Treatise on the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops

p. 348 [In our Confession and the Apology we have in general narrated what we have had to say concerning ecclesiastical power. For, etc.] The Gospel has assigned to those who preside over churches the command to teach the Gospel, to remit sins, to administer the sacraments, and besides jurisdiction, viz. the command p. 349 to excommunicate those whose crimes are known, and again of absolving the repenting.

And by the confession of all, even of the adversaries, it is clear that this power by divine right is common to all who preside over churches, whether they be called pastors, or elders, or bishops. And accordingly Jerome openly teaches in the apostolic letters that all who preside over churches are both bishops and elders, and cites from Titus (Tit. 1: sq.): “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city.” Then he adds: “A bishop must be the husband of one wife.” Likewise Peter and John call themselves elders (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1). And he then adds: “But that afterwards one was chosen to be placed over the rest,” occurred as a remedy for schism, lest each one by attracting to himself might rend the Church of Christ. For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to the bishops Heracles and Dionysius, the elders always elected one from themselves, and placed him in a higher station, whom they called bishop; just as an army would make a commander for itself. The deacons, moreover, may elect from themselves one whom they know to be active, and name him archdeacon. For with the exception of ordination, what does the bishop that the elder does not?

Jerome therefore teaches that it is by human authority that the grades of bishop and elder or pastor are distinct. And the subject itself declares this, because the power [the office and command] is the same, as he has said above. But one matter afterwards made a distinction between bishops and pastors, viz. ordination, because it was so arranged that one bishop might ordain ministers in a number of churches.

But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination by a pastor in his own church has been appointed by divine law [if a pastor in his own church ordain certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law, undoubtedly effective and right].

Therefore when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right. [Because the regular bishops persecute the Gospel and refuse to ordain suitable persons, every church has in this case full authority to ordain its own ministers.]

For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Wherefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift exclusively given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul also testifies to the Ephesians (4:8) when he says: “He ascended, he gave gifts to men.” And he enumerates among p. 350 the gifts specially belonging to the Church “pastors and teachers,” and adds that such are given “for the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ.” Where there is therefore a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after baptism then absolved the baptizer.

Here belong the words of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons (Matt. 18:20): “Where two or three are gathered together in my name,” etc.

Lastly, the declaration of Peter also confirms this (1 Ep. 2:9): “Ye are a royal priesthood.” These words pertain to the true Church, which, since it alone has the priesthood, certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers.

And this also a most common custom of the Church testifies. For formerly the people elected pastors and bishops. Then a bishop was added, either of that church or a neighboring one, who confirmed the one elected by the laying on of hands; neither was ordination anything else than such a ratification. Afterwards, new ceremonies were added, many of which Dionysius describes. But he is a recent and fictitious author [this book of Dionysius is a new fiction under a false title], just as the writings of Clement also are supposititious. Then the moderns added: “I give thee the power to sacrifice for the living and the dead.” But not even this is in Dionysius. From all these things it is clear that the Church retains the right to elect and ordain ministers. And the wickedness and tyranny of bishops afford cause for schism and discord [therefore, if the bishops either are heretics or will not ordain suitable persons, the churches are in duty bound before God, according to divine law, to ordain for themselves pastors and ministers. Even though this be now called an irregularity or schism, it should be known that the godless doctrine and tyranny of the bishops is chargeable with it], because Paul (Gal. 1: sq.) enjoins that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be regarded accursed.

We have spoken of ordination, which alone, as Jerome says,¹ distinguished bishops from other elders. Therefore there is need of no discussion concerning the other duties of bishops. Nor is it indeed necessary to speak of confirmation, nor of the consecration of bells, which are almost the only things which they have retained. Something must be said concerning jurisdiction.

¹ Cf. above, § 62.

p. 351 It is manifest that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those guilty of manifest crimes belongs to all pastors. This they have tyrannically transferred to themselves alone, and have applied it to the acquisition of gain. For it is manifest that the officials, as they are called, employed a license not to be tolerated, and either on account of avarice or because of other wanton desires tormented men and excommunicated them without any due process of law. But what tyranny is it for the officials in the states to have arbitrary power to condemn and excommunicate men without due process of law! And with respect to what did they abuse this power? Clearly not in punishing true offences, but in regard to the violation of fasts or festivals, or like trifles? Only they sometimes punished adulteries; and in this matter they often vexed [abused and defamed] innocent and honorable men.

Since, therefore, bishops have tyrannically transferred this jurisdiction to themselves alone, and have basely abused it, there is no need, because of this jurisdiction, to obey bishops. But since the reasons why we do not obey are just, it is right also to restore this jurisdiction to godly pastors [to whom, by Christ’s command, it belongs], and to see to it that it be legitimately exercised for the reformation of life and the glory of God.

Jurisdiction remains in those cases which, according to canonical law, pertain to the ecclesiastical court, as they say, and especially in cases of matrimony. It is only by human right that the bishops have this also; and indeed the ancient bishops did not have it, as it appears from the Codex and Novelli of Justinian that decisions concerning marriage at that time belonged to the magistrates. And by divine law worldly magistrates are compelled to make these decisions if the bishops [judge unjustly or] be negligent. The canons also concede the same. Wherefore also on account of this jurisdiction it is not necessary to obey bishops. And indeed since they have framed certain unjust laws concerning marriages, and observe them in their courts, also for this reason there is need to establish other courts. For the traditions concerning spiritual relationship [the prohibition of marriage between sponsors] are unjust. Unjust also is the tradition which forbids an innocent person to marry after divorce. Unjust also is the law which in general approves all clandestine and underhanded betrothals in violation of the right of parents. Unjust also is the law concerning the celibacy of priests. There are also other snares of consciences in their laws, to recite all of which is of no profit. It is sufficient to have recited this, that there are many unjust laws of the Pope concerning matrimonial subjects on account of which the magistrates ought to establish other courts.

Since therefore the bishops, who are devoted to the Pope, defend godless doctrine and godless services, and do p. 352 not ordain godly teachers, yea aid the cruelty of the Pope, and besides have wrested the jurisdiction from pastors, and exercise this only tyrannically [for their own profit]; and lastly, since in matrimonial cases they observe many unjust laws; the reasons why the churches do not recognize these as bishops are sufficiently numerous and necessary.

But they themselves should remember that riches have been given to bishops as alms for the administration and advantage of the churches [that they may serve the Church, and perform their office the more efficiently], just as the rule says: “The benefice is given because of the office.” Wherefore they cannot with a good conscience possess these alms, and meanwhile defraud the Church, which has need of these means for supporting ministers, and aiding studies [educating learned men], and caring for the poor, and establishing courts, especially matrimonial. For so great is the variety and extent of matrimonial controversies, that there is need of a special tribunal for these, and for establishing this there is need of the means of the Church. Peter predicted (2 Ep. 2:13) that there would be godless bishops, who would abuse the alms of the Church for luxury and neglect the ministry. Therefore let those who defraud know that they will pay God the penalty for this crime.