The Power and Primacy of the Pope

A TREATISE COMPILED
BY THE THEOLOGIANS ASSEMBLED
AT SMALCALD IN THE YEAR 1537.

[1] The Roman pontiff claims for himself that he is ‹supreme above› all bishops and pastors by divine right.

[2] Second, he adds that by divine right he has both swords, that is, the authority also to enthrone and depose kings‹, regulate secular dominions, and such›.

[3] Third, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. For these reasons, the Roman bishop calls himself ‹and boasts that he is› the vicar of Christ on earth.

[4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and destructive to the Church.

[5] So that our proof may be better understood, we will first define what they call being above everyone by “divine right.” They mean that the pope is universal, or, as they say, he is the ecumenical bishop, from whom all bishops and pastors throughout the entire world should seek ordination. He is to have the right of electing, ordaining, confirming, and deposing all bishops. [6] Besides this, he claims for himself the authority to make laws about acts of worship, about changing the Sacraments, and about doctrine. He wants his articles, his decrees, and his laws to be considered equal to the divine laws ‹to other articles of the Christian Creed and the Holy Scriptures›. In other words, he holds that people’s consciences are so bound by the papal laws that those who neglect them, even without public offense, sin mortally. What he adds is even more horrible; namely, that it is necessary to believe all these things in order to be saved.

[Testimony of Scripture]

[7] In the first place, therefore, we will show from the Gospel that the Roman bishop is not above ‹cannot arrogate to himself any supremacy whatever over› other bishops and pastors by divine right.

[8] I. Luke 22:24–27. Christ clearly bans lordship among the apostles. This was the very question: When Christ spoke of His passion, the apostles were disputing over who should be the head of the others, and, as it were, the vicar of the absent Christ. Christ rebukes this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them. Instead, the apostles would be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. So, He says, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (22:25–26). The contrast here shows that lordship [among the apostles] is not approved.

II. Matthew 18:2. When Christ, in the same dispute about the Kingdom, places a little child in their midst, He is teaching the same thing by parable. Just as a child neither takes nor seeks sovereignty for himself, so this shows that there is not to be sovereignty among ministers.

[9] III. John 20:21. Christ sends forth His disciples in equality, without any distinction ‹so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other›. He says, “As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you.” He says that He sends them individually in the same way He Himself was sent [John 12:44–50]. Therefore, He grants no one a privilege or lordship above the rest.

[10] IV. Galatians 2:7–10. St. Paul clearly affirms that he was neither ordained nor confirmed by Peter. Nor does he acknowledge Peter to be one from whom confirmation should be sought. He plainly maintains on this point that his call does not depend upon Peter’s authority. If Peter were superior by divine right, he should have acknowledged Peter as a superior. Paul says that he had preached the Gospel without consulting Peter [Galatians 1:10–12]. Also, “from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality).” And, “Those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me” [2:6]. Paul clearly testifies that he did not even wish to seek the confirmation of Peter to preach, even when Paul had come to him. He teaches that the authority of the ministry depends upon God’s Word, and that Peter was not superior to the other apostles. Ordination or confirmation was not to be sought from this one individual, Peter ‹[Paul teaches] 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›.

[11] V. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul makes ministers equal. He also teaches that the Church is superior to ‹or: more than› the ministers. Superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not attributed to Peter. For he says, “All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas” [3:21–22]. That is, do not let the other ministers or Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church. Do not let them burden the Church with traditions. Do not let the authority of anyone prevail more than ‹God’s› Word. Do not let 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 claim from Peter and denies that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church.

Testimony of History

[12] VI. The Council of Nicaea resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East and the Roman bishop the suburban churches, that is, those 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 away any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria. No, all the bishops of the East should always have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

[13] VII. The Council of Nicaea also determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of one or more neighboring bishops. [14] This was observed also in the West in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius:

[15] Cyprian calls this custom “a divine tradition and an apostolic observance.” He affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

In the greater part of the world, in the Latin and Greek Churches, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome. Therefore, it is clear enough that the churches did not then grant superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

[16] Such superiority is impossible. It is just not possible for one bishop to be the overseer of the churches of the whole world. Churches in the most distant lands cannot seek ordination from only one person. It is clear that Christ’s kingdom is scattered throughout the whole world. Today there are many churches in the East that do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop. Since the superiority the pope claims for himself is impossible and has not been acknowledged by churches in the greater part of the world, it is clear enough that it was not instituted ‹by Christ and does not spring from divine law›.

[17] VIII. Many ancient councils have been proclaimed and held in which the bishop of Rome did not preside, such as that of Nicaea and most others. This, too, testifies that the Church did not then acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.

[18] IX. Jerome says:

[19] X. Pope Gregory, writing to the patriarch at Alexandria, forbids that he be called universal bishop. In the records he says that in the Council of Chalcedon the primacy was offered to the bishop of Rome, but it was not accepted.

[20] XI. Last, how can the pope be over the entire Church by divine right when the Church elects him? And what of the custom that gradually prevailed of bishops of Rome being confirmed by the emperors? [21] When for a long time there had been conflicts over 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 conflict could not have occurred. Nor would the emperor have needed to make the decree.

[Refutation of Roman Arguments]

[22] They cite against us certain passages, namely, [Matthew 16:18–19,] “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.” Also, “I will give you the keys.” Also, [John 21:15,] “Feed My lambs,” and some others. Since this entire controversy has been fully and accurately treated elsewhere in the books of our theologians and everything cannot be reviewed here, we refer to those writings and wish them to be considered repeated here. Yet we will briefly reply about the interpretation of the passages above.

[23] In all these passages, Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles, as appears from the text itself. Christ does not ask Peter alone, when He says, “Who do you say that I am?” [Matthew 16:15]. What is said here to Peter alone in the singular number, “I will give you [singular] the keys; and whatever you [singular] bind” [16:19], is elsewhere expressed in the plural [e.g., Matthew 18:18,] “Whatever you [plural] bind”; [John 20:23,] “If you [plural] forgive the sins of anyone”). These words show that the Keys are given to all the apostles alike and that all the apostles are sent forth alike.

[24] In addition, it must be recognized that the Keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church. Many most clear and firm arguments show this. For Christ, speaking about the Keys, adds, for example, “If two of you agree on earth” (Matthew 18:19). Therefore, He grants the Keys first and directly to the Church. This is why it is first the Church that has 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 you 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, these passages demonstrate that Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles. They do not grant Peter any privilege or superiority or lordship.

[25] As for the declaration “on this rock I will build My church” [Matthew 16:18], certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of a man. Rather, it has been built upon the ministry of the confession Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God [Matthew 16:16]. Therefore, Christ addresses Peter as a minister, “On this rock,” that is, 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 preaching office.›

[26] Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons like the Levitical [Old Testament] ministry was. Rather, it is spread throughout the whole world. That is where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers [Ephesians 4:11]. Nor does this ministry work because of the authority of any person, but because of the Word given by Christ [Romans 10:17]. ‹Nor does the person 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.› [27] Most of the holy Church Fathers, such as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary, and Bede, interpret the passage “on this rock” in this way, as not referring to the person of Peter. [28] Chrysostom says this:

[29] Hilary says:

[30] As for what is said in John 21:15–19, “Feed My lambs,” and “Do you love Me more than these?” it does not follow from this passage that a peculiar superiority was given Peter. Christ tells him “feed” (i.e., teach ‹preach› the Word ‹the Gospel›, or rule the Church with the Word ‹the Gospel›), which task Peter has in common with the other apostles.

[31] The second article is even clearer. Christ gave 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›). He did not give them the power of the sword (the right to establish, occupy, or bestow kingdoms of the world [Romans 13:4]). For Christ says, “Go … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20). Also, “As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you” (John 20:21).

It is clear that Christ was not sent to bear the sword or possess a worldly kingdom, as He Himself says, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). And Paul says, “Not that we lord it over your faith” (2 Corinthians 1:24); and “The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” (2 Corinthians 10:4), and so forth.

[A Contrast between Christ and the Pope]

[32] Christ in His passion is crowned with thorns and led forth to be ridiculed in royal purple [John 19:2]. This symbolizes 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 with the appearance of churchly power. [33] (So the Constitution of Boniface VIII and the chapter Omnes, Distinction 22, and similar opinions are false and godless, for they argue that the pope is by divine right the ruler of the kingdoms of the world.) [34] From this notion, horrible darkness has been brought into the Church and, after that, great commotions have arisen in Europe. The ministry of the Gospel was neglected [Acts 6:1–4; 1 Timothy 4:13–14] and the knowledge of faith and the spiritual kingdom became extinct. Christian righteousness was assumed to be the outward government the pope had established.

[35] Next, the popes began to seize kingdoms for themselves. They transferred kingdoms. They harassed with unjust excommunications and wars the kings of almost all nations in Europe, but especially the German emperors. Sometimes they did this for the purpose of occupying cities of Italy. Other times they wanted to conquer the bishops of Germany and wrest away from the emperors the right to appoint bishops. In fact, it is even written in the Clementines, “When the empire is vacant, the pope is the legitimate successor.”

[36] The pope has not only seized dominion, which is contrary to Christ’s command. He has also exalted himself above all kings like a tyrant. The following should not be condemned as much as detested: (a) He makes his claim on the authority of Christ. (b) He transfers the Keys to a worldly government. And (c) then he binds salvation to these godless and criminal opinions when he insists that, believing this dominion belongs to him by divine right, is necessary for salvation.

[37] Since these great errors cloud over ‹the doctrine of› faith and Christ’s kingdom, they are in no way to be ignored. Their consequences show that they have been great plagues to the Church.

[38] In the third place, this must be added: Even if the bishop of Rome did have 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. No, such pontiffs and such a government should be held accursed, as Paul clearly teaches, “If we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” [Galatians 1:8]. And, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts [5:29]). Likewise, the church laws also clearly teach that “a heretical pope is not to be obeyed.”

The Levitical high priest was the chief priest by divine right [Leviticus 8], and yet godless high priests were not to be obeyed. As Jeremiah and other prophets dissented from the high priests [Jeremiah 26:1–11], so the apostles dissented from Caiaphas and did not have to obey him [Acts 4:19–20; 5:29].

[The Marks of the Antichrist]

[39] It is clear that the Roman pontiffs, with their followers, defend godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the pope and his followers. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him an enemy of Christ, “Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). He is not speaking about heathen kings, but about someone ruling in the Church. He calls him the enemy of Christ, because he will invent doctrine conflicting with the Gospel and will claim for himself divine authority.

[40] Furthermore, it is clear, in the first place, that the pope rules in the Church and has established this kingdom for himself by the claim of churchly authority and of the ministry. He gives these words as a basis, “I will give you the keys” [Matthew 16:19]. Second, the doctrine of the pope conflicts in many ways with the Gospel. ‹Third,› the pope claims for himself divine authority in a threefold manner: (a) He takes for himself the right to change Christ’s doctrine and services instituted by God, and wants his own doctrine and his own services to be observed as divine. (b) He takes to himself the power not only of binding and loosing in this life, but also jurisdiction over souls after this life. (c) He does not want to be judged by the Church or by anyone and puts his own authority ahead of the decision of councils and the entire Church. To be unwilling to be judged by the Church or by anyone else is to make oneself God. Finally, he defends these horrible errors and this impiety with the greatest cruelty and puts to death those who disagree.

[41] This being the case, all Christians should beware of participating in the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the pope. They should desert and condemn the pope with his followers as the kingdom of Antichrist, just as Christ has commanded, “Beware of false prophets” [Matthew 7:15]. Paul commands that godless teachers should be avoided and condemned as cursed [Galatians 1:8; Titus 3:10]. And he says, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. … What fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14).

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

In this, our consciences are excused well enough, for the errors of the kingdom of the pope are clear. Scripture with its entire voice cries out that these errors are a teaching of demons [1 Timothy 4:1–3] and of Antichrist. [43] The idolatry in the abuse of the Masses is clear ‹besides being altogether useless›. The Masses are used for the most shameful moneymaking. [44] The doctrine of repentance has been utterly corrupted by the pope and his followers. They teach that sins are forgiven because of the value of our works. Then they tell us to doubt whether the forgiveness takes place. They nowhere teach that sins are forgiven freely for Christ’s sake, and that by this faith we obtain forgiveness of sins [Ephesians 2:8–9].

So they hide Christ’s glory and rob consciences of firm consolation. They abolish true divine services (i.e., the exercises of faith struggling with ‹unbelief and› despair ‹concerning the promise of the Gospel›).

[45] They have clouded over the doctrine about sin. They have invented a tradition about the listing of offenses, producing many errors and despair.

In addition, they have invented satisfactions, with which they have also hidden Christ’s ‹merit› benefit.

[46] From these, indulgences have been born. These are pure lies, fabricated for the sake of making money.

[47] How many abuses and what horrible idolatry the invocation of saints has produced!

[48] What shameful acts have arisen from the tradition of celibacy!

What darkness the doctrine of vows has spread over the Gospel! They pretend that vows are righteousness before God and merit the forgiveness of sins. So they have transferred the benefit of Christ to human traditions and have completely snuffed out the doctrine about faith. They have pretended that the most silly traditions are services of God and perfection. They have preferred these to the works of the callings that God requires and has ordained. These errors should not be treated lightly. They detract from Christ’s glory and bring destruction to souls. They cannot be passed by unnoticed.

[49] To these errors, two great sins are added: (a) The pope defends these errors by unjust cruelty and the death penalty. (b) He grabs the decision away from the Church and does not permit religious controversies to be judged in the right way. Indeed, he argues that he is above the council and can rescind the decrees of councils. Church law sometimes shamelessly says this. But the evidence shows that the popes act even more shamelessly:

[50] Question 9, canon 3, [of Gratian’s Second Decretal] says:

[51] The pope exercises a twofold tyranny: (a) He defends his errors by force and by murders, and (b) he forbids judicial examination. The latter does even more harm than any executions. When the true judgment of the Church is removed, godless dogmas and godless services cannot be removed. They destroy countless souls for many ages.

[52] Therefore, let the godly consider the great errors of the kingdom of the pope and his tyranny. Let them ponder, (a) that the errors must be rejected and the true doctrine embraced, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. [53] Then (b) let them ponder also how great a crime it is to aid unjust cruelty in killing saints, whose blood God will undoubtedly avenge (Revelation 6:10).

[54] The chief members of the Church, the kings and princes, should especially guard the interests of the Church. They should see to it that errors are removed and consciences are healed ‹rightly instructed›. God specifically warns kings, “Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth” [Psalm 2:10]. It should be the first care of kings to advance God’s glory. It would be very shameful for them to use their influence and power to confirm idolatry [e.g.,1 Kings 14:14–16] and endless other crimes and to slaughter saints.

[55] Even if the pope holds councils, how can the Church be healed if he allows nothing to be decreed against his will? Or if he allows no one to express an opinion except his followers, whom he has bound by dreadful oaths and curses to defend his tyranny and impiety without leaving any place for God’s Word?

[56] The decisions of councils are the decisions of the Church, and not of the popes. So it is especially dependent upon kings to restrain the excesses of the popes. Kings must act so that the power of judging and decreeing from God’s Word is not snatched away from the Church. As the rest of the Christians must condemn all other errors of the pope, so they must also rebuke the pope when he avoids and hinders the true investigation and true decision of the Church.

[57] Therefore, even if the bishop of Rome did have the primacy by divine right, since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him. Indeed, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The pope’s errors are clear, and they are not small.

[58] The cruelty he exercises ‹against godly Christians› is also clear. God clearly commands us to flee idolatry [1 Corinthians 10:14], godless doctrine [1 Timothy 6:3–4], and unjust cruelty [Proverbs 11:17]. On this account, all the godly have great, compelling, and clear reasons for not obeying the pope. These compelling reasons comfort the godly against all of the reproaches usually cast against them about causing offenses, schism, and discord.

[59] Those who agree with the pope and defend his doctrine and ‹false› worship [Gottesdienst] defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions. They become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the pope persecutes [see Acts 9:1, 4–5; 1 Corinthians 11:27]. They detract from God’s glory and hinder the Church’s welfare because they confirm errors and crimes through all generations.

The Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops

[60] The Gospel assigns those who preside over Churches the command to teach the Gospel [Matthew 28:19], to forgive sins [John 20:23], to administer the Sacraments, and also to exercise jurisdiction (i.e., the command to excommunicate those whose crimes are known and to absolve those who repent).

[61] Everyone confesses, even our adversaries, that this power is common to all who preside over churches by divine right, whether they are called pastors, elders, or bishops. [62] So Jerome explicitly teaches in the apostolic letters that all who preside over churches are both bishops and elders. He cites from Titus 1:5–6, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might … appoint elders in every town.” Then [the Letter to Titus] adds that a bishop must be “the husband of one wife.” Likewise, Peter and John call themselves elders ‹or priests› [1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1]. Then Jerome adds:

[63] Jerome, therefore, teaches that it is by human authority that the grades of bishop and elder or pastor are distinct. The content itself says this, because the power is the same, as he has said above. [64] Later, only one thing made a distinction between bishops and pastors, namely, ordination. For it was arranged that one bishop would ordain ministers in a number of churches.

[65] Since the grades of bishop and pastor are not different by divine authority, it is clear that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law.

[66] Therefore, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right ‹to ordain their own ministers›.

[67] Wherever the Church is, there is the authority to administer the Gospel. Therefore, it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. This authority is a gift that in reality is given to the Church. No human power can take this gift away from the Church. As Paul testifies to the Ephesians, when “He ascended … He gave gifts to men” (Ephesians [4:8]). He lists among the gifts specifically belonging to the Church “pastors and teachers” [4:11], and adds that they are given for the ministry, “for building up the body of Christ” [4:12]. So wherever there is a True Church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. In the same way, in a case of necessity even a layman absolves and becomes the minister and pastor of another. Augustine tells the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after Baptism then absolved the baptizer.

[68] Here belong the statements of Christ that testify that the Keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons, “Where two or three are gathered in My name …” [Matthew 18:20].

[69] Finally, Peter’s statement also confirms this, “You are … a royal priesthood” [1 Peter 2:9]. These words apply to the True Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers, since it alone has the priesthood.

[70] A most common custom of the Church also testifies to this. Formerly, the people elected pastors and bishops [Acts 14:23]. Then came a bishop, either of that church or a neighboring one, who confirmed the one elected by the laying on of hands [1 Timothy 4:14]. Ordination was nothing else than such a ratification. [71] Afterward, new ceremonies were added, many of which Dionysius describes. But he is a recent and fictitious author, whoever he may be, just as the writings of Clement also are spurious. Then more modern writers added, “I give you the power to sacrifice for the living and the dead.” This is not even in Dionysius.

[72] From all of this, it is clear that the Church retains the right to elect and ordain ministers. The impiety and tyranny of bishops cause schism and discord. ‹Therefore, if the bishops are heretics, or will not ordain suitable persons, the churches are in duty bound before God, according to divine law, to ordain for themselves pastors and ministers. Even though this is now called an irregularity or schism, it should be known that the godless doctrine and tyranny of bishops is chargeable with it.› Paul commands that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be considered accursed (Galatians 1:7–9).

[73] We have spoken of ordination, which alone, as Jerome says, distinguished bishops from other elders. There is no need to discuss the other duties of bishops. It is not necessary to speak about confirmation or the consecration of bells ‹nor other such delusions›, which are almost the only things they have kept. Something, though, must be said about jurisdiction.

[74] Certainly, the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of clear crimes belongs to all pastors [1 Corinthians 5]. The bishops have tyrannically transferred this to themselves alone and have used it for their own gain. It is certain that the officials, as they are called, used an intolerable license. Either because of greed or because of other immoral desires, they tormented people and excommunicated them without any due process of law. [75] What tyranny it is for the officials in the states to have arbitrary power to do this! In what kinds of issues did they abuse this power? Not in punishing true offenses, but in punishing violations of fasts or festivals, or such silly things! They sometimes did punish adulteries, but in this they often harass ‹abuse and defame› innocent and honorable people. Besides, since adultery is a most grievous offense, certainly no one should be condemned without due process of law.

[76] Since bishops have tyrannically transferred this jurisdiction to themselves alone and have basely abused it, there is no need to obey bishops. Since there are just reasons why we do not obey, it is also right to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors and to make sure that it is legitimately exercised for the reformation of morals and the glory of God.

[77] There remains the jurisdiction, according to Church law, in cases that relate to the Church court, as they call it, and especially in cases of marriage. This, too, the bishops have only by human right, which is not a very old one. According to the Codex and Novellae of Justinian, decisions about marriage at that time belonged to the rulers. By divine right, earthly rulers must make these decisions if the bishops are negligent. Church law also concedes this. So for this jurisdiction also, it is not necessary to obey bishops. [78] Since the bishops have framed unjust laws about marriages and observe them in their courts, there is a need to establish other courts. The traditions ‹banning the marriage› of those who have a spiritual relationship are unjust. Also unjust is the tradition forbidding an innocent person to marry after divorce [Matthew 5:32]. Also unjust is the law that in general approves all secret and deceitful engagements in violation of parental rights. Also unjust is the law requiring the celibacy of priests. There are also other snares of conscience in their laws. There is no need to recite them all. It is enough to say that there are many unjust laws of the pope regarding marriage. Because of these, the rulers should establish other courts.

[79] So the bishops who are devoted to the pope defend godless doctrine and godless services. They do not ordain godly teachers, and they aid the cruelty of the pope. Besides, they have wrestled away the jurisdiction from pastors and exercise it tyrannically ‹for their own profit›. Finally, in marriage cases they observe many unjust laws. So there are enough and necessary reasons why the churches should not recognize these men as bishops.

[80] They themselves should remember that riches have been given to bishops as alms for the administration and advantage of the churches. As the rule says, “The benefit is given because of the office.” Therefore, they cannot with a good conscience possess these alms and defraud the Church. The Church has need of this money to support ministers, aid education, care for the poor, and establish courts, especially for marriage. [81] So great is the variety and extent of marriage controversies that there is need for a special court, for which the endowments of the Church are needed. [82] Peter predicted that there would be godless bishops who would abuse the alms of the Church for luxury and neglect the ministry (2 Peter [2:13]). Therefore, let those who defraud the Church know that they will pay God the penalty for this crime.

Doctors and Preachers Who Subscribed to the Augsburg Confession and Apology, A.D. 1537

According to the command of the most illustrious princes and of the orders and states professing the doctrine of the Gospel, we have reread the articles of the Confession presented to the Emperor in the Assembly at Augsburg. By God’s favor, all the preachers who have been present in this Assembly at Smalcald harmoniously declare that they believe and teach in their churches according to the articles of the Confession and Apology. They also declare that they approve the article about the primacy of the pope and his power, and the power and jurisdiction of bishops, which was presented to the princes in this assembly at Smalcald. So they subscribe their names.

[1] I, Doctor John Bugenhagen, Pomeranus, subscribe the Articles of the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Article presented to the princes at Smalcald concerning the Papacy.

[2] I also, Doctor Urban Rhegius, Superintendent of the Churches in the Duchy of Lüneburg, subscribe.

[3] Nicholas Amsdorf of Magdeburg subscribed.

[4] George Spalatin of Altenburg subscribed.

[5] I, Andreas Osiander, subscribe.

[6] Magister Veit Dietrich of Nürnberg subscribed.

[7] Stephen Agricola, Minister at Hof, subscribed with his own hand.

[8] John Draconites of Marburg subscribed.

[9] Conrad Figenbotz subscribed to all throughout.

[10] Martin Bucer.

[11] I, Erhard Schnepf, subscribe.

[12] Paul Rhodius, Preacher in Stettin.

[13] Gerhard Öniken, Minister of the Church at Minden.

[14] Brixius Northanus, Minister at Söst.

[15] Simon Schneeweiss, Pastor of Crailsheim.

[16] I, Pomeranus, again subscribe in the name of Schoolmaster John Brentz, as he ordered me.

[17] Philip Melanchthon subscribes with his own hand.

[18] Anthony Corvinus subscribes with his own hand, as well as in the name of Adam [Krafft] of Fulda.

[19] John Schlaginhaufen subscribes with his own hand.

[20] Schoolmaster George Helt of Forchheim.

[21] Michael Cölius, Preacher at Mansfeld.

[22] Peter Geltner, Preacher of the church of Frankfurt.

[23] Dionysius Melander subscribed.

[24] Paul Fagius of Strasbourg.

[25] Wendel Faber, Pastor of Seeburg in Mansfeld.

[26] Conrad Ötinger of Pforzheim, Preacher of Ulrich, Duke of Württemberg.

[27] Boniface Wolfart, Minister of the Word of the Church at Augsburg.

[28] John Aepinus, Superintendent of Hamburg, subscribed with his own hand.

[29] John [Tieman] of Amsterdam of Bremen does the same.

[30] John Fontanus, Superintendent of Lower Hesse, subscribed.

[31] Frederick Myconius subscribed for himself and Justus Menius.

[32] Ambrose Blaurer.

I have read, and again and again reread, the Confession and Apology presented at Augsburg by the Most Illustrious Prince, the Elector of Saxony, and by the other princes and estates of the Roman Empire, to his Imperial Majesty. I have also read the Formula of Concord concerning the Sacrament, made at Wittenberg with Dr. Bucer and others. I have also read the articles written at the Assembly at Smalcald in the German language by Dr. Martin Luther, our most revered teacher, and the tract concerning the Papacy and the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops. In my humble opinion I judge that all these agree with Holy Scripture and with the belief of the true and genuine catholic Church. But although I am in so great a number of most learned men who have now assembled at Smalcald, I acknowledge that I am the least of all. Yet, as I am not permitted to await the end of the assembly, I ask you, most renowned man, Dr. John Bugenhagen, most revered Father in Christ, that your courtesy may add my name, if it be necessary, to all that I have above mentioned. For I testify in this my own handwriting that I thus hold, confess, and constantly will teach, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

John Brentz, Minister of Hall.
Done at Smalcald,
February 23, 1537.