In the opinion of Catholics Luther's greatest offense is what he has
done to their Pope. This is Luther's unpardonable sin. Luther has done
two things to the Pope: he has denied that the Pope exists by divine
right, and he has in the most scurrilous manner spoken and written about
the Pope and made his vaunted dignity the butt of universal ridicule.
The indictment is true, but when the facts are stated, it will be seen
to recoil on the heads of those who have drawn it.
Luther denies that Matt. 16, 18. 19 establishes the papacy in the Church
of Christ. He denies that this text creates a one-man power in the
Church, that it vests one individual with a sovereign jurisdiction over
the spiritual affairs of all other men, making him the sole arbiter of
their faith and the exclusive dispenser of divine grace, and, last, not
least, that it says one word about the Pope. Luther makes, indeed, a
clean and sweeping denial of every claim which Catholics advance for the
God-given supremacy of their Popes. Inasmuch as the papacy stands or
falls with Matt. 16, 18.19, he has put the Catholics in the worst
predicament imaginable.
Catholics believe that Peter was singled out for particular honors in
the Church by being declared the rock on which Christ builds His Church,
and by being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter's supremacy
as Primate of the World, they hold, passed over to Peter's successor and
is perpetuated in an unbroken line of succession in the Roman Popes.
Three questions, then, confronted Luther in the study of this text in
Matthew. First, does the "rock" in Matt. 16, 18 signify Peter? The Lord
had addressed to all His disciples the question, "Whom say ye that I
am?" Instead of all of them answering and creating a confusion, Peter,
the most impulsive of the apostles, speaks up and says, "Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God." With these words Peter expressed the
common faith of all the disciples. Not one of them dissented from his
statement; he had voiced the joint conviction of them all. Peter was the
spokesman, but the confession was that of the apostles. Any other
apostle might have spoken first and said the same, had he been quicker
than Peter. If there is any merit in Peter's confession of Christ, all
other disciples, yea, all who confess Christ as Peter did, share that
merit. In replying to Peter the Lord takes all merit away from Peter by
saying to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." He
addresses Peter by the name he had borne before he became an apostle:
Simon, son of Jonas, and tells him that if he were still what he used to
be before he came to Christ, he could not have made the confession which
he had just uttered. In his old unconverted state he would not have
formed any higher opinion concerning Christ than the people throughout
the country, some of whom thought that Christ was John the Baptist risen
from the dead; others, that he was Jeremias; still others, that he was
one of the ancient prophets come back to life. The deity of Jesus and
His mission as Christ, that is, as the Messiah, our Lord says, are
grasped by men only when the Father reveals these truths to them. A
spiritual nature, a new mind such as the Spirit gives in regeneration,
is required for such a confession. The glory of Peter's confession,
therefore, is the glory of every believer. To every Sunday-school child
which recites Luther's explanation of the Second Article: "I believe
that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and
also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed
me," the Lord would say the same thing as He did to Peter: My child,
yours is an excellent confession; there is nothing fickle or undecided
in it like in the vague and changing opinions which worldly men form
about Me. Thank God that He has given you the grace to know Me as I
ought to be known.
But did not the Lord proceed to declare Peter the rock on which He would
build His Church? That is what Catholics believe, in spite of the fact
that this would be the only place in the whole Bible where a human being
would be represented as the foundation of the Church, while there are
scores of passages which name quite another person as the rock that
supports the Church. Catholics read this text thus: "Thou art Peter, and
_on thee_ will I build My Church." That is precisely what Christ did not
say, and what He was most careful not to express. The words "Peter" and
"rock" are plainly two different terms and denote two different objects.
That is the most natural view to take of the matter. In the original
Greek we find two words similar in sound, but distinct in meaning for
the two objects to which Christ refers: Peter's name is _Petros,_ which
is a personal noun; the word for "rock" is _petra,_ which is a common
noun. In the Greek, then, Christ's answer reads thus: "Thou art
_Petros,_ and on this _petra_ will I build my Church." Catholics claim
that Christ, in answering Peter, introduced a play upon words, such as a
witty person will indulge in: _Petros,_ the apostle's name, signifies a
rock-man, a firm person, and from this meaning it is an easy step to
_petra,_ which is plain rock or stone. If this interpretation is
admitted, the expression "upon thee" may be substituted for the
expression "on this rock." Yet not altogether. By adopting the peculiar
phraseology "upon this rock" in the place of "upon thee," Christ avoids
referring to the individual Peter, to the person known as Peter, and
refers rather to a characteristic in him, namely, his firmness and
boldness in confessing Christ. This every careful interpreter of this
text will admit. Christ could easily have said: Upon thee will I build
My Church, if it had been His intention to say just that. And we imagine
on such a momentous occasion Christ would have used the plainest terms,
containing no figure of speech, no ambiguities whatever; for was he not
now introducing to the Church the distinguished person who was to
preside over its affairs? Catholics claim that when Christ spoke these
words, "upon this rock," He had extended His hand and was pointing to
Peter. That would help us considerably in the interpretation of the
text. The trouble is only that we are not told anything about such a
gesture of Christ, and if a gesture must be invented, it is possible to
invent an altogether different one, as we shall see. But if Christ, by
saying, "upon this rock," instead of saying, "upon thee," referred not
to Peter as a person, but to a quality in Peter, namely, to his firm
faith, then it follows that the Church is not built on the person of
Peter, but on a quality of Peter. This is the best that Catholics can
obtain from the interpretation which they have attempted. But if the
Church is built on firm faith, there is no reason why that faith should
be just Peter's. Would not every firm believer in the deity and
Redeemership of Christ become the rock on which the Church is built just
as much as Peter? Luther declared quite correctly: "We are all Peters if
we believe like Peter." Really, the Catholics ought to be willing to
help strengthen the foundation of the Church by admitting that the rock
would become a stouter support if, instead of the firm faith of one man,
the equally firm faith of hundreds, thousands, and millions of other men
were added to prop up the Church. In all seriousness, it will be
absolutely necessary to give Peter some assistants; for we know that the
job of holding up the Church was too big for him on at least two
occasions. What became of the Church in the night when Peter denied the
Lord? In that night, the Catholics would have to believe, the Church was
built on a liar and blasphemer. What became of the Church in the days
when Peter came to Antioch and Paul withstood him to the face because he
was dissembling his Christian convictions not to offend a Judaizing
party in the Church? (Gal. 2.) Was the Church in those days built on a
canting hypocrite?
But the greatest difficulty in admitting the Catholic interpretation is
met when one remembers those Bible-texts which name an altogether
different rock as the foundation and corner-stone of the Church. Paul
says that in their desert wanderings the Israelites were accompanied by
Christ. He was their unseen Guide and Benefactor. He supported their
faith. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that
Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10, 4). At the conclusion of the Sermon on the
Mount the Lord relates a parable about a wise and a foolish builder. The
foolish builder set up his house on sand; the wise builder built on
rock. By the rock, however, the Lord would have us understand "these
sayings of Mine" (Matt. 7, 24). Paul speaks of the Church to the
Ephesians thus: "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone" (chap. 2,
20). Most fatal, however, to the Catholic interpretation is the
testimony of Peter. Exhorting the Christians to eager study of the Word
of the Lord, he goes on to say: "To whom coming, as unto a living stone,
disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as
lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to
offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a
chief corner-stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall
not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious, but
unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed,
the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a
rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the Word, being
disobedient" (1 Pet. 2, 4-8). Here Peter in the plainest and strongest
terms declares Christ to be the rock on which the Church is built. The
scribes and Pharisees rejected Him, as had been foretold, but the common
people who heard Him gladly embraced His message of salvation, and
rested their faith on what He had taught them and done for them. Peter
evidently did not understand the text in Matthew as the Catholics
understand it. Peter in his Epistle is really a heretic in what he says
about the rock, and if the Catholics could spare him from under the
Church, they ought to burn him.
Instead of connecting the two parts of the statement: "Thou art Peter,"
and, "Upon this rock I will build My Church," as closely as Catholics
do, the two parts ought to be kept separate. What the Lord says to Peter
may be paraphrased thus: Peter, there was a time when you were merely
Simon, Jonas's son. At that time you had thoughts and formed opinions
about holy matters such as your flesh and blood, your natural reason,
suggested to you. All that is changed now that you are a Peter, a firm
believer in the revelation which the Father makes to men about Me. What
you have confessed is the exact truth; cling to that against all odds;
for upon this person whom you have confessed, as upon a rock, I will
build My Church.--And now we may imagine that the Lord, while uttering
the words, "upon this rock," pointed to Himself. The text does not say
that the Lord made such a gesture; we simply imagine this, but our
imagination is not only just as good as that of the Catholics, but
better, for the gesture which we assume agrees with the teachings of all
the Scriptures that speak of Christ's person and work.
However, the Catholics remind us that Christ gave to Peter the keys of
the kingdom of heaven and made him the doorkeeper of paradise. Yes, so
the text reads, and with Luther we should now inquire: Was it a brass,
or silver, or golden, or wooden key? Is the lock on the gate of heaven a
common padlock, or like the cunning contrivances which are nowadays
employed in safety vaults? Catholics are very much offended when one
speaks thus of the keys of Peter. They say sarcasm is out of place in
such holy matters. That is quite true; but, again with Luther, we would
urge that the keys of which we are speaking sarcastically are not the
keys in Matt. 16, 10, but the keys in the Catholic imagination. And
these latter one can hardly treat with reverence. The Catholics must
admit that no real key, or anything resembling a key, was given to Peter
by Christ. The language in this text is figurative: the words which
follow state the Lord's meaning in plain terms. The power of the keys is
the preaching of the forgiveness of sins to penitent sinners, and the
withholding of grace from those who do not repent. If that is admitted
to be the meaning, we need turn only one leaf in our Bible, and read
what is stated in Matt. 18, 18. There the Lord confers the same
authority on all the disciples which He is said in Matt. 16, 19 to have
conferred on Peter exclusively. On this latter occasion Peter, if the
Catholics have the right view of the keys, ought to have interposed an
objection and said to the Lord, What you give to the others is my
property. Evidently Peter did not connect the same meaning with the
words of Christ about the keys as the Catholics. Christ spoke of this
matter once more, and in terms still plainer, at the meeting on Easter
Eve, and again addressed all the disciples. Again Peter made no
complaint. (John 20.)
It should be noted , moreover, that in this entire text in Matthew the
Lord speaks in the future tense: "I will build," "I will give." The
words do not really confer a grant, but are at best a promise. It is
necessary now that the Catholics find a complement to this text in
Matthew, a text which relates that Christ actually carried out later
what He promised to Peter in Matt. 16, 18. 19. The Lord seems to have
forgotten the fulfilment of His promise, and the matter seems to have
slipped Peter's mind, too; for we are not told that he reminded the Lord
of His promise, though he asked him on another occasion what would be
the reward of his discipleship. (Matt. 19, 27 ff.)
Luther has, furthermore, appealed to the Catholics to prove from the
Scriptures that Peter ever exercised such an authority as they claim for
him. If Peter had been created the prince of the apostles or the visible
head of the Church, we should expect to find evidence in our Bible that
Peter acted as a privileged person and was so regarded by the other
apostles. But we may read through the entire book of Acts and all the
apostolic epistles: they tell us very minutely how the Church was
planted in many lands, how it grew and spread, but there is not even a
faint hint that Peter was regarded as the primate, or Pope, in his day.
When a certain question of doctrine was to be decided in which the
congregations of Paul were interested, Paul did not lay the matter
before Peter to obtain his judgment on it, but referred it to a council
of the Church. At this council many spoke, and it was not Peter's, but
James's speech which finally decided the matter. (Acts 15.) When Philip
had organized congregations in Samaria, the church at Jerusalem sent
Peter and John to visit them. Peter did not assume control of these
churches by his own right, nor had Philip in the first place directed
the Samaritans to Peter as their head. (Acts 8, 14 ff.) We have thirteen
letters of Paul, three of John, besides the Revelation, one of James,
and one of Jude. The state of the Church, its affairs and development,
are the subject-matter of all these writings, but not one of them
reveals the popedom of Peter. Yea, Peter himself has written two
epistles and appears utterly ignorant of the fact that the Lord had
created him His vicegerent and the visible head of the Church.
The Catholic argument for the God-given supremacy of their Pope,
however, becomes perfectly reckless when we bear in mind that their
banner text speaks only of Peter, but says nothing at all about Peter's
successors. If Peter possessed the supremacy that Catholics claim for
him, how and by what right did he dispose of it at his death? How did
this power become attached to Rome? On all these questions the Bible is
silent. Catholics construct a skilful argument from fragmentary and
doubtful historical records, which are not God's Word, to show that
Peter chore Rome as his episcopal see, and therewith transferred his
primacy for all time to this place. To fabricate a dogma that is to be
binding on the consciences of all Christians in such a way is daring
impudence. The devout Catholic must close his eyes to all history if he
is to believe that Christ really appointed a Pope. When he reads the
history of the Popes, and comes to the period of the papal schism, when
the Church had not only one, but two visible heads, one residing at
Rome, the other at Avignon, yea, when he reads of three contestants for
papal honors, and beholds the Church as a tricephalous monster, he must
stop thinking.
Luther regarded the papacy as the most monstrous fraud that has been
practised on Christianity. In its gradual and persistent development and
the success with which it has maintained itself through all reverses, it
impresses one as something uncanny. It requires more than human wiliness
to originate, foster, perfect, and support such a thoroughly unbiblical
and antichristian institution. Luther spoke of the papal deception as
one of the signs foreboding the end of the world. He has not spoken in
delicate terms of the Popes. His most virulent utterances are directed
against the "Vicar of Christ" at Rome. He traces the papacy to
diabolical origin. When he lays bare the shocking perversions of
revealed truths of which Rome has been guilty, and talks about the foul
practises of the Popes and their courtesans, Luther's language becomes
appalling. In a series of twenty-six cartoons Luther's friend Cranach
depicted the rule of Christ and Antichrist. The series was published
under the title "Passional Christi und Antichristi." (14, 184 ff.) By
placing alongside of one another scenes from the life of the Lord and
scenes from the lives of the Popes, the artist displayed very
effectually the contrast between the true religion which the Redeemer
had taught men by His Word and example, and the false religiousness
which was represented by the papacy. On the one side was humility, on
the other, pride; poverty was shown in contrast with wealth; meekness
was placed over and against arrogance, etc. At a glance the people saw
the chasm that yawned between the preaching and practise of Jesus and
that of His pretended representative and vicar, and they verified the
pictures showing the Pope in various attitudes from their own
experience. These cartoons became very popular, and have maintained
their popularity till the most recent times. During the "Kulturkampf"
which the German government under Bismarck waged against the aggressive
policy of the Vatican, the German painter Hofmann issued a new edition
of the "Passionale," and Emperor William I sent a copy to the Pope with
a warning letter.
Catholics complain about the rudeness and nastiness of these cartoons
and others that followed. Luther is supposed to have furnished the
rhymes and descriptive matter which accompanied them. Lather is also
cited as uttering most repulsive and scurrilous sentiments about the
Pope.
What are we to say about this antipapal violence of Luther? Certainly,
it is not a pleasant subject. We are in this instance facing essentially
the same situation as that which confronted us when we studied Luther's
"coarseness" (chap. 5), and all that was said in that connection applies
with equal force to the subject now before us. One may deplore the
necessity of these passionate outbursts ever so much, but when all the
evidence in the case has been gathered and the jury begins to sift the
evidence and weigh the arguments on either side, there is at the worst a
drawn jury. All who have truly sounded "the mystery of iniquity" which
has been set up in the Church by the papacy will affirm Luther's
sentiments about the Pope as true.
It is necessary, however, to point out certain facts that may be
regarded as additional argument to what was said in chap. 5. In the
first place, the cartoon is a recognized weapon in polemics. The
struggle of the Protestants against the Pope was not altogether a
religious and spiritual one; political matters were discussed together
with affairs of religion at every German diet in those days. The age was
rude and largely illiterate. Many who could never have made any sense
out of a page of printed matter, very easily understood a picture. It
conveyed truthful information, though in a form that hurt, as cartoons
usually do, and it roused a healthy sentiment against a very malignant
evil in the Church and in the body politic. If the Popes would keep out
of politics, they and their followers would enjoy more quiet nerves.
In the second place, it should be borne in mind that the claim of papal
supremacy is no small and innocent matter. The Popes wrested to
themselves the supreme spiritual and temporal power in the world. They
pretended to be the custodians of heaven, the directors of purgatory,
and the lords of the earth. Across the history of the world in the era
of Luther is written in all directions the one word ROME. It is Rome at
the altar swinging the censer, Rome in the panoply of battle storming
trenches and steeping her hands in gore, Rome in the councils of kings,
Rome in the halls of guilds, Rome in the booth of the trader at a
town-fair, Rome in the judge's seat, Rome in the professor's chair, Rome
receiving ambassadors from, and dispatching nuncios to, foreign courts,
Rome dictating treaties to nations and arranging the cook's _menu,_ Rome
labeling the huckster's cart and the vintner's crop, Rome levying a tax
upon the nuptial bed, Rome exacting toll at the gate of heaven. Out of
the wreck of the imperial Rome of the Caesars has risen papal Rome. Once
more, though through different agents, the City of the Seven Hills is
ruling an _orbis terrarum Romanus,_ a Roman world-empire. The rule
extends through nearly a thousand years. How deftly do cunning priests
manipulate every means at their command to increase their power!
Learning, wealth, beauty, art, piety,--everything is used as an asset in
the ambitious game for absolute supremacy which the mitered vicegerent
of Christ is playing against the world. Rome's ancient pontifex maximus
--the pagan high priest of the Rome before Christ--had been a tool of
the consuls and the Caesars; the new pontiff makes the Caesars his
tools. Princes kiss his feet and hold the stirrup for him as he mounts
his bedizened palfrey. An emperor stands barefoot in the snow of the
Pope's courtyard suing pardon for having dared to govern without the
Pope's sanction.--The forests of Germany are reverberating with the
blows of axes which Rome's missionaries wield against Donar's Oaks. The
sanctuaries of pagan Germany are razed. Out of the wood of idols
crucifixes are erected along the highways. Chapels and abbeys and
cathedrals rise where the aurochs was hunted. Sturdy barbarians bend the
knee at the shrines of saints. Hosts set out to see the land where the
Lord had walked and suffered, and brave all dangers and hardships to
wrest its possession from infidel hands. But at the place where all
these activities center, and whence they are being fed, a shocking
abomination is seen: Venus is worshiped, and Bacchus, and Mercurius, and
Mars, while white-robed choirs chant praises to the mother of God, and
clouds of incense are wafted skyward. Here is a mystery--a mystery of
iniquity: the son of perdition in the temple of God! Proud, haughty
Rome, wealthy, wicked and wanton, is filling up her measure of wrath
against the day of retribution.--We are now so far removed from these
scenes that they seem unreal; in Luther's days they were decidedly real.
Rome's aggressiveness has been perceptibly checked during the last four
centuries; in Luther's days papal pretensions were a more formidable
proposition.
Human arrogance may be said to have reached its limit in the papacy. The
Pope is practically a God on earth. "Sitting in the temple of God as
God, he is showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2, 4). He has been
addressed by his followers in terms of the Deity. "When the Pope thinks,
it is God thinking," wrote the papal organ of Rome, the _Civilta
Cattolica,_ in 1869. He has asserted the right to make laws for
Christians, and to dispense with the laws of the Almighty. Although this
seemed a superfluous proceeding, he declared himself infallible on July
18, 1870. Under a glowering sky, as if Heaven frowned angrily at the
Pope's attempt, Plus IX had entered St. Peter's. As a "second Moses" he
mounted the papal throne to read the Constitution "Aeternus Pater," the
document in which he made the following claims: Canon III: "If any one
says that the Roman Pontiff has only authority to inspect and direct,
but not plenary and supreme authority of jurisdiction over the entire
Church, not only in matters which relate to faith and morals, but also
in matters that belong to the discipline and government of the Church
scattered through the whole earth; or that he has only the more eminent
part of such authority, but not the full plenitude of this supreme
authority; or that this authority of his is not his ordinary authority
which he holds from no intermediary, and that it does not extend over
all churches and every single one of them, over all pastors and every
single one of them, over all the faithful and every single one of them,
--let him be accursed!" Canon IV: "With the approval of the Sacred
Council we teach and declare it to be a dogma revealed from heaven that
the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks _ex cathedra,_ that is, when, in
accordance with his supreme apostolic authority, be discharges his
office as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, and defines a doctrine
relating to the faith or morals which is to be embraced by the entire
Church, he is, by divine assistance promised to him in the blessed
Peter, vested with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer
desired His Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine of faith and
morals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiff
are in their very nature, not, however, by reason of the consent of the
Church, unchangeable. If--which God may avert!--any one should presume
to contradict this definition of ours,--let him be accursed!" Amid
flashes of lightning and peals of thunder this document was read to a
council whose membership had shrunk during seven months of deliberation
from 767 to 547 attendants,--277 qualified members had never put in an
appearance,--and of these all but two had been cowed into abject
submission. When one recalls scenes like these, and remembers that
Catholic teaching on justification attacks the very heart of
Christianity, anything that Luther has said about the Popes appears
mild. Such heaven-storming and God-defying arrogance deserves to be
dragged through the mire--with apologies to the mire.