, no doubt, the glorification through the final judgement. But this befitted only their successors, that they should lift up their heads when these things came. Hence it is evident that the whole was said to them for themselves and for their successors, who make up the spiritual generation of which he said, according to Mark: "This generation shall not pass until all these things be done." The Lord seems to have expounded this sense when he said, "And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch",⁵ wishing to rouse each of the future members of that generation of the apostolic order to vigilance in his ministry, by the example of the servants of the Lord awaiting their lord, who is absent, namely on his journey. It is evident, therefore, that the Lord here foretold the permanence of the apostolic order and power until all the signs of his coming set down here are fulfilled; and that order would by no means last if its prince failed and his power were wholly to cease. Hence it is evident that the power of Peter and of the other apostles is to remain in their successors until the consummation of the world. And therefore what the Lord said to the apostle Peter, "Feed my sheep" and "Feed my lambs" (he did not say these or those, but meant all to be understood in general when he says "lambs" and "sheep" without qualification), and also what he said, "Whatsoever you shall bind" etc., we take as said not to him alone for himself but to him for himself and all his successors, for the reasons given: because it by no means befitted the supreme wisdom to let so noble an order, or an institution so useful for the salvation of the human race, fail at once in its beginning, while its final cause, namely the salvation of all the elect, for which cause that wisdom instituted that order, was not yet attained; rather, that final cause required the permanence of that order more after its very beginning than at its beginning,⁶ besides the fact that that mode of rule befitted his community or church more than other modes, as I said.

Chapter 14.

But by the same arguments it must be held that the power and dignity of order which he conferred on the apostles and his disciples he committed to them not for themselves alone but for their successors until the end of the world, so that in all [admitted] to that order the power and dignity should follow. This is shown no less clearly from that text of the last [chapter] of Matthew: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, amen; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded; and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."⁷ For it is evident that he was not to be with those who were soon to die all the days of the world; therefore in their persons he spoke to them and to their successors, with whom he could be, successively, until the end of the world. Hence it follows that in the persons of those then present he confirmed the power and dignity of preaching the gospel and baptising to them and to their successors; for he spoke to precisely the same people in saying "teach, baptizing" and in saying "I am with you." And no less it follows from the same saying that the apostles must have successors until the consummation of the world, since he was with them in their own persons not [only] for a short time,⁸ but consequently with their successors until the end of the world; and so it follows from this that Peter, like the rest, was to remain in his dignity in successors until the consummation of the world. Again, his saying "teaching all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" shows well enough that in their persons he conferred the power given them on their successors, so, namely, that they could beget spiritual sons for themselves and for their dignity.⁹ For in vain would he teach them to consecrate others, to teach, to baptise (all of which he commanded them, according to the gospel), unless those whom they taught received the power to do these things. Hence it is evident that those whom the apostles appointed¹⁰ to these ministries, and also those who lawfully succeeded to their ranks, received this apostolic power by virtue of the completeness of their ordination or succession. This was plain in the person of Matthias, who, as soon as he was chosen by lot, was numbered with the eleven apostles, as we read in Acts 1. Peter therefore had to teach, and so no doubt he taught, the observing of all that God had commanded him, namely to feed Christ's sheep generally and, through the general keys of the church, to loose or bind whomsoever, when it was expedient; since Christ commanded him this, which he would have had to teach in vain unless someone succeeded in that fullness of dignity. It follows therefore that another succeeded Peter in the full power and dignity of Peter. It is evident therefore from the premisses that all the apostles had successors in their ranks, and that the successors of Peter and of the apostles had, and have, equal power with him.

Chapter 15.

John. Now show, if you can, who succeeded Peter in this dignity. How is the succession continued? Was it by election, or by lot, or by right of carnal succession as in the Old Testament, or by right of institution by a living predecessor, as we read in the chronicles that blessed Peter, while still alive, put his disciple Clement in his place in the Roman church, as Clement himself, in a certain letter addressed to James, patriarch of Jerusalem,¹¹

wrote? RICHARD. If the apostle Peter held the primacy so that by singular prerogative he was the general shepherd of Christ's sheep or lambs, as the foregoing shows, he could not put anyone in his place in this dignity while he himself held it; for then two would have been equal in supreme power, which would be not only superfluous but impossible, since neither would have had superiority over the other, for this could not¹² befit the supreme dignity which Peter received from Christ; nor would either be supreme, since no one would be subject to him, which is also repugnant to the supreme dignity shown above to have been in Peter. If another succeeded blessed Peter in this dignity or power, he succeeded Peter when he had resigned or died, not while he was living. Hence it is evident that anyone whom Peter while alive, or another of the apostles, set over the church of Jerusalem, of Antioch, of Alexandria (where he set Mark, as we read in the chronicles), or over any other church, was lesser in dignity and power even than Peter; or else none of them succeeded Peter in the apostolic primacy. Did the Roman pontiff then succeed him in this dignity, or no one at all? The latter, what was shown above of blessed Peter does not allow; therefore it follows that the Roman bishop succeeded him in this dignity. This is made clear no less from another head, thus. Blessed Peter, full of the Holy Ghost and moved by the Holy Ghost, no doubt willed to leave a successor where the successor's presence could do most for building up Christ's church. If anyone deny this, let him consequently deny that Peter was sufficiently instructed in his ministry for an effect so arduous, so glorious, so useful, so great, which no sensible man would do, I think; or let him deny that Peter willed to do what would be more useful to the church. But nowhere, it seems to me, could a successor contribute so much by his presence to building up the church as in the city of Rome, which then, and long after, held the [?] principate and kingdom of the whole world;¹³ for so, most fittingly, as would happen nowhere else in the world at all, a twofold stream of rule would flow out from one and the same fountain, for spiritual and for temporal causes, into the world on every side. So moreover the temporal kingdom, if it strayed from rectitude, could most easily be brought into conformity with its rule by the spiritual; and conversely, if anyone resisted the spiritual rule, it could more readily be strengthened by temporal power. So too, then,¹⁴ for unknotting the greater questions of faith, a safer access to the primate of the church would lie open for the apostles spread on every side, since he would reside at the side of the judge of the world. So moreover the kingdoms subject to the Roman empire would receive the faith of Christ the sooner, the more they saw that their mistress had received it, so that, as Rome had been their mistress in error, so consequently, by no unequal right, she would become their teacher of truth. So moreover the preachers of the Christian faith would preach the faith everywhere the more freely and securely, the more they were joined to imperial power. Hence Paul for this reason said to Festus, as we read in Acts 25: "I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged";¹⁵ and so he escaped bodily death. Hence it is evident that it was reasonable, and useful to the universal church,¹⁶ that Peter should leave a successor to his dignity and most full power there rather than anywhere else in the world. And therefore it must be held that Peter did this most holily. Therefore it is to be believed that blessed Peter the apostle, having left his former sees and put others in them in his place, was crowned with martyrdom at Rome by the Lord's command, as faithful histories relate, because there, as in the place most apt for the supreme primate of the universal church, the Lord willed him to have a successor who would receive the fullness of his power. Further still, it is to be believed that the Lord permitted the blood of the most excellent martyrs to be shed more copiously in that place than in all other places of the world, in which the universal church especially glories, so that the glory of the place might match the excellence of the one presiding. Again, it is to be believed and held that this was revealed by the Holy Ghost, or through blessed Peter, to his successors; otherwise [it would] not [have been claimed] by them,¹⁷ for otherwise they would have falsely asserted themselves supreme pontiffs of the whole church, nor would God have worked such miracles as are written of their deeds on the testimony of men worthy of belief; for it was not fitting that God should work miracles through wicked and lying men and at their petition. From these arguments it is clear enough that the Roman princes¹⁸ after Peter succeeded blessed Peter himself, the prince of the apostles, in the primacy and fullness of the apostolic dignity. Hence we can securely affirm what the Armenians ask, namely that the Roman church is the head of all Christians, since it belongs to it to govern all Christians through its pontiff.

Chapter 16.

John. If your arguments above are valid, by which you try to show that blessed Peter ought to have left a successor at Rome, why, now that the Roman empire has failed, or at least is so restricted that it is less in power, glory and lordship not only than the empire of the Great Khan of Cathay but now also than the empire of the Persians, the empire of Uzbek, the empire of the Sultan and the empire of the barbarians,¹ and it could not be proved that the present successor of Peter ought to leave a successor in any of those empires, I do not see why your arguments about safety of access to him, and about the freedom and safety of preaching, did not apply more to those places than to the Roman empire at present. As those arguments then required this of Rome, so now they seem to require the same of other places, and especially of Cathay, which empire is affirmed to be now more glorious and powerful than all the others. And to this end it seems that blessed Peter and all the apostles, once the faith of Christ was established in some regions in which they taught, at once moved to places where the same faith had not been preached at all, or had been less fully received, because there was greater need of preaching there, and the fruit of labour was more glorious and more ample. Hence it follows that one must act in this way in the present too.² Again, Christ's precept in the last [chapter] of Matthew seems to drive to this: "Go into the whole world and teach all nations" etc.,³ and in the last [chapter] of Matthew:⁴ "Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature." Since these were said to the apostles not for themselves only but for themselves and their successors, just as what follows in Matthew, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world", was said not only for them but for all who were to succeed them in this office, as you affirmed above, it does not seem reasonable that anyone should accept one part of this saying of our Saviour and despise the other. Again, your argument above about ease of access to him who has especially to resolve the questions of faith that arise applies rather to Jerusalem (of which, or of the region around it, the Psalmist says in Psalm 73, "For God is our king before ages: he hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth")⁵ than to Rome, which is in the western parts of Europe, since from all parts of the world general access is easier to the middle of the earth. Again, your argument about the glory of the city of Rome because of the shedding of the blood of apostles and martyrs seems to apply rather to Jerusalem, where Christ, true God, was slain, and James the brother of John, as we read in Acts 12; James the apostle, son of Alphaeus, bishop of the place, fell there, as the ecclesiastical histories say, and also Hegesippus,⁶ a truthful historian contemporary with James; and where all the prophets suffered martyrdom, and innumerable Christians. Hence the supreme pontiff ought rather to reside there, or that is the place for him to reside, than at Rome or anywhere else in the world.

Richard. You rashly try to inquire what the supreme pontiff ought to do, since it is his to direct our acts, and we his subjects ought to hold of him that, in matters concerning the state of the universal church, he does all things providently and from deliberate and wholesome counsel, and disposes all things sweetly and honourably. For nothing you object has force, since I spoke of the emperor of the world and his empire, of which it is said in Luke 2: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled";⁷ and no such [emperor] now exists in the world, and therefore the fittingnesses you have adduced cannot apply to any. Again, you do not rightly understand that gospel text in Matthew, "Teach" etc., and likewise in Mark; for it was not said so that each apostle should teach all nations or run through all regions, since it is evident that none of them did so, and they would have been transgressors of the divine command if we said it was a command or precept. For it seems to me rather said to them by way of counsel and teaching; but however it was said, it was said so that each should hold particular places, and so all, both they and their successors, should preach the gospel throughout the whole world as far as they could. And therefore he who does so in some region is not bound further; for it is evident that the apostles did not wish even their own successors to run about in this way,⁸ but blessed Peter willed that Clement remain bishop in the city of Rome, and Mark in Alexandria; so Paul set Timothy and Titus in fixed places. Yet I do not dare deny that it would seem expedient that, as the apostles did, so their successors should do: namely, that they should send to the various parts of the unbelievers various doctors, famous for knowledge and approved in morals, at the expense of the church, now endowed. Moreover, what you say about the ease of access to Jerusalem, which is in the middle of the world, is not repugnant to the fittingness I adduced, in which I spoke of ease of access because of greater freedom and the absence of hindrance from unbelievers and perverse men. In the other thing you object, about the glory of the place of Jerusalem, you say true and conclude true: namely that, as far as that head goes, no Christian doubts that it would be supremely fitting for the supreme pontiff of Christ's church to reside there. But other things stand in the way, namely both the subversion of that people from the faith, then soon to come, and the imperial power mentioned above, etc.

Chapter 17.

John. It seems to me that what you affirmed above, namely that the Roman pontiff ought to succeed blessed Peter in the supreme primacy of the church, plainly implies not only the annexation of these two pontificates or dignities but also that the general successor of blessed Peter was made supreme by this, that he was first, in order and origin, made Roman. For being supreme befitted the Roman pontiff, as your arguments maintain, and for this reason you concluded that the Roman [bishop] succeeded Peter as supreme.⁹ Being supreme, therefore, came to the Roman [bishop] as fitting or suitable to him; and so he who succeeded Peter, since he was Roman, received this prerogative of being supreme; so in origin and order he was Roman before he was supreme, and therefore supreme because Roman. This seems to appear moreover from another head: for the immediate pontiff after Peter had to succeed Peter by election, and did. But it seems that the power of electing the Roman pontiff in those first electors, as their own right not coming to them from elsewhere, preceded in order and origin the power of electing the supreme [pontiff], as an accidental right coming to them. Now such as is the order or priority of origin between these two powers of electing the Roman and the supreme [pontiff] in the electors themselves, such seems to be the order in their effects, namely in the rights acquired by election. Hence from this head too it seems to follow that the Roman [pontiff] by election acquires the right of the Roman pontificate prior in origin to that of the supreme. And so it seems to follow, as I said, that the general successor of Peter, namely the Roman pontiff, was made supreme or general [pontiff] of the whole church because he was Roman. But how this can stand I do not see: for whoever succeeds Peter in both rights received these rights just as Peter held them; but in Peter the supreme pontificate came before the Roman, not only in origin but also in time. Again, he was supreme when he sat at Antioch, when no doubt he was not Roman; therefore each successor of his was likewise supreme before Roman, and therefore Roman because supreme, as Peter had been. Again, every successor of blessed Peter, as you affirmed above, had power equal with blessed Peter. As Peter, then, could have set another over Rome before he sat at Rome, as he did at Antioch where he sat, and yet himself hold another particular pontificate elsewhere, so every successor of blessed Peter could both set another over Rome and preside over another particular church, and so not be Roman himself, etc. And so it follows altogether that being supreme does not depend on being Roman. For I do not see why the supreme pontiff should be bound to any particular church, since even the supreme Peter was bound to no particular church. Again, from what you said to prove that the Roman [pontiff] succeeded Peter, namely that it is more useful to the universal church that he reside there than elsewhere, it follows that he who is now supreme can commit himself to another particular church if it is for the utility of the universal church, and so can give up the Roman pontificate for himself and his successors. Hence it follows not only that no supreme [pontiff] is now supreme because Roman, but that whoever is supreme pontiff can be not Roman at all; and so there seems to be no annexation between these pontificates, although it is written, "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder", which I understand [to mean] that no one can lawfully separate; to which sense that saying of Gamaliel in Acts 5 fits: "If this counsel or work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; but let them alone, lest perhaps we be found to fight against God."¹⁰ Again, if all Rome departed from the Christian religion, as the people of Jerusalem departed, it does not seem that any Christian pontiff would be Roman. For I do not see how anyone could be called Roman pontiff unless he had the care of the Romans. For Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5: "For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge." Those, then, whom a pontiff has no [power] to judge in spiritual causes, I do not see how they belong to him as subjects, nor how he is their pontiff. For to Peter was committed the care of Christ's sheep and lambs only, as is clear from the last [chapter] of John; and none are Christ's sheep but those who hear his voice and follow it, as he says in John 10.¹¹ Hence it follows that if the Roman people turned from the faith, no vicar of Christ would be Roman pontiff; and yet no doubt whoever presided would be no less supreme pontiff and Peter's successor. Hence there seems to be no annexation between these pontificates, but they seem wholly disparate, even if in fact they concur in the same person, as perhaps a pontificate and a kingdom could concur in the same person, which yet are evidently wholly disparate in right. Again, about the annexation of these pontificates there is much wavering as to how it was made in the first successor of Peter and consequently in the rest. Either the pontiff is elected as Roman, or he is elected or named as supreme, or he is elected to both. If he is elected as Roman pontiff only, it follows from this that he is supreme, and he would seem to have been elected improvidently, namely per accidens, not per se,¹² although the electors have power to elect him per se and primarily; and so the electors would hide their power. Nor does one so elected seem to receive Peter's general power, since he is not elected as general but as Roman only, no mention being made of supreme. If he is elected as supreme only, it seems that by such an election he is not made Roman at all, as neither was blessed Peter Roman when Christ chose him, or set him over [all], as supreme. If he is elected expressly as Roman and supreme, then he is elected by a double election, and he will not be Peter's successor in both pontificates without a double express election. Hence, since it was not done so, and Peter's naming of Clement, when he said before the brethren, "This Clement I ordain bishop for you",¹³ did not have this [effect] either, it follows that even after Peter no one succeeded him in both pontificates.

Chapter 18.

Richard. These things you put forward are difficult.¹ Nevertheless I do not doubt that these two pontificates were annexed by divine will and ordinance. For most faithful historians, to whom full credence is rightly to be given in everything, relate that when blessed Peter, as persecution grew in Rome, wished to leave the city of Rome according to that same precept of the master, namely Matthew 10, "When they persecute you in one city, flee into another",² Christ met him as he was at the gate of that city. Peter, astonished, said to him: "Lord, whither goest thou?" Christ answered him: "I go to Rome to be crucified again." And at once he was taken from his eyes. And Peter, understanding from this saying that he himself, as another Christ, namely his singular vicar on earth, must be crucified there, returned and remained there to the end of his life;³ therefore he would have been a transgressor if he had not ended his life there. Hence it seems to me, saving a better judgement, that by divine ordinance these two pontificates are annexed or joined; for whatever reasonably follows from what God has ordained or instituted, or is revealed by the Holy Ghost as to be done, you will grant is done by divine ordinance.⁴ It is evident from the preceding articles that, from the institution of the apostolic order and of its prince, and from its duration until the end of the world, and from the revelation of the Holy Ghost, as was deduced above, the Roman pontiff had to succeed Peter in the primacy, and his successors also; and so he willed them to be annexed. Yet they do not seem to me so annexed that they cannot be separated for a reasonable cause, namely the utility of the universal church: for example, if the supreme pontiff, with a general council, judged for evident cause that it would be useful to the church for him to leave the Roman church altogether and join himself particularly to another, it seems that he could dissolve the annexation, although it was God's work. Since, however, the foregoing shows that this annexation was made by God for a cause, namely that it was more useful to the universal church for the supreme pontiff to preside at Rome than elsewhere, it is to be believed that Christ made this annexation so that, the cause ceasing, the annexation would cease or could cease; and that the gospel saying "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" should be so understood: that is, he ought not, nor can he lawfully, separate while the cause of the joining remains; but when the cause of the joining ceases, things joined by God can reasonably be separated by man, and especially by his vicar. I understand the saying of Gamaliel in like manner.

¶ As for what you object about the annexation of these pontificates in the first succession to Peter, namely that it happened so that the supreme [pontiff] became Roman, it seems ambiguous enough. One thing, however, I do not doubt: that being Roman is not a necessary or essential cause of being supreme, as you prudently objected above; for it is not of the essential necessity of the supreme [pontiff] that he be Roman, or bound to another particular church; nor is it necessary that any pontiff be Roman, as it is necessary, from the perseverance of the apostolic order and of the supreme apostolic pontificate until the consummation of the world, that there be someone supreme; and no one supreme is lesser than Peter in the power of order or of rule, as was shown above. And therefore it seems that any of them, for a reasonable cause approved by the church in common counsel, could give up the Roman pontificate altogether. And therefore being Roman is [not] prior in essence to being supreme pontiff,⁵ although it is so in fact for the cause stated above, namely because the will of God appeared to this [effect]: that Peter should have a successor at Rome. And in this respect it was the reverse in Peter and in his successors: namely, Peter was supreme before he was Roman, both in time and in cause, but each of his successors was Roman before supreme. Yet that priority is not a priority of essence but of disposition in the person who was to succeed Peter; nor do I think it a necessary disposition, as I said, but one ordained for a cause; and when the cause ceases its necessity is removed, and also when another cause presses, as I said.

¶ As for what you object about the mode of election, it ought not to move you; for the same man can lawfully be elected by a double election, as Roman and as supreme, since they are two distinct dignities, though annexed. And he can be elected as Roman and as supreme by a single election, provided this was by the ordinance of those electing who have the power for this, presupposing the annexation of the one pontificate with the other; and so by electing him as Roman, presupposing the said annexation, he is truly elected as supreme and as general pontiff, probably; although, as you say, such an election would be made too improvidently, namely per accidens, not per se.⁶ And therefore it seems more fitting to me that he be expressly elected to both states; but since it does not yet appear from these how he ought to be elected,⁷ I therefore put off treating of this.

Chapter 19.

Here, then, it lies open,⁸ since it is clear that the Roman pontiff ought to be supreme, by what right or title the first after Peter succeeded Peter, and the rest succeeded

him. JOHN. Why not by right of nomination or ordination? For Clement, Peter's disciple, wrote in a certain letter addressed to James of Jerusalem that Simon Peter, as his death approached, placed in the college of the brethren, took Clement himself by the hand and said, "This Clement I ordain bishop for you, who was with me from the beginning";⁹ and this man, namely Saint Clement,

succeeded Peter. RICHARD. It is likely, according to the words of blessed Clement, that Peter by the Holy Ghost, or rather the Holy Ghost through Peter, did and said this. For he seems to have done or said this by the spirit by which he had foreseen that his death was approaching, namely because he had seen that Clement was more useful to the church than the rest, not in order to prescribe the form of future succession. For he who would not, alone, though supreme, set Matthias in the apostolate without the consent of the brethren present, is by no means to be believed to have wished to ordain by himself, or by any one man, unless he had received the Lord's mind on this, which no doubt he would have made known to the brethren so that they might give consent. Again, Peter, full of the Holy Ghost, who had heard from his master, "Many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce many; and because iniquity shall abound, the charity of many shall grow cold" (Matthew 24),¹⁰ would by no means commit the ordination of the supreme pontificate or principate to the will of one man, since one man's charity could so easily grow cold that he might put flesh and blood in his place, and perhaps a false prophet. Again, no one doubts that the discretion of many is more useful for such an effect than that of one person, since many can less easily than one be broken by terrors, bent by blandishments, or corrupted by promises; nor is it to be believed by anyone that so plain a truth was hidden from Peter, full of the Holy Ghost, or that Peter wished to go against so plain a truth. It is evident, therefore, that Peter never wished the supreme apostolic primacy to be ordained at the judgement of one man, a successor. Hence it is not to be believed that in the deed you described above Peter ordained Clement, but rather named him, to make known to the brethren what he himself thought about the person to be put in his place by them, although the brethren knew [him] to have the spirit of God; and therefore, when Peter had died, the brethren set Clement in his place. But Clement himself, with the consent of the brethren, yielding,¹¹ made Cletus, and, as some affirm, Linus, precede him.

Chapter 20.

John. I see that one ought not to succeed another in the apostolic primacy by the nomination or ordination of the predecessor; but I do not see why the later should not succeed the earlier by lot, since Matthias, chosen by lot, thereby received the bishopric, as is found in Acts 2,¹²

chapter. RICHARD. You do not fully express the mode of Matthias's succession. For if you look closely at the text, it will appear that Matthias, together with Barnabas,¹³ was elected by the church before all others; for after Peter, as befitted his office, had defined that one must succeed Judas the traitor, there follows: "They appointed two, Joseph, called Barnabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." How did they appoint these two except by election? You see then that Matthias was at least elected with his colleague; but they did not know which of the two was more acceptable to God, seeing both full of holiness; therefore, prayer first made, they cast lots over them, asking that God show which of the two he had chosen. This mode displayed a divine oracle rather than a lot, which was lawful for them, although perhaps¹⁴ it is neither expedient nor lawful at present for men to do such things, or to do them in such a way, in whom so great holiness is not to be presumed as there was in the apostles themselves. That succession by lot is unreasonable and unfit in the case of the supreme pontiff you will easily notice if you consider that by it [the office] can fall as easily to the unworthy as to the worthy. If anywhere, then, lot could reasonably have place, it would be in the case of Matthias, where an election of certain persons of equal merit in the judgement of the electors went before the lot; but¹⁵ lot alone would never confer a title to succeed.

Chapter 21.

John. Why does the later supreme pontiff in the new law not succeed the earlier by hereditary right, as in the old law it was commanded that Aaron be priest, and his son after him by perpetual right (Exodus 28 and 29),¹⁶ and Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron, and his sons also, by perpetual right, as in Numbers 26?¹⁷ For I do not see why that precept ought not to have been observed, if it is reasonable and useful. And if it was unreasonable it would never have been given by the Lord. Hence it is evident that it was reasonable, and so it is reasonable still that it be observed by us. Again, it is better and more reasonable that earthly kings and princes succeed one another by hereditary right than by election or nomination or lot or some other mode; which seems [to follow] from this, that so it was done in the Old Testament with David and his sons, as is clear in 2 Kings 7,¹⁸ although many evil men so succeeded him. And it is evident that the Lord established the more reasonable and more useful mode of succession for kings and princes. Why then it should not be so for priests does not appear; and especially since by the law of nature it seems that the goods of parents should pass to their children by hereditary right. Hence, in Numbers 28,¹⁹ when the petition of the daughters of Zelophehad was put to Moses, that their father's possession be given them, and the Lord was consulted on this, the Lord answered that the request of the daughters of Zelophehad was just. Hence, since no law had been given on this, it follows that if this thing was just then, it was just by natural justice. Nor does this seem as though it ought to be doubtful, since the son is as it were a portion of the father, and so in a way the father as it were remains and endures in the son, so that what was his is continued in the son as in another self, which would not happen so nearly in another; also, since nature demands the permanence of each thing as far as is possible to it, it follows that through the continuation of succession or of paternal possession in the son the father ought, as far as is

possible, to remain. RICHARD. All these are removed by a single deed of the glorious virgin, mother of Christ, who kept virginity with the Lord's approval; and so did Christ her son; so Paul the apostle did in himself, and urged this in 1 Corinthians 7, wishing all to be as himself, as he says; hence he adds: "He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he that giveth her not doth better";²⁰ and soon after: "If her husband die, she is at liberty from the law of her husband; let her marry to whom she will, yet in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I have the spirit of God."²¹ Hence it is evident that from the time of the perfect introduction of the gospel the supreme state of perfection includes chastity, conversely to the old law. And therefore it was unfit thenceforth that a married man should hold the supreme state, since it belongs to the supreme pontiff to be solicitous for the things that are God's²² and not to be divided, so as to think how to please a wife. Hence Paul says in the place cited: "But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that are God's, how he may please God; but he that is with a wife, for the things of the world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided." Hence the Apostle says in Hebrews 7: "For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law." And therefore from the time of the gospel, namely of the introduction of the new priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, [the priesthood] has been translated so that²³ the succession of priests is made not by carnal hereditary right but rather by spiritual hereditary right, so that he who imitates Christ more ought to succeed in Christ's priesthood rather than another. And therefore, after the Lord Christ's mouth had first said to Peter, as more like him in virtue, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven", there follows at once from Christ the institution or prenomination [of him] as his successor: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."²⁴ In like manner, after Christ had first put the threefold question to Peter himself, thus, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?", there follows at once the commission to him of the keeping of Christ's sheep and lambs, or the express statement of the commission made before, thus: "Feed my lambs." And so it appears that he who loves Christ more ought by merit to succeed him as prelate of his church. Hence it is evident that, however it was with the succession of the high priests and of others, and of kings and princes, and also of some simple men as to paternal possession, nothing of those laws is on that account to be observed in the law of the gospel as to the succession of priests; nor are those laws reasonable for this priesthood, for the reasons given, though they are reasonable in bodily successions or possessions, where there is no question of so great and so easy a danger to souls. And therefore those laws, in so far as they have the law of nature in them, namely that a legitimate son succeed his carnal father in the father's carnal goods, are observed in the law of the gospel, namely that a son, or another nearer [kinsman], succeed the deceased by hereditary right; but not in spiritual rights, but rather he who is nearer in spiritual gifts. This matter will be treated more fully in the tenth book. So then it is evident that it is neither fitting nor expedient that anyone hold the supreme priesthood, or any other degree of priesthood, by hereditary right, namely by right of carnal succession. You see then that it is neither fitting nor expedient that the succession of the supreme pontiffs be by the ordination or nomination of predecessors, nor by lot; and therefore it seems that the successor ought to be made by neither of these modes; and it is still less fitting that this be done by hereditary right, lest perhaps someone should take on the care of others who did not know how to care for himself. Indeed, since it is altogether fitting that he who is to hold the vicariate of Christ on earth be full of holiness and spiritual gifts, and no one has such gifts from his forebears by hereditary right, it follows that no one ought to be successor by right of kinship, or possess the supreme pontificate by hereditary right. Hence I do not see how it could fittingly be done by the church otherwise than by election. And therefore it is altogether to be believed that it was done so, etc.

Chapter 22.

John. Why do you affirm two pontificates, the supreme pontificate and the Roman pontificate, joined, that is, by divine institution? To me, from what has gone before, it seems that the Roman and the supreme are one pontificate, if the Roman pontiff is the supreme.

Richard. It does not seem so to you rightly. For although some person was emperor and king, namely of Germany, it does not on that account at once follow that the empire, or the imperial power or dignity, ought to be called the royal dignity or kingly power; nor was the dignity of the apostolate to be called the dignity of discipleship in Matthias, when from a disciple, as he was, he was made an apostle by election; nor in a man who has a son and a father ought you to say that sonship is fatherhood, although perhaps it were one thing; for in all these there is a great distinction of reason. So, although, as was shown above, the principate of the apostolate and the Roman pontificate were in the same person, we ought not to say that it is one pontificate, since the reasons are different, whether they are one thing or different things,

which is not to be examined at present.

John. These examples do not resolve what I said, since neither in the king of Germany, nor in Matthias the disciple, nor in the son does the other relation follow, namely empire, apostolate or fatherhood; for each of the former is prior and can be separated from these higher ones. But here the Roman pontificate could not, in Peter's first successor, be separated from the supreme, nor the reverse; and so they seem altogether indistinct.

Richard. Heat in fire cannot be separated from light, nor the reverse; nor light from the sun, nor the reverse; colour cannot be separated from the body in which it is, nor the reverse; and it is evident that each is distinguished from each. Hence you do not conclude rightly. Could the supreme pontiff, then, be separated from the Roman pontificate, or the reverse?¹ I have already said that in fact they are joined by God's ordinance. For if all Rome, in its whole people, were overthrown like Sodom, or were spiritually overthrown from the faith, the supreme apostolic pontificate would remain no less than it now does in the present supreme pontiff² and his lawful successors; and perhaps there could be a question by what title another would succeed him, especially if all those were dead in whom, on the part of the Roman church,³ the power or right of electing the supreme pontiff at present resides. For then the right of electing would seem to devolve upon the whole college of bishops of the universal church, or upon the whole congregation of the faithful, as it would also seem to have been from the beginning, had it not appeared by divine ordinance that that prerogative was to remain in the church. This Peter the apostle himself moreover showed expressly enough when, seeing his death approach, in the college of the brethren he named Clement his disciple to succeed him in the bishopric of the city:⁴ not because he had power to institute him supreme pontiff, as I have already said, but to make his mind known to the college of the brethren, which mind the brethren, the electors, did not doubt to be ruled by the Holy Spirit. Rightly therefore it follows, as I concluded, that the Roman church is the head of all Christians, since it belongs to the Roman church, through the supreme pontiff, as I said, principally to govern all Christians.

Chapter 23.

John. I wonder that you ascribe several heads to the church of Christ, namely the Roman church and the supreme pontiff of the universal church, since the apostle says, in Ephesians 1, 4 and 5 and Colossians 1,⁵ that Christ is head of the whole church. Hence, if your conclusion is true, the church will be a monster having several heads.

Richard. Do not wonder at this so much as at your own imprudence, since you often use the manner of speaking which you attack. For you call London the head of the kingdom of the English, and Paris the head of the kingdom of France, and nonetheless in each kingdom you call the king the head of all the inhabitants of that[?] kingdom;⁶ you say besides, with Paul the apostle, 1 Corinthians 11[:3],⁷ that "the head of every man is Christ"; and yet you affirm no man of the said kingdoms to be a monster, though you assert that each of them has three heads, indeed four or five and perhaps up to ten; and you deny of no one among the people that he has his primate for a head, or his bishop, or his rector, or his count, or a lesser lord under the count. These things are far too childish. For monstrosity is by no means argued of a college from a multitude of heads, that is, of its rulers, or in a people, since it is not a true body but has this name only by likeness to some true body, provided they have a fitting order to one another; whereas in a true body a multitude of heads which were truly its parts, among which there was no natural order, would argue monstrosity or superfluity. Understand each, therefore, in its own way: that is, Christ is head of the church because he is not only its ruler but its author; you will call Peter's successor head of the church because among the persons instituted for the church itself he is the supreme governor and ruler; and you call the Roman church, too, the head of all Christians jointly, because among the churches of Christians it would hold the principate by the right of its prince. The Roman church, I say: not a carving of stones and timbers, but the congregation of the whole Roman people with its pastor.

Chapter 24.

John. I do not see that it can be as you assert, since the church of Jerusalem seems worthier from its consecration through the shedding of Christ's blood. Hence, as it seems to me, certain famous and holy men among our [doctors] attempt in vain to assert that the Roman church, on account of its consecration in the shedding of the blood of the apostles Peter and Paul, is loftier than the others and has, beyond the others, power and the principate of honour; since in this prerogative the church of Jerusalem excels it as much as Christ the almighty exceeds human creatures. To this also contributes the fact that the church of Jerusalem is older in foundation, and Antioch likewise, where the disciples were first called Christians, as is read in Acts 11[:26]; in which, moreover, blessed Peter sat earlier than at Rome. Again, the whole universal church, before blessed Peter came to Rome, namely in those ten years in which he is read in the chronicles to have held a chair in the eastern parts, had one particular church as its head, as it is here asserted to have. For I see no necessity why it should have one now and did not have one then; but then the Roman church, not yet founded, or at least not yet having a pontiff, was not the head; and consequently another particular church was head at that time and held the principate. Therefore it must be shown by what right and how that church, whether it was that of Jerusalem or that of Antioch or another, lost this principate. Again, we read in the chronicles that before the times of the emperor Phocas the church of Constantinople styled itself the first of all, and yet it was not in any way rebuked for this in the general councils held there or elsewhere; therefore it seems that the universal church then approved this prerogative of the church of Constantinople. You, therefore, show not only how the church of Constantinople lost this prerogative, but besides by what right the Roman church acquired the same prerogative. Again, if he who holds the principate of the whole Christian church set another over [Rome], and himself held the chair of no particular church, but as general vicar of Christ governed all and each alike, the Roman church would no more be head of the universal church than any other particular church. It is not therefore now head by reason of itself, but only by reason of another; and every other church also could be so, if the universal pontiff specially took it to himself as his bride. Again, I am still more astonished at certain of our doctors who attempt to prove that the Roman church is especially the head of the others because the emperor Constantine, about the year of the Lord 350, decreed this and had it promulgated, and the emperor Phocas also established the same thing about the year of the Lord 600, as is read in their annals;⁸ since it could in no way be shown, and is indeed altogether contrary to the dignity of the church, that any emperor should have such spiritual power as to be able so to turn about, indeed to overturn, churches and their pontiffs in their dignities and powers. Why moreover, according to what has been said, the emperor of Tartary could not make the church of Cambaluc⁹ or of Cathay the head of all churches, I do not see, even if he were truly a Christian with his people, since his lordship in temporal things is the chief and greatest upon earth; and if anyone said that, he would be thought not only improvident but stupid.

Chapter 25.

Richard. If any place were the church, you would affirm with probability that the church of Jerusalem was worthier than the Roman. But since we call the congregation of the faithful the church, the dignity of the place, which you rightly ascribe to Jerusalem from the shedding of Christ's blood: the church of Jerusalem, gathered from faithful men, which in our times is very lowly (as we report with sorrow), can by no means on that account be affirmed worthier than the Roman.¹⁰ "For not for the place did the Lord choose the people, but for the people the place," it is written in Maccabees, chapter 5.¹¹ And God's election sanctifies or dignifies the people of whom the church is built, not any earthly place. Hence you can see by how great a divine mystery it came about that Peter left his successor not at Jerusalem, where Christ had foreseen the emptying out of his faith to come soon, but in the Roman parts, where he had foreseen it was to be enlarged. The antiquity of the church of Jerusalem or of Antioch, too, does not argue a primacy[?] of dignity,¹² unless some primate of the church had finally remained in them, as was shown above. As for what you add, that the whole universal church from the time of Christ had some particular church [for its head], whether it is true or false does not bear on our purpose; for that church always held the title of head and of honour where Peter, the head of the church, sat; and therefore this dignity of one church passed with the prince of the whole to another, and so the former rightly lost this prerogative. You see, therefore, what you ask: why Antioch lost this dignity and how the Roman church acquired it. Nor did the church of Constantinople, where Peter never sat, ever lose this dignity, since it never received it; but by the usurpation of a certain patriarch of its own, over-presumptuous and little knowing Scripture, it had caused itself to be called primate, yet for a short time. His presumption, as plainly erroneous, the emperor Phocas suppressed.¹³ Hence I said above that it was expedient that Peter's successor should sit at the emperor's side, so that he could promptly, when it was expedient, coerce by temporal power anyone attempting to resist his right. As for what you go on to try to establish, that the Roman church is head not by reason of itself: if by the Roman church you understand the congregation of all the faithful Romans with the head left out, I think this makes nothing against our position, whether it were true or false, since the church itself, constituted of its prince and its subjects, is the head. Nor did it receive this dignity from any earthly emperor, as you prudently object, nor could it receive it, but from Christ alone, the heavenly emperor; yet for the cause mentioned, namely lest any other church or person should presume to usurp this prerogative falsely or otherwise, so that the Roman church might through its pontiff carry out the office of Peter more freely and securely, wherever decrees of emperors on this matter issued, they were not instituting but confirming, and more truly approving; which approval in nothing derogates from the dignity of the supreme pontiff or of the church. No Christian, therefore, ought to doubt that the Roman church, whose pontiff is Peter's successor and Christ's vicar, is generally the head and teacher of all Christians in the said manner, namely through its pontiff.

Chapter 26.

John. These things I gladly accept. Go on to the other questions.

Richard. In several of them what is to be held follows clearly from this way. For if the Roman church is the head of all Christians, and its pontiff is primate of the whole Christian church and Christ's successor as Peter was, there is no doubt that in things lawful and honest the universal church ought to follow its decrees, its teaching and its custom or usage in the conferring of the sacraments and the manner of their ministration; I mean in those things in which he himself has established or decreed that it is to be imitated. Hence Paul says without distinction, Hebrews, last chapter [13:17]: "Obey your prelates and be subject to them"; and Romans 13[:1–2]: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation"; where he says that those who resist the higher power incur damnation. And if anyone says this is to be taken of the secular power, how much more is it to be observed as to the spiritual power! Hence also he says, [2] Thessalonians 3[:14]: "If any man obey not our word by epistle, note that man and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed."¹⁴ Hence the Saviour says, Luke 4:¹⁵ "He that despiseth you despiseth me." So it was also in the old law; hence Deuteronomy 17[:12]: "But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die." And there he premises [17:11]: "Thou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand." And Deuteronomy 24[:8]: "Observe diligently that thou incur not the stroke of the leprosy, but thou shalt do whatsoever the priests of the Levitical race shall teach thee, according to what I have commanded them, and fulfil thou it carefully." Now it is evident that those who do not obey the Roman pontiff, the primate of the whole Roman church, in commands lawful and honest, incur damnation; and so, as to the form of conferring orders, as to the times, as to the age of those to be ordained, moreover as to the fasts to be observed, and as to the separation of the people from the clergy and from the priest celebrating in church, as to the form of masses and their distinction, as to the studies of theology to be pursued, and as to the unity of their patriarch, and as to all like things about which the Armenians raise many questions, it ought to suffice them for an answer that they have the decrees of the Roman church and of its pastor on these matters, since of these things few or none are expressed, especially in the New Testament.

And so the seventh book ends. Here ends the seventh book.