Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

p. 338 Treatise Written by the Theologians assembled at Smalcald, in the year MDXXXVII.

THE Roman pontiff claims for himself that by divine right he is above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i. e. the right of bestowing and transferring kingdoms.

And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself the vicar of Christ on earth.

These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical and pernicious to the Church.

In order, moreover, that our affirmation may be understood, we will first define what they call to be above all by divine right. For they mean that he is universal, or as they say œcumenical bishop, i. e. from whom all bishops and pastors throughout the entire world ought to seek ordination and confirmation, whc has the right of electing, ordaining, confirming, deposing all bishops [and pastors]. Besides this, he claims for himself the authority to frame laws concerning services, concerning changing the sacraments and concerning doctrine, and wishes p. 339 nis articles, his decrees, his laws to be regarded equal to the divine laws, i. e. he holds that, by the Papal laws, the consciences of men are so bound that those who neglect them, even without public offence, sin mortally [that they cannot be discontinued without sin. For he wishes to found this power upon divine right and the Holy Scriptures; yea, he wishes that they be preferred to the Holy Scriptures and God’s commands]. And it is still more horrible that he adds that belief in all these things belongs to the necessity of salvation.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. xxviii.; Apology, Art. vii., 23 sqq., xxviii.; Smalcald Articles, Part. II., Art. iv.; Part III., Art. viii., § 4 sqq; Art. x.

p. 339 I. Of the First Article

A. From the Gospel

First, therefore, we will show from the Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above other bishops and pastors.

Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that any apostle should have the pre-eminence over the rest]. For this was the very question which they were disputing when Christ spake of his passion, viz. who should command, and be as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles, and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles would be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, he says: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” The antithesis here shows that lordship is disapproved.

The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute concerning the kingdom (Matt. 18:2) sets a little child in the midst, signifying that among ministers there is not to be sovereignty, just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself.

John 20:21. Christ sends forth his disciples on an equality without any distinction when he says: “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” He says that he sends individuals in the same manner as he himself was sent; and hence grants a prerogative or lordship to no one above the rest.

Gal. 2:7 sq. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. And he expressly contends from this circumstance that his call does not depend upon the authority of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if by divine p. 340 right Peter was superior. Paul accordingly says that he had at once preached the Gospel without consulting Peter. Also: “Of those who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man’s person).” And: “They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.” Since Paul therefore clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter, even when he had come to him, he teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon the Word of God, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles, and that ordination or confirmation was not to be sought from Peter alone [that the office of the ministry proceeds from the general call of the apostles, and that it is not necessary for all to have the call or confirmation of this person alone].

In 1 Cor. 3:6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that the Church is above the ministers. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter. For he says thus: “All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas,” i. e. Let not other ministers or Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority to the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: “Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, Paul and the rest ought to observe this.” Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.

B. From History

The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i. e. those which were in the Roman provinces in the West.¹ Hence it was first by human law, i. e. the resolution of the Council, that the authority of the Roman bishop arose. If already by divine law the Roman bishop would have had the superiority, it would not have been lawful for the Council to have removed any right from him and to have transferred it to the bishop of Alexandria; yea all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

¹ Council of Nice (325), Canon 6.

The Council of Nice determined also² that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of a neighboring bishop or of several. The same was observed also in the p. 341 West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: “For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the divine observance and apostolic practice, as it is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating properly ordinances all the neighboring bishops of the same province should assemble; and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, which we also see was done among us in the ordination of our colleague, Sabinus; so that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands imposed upon him.”

² Canon 4.

Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it was observed in almost all the provinces. Since therefore neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then ascribe superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

Such superiority is impossible. For it is impossible for one bishop to be the inspector of the churches of the whole world, or for churches situated in the most remote lands [all the ministers] to seek ordination from one. For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ has been dispersed through the whole world; and to-day there are many churches in the East which do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop [which have ministers ordained neither by the Pope nor his bishops]. Therefore since such superiority [which the Pope, contrary to all Scripture, arrogates to himself] is impossible, and the churches in the greater part of the world have not acknowledged it, it is sufficiently apparent that it was not established [by Christ, and does not spring from divine law].

Many ancient Synods have been proclaimed and held in which the bishop of Rome did not preside; as that of Nice and very many others. This also testifies that the Church did not then acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.

Jerome says: “If authority is sought, the world is greater than the city. Wherever there has been a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, he is of the same merit and priesthood.”¹

¹ Ed. princeps and Selnecker in edition of 1582 add from Jerome: “The influence of wealth and the humility of poverty do not render him higher or lower.”

Gregory, writing to the patriarch at Alexandria, forbids himself p. 342 to be called universal bishop. And in the “Register” he says that in the Council of Chalcedon the primacy was offered to the bishop of Rome, and was not accepted.

Lastly, how can the Pope be by divine right over the entire Church, when the Church has the election, and the custom gradually prevailed that bishops of Rome should be confirmed by emperors?

Also,¹ since there had been for a long time contests concerning the primacy between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, the emperor Phocas at length determined that the primacy should be assigned to the bishop of Rome. But if the ancient Church had acknowledged the primacy of the Roman pontiff, this contention would not have occurred, neither would there have been need of a decree of the emperor.

¹ Germ. omits § 21.

C. Arguments of the Adversaries

But they cite against us certain passages, viz. (Matt. 16: sq.): “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Also: “I will give unto thee the keys.” Also (John 21:15): “Feed my sheep,” and some others. But since this entire controversy has been fully and accurately treated of elsewhere in the books of our theologians, and all things cannot be reviewed in this place, we refer to those writings, and wish them to be regarded as repeated. Yet we will briefly reply concerning the interpretation of the passages quoted.

In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles, as appears from the text itself.

For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: “Whom do ye say that I am?”² And what is here said in the singular number: “I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind,” etc., is elsewhere expressed in the plural (Matt. 18:18): “Whatsoever ye shall bind,” etc. And in John 20:23: “Whosesoever sins ye remit,” etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles, and that all the apostles are alike sent forth.

² Matt. 16:15.

In addition to this, it is necessary to confess that the keys pertain not to the person of a particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys (Matt. 18:19), adds: “If two of you shall agree on earth,” etc. Therefore he ascribes the keys to the Church principally and immediately; just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately p. 343 to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: “Whatsoever ye shall bind,” etc., and means that to which he has given the keys, namely, the Church: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name” (Matt. 18:20). Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when he says: “Tell it to the Church.”]

Therefore it is necessary in these passages that Peter be the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not ascribe any prerogative, or superiority, or lordship to Peter.

As to the declaration: “Upon this rock I will build my Church,” certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: “Upon this rock,” i. e. upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of such an office as is to be pervaded by this confession and doctrine, and says: “Upon this rock,” i. e. this declaration and ministry.]

Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to persons and places, as the Levitical ministry, but it is dispersed throughout the whole world, and is there where God gives his gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ.

And in this way most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary and Bede, interpret this passage (Upon this rock). Chrysostom¹ says thus: “‘Upon this rock,’ not upon Peter. For he built his Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ “And Hilary says: “To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, ‘Thou art the Son of the living God.’ Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church,” etc.

¹ Germ. omits §§ 28, 29.

And as to that which is said (John 21: sqq.): “Feed my sheep,” and “Lovest thou me more than these?” it does not as yet follow hence that a peculiar superiority was given Peter. He bids him “feed,” i. e. teach the Word, or rule the Church with the Word, which Peter has in common with the other apostles.

p. 344 II. Of the Second Article

The second article is still clearer, because Christ gave to the apostles only spiritual power, i. e. the command to teach the Gospel, to announce the forgiveness of sins, to administer the sacraments, to excommunicate the godless without temporal force; and he did not give the power of the sword or the right to establish, occupy or confer kingdoms of the world. For Christ says (Matt. 28:20): “Go ye, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Also (John 20:21): “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” But it is manifest that Christ was not sent to bear the sword or possess a wordly kingdom, as he himself says (John 18:36): “My kingdom is not of this world.” And Paul says (2 Cor. 1:24): “Not for that we have dominion over your faith.” And (2 Cor. 10:4): “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” etc.

As, therefore, Christ in his passion is crowned with thorns, and led forth to be derided in royal purple, it was thereby signified that his spiritual kingdom being despised, i. e. the Gospel being suppressed, another kingdom of the world would be established with the pretext of ecclesiastical power. Wherefore the constitution of Boniface VIII. and the chapter Omnes, Dist. 22, and similar opinions which contend that the Pope is by divine right the ruler of the kingdoms of the world, are false and godless. From this persuasion horrible darkness has overspread the Church, and also great commotions have arisen in Europe. For the ministry of the Gospel was neglected, and the knowledge of faith and a spiritual kingdom became extinct; Christian righteousness was supposed to be that external government which the Pope had established. Then the popes began to seize upon kingdoms for themselves, they transferred kingdoms, they vexed with unjust excommunications and wars the kings of almost all nations in Europe, but especially the German emperors; so that they sometimes occupied the cities of Italy, and at other times reduced to subjection the bishops of Germany, and wrested from the emperors the conferring of episcopates. Yea in the Clementines it is even written: That when the empire is vacant, the Pope is the legitimate successor. Thus the Pope has not only usurped dominion, contrary to Christ’s command, but has also tyrannically exalted himself above all kings. Neither in this matter is the deed itself so much to be reprehended as it is to be detested, that he assigns as a pretext the authority of Christ; that he transfers the keys to a worldly government; that he binds salvation to these godless and execrable opinions, when he says, that it belongs to necessity for salvation that men believe that p. 345 this dominion is in accordance with divine right. Since such errors as these obscure faith and the kingdom of Christ, they are in no way to be disguised. For the result shows that they have been great pests to the Church.

p. 345 III. Of the Third Article

In the third place, this must be added: Even though the bishop of Rome would have, by divine right, the primacy and superiority, nevertheless obedience is not due those pontiffs who defend godless services, idolatry and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel; yea such pontiffs and such a government ought to be regarded as a curse, as Paul clearly teaches (Gal. 1:8): “Though an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” And in Acts (5:29): “We ought to obey God, rather than men.” Likewise the canons¹ also clearly teach that we should not obey an heretical Pope.

¹ Decrees of Gratian, P. I., Dist. 40, c. 6

The Levitical priest was high priest by divine right, and yet godless priests were not to be obeyed, as Jeremiah and other prophets dissented from the priests. So the apostles dissented from Caiaphas, and were under no obligations to obey them.

It is, however, manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul (2 Ep. 2:3), in describing to the Thessalonians Antichrist, calls him an adversary of Christ, “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God.” He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority.

Moreover, it is manifest, in the first place, that the Pope rules in the Church, and by the pretext of ecclesiastical authority and of the ministry has established for himself this kingdom. For he assigns as a pretext these words: “I will give to thee the keys.” Secondly, the doctrine of the Pope conflicts in many ways [in all ways] with the Gospel, and the Pope assumes to himself divine authority in a threefold manner: First, because he takes to himself the right to change the doctrine of Christ and services instituted by God, and wishes his own doctrine and his own services to be observed as divine. Secondly, because he takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also the right concerning souls after this p. 346 life. Thirdly, because the Pope does not wish to be judged by the Church or by any one, and prefers his own authority to the decision of Councils and the entire Church. But to be unwilling to be judged by the Church or by any one is to make one’s self God. Lastly, these errors so horrible, and this impiety, he defends with the greatest cruelty, and puts to death those dissenting.

This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies and unjust cruelties of the Pope. On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents, as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded (Matt. 7:15): “Beware of false prophets.” And Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and execrated as cursed (Gal. 1:8; Tit. 3:10). And (2 Cor. 6:14) says: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness?”

To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a serious matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty.

On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused; for the errors of the kingdom of the Pope are manifest. And Scripture with its entire voice exclaims that these errors are a doctrine of demons and of Antichrist.¹ The idolatry in the profanation of the masses is manifest, which, besides other faults, are shamelessly applied to most base gain. The doctrine of repentance has been utterly corrupted by the Pope and his adherents. For they teach that sins are remitted because of the worth of our works. Then they bid us doubt whether the remission occur. They nowhere teach that sins are remitted freely for Christ’s sake, and that by this faith we obtain remission of sins. Thus they obscure the glory of Christ, and deprive consciences of firm consolation, and abolish true divine services, viz. the exercises of faith struggling with [unbelief and] despair [concerning the promise of the Gospel].

¹ 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess. 2:3 sq.

They have obscured the doctrine concerning sin, and have framed a tradition concerning the enumeration of offences, producing many errors and despair. They have devised in addition satisfactions, whereby they have also obscured the benefit of Christ.

From these, indulgences have been born, which are pure falsehoods, fabricated for the sake of gain.

Then how many abuses, and what horrible idolatry, the invocation of saints has produced!

p. 347 What shameful acts have arisen from the tradition concerning ing celibacy!

What darkness the doctrine concerning vows has spread over the Gospel! They have there feigned that vows are righteousness before God, and merit the remission of sins. Thus they have transferred the benefit of Christ to human traditions, and have altogether extinguished the doctrine concerning faith. They have feigned that the most trifling traditions are services of God and perfection, and they have preferred these to the works of callings which God requires and has ordained. Neither are these errors to be regarded light; for they detract from the glory of Christ and bring destruction to souls, neither can they be passed by unnoticed.

Then to these errors two great sins are added: The first, that he defends these errors by unjust cruelty and punishments. The second, that he appropriates the decision of the Church, and does not permit ecclesiastical controversies [such matters of religion] to be judged according to the prescribed mode; yea, he contends that he is above the Council, and that the decrees of Councils can be rescinded, just as the canons sometimes impudently speak.¹ But the examples testify that this was done with much more impudence by the pontiffs.

¹ Cf. Decret. Grat., P. I., Dist. 17.

Quest. 9, canon 3,² says: “No one shall judge the first seat; for the judge is judged neither by the emperor, nor by all the clergy, nor by the kings, nor by the people.”

² See Decret. Grat., P. II., caus. 9, qu. 3, c. 13.

The Pope exercises a twofold tyranny; he defends his errors by force and by murders, and forbids judicial examination. The latter does even more injury than any punishments. Because when the true judgment of the Church is removed, godless dogmas and godless services cannot be removed, and for many ages are destroying infinite souls.

Therefore let the godly consider the great errors of the kingdom of the Pope and his tyranny, and let them ponder first that the errors must be rejected and the true doctrine embraced, for the glory of God and to the salvation of souls. Then let them ponder also how great a crime it is to aid unjust cruelty in killing saints, whose blood God will undoubtedly avenge.

But especially the chief members of the Church, kings and princes, ought to guard the interests of the Church, and to see to it that errors be removed and consciences be healed [rightly instructed], as God expressly exhorts kings (Ps. 2:10): “Be wise, now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth.” For it should be the first care of kings [and great p. 348 lords] to advance the glory of God. Wherefore it is very shameful for them to exercise their influence and power to confirm idolatry and infinite other crimes, and to slaughter saints.

And in case the Pope should hold Synods [a Council], how can the Church be healed if the Pope suffer nothing to be decreed contrary to his will, if he allow no one to express his opinion except his adherents, whom by dreadful oaths and curses he has bound, without any exception concerning God’s Word, to the defence of his tyranny and wickedness?

But since the decisions of Synods are the decisions of the Church, and not of the Popes, it is especially incumbent on kings to check the license of the popes [not allow such roguery], and to so act that the power of judging and decreeing from the Word of God be not wrested from the Church. And as other Christians ought to censure the remaining errors of the Pope, so they ought also to rebuke the Pope when he evades and impedes the true knowledge and true decision of the Church.

Therefore even though the bishop of Rome would have the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him, yea it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.

Manifest also is the cruelty [against godly Christians] which he exercises. And it is clear that it is God’s command that we flee from idolatry, godless doctrine and unjust cruelty. On this account all the godly have great, manifest and necessary reasons for not obeying the Pope. And these necessary reasons comfort the godly against all the reproaches which are usually cast against them concerning offences, schism and discord.

But those who agree with the Pope and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes [for injury to all the world and] to all posterity.