Philip Melanchthon wrote the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope in preparation
of the Protestant meeting at Smalcald in 1537. It gave the Lutheran position on the Pope and was
intended to be a supplement to the Augsburg Confession.
The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme]
above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].
Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing
kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].
And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman
bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.
These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.
Now, in order that our proof [reason and opinion] may be [better] understood, we shall first define
what they call being above all [what it means that he boasts of being supreme] by divine right. For
they mean that he is universal [that the Pope is the general bishop over the entire Christian Church],
or, as they say, ecumenical bishop, i.e., from whom all bishops and pastors throughout the entire
world ought to seek ordination and [confirmation, who [alone] is to have the right of electing,
ordaining, confirming, deposing all bishops [and pastors]. Besides this, he arrogates to himself
the authority to make [all kinds of] laws concerning acts of worship, concerning changing the Sacraments
[and] concerning doctrine, and wishes his articles, his decrees, his laws [his statutes and ordinances]
to be considered equal to the divine laws [to other articles of the Christian Creed and the Holy
Scriptures], i.e., he holds that by the papal laws the consciences of men are so bound that those who
neglect them, even without public offense, sin mortally [that they cannot be omitted without sin. For
he wishes to found this power upon divine right and the Holy Scriptures; yea, he wishes to have it
preferred to the Holy Scriptures and God's commands]. And what he adds is still more horrible, namely,
that it is necessary to believe all these things in order to be saved [all these things shall and
must be believed at the peril of forfeiting salvation].
In the first place, therefore, let us show from the [holy] Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by
divine right above [cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over] other bishops and pastors.
I. Luke 22:25. Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no
apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when
Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and 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 should 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 [By holding these matters against one another one sees] that
lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.
II. Matt. 18:2. The same is taught by the parable when Christ in the same dispute
concerning the kingdom places 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.
III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any
distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other], when He says:
As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. [These words are clear and plain:] He says that He
sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative
or lordship above the rest.
IV. Gal. 2:7f St. Paul manifestly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed
[and endorsed] by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be
sought. And he expressly contends concerning this point that his call does not depend upon the authority
of Peter. But he ought to have acknowledged Peter as a superior if Peter was superior by divine right
[if Peter, indeed, had received such supremacy from Christ]. Paul accordingly says that he had at
once preached the Gospel [freely for a long time] 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, then, clearly testifies
that he did not even wish to seek for the confirmation of Peter [for permission to preach] 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 it was not from this one individual Peter
that ordination or confirmation was to be sought [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 one person, Peter, alone].
V. 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 [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or
Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship
or superiority over 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, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this." Paul removes this pretext
from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim]
that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.
VI. 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. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of
the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would
not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of
Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation
from the bishop of Rome.
VII. Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their
own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several. The same was observed [for a
long time, not only in the East, but] also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine
testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance
and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in
almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same
province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and
the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one,
which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, 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 laid on him.
Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and
affirms that it is 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 accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.
Such superiority is impossible. For it is impossible for one bishop to be the
overseer of the churches of the whole world, or for churches situated in the most distant lands to
seek ordination [for all their ministers] from one. For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ is
scattered throughout 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
[nor made use of] it, it is sufficiently apparent that it was not instituted [by Christ, and does not
spring from divine law].
VIII. Many ancient synods have been proclaimed and held in which the bishop of Rome
did not preside; as that of Nice and most others. This, too, testifies that the Church did not then
acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.
IX. Jerome says: If the question is concerning authority, 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 dignity and priesthood.
X. Gregory, writing to the patriarch at Alexandria, forbids that he be called
universal bishop. And in the Records he says that in the Council of Chalcedon the primacy was offered
to the bishop of Rome, but was not accepted.
XI. Lastly, how can the Pope be over the entire Church by divine right when the
Church has the election, and the custom gradually prevailed that bishops of Rome were confirmed by
the emperors? Also, when for a long time there had been contests concerning the primacy between the
bishops of Rome and Constantinople, the Emperor Phocas finally 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 could not have occurred, neither would there have been need of the
decree of the emperor.
But they cite against us certain passages, namely, Matt. 16:18f : 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 elsewhere
in the books of our theologians, and everything cannot be reviewed in this place, we refer to those
writings, and wish them to be regarded as repeated. Yet we shall reply briefly concerning the interpretation
[of the passages quoted].
In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does
not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ
asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in
the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere
expressed [to their entire number], 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 [to preach].
In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one
particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking
concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore
he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, 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 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 indicates to whom He has given
the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ
gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]
Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly
of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or
lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles].
However, 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 this
office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e.,
this preaching and ministry.]
Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons 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. Nor does the person of a teacher add anything
to this word and office; it matters not who is preaching and teaching it; if there are hearts who
receive and cling to it, to them it is done as they hear and believe.] And in this way, not as referring
to the person of Peter, most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary, and Bede,
interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom 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.
And as to that which is said John 21:15ff : 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 [the Gospel], or rule the Church with the Word [the Gospel], which Peter has in common
with the other apostles.
The second article is still clearer, that 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 bodily force [by the Word], and that He did not give the power of
the sword, or the right to establish, occupy or confer kingdoms of the world [to set up or depose kings].
For Christ says, Matt. 28:19-20: 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.
Now, it is manifest that Christ was not sent to bear the sword or possess a worldly kingdom [rule
in a worldly fashion], 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.
Accordingly, that Christ in His passion is crowned with thorns and led forth to be derided in royal
purple, this signified that in the future, after His spiritual kingdom was despised, i.e., the Gospel
was suppressed, another kingdom of a worldly kind would be set up [in its place] with the pretext of
ecclesiastical power. Therefore 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 [utterly] false and godless. From this persuasion horrible darkness has been brought into the Church,
and after that also great commotions have arisen in Europe. For the ministry of the Gospel was neglected,
the knowledge of faith and the spiritual kingdom became extinct, Christian righteousness was supposed
to be that external government which the Pope had established.
Next, 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, sometimes for the purpose of occupying cities of Italy, at other times for the purpose
of reducing to subjection the bishops of Germany, and wresting from the emperors the conferring of
episcopates. Yea, in the Clementines it is even written: 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. And in this matter the deed itself is not to be reprehended as much
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 it is necessary to salvation for men to believe that this dominion belongs to him by divine right.
Since these great errors obscure [the doctrine of] faith and [of] the kingdom of Christ they are
in no way to be concealed. For the result shows that they have been great pests to the Church.
In the third place, this must be added: Even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy and superiority
by divine right nevertheless obedience would not be due those pontiffs who defend godless services,
idolatry, and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel. Nay; such pontiffs and such a government ought to
be held accursed, 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 5:9: We ought
to obey God rather than men. Likewise the canons also clearly teach that a heretical Pope is not to
be obeyed.
The Levitical high priest was the chief priest by divine right, and yet godless high priests were
not to be obeyed, as Jeremiah and other prophets dissented from the high priests, the apostles dissented
from Caiaphas and did not have to obey them.
Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless
doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the
kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls
him 2 Thess. 2:3: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God or that is worshiped, 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.