What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?

Whatever men may say, the church has no head but Christ. The Head of the body is in heaven, and there is no earthly head. Peter was the apostle of the circumcision, and Paul the apostle of the Gentiles; both had outstanding gifts from Christ and peculiar administrations, but neither claimed to be the church's earthly head, nor is it claimed for either in the Holy Scriptures. Direction for the church is vested only in the Head, and His mind for us is found in the Word, which suffices for our every need. To carry out the will of God, the divine resources of heavenly grace in the Head are available for us. Christ has been made everything to us and for us; the wisdom, authority and strength necessary to carry out anything in the assembly today resides in Him, and it is for us to draw upon Christ, and in this way prove how real His Headship to the church is.

Christ is the sole Head of His Body, the Church, and He has no man for His Vicar on earth. It is He who (in the language of the apocalyptic visions) holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the golden lampstands, which are the churches. The Holy Spirit is His Representative on earth, administering things on His behalf (1 Cor. 12:4-11) .

We do not need a Pope, nor a Moderator, nor an Archbishop, Christ is the Head of the church. When we hear about leaders in the church they are always in the plural, never in the singular. When any company of believers say they have a leader, and they obey him implicitly without examining what he says as to the word of God, they will be sure to be led into error. Listen to what I am emphasising, it is to guard the unique place Christ has. He is the Head of the body, He is the Son over God's house and the church maintains for Christ the unique glory that belongs to Him. He is competent to order the affairs of the church without our puny help. He is wise enough to direct the church, He possesses supreme intelligence to declare to the church what He wants done and how He wants it done, and He has already done this in His word. So we are thankful that we do not subscribe to human organisations as to the running of the church, this is in the hands of Christ and wherever it remains in His hand then we can be sure of blessing.

We gather from these Scriptures that the office was local, that is an overseer in Ephesus would not be an overseer in Corinth. Further, there were a number of overseers in each assembly, their number probably regulated by the size of the assembly. The idea of jurisdiction over a diocese is not found in Scripture. Instead of one bishop over many clergy, there were several overseers in one assembly.

First of all let us look at the chapter I have read in 1st Timothy, because it gives us a detailed account of the moral qualifications necessary for these two local offices, bishops and deacons. The office of a bishop, or overseer, as given in Scripture, is a distinctly local office, relating to an assembly in a given place, and not an ecclesiastical prelate, placed over scores of other servants of God, scattered over a large tract of country. Again, the office of a deacon is purely and distinctly a local office. The bishopric which Paul speaks of, is not the position of a solitary head over a diocese, but was always a conjoint office with others, equally styled bishops, overseers, or elders, and only conferred by apostolic choice and appointment, or by the appointment of an apostolic delegate. The apostle, in detailing what the moral qualifications of the bishop ought to be, begins, "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work." What is a bishop? He is an overseer. In the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, when Paul was come to Miletus, "he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church." There were a multiplicity of elders in Ephesus, it is to be observed. "And when they were come to him, he said to them, Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood." You have two words in this chapter. He sent for "the elders," and called them "overseers." The latter word, in the original, is the same as is rendered "bishop" in the third of 1st Timothy. Similarly we read of the Lord as being "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (1 Peter 2:25). You thus see plainly enough that elders, or bishops, or overseers, not an elder, or a bishop, was the state of matters at Ephesus, in apostolic days, and such as was there the case, was also the case in more assemblies than one. In writing to the Philippians, the apostle addresses the epistle to the bishops and deacons, among others. "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Philip. 1:1). Everything was then in beautiful order, and it is to be observed, that when Paul wrote his first epistle to Timothy, the Church was in order. The assemblies were then walking in Divine order; and what we have in Timothy's first epistle are the instructions given to that servant of Christ how to behave himself, and to walk when the Church is in order. In his second epistle he gets instructions how to walk, in the day when the Church is all in disorder, which is the day you and I are in.

First, remark that the word "bishops" in the word of God does not mean what it does now. There were bishops and deacons in the church at Philippi; there were bishops in the church of Ephesus, called also elders of the church. You have "overseers" in the English version, of Acts 20:28, for bishops, which is indeed the meaning of the word. This is equally plain in Timothy and Titus; so in Acts 14. The apostle chose them for every city. There is no one stationary president of any church in the New Testament, unless we take James at Jerusalem to be such; but then he presides over apostles, which is an awkward position for a bishop. I know Timothy and Titus are alleged to be such. That they were on certain occasions entrusted by the apostles with the care of one or several churches is true, but we do not find them in the scripture locally resident as such anywhere. They were at the apostles' service elsewhere afterwards, as need called for it, according to Christ's will. All this is uncontested and incontestable. Tradition localized them afterwards; scripture does not. That very soon indeed there were local presidents, who very early got the name of bishops, I do not contest; but the origin of this lies historically buried in the most absolute obscurity.

Father O. This passage then shews clearly that the church is built on Peter, and that the church built on him can never be overthrown. To him also the keys are given, and what he bound on earth was to be bound in heaven. And it could not be to him only, and then the church fail, for it was never to fail. Hence his successors must have this same authority, that is, as all admit, the pope. In confirmation of this, we find him always named the first among the apostles, as he was the first called also. Thus it is as clear as anything can make it that he had the pre-eminence, and so his successors. He always spoke the first, and took the lead. He was the president of the college of apostles, as we see all through the Acts. In the same way, after His resurrection, the Lord committed His sheep to Peter, saying, "Feed my sheep," giving him universal dominion over the church. And this was always recognized by the church, as the testimony of the fathers proves.

103 Thus Origen so very early says (Hom. 5 in Exod.), "See what is said by the Lord to that great foundation and most solid rock upon which Christ has founded His church, 'O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt'"? So Athanasius, in his epistle to Felix, and, indeed, the Alexandrian Synod with Him, "Thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation the pillars of the church, that is, the bishops, are established." Gregory Nazianzen says, in his oration on moderation in discussions, "Peter is called a rock, and has the foundation of the church trusted to his faith." Again, Epiphanius (in Ancorato), "The Lord constituted Peter, the first of the apostles, a firm rock on which the church of God is built." So Chrysostom (Hom. 55 on Matt.), "The Lord says, Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my church." So Cyril, "Commodiously shewing by that word (Peter), that on him, as on a rock and most firm stone, He was going to build His church." So among the Latin fathers. Tertullian, in his remarkable book on prescription, says, "Was anything hid from Peter, called the rock of the church which was to be built?" And Hilary, "Oh! in the gift of a new name, happy foundation of the church. Oh rock! worthy of the building of it which should dissolve the laws of the infernal regions." And the martyr Cyprian, "The Lord chose Peter first, and built His church on him." And Jerome, "According to the metaphor of a rock, it is rightly said to him, 'I will build my church upon thee.'" So Ambrose. I might add a crowd of other fathers, as Augustine, but I refer to these as both ancient and of just renown in the whole church.

Only I would remark to you that Jerome refers it not only to the person but to the See of Peter. And to close all with a still greater authority, the whole Council of Chalcedon (Action 3) of 630 fathers declares Peter the foundation and basis of the church. The words which follow this declaration that he is the rock shew the extent of dominion conferred upon him. "Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, et quodcunque ligaveris supra terram erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcunque solveris supra terram erit solutum et in coelis." "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

Let us see that the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens were given to him. The Kingdom of the heavens is not heaven nor is it the church, and upon this fact rests the true meaning of the words before us. Notice the place Peter has in the church, not different from the place every believer holds in the assembly through the Grace of God, is given first and when the Lord speaks of giving him keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, He confers upon him authority for actions not in the church, but in the Kingdom of the heavens. It is therefore wrong to say that the Lord gave the keys of the church to Peter, except one assumes (which is so often done) that the church and the Kingdom are identical.

We have learned before (Matt, 13) what we have to understand by the Kingdom of the heavens in its present form. It embraces the entire sphere of Christian profession, all Christendom. Every one who confesses the name of Christ is in the Kingdom of the heavens, though that one may not at all be a true believer. This Kingdom of the heavens is in existence in the earth during the absence of the King; it is committed into the hands of men, and it is to be administered by men. Now, if the Lord tells Peter that He will give to him the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, He puts the administration of the Kingdom into his hands. The question arises next, Did the Lord assign to Peter a special place distinct from the other disciples? Are the keys peculiar to Peter and only to Peter? Was Peter to have these keys exclusively? These are important questions.

It is easily proven that the Lord did not mean to single out Peter and give to him a work distinct from the other disciples, nor did he give him a peculiar place or one of supremacy.

But when you say, "Has any institution," etc., you upset your own system. When you went upon apostolic succession, you gave us the succession of all the sees in the world as securing sound doctrine; now it is only at Rome, and nowhere else. Which is true? If it be only at Rome, the security you gave us for doctrine is entirely gone, and the universality and apostolicity of the church so called with it; you destroy your own groundwork. But further, "the name of every pope, from Peter to Pius IX, you tell us may be seen in every bookseller's shop." Nay, not only so, "but should any claim this dignity without being legitimately appointed, he would be hurled from the chair of Peter as a usurper by the united voices of the Christian world." Indeed! How came it, then, that for seventy years there were two (and half Europe obeying one, and the other half the other), and part of the time three? Which of these was legitimate? and are both of them in the lists in the booksellers' shops and Catholic libraries? Your foundations are rotten here, and your eloquence rash. The popedom is a great worldly prize. Already in the fourth century you will remember Damasus and Ursicinus contended for it, and there was what amounted to a civil war, and abundant bloodshed; and Damasus beat his opponent and was pope — a strange successor to Peter, though he be such in the booksellers' shops!

119 Peter's apostolic position, then, I own, as apostle of the circumcision, and first among the twelve; but that the command was given to every successor of Peter to the end of the world is a mere chimera. Scripture excludes the idea. It is Barjonas who was blessed, because of the revelation of the Father to him.

Ordination applied only to rule. It was an apostolic act conferring, by divine direction, special authority of oversight and rule upon elder men in the various assemblies. This was connected, let it be always remembered, with the prerogative of an apostle. In one sense they are right who claim no true ordination without apostolic succession. The difficulty is, who and where are the successors of the apostles? Rome claims lineal descent from Peter, and insists that all that was committed to him is now hers to administer through the pope. I do not enter into the blasphemy of their claim for the pope. Peter himself was never the "vicar of Christ." The Holy Ghost is the only vicar of Christ, and it comes perilously near blasphemy against Him for any one to arrogate to himself such a title.