Chapter 3. Of the Teachers and Ministers of the Church, and of Their Election and Office

Now it is fitting that we speak of the order by which it was the Lord's will to have his Church governed. For although in his Church he only must rule and reign, and bear preeminence and excel in it, and this government to be used and executed by his only word: yet because he dwells not among us in visible presence, so that he can presently with his own mouth declare his will to us, we have said that in this he uses the ministry of men, and as it were the labor of deputies, not in transferring his right and honor to them, but only that by their mouth he might do his own work, just as a workman to do his work uses his instrument. I am compelled to repeat again those things that I have already declared. He might indeed do it either by himself without any other help or instrument, or also by means of Angels: but there are many causes why he had rather do it by men. For by this means first he declares his good will toward us, when he takes out of men those that shall do his message in the world, that shall be the interpreters of his secret will, finally that shall represent his own person. And so by experience he proves that it is not vain that commonly he calls us his temples, when out of the mouths of men, as out of his sanctuary, he gives answers to men. Secondly, this is the best and most profitable exercise to humility, when he accustoms us to obey his word, however it be preached by men like to us, and sometimes our inferiors in dignity. If he himself spoke from heaven, it were no marvel if his holy oracles were without delay reverently received with the ears and minds of all men. For who would not dread his power being in presence? Who would not be thrown down at the first sight of so great majesty? Who would not be confounded with the infinite brightness? But when some humble man risen out of the dust speaks in the name of God, here with very good testimony we declare our godliness and reverent obedience toward God himself, if to his minister we yield ourselves willing to learn, who yet in nothing excels us. Therefore for this cause also he has hidden the treasure of his heavenly wisdom in brittle and earthen vessels, that he might have the more certain proof of how much he is esteemed of us. Moreover there was nothing fitter for the cherishing of mutual charity, than that men should be bound together one to another with this bond, when one is made a pastor to teach the rest, and they that are commanded to be scholars receive all one doctrine at one mouth. For if every man were able enough to serve himself, and needed not the help of another: such is the pride of man's nature, that everyone would despise others, and should again be despised of them. Therefore the Lord has bound his Church with that knot, which he foresaw to be the strongest knot to hold unity together, when he has left with men the doctrine of salvation, and of eternal life, that by their hands he might communicate it to the rest. To this end Paul had respect when he wrote to the Ephesians: "One body, one Spirit, as also you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. One God, and the Father of all, which is above all, and by all, and in us all. But to every one of us grace is given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Therefore he says: When he was gone up on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men. He that went down is the self same he that went up, that he might fulfill all things. And the same has given some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and other some pastors and teachers, to the restoring of the holy ones, to the work of ministry, to the edifying of the body of Christ, until we come all into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man, into the measure of full grown age: that we be no more children that may be carried about with every wind of doctrine: but following truth in charity, let us in all things grow into him that is the head, even Christ, in whom the whole body conjoined and compacted together by every joint of subministration, according to the working in measure of every part, makes increase of the body, to the edifying of it by charity."

By these words he shows that the ministry of men, which God uses in governing his Church, is the chief sinew by which the faithful hold together in one body: and also he shows that the Church cannot otherwise be preserved safe, but if it be upheld by these supports, in which it pleased the Lord to repose the salvation of it. Christ (he says) is gone up on high, that he might fulfill all things. This is the manner of fulfilling, that by his ministers, to whom he has committed that office, and has given the grace to execute that work, he disposes and distributes his gifts to the Church, and after a certain manner gives himself present, extending the power of his Spirit in this institution, that it should not be vain or idle. So is the restoring of the holy ones performed: so is the body of Christ edified: so do we in all things grow into him that is the head, and do grow together among ourselves: so are we all brought into the unity of Christ, if prophecy flourishes among us, if we receive the Apostles, if we refuse not the doctrine ministered to us. Therefore he goes about the dissipation, or rather the ruin and destruction of the Church, whoever he be that either endeavors to abolish this order of which we speak, and this kind of government, or diminishes the estimation of it as a thing not so necessary. For neither the light and heat of the sun, nor meat and drink are so necessary to nourish and sustain this present life, as the office of Apostles and pastors is necessary to preserve the Church on earth.

Therefore I have above admonished, that God has oftentimes with such titles as he could commended the dignity thereof to us, that we should have it in most high honor and price, as the most excellent thing of all. He testifies that he gives to men a singular benefit, in raising them up teachers, where he commands the Prophet to cry out that fair are the feet, and blessed is the coming of them that bring tidings of peace: and when he calls the Apostles the light of the world, and salt of the earth. Neither could this office be more honorably advanced, than it was when he said: He that hears you, hears me. He that despises you, despises me. But there is no place more plain, than in Paul in his second epistle to the Corinthians, where he as it were of purpose treats of this matter. He affirms therefore, that there is nothing in the Church more excellent or glorious than the ministry of the Gospel, forasmuch as it is the administration of the Spirit, and of righteousness, and of eternal life. These and like sayings serve to this purpose, that that order of governing and preserving the Church by ministers, which the Lord has established forever, should not grow out of estimation among us, and so at length by very contempt grow out of use. And how great is the necessity thereof, he has declared not only by words, but also by examples. When his will was to shine more fully to Cornelius with the light of his truth, he sent an Angel from heaven to send Peter to him. When his will was to call Paul to the knowledge of himself, and to engraft him into the Church, he spoke not to him with his own voice, but sent him to a man, of whom he should receive both the doctrine of salvation, and the sanctification of Baptism. If it be not done without cause, that an Angel, which is the interpreter of God, does himself abstain from declaring the will of God, but commands that a man be sent for, to declare it: and not without cause that Christ the only schoolmaster of the faithful commits Paul to the schooling of a man, indeed that same Paul whom he had determined to take up into the third heaven, and to vouchsafe to grant him miraculous revelation of things unspeakable: who is there now that dare despise that ministry, or pass it over as a thing superfluous, the use whereof it has pleased God to make approved by such examples?

They that have rule of the government of the Church according to the institution of Christ, are named of Paul first Apostles, then Prophets, thirdly Evangelists, fourthly Pastors, last of all Teachers. Of which, the two last alone have ordinary office in the Church: the other three the Lord raised up at the beginning of his kingdom, and sometime yet also raises up, as the necessity of times requires. What is the Apostles' office, appears by that commandment: go, preach the Gospel to every creature. There are not certain bounds appointed to them: but the whole world is assigned them, to be brought into the obedience of Christ: that in spreading the Gospel among all nations wherever they shall be able, they may each where raise up his kingdom. Therefore Paul, when he went about to prove his Apostleship, rehearses that he has gotten to Christ not some one city, but has far and wide spread abroad the Gospel: and that he has not laid his hands to another man's foundation, but planted Churches where the name of the Lord had never been heard of. Therefore the Apostles were sent to bring back the world from falling away, to true obedience of God, and everywhere to establish his kingdom by preaching of the Gospel: or (if you like that better) as the first builders of the Church, to lay the foundations thereof in all the world. Prophets he calls, not all expositors of God's will whatever they be, but those that by singular revelation excelled, such as at this time either be none, or are less notable. By Evangelists I understand those, which when in dignity they were less than the Apostles, yet in office were next to them, indeed and occupied their rooms. Such were Luke, Timothy, Titus and other like: and perhaps also the seventy disciples, whom Christ appointed in the second place after the Apostles. According to this exposition (which seems to me agreeable both with the words and meaning of Paul) those three offices were not ordained in the Church to this end that they should be perpetual, but only to serve for that time wherein Churches were to be erected, where were none before, or at least to be removed from Moses to Christ. Albeit I deny not, but that afterward also the Lord has sometime raised up Apostles, or at least in their places Evangelists, as it has been done in our time. For it was needful to have such, to bring back the Church from the falling away of Antichrist. Yet the office itself I do nevertheless call extraordinary, because it has no place in the Churches already well set in order. Next after these are Pastors and Teachers, whom the Church may never lack: between whom I think that there is this difference, that the Teachers are not appointed to bear rule of discipline, nor for the ministration of Sacraments, nor admonishments or exhortations, but only to expound the Scripture, that pure and sound doctrine may be kept among the faithful. But the office of Pastor contains all these things within it.

Now we have seen which were those ministries in the Church that continued but for a time, and which were those that were ordained to endure perpetually. If we join the Evangelists with the Apostles, we shall have remaining two pairs after a certain manner answering the one to the other. For as our Teachers are like to the old Prophets, in such sort are our Pastors like to the Apostles. The office of Prophets was more excellent, by reason of the singular gift that they had of revelation: but the office of Teachers has in a manner like order, and altogether the same end. So those 12 whom the Lord did choose, that they should publish abroad to the world the new preaching of the Gospel, in degree and dignity went before the rest. For although by the meaning and property of the word, all the ministers of the Church may be rightly called Apostles, because they are sent of the Lord, and are his messengers: yet because it was very needful, that there should be a certain knowledge had of the sending of them that should bring a thing new and unheard of, it was necessary that those 12 (to whose number Paul was afterward added) should be furnished with some special title above the rest. Paul himself indeed in [reconstructed: one] place gives this name to Andronicus and Junias, whom he says to have been notable among the Apostles: but when he means to speak properly, he refers it to none other but to that principal degree. And this is the common use of the Scripture. Yet the Pastors (except that each of them does govern several Churches appointed to them) have all one charge with the Apostles. Now what manner of thing that is, let us yet hear it more plainly.

The Lord, when he sent the Apostles, gave them commandment (as we said even now) to preach the Gospel, and to baptize them that believe to forgiveness of sins. He had before commanded, that they should distribute the holy signs of his body and blood, as he had done. Behold here is a holy, inviolable and perpetual law laid upon them that succeed in the Apostles' place, whereby they receive commandment to preach the Gospel, and minister the Sacraments. Whereupon we gather, that they which neglect both these things, do falsely say that they bear the person of the Apostles. But what of the Pastors? Paul speaks not of himself only, but of them all, when he says: let a man so esteem us as the ministers of Christ, and distributors of the mysteries of God. Again in another place: a Bishop must be a firm holder of that faithful word which is according to doctrine: that he may be able to exhort by sound doctrine, and to convince those who contradict. Out of those and like places, which are everywhere to be found, we may gather, that also in the office of the Apostles these be the two principal parts, to preach the Gospel, and to minister the Sacraments. As for the order of teaching, it consists not only in public Sermons, but belongs also to private admonitions. So Paul calls the Ephesians to witness that he has not fled from doing of any of those things that were for their profit, but that he preached and taught them both openly and in every house, testifying both to the Jews and Greeks, repentance and faith in Christ. Again a little after: that he has not ceased with tears to admonish every one of them. Nor does it belong to my purpose at this present to express all the qualities of a good Pastor, but only to point out what they profess that call themselves Pastors: that is, that they are so made rulers of the Church, not that they should have an idle dignity, but that they should with the doctrine of Christ instruct the people to true godliness, minister the holy mysteries, and preserve and exercise upright discipline. For whoever be set to be watchmen in the Church, the Lord declares to them, that if any by their negligence perish through ignorance, he will require the blood at their hands. That also pertains to them all, which Paul says of himself: woe to me unless I preach the Gospel, forasmuch as the distributing thereof is committed to me. Finally what the Apostles performed to the whole world, the same ought every Pastor to perform to his flock to which he is appointed.

Albeit when we assign to every one their several Churches, yet in the meanwhile we do not deny but that he which is bound to one Church may help other Churches, if any troublesome thing does happen that requires his presence, or if he be asked counsel of any dark matter. But forasmuch as for the keeping of the peace of the Church, this arrangement is necessary, that there be set forth to every man what he should do, lest all should be confusedly disordered, run about without calling, or rashly run altogether into one place, and lest such as are more careful for their own advantage than for the edification of the Church, should at their own will leave their Churches vacant: this ordering ought commonly to be kept so near as may be, that every man contented with his own bounds should not break into another man's charge. And this is no invention of man, but the ordinance of God himself. For we read that Paul and Barnabas [reconstructed: ordained] Priests in all the several Churches of Lystra, Antioch, Iconium: and Paul himself commands Titus that he should appoint Priests in every town. So in one place he speaks of the Bishops of Philippi, and in another place of Archippus Bishop of the Colossians. And there remains a notable sermon of his in Luke, to the Priests of the Church of Ephesus. Whoever therefore shall take upon him the government and charge of one Church, let him know that he is bound to this law of God's calling: not that as bound to the soil (as the lawyers term it) that is, made bound and fastened to it, he may not once move his [reconstructed: foot] from there, if the common profit does so require, so that it be done well and orderly: but he that is called into one place ought not himself to think of removing, nor seek to be delivered as he shall think to be good for his advantage. Then, if it be expedient that any be removed to another place, yet he ought not to attempt it of his own private advice, but to wait for public authority.

But whereas I have without difference called them Bishops, and Priests, and Pastors, and Ministers, that rule Churches: I did that according to the usage of the Scripture, which indifferently uses these words. For whoever execute the ministry of the word, to them he gives the title of Bishops. So in Paul, where Titus is commanded to appoint Priests in every town, it is immediately added. For a Bishop must be unreproachable, etc. So in another place he salutes many Bishops in one Church. And in the Acts it is related, that he called together the Priests of Ephesus, whom he himself in his own sermon calls Bishops. Here now it is to be noted, that heretofore we have cited none but those offices that stand in the ministry of the word: neither does Paul make mention of any other in that fourth chapter which we have cited. But in the Epistle to the Romans, and in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he reckons up other offices, as powers, the gift of healing, interpretation, government, caring for the poor. Of these I omitted those that endured but for a time, because it is to no profitable purpose to linger on them. But there are two that perpetually abide, that is to say, government and care of the poor. Governors I think were the Elders chosen out of the people, that should together with the Bishops, have rule of the judgment of manners, and the using of discipline. For a man cannot otherwise expound that which he says: let him that rules do it with carefulness. Therefore at the beginning every Church had their Senate, gathered of godly, grave and holy men: which had that same jurisdiction in correcting of vices, of which we shall speak hereafter. And that this was the order of more than one age, experience itself declares. Therefore this office of government is also necessary for all ages.

The care of the poor was committed to the Deacons. However, to the Romans there are set two kinds. Let him that gives (says Paul in that place) do it in simplicity: let him that has mercy, do it in cheerfulness. Forasmuch as it is certain that he speaks of the public offices of the Church, it must needs be that there were two several degrees. Unless my judgment deceive me, in the first point he means Deacons, that distributed the alms: in the other he speaks of them that had given themselves to looking to the poor and sick: of which sort were the widows of whom he makes mention to Timothy. For women could execute no other public office, but to give themselves to the service of the poor. If we grant this, (as we must needs grant it) then there shall be two sorts of Deacons: of which one sort shall serve in distributing the things of the poor, the other in looking to the poor of the Church themselves. But although the very word Diaconia Deaconry extends further: yet the Scripture specially calls them Deacons, to whom the Church has given the charge to distribute the alms, and to take care of the poor, and has appointed them as it were stewards of the common treasury of the poor: whose beginning, institution and office, is described by Luke in the Acts. For when a murmuring was raised by the Greeks, for that in the ministry of the poor their widows were neglected, the Apostles excusing themselves with saying that they could not serve both offices, both the preaching of the word and the ministering at tables, required of the multitude, that there might be chosen seven honest men, to whom they might commit that doing. Lo, what manner of Deacons the Apostolic Church had, and what Deacons it were fitting for us to have according to their example.

Now whereas in the holy assembly all things are to be done in order and decently, there is nothing wherein that ought to be more diligently observed, than in establishing the order of government: because there is no where greater peril if anything be done unorderly. Therefore to the end that unquiet and troublesome men (which otherwise would happen) should rashly thrust in themselves to teach or to rule, it is expressly provided, that no man should without calling take upon him a public office in the Church. Therefore that a man may be judged a true minister of the Church, first he must be duly called: then he must answer his vocation, that is to say, take upon him and execute the duties enjoined him. This we may oftentimes note in Paul: which when he means to approve his Apostleship, in a manner always with his faithfulness in executing his office he cites his calling. If so great a minister of Christ dare not take upon himself the authority that he should be heard in the Church, but because he both is appointed to that by the commandment of the Lord, and also faithfully performs that which is committed to him: how great shamefulness shall it be, if any man wanting both or either of these, shall challenge such honor to himself? But because we have above touched the necessity of executing the office, now let us treat only of the calling.

The discourse thereof stands in four points: that we should know, what manner of ministers, how, and by whom ministers ought to be instituted, and with what usage or what ceremony they are to be admitted. I speak of the outward and solemn calling, which belongs to public order of the Church: as for that secret calling, of which every minister is privy in his own conscience before God, and has not the Church as witness of it, I omit it. It is a good witness of our heart, that not by any ambition, nor covetousness, nor any other greedy desire, but with pure fear of God, and zeal to edify the Church, we receive the office offered to us. That indeed is (as I have said) necessary for every one of us, if we will approve our ministry as allowable before GOD. Nevertheless he is rightly called in presence of the Church, that comes to it with an evil conscience, so that his wickedness be not open. They are wont also to say that even private men are called to the ministry, whom they see to be [reconstructed: meet] and able to execute it: because verily learning joined with godliness and with the other qualities of a good Pastor, is a certain preparation to the very office. For whom the Lord has appointed to so great an office, he first furnishes them with those arms that are required to fulfill it, that they should not come empty and unprepared to it. Whereupon Paul also to the Corinthians, when he meant to dispute of the very offices, first rehearsed the gifts which they ought to have that execute the offices. But because this is the first of those four points that I have propounded, let us now go forward to it.

What manner of bishops it is fitting to choose, Paul does largely declare in two places, but the sum comes to this effect, that none are to be chosen, but they that are of sound doctrine, and of holy life, and not notable in any vice, which might both take away credit from them, and procure slander to their ministry. Of deacons and elders there is altogether like consideration. It is always to be looked to, that they be not unable or unfit to bear the burden that is laid upon them, that is to say, that they may be furnished with those powers that are necessary to the fulfilling of their office. So when Christ was about to send his apostles, he furnished them with those weapons and instruments which they could not want. And Paul, when he had painted out the image of a good and true bishop, warns Timothy that he should not defile himself with choosing any man that differs from it. I refer this word "How" not to the ceremony of choosing, but to the reverent fear that is to be kept in the choosing. Hence come the fastings and prayers, which Luke recites that the faithful used when they made priests. For whereas they understood that they meddled with a most earnest matter, they dared attempt nothing, but with great reverence and carefulness. But they [reconstructed: chiefly] applied themselves to prayers, whereby they might crave of God the Spirit of counsel and discretion.

The third thing that we have set in our division was, by whom ministers are to be chosen. Of this thing no certain rule can be gathered out of the institution of apostles, which had some difference from the common calling of the rest. For, because it was an extraordinary ministry, that it might be made discernible by some more notable mark, it was fitting that they which should execute it, should be called and appointed by the Lord's own mouth. They therefore took in hand their doing, being furnished by no man's election, but by the only commandment of God and of Christ. Hence it comes that when the apostles would put another in the place of Judas, they dared not certainly name any one man, but they brought forth two, that the Lord should declare by lot, whether of them he would have to succeed. After this manner also it is fitting to take this, that Paul denies that he was made apostle of men or by man, but by Christ and God the Father. That first point, that is to say of men, he had common with all the godly ministers of the word. For no man could rightly take upon him that execution, but he that were called of God. But the other point was proper and singular to himself. Therefore when he glories in this, he does not only boast that he has that which belongs to a true and lawful pastor, but also brings forth the signs of his apostleship. For when there were some among the Galatians, which laboring to diminish his authority, made him some mean disciple, put in office under them by the principal apostles: he, to defend in safety the dignity of his preaching, which he knew to be shot at by those subtle devices, needed to show himself in all points nothing inferior to the other apostles. Therefore he affirms that he was chosen, not by the judgment of men, like some common bishop, but by the mouth and manifest oracle of the Lord himself.

But no man that is sober will deny, that it is according to the order of lawful calling, that bishops should be appointed by men: since there are so many testimonies of the Scripture for proof of it. Neither does that saying of Paul make to the contrary, as it is said, that he was not sent of men, nor by men: since he speaks not there of the ordinary choosing of ministers, but claims to himself that which was special to the apostles. However, God also so appointed Paul by himself by singular prerogative, that in the meantime he used the discipline of ecclesiastical calling. For Luke reports it thus, when the apostles were fasting and praying, the Holy Spirit said: Separate to me Paul and Barnabas to the work to which I have specifically chosen them. To what purpose served that separation and putting on of hands, since the Holy Spirit has testified his own election, but that the discipline of the Church in appointing ministers by men, might be preserved? Therefore the Lord could by no plainer example approve such order, than he did when having first declared that he had ordained Paul apostle for the Gentiles, yet he willed him to be appointed by the Church. Which thing we may see in the choosing of Matthias. For, because the office of apostleship was of so great importance, that they dared not by their own judgment choose any one man into that degree, they did set two men in the midst, upon the one of whom the lot should fall: that so both the election might have an open testimony from heaven, and yet the policy of the Church should not be passed over.

Now it is demanded whether the minister ought to be chosen by the whole Church, or only by the others of the same office, and by the Elders that have the rule of discipline, or whether he may be made by the authority of one man. They that give this authority to one man allege that which Paul says to Titus: Therefore I have left you in Crete, that you should appoint in every town Priests. Again to Timothy: lay not hands quickly upon any man. But they are deceived if they think, that either Timothy at Ephesus, or Titus in Crete, used a kingly power, that either of them should dispose all things at his own will. For they were above the rest, only to go before the people with good and wholesome counsels: not that they only, excluding all others, should do as they pleased. And that I may not seem to feign anything, I will make it plain by a like example. For Luke recounts that Paul and Barnabas appointed Priests in diverse Churches: but he also expresses the order or manner how, when he says that it was done by voices — ordaining Priests (says he) by lifting up of hands in every Church. Therefore they two did create them: but the whole multitude, as the Greeks' manner was in elections, did by holding up their hands declare whom they would have. Even in like manner the Roman histories do oftentimes say, that the Consul which kept the assemblies, created new officers, for no other cause but that he received the votes and governed the people in the election. Truly it is not likely that Paul granted more to Timothy and Titus than he took to himself. But we see that he was wont to create Bishops by voices of the people. Therefore the places above are so to be understood, that they diminish nothing of the common right and liberty of the Church. Therefore Cyprian says well, when he affirms that it comes from the authority of God, that the Priest should be chosen in presence of the people before the eyes of all men, and should by public judgment and testimony be allowed for worthy and fit. For we see that this was by the commandment of the Lord observed in the Levitical Priests, that before their consecration they should be brought into the sight of the people. And no otherwise is Matthias added to the fellowship of the Apostles: and no otherwise the seven Deacons were created: but the people seeing and allowing it. These examples (says Cyprian) show, that the ordering of a Priest ought not to be done, but in the knowledge of the people standing by: that the ordering may be just and lawful, which has been examined by the witness of all. We are therefore come thus far, that this is by the word of God a lawful calling of a minister, when they that seem fit are created by the consent and allowance of the people. And that other Pastors ought to bear rule over the election, that nothing be done amiss by the multitude either by lightness, or by evil affections, or by disorder.

Now there remains the form of ordering, to which we assigned the last place in the calling. It is evident that the Apostles used no other ceremony, when they admitted any man to ministry, but the laying on of hands. And I think that this usage came from the manner of the Hebrews, which did as it were present to God by laying on of hands that which they would have blessed and hallowed. So when Jacob was about to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, he laid his hands upon their heads. Which thing our Lord followed, when he prayed over the infants. In the same meaning (as I think) the Jews, by the ordinance of the law, laid hands upon the sacrifices. Therefore the Apostles by laying on of hands did signify that they offered him to God, whom they admitted into the ministry. Albeit they used it also upon them, to whom they applied the visible graces of the Spirit. However it be, this was the solemn usage, so often as they called any man to the ministry of the Church. So they consecrated Pastors and teachers, and so also Deacons. But although there be no certain commandment concerning the laying on of hands, yet because we see that it was continually used among the Apostles, their so diligent observing of it ought to be to us in stead of a commandment. And truly it is profitable, that by such a sign, both the dignity of the ministry should be commended to the people, and also that he which is ordered should be admonished, that he is not now at his own liberty, but made bond to God and the Church. Moreover it shall not be a vain sign, if it be restored to the natural beginning of it. For if the Spirit of God has ordained nothing in the Church in vain, we must think that this ceremony, since it proceeded from him, is not unprofitable, so that it be not turned into a superstitious abuse. Last of all this is to be held, that not the whole multitude did lay their hands upon the ministers, but the Pastors only. However it is uncertain whether many did always lay on their hands or no. But it is evident that that was done in the Deacons, in Paul and Barnabas, and a few others. But Paul himself in another place reports, that he, and not many others, did lay his hands upon Timothy. I admonish you (says he) that you raise up the grace which is in you by laying on of my hands. For, as for that which in the other epistle is spoken of the laying on of the hands of the degree of Priests, I do not so take it, as though Paul did speak of the company of the Elders, but I understand by that word the very ordinance itself: as if he had said: Make that the grace, which you have received by laying on of hands when I did create you a priest, may not be void.

It is now fitting to speak of the order by which the Lord has willed to govern His church. For although He alone must rule and reign in His church, holding all authority and supremacy, and although this government is exercised and carried out by His word alone — yet because He does not dwell among us in visible form so that He can declare His will to us directly from His own mouth, we have said that in this He uses the ministry of human beings, and as it were the labor of deputies. He is not transferring His right and honor to them — but only that through their mouths He might do His own work, just as a craftsman uses a tool to do his work. I am compelled to repeat what I have already said. He could indeed do it either directly and without any instrument, or by means of angels. But there are many reasons why He preferred to do it through human beings. First, He declares His favor toward us by drawing some people from the human race to carry His message in the world — to be the interpreters of His secret will, and ultimately to represent His own person. He thereby proves by experience that it is not meaningless when He commonly calls us His temples — for from the mouths of men, as from His sanctuary, He gives His answers to humanity. Second, this is the best and most profitable exercise in humility — accustoming us to obey His word as it is preached through people like ourselves, and sometimes our inferiors in social standing. If He spoke from heaven Himself, it would be no wonder if His holy words were immediately received with reverence by everyone. For who would not be filled with awe at the direct presence of His power? Who would not be prostrated at the first sight of such majesty? Who would not be overwhelmed by His infinite brightness? But when a humble man, risen from the dust, speaks in the name of God — we give the clearest possible evidence of our godliness and reverent obedience to God Himself when we willingly submit to learn from His minister, who in himself excels us in nothing. For this reason also He has hidden the treasure of His heavenly wisdom in fragile earthen vessels — to have the more certain proof of how highly He is valued by us. Moreover, nothing is better suited to nurturing mutual love than that human beings should be bound to one another through this bond — that one is made a pastor to teach the rest, and those appointed as students receive one and the same doctrine from one mouth. For if every person were entirely self-sufficient and needed no one else's help, the natural pride of humanity would cause each person to despise others and be despised in return. Therefore the Lord has bound His church together with the knot He foresaw would most strongly hold unity — by leaving with human beings the doctrine of salvation and eternal life, so that through their hands He might communicate it to others. This was Paul's intent when he wrote to the Ephesians: 'One body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore He says: When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men. He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things. And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine — but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love' (Ephesians 4:4-16).

By these words Paul shows that the ministry of human beings, which God uses to govern His church, is the chief bond by which the faithful are held together in one body. He also shows that the church cannot otherwise be kept safe unless it is upheld by these supports, in which the Lord has been pleased to place its salvation. Christ has gone up on high, Paul says, so that He might fill all things. The way He fills all things is this: through His ministers — to whom He has committed the office and given the grace to carry it out — He distributes His gifts to the church, and in a certain manner gives Himself present, extending the power of His Spirit through this institution so that it should not be empty or idle. This is how the saints are equipped. This is how the body of Christ is built up. This is how we grow in all things into Him who is the Head, and grow together with each other. This is how we are all brought into the unity of Christ — when prophecy flourishes among us, when we receive the apostles, when we do not refuse the doctrine ministered to us. Therefore, anyone who works to abolish this order and kind of government — or who diminishes its importance as though it were unnecessary — is working toward the scattering, and indeed the ruin and destruction, of the church. For neither the light and heat of the sun, nor food and drink, are as necessary for sustaining this present life as the office of apostles and pastors is necessary for preserving the church on earth.

I have therefore urged above that God has commended the dignity of this ministry to us with every possible title of honor, so that we might hold it in the highest esteem as the most excellent thing of all. He testifies that He gives humanity a singular gift when He raises up teachers for them — where He commands the prophet to cry out that beautiful are the feet and blessed is the coming of those who bring tidings of peace (Isaiah 52:7). And when He calls the apostles the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Nor could this office be honored more highly than in the words: 'He who listens to you listens to Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me' (Luke 10:16). There is no plainer passage on this than what Paul writes in his second letter to the Corinthians, where he treats the subject as if on purpose. He declares that nothing in the church is more excellent or glorious than the ministry of the Gospel — since it is the administration of the Spirit, of righteousness, and of eternal life. These and similar passages serve this purpose: that the order of governing and preserving the church through ministers, which the Lord has established permanently, should not lose its value in our eyes and through sheer neglect gradually fall out of use. God has declared how necessary it is not only by words but by examples. When He willed to shine more fully on Cornelius with the light of His truth, He sent an angel from heaven — to send Peter to him. When He willed to call Paul to the knowledge of Himself and graft him into the church, He did not speak to him with His own voice but sent him to a human being, from whom he was to receive both the doctrine of salvation and the consecration of baptism. If it was not without purpose that an angel — himself an interpreter of God — refrained from declaring God's will and instead directed that a human being be sent to declare it — and if it was not without purpose that Christ, the only true Teacher of the faithful, committed Paul to the instruction of a human being (that very Paul whom He had determined to take up to the third heaven and grant miraculous revelations of unspeakable things) — then who would dare despise this ministry, or dismiss it as unnecessary, when God has been pleased to confirm its value by such examples?

Those who hold ruling authority in the church according to Christ's institution are named by Paul in this order: first apostles, then prophets, third evangelists, fourth pastors, and last teachers. Of these, only the last two hold permanent office in the church. The other three the Lord raised up at the beginning of His kingdom's establishment, and He still raises them up from time to time as the need of the times requires. The apostles' office is clear from the command: 'Go, preach the Gospel to every creature.' No fixed boundaries are assigned to them — the whole world is their field, to bring all peoples into obedience to Christ, planting His kingdom everywhere through the spread of the Gospel. So when Paul set out to prove his apostleship, he pointed not to one city he had won for Christ, but to the broad spread of the Gospel across many lands — and to the fact that he had not built on another man's foundation but had planted churches where the name of the Lord had never been heard. The apostles were therefore sent to bring the world back from its departure from God to true obedience, and to establish His kingdom everywhere through Gospel preaching — or, if you prefer, as the first builders of the church, to lay its foundations throughout the world. By 'prophets' Paul does not mean all interpreters of God's will of whatever kind, but those who excelled through special revelation — people who may no longer exist today, or are at least far less prominent. By 'evangelists' I understand those who, while lower in rank than the apostles, were next to them in office and in effect occupied their place. Luke, Timothy, Titus, and others like them belonged to this category — and perhaps also the seventy disciples whom Christ appointed in the second tier after the apostles. According to this interpretation — which seems to me consistent with both Paul's words and intent — those three offices were not established in the church to be permanent, but only to serve for the time when churches needed to be founded where none had previously existed, or at least when the transition was being made from Moses to Christ. This said, I do not deny that the Lord has at times since then also raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own time — for it was necessary to have such people to bring the church back from antichrist's corruption. Yet I still call the office itself extraordinary, because it has no place in churches that are already well established. After these come pastors and teachers, which the church can never do without. The difference between them, as I understand it, is this: teachers are not appointed to govern discipline, administer sacraments, or give warnings and exhortations — but only to expound Scripture, so that pure and sound doctrine is maintained among the faithful. The pastoral office, by contrast, includes all of these.

We have now seen which ministries in the church were temporary and which were ordained to continue permanently. If we join the evangelists with the apostles, we are left with two pairs that in a certain way correspond to each other. Our teachers are to the ancient prophets as our pastors are to the apostles. The prophets' office was more excellent on account of the special gift of revelation they possessed, but the teachers' office follows a similar order and serves essentially the same purpose. In the same way, the twelve whom the Lord chose to proclaim the new message of the Gospel to the world were superior in rank and dignity to the rest. For although in the general sense and meaning of the word all ministers of the church may rightly be called apostles — since they are sent by the Lord as His messengers — yet because it was essential that those who brought something new and unheard of should be distinguishable, it was necessary for those twelve (to whose number Paul was later added) to carry a specific title above the others. Paul himself in one place applies this name to Andronicus and Junias, whom he says were notable among the apostles — but when he speaks precisely, he reserves the term for that primary rank. This is consistent with common scriptural usage. Yet pastors, except that each governs the particular churches assigned to them, share the same charge as the apostles. Let us now hear what that charge actually involves.

When the Lord sent the apostles, He gave them the command — as we have already noted — to preach the Gospel and to baptize believers for the forgiveness of sins. He had previously commanded them to distribute the holy signs of His body and blood, as He Himself had done. Here is the holy, inviolable, and permanent law laid on those who succeed to the apostles' place: they are commanded to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. From this we conclude that those who neglect both of these things falsely claim to bear the apostles' role. And what of pastors? Paul speaks not only of himself but of them all when he says: 'Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God' (1 Corinthians 4:1). And elsewhere: 'An overseer must hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict' (Titus 1:9). From these and similar passages found throughout Scripture, we can gather that in the apostolic office the two principal duties are preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. As for the ministry of teaching, it includes not only public sermons but also personal instruction and private admonition. So Paul calls the Ephesians as witnesses that he never held back anything that would be for their good, but taught them both publicly and in every household, testifying to Jews and Greeks alike about repentance and faith in Christ. And shortly after he adds that he did not cease warning every one of them with tears. It is not my purpose here to describe all the qualities of a good pastor, but only to point out what those who call themselves pastors are professing: that they are appointed to govern the church not to hold an empty title, but to instruct the people in true godliness through Christ's teaching, to administer the holy sacraments, and to maintain and exercise sound discipline. For to whoever is set as a watchman in the church, the Lord declares that if anyone perishes through ignorance on account of their negligence, He will require that person's blood from their hands. What Paul says of himself also applies to all of them: 'Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel, for I am entrusted with a stewardship' (1 Corinthians 9:16). Finally, what the apostles performed for the whole world, every pastor ought to perform for the flock to which he has been appointed.

Although we assign each pastor to a particular church, we do not thereby deny that one who is bound to one church may assist other churches if something troubling arises that requires his presence, or if he is consulted on a difficult question. But for the sake of the church's peace and order, this arrangement is necessary: that each person knows what they are responsible for, so that everything is not thrown into confusion, with people running about without a calling or rashly crowding into one place. It also prevents those more concerned for their own interests than the building up of the church from freely abandoning their congregations at will. As a general rule, therefore, this order ought to be maintained as closely as possible: each person should be content within his own boundaries and not intrude into another's charge. This is no human invention but an ordinance of God Himself. We read that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in the individual churches in Lystra, Antioch, and Iconium — and Paul himself commands Titus to appoint elders in every town. In one place he speaks of the bishops at Philippi, and in another of Archippus as bishop of the Colossians. And there remains his notable farewell address in Luke to the elders of the church at Ephesus. Whoever, therefore, takes on the governance and responsibility of one church, let him know that he is bound by the law of God's calling. This does not mean he is shackled to the soil — as lawyers say — so that he may never move, when the common good genuinely requires otherwise and it is done in an orderly way. But one who is called to a particular place ought not on his own initiative to think about leaving, or seek to be released simply because it seems advantageous to him. And if it is expedient that someone be moved to another place, he ought not to act on his own private judgment, but to wait for public authority.

When I have used the terms bishop, elder, pastor, and minister interchangeably for those who govern churches, I have done so in keeping with the usage of Scripture, which uses these words without distinction. Whoever executes the ministry of the word, Scripture gives him the title of bishop. So in Paul, immediately after commanding Titus to appoint elders in every town, he adds: 'For the overseer must be above reproach...' (Titus 1:7). And in another place he greets multiple bishops in one church. In Acts it is recorded that he called together the elders of Ephesus, whom in his own address to them he calls bishops. At this point it should be noted that we have so far only cited offices connected to the ministry of the word — and Paul mentions no others in that fourth chapter of Ephesians we have been using. But in the letter to the Romans and in 1 Corinthians he lists other offices: miracles, the gift of healing, interpretation, governance, and care for the poor. Of these I have passed over the temporary ones, since dwelling on them serves no useful purpose. But two remain permanently: governance and care for the poor. By 'governors' I understand the elders chosen from the people, who together with the bishops were to exercise oversight over conduct and apply discipline. This is the only way to make sense of Paul's instruction: 'He who leads, let him lead with diligence' (Romans 12:8). From the beginning, therefore, every church had its council of godly, serious, and holy men who held the same jurisdiction over the correction of vices that we will discuss later. Experience itself shows that this was the practice for more than one generation. The office of governance is therefore also necessary for every age.

The care of the poor was entrusted to deacons. However, in the letter to the Romans Paul sets out two kinds. He says: 'He who gives, let him do it with generosity; he who shows mercy, let him do it with cheerfulness' (Romans 12:8). Since Paul is clearly speaking about public offices of the church, there must have been two distinct roles. Unless I am mistaken, by the first he means deacons who distributed the charitable funds; by the second he means those who devoted themselves to caring directly for the poor and sick — of which kind were the widows Paul mentions to Timothy. Women could hold no other public office in the church except to devote themselves to service of the poor. If this is granted — and it must be granted — then there are two kinds of deacons: those who serve by distributing aid to the poor, and those who care for the poor of the church directly. Although the word 'diakonia' (ministry/service) has a broader range, Scripture specially calls by the name of deacons those to whom the church has given the charge of distributing alms and caring for the poor, appointing them as stewards of the common treasury for the needy. Their origin, institution, and office is described by Luke in Acts. When a complaint arose among the Greek-speaking believers that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution to the poor, the apostles excused themselves by saying they could not adequately serve both the preaching of the word and the ministry of tables — and so they asked the congregation to choose seven qualified men to whom this work could be entrusted. This was the kind of deacons the apostolic church had — and the kind it is fitting for us to have, following their example.

Since in the holy assembly everything must be done decently and in order, there is nothing in which this principle needs more diligent attention than in establishing church governance — for nowhere is the danger greater if things are done in disorder. Therefore, to prevent restless and ambitious people from rashly thrusting themselves forward to teach or to rule — which would otherwise happen — it is expressly required that no one take up a public office in the church without a calling. For a person to be recognized as a true minister of the church, he must first be duly called, and then he must respond to that calling by taking up and carrying out the duties it entails. This we can observe repeatedly in Paul — whenever he means to affirm his apostleship, he almost always cites both his faithfulness in executing his office and the calling that authorized it. If so great a minister of Christ did not dare claim authority to be heard in the church except on the grounds that he was both appointed to it by the Lord's command and faithfully carrying out what was entrusted to him — how shameful it is when someone lacking both or either of these lays claim to such honor. But since we have already touched on the necessity of executing the office, let us now address only the calling.

This subject breaks down into four questions: what kind of ministers ought to be appointed, how they ought to be appointed, by whom, and with what ceremony or rite they are to be admitted. I am speaking of the outward and formal calling, which belongs to the public order of the church. The inner and secret calling — of which each minister is privately conscious before God, though the church has no witness of it — I set aside here. It is a good testimony of our heart that we receive the office offered to us not from ambition, greed, or any self-seeking desire, but from a pure fear of God and zeal for the church's edification. This inner calling is indeed — as I have said — necessary for each of us, if we wish our ministry to be acceptable before God. Yet a person may be outwardly and rightly called in the presence of the church even if he comes to it with a wicked conscience — as long as that wickedness is not publicly known. It is also common to say that even private individuals are in a sense called to the ministry when they are seen to be fit and capable for it — since learning combined with godliness and the other qualities of a good pastor is a kind of preparation for the office itself. For those whom the Lord has appointed to so great an office, He first equips with the tools needed to fulfill it, so that they do not come to it empty or unprepared. For this reason Paul, when addressing the Corinthians about the offices themselves, first listed the gifts that those who hold such offices ought to have. But since this is the first of the four points I have proposed, let us move forward to it.

What kind of bishops it is fitting to choose, Paul explains at length in two passages — but the sum is this: no one is to be chosen except those with sound doctrine and holy lives, not marked by any vice that would damage their credibility or bring disgrace on their ministry. The same standard applies to deacons and elders. It must always be ensured that those chosen are not unable or unfit to bear the burden placed on them — that is, they must be equipped with the gifts and abilities necessary to fulfill their office. When Christ was about to send out His apostles, He furnished them with the tools they would need. And Paul, after portraying the character of a true and good bishop, warns Timothy not to defile himself by appointing anyone who falls short of that standard. When I say 'how' ministers ought to be chosen, I am referring not to the ceremony of the choosing but to the reverent care that must be maintained throughout the process. This is the reason for the fasting and prayers that Luke records when the faithful appointed their elders. Knowing they were engaged in a most serious matter, they dared attempt nothing without great reverence and deliberate care. Above all they gave themselves to prayer, seeking from God the Spirit of counsel and discernment.

The third point in our division was: by whom ministers are to be chosen. On this question, no firm rule can be drawn from the calling of the apostles, since their situation differed from the ordinary calling of other ministers. Because theirs was an extraordinary office, it required a more visible mark — and so it was fitting that those appointed to it be called and commissioned directly by the Lord's own word. They therefore took up their work not by any human election but solely by the command of God and of Christ. This is why, when the apostles were choosing someone to take Judas's place, they did not dare name one person on their own authority — instead they put forward two, and let the Lord indicate by lot which one He wanted. Paul's statement that he was made an apostle not by men nor through a man, but through Christ and God the Father, must be understood in the same way. The first part — 'not by men' — was something he shared with all faithful ministers of the word, for no one may rightly take up that role without being called by God. But the second part — 'not through a man' — was unique to him. When he boasts of this, therefore, he is not merely claiming what every true and legitimate pastor has, but presenting his apostolic credentials. For there were those among the Galatians who worked to undermine his authority by portraying him as a minor disciple placed in office by the senior apostles. To defend the dignity of his preaching — which he knew was being attacked through those subtle maneuvers — he needed to show himself in every way equal to the other apostles. He therefore declares that he was chosen not by human judgment, like an ordinary bishop, but by the direct word and unmistakable calling of the Lord Himself.

No reasonable person will deny that it is consistent with the order of a lawful calling that bishops should be appointed by human beings — Scripture provides ample testimony of this. Nor does Paul's statement that he was not sent 'by men nor through a man' argue against this, since he is not there speaking of the ordinary appointment of ministers but is claiming what was unique to the apostles. In any case, even when God appointed Paul directly by His own singular prerogative, He still employed the discipline of an ecclesiastical calling. Luke records it this way: while the apostles were fasting and praying, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for Me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them' (Acts 13:2). What was the purpose of that formal setting apart and the laying on of hands — given that the Holy Spirit had already declared His own choice — except to preserve the church's discipline of appointing ministers through proper human means? The Lord could not have given a clearer endorsement of this order than He did by first declaring that He had ordained Paul as apostle to the Gentiles, and yet still requiring him to be commissioned through the church. We see the same thing in the choosing of Matthias. Because the office of apostle was of such extraordinary importance that they did not dare appoint anyone to it on their own judgment, they put forward two men and let the lot fall — so that the election might have an unmistakable testimony from heaven, while the church's proper process was still observed.

The question now arises: should a minister be chosen by the whole church, or only by the other ministers and elders who exercise discipline, or can he be appointed by the authority of one man? Those who give this authority to one man cite Paul's words to Titus: 'For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city' (Titus 1:5). And to Timothy: 'Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily' (1 Timothy 5:22). But they are mistaken if they think either Timothy at Ephesus or Titus in Crete held something like kingly power — that each could dispose of everything at his own will. They held a leading position above the others in order to guide the people with sound and wholesome counsel, not to act independently of everyone else. And lest I seem to be inventing this, I will make it plain from a comparable example. Luke records that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in various churches — but he also states the manner in which it was done, saying it was done by the raising of hands: 'having appointed elders for them in every church' (Acts 14:23). The two of them formally appointed them — but the whole congregation, following the Greek custom in elections, indicated by a show of hands whom they wanted. Roman histories similarly say that the consul who presided over the assembly 'created' the new officers — meaning only that he received the votes and guided the people in the election. It is also hardly likely that Paul granted more authority to Timothy and Titus than he claimed for himself. We see that he himself was accustomed to appointing bishops through the votes of the people. The passages above must therefore be understood in a way that takes nothing away from the common right and freedom of the church. Cyprian therefore speaks well when he declares it is grounded in God's authority that a priest should be chosen in the presence of the people and before the eyes of all, and should by public examination and testimony be approved as worthy and fit. We see that this was the Lord's commandment for the Levitical priests — that before their consecration they were to be presented before the people. Matthias was added to the fellowship of the apostles in this same way — as were the seven deacons — with the people present and giving their approval. 'These examples show,' says Cyprian, 'that the ordination of a priest ought not to be done without the knowledge of the people standing by — for the ordination to be just and lawful, it must be confirmed by the witness of all.' We have arrived, therefore, at this conclusion: by the word of God, a lawful calling of a minister is one in which those who appear fit are appointed with the consent and approval of the people — with other pastors guiding the election to ensure that the congregation does not act rashly, out of emotional passion, or in disorder.

There remains the form of ordination, which we placed last in our discussion of the calling. It is clear that the apostles used no other ceremony for admitting someone to ministry than the laying on of hands. I believe this practice came from the Hebrew custom of presenting something to God by laying hands on it as a gesture of dedication and blessing. When Jacob was about to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, he laid his hands on their heads. Our Lord followed this same practice when He prayed over the children. In the same sense — as I understand it — the Jews under the law laid hands on their sacrifices. By laying on hands, the apostles were therefore signifying that they were offering to God the one they were admitting to ministry. They also used it when they imparted the visible gifts of the Spirit. However it may be taken, this was the solemn practice whenever they commissioned anyone to a church office. They consecrated pastors and teachers this way, and deacons as well. Although there is no explicit command about the laying on of hands, the fact that it was consistently practiced by the apostles means their careful observance of it should carry the weight of a command for us. It is truly beneficial: through such a sign, the dignity of the ministry is commended to the people, and the one being ordained is reminded that he is no longer his own — but has been bound to God and to the church. Restored to its true meaning, this will not be an empty sign. For if the Spirit of God has established nothing in the church without purpose, we must regard this ceremony — having proceeded from Him — as genuinely useful, provided it is not perverted into a superstitious abuse. Finally, it must be noted that it was not the whole congregation that laid hands on ministers, but only the pastors. Whether many pastors always laid on hands together, or only one, is not entirely certain. But it is clear that in the case of the deacons, and of Paul and Barnabas, more than one participated. In another place, however, Paul writes that he alone — not many others — laid hands on Timothy: 'I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands' (2 Timothy 1:6). As for what Paul says in the other letter about the laying on of hands by the body of elders — I do not take this to mean that Paul is speaking of a council of elders, but that by that expression he refers to the rite of ordination itself. It is as if he said: 'Let the grace you received through the laying on of hands when I ordained you as an elder not be allowed to lie dormant.'