Point 18: Of Ecclesiastical Supremacy
Our consent.
Touching the point of ecclesiastical supremacy, I will set down how near we may come to the Roman Church in two conclusions. Conclusion 1. For the founding of the primitive Church, the ministry of the word was distinguished by degrees not only of order but also of power, and Peter was called to the highest degree. Ephesians 4:11: Christ ascended up on high and gave gifts to men for the good of his Church — as some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. Now, however one apostle may not be above another, or one evangelist above another, or one pastor above another, yet an apostle was above an evangelist and an evangelist above all pastors and teachers. And Peter was by calling an apostle, and therefore above all evangelists and pastors, having the highest room in the ministry of the New Testament both for order and authority.
Conclusion 2. Among the twelve Apostles Peter had a threefold privilege or prerogative: of authority, of primacy, and of principality. For the first — by the privilege of authority I mean a preeminence in regard of estimation, whereby he was had in reverence above the rest of the twelve Apostles. For Cephas with James and John are called pillars and seemed to be great (Galatians 2:6, 9). Again he had the preeminence of primacy, because he was the first named, as the foreman of the company. Matthew 10:2: The names of the twelve Apostles are these — the first is Simon called Peter. Thirdly he had the preeminence of principality among the twelve, because in regard of the measure of grace he excelled the rest. For when Christ asked his disciples whom they said he was, Peter as being of greatest ability and zeal answered for them all (Matthew 16:16). I use this clause — among the twelve — because Paul excelled Peter every way, in learning, zeal, and understanding, as far as Peter excelled the rest. And thus near we come to Popish supremacy.
The difference.
The Church of Rome gives to Peter a supremacy under Christ above all causes and persons — that is, full power to govern and order the catholic Church upon the whole earth both for doctrine and governance. This supremacy stands (as they teach) in a power or judgment to determine the true sense of all places of Scripture; to determine all causes of faith; to assemble general councils; to ratify the decrees of the said councils; to excommunicate any man upon earth that lives within the Church, even princes and nations; properly to absolve and forgive sins; to decide causes brought to him by appeal from all parts of the earth; and lastly to make laws that shall bind the conscience. This fullness of power with one consent is ascribed to Peter and the bishops of Rome that follow him in a supposed succession. Now we hold on the contrary that neither Peter nor any bishop of Rome has any supremacy over the catholic Church, but that all supremacy under Christ pertains to kings and princes within their dominions. And that our doctrine is good and theirs false and forged, I will make it manifest by sundry reasons.
Reason 1. Christ must be considered two ways. First, as he is God — and so is he an absolute king over all things in heaven and earth, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, by the right of creation. Second, he is a king as he is redeemer of mankind, and by the right of redemption he is a sovereign king over the whole Church, and that in a special manner. Now as Christ is God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he has his deputies on earth to govern the world — namely kings and princes, who are therefore in Scripture called gods. But as Christ is Mediator, and consequently a king over his redeemed ones, he has neither fellow nor deputy. No fellow, for then he should be an imperfect mediator. No deputy, for no creature is capable of this office to do in the room and stead of Christ that which he himself does — because every work of the Mediator is a compound work arising from the effects of two natures concurring in one and the same action, namely the Godhead and the manhood. Therefore to the effecting of the said work there is required an infinite power, which far exceeds the strength of any created nature. Again, Hebrews 7:24 says Christ has a priesthood which cannot pass from his person to any other. Whence it follows that neither his kingly nor his prophetical office can pass from him to any creature, either in whole or in part, because the three offices of mediation in this regard are equal. Nay, it is a needless thing for Christ to have a deputy to put in execution any part of his mediatorship, since a deputy only serves to supply the absence of the principal — whereas Christ is always present with his Church by his word and Spirit. For where two or three are gathered together in his name, he is in the midst among them. It may be said that the ministers in the work of the ministry are deputies of Christ. I answer that they are no deputies but active instruments. For in the preaching of the word there are two actions: the first is the uttering or propounding of it to the ear; the second is the inward operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart, which indeed is the principal and belongs to Christ alone, the action of speaking in the minister being only instrumental. Thus likewise the church of God in cutting off any member by excommunication is no more than an instrument performing a ministry in the name of Christ, and that is to testify and pronounce whom Christ himself has cut off from the kingdom of heaven. This one conclusion overthrows not only the Pope's supremacy but also many other points of popery.
Reason 2. All the Apostles in regard of power and authority were equal, for the apostolic commission both for right and execution was given equally to them all, as the very words import. Matthew 28:19: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them, and so on. And the promise, I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is not private to Peter but is made in his person to the rest, according as his confession was in the name of the rest. Thus says Theophylact: They have the power of committing and binding that receive the gift of a bishop as Peter. And Ambrose says: What is said to Peter is said to the Apostles. Therefore Peter had no supremacy over the rest of the Apostles in respect of right to the commission, which they say belonged to him only and the execution thereof to the rest. But let all be granted that Peter was in commission above the rest for the time of his life — yet hence may not any superiority be gathered for the bishops of Rome, because the authority of the Apostles was personal and consequently ceased with them, without being conveyed to any other. For the Lord did not vouchsafe the like honor to any after them. For first of all, it was the privilege of the Apostles to be called immediately and to see the Lord Jesus. Secondly, they had power to give the gift of the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. Thirdly, they had such a measure of the assistance of the Spirit that in their public sermons and in writing of the word they could not err. And these things were all denied to those that followed after them. And that their authority ceased in their persons stands with reason also, because it was given in so ample a manner for the founding of the Church of the New Testament, which being once founded, it was needful only that there should be pastors and teachers for the building of it up to the end of the world.
Reason 3. When the sons of Zebedee sued to Christ for the greatest rooms of honor in his kingdom (deeming he should be an earthly king), Christ answers them: You know that the lords of the Gentiles have dominion, and they that are great exercise authority over them, but it shall not be so with you. Bernard applies these very words to Pope Eugenius on this manner: It is plain, says he, that here dominion is forbidden the Apostles. Go to then — dare if you will to take upon you a ruling apostleship, or in your apostleship rule or dominion. If you will have both alike, you shall lose both. Otherwise you must not think yourself exempted from the number of those of whom the Lord complains: They have reigned but not of me; they have been, and I have not known them.
Reason 4. Ephesians 4 makes mention of gifts which Christ gave to his Church after his ascension, whereby some were apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. Now if there had been an office in which men as deputies of Christ should have governed the whole Church to the end of the world, the calling might here have been named fitly with a gift pertaining thereto. And Paul (no doubt) would not here have concealed it, where he mentions callings of lesser importance.
Reason 5. The Pope's supremacy was judged by sentences of Scripture and condemned long before it was manifest in the world, the spirit of prophecy foreseeing and foretelling the state of things to come. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4: The man of sin (which is that Antichrist) shall exalt himself above all that is called God. Now this whole chapter with all its circumstances most fitly agrees to the see of Rome and the head thereof. And the thing which then stayed the revealing of the man of sin (verse 6) is by most expounded to be the Roman Emperor. I will allege one testimony in the room of many. Chrysostom says on this place: As long as the empire shall be had in awe, no man shall strictly submit himself to Antichrist. But after that the empire shall be dissolved, Antichrist shall invade the vacant seat of empire and shall labor to pull to himself the empire both of man and God. And this we find now in experience to be true, for the see of Rome never flourished until the empire decayed and the seat thereof was removed from the city of Rome. Again, Revelation 13 makes mention of two beasts: one coming out of the sea, whom the Papists confess to be the heathenish Roman Emperor; the second coming out of the earth, which does all that the first beast could do before him. This fitly agrees to the popes of Rome, who do and have done all things that the Emperor did or could do, and that in his very sight.
Reason 6: The judgment of the ancient Church. Cyprian says: Doubtless the rest of the Apostles were what Peter was — endued with equal fellowship both of honor and of power. But a beginning is made of unity, that the Church may appear to be one. Gregory says: If one be called universal bishop, the universal Church goes to decay. And: I say boldly that whoever calls or desires to call himself universal priest, in his pride is a forerunner of Antichrist. And: Behold, in the preface of the epistle which you directed to me, you caused to be set a proud title, calling me universal Pope. Bernard: Consider that you are not a lord of bishops, but one of them. Churches are maimed in that the Roman bishop draws all power to himself. Again, Gregory himself being Pope says to the Emperor: I who am subject to your commandment have in every way discharged what was due, in that I have performed my allegiance to the Emperor and have not concealed what I thought on God's behalf. And Pope Leo the Fourth, after Gregory by two hundred years, acknowledged the Emperor Lothair as his sovereign prince and professed obedience without gainsaying to his imperial commandments.
To conclude: whereas they say that there is a double head of the Church — one imperial which is Christ alone, the other ministerial which is the Pope governing the whole Church under Christ — I answer this distinction robs Christ of his honor. Because in setting up their ministerial head, they are forced to borrow of Christ things proper to him, as the privilege to forgive sins properly, and the power to govern the whole earth by making laws that shall as truly bind conscience as the laws of God.
Our consent.
On the point of ecclesiastical supremacy, I will set out in two conclusions how close we can come to the Roman Church. Conclusion 1. For the founding of the early church, the ministry of the word was organized in degrees — not only of order but also of authority — and Peter was called to the highest degree. Ephesians 4:11: Christ ascended on high and gave gifts to people for the good of His church — some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. One apostle may not have been above another, nor one evangelist above another, nor one pastor above another within their respective ranks — yet an apostle was above an evangelist, and an evangelist above all pastors and teachers. Peter was by calling an apostle, and therefore stood above all evangelists and pastors, holding the highest place in the ministry of the New Testament both in order and authority.
Conclusion 2. Among the twelve apostles, Peter held three privileges or distinctions: of authority, of primacy, and of leadership. First, the privilege of authority — by this I mean a distinction in terms of esteem, by which he was held in greater honor than the other eleven apostles. Cephas, together with James and John, were called pillars and were recognized as prominent (Galatians 2:6, 9). Second, he held the privilege of primacy — he was named first, as the foremost of the group. Matthew 10:2: 'The names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter...' Third, he held the privilege of leadership among the twelve, because in terms of the measure of grace he excelled the rest. When Christ asked His disciples who they said He was, Peter — as the one with the greatest ability and zeal — answered on behalf of them all (Matthew 16:16). I say 'among the twelve' deliberately — because Paul excelled Peter in every way, in learning, zeal, and understanding, as much as Peter excelled the other eleven. This is as close as we can come to the Roman doctrine of supremacy.
The difference.
The Church of Rome gives Peter a supremacy under Christ over all matters and persons — that is, full power to govern and order the entire catholic church on earth, in both doctrine and governance. This supremacy, as they teach, consists in: the power to determine the true meaning of all Scripture; to settle all questions of faith; to convene general councils; to ratify the decrees of those councils; to excommunicate any person on earth within the church, including princes and nations; to properly absolve and forgive sins; to decide cases brought to him by appeal from all parts of the earth; and finally, to make laws that bind the conscience. This fullness of power is unanimously attributed to Peter and to the bishops of Rome who succeed him in an alleged succession. We hold the opposite — that neither Peter nor any bishop of Rome has any supremacy over the catholic church, and that all supremacy under Christ belongs to kings and princes within their own domains. I will demonstrate that our doctrine is correct and theirs is false and fabricated, by several reasons.
Reason 1. Christ must be considered in two ways. First, as He is God — in this capacity He is an absolute king over all things in heaven and earth, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, by right of creation. Second, He is king as the Redeemer of humanity — and by right of redemption He is sovereign king over the whole church, in a special and particular way. Now as Christ is God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, He has deputies on earth to govern the world — namely kings and princes, who are therefore called gods in Scripture. But as Christ is Mediator, and thus king over His redeemed people, He has neither equal nor deputy. No equal — for that would make Him an imperfect mediator. No deputy — because no creature is capable of acting in Christ's place in the way that He Himself acts, since every work of the Mediator is a compound work arising from the effects of two natures working together in one and the same action — the divine nature and the human nature. To accomplish that work requires infinite power, which far exceeds the capacity of any created being. Furthermore, Hebrews 7:24 states that Christ holds a priesthood that cannot be transferred from His person to any other. It follows that neither His kingly nor His prophetic office can pass from Him to any creature — either in whole or in part — since all three offices of mediation are equal in this regard. Moreover, it would be pointless for Christ to have a deputy to carry out any part of His mediatorship — since a deputy only serves to cover the absence of the one in authority, and Christ is always present with His church through His word and Spirit. For where two or three are gathered in His name, He is there among them. It might be said that ministers are Christ's deputies in their ministry. My answer is that they are not deputies but active instruments. In the preaching of the word there are two actions: first, the speaking and delivering of the word to the ear; second, the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the heart — which is the principal action and belongs to Christ alone. The minister's speaking is only instrumental. In the same way, when the church cuts off a member through excommunication, it is no more than an instrument carrying out a ministry in Christ's name — declaring and testifying whom Christ Himself has cut off from the kingdom of heaven. This single conclusion dismantles not only the pope's supremacy but also many other points of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Reason 2. All the apostles were equal in power and authority — the apostolic commission, both in right and in practice, was given equally to them all, as the very words make plain. Matthew 28:19: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them...' And the promise, 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' is not personal to Peter alone — it was made in his person on behalf of the rest, just as his confession was made in the name of the rest. Theophylact says: 'Those who receive the gift of a bishop as Peter did receive the power of binding and loosing.' Ambrose says: 'What is said to Peter is said to the apostles.' Therefore Peter had no supremacy over the other apostles in terms of the right to the commission — which the Roman Catholics claim belonged to him alone, with only its execution passing to the rest. But even if we granted that Peter held a superior commission above the rest for the duration of his life — still no authority for the bishops of Rome could be derived from this, because the apostles' authority was personal and therefore ended with them, not being transferred to anyone else. The Lord did not grant the same honor to those who came after them. The apostles had three unique privileges: first, they were called directly and had seen the Lord Jesus; second, they had the power to confer the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands; third, they had such a measure of the Spirit's assistance that in their public preaching and in writing the word they could not err. All these things were denied to those who followed them. It also stands to reason that their authority ended with their persons — because it was given in such an extraordinary measure specifically for the founding of the New Testament church. Once that church was founded, what was needed going forward was simply pastors and teachers to build it up until the end of the world.
Reason 3. When the sons of Zebedee asked Christ for the highest positions of honor in His kingdom — thinking He would establish an earthly kingdom — Christ answered them: 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you.' Bernard applies these very words to Pope Eugenius in this way: 'It is plain,' he says, 'that dominion is here forbidden to the apostles. Go then — dare, if you will, to claim for yourself a ruling apostleship, or to exercise rulership and dominion alongside apostleship. If you insist on having both alike, you will lose both. Otherwise, do not think yourself excluded from the number of those about whom the Lord says: "They have reigned, but not by Me; they have been princes, but I did not recognize them."'
Reason 4. Ephesians 4 lists the gifts Christ gave to His church after His ascension — by which some were apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. If there had been an ongoing office through which persons as Christ's deputies were to govern the whole church to the end of the world, that calling would most naturally have been named here, along with its corresponding gift. Paul would certainly not have left it out here, where he mentions offices of lesser importance.
Reason 5. The pope's supremacy was judged by Scripture and condemned long before it appeared in the world — the spirit of prophecy foreseeing and foretelling what was to come. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4: 'The man of lawlessness' — that is, the Antichrist — 'will exalt himself over everything that is called God.' The entire chapter, with all its details, fits the see of Rome and its head most precisely. What was restraining the revealing of the man of lawlessness at that time (verse 6) is interpreted by most as the Roman Emperor. One quotation in place of many: Chrysostom says on this passage: 'As long as the empire commands fear, no one will fully submit himself to Antichrist. But when the empire is dissolved, Antichrist will seize the vacant seat of the empire and will strive to pull to himself the dominion over both humanity and God.' We find this confirmed by experience — the see of Rome never flourished until the empire declined and its seat was removed from the city of Rome. Furthermore, Revelation 13 speaks of two beasts: one coming out of the sea, which even the Roman Catholics acknowledge to be the pagan Roman Emperor; and a second coming out of the earth, which does everything the first beast had done before it. This fits the popes of Rome, who have done and continue to do everything the Emperor did or could do — and that in his very sight.
Reason 6: The testimony of the ancient church. Cyprian says: 'Without doubt the rest of the apostles were what Peter was — endowed with an equal share of honor and power. But a beginning of unity is made in order that the church may appear to be one.' Gregory says: 'If any bishop is called universal, the universal church goes to ruin.' And: 'I say boldly that whoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, in his pride is a forerunner of Antichrist.' And: 'Look, in the introduction to the letter you sent me, you have caused a proud title to be written, calling me universal Pope.' Bernard says: 'Understand that you are not lord of the bishops but one of them. The churches are being crippled because the Roman bishop draws all power to himself.' Gregory himself, as pope, said to the Emperor: 'I who am subject to your command have in every way done my duty — I have performed my allegiance to the Emperor and have not concealed what I believed on God's behalf.' And Pope Leo IV, two hundred years after Gregory, acknowledged the Emperor Lothair as his sovereign prince and professed his obedience to his imperial commands without objection.
In conclusion: when the Roman Catholics say there is a double head of the church — one supreme, which is Christ alone, and the other ministerial, which is the pope governing the whole church under Christ — I answer that this distinction robs Christ of His honor. For in establishing their ministerial head, they are forced to borrow from Christ things that belong to Him alone — such as the privilege of truly forgiving sins, and the power to govern the whole earth by making laws that bind the conscience just as truly as the laws of God.
