Religion, Chapter XVII, 5

24 In choosing churchmen, two things must be considered: the election of the persons and their consecration or institution, also called ordination. Christ himself both chose and ordained the first twelve apostles. After his ascension, Matthias was elected in place of Judas the traitor. The Church, then a congregation of about one hundred and twenty people, chose two candidates: “They appointed two,” Joseph and Matthias; God himself approved Matthias by lot. St. Paul calls these twelve the first and great apostles, and the apostles of the circumcision. Two other apostles were subsequently added, Paul and Barnabas. They were ordained by the teachers and prophets of the Church of Antioch—a particular Church—through the laying on of hands, but elected at the command of the Holy Spirit. That both were apostles is clear from Acts xiii. 2, 3. St. Paul himself shows that their apostleship arose from their separation, at the Spirit's command, from the other prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch for God's work; to mark this distinction he calls himself (Rom. i. 1) an apostle set apart for the gospel of God. But if we ask by whose authority the statement of those prophets and teachers was accepted as a command of the Holy Spirit, the answer must be: by the authority of the Church of Antioch. Prophets and teachers must be examined by the Church before they are admitted. St. John says (1 Epist. iv. 1): “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” What Church was to do the testing, if not the one to which that epistle was written? Likewise St. Paul (Gal. ii. 14) reproves the Churches of Galatia for adopting Jewish practices, though they seemed to do so on Peter's authority. After recounting how he rebuked Peter himself—“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”—he shortly asks them (Gal. iii. 2): “I want to learn just this from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” Plainly he reproved the Galatians for following Jewish practices, even though the apostle Peter had compelled them to do so. Since it was for the Church, and not for Peter or any other individual, to decide which teachers they should follow, it was likewise for the Church of Antioch to elect its prophets and teachers. Because the Holy Spirit set apart the apostles Paul and Barnabas from teachers so elected through the laying on of hands, it is clear that the laying on of hands and the consecration of the principal teachers in each Church belong to that Church's teachers. Bishops, who were also called presbyters—though not every presbyter was a bishop—were ordained sometimes by apostles: Paul and Barnabas, after teaching in Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, appointed elders in every Church (Acts xiv. 23). Sometimes they were ordained by other bishops: Paul left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every city (Tit. i. 5). Timothy was counseled (1 Tim. iv. 14) not to neglect the gift in him, given through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery; he was also given rules for choosing presbyters. This can only mean the ordination of people elected by the Church, for no one can appoint a teacher in a Church without its permission. Even the apostles' duty was not to command but to teach. Those recommended by apostles or presbyters were not rejected, out of respect for those who recommended them; yet since they could not be elected against the Church's will, they too were understood to be elected by its authority. Similarly, the ministers called deacons were ordained by the apostles but elected by the Church. When the seven deacons were to be elected and ordained, the apostles did not choose them, but said (Acts vi. 3, 5, 6), “Look among yourselves, brothers, for seven men of good reputation,” and so forth. “They chose Stephen,” and the others, “and set them before the apostles.” It is therefore clear from the practice of the early Church under the apostles that the ordination or consecration of all churchmen, performed by prayer and the laying on of hands, belonged to the apostles and teachers, but the election of those to be consecrated belonged to the Church.

The power to forgive the sins of the penitent and retain those of the impenitent belongs to the pastors; judgment of repentance belongs to the Church.

25 As for the power of binding and loosing—that is, of forgiving or retaining sins—there is no doubt that Christ gave it to pastors yet to come as he gave it to the apostles then present. The apostles received all the power to forgive sins that Christ himself possessed. “As the Father has sent me,” Christ says (John xx. 21), “so I send you”; and he adds (verse 23), “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven; whose sins you retain are retained.” But what binding and loosing, or forgiving and retaining sins, means is open to question. First, to retain the sins of someone who, baptized for the forgiveness of sins, is truly penitent seems contrary to the covenant of the New Testament itself; Christ himself could not have done so, much less his pastors. And to forgive the impenitent seems contrary to the will of God the Father, who sent Christ to convert the world and bring people back to obedience. Moreover, if every pastor were given authority to forgive and retain sins in this way, all reverence for princes and civil magistrates, and every kind of civil government, would be destroyed. Christ has said—and nature itself teaches—that we should not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, we should fear the one who can cast both soul and body into hell (Matth. x. 28). No one is so mad as not to choose obedience to those who can forgive and retain his sins over obedience to even the most powerful kings. Yet, conversely, we cannot suppose that forgiveness of sins is nothing more than exemption from ecclesiastical penalties. What evil is there in excommunication besides the eternal torments that follow it? What benefit is there in admission to the Church if salvation can be found outside it? We must therefore maintain that pastors truly and absolutely have power to forgive sins, but those of the penitent, and to retain sins, but those of the impenitent. Yet as long as people think repentance means nothing more than condemning their own actions and changing the intentions they themselves consider sinful and blameworthy, they come to believe that repentance can occur before any confession of sins to other people, and that repentance causes confession rather than resulting from it. This gives rise to a difficulty: some say that the sins of the penitent have already been forgiven in baptism, while the sins of those who do not repent cannot be forgiven at all. But this is contrary to Scripture and to Christ's words, “Whose sins you forgive,” and so forth. To resolve the difficulty, we must first understand that genuine acknowledgment of sin is repentance. Whoever knows he has sinned knows he has erred; but it is impossible to will an error. Therefore whoever knows he has sinned wishes he had not done it, which is repentance. Further, where it is doubtful whether an action is sinful, repentance does not precede confession of sins but follows it: we cannot repent of sins we have not acknowledged. The penitent must therefore both acknowledge the act and know it to be a sin, that is, a breach of the law. If someone thinks what he has done does not violate the law, he cannot repent of it. Before repentance, then, the facts must be measured against the law. But measuring the facts against the law is useless without an interpreter, for the rule of human conduct is not the law's words but the lawgiver's judgment. Someone, whether one person or several, must interpret the law, since no one is the judge of whether his own act is a sin. The doubtful act must therefore be laid before someone, or several people; this is confession. Once the interpreter of the law has judged the act a sin, if the sinner accepts that judgment and resolves not to repeat the act, that is repentance. Thus either it is not genuine repentance, or it follows confession rather than preceding it. With this clarified, the nature of the power to bind and loose is not difficult to understand. In the forgiveness of sins we must distinguish two things. First comes the judgment or condemnation declaring an act sinful; second comes, when the person condemned accepts and obeys that judgment—that is, repents—the forgiveness of the sin, or, if he does not repent, its retention. The first, determining whether an act is a sin, belongs to the interpreter of the law, the sovereign judge; the second, forgiving or retaining the sin, belongs to the pastor. The power of binding and loosing concerns the latter. That this is what our Savior Christ meant when he established the power is clear from Matth. xviii. 15-18. Addressing his disciples, he says: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.” Note in passing that “if your brother sins against you” means “if he injures you”; Christ was therefore speaking of matters belonging to the civil tribunal. He adds: “If he does not listen to you”—that is, if he denies the deed, or admits it but denies that it was wrongful—“take one or two others with you; and if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church.” Why tell the Church, unless it is to judge whether the act was a sin? “But if he refuses to listen to the Church”—if he rejects its judgment and maintains that what it judges a sin is no sin, that is, if he does not repent (for certainly no one repents an action he does not consider sinful)—Christ does not say, “Tell it to the apostles.” We are thereby shown that the final judgment of whether the act was a sin was entrusted not to them but to the Church. Instead he says, “Let him be to you as a heathen or a tax collector”: someone outside the Church, someone not baptized, whose sins are therefore retained; for all Christians had been baptized for the forgiveness of sins. But since it might be asked who had such great power as to withhold the benefit of baptism from the impenitent, Christ shows that those to whom he had given authority to baptize the penitent for forgiveness of sins, turning heathens into Christians, also had authority to retain the sins of those whom the Church judged impenitent, turning Christians into heathens. He therefore immediately adds: “Truly I tell you, whatever sins you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever sins you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” From this we understand that the power to bind and loose, or to forgive and retain sins—elsewhere called the power of the keys—is no different from the power given elsewhere in these words (Matth. xxviii. 19): “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Just as pastors cannot refuse baptism to someone the Church judges worthy, they cannot retain the sins of someone the Church considers fit for absolution or forgive the sins of someone it declares disobedient. The Church must judge the sin; the pastor must exclude or receive those judged into the Church. Thus St. Paul says to the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. v. 12), “Do you not judge those who are within?” Yet he himself pronounced the sentence of excommunication against the incestuous man: “I indeed,” he says (verse 3), “though absent in body, am present in spirit,” and so forth.

What excommunication is, and to whom it cannot apply.

24 Two things must be distinguished when churchmen are chosen: the choice of the people and their consecration or installation, also called ordination. Christ himself both chose and ordained the first twelve apostles. After Christ's ascension, Matthias was chosen to replace Judas the traitor. The Church, then a congregation of about one hundred and twenty people, put forward two men, Joseph and Matthias, and God himself approved Matthias by lot. St. Paul calls these twelve the first and great apostles, and also the apostles of the circumcision. Two more apostles, Paul and Barnabas, were added later. They were ordained by the laying on of hands by the teachers and prophets of the Church of Antioch, a particular Church. But they were chosen at the command of the Holy Spirit. Acts xiii. 2, 3 makes clear that both were apostles. St. Paul himself shows how they received their apostleship: the Spirit commanded their separation from the other prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch for God's work. To mark this distinction, he calls himself “an apostle set apart for the gospel of God” (Rom. i. 1). But who had authority to accept what those prophets and teachers said as a command from the Holy Spirit? The answer must be the Church of Antioch. The Church must examine prophets and teachers before admitting them. For St. John says (1 Epist. iv. 1), “Do not believe every spirit, but test whether spirits come from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Who should test them except the Church to which that letter was written? In the same way, St. Paul (Gal. ii. 14) reproaches the Churches of Galatia for following Jewish customs, even though they seemed to do so on Peter's authority. He first tells them that he rebuked Peter himself: “If you are a Jew but live like Gentiles rather than like Jews, why do you make the Gentiles live like Jews?” Soon afterward he asks them (Gal. iii. 2), “I want to learn just one thing from you: did you receive the Spirit by doing what the law requires, or by hearing with faith?” Clearly he rebuked the Galatians for adopting Jewish customs despite the fact that the apostle Peter had pressed them to do so. The decision about which teachers to follow belonged to the Church, not to Peter or any other individual. So the Church of Antioch had the authority to choose its prophets and teachers. The Holy Spirit then set apart Paul and Barnabas as apostles by the laying on of hands by teachers chosen in this way. Evidently the teachers of each Church perform the laying on of hands and consecrate its leading teachers. Bishops were also called presbyters, though not all presbyters were bishops. They were sometimes ordained by apostles: after teaching in Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every Church (Acts xiv. 23). Sometimes other bishops ordained them: Paul left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every city (Tit. i. 5). Timothy was told (1 Tim. iv. 14), “Do not neglect the gift in you, given by prophecy with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” He was also given rules for choosing presbyters. This can only mean the ordination of people chosen by the Church, because nobody can appoint a teacher in a Church without that Church's permission. The apostles' own duty was to teach, not to command. People recommended by the apostles or presbyters were not rejected, because the recommenders were respected. But they could not be chosen without the Church's consent, and so they were considered chosen by its authority. Likewise, the servants called deacons were ordained by the apostles but chosen by the Church. When the seven deacons were to be chosen and ordained, the apostles did not choose them. Instead they said (Acts vi. 3, 5, 6), “Brothers, select from among yourselves seven men with good reputations,” and so on. The people chose Stephen and the others, then brought them before the apostles. The practice of the early Church under the apostles therefore shows that the apostles and teachers ordained or consecrated all churchmen by prayer and the laying on of hands. The Church chose the people to be consecrated.

Pastors have the power to forgive the sins of those who repent and retain the sins of those who do not; the Church judges whether they repent.

25 There is no doubt that Christ gave future pastors the power to bind and release—that is, to forgive or retain sins—just as he gave it to the apostles then alive. The apostles received all the power to forgive sins that Christ himself possessed. Christ says (John xx. 21), “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” He adds (verse 23), “If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained.” But there is some difficulty in understanding what it means to bind and release, or to forgive and retain sins. First, retaining the sins of a baptized person who truly repents seems contrary to the covenant of the New Testament itself. Christ himself could not do that, still less his pastors. Forgiving someone who does not repent seems contrary to the will of God the Father, who sent Christ to convert the world and bring people back to obedience. Moreover, if each pastor had authority to forgive or retain sins in this way, respect for princes and civil officials, and every form of civil government, would be completely destroyed. Christ has said, and nature itself tells us, not to fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead we should fear the one who can cast both soul and body into hell (Matth. x. 28). No one is so foolish as not to prefer obeying those who can forgive or retain sins over obeying even the most powerful kings. On the other hand, we cannot suppose that forgiving sins means nothing more than exemption from Church penalties. What harm is there in excommunication apart from the eternal punishment that follows it? What good is admission to the Church if salvation can be found outside it? We must therefore hold that pastors really do have absolute power to forgive sins, but only those of people who repent. They have power to retain sins, but only those of people who do not repent. People often think repentance means no more than condemning their own actions and changing plans that seem sinful and blameworthy to them. This has led to the opinion that repentance can take place before any confession of sins to other people, and that confession results from repentance rather than causing it. Hence the difficulty raised by those who say that the sins of people who repent have already been forgiven in baptism, while the sins of those who do not repent cannot be forgiven at all. That appears to conflict with Scripture and Christ's words, “If you forgive anyone's sins,” and so on. To resolve the difficulty, we must first understand that truly acknowledging a sin is repentance. Whoever knows that he has sinned knows that he has made a mistake. No one can wish to make a mistake. Therefore whoever knows that he has sinned wishes he had not done it, and that is repentance. Further, when it is uncertain whether an action is a sin, repentance follows confession of sins; it does not come before it. One can repent only of sins one acknowledges. A penitent person must therefore acknowledge the deed and know that it is a sin, meaning that it is against the law. If someone thinks his action is not against the law, he cannot repent of it. Before repentance, then, the deed must be measured against the law. But measuring deeds against the law is useless without an interpreter. The rule for people's actions is not the law's words but the lawgiver's decision. Surely one person or a group of people must interpret the law. Not everyone can judge whether his own deed is a sin. A deed whose status as a sin is doubtful must therefore be disclosed to some person or group. Disclosing it is confession. When the interpreter of the law judges the deed a sin, the sinner repents if he accepts that judgment and resolves not to do it again. Thus either it is not true repentance or it comes after, not before, confession. Once these points are clear, the nature of the power to bind and release is easy to understand. Forgiving sins involves two distinct things. First there is a judgment or condemnation that finds the deed to be a sin. Second, if the person judged accepts and obeys the decision—that is, repents—the sin is forgiven; if the person does not repent, it is retained. Judging whether the deed is a sin belongs to the interpreter of the law, the sovereign judge. Forgiving or retaining the sin belongs to the pastor. The power to bind and release concerns this second part. Christ's own words when establishing this power show that this is what he meant (Matth. xviii. 15-18). Speaking to his disciples, he says, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault in private.” Notice that “sins against you” means “does you an injury.” Christ was therefore speaking of matters belonging to a civil court. He continues: if he does not listen to you—if he denies doing the deed, or admits doing it but denies that it was unjust—take one or two others with you. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. Why tell the Church, unless it is to judge whether the deed was a sin? But if he refuses to listen to the Church—that is, if he rejects its decision and maintains that a deed it judges a sin is not a sin—then he does not repent. Certainly no one repents of an action he does not consider sinful. Christ does not say, “Tell the apostles.” This tells us that the final judgment of whether the deed was a sin belonged to the Church, not to them. Instead he says, “Treat him as a heathen or a tax collector.” This means treating him as someone outside the Church, someone unbaptized, whose sins are retained. All Christians were baptized for the forgiveness of sins. But one might ask who has such great power that they may withhold the benefit of baptism from the unrepentant. Christ shows that the very people he authorized to baptize the repentant for the forgiveness of sins, turning heathens into Christians, also have the authority to retain the sins of people the Church judges unrepentant, turning Christians into heathens. So he immediately adds, “Truly I tell you, whatever sins you bind on earth will also be bound in heaven, and whatever sins you release on earth will also be released in heaven.” We can therefore see that the power to bind and release, or to forgive and retain sins, called elsewhere the power of the keys, is the same as the power granted elsewhere in these words (Matth. xxviii. 19): “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Just as pastors cannot refuse to baptize someone whom the Church judges worthy, they cannot retain the sins of someone whom the Church considers fit for forgiveness, or forgive the sins of someone whom the Church declares disobedient. The Church judges the sin; the pastor expels or admits the people who have been judged. Thus St. Paul says to the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. v. 12), “Do you not judge those who are inside?” Yet he himself pronounced the sentence of excommunication against the man guilty of incest. “For my part,” he says (verse 3), “though absent in body, I am present in spirit,” and so on.

What excommunication is and whom it cannot affect.