Signature passages, the lines readers know this work by, are set in a pale wash.

Article 1. That there has always been, and always will be, some Church, outside which there is no salvation.

In vain would all the things which we have hitherto expounded have been instituted by God, unless there were some who should be made partakers of all those benefits. Besides, since the kingdom of Jesus Christ is perpetual, there must always be some who acknowledge him as King. And so, from the beginning of the world, there has always been some Church, that is, an assembly and multitude of men chosen by God, who acknowledged and worshiped the true God out of his Word, in the one Jesus Christ apprehended by faith, as we have copiously shown in its place.

And we must confess that this Church will be perpetual, for the same causes, although Satan attempts everything to overthrow it. Finally, by the same arguments it is established that, since outside Jesus Christ there is nowhere any salvation, all who die otherwise than as members of Christ are alien from Christ, and therefore devoted to sure and perpetual destruction. For that saving power which is in the one Jesus Christ is effective in those alone whom the Father gives him, that is, who believe in him, and are therefore members of the Church, which for that reason is called the body of Christ.

Article 2. That there is only one true Church.

Since there is one God, one faith, one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, the one head of the Church, it follows of necessity that there is also one Church.

Article 3. Why the Church is called Catholic.

Since God, the Gospel being scattered through the whole world, propagated the kingdom of his Son even to the farthest ends of the earth, we must therefore acknowledge one Church, and that Catholic, that is, Universal, or diffused through all parts of the world; not as though it comprehends every single man (for it is established that very many men have always been excluded from this benefit, if we regard each one individually), but because the faithful are scattered through the whole globe of the earth, according as it pleased the Lord to join his elect to himself at whatever times, and out of whatever nations.

Article 4. On the communion of saints.

Since the Church acknowledges one Lord and supreme Prince, all the faithful, in whatever place they dwell, are citizens of one and the same city, that they may enjoy its laws and benefits, that is, Jesus Christ and all his riches. Rightly, therefore, is Christ called the head of all these members, which have coalesced into one body, of which he is the head, pouring his strength into them; and since he alone can do this, he alone deserves the name of head.

This, then, is the communion of saints. For Scripture is wont to call “saints” the faithful still living in this world, namely those justified and sanctified in Christ apprehended by faith.

Article 5. That the Church has only one head, which needs neither colleague, nor successor, nor vicar.

Jesus Christ, the one head of the Church, for the cause which we explained a little before, communicates this degree of dignity to no one at all, just as a good and lawful husband can bear no rival; and the Church in turn, which in this spiritual marriage bears the person of a chaste and modest wife, acknowledges no other by the name of husband.

Likewise he requires no successor, as one who lives to God forever; nor does he need any vicar. For first, he has fully revealed to us his will; next, by his Spirit he is perpetually present in the midst of his Church, directing with singular efficacy each member of his body, as he promised. Nor is there any reason why anyone should require a ministerial head (as they speak) in the Church, which Christ neither commanded nor instituted, and which the experience of all ages sufficiently proves how greatly those were deceived who thought a universal bishop must be set up in the Church; for God alone is he who can be equal to bearing this burden.

Nor was any such primacy thought of in the Church before wretched mortals were, by the just judgment of God, given over to a reprobate mind; as Gregory himself testifies, who said that the name of universal bishop befits Antichrist alone; and Jerome, who made the bishop of Eugubium, and any other, equal to the bishop of Rome; and Cyprian, who testifies that the episcopate is one, of which each holds a part in solidarity.¹

Article 6. That the communion of saints is not hindered, although the degrees of ecclesiastical offices are various.

Christ so governs the Church by his Spirit that meanwhile he uses the work of men for planting and watering, as Paul speaks. Besides, he has distributed his gifts, at what time, in what measure, and to whom it pleased him, for the preservation of the whole body; and he commands that his Church be administered rightly and in order. Far be it from us, then, to bring any anarchy into the Church of God, which would surely be brought in if we made all the offices of the Church equal among themselves.

Nay rather, what is there that we seek with greater earnestness than that the ecclesiastical polity be restored from the Word of God? Nor do we condemn the old canons of the Fathers, provided they be recalled to the prescript of the Word of God, and great account be had of places, times, and persons, that all things may be referred to edification. This, I say, we have never ceased earnestly to demand, so far are we from being despisers of true and lawful Councils and of the old canons, as they do not cease to cry out that we are.

But since those above all have resisted us, and still resist, who ought first of all to have thought of restoring the ruins of the Church, what wonder is it if, all hope of public and common consent being taken away, some princes and cities, the truth being known, provided for themselves and their own people privately? For whoever expects from those usurpers of the Church a lawful Ecumenical Synod acts no less ineptly than if he should hope that the brothels would be abolished by a common council of harlots and panders.

Article 7. On the marks by which the true Church is discerned.

We require, then, two things first of all. The one, that the true Church of God be distinguished from that which falsely claims for itself so precious a name. The other, that those who are not only in the Church but also of the Church be distinguished from those who are not of the Church, although they dwell in the Church, so far as they can be known by men.

For it is established that Satan is wholly occupied in coloring and adorning his Synagogue in various ways and arts, that it may be obtruded for the true Church; and it is plain enough that there will never in this age be a Church so pure and entire that chaff and tares are not found mingled with the wheat. And so it is worthwhile to observe certain marks, of which we shall speak, lest anyone be easily deceived.

It must be known, then, that the one mark of the true and genuine Church is its agreement with the Word of God, in which the Lord has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; whence it comes that we separate from the Word neither the Sacraments nor the ecclesiastical discipline appointed by God. For we acknowledge no other Word of God, nor any other manner of administering it.

Wherefore Jesus Christ testifies that his sheep follow him because they know the voice of their shepherd; nor, when he sent his apostles into the world, did he give them power to announce whatever they pleased, but rather said, “Go, and teach them to observe all things which I have commanded you.” And the Apostle testifies that he delivered nothing else to the Corinthians than what he had received from the Lord, and immediately subjoins the history of the Lord’s Supper, exactly as it was written out by the Evangelists.

And the same writes elsewhere that believers are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and the Apostles, that is, that they rest upon the doctrine planted by the apostles and evangelists in the Church, whose base and support is Jesus Christ. Peter also clearly declares that the Word of God is nothing other than that very thing which came to us through the preaching of the Gospel.

Nor is there any doubt that the apostles not only announced, but also wrote out, whatever is necessarily required for our salvation; so that it is most true which Paul said, that the whole of Scripture, divinely inspired, suffices to perfect the man of God. Therefore Cyprian also says: “Christ is to be heard; we must not attend to what someone before us thought ought to be done, but to what Christ, who is before all, first did.

For we must follow, not the custom of men, but the truth of God,” since by the prophet Isaiah God speaks and says, “In vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.”² Finally, wherever the Word is purely announced, the Sacraments purely administered, and ecclesiastical discipline used according to the prescript of the Word of God, there we acknowledge the genuine Church of God, even if the flock be small, and in appearance altogether to be despised.

Article 8. On the true members of the Church.

The true members of the Church are those who have that character proper to Christians, that is, faith. And someone is known to be faithful from this, that he acknowledges the one Savior Jesus Christ, flees sin, and studies righteousness, and that according to the prescript of the Word of God. For although there remain in any of them many remnants of sins, yet there is a very great difference between the sons of God, in whom the Spirit fights against the flesh, and those in whom sin reigns.

Finally, those alone are members of the Church in whom the Spirit (the Spirit, I say, the gift proper to the elect) fights against the flesh, and who can with Paul truly testify that they do the evil they would not, that is, to which they do not consent except so far as they are not yet perfectly regenerate. For as concerns hypocrites, of whatever state or condition they finally are, they are not to be numbered among the members of the Church, even if (so to speak) they hold the apostolic chairs.

But here we must beware, lest we either go further than is fitting, or judge rashly. For the judgment of God is to be awaited in laying open hypocrites and false brothers, and the Lord can, in his own time, call whomever it has pleased him, and recall to the way those who have erred.

Article 9. That these marks do not always remain in one and the same state.

It is established that these are the true marks of the genuine Church of Christ, but ones that do not always remain in one state. For it often happens that God, vindicating the perfidy of men by his incomprehensible wisdom, hides to a certain extent the rays of his light, so that sometimes the Church seems to have perished from the very foundation, as happened chiefly at the time when the Son of God entered into this world.

For then it is certain that the true religion was shut up among the Jews, in a certain final corner. But there, what ignorance of the learned was there! what corruption of doctrine! what wickedness of men! Yet the thing itself shows that the foundation of the Church remains firm, and that there was always some flock of the faithful, now grown, now diminished, and sometimes known almost to God alone, as appears from the history of Elijah.

Hence also it happens in our times that none are more deceived than those who confine the Church of God to a certain place, and to the succession of those who falsely call themselves bishops, since it can be most plainly shown, both from the Word of God and from the old canons, that it is nothing less than the Church. For it is indeed very easy to prove from these that all those Hierarchs, from the greatest to the least, are by their own law a thousand times excommunicate, that is, cast out from the communion of saints; so far is it from being true that the Church depends on their dignity or succession.

What then? someone will say: what will be the duty of the faithful in disturbances of this kind? Namely, that where the carcass is, there all the eagles be gathered together; that is, that wherever there is any faithful person, and whatever be the outward face of the Church, he cleave to Christ the head, cleaving namely to his one Word, whether you regard doctrines or life.

And if there be any corner of the world in which the Lord (who is bound to no place, nor nation, nor time) has raised that banner of his, that is, the ministry of the Word, then indeed it is the duty of the sons of God to follow the leader who calls, and, leaving idols, to join themselves to the forces of the God of hosts, as the prophets everywhere admonish.

Article 10. On the authority of the Church.

These things laid down, it follows that we see what the power and authority of the true Church is, a question we can resolve in one word, if we say that all that power is placed in this: that it obey its one husband, that is, Jesus Christ; both in that which is common to all the members cohering with the one head, and also in the proper function of each member.

But this matter plainly deserves to be explained part by part. And so we shall speak first of the use and faculty of the whole body of the Church, and afterward of the several members, those, I say, which are exercised by some public function.

Article 11. On the authority of universal Councils; and first, what I understand by this name.

The name of a universal Council, or Synod, properly declares an assembly of all the faithful who have come together, not even one excepted. But because the Lord has scattered his own, as it pleased him, through various regions of the world, it was necessary, for order’s sake, to distribute that whole multitude (which makes one body) into various classes, which they call dioceses and parishes.

Besides, it is by no means expedient, as often as the affairs of the universal Church are treated, that all the faithful individually convene. Therefore in this matter we call that a universal Council in which all the Churches, so far as can be done, agree, although the individual faithful are not present, but someone appears in the name of some whole Church, or even region.

Article 12. With whom the right of convoking a universal Council rests.

All things ought to be done rightly and in order in the Church of God, and therefore Councils too ought to be lawfully convoked. Now it is established that this is the chief duty of the Magistrate, that he provide for the tranquility of the Church; whence, if there is a Christian Monarch, this burden lies upon him, as often as present necessity requires, just as in the ancient Church it was done, without any controversy, under the Christian Emperors, until the ambitious Patriarchs, and especially the Roman and the Constantinopolitan, overturned the whole polity.

But if, as we now see, there are several princes, it is their common duty to conspire, with the highest zeal, in this matter so pious and holy. And if, as often happens, they neglect their duty, yet surely it is the duty of the pastors to provide, so far as in them lies, that the Christian Church receive no harm, and to stir up one another, that, so far as can be done, the advantages of the Church be provided for by common counsel; and that in such a way that there be here no place for ambition, and that all that prerogative of thrones and seats not delay the work of the Lord even a little.

Article 13. How those who are sent to Councils are to be chosen.

Of old, in those happy times, the care of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to fit men, with great solicitude, in the fear and trembling of the Lord, as often as necessity compelled to convoke an assembly of the Churches, and those were to be sent who should appear in the name of a parish, or a diocese, or even of some whole nation. And although it was probable that there were none more fit for managing those affairs than those who discharged the office of teaching in the Church, yet there was a great selection in the matter, nor were any wont to be sent except those who were established, by common consent, to excel in doctrine, in integrity of life, and in the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, as abundantly appears from the Acts of the Apostles.

Now, therefore, things being so disturbed and confused, since that flock who today call themselves prelates of the Church is not so much an assembly of men as a herd of swine and asses (as is too plainly evident); and since all those, from the least to the greatest, have bound themselves by express oath to defend by every means that tyranny against which a Council must needs be convoked; since, I say, all those, without any exception, have entered into the sheepfold of the Lord through the window, money being given, against the express Word of God, against Peter’s threats, against every custom of the purer Church, against all the old lawful Canons and Synods received without controversy (from which it would be very easy to prove that all such men pertain nothing to the Church of God, much less that they are its governors).

In such an overthrow of all things, I say, who at last can hold for an Ecumenical Council that assembly in which one can scarcely find even a single man who could deservedly be reckoned of the Church of God, whether you inquire into his calling, or his doctrine (which is for the most part not so much false as null), or his morals, unworthy of any Epicurean?

And so I profess that I do not sufficiently see how the controversies taken up in the cause of religion can today be settled by a council indicted together with the Apostates of the Roman Church, if indeed they wish to remain, not in their possession, but in their usurpation; which I do not doubt they will do, since they are resolved to suffer anything rather than that God should reign.

Yet if any hope of concord can be looked for from a universal Council, it seems to me that it could at last be set up in this way: if, from the sincere consent of the Emperor, and of the Christian kings and free cities, no account being had of those masks that falsely pretend the title of the Church, it were lawful for the several Churches to choose men of approved doctrine and life, who should decide, from the Word of God, both about the Apostate Roman Church and about the other controversies.

But this, indeed, is just like dreaming of Plato’s republic. For who will expect this consent from princes and cities? Who will draw those bellies to such conditions? God alone, surely, who holds the hearts of kings in his power, and will accomplish these things when he wills. Meanwhile, let them know that this counsel is sought by us, not for our own cause, but for theirs.

Let princes and commonwealths also know that they act neither well nor prudently who defer a true and just decision of these controversies to that time which they dream will come, when from the authority of Antichrist the truth shall be established. Finally, let all the pious know that they should never have more to fear from Antichrist, and all his slaves, than when they shall pretend some desire of gathering a Council and of restoring the Church.

Article 14. That anyone may be heard in a Council, provided it be done rightly and in order.

The Holy Spirit reveals himself to whomever it has pleased, and often indeed to those men whom otherwise everyone would despise. For this happened of old, when all the high priests and Levites had conspired against the truth; and in our age too, who is so blind as not to perceive this very thing? And so we do not hesitate to affirm that it is wrong for an ecclesiastical Council (especially a universal one, since it is to be indicted only for the greatest and most necessary causes) to be bound to the authority of certain men chosen rightly and lawfully from the Churches, without a place of speaking nonetheless lying open also to anyone; yet in such a way that, a certain order being established, no one be rashly admitted, nor the Holy Spirit be in any way bound in the actions of Councils.

Article 15. Who ought to preside over the actions of universal Councils.

Just as of old the universal Synods were gathered by the command of one Emperor, before the Roman Bishop subjected the very crown of the empire to his feet, so also no one doubts that either the Emperors themselves, or those whom it pleased them to appoint, presided over the asking and gathering of votes, as can be clear from the acts of the old Synods.

For what so becomes the nursing-fathers of the Church as to interpose their authority, that God may be worshiped in peace and tranquility? But here some things seem to stand in the way. For it is established that the empires of the world are distinct from the ministry of the Word; and next, the thing itself shows it to be most dangerous, for many causes, to subject Councils to the authority of princes.

For thus is kindled the ambition of those who wish to gratify princes; and on the contrary the simplicity of many can be frightened by the unaccustomed presence of a prince; to say nothing of the fact (which would that it were not true) that princes have always been few who were endowed with such doctrine or piety as is necessarily required for moderating actions of this kind, or who thought that they ought seriously to consider these matters, since they have been wont to be intent rather upon anything else, or to lend their ears to evil men rather than to good, by some fatal calamity of the world.

But it does not seem very difficult to meet these arguments. For first, I judge it most equitable that we not so separate the princes of this world from the ministry of the Word as to flee them also as profane; for this was the first step by which the Papal tyranny climbed to that height from which now it can scarcely be cast down.

Since no one can deny that princes ought above all to take care that the ministry of the Word proceed in an unoffended course, to whom, I ask, does it rather pertain, in the greatest tempests (which are for the most part stirred up by the ministers themselves), to convoke the Churches, and to provide in their assemblies that all things be done rightly and in order, and indeed by their presence to confirm the good and to deter the evil?

But, someone will object, no magistrates presided over the assembly of the apostles and of the best Churches. I grant it; for whom would they have called? Nor do I think that the Church should depend on their edicts or authority; but this I say, that he seems to me to deserve very ill of the Church who deprives it of the protection of present magistrates, as often as this is granted by God.

For there is indeed, I confess, one office of the civil magistrates, and another of the ministers, if you regard what is proper to each; but this I say is common to both, that they provide for the peace of the Church, and that in such a way that the former (as often as it has pleased God to bestow this benefit on the Churches, that they have a pious magistrate) are the chief guardians of order, while the latter establish all things from the pure Word of God, freely and holily, as the mouth of the Lord which is consulted by the pious magistrate; to which the princes afterward subscribe, that by their authority also they may confirm among their people what has been established from the Word of God, and command it to be carefully observed.

If anyone requires examples by which this may be confirmed, I will answer that David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah seem to me to have acted no otherwise with the elders of the Israelite Church; and from the acts of the old Synods it is altogether clear that the ancient and orthodox men of every age judged no otherwise concerning the bounds of the civil power and of the ecclesiastical ministry to be governed.

And so I judge that we must take care, not that the presence of pious princes be excluded, but that it be circumscribed within its own limits. And here let them remember that they must act no otherwise than if they were sitting upon their own throne, either to hear civil controversies or to enact laws: namely, that they be present in the Synod, not to reign but to serve, not to enact laws but to set forth, for themselves and for others to observe, the laws drawn from the Word of God through the mouth of his ministers.

But, someone will say, there is danger lest by this means some access be opened to flatterers. I answer that this is indeed true, as appears from those filthy and fawning Synodical acclamations, which befit theatrical shows rather than a Synod; but I answer that, besides the fact that it is impossible to provide against all inconveniences, experience itself shows that far more offenses are wont to arise from the absence of the prince than from his presence.

For what will ambitious, fickle, and rash men not dare (and of such, too many have always been found among the very ministers of the Church), unless, as often as it is granted by the Lord, they be kept in their duty by some reverence of the present magistrate? And how truly this is said by me appears not only from the predatory acts of the Synods of Seleucia, Lampsacus, and Ephesus, but even from the very acts of the first Nicene Synod itself.

And so, to conclude in few words, if a universal Council were to be gathered, since now neither do all the Churches obey one prince, nor does the greatest part of princes (be it said with their peace) seem fit enough to govern this whole action in such great controversies and dissensions of minds, nor in a multitude of presidents could anything be established freely or peaceably enough: it would seem necessary that all those in whose hands is the sum of affairs, whether princes or the magistrates of free cities, on both sides, all ambition being laid aside, by common consent, in the fear of the Lord, should determine, both concerning the number of the speakers, and concerning the time and place of the Synod, and especially concerning its future moderator, and indeed the whole form of the action, on those conditions which are both agreeable to the Word of God and most suited to the restoring of the concord of the Churches.

Now, as concerns the sessions and prerogatives of the bishops, that is, of those who shall have been sent by the Churches, what need is there to renew the old disgraces of the Christian Church? As for the chief Patriarchs who took the lead in casting their votes, what is there that, under this pretext, they did not cease mutually to stab one another, until at last, relying on the sloth of the Emperors, they ruined the Church together with themselves, and one Roman pseudo-bishop alone remains, concerning whose authority the chief question is raised?

By what right, then, shall he not only sit as judge over others, but even preside over them, not as one among the rest giving his opinion when asked, but as it were another Christ, vending himself in the place of God? Nay, what else would it be than to convene for the establishing of his Tyranny, if as many as convene from his faction be first of all absolved from that oath by which they bound themselves to that Antichristian seat and to their most holy Lord?

What if that tyrannical saying should hold good, that the Roman Pope is judged by no mortal, and is above a Council? We hear indeed how many things he prattles about the prerogative of the Roman seat; but he draws it from his own decrees, and those for the most part forged with the same good faith which he once used when he forged the decree of the Nicene Synod, that he might invade the African Churches.

But if his very primacy rests on the Word of God, what need was there to pretend the authority of the Nicene Synod among the Africans? And by what right shall we hold for orthodox that Nicene Synod which bids the Roman Patriarch be content with his own bounds, and grants him nothing more, as Patriarch, than that he inquire into certain Churches near to him, according to the prescript of the old Canons, when there is need, that all things may be preserved by an established order?

And what shall become of that Carthaginian Synod, which Augustine subscribed, in which it is plainly established, and expressly forbidden, that anyone appeal across the sea? What more? Although great honor was once given to the Roman bishop, on account of the dignity of the city, yet he was not always preferred to others in giving his opinion (for it was unheard of that anyone should indict a universal Council, or preside over it, except the Emperor himself, or those chosen by the Emperor), as appears partly from the acts of the Synods, partly from the letters of Leo to the Emperor Marcian.

Indeed, in the provincial Carthaginian Synod, Faustinus, the legate of the Roman bishop, is found only second, after Aurelius the Metropolitan of Carthage, among the subscribers. Let him, therefore, cease to urge his Tyranny so impudently, or let him be restrained, as is right, by pious princes. But what order is to be observed at this time by them in constituting a universal Council has now been abundantly said by us.

And how perilous and inept it is to leave the peace of the Church, once constituted, to certain seats, those almost infinite calamities of the Church, and especially that tyranny of the Roman pseudo-bishop, declare.

Article 16. How much is to be attributed to the authority of Synods.

There are those who despise ecclesiastical Synods as nothing; and on the contrary there are not lacking those who think that whatever has been received by them is to be received as an oracle of God. To both (which is a wonder) the Roman Proteus assents, who does not hesitate, as often as it pleases him (that is, as often as he can scrape something together for himself), to oppose the authority of Synods to the Word of God; and again, as often as he is either convicted from them of his own tyranny, or some hope of gain presents itself, openly and by name to abrogate the authority of all the Canons.

But we judge that a far different course is to be followed by us. For we do not doubt that the Lord, as he promised, is also present in the assemblies of his people rightly gathered together in his fear, even if only two or three convene; and therefore we do not doubt that he much more governs by his Holy Spirit some whole ecclesiastical assembly.

Yet we also are not ignorant that the truth of God rests on a far more solid and firm foundation than the opinion of men, whether they be few or many; nor have we learned to set, outside the common lot of men (who are subject to ignorance and to errors), any others than those alone who, impelled by God, have spoken, so that they are greater than every exception, namely the Prophets and the Apostles, through whom the Lord willed his will to be written for us in the books of both Testaments, which they call Canonical.

For experience itself also confirms that not only do hypocrites and malicious false prophets often obtain authority in the Church, but also that even the best men cannot reveal all things at one time and place; and the disagreement of the Synods themselves is established, in which not only the most learned and most religious men took part, but even presided. And so we judge that this manner is to be held: that we neither at once despise the judgments of Synods, unless it plainly appear that they were not lawfully gathered and were arrayed against the truth (of which kind there have already been far too many), nor depend on them in such a way that the full and inviolate authority of the Word of God, for establishing the chief doctrines, be not preserved sufficiently plain and clear, whole and unimpaired.

Rightly, therefore, Augustine: “Let us yield to, and obey, the holy Scripture, which knows not how to err or to deceive. It belongs to men to slip, to be deceived, to err, to deceive and to be deceived.” And elsewhere: “The letters of bishops may be reproved (after the Canon was confirmed; now by the Canon he calls the books of both Testaments received by the common consent of the Church), whether they have been written or shall be written, by the perchance wiser discourse of anyone more skilled in the matter, and by the weightier authority and learned prudence of other bishops, and by Councils, if anything in them has deviated from the truth; and the Councils themselves which are held through the several regions or provinces must yield, without any quibbling, to the authority of plenary Councils, which are made from the whole Christian world; and even the plenary Councils themselves, the earlier ones, are often amended by the later, when, by some experience of things, that is opened which was shut, and that is known which lay hidden, without any sacrilegious pride, without any swollen neck of arrogance, without any contention of envious rivalry, with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity.”

Thus far Augustine, speaking indeed of Cyprian.³

But those men will doubtless object arrogance to us, because we made a separation from them; as if those very men had not manifestly fallen away from Christ and from all the ancient orthodox. And if they dare to deny this, why do they refuse a meeting? What if, with Ambrose, we say that whatever is not delivered by the Apostles is full of crimes?⁴ Or consider this: Jesus Christ himself was condemned by the prince of the priests and a Council lawfully gathered, if you regard (as they wish) the outward form and succession, and not the successors.

And the African Council, with Cyprian, the faithful martyr of Christ, judged that those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized. Shall we therefore crucify Christ again, and agree with the Anabaptists? But (they will say) the Catholic Church afterward decided otherwise. Rightly, indeed. Why, then, is it not granted to us also, vexed for so many years with every kind of cruelty, that the whoredoms of the Roman harlot be called into doubt, and convicted before the Catholic Church, under lawful judges?

But lest we seem to wish to contend with reproaches, come, let us discuss what the authority of Councils is, and within what bounds it is circumscribed.

Article 17. Why Synods were wont to be indicted in the Christian Church, and what their power is.

We affirm that no Christian Synod ever was, or can be, indicted for establishing some new article of Faith, and that for a double cause. First, because it belongs to the one God to expound what is, or is not, sin, since he alone has empire over the conscience and the faith of men; whence it comes that no one ever arrogated this right to himself without in a manner thrusting God himself from his throne.

Next, because it cannot be doubted that God long ago abundantly instructed that ancient people in the doctrine of salvation: first through the Patriarchs, to whom he revealed himself by various visions and oracles, as it seemed good to his wisdom; then through Moses, by whom he willed (the wickedness of men growing, and the length of life decreasing) that whatever in the former ages had been declared to wretched mortals as necessary for salvation should not only be handed down, but also be delivered in writings, nay, even the things which should suffice for the salvation of the Church up to the coming of Christ; whence it comes that the Lord expressly commands that no one add anything to this doctrine, or take anything from it, so far is it from being lawful for any man to change anything in it.

And the Prophets succeeded Moses, not to establish laws, but to explain the Law and apply it to their times, and to show the true use both of the Law and of the promises, as is plain from their sermons. But at last, the times of the shadows being fulfilled, the Lord himself, descending to us, brought the fullest light into this world, the will of the heavenly Father being utterly laid open to us; and when he returned again from us to the Father, he by no means left us orphans, but poured out his Spirit in such measure upon the apostles and others whom he had chosen, that he instilled all truth (so far as concerned our salvation) into their minds, whence it should presently overflow into the whole world, explained by them in words, and delivered in writings never to perish, lest Satan should so easily impose upon wretched mortals under the pretext of his deceptions.

The apostles, therefore, diligently used all care, lest they should either conceal or adulterate anything, and laid open the whole counsel of God to the world. But this was neither given, nor ought to have been given, in like manner to their successors, that is, to sincere pastors and teachers. For those apostles were the interpreters of the Holy Spirit, greater than every exception, for the planting of the Churches; and therefore it is enough for their successors that each one build rightly in his own Church upon the foundation of those, declining neither to the right hand nor to the left.

For, I ask, if the apostles were ignorant of anything that was required for salvation, who at last of men will affirm that it was known to him, without manifest blasphemy? And how will the truth of the saying of Christ stand, who affirmed the contrary? Nay, how would they themselves have been saved? It remains, therefore, that we confess that the whole doctrine of salvation was known and clearly perceived by them.

And if this is so (as it surely is), and they suppressed it, what hinders them from being condemned as treacherous? But if indeed they announced it whole by their voice, but in their published writings explained it only in part, we deservedly rest in their doctrine. But why does Augustine use these words, treating of the traditions which they call Apostolic: “If anyone asks, this or that is from Christ, who of us will say that it is this or that?

And if anyone says this, how will he prove it?”⁵ And so from these things it follows that the foundation of the Church is overturned, and that Jesus Christ, the one head, spouse, Lord, and lawgiver of the Church, and indeed the prophets and apostles together with him, and the Word of God, and all the orthodox Fathers, are afflicted with signal insult by those who think it lawful for anyone, even an angel, much less a man, to take from, or add to, the written Word of God even the very least bit.

There is a double cause why of old the Churches came together. One, that they might assert the pure doctrine comprehended in the Word of God against heretics, and might approve before all good men, by their open testimony, what was both announced and written by the prophets and apostles; not as though the authority of the Word of God rests upon the testimony of men, or as though they added anything to the Word of God, but with this design, that they might provide for themselves and their posterity against Satan and his synagogue.

We believe, therefore, the true and genuine Church of God, whose marks we described in their place; we believe the Church, I say, not as though the Word of God, on which we rely, depended on it, but on the contrary because the Church rests upon the Word, in which the solid and firm truth of God stands forth; and in this sense the Church can be called the pillar and ground of the truth, of which it is the faithful witness.

And for this very cause we do not hold for the Church, but for the Synagogue of Satan, all those assemblies which turn aside from this truth; nor do we account as the true spouse of Christ, but as a harlot, that one which hears the voice of strangers, however much she vends herself for the true and chaste spouse of Christ. The other cause of ecclesiastical assemblies was, that they might establish the canons of ecclesiastical discipline, and (to comprehend all in few words) the ecclesiastical polity, according to the variety of times, places, and persons.

For it is necessary that in the house of God all things be done in order, of which order there is indeed one universal reckoning to be sought from the Word of God, but not one and the same form fitting all circumstances. And in establishing the laws of ecclesiastical polity, these three things are chiefly to be considered.

Article 18. What is to be considered in the first place in establishing the polity of the Church.

First of all, care must be taken that the doctrine itself (in whose knowledge and use salvation is placed) be accurately distinguished from the rites, which, although they pertain to edification, yet properly regard order and that decorum which ought to be preserved in the Church of God. For doctrine (a part of which we rightly make the administration of the Sacraments) touches the conscience, and is so far from depending on the will of men that, on the contrary, it is wrong not to observe it, or to add anything to it, or take anything from it.

But those rules, or canons, regard rather decorum in outward things, and therefore are neither universal, for the most part, nor perpetual. For what in one place profits for edification, in another would rather harm; and so also the reckoning of times is so diverse that what was once established for the best causes must sometimes be abolished; whence it comes that in the old Canons not only great variety, but even repugnance, is found.

Since, therefore, such constitutions, although as concerns the end and foundation (namely that general decorum which is commanded us to observe) are divine and heavenly, yet are human and mutable if we regard the special form, it follows that they do not of themselves properly bind the conscience, but, provided they are upright and just, so far do they bind us that they yield to the edification of the Church, and that we avoid offense.

Of this thing let this be the example. In the Apostolic Synod which met at Jerusalem, it is declared that we are justified by the grace of God alone, through faith, against those who wished to join Circumcision with the free remission of sins; and besides, fornication is forbidden. This doctrine, I say, did not proceed from the authority of this Council, but was only deservedly approved by it, since this is the doctrine which God revealed from the beginning, and ratified by the voice and writings of the prophets.

Besides, in the same Synod it is decreed that those who came to Christ from the uncircumcision should abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled. This latter, I say, must be distinguished from the former, inasmuch as it does not simply and of itself regard the worship of God, but only the outward life, and that in respect of a more excellent end, namely that in this way the Jews, not abhorring from the custom of the uncircumcised, might more easily suffer themselves to be persuaded, and coalesce into one body in Christ.

For otherwise the apostles would dissent from themselves, who at the beginning profess that we are justified by grace alone, through faith, without the works of the Law, and would contradict Christ, who testifies that the things which enter into the mouth do not pollute a man; and Paul, who was present at this Synod, would contradict himself, who afterward testified that all things are clean to the clean, that the kingdom of God is not placed in food and drink, and that to make a distinction of foods is a doctrine of devils, and requires only this, that all use all things soberly, with thanksgiving, and that we accommodate our liberty to the establishing of the weak, as the law of charity commands.

Let those, therefore, who do not admit this distinction either show us why that Apostolic statute is not now urged, or why they may take more liberty to themselves than the apostles, or let them yield to the truth of God, and henceforth study truly and seriously to serve the glory of God, instead of, abusing the authority of the Church, having hitherto enslaved themselves to the belly and to ambition.

Article 19. What is to be considered in the second place in imposing such constitutions.

Since the chief end of constitutions of this kind is that, while all things are done decently and in order, anyone may profit in the doctrine of salvation, it follows that care must be diligently taken, not only that they be not useless or inept, nor have any superstition in them, but also that they be such (so far as can be) that men, by their own nature prone to idolatry and hypocrisy, cannot easily abuse them.

And that we may beware of this the more diligently, that pitiable deformation of the Christian Church ought to admonish us, which it would be very easy to show arose for the most part from the preposterous diligence of those who, while they wished to accommodate Jewish and profane ceremonies to our uses, did not perceive that they were opening a way for Satan utterly to obscure the light of the Gospel.

Article 20. What is to be regarded in the third place in the political laws of the Church.

Since men are wonderfully delighted with their own inventions, and are vehemently prone to superstition, and since, the shadows of the ceremonies being taken away, that happy time has shone upon us in which the Lord wills to be worshiped in spirit and in truth, that is, with a certain purer worship, and one approaching nearer to the nature of God, care must be taken, first, that a multitude of ceremonies or rites be not brought in; and next, that nothing be established whose use is not either necessary or very great.

And so, as concerns our Churches, we profess that the purity of the Churches which flourished under the apostles themselves is most approved by us; and that not only because it is certain that they were both the most prudent and the most holy of all men, but also because we judge that the ruin of the Churches which soon followed their times is to be imputed to none more than to those who would not rest in their simplicity, as though, in things indifferent (such as ceremonies and rites are by their own nature), it were lawful to keep no measure.

But to this error there was afterward added either the stupidity or the wickedness of those who were not ashamed to attribute to the apostles whatever had proceeded from uncertain beginnings, since most things are of such a kind that they could not even have come into the apostles’ minds, and can easily be convicted by the contradictory testimonies of their own authors.

Surely no one of sound judgment will deny that simplicity and fewness of rites are best in that religion which raises men from earth to heaven, and that Jesus Christ, the barer he is, the better he lies open to us; whereas, on the contrary, all false religions are wont to call men away from divine things by certain outward gesticulations.

But if the matter were otherwise, what need, I ask, was there to abrogate the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, which had been established by the very voice of God? Was it that others, afterward devised by men, should succeed them? Rightly, therefore, does Augustine, although he was a man of a most patient disposition, complain of the multitude of ceremonies; and if he had seen those which were afterward introduced, not from the authority of the Church but from the arbitrary will of each man, what outcries would he at last have raised?⁶ And let these things be said of those that are utterly useless or inept.

For as concerns the impious and superstitious (of which kind are very many), what need is there to speak of them? Yet we know that there is nothing so impious but that it is defended by some under the pretext of the authority of the Church, as though it were enough to hold out the empty and false name of the Church. But come, let a place be given us for speaking, and unless we show that very many things have been brought in by a diabolical spirit, in which today unskilled men place the sum of piety, we will pay the penalties of our rashness.

Article 21. Who are to be refuted that object the authority of Councils to us.

This, then, is the aim of Councils. And since this is so (to comprehend all in few words), so far are we from repudiating Councils, as some keep alleging, that on the contrary we are ready to show that Councils are trampled upon by none more than by those who object this contempt to us. Yet this we profess: that it seems wrong to us to exalt Councils so far that faith rests upon their authority as upon a foundation, since Paul himself, who was equal to many, reserves this right whole to Christ Jesus alone.

First, then, we say that it must be observed which Councils are brought forward, in what manner, at what time, in what place, by whom, and to what end they were convoked and celebrated; since far more illegitimate Councils than legitimate will be found, if one weighs all these circumstances. And there is no authority, divine or human, that compels us to believe witnesses not sufficiently fit.

But above all, the very kind of the doctrine must be weighed, namely whether it is drawn from the Word of God and wholly agrees with this rule of truth, as was once done by the Bereans, and as the Apostle bids be done. Finally, we believe the Church as a witness, so far as it is the true Church and agrees with the Word of God; and we turn away from those by whom we are today assailed, as enemies of the Church and of Councils, of which kind were once the Pharisees, who wished to seem the pillars of the Church, while by their traditions they abrogated the commandments of God, and neither entered the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffered others to enter.

Article 22. On particular Synods, that is, the Provincial or National Synods, as they are called.

What was once established concerning provincial Synods, to be convoked by the Metropolitan, is plain from the old canons. Nor are we those who, if the ruins of the Churches were repaired, would think that this, or another order not unlike it, should be repudiated. But we require two things here above all: namely, that no tyranny again creep into the Church, as though the Holy Spirit were bound to some certain seat or person; and next, that all things be referred to edification, the old canons themselves being recalled to this end.

Article 23. How many kinds of ordinary ministers there are in a lawfully constituted Church.

Hitherto we have spoken of the power of the whole body of the Church. It remains that we treat of the chief members of the same body, which seem to me most conveniently divisible into four kinds. For of those who discharge a public office in the Church, some are set over the announcing of the Word, some over the distributing of the ecclesiastical goods, some over the discipline and polity of the Church; and some, finally, partly administer civil affairs, partly procure and protect the tranquility of the Church in general, and that with the power of the sword received for these uses.

For those who separated the Laity (as they call them) from the Ecclesiastics, as though these latter were not also members of the Church, plainly divided what God has joined; since throughout the Scriptures kings are called the anointed of the Lord, just as the prophets and the rest of the faithful are; and Peter calls the whole Church of God the clergy (a word that signifies a portion, or lot), namely as the portion and peculiar possession of God himself.

Article 24. On the office of the Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets of the primitive Church, as it is called.

We find in the Word of God five grades of those who, after the coming of Christ, were set over the Churches. For there are reckoned Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers; all of whom are sometimes called by the general name Bishops, that is, overseers; sometimes Deacons, that is, ministers; and sometimes also Presbyters, as you might say Senators. And of these five grades we do not doubt that the first three were temporary, inasmuch as they were instituted for that time in which the Churches of the Gentiles were to be planted, and Israel to be led over from Moses to Christ.

For the Apostles were chosen by Christ himself, with equal power among themselves, as the primary architects, so to speak, of the future building, bound to no certain Church (as some fable concerning Peter, whom they make, from an Apostle, the Roman Bishop), but sent into the whole world, as the Spirit of the Lord governed their steps, as is plain from the Acts of the Apostles, and not from the fabulous and blasphemous writings of a certain Abdias of Babylon, or of anyone else, which some have lately not been ashamed to obtrude upon the Church of God.

The Evangelists were the companions and, so to speak, the co-workers of the Apostles, of which kind were Timothy, Silas, Titus, and the other companions of Paul, whose work he used in those matters for which he alone could not suffice.

And that the Prophets were more bound to a certain place can be established from the same Acts of the Apostles, and that they were gifted with a singular understanding of the mysteries of God, so that sometimes they also excelled in the gift of foretelling things to come, so far as it seemed good to the Lord, by signs and miracles, for the nascent Church.

There remain, therefore, the Pastors and Teachers, whose office is perpetual in the Church, but in that measure which has pleased the Lord, as we expounded in its place.

Article 25. On the office of Pastors and Teachers.

The office of these Teachers is, in general, to attend to the administering of the Word and to the holding of prayers; under which we also comprehend the administration of the Sacraments and the blessing of marriages, by the perpetual use of the Church, although Deacons have often supplied the place of Pastors in these matters. These, then, are the things which Christ signified by the terms of loosing and binding, of opening and shutting, and also by the name of the keys.

For since heaven is set before us as a kind of perpetual dwelling, to which there is one access added through Jesus Christ, and since to Christ one faith leads us (which faith, created in us, is nourished by the Holy Spirit through the Word and Sacraments, as we explained in its place), therefore the Pastors, to whom the office of preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments is committed, are said to bear the keys of the kingdom of heaven, since through the word of reconciliation the world is brought to eternal life.

Besides, since sins hold us bound as with certain chains, and the preaching of the Gospel announces to us liberation from sin, death, and the devil, therefore the ministers are said to bind and to loose, by the authority of God. But three things must here be observed, which we shall presently subjoin.

Article 26. That there is a difference between Pastors and Teachers.

First, then, it must be known that there is some difference between Pastors and Teachers. For the office of the Teachers is to expound the Word of God simply, that the true sense may be drawn out, and especially to instruct the catechumens; in which office Origen served in the Church of Alexandria. But the Pastors go further, who in their sermons apply the doctrine of the Word to the uses of the Church, publicly and privately, by praying, exhorting, consoling, and rebuking; and finally, by watching day and night for the salvation of the flock which the Lord has committed to them to be fed with the word of life.

Article 27. That Pastors and Teachers are only instruments which God uses.

The other thing to be held is this: that neither Pastors nor Teachers can properly bind or loose anyone, or open or shut the kingdom of heaven to anyone. For it belongs to the one God, who formed our hearts, to change them and to draw them, to remit or to retain sins, to destroy or to save body and soul; and that so properly that he shares this glory with no one at all.

Yet since, of his goodness, he uses the ministry of men to lay open his will, both in the preaching of the Word and in the administering of the sacraments (which he uses as twin channels, that he may instill his grace into the hearts of the elect), therefore these magnificent commendations are attributed to the ecclesiastical ministry, so that the Son of God even breaks out into these words: “He who receives you receives me; he who rejects you rejects me”; namely in respect of him who works through them.

For if we consider the ministers in themselves, however excellent, we must rest in this saying of Paul: “He who plants and he who waters is nothing, but God who gives the increase”; which John himself confirmed when he said, “I indeed baptize you with water, but he who comes after me is mightier than I; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

We must therefore diligently beware lest we either despise the ministers of the Word (so far as they are ministers), or extol them beyond measure, so as to venerate them as if for God, as this foolish and stupid world is mostly wont to be stupefied at false prophets especially. Let us rather follow what Paul requires, that we hold the true ministers of Christ as the dispensers of the mysteries of God, and therefore hear the voice of the Shepherd speaking through their mouth.

Article 28. By what marks the true Pastors and Teachers are distinguished from the false.

In the third place it must be observed what the Apostle says in the same place, that it is in turn required of the dispensers that they be found faithful. And so they are unworthy of the name of ministers, and therefore of the honor, who falsely call themselves ministers, when they are not called by the Lord; that is, who either are not rightly chosen by the Church (if any lawful order is constituted in the Church), or are not raised up by God beyond the ordinary course, as has happened also in our time, things being so collapsed that no place was left for the ordinary calling.

For “how shall they preach,” says Paul, “unless they be sent?” And who at last is the prince who would ratify what someone has done, not only without him but against his will? We therefore seriously admonish all the pious to inquire diligently into those who, the lawful and ordinary calling being passed over, of their own accord approach the function of ministry, as often as there is any place for it.

For it is certain that such men, who are impelled by nothing but an evil spirit, even if for a time they feign the voice of pastors, yet at last betray their wolfish nature, mostly with the late slaughter of the wretched sheep. Besides, those are not to be held for pastors whom the thing itself shows to be by no means fit for the pastor’s office; nor those who are infamous for crimes, and fitted not for removing but for placing offenses, and who do not discharge their duty.

For who is a pastor that does not feed? Yet Christ’s voice is to be heard, even if he speak with us through mercenaries and ministers of impure life, so that here that saying holds good: “Do what they say, but do not do according to their works,” namely so far as they sit upon Moses’ seat, that is, so far as they announce the Word of God, although their life and their sayings do not agree.

The mercenaries, therefore, are to be tolerated, by those at least who cannot do otherwise.

But those upon whom this burden lies, to constitute true pastors by casting out the mercenaries, let them see what they will answer before God, if they do not discharge their office. But concerning Wolves, or false prophets, we must think otherwise, inasmuch as the Lord so often bids us flee them and avoid them by every means.

And we hold for wolves and ministers of Satan as many as wander outside the Word of God, that is, who do not sincerely explain the Word of God, but either plainly reject it, or adulterate it with their inventions, or add something to it or take something from it. And whatever such wolves prattle, even if they display a thousand canons, and as many bulls, and a thousand grades of succession, we affirm it to be utterly empty and frivolous, and to be securely despised by all the pious, after the example of Christ and the Apostles.

For the power of binding and loosing, of shutting and opening, is not infinite, nor arbitrary, but defined and bounded within the limits circumscribed by the Word of God, and is attributed not to wolves but to Pastors; and although the greatest part of men should assent to and approve their rage and cruelty, yet it does not follow that what is done on earth against the commandment of God is ratified in heaven.

Article 29. That some order ought to be constituted in the college of Pastors.

Although the authority of the Pastors is equal among themselves, as their function is one, yet it is necessary that all assemblies be governed by a certain order. And so we see that at Jerusalem, in the college of the Apostles, Peter took the lead before the rest. But hence it does not follow (as some contend) that Peter’s apostolate is to be distinguished from the office of his colleagues, as though he were a prince above the Apostles, or as it were the head of the Church.

For he took the lead of his colleagues only for order’s sake, and that in the common assembly, as often as use required. And that this is so is plain even from this, that, reproved before the Church by those who were of the circumcision, he renders an account of the legation he had discharged; and at Antioch he is openly rebuked by Paul; nor will any testimony, even the very slightest, be found in the whole history, from which this primacy could be gathered; but on the contrary, the whole series of the history convinces us that the calling of the Apostles was equal, and their function equal.

And so we acknowledge that it is necessary that someone exist among the brethren who may gather the college, report on the affairs, send the colleagues to the votes, and finally, when there is need, write and speak in the name of the college. Such a one was in the old Church whom Justin calls the “president,” that is, the prelate; now in some places they call him the “dean” of the class, whose office is annual, where the Churches are distributed into classes; elsewhere they call him “Superintendent,” to avoid, I suppose, the odium of episcopal tyranny.

Nor indeed are we ignorant how many things were established by the ancients concerning the grades of Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, and that with the best zeal, with the limits of each defined, and a certain authority attributed. But yet, on account of that horrible tyranny which, arising from these very beginnings (as Jerome rightly judged, and as is plain from the whole history of those times), ruined the universal Church and today almost alone delays its restoration, we rest in the order and custom of the Apostles, who, it sufficiently appears, in the management of affairs chose by common consent those whom they judged most fit, as necessity required; and that in such a way that the power of such men was temporary and defined, and that the Churches deferred reverence to one another by office, and not by a kind of royal command.

For they sought this one thing, mutually to help one another in propagating the glory of God; so far was it from being lawful for anyone to attempt anything at his own discretion, or for anyone to say that he was to be judged by no one, even if he should drag all men headlong into Tartarus, as that Roman Antichrist not only said but even left in writing, that there might stand a perpetual monument of the Roman apostasy.

And that these things were so practiced by the Apostles, anyone can see from the history of the election of Matthias and of the Deacons; and likewise from the fact that Simon Peter and John are sent into Samaria by the rest of the Apostles, and Barnabas, Judas, and Silas from Antioch; and indeed from the very action of the Jerusalem Synod, and from the things written by Paul in many places.

Article 30. On the second kind of public offices in the Church: the office of Deacons and the administration of the ecclesiastical treasury.

The second kind of ecclesiastical functions regards the distribution of the goods of the Church, which burden the Apostles cast from themselves, because they believed they could not suffice for so many things; so far were they from the filth of those who call themselves their successors and alone wish to be reckoned for the Church. First, then, in the Church of Jerusalem, seven men were chosen, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom, approved by fit witnesses of their life, who were called by the peculiar name of Deacons, that is, Ministers, because they served the tables (that is, the love-feasts, which they called Agapae) and the other such things; whereas otherwise the name of Deacons, that is, ministers, sometimes extends very widely.

This order the rest of the Churches afterward followed, not however as concerns the number (lest anyone philosophize curiously about the number seven), but having regard to the function, which was almost distinct from the ministry of the Word, as the history of the old Church shows. Indeed, it is plain even from the old Canons that the ecclesiastical goods were wont to be divided into four parts.

Of these, one part was distributed to the Clerics, that is, to those who, by their parents’ consent, were nourished and instructed at the Church’s expense until they should be chosen for some office, or who already in fact served the Church. For the laborer is worthy of his hire, and on the contrary it is just that he who does not labor should not eat.

But great caution was here used, lest expenses be made uselessly, lest the Churches be burdened with a multitude of Clerics, lest finally those be nourished who could conveniently sustain themselves at their own expense. The second quarter was for nourishing the poor; the third was spent on maintaining the buildings and other such uses, yet in such a way that, besides those expenses being made with the greatest moderation, all the ornaments even of the temple, if at any time poverty required it, came into the uses of the poor (although Jerome and Ambrose long ago complained that many were even then given to many pomps, which befitted profane men rather than Christians).

Finally, the quarter that remained was granted to the Bishop: not that he might abuse it at his own discretion, but that, living soberly and honestly, he might also comfort the captive brethren when there was need, and receive the poor strangers, as Gelasius relates, and Jerome too clearly signifies. Such burdens, then, were committed to the Deacons; and they had to render their accounts publicly before the Presbyters, over whose college the Bishop presided, so that they had to act in all things by the authority of one another, as is provided in the Council of Antioch.

But afterward, partly the amplitude of the office, partly the magnitude of the burden, brought it about that Subdeacons were added to the Deacons in some places, and, for order’s sake, Archdeacons were instituted, of whom mention is made in Jerome and Gregory. And to the Deacons can be joined the Widows, who served the uses of the poor and of strangers, especially of the sick, of whom express mention is made in Luke and in Paul.

Article 31. On the lower orders, which they call minor.

Besides, mention is made, in writers sufficiently ancient, of certain functions which afterward began to be called Minor Orders, and are numbered by some as four, by others as more. For there were certain of the Clerics, Doorkeepers, who were at the doors of the temple, for the sake of the catechumens and of the excommunicate and the penitents, whom they kept from the mysteries.

There were besides certain Acolytes, as it were the companions and attendants of the Bishop, as witnesses of all his words and deeds, that they might gradually become known to the Church and be accustomed to handling the affairs of the Church, whose work they also used in certain lighter matters. Nor were there lacking Readers, who publicly read the passage of Scripture to be explained by the Pastor or Teacher.

Mention is also made of Exorcists, but ones whose office either ceased, or surely ought to have ceased, with the gift of miracles. Now all these functions were instituted, not only for the keeping of order, but also that the Clerics might gradually give some specimen of their industry before a greater burden was imposed on them, so that one did not rashly come to greater functions except by these grades, with intervals of time also appointed in which one had to have served in each, as appears from the old Canons.

Article 32. On the third kind of ecclesiastical functions, namely those occupied in jurisdiction.

At last we come to the third kind of ecclesiastical offices, which pertain to Spiritual Jurisdiction. This was committed peculiarly to the Presbyters so called, as you might call them Senators or Elders, whom the Apostle also elsewhere names Governors, and whose college Christ signifies by the name of the Church, because with them resided the supreme power of ecclesiastical discipline, so that it sufficiently appears that this whole order was taken from the Israelite Church.

And the Presbyters were chosen by votes, with the approbation of the whole assembly, as is plain enough from Ambrose, complaining that certain men transferred this right to themselves; and from Cyprian also, from whom too it is lawful to understand that the Bishop presided over the college of Presbyters, not that he might reign there, but that he might govern the ecclesiastical polity according to their judgment, especially since at that time the African Churches were not aided by the Magistrate, but rather most cruelly vexed.

But it must be known that this jurisdiction does not pertain to earthly and perishable things, and is altogether distinct from the Civil, as Christ testified, and after Christ Paul, although each jurisdiction severally comprehends all the faithful without exception. For all are subject to the civil Magistrate, whose power also is, in its own respect, an ordinance of God, so far as he ought to procure the peace and tranquility of things, especially in those matters which regard the first table; and in turn there is no one who is not subject to the Word of God, and therefore to ecclesiastical discipline.

Yet the Apostle wills, I confess, that, for the sake of avoiding offense, Christians should privately judge their controversies without the civil Magistrate. But it sufficiently appears that Paul, who followed the footsteps of Christ and of all the saints, thereby takes nothing from the Civil jurisdiction, nor confounds what the Lord distinguished, but only has regard to that time in which it could not come to pass that the faithful should contend before unbelieving judges without being subject to various calumnies.

For which cause he admonishes the Corinthians that controversies of this kind should rather either be removed once for all, or composed by domestic arbitration. This admonition of Paul, therefore, in no way favors the furious and dizzy Anabaptists, who leave no place for the civil Magistrate in the Christian Church.

Therefore, to return to the matter, there is a certain ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but one to be utterly distinguished from the Civil.

Yet it is established that even under Christian Emperors the Bishops were much hindered by the cognizance of civil causes, but so that they might remove dissensions by friendly settlement; since there is no doubt that some princes too much indulged the ambition of certain Bishops, whence afterward it came to pass that gradually all things were thrown into confusion. For not all the Bishops were like Augustine, complaining that he was called away from his office by the importunity of the people in cognizances of this kind; and on this matter there exist such grave and bitter complaints of Bernard that it is almost incredible that it was not long ago reckoned among the heresies by those who attribute to their Antichrist each sword, as they call it, no less falsely than impudently.

Article 33. What the aim of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is, and what its parts.

The whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction has this one aim set before it: that both the whole body of the Church and its several members be preserved in common edification, according to the prescript of the divine Word. Now since this spiritual edification is placed in good laws and in the accurate observance of them; and since the laws themselves either properly regard the doctrine of salvation, that is, the worship of God and the love of the neighbor, or look to the reckoning of that polity which ought to be observed in the Church for order’s sake: it follows that there are two chief parts of this jurisdiction.

For the one comprehends the power of making laws, both as concerns doctrines and morals, and also as concerns the external polity; the other is placed in the coercion of those who transgress the laws laid down. But as concerns the former part, we have already shown before that God reserved this whole right whole to himself alone, the conscience being so bound by the laws that, from his one will (now most fully laid open to us through the Prophets and Apostles), it must be determined what is just or unjust before God.

And so there will remain only the other small part conceded to the governors of the Church, namely the constituting of laws that regard the polity in the Church, and that in such a way that all particulars (which can be neither perpetual nor universal, on account of the diversity of circumstances) be always recalled to the general rules of polity, which themselves are expressed in the Word of God, as we declared in its place.

But come, let us explain this whole power of the Presbyters through its several parts.

Article 34. On the several parts of the office of the Presbyters.

The Presbyters ought, first of all, to watch and to use all diligence that the Church committed to them be governed by a certain order, and that all the laws constituted concerning that matter be diligently observed by each one. Likewise, that if there be any offenders, inquiry be made into them, and that each be recalled into the way, either by private admonition, or by a tempered rebuke in the common assembly of the presbyters, or even, when there is need, by coercion, of which we shall treat more at large hereafter.

And if any new thing emerge, it is their office to meet in good time the impending or already present evil, namely by a law so constituted as may answer both to the principles of religion and to charity, for edification; in such a way that neither a yoke be imposed on consciences, nor the Church be overwhelmed with a multitude of laws, nor the worship of God degenerate into superstition, as we expounded in its place; whether the impending evil be such that they can of themselves remedy it, or whether other Churches, and especially the neighboring ones, must be consulted, that the common matter may be administered by common counsel, since there is but one Catholic, that is, universal, Church.

Besides, that the Church may proceed in an unoffended course (which cannot be, unless the Word of God be purely and diligently taught, the Sacraments rightly administered, the goods of the Church incorruptly distributed, and finally ecclesiastical discipline preserved), it is the office of the Presbyters, and the chief part of it, to choose men fit for those functions as often as there is need of new ones.

And I use the word “choose” on purpose, in this sense, that I may take away from men all autocratic power, since I nowhere find that in any Christian Church already built up anyone was promoted, whether to the ministry of the Word, or to the diaconate, or to the grade of the presbytery, in any other way than by public and free election (as we shall presently say), except when it pleased God to act beyond the ordinary course, that, in the affairs of his Church, as it were lost and despaired of, he might show, against the attempts of all conspirators, that he can wonderfully preserve his Church as often as it pleases him.

For so he chose Moses, Aaron, Daniel, the Judges, Saul, David, the Prophets, and the Apostles; and finally almost all those whose work he used for those times in planting and preserving the Churches; and that he has lately used, in a not-dissimilar manner, those by whom the ruins of those Churches are being repaired, no one can doubt who is not prepared to affirm that the sun does not shine at noon.

Now these questions seem chiefly to be considered in this matter: who the Electors ought to be, what kind of men are to be elected, what the form of election is, and by whom it is to be confirmed.

Article 35. On ecclesiastical Electors.

I repeat what I said before, that it was never the custom in the Christian Churches, once they were constituted, that anyone should be admitted to an ecclesiastical function unless he were freely and lawfully chosen by the Church whose concern it was. And so that whole trafficking in presentations, full rights of patronage, collations, resignations, and other crimes of this kind, has proceeded from Satan, although it cannot be doubted that these things proceeded from more laudable beginnings.

For since the multitude is for the most part both unskilled and intractable, and the greater part often overcomes the better, not even in a lawfully constituted democracy are all things permitted to the unbridled common people, but, by the consent of the people, certain Magistrates are constituted who preside over the commons and govern the disordered multitude. And if this prudence is required in human affairs, far more surely is there need of a certain moderation in those matters in which men are utterly blind.

Nor is there cause why any man of sound judgment should cry out that there is here no place for prudence, unless he show that this prudence, of which I speak, fights with the Word of God, which I by no means think. For we must not simply regard what was done by the Apostles in the ecclesiastical polity, since the circumstances are most diverse, and therefore, without confusion, all things cannot be recalled to one and the same form in all places and times; but rather their unvarying end and aim must be regarded, and that form chosen, and that manner of doing the things to be done, which leads to the same end.

What, then, did the Apostles regard in constituting Pastors and Deacons in the Churches they built? This, namely: that those who were chosen should be, so far as could be done, acceptable, and should not be obtruded upon an unwilling flock. As often as this could conveniently be done, with individuals sent to the vote, it was so done; but as often as it could not, it was never done, I think.

For it appears that, when one was to be chosen to succeed in the place of Judas the traitor, those whom they judged most fit were set before the multitude by the Apostles. In the election of the Deacons it seems to have been done a little otherwise, lest the faith of the Apostles should at that time be in any way suspect. But even if we grant that, in the times of the Apostles, the whole Church, whenever these matters were treated, was always sent to the vote, yet no one, I think, will bind all Churches to this one form, if it be manifest that, on account of the multitude and unskillfulness of the common people, and even the wickedness of many, access would thus be opened to wolves.

Then, therefore, not even in built-up Churches are all things to be committed to the votes of the multitude; nor yet are men to be chosen as Pastors without the consent of the whole Church, but, by the Presbyters and the Christian Magistrate (if God grant such a one), all things are so to be moderated that neither they themselves bring tyranny into the Church (which would happen if, at their own discretion and neglecting the consent of the multitude, they called anyone to a public function), nor the democratic state of the Church degenerate into mob-rule.

To this the Synod of Laodicea looked, when it judged that elections were not to be granted to the people; although the Church rightly judged long ago that no one was to be admitted without the people’s approbation, so that Nicholas the Second handed down that the Roman Bishop himself was to be constituted in no other way. And as for the fact that Athanasius and Augustine named those whom they thought most fit to succeed them, they by no means did this to bring into the Church the foul and Simoniacal trafficking of resignations, as they call them, but that the Church might have a judgment which it should then follow, if it seemed just and useful.

Article 36. What kind of men they ought to be who are to be elected.

What kind of men they ought to be (so far as it can be done) who are to be chosen, the Holy Spirit has plainly and clearly described, whose authority we judge to be inviolable.

Article 37. On the manner of casting votes.

It is established that the ancients first prepared themselves for ecclesiastical elections by fasts and prayers; then, after a diligent inquiry into doctrine and morals, in casting their votes they followed that method, in the fear and reverence of the Lord, which was most in use, and least of all obnoxious to calumnies. In the election of Matthias a lot intervened, but for a peculiar cause, namely because the Apostles had to be chosen by the Lord.

In the election of the Deacons, Luke did not record what the Church observed. In one place it can be gathered from Paul that the Asiatics used the stretching out of hands, which custom was observed among the Greeks in most matters. There is no reason, therefore, why anyone should prescribe here too curiously a fixed rule; but, if the conscience be upright, it will be easy to define, according to the circumstance of times and places, what is expedient.

Article 38. On the confirmation of elections.

The laying on of hands was once used under the Law in the victims to be consecrated to God, and in the anointing of priests, which Christ afterward introduced by his own example into the Christian Church, as often as anyone was commended to God by a public rite. For prayers were always used, lest it should seem an empty symbol. To this custom there were gradually added very many things, by a signal fraud of Satan, who, under a preposterous show, so bewitched men otherwise pious and learned that they even went before others in adulterating the simplicity of Christianity, partly by usurping the rites of the Pagans, partly by recalling the Mosaic ceremonies into use; whereas they ought both utterly to have abhorred those, and once for all to have abolished these, that there might be place for the one Christ, who wills to be worshiped in spirit and in truth.

We profess, therefore, that we are unwilling to be wise above Christ, and we leave their own wisdom to the flesh and the world. And we join the consent of the pious Magistrate in the calling, and the approbation of the people, with the authority of the Presbytery and with public prayers, that this ceremony may stand in all its parts.

Article 39. On Matrimony, Celibacy, and Divorce.

It is certain that fasts were once indicted beyond the ordinary course, when necessity urged, by the authority of pious princes, the servants of God being taken into counsel on the matter; and so to this place we have deferred the treatment of fasting and other such things. First, then, we testify that no part of our salvation is placed in such things as Matrimony, Celibacy, food, and drink; for we place all our hope in Jesus Christ alone.

The good works in which we must walk are far other, namely those prescribed for us in the two tables. Yet we do not condemn these things, but think of them as will presently be explained by us. As concerns Celibacy, we place the seat of continence in the very recesses of the heart, and therefore hold none for truly virgins except those in whom the itch of lust is so extinguished that, although they are tickled, they are nevertheless not inflamed, and therefore do not need the remedy of matrimony.

Next, we have learned, both from the Word of God and from experience itself (which we wonder can be the mistress even of fools), that the gift of continence is peculiarly given by God, not only to certain men whom he pleases, but often also for a certain time. Besides, we hold neither virginity nor matrimony in the number of those things which simply and of themselves make us better and more pleasing to God; but we praise the gift of continence so far as he who is celibate, and yet not inflamed, is in most things fitter for attending to the things of God, since he is not distracted by the private affairs of a family.

As concerns Matrimony, we affirm that it was constituted by God, and is laudable in every kind of life, so that whoever does not have the gift of continence (that is, who so boils with those immoderate affections that he is drawn to depraved lusts) is bound to use the remedy of matrimony. Next, we admonish that even in matrimony itself there is a certain kind of fornication, if anyone does not use the pure gift of God purely and holily, to the end for the sake of which it was instituted.

Besides, we retain the paternal power over children safe and entire, as is right, yet with this exception added, unless the fathers abuse their right. The distinction of the degrees of kindred we judge must be inviolably preserved, as it is described in the Word of God, nor do we wish to be wise above God; although here too we think it must be regarded not only what is lawful, but also what is expedient, and we diligently teach that our liberty must be used for edification.

Divorces we require to the same rule, that is, to the Word of God, so that they be granted only for the causes expressed in the Word of God, and that with a lawful judgment going before. And those to whom divorce has been lawfully granted, we do not cease to exhort to reconciliation; which if it cannot be obtained within the prescribed space, we grant the power of a new marriage, especially to him who did not give cause for the divorce; and that this is rightly granted by us, we teach both from the Word of God and from the use of the ancient Church.

For otherwise there would be no divorce, nor would it seem granted for the solace, but for the punishment, of the innocent. Adulteries, and every kind of fornication, we teach must be punished with public and sharp penalties; nor do we judge the use of brothels in any way tolerable in Christian Churches.

Finally, the prohibition of marriage, and therefore the vow of perpetual continence, we judge, with the Apostle, to be a diabolical doctrine, inasmuch as it is diametrically repugnant to the express Word of God and to the morals of the purer Church.

And that this is so could, and ought, long ago to have been gathered, if not from other testimony, yet surely from those things which followed upon that diabolical law, since there is no kind of lust so horrible by which those do not mutually pollute themselves who have bound themselves by that signal vow, that is, who have fastened those fetters upon themselves. And there are indeed very many who, seizing this occasion, cry out that the liberty of the flesh is sought by us; but since those men are shameless if they will not judge from our morals and theirs compared together, let it at least be gathered from the thing itself.

For none of us ever reproved continence, of which, by God’s benefit, we could surely bring forward far more examples in our order than those unchaste men can; but we reprehend that law as utterly Satanic, which, since it is imposed upon a multitude not so much voluntary as natural, can bring nothing but extreme and most certain ruin to all, unless they have the gift of continence, and that a perpetual one.

Let those men, therefore, say what to this day they must confess: that they either could not, or neglected to, know how anyone may understand that this gift has been conferred on him in perpetuity. For if they object that they hope it will be so, a double answer is ready: that nothing can rightly be hoped from God which God has promised to no one, and which you do not know whether it fights with your calling; and that he cannot be excused from rashness who has dared to vow a thing of so great moment, and one not placed in our own will.

Article 40. On fasting.

As concerns fasting: first of all, we exhort men to perpetual sobriety and temperance. But we do not say that those fast who merely fill the belly once a day (which many of the ancients did their whole life long), or who eat fish rather than flesh (since fish are often greater delicacies than the delicacies of flesh); but rather those who restrain their appetite, and indict upon themselves, for a certain time, a continence more severe than usual.

Next, we condemn hypocritical fasts, with Christ and the Prophets. But we do not commend true fasts as though they were a kind of divine worship, but only so far as they are undertaken for the sake of a more excellent end: namely, either that the wanton flesh may be tamed, as it were by hunger, so that we may be rendered fitter for conceiving prayers with serious affection of heart; or that we may cast ourselves down before God with true sorrow of mind, and may sharpen both ourselves and others to repentance by outward testimonies also.

Finally, we prescribe no law of ordinary fasting, since that suits Judaism rather than Christianity. But as concerns private fasts, it is enough for us to admonish each one of his duty; whereas public fasts, as often as the reckoning of the times and an impending calamity owed to our sins demands, we judge it most equitable that they be universally indicted by the authority of the Presbytery and of the pious Magistrate.

Article 41. On the choice of days and of foods.

We teach that it is superstitious to think one day holier than another, and that cessation from daily labors is approved by the Lord for its own sake. Yet meanwhile we sanctify the seventh day, as the Lord commanded, that is, we spend it wholly in holding assemblies and in hearing the Word of God, but without any Jewish ceremony, or that foolish superstition of which we spoke; for which cause we do not call it the Sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, by the custom of the ancient Church, choosing it for this purpose.

Of the remaining feast days, we have struck off as many as we could, especially those brought in through manifest idolatry, that we might correct the countless corruptions arising from them, and provide for the poverty of the brethren. Yet since some days were long ago consecrated to the celebrating of certain mysteries of our redemption, we use Christian liberty, and refer all things to edification, according to the diverse circumstance of places, times, and persons.

As concerns foods, we above all urge sobriety; but we use any foods whatever, with thanksgiving, and without any offense of our conscience. For we have learned from Paul that this is lawful for us, provided no offense be put before the weak brother, since the kingdom of God is not placed in food or drink, and all things are clean to the clean. And so that choice of foods, in which some place the worship of God, we do not hesitate to call, with the Apostle, a diabolical doctrine, and a most empty superstition.

Article 42. On that part of ecclesiastical jurisdiction which regards corrections.

In ecclesiastical coercions, in the first place we reckon that it must be observed in what they differ from civil penalties. And they differ chiefly in this: that the Presbyters use neither prisons, nor pecuniary fines, nor corporal penalty, but chastise sinners by the Word of God alone, and that to bring them to repentance; since all ecclesiastical jurisdiction is spiritual, and directly regards the edification of consciences.

For the fact that the Apostles sometimes used corporal penalties was peculiar and extraordinary, since it behooved them to be armed sometimes with this power also, while the Magistrate was still impious. In the second place, the truly ecclesiastical causes (that is, those whose cognizance properly pertains to the Presbytery) we distinguish into about three kinds: for it is treated either of doctrine, or of morals, or of violated ecclesiastical polity.

Further, in doctrine there can be a fault either of simple ignorance alone, or one joined with wickedness; and wickedness brings forth its fruit according as it has grown; and account must also be had of that doctrine which is violated, that wickedness may be discerned from simple ignorance, and the magnitude of the crime also be better understood. And in all these the following method must be held: that a beginning be made from the lesser remedies.

For the ignorant must be gradually instructed, and wickedness convicted, both by private and, if there be need, by public admonitions, and before the Presbytery, that, if it can be done, men may repent and escape from the snare of the devil. And if these things profit nothing, then we must come to the last remedy, of which we shall presently speak.

But as concerns the correction of morals, a distinction must be put between the sayings or deeds by which only certain men are offended, and which are not a public offense, and those which are public, whether by their own nature or because of public offense.

Besides, he who has more often relapsed is more vicious than he who has fallen only once by human weakness, and therefore must be dealt with more sharply than the latter. Now in private faults, what is to be done has been plainly and clearly handed down by Jesus Christ himself; but those who sin publicly, that is, with public offense, Paul bids be reproved before all, and he confirmed this doctrine by his own example in reproving Peter.

And if these remedies sufficiently profit, we must surely rest, and thanks must be given to God, the angels themselves being witnesses in heaven; but if not, we must come gradually to the last remedy; yet so that all things be done in the fear of the Lord, and be referred to edification.

But as concerns the sayings and deeds which touch the public persons themselves, and that on account of the violated dignity of their function, there exist old canons accurately written on these matters, from which it can sufficiently be understood what was the zeal of the old fathers, that all things might be done rightly and in order in the house of God.

And so we do not refuse that, if the ruins of the Churches were repaired, all these things be diligently weighed, and especially that the faults of those who ought to shine before the rest be coerced, or that the very hardest curbs be put upon them; yet with this one moderation added: that it be regarded what agrees with the Word of God, and what is expedient, lest, while we would not be Epicureans, we run into Pharisaism or Monkery.

Article 43. What excommunication is, and what its lawful use is.

Ecclesiastical correction has two grades, of which the former is Admonition, accommodated to the magnitude of the sin and to the edification of the sinner. This is followed, when there is such need, by Excommunication, in which we think these things chiefly to be observed. First of all, it must be regarded what the word Excommunication declares: namely, a sentence of the Presbytery (a lawful cognizance going before), pronounced in the name and authority of God, out of his Word, by which someone is declared justly excluded from the communion of the saints, or from the Church of God, and therefore delivered to Satan, since outside the Church there is no salvation; yet with this exception added, unless he repent.

Secondly, it must be known that this power rests on no human ordinance, but on the express Word of God. For this is part of that jurisdiction of the keys handed to the Apostles, and, in the person of the Apostles, to all true Presbyters, which Paul himself exercised at Corinth and elsewhere. And from this two things result. The one: that this sentence, so pronounced on earth, is ratified in heaven.

The other: that we must by no means hear those who dispute whether the use of lawful excommunication is necessarily to be recalled, and, that they may maintain this opinion (which they know is most pleasing to most men), even devise certain arguments. For surely he who doubts of this doubts of the authority of the Word of God; and those men at least ought to learn from experience itself how necessary it is, lest the Gospel be preached unto the judgment and condemnation of very many, where there is not that form of discipline which the Son of God himself constituted, and which all Churches have exercised by perpetual consent; so much so that we may truly affirm this, that no example of any Church under heaven can be given us, up to these times, in which it was doubted whether excommunication is to be exercised, in those Churches where there is a Christian magistrate.

For what is it to doubt whether Christ is to be heard as the head of the Church, if this is not it, when we have both his express Word and the perpetual custom of all ages? Nay, where at last can it be conveniently exercised, except where there is a Christian Magistrate, who may both prohibit the tyranny of false ministers and assert the true authority of the Church against its despisers?

If it were asked about its use and execution, I would indeed answer what is true: that all things must be referred to edification, and it must be diligently awaited what each one can bear. But these questions are not only diverse but even repugnant: to ask whether there is place for excommunication in the Christian Church, and to ask what the use of excommunication is.

For of the former I affirm that no one ever doubted, unless either one not sufficiently exercised in the Word of God, or one carried by his own affections beyond the bounds of sound judgment; but of the latter there was never any controversy among sane men, that it must be regarded what the capacity of those with whom we have to do can bear; yet with this condition added, that we serve not men but God, and that we do not think it lawful for us, for men’s favor (even if heaven should fall), to pollute the things that are holy, and to do evil that good may come, and so to remove the bounds set by God.

But (they say) if you press excommunication, you will overthrow what has lately been built. I answer that this error ought indeed to have been avoided in the very beginnings; but, I ask, what ought to be dearer to those who have erred at the very entrance of the way, than that, the error being observed, they return into the way at the first possible moment?

And what reasoning is this, to think that we can raise the upper part of the building in any other way than by following the prescript of the architect, especially in the very foundations, and to fear lest, if we fully imitate the pattern described by the architect himself, we should build unhappily? Finally, I appeal to experience itself, and I beseech all those who today agitate this question, in the name of God, that at least by their own domestic evils they instruct their conscience.

But if the Church has the right of casting out, it follows that it also has the right of receiving back the sinners of whose repentance it is assured; who, if the offense was public and open, so that their excommunication was promulgated that they might be avoided by all, may also be publicly (as is fitting) reconciled to the Church. For neither do I assent to those who will that no one be excommunicated except by the consent of the whole Church, the individuals being asked, and that the names of all the excommunicate be publicly promulgated.

For it is plain to men of sound judgment that Christ, treating of this matter (which is plain enough from the Israelite Church transferred to us), signified by the name of the Church the eldership, or college of Elders. And there are also various grades of excommunication, according to the various circumstances, not only of sins among themselves, but even of the circumstances of one and the same sin; whence it comes that some are so far only cast out from the common assembly that participation in the Supper is for a time interdicted to them.

And we must diligently take care, not only that offenses be removed, but also lest we exulcerate our wounds by our severity rather than heal them; since it is especially most certain that these things are applied as remedies by which men may be saved, and not as cauteries by which they may be cut off once for all.

Thirdly, it must be held that this power is attributed to no certain single man (unless perhaps it pleased the Lord to act beyond the ordinary course), but to the whole college of the Presbyters.

Besides, this right belongs not to a false and apostate Church, such as is the Roman, or Papist, Church, but to a Presbytery canonically and lawfully chosen. From which it follows that all the excommunications of the Roman Antichrist and of the pseudo-bishops are, by the very law, void. Fourthly, it must be diligently observed that not even a true and lawful Presbytery is permitted to draw this spiritual sword at its own discretion, but that this whole power is circumscribed within its own limits, so that it be exercised only with a just cognizance going before, and for just causes, according to the prescript of the divine Word, in the fear and trembling of God, and with charity.

For what is done unjustly on earth cannot be ratified in heaven. For which cause also Jesus Christ and the Apostles deservedly contemned the excommunications pronounced against them by the Scribes and the Priests, although those sat upon Moses’ seat. So also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, about the year of the Lord 198, severely and sharply rejected the excommunication rashly pronounced against the Eastern Churches by Victor, Bishop of Rome.

It is established that for this cause also semiannual provincial Synods were indicted, that the complaints of those might be heard who could prove that injury had been done them by their own Presbyters in ecclesiastical causes of this kind. For the Bishops had to bring help to one another, without any show of ambition or tyranny; and to the Metropolitans their own limits were defined, nor was it lawful for them to do anything except by the judgment of their own college, until gradually certain Patriarchs, and especially the Roman, the rest of the Bishops resisting him or conspiring with him, drew all things to themselves.

Finally, the ends are to be noted for the sake of which excommunication was instituted out of the Word of God. First, namely, that the Church may be kept pure, the Sacraments especially not being polluted, so far as can be done; nor may it be ill spoken of, as if it were the favorer and helper of any wicked men whatever. Next, lest diseased sheep infect the rest by their contagion.

Then, that those who have erred may be recalled into the way, overcome at least by some shame, and that the rest may fear. Whoever sets these ends before him will easily perceive how great a severity is needed, and in what way the particulars are to be accommodated to edification, both public and private.

Article 44. On the office of the Christian Magistrate.

It remains that we treat of the Magistrate, namely one of the members of the Church, and that one set over the rest in his own kind, without any exception, inasmuch as his power is an ordinance of God. His office, therefore, is to preserve the public peace and tranquility. But since this cannot rightly be done unless in the first place the true worship of God flourishes (from which alone all true felicity flows), it follows that nothing ought to be more important among Christian Magistrates than to have a Church constituted according to the prescript of the Word of God, whose authority they may defend against all stubborn despisers and disturbers of it, following the example of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, and finally of all the pious Kings and Princes.

Nor are those to be heard here who, under the pretext of a false clemency, and with arguments not only vain and inept but joined with great impiety and sacrilegious audacity, exempt false prophets and heretics from the sword of princes; whereas, on the contrary, no kind of men is to be coerced with greater severity by the Christian Magistrate, as the very Word of God commands, and pious princes have practiced.

But these three things we teach must above all be diligently observed. The first, that heresies be judged from the Word of God, and by a lawful cognizance, lest the good be punished for the evil. The second, that those who err through simple ignorance be distinguished from those who sin through proud wickedness, and likewise the active agitators from the simply pertinacious; and that the very doctrines about which there will be question be diligently weighed, since some are graver than others, some more certain and clear than others; from which circumstances it will not only be easy to discern simplicity from malice, but also to judge how great the wickedness is, and how great a peril threatens the purity of the Church from it.

Finally, all these things being diligently weighed, this also must be diligently considered: that neither, by a preposterous diligence, wolves be spared, to the destruction not only of some one flock but even of the universal Church; nor that there be such asperity that by our fault we lose even one little sheep.

But also in the affairs which properly regard this life, the Magistrate must provide, whether private controversies are treated, or the public and common welfare, or the warding off of public injuries: that laws be established as equitable as possible, and accommodated to the Word of God as the universal rule (according to the diverse circumstance of times and places); and that from these laws judgment be given incorruptly, their authority be asserted, crimes be punished, recourse to arms be had only for the most just and necessary causes, and war be administered with the utmost integrity and a pure conscience; and finally, that with the highest fear of God all things be procured which regard the public peace joined with the glory of God; and, for the procuring of this, that those taxes and tributes be exacted which suffice for the bearing of the public burdens.

Article 45. On the obedience owed to Magistrates.

Whoever ought to obey the ordinance of God (and all ought, without any exception) is also subject to the command of his own Magistrates, as those whom God has set over us. But this doctrine needs some explanation, since it is easy to abuse the name of Magistrate, and the power even of lawful Magistrates is not infinite. Since, therefore, men are wont to pretext the vices of Magistrates for their own rebellion, it must be observed in the first place whether the vice is in the thing itself, or in the person.

I call it a vice of the thing when the power itself is either, of itself and simply, condemned by God, or at least in a certain respect, as if it conflict with the laws and institutions of a certain state; of which let this be the example: Robberies are altogether forbidden, not only by divine but also by human law. If anyone, then, make himself a prince among robbers, it will follow that there is a vice in the thing itself.

At Rome it was provided that no one should affect royal power, but that all should live by the common law of the citizens, whether as private men, or according to the grade of their dignity which they had received by the custom of the ancestors; and there too it was provided at what interval each should discharge his magistracy. Julius Caesar wishes to retain Gaul against the will of the Senate; he canvasses for the consulship manifestly against the laws; he takes up arms against the consuls; and finally overthrows the commonwealth.

There is, therefore, a vice in the thing itself, even if we should grant that Caesar was the most clement of all men, and of the best morals in all other respects.

The same thing some also affirm concerning the rule of a woman; but with these I cannot agree. For although the female sex was created to be subject to the male (so that I frankly confess it seems to me that they provided more wisely for their affairs who took care that the scepter should never be handed over to women), yet this does not seem to be among those things which God has so precisely constituted that whoever does otherwise, and renounces his right, seems to have acted impiously; since the Lord, to chastise the sloth of men, has more than once blessed rules of this kind by women.

For if one wishes to interpret it so narrowly, many absurdities will surely follow: namely, that mothers have no power over their male children, that daughters may never enter a hereditary domain placed in the noble fiefs (as they call them), and that women never had any right over male servants; all of which I wonder whether anyone could be found who would wish to reprehend, not as impious, but even as unjust.

It follows, therefore, that that law which subjects the female sex to the male is not so universal as to admit no exception; since both the name of mother and the name of heir (neither of which befell women rashly or without the providence of God) are names full of dignity, which render those women, in respect of certain persons, august and venerable even to men themselves.

Where, then, by the people’s tacit or express consent, kingdoms are hereditary, if a woman has become heir, can it be said that there is a vice in the thing itself? And what is alleged from Moses concerning the dominion of the man over the woman, constituted after Adam’s fall, is not aptly enough cited; for there the Lord treats of that subjection which has place in matrimony only, as is plain partly from the circumstance of the place, and partly from the very words of the Lord.

For he does not say simply, “Your desire shall be yours,” but, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

But from these things, as I suppose, it can easily be known when there is said to be a vice in the thing itself. And as often as this happens, I deny that those are to be held for Magistrates who falsely claim for themselves the name of Magistrate.

No one, therefore, is subject to a prince of robbers, and the Consuls rightly resisted Caesar. Yet this must be observed: that the vices of the thing can sometimes be purged, sometimes not. For nothing hinders but that, the laws being duly changed, what was before unlawful may become lawful, and that what was done against the laws (and therefore bound no one at the beginning) may be ratified by tacit or express consent.

And so Gaius Caesar, when he held the fasces, and was endowed with the tribunician power, and all power had been conferred upon him, at last had the Romans subject to him by right, whom by right he had at first had as enemies; and Brutus, with his fellow-conspirators, was deservedly killed; and likewise, to the other successors of Caesar, the Romans rightly owed all obedience, as to their own [magistrates].

It follows that we speak of the vice of the persons. And this also is twofold; for either the vice is external, and adhering rather than inhering, or it resides within. Of the former kind, examples are given us by all who, the laws and institutions being violated, by force make themselves Magistrates, or bring in foreign usurpers. In this kind, it is the office of the lawful Magistrate to defend the peoples committed to him against domestic and foreign aggressors; and even, the Magistrate ceasing, or by his own sloth deserting the commonwealth, it is the part of any private man, if God open any way, to defend the liberty of his country, as the noble example of Mattathias declares, provided he attempt nothing rashly or from private affection.

But what if we have consented to such an aggressor, whether a foreign tyrant or a domestic one of this kind? Then surely our consent has purged the vice, and we must cry to the Lord that he free us, in whatever way, from this yoke. And we must diligently beware lest we draw particular deeds (of which kind the book of Judges alone will supply many in this argument) into a precedent.

But what if the Lord has delivered us into the hands of men of this kind? Then surely we must obey God, with whom alone properly is the right both of giving and of taking away empires, and we must willingly rest in his will, which is the most constant rule of justice. So Zedekiah is bidden to give himself up to the king of the Babylonians, and, because he does not obey, is deservedly punished; and the Jews, carried into captivity, are bidden to pray for the safety of Nebuchadnezzar, until the Lord should rescue them.

There remains the vice inhering in the persons of those who are otherwise true and lawful princes, whether by the laws and institutions, or by tacit or express consent; of which kind are these vices: impiety, avarice, ambition, cruelty, luxury, the lusts, and the other such monsters which Tyrants are wont to carry about in their breasts. What, then, will here be determined? I answer: upon the superior powers (of which kind now are the Seven Electors in the Roman Empire, whom they call Electors, and the estates of the realm in almost all Monarchies) this burden lies, to restrain raging Tyrants; which if they do not, they themselves, as betrayers of their country, will render an account of their perfidy before the Lord.

But as concerns private men (from whom even the inferior Magistrates are either not at all, or not much, distant), they must hold that to inflict injury and to suffer injury differ very greatly. For to suffer injury is ours, the Lord so commanding, and going before us by his own example, when it is not lawful for us to ward it off according to the prescript of our calling, outside which it is wicked for us to set even a foot; nor is any other remedy here proposed to private men subject to a Tyrant, except the amendment of life, and prayers and tears, which the Lord in his own time will not despise.

But we ought to inflict injury upon no one, neither of our own will, nor when commanded by others; and indeed it is not lawful even to desert that calling of which we have a sure testimony. For here the firm and immovable rule is, that we must obey God rather than men, as often as we cannot obey the commands of men without violating the authority of that highest King of kings and Lord of lords; yet so that we remember that it is one thing not to obey, and another to resist, or to prepare for arms which you have not received from the Lord.

So the midwives who did not obey Pharaoh are praised; and the Apostles, and indeed all the Prophets and Martyrs, could be brought by no Tyrants to betray the truth by their silence, much less to accommodate their work to Tyrants, after the example of those who, when they exercise the deeds of that monstrous cruelty against most innocent men (even with a reluctant conscience), think they have found an excellent excuse if they answer that they judge not from their own sense, but from the prescript of royal edicts.

What, therefore, we think concerning the duty of subjects toward their magistrates can be known from these things much more certainly and truly than from those calumnies by which our adversaries feel no shame to wrap us up together with the dizzy Anabaptists, who take away the authority of magistrates, overturn the religion of the oath, and contend that judgments and wars are in themselves unlawful; from which crimes how far we are, by the benefit of God, no one can be ignorant, except one who refuses to look upon the light.

And this also increases the impudence of our adversaries: that, whereas they themselves have openly, against the Word of God, subjected both kingdoms and kings to themselves, and there is no kind of men more rebellious against Magistrates, they nevertheless dare to charge us with that very crime which they not obscurely boast is lawful for themselves.

---

Footnotes

---

A note on this translation. This English text was prepared for Reformed Dogmatika directly from Beza’s Latin (Confessio Christianae Fidei, London: Thomas Vautrollier, 1575; first published in French, 1558) with the help of AI (Anthropic’s Claude); no copyrighted English translation was consulted, and in particular nothing is drawn from James Clark’s 1992 version. It is offered for unhurried reading rather than scholarly citation; for academic work, cite that published edition. The Fathers, councils, and liturgy that Beza quotes are translated from his own sixteenth-century Latin and identified as his citations; Scripture is given in the ESV; and difficulties in the Latin are flagged in the footnotes rather than smoothed over. Corrections from readers of the Latin are warmly welcomed.

---