|
CONCERNING
HOLY ORDERS From
the 23rd Session SECTION
I Concerning
the Sacrament of Order, etc. Examination 1
...They shout loudly that those who do not approve the priesthood of the
papalists take away all order out of the church, that with infinite
confusion they prostitute the ministry to any one of the common people and
(something which Tertullian ascribes to the heretics) make laymen out of
priests and enjoin priestly functions to laymen, with the result that
there is neither any authority nor dignity of the ministry, etc. Therefore
this slander must first of all be removed. Now
the Anabaptists and Enthusiasts are rightly disapproved, who either take
the use of the external ministry of Word and sacrament entirely out of the
church, or imagine that it is useless and unnecessary. For they teach that
new and special revelations should rather be sought and expected from God
without the use of the external ministry of Word and sacrament, and that
this kind of calling, illumination, and conversion is much more excellent
and worthy of honor than if we use the voice of the ministry. And indeed,
it is God by whose power, working, efficacy, impulse, and inspiration
whatever pertains to calling, illumination, conversion, repentance, faith,
renewal, and in short, to the business of our salvation is begun,
effected, increased, and preserved in men. But God arranged by a certain
counsel of His that He wills to dispense these things, not by infusing new
and special revelations, illuminations, and movements into the minds of
men without any means, but through the outward ministry of the Word.
This ministry He did not commit to angels, so that their appearances are
to be sought and expected, but He put the Word of reconciliation into
men, and He wills that the proclamation of the Gospel, divinely
revealed, should sound forth through them. 2
All Christians are indeed priests (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6), because they
offer spiritual sacrifices to God. Everyone also can and should teach
the Word of God in his own house (Deut. 6:7; 1 Cor. 14:35).
Nevertheless, not everyone ought to take and arrogate to himself the
public ministry of Word and sacrament. For not all are apostles; not all
are teachers (1 Cor. 12:29), but those who have been set apart for this
ministry by God through a particular and legitimate call (Acts 13:2; Jer.
23:21; Rom. 10:15). This is done either immediately or mediately. Paul
prescribes a legitimate manner of calling which is made through the voice
of the church (1 Tim. 3:2–7; and Titus 1:5–9). Christ Himself
indeed called certain men to this ministry immediately, in order to show
that He approves the ministry of those who are chosen and called by the
voice of the church according to the rule prescribed by the apostles, as
will be explained more fully later. There is added also the promise
that God will truly work effectively through the ministry of those who
teach the Gospel, which the Son of God wills to preserve in the church
through perpetual calling, as Paul says in Eph. 4:8 ff.:He ascended;
He gave gifts to men; and He gave some to be apostles, some prophets,
others evangelists, others however pastors and teachers for perfecting of
the saints in the work of ministry, in edification of the body of Christ.
To this use of the ministry, which God both instituted and preserves in
the church, men must therefore be guided, and taught that through this
ministry there are offered to us eternal blessings, and indeed that God in
this way receives us, rescues us from sin and the power of the devil and
from eternal death, and restores to us righteousness and eternal life. 3
This ministry does indeed have power, divinely bestowed (2 Cor.
10:4–6; 13:2–4), but circumscribed with certain duties and
limitations, namely, to preach the Word of God, teach the erring, reprove
those who sin, admonish the dilatory, comfort the troubled, strengthen the
weak, resist those who speak against the truth, reproach and condemn false
teaching, censure evil customs, dispense the divinely instituted
sacraments, remit and retain sins, be an example to the flock, pray for
the church privately and lead the church in public prayers, be in charge
of care for the poor, publicly excommunicate the stubborn and again
receive those who repent and reconcile them with the church, appoint
pastors to the church according to the instruction of Paul, with consent
of the church institute rites that serve the ministry and do not militate
against the Word of God nor burden consciences but serve good order,
dignity, decorum, tranquillity, edification, etc. For these are the things
which belong to these two chief points, namely, to the power of order and
the power of jurisdiction.... 6
...Therefore let a comparison be made! Christ says: “Go, teach,
preach, baptize”
(Matt. 28:19–20; Mark 16:15). Paul says: “A bishop must hold firm to
the sure Word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in
sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it”
(Titus 1:9). He must be an apt teacher (1 Tim. 3:2), must attend to
reading and teaching (1 Tim. 4:13), must rebuke those who sin, in the
presence of all (1 Tim 5:20), etc. Therefore the apostles unburdened
themselves of other duties, in order that they might be able to devote
themselves to teaching and prayer (Acts 6:4). Paul says: “Christ did not
send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel” (1
Cor. 1:17). These things, which
Christ and the apostles declare to belong to the ministry of the Word,
that is, the priesthood, the papalists remove from the substance of their
priesthood. Also they do not want the dispensation of Baptism and the
distribution of the Eucharist to belong properly to their priesthood.
Therefore the papalists remove and separate from their priesthood all the
things of which, according to the teaching of Scripture, the ministry of
the New Testament consists. They
establish as the essence of their priesthood the sacrifice of the body and
blood of Christ in the Mass, which was brought into the church without,
yes, contrary to Scripture, as was shown under the topic concerning the
Mass.... 7
They have only one argument, namely, that in the Old Testament there was a
priesthood for offering sacrifices and that there is in the New Testament
a fulfillment of the shadows of the Old. But you cannot construct the
priesthood of the papalists from this. For the Epistle to the Hebrews
teaches at great length that the sacrifices of the Old Testament have been
fulfilled and completed in the New by the one sacrifice of Christ, our
true High Priest. But they say: Yet Paul argues (2 Cor. 3:7–11) that if
the ministry of the Old Testament had its own splendor, the splendor of
the ministry of the New Testament will be much greater. I answer: What
this ministry of the New Testament is and what duties belong to it must
not be established by a bad imitation of the ceremonies of the Old
Testament but must be learned from the description of Christ and the
apostles in the New Testament. SECTION
II [Concerning
the Seven Orders] Examination 1
In this topic the papalists fight about the seven orders, that is, about
the shadow, or rather about the mask, of empty titles, while the things
themselves neither exist nor are any longer present in their church.
Nevertheless, they do not do this for nothing, but on account of the fat
allowances which were annexed to these titles at the time when genuine
functions of the ministry were still connected with them. In order that
they might be able to retain the benefits of these allowances with some
show of right when these offices had broken down and been discontinued,
they made so many sacraments of empty titles, and for this reason they
fight for this their Helen. 2
The fact of the matter is this: Because many duties belong to the
ministry of the church which cannot all conveniently be performed by one
person or by a few, when the believers are very numerous—in order,
therefore, that all things may be done in an orderly way, decently, and
for edification, these duties of the ministry began, as the assembly of
the church grew great, to be distributed among certain ranks of ministers
which they afterward called taxeis (ranks) or tagmata (orders), so that
each might have, as it were, a certain designated station in which he
might serve the church in certain duties of the ministry. Thus in the
beginning the apostles took care of the ministry of the Word and the
sacraments and at the same time also of the distribution and dispensation
of alms. Afterward, however, as the number of disciples increased, they
entrusted that part of the ministry which has to do with alms to others,
whom they called deacons. They also state the reason why they do
this—that they might be able to devote themselves more diligently to the
ministry of the Word and to prayer, without diversions. (Acts 6:1–4) 3
This first origin of ranks or orders of ministry in the apostolic
church shows what ought to be the cause, what the reason, purpose, and use
of such ranks or orders—that for the welfare of the assembly of the
church the individual duties which belong to the ministry might be
attended to more conveniently, rightly, diligently, and orderly, with a
measure of dignity and for edification. And because the apostles afterward
accepted into the ministry of teaching those from among the deacons who
were approved, as Stephen and Philip, we gather that this also is a use of
these ranks or orders, that men are first prepared or tested in minor
duties so that afterward heavier duties may more safely and profitably be
entrusted to them. That is what Paul says in 1 Tim. 3:10: “Let them also
be tested first, and so let them minister.”
Likewise: “Those who serve well as deacons will gain a good rank for
themselves.” [Chemnitz here follows the Vlugate reading in 1 Timothy
3:13.] Thus there were in the worship service of the church at Antioch
(Acts 13:1) prophets and teachers, of whom the former either prophesied of
future events or interpreted the more difficult passages of Scripture (1
Cor. 14:29–32), while the latter set forth the elements of Christian
doctrine to the people (Heb. 5:12–14). Paul and Barnabas receive Mark
into the ministry (Acts 13:5) not merely in order that he might render
bodily services to them but so that they might be able to entrust some
parts of the ministry of the Word to him, as Paul expressly says (Acts
15:38). There were in the church at Corinth apostles, prophets, and
teachers; some spoke in tongues, some interpreted, some had psalms, some
prayers, benedictions, and giving of thanks, not in private exercises but
in public assemblies of the church. (1 Cor. 12:28–30; 14:26–27) In
Eph. 4:11 the following ranks of ministers are listed: (1) apostles, who
were not called to some certain church, and who had not been called
through men, but immediately by Christ, and had the command to teach
everywhere, and were furnished with the testimony of the Spirit and of
miracles, that they might not err in doctrine but that their doctrine
might be divine and heavenly, to which all the other teachers should be
bound; (2) prophets, who either had revelations of future events or
interpreted tongues and the Scriptures for the more advanced, for these
things are ascribed to the prophets of the New Testament in 1 Cor. 14; (3)
evangelists, who were not apostles and yet were not bound to some one
certain church but were sent to different churches to teach the Gospel
there, but chiefly to lay the first foundations; such an evangelist was
Philip (Acts 21:8), and Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5), Tychicus, Sylvanus, etc.;
that there were such evangelists also after the times of the apostles
Eusebius testifies, Bk. 3, ch. 37, etc.; (4) pastors, who were placed over
a certain flock, as Peter shows (1 Peter 5:2–3), and who not only taught
but administered the sacraments and had the oversight over their hearers,
as Ezekiel (34:2?
ff.) describes the pastoral office; (5) teachers, to whom the chief
governance or oversight of the church was not entrusted but who only set
the doctrine before the people in a simple manner, such as the catechists
were later; thus Paul (Rom. 2:20) speaks of “a teacher of children,”
and the word “teach”
is expressly used in this sense in Heb. 5:12. All these ranks the apostles
include under the terms “presbytery”
and “episcopacy.” Sometimes they also call those to whom the ministry of Word and
sacrament has been committed by the term “minister”
(“servant”).
(Col. 1:7, 23; 1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Cor. 3:6; 11:23; Eph. 3:7) Also
Paul himself sometimes performed the ministry of the Word in such a way
that he entrusted the administration of the sacraments to others. 1 Cor.
1:17: “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel.”
And in 1 Tim. 1:17 he mentions two kinds of presbyters, of whom some
labored in preaching and teaching, while others had been placed in charge
of ecclesiastical discipline. Tertullian also mentions this kind of
presbytery, Apologeticus, ch. 39. This about completes the list of ranks
into which we read that the ecclesiastical ministry was divided at the
time of the apostles.... 5
However, because of the present dispute, the following reminder must be
added: (1) that there is no command in the Word of God, which or how many
such ranks or orders there should be; (2) that there were not at the time
of the apostles in all churches and at all times the same and the same
number of ranks or orders, as can be clearly ascertained from the epistles
of Paul, written to various churches; (3) that there was not, at the time
of the apostles, such a division of these ranks, but repeatedly one and
the same person held and performed all the duties which belong to the
ministry, as is clear from the apostolic history. Therefore such orders
were free at the time of the apostles and were observed for the sake of
good order, decorum, and edification, except that at that time certain
special gifts, such as tongues, prophecies, apostolate, and miracles, were
bestowed on certain persons by God. These ranks, about which we have
spoken until now, were not something beside and beyond the ministry of the
Word and sacraments, but the real and true duties of the ministry were
distributed among certain ranks for the reasons already set forth. 6
This example of the apostles the primitive church imitated for the same
reason and in similar liberty. For the grades of the duties of the
ministry were distributed, not however in identically the same way as in
the church at Corinth or in that at Ephesus, but according to the
circumstances obtaining in each church. From this one can gather what
freedom there was in the distribution of the ranks.... Dionysius,
Hierarchia, ch. 5, expressly names only three orders: (1) that of
the “chief priest,”
to whom he ascribes the highest and most complete office of teaching,
explaining all mysteries of Christ, and administering the sacraments; (2)
that of “the priests,”
who more fully taught those who had been instructed as catechumens, led
them to the bishop and assisted in matters belonging to the administration
of the sacraments; (3) that of “the liturgists,”
to whom he assigned the duty of purifying and preparing those who were to
be initiated, that is, to be instructed in the rudiments. And in ch. 3 he
says: “Through the office of ministers the reading of sacred Scripture
is recited in its place.”
Likewise: “Some of the ministers stand ready to close the forecourts of
the temple when the catechumens, the penitents, and the possessed are put
out; others have another duty—they disrobe the person to be baptized,”
etc. You see that he enumerates many duties of the ministry but
nevertheless does not ascribe special orders to each one, but names only
three orders. The Canones Apostolorum name bishop, presbyter,
deacon, lector, and cantor. However, no mention is made of the doorkeeper,
exorcist, or acolyte. Ambrose, on Eph. 4, in describing the ranks of
offices of the ministry in his time, enumerates bishops, presbyters,
deacons, lectors, exorcists. In a booklet about the seven ranks of the
clergy which is ascribed to Jerome, exorcists and acolytes are not
enumerated. Therefore the assertion about these seven orders is not a
catholic dogma. Indeed, some of the ancients enumerate more than these
seven orders. The epistle of Ignatius adds tous kopioontas, whom
Epiphanius calls kopiazontas. The booklet of Jerome calls them fossores
(diggers), namely, men who took care of funerals and buried the dead. The
Greeks had the peculiar office of the syngeli. Ignatius adds to the
orders “confessors”,
Clement adds “catechists.”
The canonists count nine orders, for they add psalmists and bishops. From
this there afterward arose the multiplication of ecclesiastical orders.
For Cyrian, Bk. 3, Letter No. 22, shows that the discipline was such that
nothing which had to be done in the church and in church matters could be
done by any save clerics, even if it did not properly pertain to the
ministry of the Word. And therefore it was necessary that the footmen or
servants of bishops and presbyters be clerics. From among the clerics
there were afterward taken stewards, guards, chief stewards, and
majordomos. Therefore clerics were persons who by a special and rather
strict training were formed and prepared for service to the church. And
these were first employed in certain lesser duties, in order that their
zeal, diligence, faithfulness, and dignity might be tested, to see whether
they would in future be fit for greater and more important duties of the
ministry. And in the more populous churches, especially when people had to
assemble from all sides, from the country, from the villages and small
cities, to a metropolitan church, especially at the more solemn feasts, as
many ancient canons teach, one or even a few were not able to perform all
individual duties of the ministry. 7
Therefore the ranks or orders were distinguished, not by empty titles but
according to certain duties that belonged to the ministry of the church.
The bishop taught the Word of God and had charge of the church’s
discipline. The presbyters taught and administered the sacraments. The
deacons were in charge of the treasuries of the church, in order from them
to provide sustenance for the poor and in particular for the ministers of
the church. Afterward the deacons also began to be employed for assisting
with a certain part of the ministry of the bishop and the presbyters, as
also Jerome testifies, Ad Rusticum, such as for reading something
publicly from the Scriptures, for teaching, exhorting, etc., admonishing
the people to be attentive, to turn their hearts to the Lord, to proclaim
peace, to prepare the things which belong to the administration of the
sacraments, distribute the sacraments to the people, take those who are to
be ordained to the bishop, to remind bishops about matters which pertain
to discipline, etc. However, Jerome complains, Ad Rusticum Narbonensem,
that so many such things had been laid on the deacons, especially in the
Roman church, which were outside of the apostolic discipline and the
custom of the other churches, that among the deacons the first and true
duty of deacons had been all but forgotten. For because the deacons were
occupied with these new duties, subdeacons were placed under them; they
collected the offerings of the faithful which were contributed for the
sustenance of the poor and the ministers. Besides
these there were lectors, who read publicly to the people from the
Scriptures, especially from the Old Testament, for the reading of the New
Testament was thereafter given to the deacons. There were psalmists or
cantors, who sang first what the whole assembly was accustomed to sing.
There were doorkeepers, who at the time of the sacrament, after the
announcement by the deacon, put out of the church the Gentiles,
catechumens, penitents, the possessed, heretics, and persons who had been
excommunicated, for thus Dionysius describes this office. Bishops,
presbyters, and deacons had their famuli, servants, companions, or
followers, whose services they used when necessity demanded it, as Paul
had used the services of Onesimus. They called these men acolytes.
From this the ignorant afterward
made candle bearers. Besides these there were exorcists, who had the gift
of casting out or restraining demons. 8
This distribution of ranks in the more populous churches was useful for
the sake of order, for decorum, and for edification by reason of the
duties which belong to the ministry. In the smaller or less populous
churches such a distribution of ranks was not judged necessary, and also
in the more populous churches a like or identical distribution of these
ranks was not everywhere observed. For this reason, for this use, and with
this freedom many of these ranks of the ancient church are preserved also
among us. 9
I have related these things that it may be possible more readily to show
what has come into controversy in this chapter about the ecclesiastical
ranks or orders. For we do not outrightly reject or condemn the
distribution of these ranks, such as it was in the apostolic and in the
ancient church, but use them in our own churches where necessary and for
edification, in the way we have said. But
this we justly and deservedly rebuke in the papalist orders: 1. They
retain and usurp titles without the reality, and the benefits of the
titles without the duties; for when they had thrown the duties of the
canonical ministry of the Word and sacraments out of their great churches
into the small and lowly chapels in the parishes, where one or two were
compelled to perform all duties of the ministry, they themselves retained
the empty titles without the duties of the ministry.
Nevertheless they did not retain them as empty titles, but retained the
names of the orders on account of the fat allowances. Bishops no longer
taught, presbyters did not administer sacraments to the people, offerings
were no longer contributed since the churches were sufficiently endowed.
What need was there then for either deacons or subdeacons?.... SECTION
III [Whether
Order Is Truly a Sacrament] Examination 1
Here this question is being argued, whether ordination is truly and
properly a sacrament of the New Testament. We must first speak about the
thing itself, in order that we may be able afterward to decide more easily
and correctly about calling it a “sacrament.”
Now there is no doubt that the ministry of the Word and the sacraments
as we have described it above was instituted by the Son of God also in the
New Testament. For the church has a command about calling and appointing
ministers. And the promise is added: 1. God approves the ministry of those
who have been called and set apart for the ministry by the voice of the
church. Thus Paul says (Acts 20:28), of those who had been called
mediately, that the Holy Spirit had made them guardians to feed the church
of God. And in Eph. 4:11 it is written that the Son of God gave as gifts
not only apostles but also pastors and teachers, who are called mediately.
2. The promise is added that God will give grace and gifts by which
those who have been legitimately called will be able rightly, faithfully,
and profitably to do and perform the tasks which belong to the ministry.
John 20:22: “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Likewise [Luke 24:45]: “Then He opened their minds to understand the
Scriptures.” Matt.
28:20: “Lo, I am with you always,”
etc. 1 Tim. 4:14: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you
by prophetic utterance when the … elders laid their hands upon you.”
2 Tim 1:6: “Rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the
laying on of my hands.”
Luke 21:15: “I will give you a mouth and wisdom.”
Matt. 10:19–20: “What you are to say will be given to you in that
hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking
through you.” 3.
This promise is also added, that God is present with the ministry, that
by His blessing He gives the increase to its planting and watering, and
that He is truly efficacious through the ministry to call, enlighten,
convert, give repentance, faith, regeneration, renewal, and, in short, to
dispense through the ministry everything that pertains to our salvation.
Matt. 28:20: “Lo, I am with you always.”
John 20:22–23: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of
any,”
etc. Matt. 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven …
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
According to 2 Cor. 3:6 ff. it is a ministry not of the letter but of the
Spirit, who gives life and takes away the veil from men’s hearts that
they may be converted and set free, so that “with unveiled face,
beholding the glory of the Lord, they may be changed into His likeness.”
2 Cor. 5:19–20: “He has entrusted to us the word of reconciliation. So
we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us.”
2 Cor. 13:3: “Are you seeking proof of Him who is speaking in me, namely
Christ?” Eph. 4:8,
11–14: “He gave gifts to men … apostles, pastors, teachers, for the
equipment of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for building up the
body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the
knowledge of Christ, so that we may not be … driven hither and thither,
and carried about with every wind of doctrine,”
etc. 1 Cor. 3:6: “God gave the growth.”
1 Cor. 15:58: “In the Lord your labor is not in vain.”
Rom. 1:5, 11, 16: “He gave me grace and apostleship to bring about the
obedience of faith …. That I may impart to you some spiritual gift ….
The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith.”
1 Tim. 4:16: “Attend to teaching, for by so doing you will save yourself
and those who will hear you.”
1 Cor. 4:15: “I became your father in Christ through the Gospel.” 2
These very great and comforting promises concerning the ministry ought
to be displayed, as it were, in a prominent place in the church, in order
that the dignity of the ministry might be extolled against the fanatics,
and that those to whom the ministry has been committed may go about their
labors and bear their difficulties with greater eagerness, and that men
may learn to use the ministry reverently. For without the preaching and
hearing of the Word there is no faith, no calling on God, no salvation
(Rom. 10:14). However, no one is able to preach in order that faith may
follow hearing unless he be sent (Rom. 10:15) Moreover, this also is
certain, that the call to the ministry of the Gospel ought to have the
public testimony and the public attestation of the church, on account of
those who run although they were not sent (Jer. 23:21). Therefore the
apostles with some public testimony and public attestation of the church
announced and as it were pointed out the call of those who had been
legitimately chosen for the ministry of the Word and the sacraments. For
the Holy Spirit willed that also Paul, who had been called immediately,
should be declared and designated as the one who should be the apostle of
the Gentiles. In that public approbation, attestation, or announcement,
since it was a public action, the apostles employed the outward rite of
the laying on of hands, which was customary at that time with those
people, in part on account of the public designation of the one called, in
part on account of the prayers and supplications which were made by the
whole church in behalf of the person called. The
rite of laying on hands was extraordinarily suited to this process: 1.
That the person in question might be publicly pointed out to the church
and declared to be legitimately chosen and called. For by this rite Moses points out and declares to the people the
calling of Joshua, his successor. (?Deut.
34:9?) 2.
That by means of this rite the one who had been called might be given
full assurance about his legitimate and divine call and might at the same
time be admonished to devote, give, and as it were vow himself to the
service and worship of God. Thus hands were laid on sacrificial
animals and in this way Joshua was confirmed in his call. 3.
That it might as it were be a public and solemn declaration of the
church before God that the model and rule prescribed by the Holy Spirit
had been observed at the election and calling. Therefore Paul says (1
Tim. 5:22): “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate
in another man’s sins.” 4.
That it might be signified by this visible rite that God approves the
calling which is done by the voice of the church, for just as God chooses
ministers by the voice of the church, so He also approves the calling by
the attestation of the church. Thus the calling of the deacons was
approved (Acts 6:6). And thus it comes about that God bestows grace
through the laying on of hands. 5.
During the prayers, when the name of God was especially invoked over a
certain person, it was customary to employ the imposition of hands, by
which that person was as it were offered to God and set in His sight, with
the request added that God would deign to shower His grace and blessing on
him. Thus Jacob placed his hand on the lads whom he blessed (Gen.
48:14 ff.); thus the elders pray over the sick (James 5:14–15); thus
Christ blessed little children, laying on His hands (Mark 10:13–16). Now
the prayer of a righteous man avails much if it is energoumenee,
that is, full of activity or earnestness. In order, therefore, that men
may consider how necessary the special divine grace and blessing is in
view of the usefulness and difficulty of this gift, in view also of the
hindrances laid in its way by Satan, the world, and the flesh, and that
thus the prayer of the church may come to its aid and be, according to
James, rendered full of activity or earnestness, therefore the outward
rite of the laying on of hands was employed. Fasting
was also added to the prayer (Acts 13:2). And this earnest prayer at
the ordination of ministers is not without effect, because it rests upon a
divine command and promise. This is the meaning of Paul’s words: “The
gift … that is within you through the laying on of … hands.”.... 4
...There is therefore a difference between the promises which are added to
ordination and those which are added to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Besides, there is also a difference in the ceremony or external rite. For
in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper the Son of God Himself prescribed and
commanded a certain external element, a certain ceremony or rite. In
ordination, however, such as we now understand it, Christ Himself applied
an external sign just once, when on the day of His resurrection He
breathed on His disciples (John 20:22). He did not, however, add a command
that the church should imitate that rite of breathing upon the ministers
at their ordination. And in Mark 3:14; Matt. 10:1; Luke 9:1 ff.; 10:1 ff.
He gave authority and power to the apostles and to the 70 disciples when
He committed the ministry to them, but we do not read that He used any
external sign or symbol or rite for this bestowal. Before His ascension,
in Galilee, when He says: “Go into all the world, preach, baptize,”
etc., He indeed adds the promise: “I am with you,”
but He does not use any visible sign or external rite (Matt. 28:19–20;
Mark 16:15–16). Thus at the Last Supper, when He says: “Do this,”
we do not read that He applied any external rite of ordination. It
is also worthy of consideration that when the apostles wanted to apply
some outward rite in ordination, they did not take the visible sign of
breathing on the ordinand, which Christ had used—lest people think that
Christ had given a command about using the rite of breathing on them.
Therefore they took another rite, one indifferent and free, namely, the
rite of laying on of hands, for they did not want to impose something on
the church as necessary concerning which they did not have a command of
Christ. Now
the ministry of the Word and the sacraments has divine promises, and the
prayer at ordination rests on these, but these promises are not to be tied
to the rite of the imposition of hands, about which there is neither a
command of Christ nor such a promise as there is about Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper. This reminder must be added, because the papalists
contend that ordination is truly and properly a sacrament of the New
Testament, just as are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.... SECTION
IV [Concerning
the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Ordination] Examination 1
I shall record nothing here about the things treated in the first part of
this chapter—about the character which is said to be imprinted in the
sacrament of order and about the priesthood which all Christians have in
common. For of the character imprinted in the sacraments we have spoken
in connection with the ninth canon under “Concerning the Sacraments in
General”
[pp. 92–97]. That not any and every Christian should rashly, without a
lawful call, take the ministry of the Word and the sacraments to himself,
even though all are spiritual priests, we have explained in connection
with the 10th canon under “Concerning the Sacraments in General”
[pp. 98–100] and in the first section of this topic [pp. 677–678].
There remain, therefore, two questions: about bishops, and about what is a
legitimate call. About these questions certain things must be said. 2
Now in order that what is judged here about bishops may be more rightly
understood, certain things from Scripture and from testimonies of the true
antiquity must first be repeated. The terms episkopos [bishop] and
episkopee [office of bishop] are found used of the ecclesiastical ministry
in the apostolic writings (Acts 1:20; 20:28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:7; 1
Tim. 3:1–2; 1 Peter 5:2). These terms were, however, taken from the
use of everyday language and were adapted to the ministry of the church
because it has the duty of administration and inspection. Suidas says
that in the Athenian republic those were called episkopoi, and
“guards,”
who were sent to territories which were subject to them, not in order that
they might preside with naked power, as Lindanus interprets, but to look
into the affairs of each, that is, as Budaeus translates it from Livy, to
look into the affairs of their allies. Plutarch says, on Pericles:
“Phidias was episkopos, that is, inspector of all works.”
In Homer’s Iliad, 9 and 24, Hector is called episkopos of
the city. With Demosthenes, in verses of Solon, Pallas is called episkopos
of Athens. In Plutarch, on Numa, he is called episkopos of the
vestal virgins. In the same place Venus is episkopos over the dead.
Cicero, Ad Atticum, Bk. 7: “Pompey wants me to be the one whom
the whole Campagna and the people of the maritime districts have as episkopos,
to whom all the recruiting and the revenue is committed.”
In Pandectis, episkopoi are people placed over things
offered for sale. 3
The apostles accommodated these words more willingly to the
ecclesiastical ministry because they were at that time generally known
from the Greek version of the Old Testament. For the words paqad,
pequdah, and pequdim, which mean visitation, inspection,
office, care, administration committed to someone, a duty demanded—these
the Greeks translated episkopein, episkopee, and episkopos.
In Num. 31:14 the officers of the army are called episkopoi; in
Judges 9:28 Abimelech had Zebul as his episkopos. 2 Kings 11:15
speaks of the captains who are episkopoi over all the army. There
also guards were placed over the house of the Lord [2 Kings 11:7]. This is
explained thus by the Greeks: He placed episkopos over the house of
the Lord. In 2 Chron. 39:12 the inspectors of works are called episkopoi.
Num. 4:16: The office or duty of Eleazar in the tabernacle of God is
called episkopee. Thus in Ps. 109:8 the office of Judas is called episkopee.
I have noted down these examples which I had observed, in order that
consideration might be given to the source from which the apostles took
this term, the peculiar emphasis of which can also be gathered and
understood from these passages. Jerome translated it superattendens
(superintendent), Ambrose superinspector (overseer). 4
The question, however, is what rank in the ecclesiastical ministry the
office of bishop is and what the duties of a bishop are. We can
complete the explanation of this question more briefly because it has been
treated ex professo by Jerome. He shows and proves that at the time of the
apostles, bishops and presbyters were one and the same, or that one and
the same person was both presbyter and bishop, one of these being a term
for his office and dignity, the other for his age. For Paul says (Phil.
1:1) that in that one church there were bishops and deacons. In Acts 20:17
Luke says that the presbyters of the church at Ephesus were called out.
When Paul has assembled them, he calls them bishops [“overseers,”
KJV and RSV; Acts 20:28]. In Titus 1:5 ff. Paul speaks of appointing
presbyters in every town. And as he explains what kind of presbyter ought
to be ordained, he says: “For a bishop must be blameless.”
In 1
Peter 5:1-2 Peter, addressing the presbyters calls himself a fellow
presbyter and ascribes to the office of presbyters to episkopein
[“oversight,”
KJV]. That the same ordination was common to [bishops and] presbyters
Jerome shows from 1 Tim. 4:14, which speaks of the laying on of hands of
the presbyters.... 7
The final question of this chapter is: What is a legitimate call of
ministers of the Word and the sacraments? With this supplement they
try openly, not so much to beat our churches but to cut their throat once
and for all and to overthrow them utterly. With this supplement they
wanted to strengthen the cries of those who contend that there is no true
and lawful ministry of the Word and the sacraments in our churches, that
God does not work through our ministry, that there is no true absolution
or forgiveness of sins in our ministry, that our churches are not able to
have a true sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but that all who
discharge the ministry of the Word and the sacraments in our churches are
thieves and robbers who have not come in through the true door. Surely, a
fearful threat! But they add no other reason for this than that the
ministers of our churches have not been called, sent, ordained, shaven,
and anointed by papalist bishops. 8
Now, because the ministry of the Word and the sacraments is the
ordinary means or instrument which God employs in matters pertaining to
the dispensation of salvation, it is absolutely necessary to show to the
church sure and firm arguments from Scripture in this question, namely,
what is a true, lawful, orderly, and therefore divine call of ministers of
the Word and the sacraments. Therefore we shall briefly draw them together
as called for by our purpose. 9
To begin with, it is certain that no one is a legitimate minister of
the Word and the sacraments—nor is able rightly and profitably to
exercise the ministry for the glory of God and the edification of the
church—unless he has been sent, that is, unless he has a legitimate call
(Jer. 23:21; Rom. 10:15). The nature of this call is not, however, the
same as when political or domestic offices are established either by the
head of a family or by those who have the highest power in the state, that
those who take onto themselves the rule in the church also do it in the
same way and are able to order the ministries of the church according to
their own will and by their own authority. But God, the author,
preserver, governor, and (if I may use this term) husbandman of the
ecclesiastical ministry, has reserved for Himself the right and authority
of calling and sending those whom He wants to receive as co-workers in
this ministry, and wants it to belong to Himself as Lord of the harvest.
Therefore Christ says in Matt. 9:38: “Pray the Lord of the harvest to
send out laborers into His harvest.”
Jer. 23:21: “I did not send the prophets, yet they ran.”
Eph. 4:11: Christ gives apostles, evangelists, pastors, teachers. Acts
20:28: “The Holy Ghost has made you overseers to feed the church of God.”
Acts 13:4: “They were sent out by the Holy Spirit.”
Therefore it is necessary for a legitimate call to the ministry of the
church that the person who is to be a legitimate minister of the Word and
the sacraments be called and sent by God, so that both the minister and
the church can truthfully declare, as it is written in Is. 59:21: “I
have put My words in your mouth.”
2 Cor. 5:19–20: “He has entrusted to us the message of reconciliation.
So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us.”
Luke 10:16: “He who hears you hears Me.”
John 20:21: “As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.” 10
These things must be considered in a call of the church, in order that
both the minister and also the church can state with certainty that God is
present with this ministry and works through it, as He says in Matt.
28:20: “I am with you.”
John 20:22: “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
2 Cor. 3:6: “He has qualified us to be ministers … not of the letter
but of the Spirit.”
1 Cor. 3:5–9: “You are God’s field, God’s building.”
“We are God’s assistants.”
“Paul plants; Apollos waters; God gives the growth.”
John 20:23: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Matt. 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
Therefore Paul says in Rom. 10:14 ff. that those who are not sent by
God cannot preach in such a way that faith is received from that
preaching—faith which calls upon the name of God, so that we are
justified and saved. These things are certain from Scripture. 11
Now when God Himself speaks immediately to men and with His own voice
makes known His will, as He often did in the Old Testament, and as later,
in the time of the New Testament, He spoke through a Son (Heb. 1:2), then
there is no doubt about the efficacy of the Word. However, God did not
always want to set His Word before the church without means, with His own
voice, but determined by sure counsel to use the voice of the ministry as
His ordinary means or instrument. Nevertheless there remains also in this
medium what is appropriate to the prophets: “Thus says the Lord: …
because I have put My words in your mouth … [Is. 59:21]. “… God
making His appeal through us”
[2 Cor. 5:20]. “Do you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me?”
(2 Cor. 13:3). That these things are right and proper in those who are
called immediately by the divine voice, not through men but by God
Himself, as were the prophets in the Old Testament and the Baptist and the
apostles—this no sane person is able to doubt. But
God called few men in this immediate manner. For those who at the time of
the apostles were prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, bishops,
presbyters, and deacons were called to the ministry not immediately but by
the voice of the church. Now are
the things which Scripture teaches about the presence and efficacy of God
through the ministry doubtful, uncertain, or false in the case of a
mediate call? Surely, this is a very great and comforting promise, that
Scripture declares that also that call which is issued by the voice of the
church is divine, or from God. Eph. 4:11: The Son of God gives pastors and
teachers, who certainly were not, like the apostles, called immediately.
And in Acts 20:28 Paul addresses the presbyters, who had been appointed
either by Paul or by Timothy, thus: “The Holy Spirit has made you
overseers.”
Therefore Paul, in the signature of 1 Corinthians, links Sosthenes to
himself; in 2 Corinthians, Timothy; in 1 Thessalonians, Sylvanus.
Therefore Paul applies the sayings: “We are God’s fellow workers”
[1 Cor. 3:9]; “He has entrusted to us the message of reconciliation …
God making His appeal through us”
[2 Cor. 5:19–20], also to those who had been called mediately. Likewise,
he declares that God works efficaciously also through the ministry of
those who were called through the voice of the church: “Apollos waters;
God gives the growth”
[1 Cor. 3:6]. And in 1 Tim. 4:16 he says to Timothy: “You will save both
yourself and your hearers.”
Eph. 4:11 ff.: He gives teachers for building up the body of Christ, that
we may attain to unity of faith, and doing the truth may grow in Christ. The
promises are most delightful, and very necessary, namely, that the call
also of those who have been called by the voice of the church is divine,
that God is present with and works effectively through their ministry.
Therefore Paul says that there is in Timothy a grace and a gift through
the laying on of hands. He does not say only, “of my hands”
[2 Tim. 1:6], but adds, “when the … elders laid their hands upon you”
(1 Tim. 4:14), lest it be thought that it makes a difference whether a
person is ordained by apostles or by presbyters. 12
However, in order that this mediated call may enjoy these privileges,
it is necessary that it be legitimate, i.e., that it be made in the manner
and by the persons prescribed by Scripture. With respect to the kind of
persons who should be called to the ministry a certain rule has been
prescribed (Acts 6:3; Titus 1:6–9; 1 Tim. 3:2–13). But the question
here is by whose voice and vote this election and call ought to be made in
order that it may be possible to declare that it is divine, that is, that
it is God Himself who through these means chooses, calls, and sends
laborers into His harvest. Of
this there are sure and clear examples in Scripture. In Acts 1:15–26,
when another person had to be substituted in place of Judas, Peter laid
the matter not before the apostles alone, but also before the rest of the
disciples, for that is how the believers were at that time called, their
number, gathered together, being about 120. There Peter set forth from
Scripture what sort of person it should be and how they ought to choose
him, to which they added their prayers. Lots were cast because the call
was not to be simply mediated, but apostolic. For this reason lots were
not used in calls thereafter. In
Acts 6:2–6, when deacons are to be chosen and called, the apostles are
not willing to arrogate the right of calling to themselves alone, but they
call the church together. They do not, however, wholly renounce oversight
over the calling and commit it to the pleasure of the common people or of
the blind and confused crowd, but they are as it were steersmen and
directors of the election and calling, for they set forth the principle
and rule as to the sort of persons they should be and how they should be
chosen. The men are placed before the apostles in order that the election
might be examined, to see whether in their judgment it has been rightly
made. They prayed, and approved the election by the laying on of hands. In
Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in all churches to which they
had preached the Gospel. However, they did not take the right and
authority of choosing and calling to themselves alone. Luke uses the word cheirotoneesantes,
which in 2 Cor. 8:19 is used of an election which is made by the voice or
votes of the church, for it is taken from the Greek custom of voting with
uplifted hands, and signifies to create or designate someone by vote or to
show agreement. Therefore Paul and Barnabas did not force presbyters on
unwilling people, without the consent of the church. And in Acts 15:22,
when men had to be elected who were to be sent to the church at Antioch
with commands, Luke says: “It seemed good to the apostles and the
elders, with the whole church, to choose … Barnabas and Silas.” It
is useful to observe in the apostolic history that sometimes both the
ministers and the rest of the congregation jointly proposed and chose
those whom they considered suitable (e.g., Acts 1:23). At other times the
church proposed and chose; however, the election was submitted to the
judgment of the apostles for their approval (Acts 6:3–6). Thus Paul
sends to the churches Timothy, Titus, Sylvanus, etc. In Acts 14:23
presbyters were proposed, whom the church accepted by raising of hands.
Meanwhile some also offered their services to the church, 1 Tim. 3:1:
“If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.”
Always, however, in a legitimate call at the time of the apostles the
consent of the church and the judgment and approval of the presbytery was
present and required. Thus
Titus was put in charge of guiding and moderating the election of
presbyters on Crete, in order that it might be done rightly and that he
might by means of ordination approve it and confirm the rightly performed
election. For in Titus 1:5, in
speaking of appointing elders, Paul uses the same word which is found in
Acts 14:23, where likewise both cheirotonia and the appointing of
elders are mentioned. And he instructs Titus that he should rebuke sharply
those who are not sound in doctrine nor teach what they should, that is,
as he says more clearly in 1 Tim. 5:12: “Do not be hasty in the laying
on of hands, nor partake in another man’s sins,”
namely, by approving an election or call which was not rightly done. 13
These examples from the apostolic history show clearly that election or
calling certainly belongs in some way to the whole church, so that in
their choosing and calling both presbyters and people are partners.... 14
Later on, when emperors and kings had embraced the Christian religion,
their will, judgment, and authority also began to be brought to bear and
to be requested in the matter of electing and calling, because they ought
to be nurses of the church and according to the examples of Jehoshaphat,
Hezekiah, and Josiah the oversight was committed to them in order that the
ministries of the church might be rightly set up and administered. There
are many canons about this matter, dist. 63. According to Sozomen, Bk. 7,
ch. 7, the emperor gives the first place at the synod to Gregory of
Nazianzus, and all the bishops support him. A very beautiful example of
modesty is described in ch. Valentinianus, where the synod asks
that the emperor, as a wise and pious man, should choose or propose
someone. The emperor, however, answers: “The election is up to you. For
you, possessing divine grace, and shining with such splendor, are better
able to choose.”
Afterward he gave his assent to the election. 15
The fact that certain examples of the ancient church seem to deviate
somewhat from this format is due to the following cause. This glorious
harmony of bishops, clergy, the Christian magistrate, and the people in
choosing and calling ministers of the church was very often disturbed.
Clerics who were either heretics or schismatics, or were corrupted by
other ignoble passions, often abused the right of election or arrogated it
to themselves alone. In that case both the magistrates and the Christian
people were compelled to interpose themselves. Thus, when after the death
of Aelurus the clergy on their own authority had elected Peter Mongo as
bishop, Emperor Zeno was so angry that he even caused some to be punished,
Evagrius, Bk. 3, ch. 11. When at Antioch, in the absence of the people,
Porphyry had been ordained as bishop by a few bishops, a frightful tumult
followed, Nicephorus, Bk. 13, ch. 30. Courtiers also repeatedly
abused this, as though in their own right. In that case the clergy opposed
them. A number of statutes of this kind are found in dist. 63. The most
discreet regulation of all is that of Charles and Louis, which reads thus:
“Mindful of the sacred canons, in order that the holy church may more
freely possess her honor in the name of God, we proffer our assent to the
ecclesiastical arrangement that bishops shall, according to the rules of
the canons, be chosen by election of clergy and people.” 16
Also the people very often abused their right in a way that led to
tumults, dissensions, and all kinds of disorder. There bishops and
Christian governments stepped in, as in the election of Ambrose. As a
result a Laodicean canon says: “It must not be permitted to bring about
by tumult the election of those who are to be advanced to the priesthood.”
According to Sozomen, Bk. 7, ch. 8, when the votes of the bishops and
those of the people were against each other, the emperor chose Nectarius,
and this election was afterward held valid by a synod. But the people or
the Christian magistrates were not for this reason simply excluded from
choosing and calling, but this moderation was added, dist. 62: “The
people must be taught, not followed. We also ought to inform them, if they
do not know what is lawful or what is not lawful, not give them our
consent.”
A decree of Leo says: “Let the desires of the citizens, the testimonies
of the people, the will of those who are respected, and the choice of the
clerics be determined in the ordination of priests.”
Likewise: “Let those who are to become priests be asked for peaceably
and quietly; the election must have the subscription of the clerics, the
testimony of those who are respected, the consent of the order and of the
people.”
Likewise: “Let the consent and desire of the clergy and of the people be
sought.” And in ch.
Nosse: “When clergy and people have been summoned, let such a one
be chosen whom the sacred canons do not make ineligible. For it is in fact
an election of priests, and the consent of the faithful people must be
added, because the people must be taught, not followed.”
In the Historia tripartita the common people were able to choose
and to offer someone with their petition. Being
a bishop, Cyprian, Bk. 3, Letters, and Bk. 4, proposes Saturus, Optatus,
and Celerinus to the church. Valerius, desiring Augustine as his assistant
and successor, proposes this to the people. And Augustine himself, Letter
No. 110, in a lovely plea informs the people that he desires Eradius as
his successor, “Because I know,”
says he, “that the churches are usually troubled after the death of
bishops by ambitious and contentious men, and I ought, as far as I am
able, to take forethought for this city, that this may not happen.”
This choice of Augustine is confirmed by the people, and this is made
known to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian. Augustine also relates
the example of Severus of Mileve, who had thought it sufficient to point
out his successor to the clergy and had therefore not spoken before the
people. As a result a disturbance arose afterward. Augustine says about
this: “However, somewhat too little had been done.” Cyprian
describes the manner of election in use at his time thus, Bk. 1, Letter
No. 4: “Therefore the people, in obedience to the Lord’s commands and
in the fear of God, ought to separate themselves from a sinner who is
placed over them, nor to attend the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest,
since they especially have the power either to choose worthy priests or to
refuse unworthy ones. For we see that also this comes down to us by divine
authority, that a priest should be selected in the presence of the people,
before the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public
judgment and testimony.”
And a little later: “God commands that a priest should be appointed
before the whole assembly, i.e., He teaches and shows that it should not
be done except with the knowledge of the people who assist, so that either
the misdeeds of the wicked may be revealed or the merits of the good made
known in the presence of the people; and let that be a just and lawful
ordination which has been examined by the vote and judgment of all, and
let this be observed in action afterward according to the divine
instructions.”
In the same place: “We sometimes see unworthy persons ordained, not
according to the will of God but by human presumption. That whatever does
not proceed from a legitimate and just ordination is displeasing to God,
God Himself shows through the prophet Hosea, when he says: ‘They made
kings, but not through Me?’
(Hos. 8:4). Therefore the divine teaching and the apostolic custom must be
diligently preserved and adhered to, which is held also among us and
throughout nearly all the provinces, that for rightly conducted
ordinations the five closest bishops of that province come together to the
people for whom an overseer is to be ordained, and a bishop be chosen in
the presence of the people who know the life of the individual candidates
well and have insight into the actions and way of life of each,”
etc. The same says, Bk. 1, Letter No. 3, that the vote of the people and
the consensus of fellow bishops is a divine judgment. 17
However, because it was not convenient for the whole multitude of the
people always to be called together, and to ascertain the vote of every
individual, the custom was observed among Christians, as Lampridius
reports in a biography of Alexander, that the names of those who had been
proposed for choosing and calling were openly published before the
ordination, and the people were admonished that if anyone had anything
against a man who was to be ordained, he should bring it up and set it
forth. And in short, according to the statement of Gregory, it was always
judged a grave abuse if anyone was given to such as were unwilling and did
not ask for him. 18
This is the opinion of the primitive apostolic and ancient church about
the lawful election of ministers of the Word and the sacraments, which
opinion is followed in the churches which have now been ordered according
to the Word of God, where there is a presbytery which embraces the
faithful Word as taught, a godly government, and people who know the
doctrine and love godliness. But where there were at the time of the
apostles idol priests, wicked rulers, people who walked in darkness, there
at first the ministry could not be established through such an election,
but there the apostles either went themselves or sent others who had been
rightly elected elsewhere, that they should first lay the foundations.
Thus (Acts 13:2–3) Paul and Barnabas are sent to the Gentiles. And thus
(Acts 11:19) the Gospel was spread all the way to Phoenicia and Cyprus,
and indeed thus it was first proclaimed to the Gentiles at Antioch. Thus
Paul had many around him whom he sent here and there to the churches. But
where the churches had been in a measure grounded, the ministries in the
churches were soon ordered in the manner we have described (Acts 14:23).
And although there the magistrates and priests continued in idolatry, the
calling which was done by pure teachers together with faithful people was
nevertheless lawful. Thus when the chief priests and priests had in part
given up, in part devoted themselves to groves and high places, etc., and
the people walked in darkness, Jehoshaphat himself set up ministries. (2
Chron. 17 and 19) 19
I undertook this report in order to show that our churches have restored
the true and lawful manner of choosing and calling, which was in use in
the apostolic, primitive, and ancient church, and that from the contrast
it might be seen more clearly what kind the ordination that of the
papalist church is. From
the things we have said until now, the examination of the Tridentine
decree concerning the lawful calling and sending of ministers of the Word
and the sacraments will be easy. For the fourth chapter and the seventh
canon declare that those are lawful ministers of the Word and the
sacraments who have been called, ordained, and sent by the papalist
bishops and their subordinates alone, and that neither the consent nor the
call and authority of the faithful people or of a pious government are
required. Yes, they pronounce the anathema on anyone who says that for a
legitimate call the consent of the faithful people or of a pious
government is required. But we have already clearly shown that the manner
of a lawful election or call which the men of Trent condemn with the
anathema is the manner of the apostolic, primitive, and ancient church.
But we must remember that the concern which was laid on the Tridentine
fathers by the Roman pontiff was not that they should restore the custom
of the apostolic and ancient church but that they should preserve and
strengthen the present state of the papalist kingdom in any way they
could. What therefore they have until now practiced they want to have
permitted to them with impunity hereafter, namely, that they be able to
place over the churches any and all men who have been rendered suitable by
partiality, request, or bribery, without a petition, consent, or vocation
either of the faithful people or of a pious government, and to foist
unknown men on the people. The assistants to the bishops do not even see
fit to ask questions about the call so long as a person provides them an
allowance and offers them money for the ordination. And the good fathers
are not ashamed to establish with no more than a word things which clearly
and diametrically are opposed to Scripture and to the true antiquity, and
at once to append the anathema. 20
In our churches, however, the ministers of the Word and the sacraments
are not only called and placed into office by the people and the secular
government, as the Tridentine chapter imagines, but there comes to these
the very weighty judgment, examination, and approval of the true
presbytery. That this is a legitimate call we have already abundantly
shown.... Taken from: Chemnitz, Martin. Examination of the Council of Trent. St Louis:CPH, 1971-86. Vol 2. |
Back to Top |
| Back to Top | |
| Back to Top | |
| Back to Top | |
| Back to Top | |
| Back to Top | |
| Back to Top | |
| Back to Top | |