532. “There are,” says Bellarmine in On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 1, “three good forms of government: Monarchy, that is, the principate of one, whose contrary vice is Tyranny; Aristocracy, that is, the rule of the best, to which Oligarchy is opposed, that is, the faction of the few; and Democracy, that is, the rule of the whole people, which not rarely degenerates into seditions. The chief philosophers teach this… nor do they teach it without great reason. For if a multitude is to be governed, it cannot happen that it is governed except in some way from these three. For either one will be set over the republic, or some from among the many, or absolutely all. If one, there will be Monarchy; if some from among the many, Aristocracy; if absolutely all, Democracy.”
533. “But although,” he adds, “there are only three forms of simple government, nevertheless they can be, as it were, mixed among themselves; from which mixture four other forms of mixed government will be produced. One, tempered from all three; another from Monarchy and Aristocracy; a third from Monarchy and Democracy; the last from Democracy and Aristocracy.”
534. Now: 1. from the things established in the preceding article, it is clear that the form of government introduced by Christ into the Church is not democratic. 2. If we establish the monarchic form of government, by that very fact we exclude the aristocratic. 3. But the monarchic form is established most fully if the fullness of power is demonstrated in the Roman Pontiff with regard to all and each of the faithful and Bishops, even when gathered together. 4. Therefore here we employ rather more general arguments, and shall complete the matter in the last disputation. Nevertheless it is necessary to declare certain things in advance.
535. Therefore it is established among Catholics that a true monarchy was instituted by Christ in the Church; but it is also agreed among them that ecclesiastical monarchy is altogether new and singular. For: 1. in human monarchies, the one who has supreme authority is truly King; whereas in ecclesiastical monarchy, the one who possesses supreme authority is not king, but the Vicar of the king. For Christ, who now dies no more, still governs the Church, nor can anyone succeed him. Compare Taparelli, Essay, numbers 1453 and following. Hence St. Thomas says in Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 76: “But if someone says that Christ is the one head and one shepherd, who is the one spouse of the one Church, he does not answer sufficiently. For it is manifest that Christ himself accomplishes the ecclesiastical sacraments. For he himself is the one who baptizes; he himself is the one who remits sins; he himself is the true priest, who offered himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power his body is daily consecrated on the altar.” “And nevertheless, because he was not going to be corporally present with all the faithful, he chose ministers through whom he would dispense the aforesaid things to the faithful, as was said above, chapter 74. Therefore by the same reason, because he was going to withdraw his bodily presence from the Church, it was necessary that he commit to someone the care of the universal Church in his place. Hence it is that before the ascension he said to Peter: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21.17).” 2. Bellarmine notes in On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 9: “The Supreme Pontiff, if he is compared with Christ, does not have fullness of power, but only a certain portion of his own, according to the measure of Christ’s donation. For Christ rules the whole Church, which is in heaven, in purgatory, and on earth; and which was from the beginning of the world and will be until the end. Moreover, at his will he can establish laws, institute Sacraments, and bestow grace even without Sacraments.” “But the Pope rules only that part of the Church which is on earth while he himself lives; nor can he change the laws of Christ, or institute Sacraments, or remit sins without a Sacrament. Yet if the Supreme Pontiff is compared with the other Bishops, he is rightly said to have fullness of power. For the others have defined regions over which they preside, and also defined power; but he is set over the whole Christian world, and has the whole and full power which Christ left on earth for the utility of the Church.” 3. In ecclesiastical monarchy, under the supreme Prince and Monarch there exist true and properly so-called princes, who rule in solidum, as chapter Loquitur, cause 24, question 1 has it, without detriment to the supreme principate, indeed with its increase. This form is new and singular, nor could the human mind easily imitate it. For if full dominion is placed in one, by that very fact the others are removed from a proper and native participation in it. They will indeed be ministers, vicars, prefects, and so forth, representing the Monarch; they will administer another’s province, not their own; they will exercise delegated jurisdiction, not ordinary; and therefore they will never be co-princes and brothers. On the other hand, if the supreme dominion is placed not in one, but in several, namely in the optimates, by that very fact there will not be fullness of power in one, and therefore Monarchy will be destroyed. For if each of those has proper and native authority, the supreme power is already, as it were, divided, and this power is no longer full, absolute, and free in one. Compare Zallinger, Institutes of Public Ecclesiastical Law, chapter 362.
536. But if it is asked whether in the Church a simple monarchy is to be admitted, or one tempered by aristocracy, or even by democracy, there does not seem to be one opinion of Catholics. For Cardinal Orsi, in On the Power of the Pontiff over Ecumenical Synods and Their Canons, part 2, book 7, to whom innumerable theologians and canonists subscribe, maintains that the government of the Church is simply and absolutely monarchic. Others, however, establish that it is tempered by aristocracy or even by democracy. Indeed, what is certainly worthy of wonder, there are found some true defenders of simple and absolute monarchy as to substance who nevertheless, if the question is about the name, then call it not simple, but mixed both with aristocracy and also with democracy. Thus Bellarmine, in Controversies, book 1, On the Roman Pontiff, chapter 3. On the other hand, from the opposite side, others are found, among whom is Natalis Alexander, by no means moderately hostile in reality to the doctrine of simple ecclesiastical monarchy, who nevertheless in word do not hesitate to call the form of the Church monarchic without addition. They would certainly be more worthy of pardon if they stumbled over the word, but thought rightly about the matter.
537. In order that the crisis of this question may be had at once, we note first of all that Natalis Alexander, distinction 4 in the Ecclesiastical History of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with other Gallicans, establishes a true aristocracy in the Church, although he calls it monarchy without addition. For he teaches: 1. that the supreme prince, the Roman Pontiff, can make no law unless it is approved by the aristocratic order, the body of Bishops, either dispersed in the various provinces or gathered in council; 2. that the same order, considered collectively and apart from the Supreme Pontiff himself, is superior to him, is the supreme tribunal, and is the supreme source of all power in the Church; 3. what is consequent, they recognize a right of appeal from Pontifical decisions to a future Council. These things indeed set forth not so much a monarchy tempered by aristocracy as a pure and simple aristocracy; for the whole supreme authority is said to be situated in the aristocratic order. Therefore this error does not need other things to refute it than those which we shall bring forward in their own place to vindicate the nature and force of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Here, however, those things are sufficient which we shall indicate for establishing true monarchy.
538. Bellarmine, however, who, as we indicated, says that the government of the Church is not a simple monarchy, but a monarchy tempered by aristocracy and democracy, thus explains his mind in On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 3: “This government indeed requires that in the republic there be some supreme Prince, who both commands all and is subject to none. Yet the presidents of provinces or cities are not vicars of the King, or annual judges, but true princes, who both obey the command of the supreme Prince and meanwhile govern their province or city not as another’s, but as their own. In this way there would be place in the republic both for a certain royal Monarchy and also for an aristocracy of princely optimates. But if to these it were added that neither that supreme King nor the lesser princes acquired those dignities by hereditary succession, but that the best men from the whole people were raised to them, then some proper place would also be attributed to democracy in the republic.”
539. But all theologians and canonists who acknowledge simple monarchy in the Church admit all those things which Bellarmine says, as is clear of itself; nor, given Christ’s institution, can they in any way deny them. The difference, therefore, between these theologians and Bellarmine is not of the matter, but of the name; or if one wishes to say that it is of the matter, it does not regard the constitution itself of the Church, but rather the concept which they form for themselves concerning simply monarchic government. To compose this apparent disagreement, therefore, it will help to set forth in a few words the genuine concept of monarchy.
540. Monarchy is defined by Aristotle as “the supreme command in the hands of one, without the partnership of a superior or equal, of the people, or of another prince.” Hence others, illustrating these things, say: “the simple and absolute monarchic form is situated in the free and ready fullness of power conferred on one for governing the whole society.” Bellarmine himself does not depart from this definition, since, as we saw in number 532, he defines monarchy as “the principate of one,” or as government in which “one is set over the republic.” Hence the Wurzburg theologians could safely assert, in On the Roman Pontiff, number 160: “in the proper and common sense, monarchy is taken for a government in which one ruling person has supreme power, without regard to whether another subject power is exercised by inferiors in their own name or in a vicarious name: this is called simple Monarchy.”
541. From this definition of monarchy it follows that three things are required to constitute it: namely, 1. unity of command in the head; 2. universality of subjection in the members; 3. what is consequent and principal, the indivision of the highest power residing in one head. Wherefore, in order that a monarchic government be properly said to be tempered by democracy or aristocracy, it is necessary that the supreme power not reside wholly in one head, but be, as it were, divided among many and diminished in that head. This would happen if the command of the head, with respect to force and efficacy, depended on the suffrage of others, so that if this were lacking, that command would be ineffective and invalid.
542. If such a concept of monarchy, which is true, is retained, it is easily clear that among Catholics it is established, with respect to the matter, that the Church is a simple monarchy. For among them it is established: 1. that the fullness of supreme power in the Church was conferred by Christ upon Peter, and remains entire in Peter’s successors; 2. that there is no power among simple faithful in the government of the Church; 3. that Bishops, whether taken individually or collectively, depend on Peter’s successor; but that he is so independent of them that the force and efficacy of the things which he decrees in no way depends on their suffrage. 4. What then remains? Only this: that Bishops must exist in the Church by divine right, and therefore are not as vicars of the Supreme Pontiff, but have ordinary jurisdiction. But this, properly speaking, does not make the government of the Church not truly monarchic. For the power of Bishops is subordinated to the Supreme Head and dependent on him; on the contrary, the power of the Head does not depend in any way on the power of the Bishops. Therefore there is no division of supreme power, and no diminution of it in the head. Wherefore those who, on account of the original power of Bishops, deny that the government of the Church is merely monarchic, or call it monarchic tempered by Aristocracy, are shown to speak less accurately and less properly, since either Monarchy or Aristocracy must be understood in an alien and improper sense; and they admit such a tempering as does not truly temper the supreme power of one Head.
543. Hence Zallinger rightly writes in Public Ecclesiastical Law, section 362: “That aristocratic tempering ought not to be understood as of the sort which is usually found in profane states, whose mixed form arises from a division of the rights of supreme command in such a way that the right which is in one subject is not the same in another, nor depends on another. The distinction is made by the singular unity, and the obligation of preserving unity, which Christ made proper to his Church. For first, the very power of Bishops which effects that aristocratic tempering is perpetually and by its nature bound to the center of unity and to the supreme power of the Vicar of Christ, and is subordinated to the same; and therefore this aristocratic mixture is not absolute, but limited. Second, whatever right belongs to Bishops exists in a certain eminent way in the Primate of the Church of Christ. These things, unless I am mistaken, cannot be asserted of other profane forms mixed from monarchy and aristocracy.” And Devoti, Institutes of Canon Law, prolegomena, chapter 2, section 19, says: “There are Catholics who, rejecting pure aristocracy, nevertheless wish ecclesiastical monarchy to be tempered by aristocracy. But since among all Catholics it is agreed that the Roman Pontiff by divine right presides over the universal Church, and truly presides not only by honor and place, but also by power and jurisdiction, it is easily understood that the government of the Church is contained by monarchic reason. For the name monarchy designates supreme command which is with one. But the power of Bishops detracts nothing from monarchy; even if it is not precarious, but proper and native, nevertheless, since it depends on the Supreme Pontiff, certainly his monarchic power is not diminished by their power.”
544. Since these things are so, it is enough for us to assert that the government of the Church is monarchic, and to prove this by indicating rather than developing the arguments. A fuller exposition of the arguments will be handed down where there will be discussion of the visible Head of the Church. Section II The Proposed Question Is Resolved Proposition XXIII. Although the form of government in the Church is new and singular under more than one head, nevertheless, if monarchic government is recalled to that concept which philosophers commonly handed down, namely, that it is “the supreme command in the hands of one, without the partnership of a superior or equal, of the people, or of another prince,” no one can doubt that in the Church of Christ, from the very institution of its Author, a true and simple monarchy flourishes.
545. Proof I, from Scripture. If we consider the figure of the Church of Christ, by which it was foreshadowed; the exemplar according to whose image it was founded; the similitudes by which it is illustrated; and finally usage and analogy, all these express that the supreme command in the Church is in the hands of one, or that its government is truly monarchic. Therefore it truly is such. The antecedent is proved. 1. With regard to the figure. For, as we showed above and as Scripture often testifies, the Church of the Old Testament was the figure of the Church to be founded by Christ. But in the Synagogue there flourished the authority of one who presided over all in matters pertaining to the law and religion, especially after the Hebrews, having gone out of Egypt, assumed the form of a people that would be ruled by its own laws and magistrates. Then, moreover, down to the times of Christ there was never lacking one prince of priests who governed all the synagogues. Therefore reason altogether requires that, just as that which was the figure had, besides God as invisible ruler, one visible ruler, so also the Church of the New Testament, which is the thing figured, should have one. The consequence is confirmed: a. because no perfection ought to exist in the figure which is not found, and indeed more fully, in the thing figured; b. because the reason why the Jewish people had one head was that it might be contained in unity of faith and religion. But this reason obtains a fortiori in the Church of Christians; for the unity of Christian faith must be preserved in a greater multitude diffused far and wide throughout the whole world, is attacked by more enemies, and is surely subject to greater dangers. 2. With regard to the exemplar. For it is certain that the heavenly hierarchy of Angels is the exemplar of the Church militant. The Apostle seems to indicate this in Hebrews, and St. Bernard expressly affirms it in book 3 of On Consideration, to Eugenius, where he teaches that the Church militant is called in the Apocalypse “the new Jerusalem descending from heaven,” because it was instituted and expressed according to the exemplar of that heavenly city. But first of all, that heavenly hierarchy of spirits has one supreme King, God. Indeed the Fathers seem to teach that among the angelic spirits themselves there is one who presides over all the rest. “And in the beginning indeed,” says Bellarmine, “that one who is now called the Devil was adorned with this dignity, as Tertullian, book 2 against Marcion, Gregory, homily 34 on the Gospels and book 32 of the Moralia, chapter 24, Jerome, or rather Bede, on chapter 40 of Job, Isidore, book 1 On the Highest Good, chapter 12, and others testify. But after the fall of the devil, that St. Michael is prince of all the Angels is gathered from chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, where it is said: ‘Michael and his Angels.’ For what is ‘Michael and his Angels’ except Michael and his army? For just as when it is said in the same place, the Devil and his angels, we understand that all evil Angels are subject to the Devil as soldiers to an emperor, so when it is said, Michael and his Angels, we ought to understand that all good Angels acknowledge Michael as their prince. Wherefore, rightly in the ecclesiastical office St. Michael is named prefect of paradise and prince of the heavenly army.” 3. With regard to similitudes. The Church in the Scriptures is compared to an ordered army in Song of Songs 6; to a human Body, and to a beautiful woman in Song of Songs 6; to a Kingdom, Sheepfold, and House, as we said in number 440; and to the Ship or ark of Noah in 1 Peter 3. But all these present the idea of supreme government existing in the hands of one, or of monarchy. In reality: a. No camps are ordered where there is not one supreme Leader; hence St. Jerome says in the letter to Rusticus: “in however great an army, the standard of one is awaited.” b. In any body there is one head, which governs the other members as it were. (1) c. It is established that a kingdom has only one king; and one sheepfold also requires one shepherd. Hence it is said in John 10: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (2) d. A house also has one lord, according to that passage in Luke 12: “Who, do you think, is the faithful and prudent steward, whom the lord will set over his family?” These words are said to Peter and about Peter, as is clear from the context. Indeed, so that Christ may show that he is speaking of one who presides over all the fellow servants and who is subject to the Lord alone, he adds: “But if that wicked servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays to come, and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant will come on a day on which he does not hope, and at an hour which he does not know, and he will divide him and place his portion with the unbelievers.” (1) “And lest perhaps you say,” says Bellarmine, “the Church has its own Head, Christ: for this reason we do not compare the Church with Christ in this place as members with a head, but as bride with bridegroom, a similitude which the Scriptures use, Revelation 21.2, 2 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, and very frequently in the Canticles. And certainly if the Church which is on earth, with Christ set aside, is not unfittingly compared to a bride, then with Christ also set aside it ought to have one head, especially since in Song of Songs 7, among its other members, the head also is expressly numbered: ‘Your head,’ says the bridegroom to the bride, ‘is like Carmel.’ And the bride says of the bridegroom: ‘His head is the finest gold’ in Song of Songs 5. And indeed the bridegroom compares the head of the bride to Mount Carmel, since although the Supreme Pontiff is a great mountain, nevertheless he is nothing other than earth, that is, a man. But the bride compares the bridegroom’s head to the finest gold, because the head of Christ is God.” (2) Hence Cyprian, book 1, letter 6 to Magnus, speaking of Novatian, who wished to become Bishop of Rome when Cornelius had already been created and was sitting, says: “And therefore the Lord, insinuating to us the unity coming from divine authority, posits and says: I and the Father are one. Reducing his Church to that unity, he again says: And there shall be one flock and one Shepherd. But if the flock is one, how can he be numbered with the flock who is not in the number of the flock? Or how can he be held as shepherd who, while the true shepherd remains and presides in the Church of God by succeeding ordination, succeeding no one and beginning from himself, becomes alien and profane?” e. Finally, “in a ship,” says St. Jerome in the letter to Rusticus, “there is one helmsman”; and St. Cyprian, book 1, letter 6, after teaching that the ark of Noah was a type of the Church, proves that Novatian could not become the helmsman of this ark, because Cornelius had already been made such, and one ship requires one ruler, not several. 4. With regard to analogy and usage. a. Christ, when he lived on earth, visibly administered the Church as its supreme pastor and ruler. Therefore also he who now bears the place of Christ on earth alone possesses supreme power integrally. Thus indeed the Church which now exists is the same city and the same kingdom as the Church which Christ governed at the beginning. b. In individual places individual Bishops are constituted, who preside over all the other ministers and pastors of that place; in individual provinces individual Metropolitans are constituted, who preside over the Bishops of their province; in greater cities Primates or Patriarchs are constituted. It is therefore fitting that there also be one who presides over the whole Church, and to whom the Primates and Patriarchs themselves are subject. For since a monarchic principate befits one city, one province, one nation, it must also be said to befit the universal Church; for no reason demands that the parts be governed monarchically, but the whole otherwise. Compare Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, book 1, chapter 9, from whom we have taken this whole argument.
546. II. Again from Scripture. For in Matthew 16 Christ says to Simon Peter: “You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church… to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind,” etc. But these words contain the promise of power, which Christ then conferred upon Peter in John 21, saying: “Feed my lambs… feed my sheep.” Now it is established: 1. that unity of command in the head is contained in these words; for the words “You are Peter, and upon this rock… To you I will give the keys” are referred to Peter alone, just as those words also regard Peter alone: “[Jesus] says: Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep.” But what is promised and conferred on Peter by these words? Supreme power in the Church, which is the sheepfold of Christ. For the word Feed expresses power in the manner of royal power, and properly signifies to rule with command, and is not restricted by any added word; just as also the power of the keys is absolute and monarchic, compare Isaiah 22 and Revelation 1. Finally, by the metaphor itself of the foundational rock, it is signified that each and all things in the Church depend on one Peter. 2. It is established that the universality of subjection in the members is contained in the same words. For what is subjected to Peter alone? That of which he is the foundation, namely the whole Church to be built upon him; that which is committed to Peter’s pastoral care, namely the lambs and sheep, or the simple faithful and those set over them, absolutely all who are of the Church. 3. Hence it is established that the indivision of supreme power in one Peter is contained in the same words. For if the power first promised and then conferred upon Peter alone is such that it extends to all things without any restriction, and all in the Church are subject to it, it is necessary that the fullness of the highest power reside undivided in one head, namely in Peter. But it is enough to indicate this argument here, since it must be developed where the discussion will concern the primacy of Peter.
547. III. From the Fathers, who teach: 1. unity of command in the head. Thus Optatus of Milevis, book 2 against Parmenian, says: “The chair is one, and you do not dare deny that you know that the chair was first placed for Peter in the city of Rome, where Peter sat, the head of all the Apostles, whence he was called Cephas.” St. Cyprian, in the book On the Unity of the Church: “Although after his resurrection he gives equal power to all the Apostles,… nevertheless, in order to manifest unity, by his authority he disposed the origin of that same unity as beginning from one. The other Apostles certainly were what Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, and the primacy is given to Peter, so that the Church may be shown to be one.” St. John Chrysostom, homily 3 on the Acts of the Apostles, treating of Peter ordering the election of Matthias, says: “Deservedly he first of all assumes authority in the business, as one who has all in his hand.” Maximus of Constantinople, in the letter to the Orientals: “The Creator of the world chose Peter from the other mortals of the whole world, to whom he granted by perpetual right of privilege principally to hold the chair of magisterium to be possessed.” They teach: 2. universality of subjection in the members. Thus St. Bruno, Bishop of Segni, commentary on John, part 3, chapter 21, number 55, says: “He constituted him not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; therefore Peter feeds the lambs, he feeds also the sheep, he feeds the sons, he feeds also the mothers, he rules subjects, he rules also prelates. He is pastor of all; because besides lambs and sheep there is nothing in the Church.” St. Leo, sermon 3 on his assumption: “From the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is set over the vocation of all nations, and over all the Apostles and all Fathers of the Church; so that although in the people of God there are many Priests and many pastors, nevertheless Peter properly rules all whom Christ also rules principally.” Cyril of Alexandria, book Thesaurus: “To Peter all bend the head by divine right, and the Primates of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself.” Nazianzen, oration 26: “You see how, from the disciples of Christ, all great and lofty indeed, this one [Peter] is called the rock and receives the foundations of the Church in faith; that one [John] is loved more intensely and rests upon the breast of Jesus; and the remaining disciples bear with equal mind that they are preferred to themselves.” St. Gregory, book 4, letter 32: “It is clear to all who know the Gospel that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to blessed Peter, prince of all the Apostles… Behold, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom; the power of binding and loosing is granted to him; the care and principate of the whole Church is granted to him.” They teach: 3. the indivision of the highest power in the head. Thus Cyril of Alexandria, in Thesaurus: “To Peter he committed the fullest thing; and to no one else did Christ give what is fully his, but to him alone.” Optatus of Milevis, in the cited book: “In this one, the unity of the chair was to be preserved by all, nor was each of the other Apostles to defend individual chairs for himself; so that he would already be schismatic and a sinner who set up another chair against the singular chair. Therefore the chair is one.” Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian: “Among the twelve one is chosen, so that, a head having been constituted, the occasion of schism might be removed.” Likewise Cyprian, letter 55: “For heresies have arisen and schisms have been born from no other source than this, that obedience is not given to the Priest of God, nor is one Priest in the Church at a time and one judge at a time in the place of Christ considered.”
548. Embracing all these things together, St. Bernard, the true glory of the Gallican Church, most beautifully expresses it thus to Pope Eugenius: “Come, let us investigate still more diligently who you are, namely what person you bear for the time in the Church of God. Who are you? The great Priest, the Supreme Pontiff. You are prince of Bishops, you are heir of the Apostles; you are Abel in primacy, Noah in governance, Abraham in patriarchate, Melchizedek in order, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in judgment, Peter in power, Christ in anointing. You are the one to whom the keys were handed, to whom the sheep were entrusted. There are indeed also other gatekeepers of heaven and pastors of flocks, but you inherited each name more gloriously, and also differently, before the rest. They have flocks assigned to themselves, individuals individual flocks; to you all were entrusted, one flock to one man, and not only of sheep but also of pastors. Do you ask whence I prove this? From the word of the Lord. For to whom, I do not say of Bishops, but even of Apostles, were all the sheep so absolutely and indiscriminately committed? If you love me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? Of this or that people, city, region, or certain kingdom? My sheep, he says. To whom is it not plain that he did not designate some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished.”
549. IV. From reason, which shows the greatest congruence of the matter. “It is manifest,” says St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 76, “that although peoples are distinguished by diverse dioceses and cities, nevertheless, just as there is one Church, so there must be one Christian people. Therefore, just as in the spiritual people of one Church one bishop is required who is head of the whole people, so in the whole Christian people it is required that there be one head of the whole Church. “Likewise. For the unity of the Church it is required that all the faithful agree in faith. But concerning those things which are of faith, questions can be raised; and through diversity of opinions the Church would be divided, unless it were preserved in unity through the judgment of one. Therefore, to preserve the unity of the Church, it is required that there be one who presides over the whole Church. But it is manifest that Christ does not fail the Church in necessary things, which he loved and for which he poured out his blood, since even concerning the Synagogue it is said by the Lord: ‘What more ought I to have done for my vineyard, and have I not done it?’ (Isaiah 5.4). Therefore it must not be doubted that by Christ’s ordinance one presides over the whole Church. “Further. No one ought to doubt that the government of the Church is best ordered, as being disposed by him through whom ‘kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things’ (Proverbs 8.15). But the best government of a multitude is that it be ruled by one: which is clear from the end of government, which is peace. For peace and the unity of subjects is the end of the one ruling. But the more fitting cause of unity is one than many. Therefore it is manifest that the government of the Church has been so disposed that one presides over the whole Church.”
550. Note. The objections which could be brought forward here properly attack the Primacy of Peter and its nature. Therefore we deliberately abstain here from weighing them.