The Whore of Babylon-I

Reginald Pole. Defense of the unity of the Church.

Now let us first speak about building a man in the Church. The Prophet Jeremias explains this to us in detail in the passage where he is speaking to Jerusalem about the future conversion of the Jews. He adds something about the “building” of these people, which is the same as the question for which we are now seeking and explanation. These are the very words of Jeremias, however, addressed in the person of God to the Jews and the tribes of Israel: “I will bring back the captivity of Juda, and the captivity of Jerusalem; and I will build them as from the beginning” (Jer. 33:7). Behold this building of men! And this statement is immediately subjoined: “And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity; and I will forgive all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned against me, and despised me. And it shall be to me a name, and a joy and a praise, and a gladness before all the nations of the earth” (Jer. 33:8-9). Thus the Prophet spoke. In those few words, indeed, he omitted none of the things we desire to know about the “building” of men. For though man from the beginning was raised up from earth through the workmanship of God -as if he were an impressive edifice, the future dwelling place of God- sin threw this building down to erth again. Sins so destroyed the building that it became a den for wild beasts instead of a house of God.

(…)

This is what is meant, however, by saying that the Church is founded. It does not mean that only one man should be “built” as in the beginning at the “building” of earthly man, but rather it means many people. It signifies the Church that was “built”. The Prophet expresses it in other words having the same meaning: “I shall form the people and it shall be to me a praise” (Jer. 33:7-9). This is just as if he said: “I shall form my people, I shall build my Church”. For the people, the multitude, constitute the Church. The Scriptures wish to express the firm stability of the Church and the fitting connection of its various parts that will never be separated. Thus the Scriptures call these men by the names of things having a most durable connection among themselves. They are called rocks, not careleslly thrown about but built one on top the other. Thus stability and order are signified. These two qualities are clearly understood in the security of a building constructed from rock. In this manner, therefore, all who are in the Church can be called rocks -even rocks placed in an edifice. Thus Peter commonly addresses all who are in the Church as “living stones built up” (1 Pt. 2:5). From these words we can understand that it can be said of all that “you are stones, you are rocks”. Here there is only a difference of words, not of things. So also can it be said of each one that is founded in the Church: “You are a stone, you are a rock”.

But Sampson becomes excited when he hears me say that all Christians are rocks. This is the same thing he would mantain, that he so vehemently asserts. He contends that by the words “Thou art Peter”, all who confess the name of Christ in the Church are rocks; of all who profess the Faith of Christ it can be said “Thou art Peter”. Such is the assurance that Sampson begins to place in himself and his case!

But Sampson, if I appear to gratify you in this by saying that all Christians are rocks, I shall also add something more that I think will be even more gratifying to youso you may know that in other matters where I disagree with you, I disagree unwillingly and by compulsion. I am not accustomed, of my own will, to disagree with anyone. I now, therefore, add this concerning those rocks such as I say all Christians are. I say these Christians have virtues of such a kind that when they have been “built” they can place genuine, associated rocks on the “building” of other virtues. These virtues so erected in this building may assist in the attainment of life eternal. For thus Paul writes: “Edify one another” (1 Thes. 5:11). Wherefore, on this account, all who are living rocks can be edified by all. Each can also be strengthened in the faith, by each.

But here, now, Sampson will rejoice. He will chant a hymn of victory. He will now condemn me since I have been conquered by truth and have fallen down to his own opinion. For did Sampson undertake in his whole book to show anything other that that what others says is appropriate to Peter alone -that he is a rock- can also be said in general of all who are in the Church? What if it be conceded that all are rocks, that all might mutually edify one another? Then what is left specifically for Peter? Sampson mantains that the controversy is now over. His own case remains unvanquished.

Hear me, Sampson, and restrain yourself for a moment if you can. If you think that you have conquered because I have conceded to you that all Christians are rocks and can mutually edify one another, you do not understand what I have conceded to you. For in the first place the question does not revolve around attributing the name rock to other Christians. There is no controversy between us on this point. Not one of those whom your disagreement with the Church has made an oponent, has any quarrel with you. But when I concede that the name of rock was common to all Christians -for all have been made rocks by Christ- I say there is a very great difference in this common use of the name. This difference depends on the rank of diginity and excellence. For all do not hold equal positions of excellence in this edifice.

You, on the contrary, deny this. This denial makes the controversy. This, I say, is the axle around which the whole case revolves. It is a question of superiority, of whether or not Peter holds the position of first rock in this edifice, of whether he is the rock upon whom Christ testified He wanted to erect His edifice when He said: “Thou art Peter: And upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16:18). You, Sampson, deny this. I, with the Church, affirm it. But now we might expect proofs. For again we are called into battle.

Our arguments concern this rock. You maintain it should be removed from its place in the foundation where Christ placed it. I shall not allow you to do this. As I rely upon the forces of the Church, I trust I shall always so defend this rock against you that you will withdraw your position, or rather that you cannot even arrive at it. I shall immediately present facts that will to the highest degree strengthen this rock in this place, for it greatly pertains to this question. Without any difficulty at all, I can show from Paul himself, that though all Christians are rocks there is a difference among these rocks as far as dignity and excellence is concerned. Paul, using bodily members as an example, clearly declares that they differ among themselves in excellence. For although all are called members, one is superior to the other as is the eye to the foot. This one authority alone would conclude this whole controversy in my favor. But since I have begun this simile of rocks, I shall not abandon it now. There is a passage in Issaias that makes clear the differences among themselves in this matter concerning the “building” of men under the name of stone. In this passage the Prophet, speaking in the person of God, concerning the “building” of the Church under the name of Jerusalem says this: “Behold I will lay thy stones in order, and will lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy bulwarks of jasper; and thy gates of graven stones, and all thy borders of desirable stones” (Is. 54:11-12).

From these words do not all immediately understand the most excellent order among these stones and also the very great difference between them? God had promised that He would lay some sapphires, others jaspers; that He would lay some in the gates, others in the bulwarks, but that all stones would be desirable. And lest his listeners should think thatb by the name of stone they should understand some material structure, he immediately adds and explains the kind of structure and stones that should be understood. “And thy children shall be taught of the Lord: and great shall be the peace of thy children. And thou shalt be founded in justice” (Is. 54:13-14). Now, therefore, the Prophet notes that these stones differ not only in their excellence but also according to rank of position. Therefore, does not the man who was first taught by the Lord justly hold first place? And since it is clear from the Gospel that Peter was the one to whom the Father revealed the excellence of the Architect, should not the Author of this act justly give the position of supreme excellence to Peter? Could He have done this more worthly than by saying to Peter, after God the Father had made the revelation to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt. 16:18)? Let us dwell for a moment on these words of the Gospel. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”. We might greatly shorten this whole discussion by omitting all other rocks about which there is no controversy here, and by considering only that rock upon which the Church was founded. Now, therefore, you deny that Peter was that rock upon which the Church was founded by Christ. But do you sufficiently realize, Sampson, what you are denying? Do you know what it means to build a Church upon this rock? If I asked you this in your presence, would you reply? You clearly would never reply, because you do not know. You definitely show you do not know since you explain that these deeds do not signify something that must certainly be believed. Rather they signify your own opinion of this rock upon which Christ sais He would build. Your judgement in this matter cannot be considered of any value, since you follow no firm opinion. For now you say that Christ is that rock upon which the Church was founded. Then you say that a confession of faith is that rock. Finally you say that the Church is that rock. But if you had a certain opinion, a carefully considered understanding of these words of Christ when He said that He would build His Church upon a rock, if you knew what was meant by building a Church upon a rock, would your opinion be so vacillating? Does not this very vacillation clearly show that you are beating around in the darkness like a blind man, that you have given no consideration to what you say?