CHAPTER FIFTEEN: The Authority of the Church (part 2 of 2)
This last statement may appear especially severe, yet we possess a notable example in the first Council of Nicaea, whose dignity has been esteemed above that of every other council.
The bishops had assembled there to defend the chief article of our faith. They saw Arius present before them, ready to contend, and knew that to refute him they needed to remain united. Nevertheless, as though they had deliberately assembled to gratify him, and without concern for the danger threatening the Church, they began to bite, accuse, and insult one another. They presented defamatory charges exposing the whole course of one another’s lives. In short, they neglected Arius in order to destroy one another.
They were so intemperate and bitterly set against one another that their disputes would never have ended if Emperor Constantine had not restrained them, declaring that he would not act as their judge. How much more likely is it that the councils which followed afterward were also liable to error?
Someone might think me unwise to point out such faults, since our adversaries themselves admit that councils can err in matters not necessary to salvation. Yet I do not do so without reason. For although they make this admission when compelled, they nevertheless insist that every determination of a council, in every matter and without exception, must be received as a revelation of the Holy Spirit. In this they demand more than their admission permits.
What do they seek by this except to persuade us that councils cannot err at all—or that if they do err, we are not permitted to recognize the truth but must consent to their error?
Therefore, no titles of councils, pastors, bishops, or the Church—which may be claimed falsely as readily as legitimately—should prevent us, having received such warnings, from testing every spirit by the rule of God’s word to determine whether it is from God.
Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine whether they are from God.
As for their claim that their traditions originated with the Apostles, it is sheer deception. For the whole doctrine of the Apostles tends toward this end: that consciences should not be burdened with new traditions and that the Christian religion should not be corrupted by our inventions.
Moreover, if the ancient histories are to be believed, the things they attribute to the Apostles were not merely unknown to them; the Apostles never even heard of them.
Nor should they babble that many Apostolic constitutions were received through custom though never committed to writing—things which the Apostles supposedly could not understand before the death of Jesus Christ but learned after his ascension through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.
What shamelessness is this? I readily confess that the disciples were still unlearned and ignorant when our Lord spoke these words to them. But did they remain in such ignorance when they committed their doctrine to writing that they afterward needed to supplement orally what was lacking in their writings?
If they wrote their doctrine after the Spirit of God had already guided them into all truth, what could have prevented them from committing to writing the whole and perfect knowledge of the doctrine of the gospel and leaving it to us as something signed and sealed?
Furthermore, they make themselves ridiculous when, attempting to explain what these great mysteries were that remained unknown to the Apostles for so long, they produce partly ceremonies borrowed and mingled from practices long common among Jews and Gentiles, and partly foolish inventions and senseless ceremonies known by heart even to ignorant priests who can scarcely walk or speak. Indeed, fools and children imitate them so perfectly that one would think they possessed the whole science of them in their heads.
The example of the Apostles which they allege to give authority to their tyranny serves their purpose no better.
“The Apostles and elders of the primitive Church,” they say, “made an ordinance beyond the commandment of Christ, by which they forbade the Gentiles to eat things sacrificed to idols, the flesh of strangled animals, or blood. If they did this lawfully, why may their successors not follow their example whenever necessity requires it?”
I wish they would follow the Apostles both in this matter and in all others. For I deny that the Apostles instituted or ordained anything new in this instance, as may easily be proved.
In that very passage, Saint Peter declares that imposing any burden upon the disciples would be to tempt God. He would therefore contradict his own judgment if he afterward permitted a burden to be imposed upon them.
Why do you tempt God by placing a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
It would certainly have been a burden if the Apostles, by their own authority, had decreed that the Gentiles were forbidden to eat things sacrificed to idols, the flesh of strangled animals, or blood.
Nevertheless, a difficulty remains, since they appear to have forbidden these things. But the solution is easy if one carefully considers the meaning of their ordinance.
Its first and principal point is that the Gentiles must be left in their liberty, without being troubled or burdened by observances of the law. Thus far, the ordinance directly supports our position.
The exception that follows concerning things sacrificed to idols, strangled flesh, and blood is not a new law enacted by the Apostles, but the eternal commandment of God requiring the preservation of love. It does not diminish the liberty of the Gentiles in any respect, but merely instructs them how they should accommodate themselves to their brethren so that they do not give offense through the exercise of their liberty.
Let us therefore observe that this is the second point: the liberty of the Gentiles must neither harm nor give offense to their brethren.
If anyone still insists that the Apostles prescribed certain particular things, I answer that they merely indicated, as the circumstances of that time required, the matters in which the Gentiles might give offense to their brethren, so that they might avoid them. They added nothing of their own to God’s eternal law, which forbids giving offense.
The situation is similar today. In regions where the churches are not yet well ordered, faithful pastors might instruct those who are already well established in the faith not to eat meat publicly on Friday or labor publicly on a feast day until those who are weak in faith have been strengthened by more certain instruction.
For although such things, once superstition is removed, are in themselves indifferent, they are not without sin when practiced in a manner that gives offense to weaker brethren. And present circumstances are such that believers could not do these things in the presence of their weaker brethren without grievously wounding their consciences.
Who, unless he wished to utter a gross slander, would dare say that faithful pastors acting in this manner were making a new law, when it is evident that they would merely be preventing offenses, which God has plainly forbidden?
The same may be said of the Apostles, whose intention was simply to uphold God’s law requiring the avoidance of offenses. It was as though they had said: “God commands you not to offend your weaker brethren. You cannot eat things offered to idols, the flesh of strangled animals, or blood without offending them. We therefore command you, by the word of God, not to eat such things in a manner that causes offense.”
Saint Paul testifies that this was the Apostles’ intention when, in agreement with their ordinance, he writes:
Concerning food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world. Yet some eat such food with the consciousness that it has been dedicated to an idol, and their weak conscience is defiled. Take care, therefore, that this liberty of yours does not become an occasion of stumbling to the weak.
—1 Corinthians 8:4, 7, 9
Anyone who carefully considers these things will no longer be easily deceived by those who would persuade us that the Apostles, through this ordinance, began to restrict the liberty of the Church.
Although we have not said everything that might have been brought forward here, and although even what we have said has been treated only briefly, I believe that I have so thoroughly refuted our adversaries that no one should any longer doubt that the spiritual power in which the Pope and his whole kingdom glory is a blasphemous tyranny against the word of God and an unjust tyranny over his Church.
Under the name of spiritual power, I include their presumption in disseminating new doctrines to turn the poor people away from the pure simplicity of God’s word; their audacity in making new laws by which they have cruelly tormented miserable consciences; and, in sum, all their so-called ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which they exercise through their suffragan bishops, vicars, penitentiaries, and judicial officials.
For if we permit Christ to reign among us, all this dominion is immediately overthrown and brought to ruin.
It does not belong to the present subject to treat the other kind of their lordship, which consists in possessions and estates, since it is not exercised over consciences. Yet even here one may perceive that they remain entirely true to themselves—that is, they are nothing less than the pastors of the Church they desire to be called.
I am not speaking here of the personal vices of particular men, but of an evil common to their whole estate, since they do not consider it properly ordered unless it is exalted in riches and pride.
First, was it proper for bishops to involve themselves in judicial affairs, assume the government of cities and countries, and undertake other duties that do not belong to them at all, when the burden of their proper office is so great that even if they devoted themselves to it continually, they could scarcely discharge it?
Was it fitting that in their retinues of servants and in the splendor of their clothing, tables, and houses, they should imitate princes, when their lives ought to have served as examples of sobriety, temperance, modesty, and humility?
Was it consistent with the office of pastors and bishops for them to seize not only cities, towns, and castles, but also great counties and duchies, and finally to stretch out their claws toward kingdoms and empires, when God’s inviolable command forbids them all covetousness and greed?
Yet they are so shameless that they still dare to evade the matter and boast that it is entirely fitting for the dignity of the Church to be upheld by such splendor. Meanwhile, they claim that these things do not so greatly distract them from the duties of their calling that they cannot still attend to them properly.
As to the first claim, if it is a suitable support for their dignity that they should be raised to such heights that even the greatest princes of the world fear and dread them, then they have grounds for complaint against Jesus Christ, who has, according to their reasoning, grievously dishonored them.
For in their judgment, what greater injury could he have inflicted upon them than to say:
The kings and princes of the nations exercise dominion over them, but it shall not be so among you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one who governs as one who serves.
—Matthew 20:25–27; Luke 22:25–26
By these words, he places their office far from all the grandeur and glory of this world.
As for their second claim, I wish it were as easy for them to demonstrate it by experience as it is to boast of it without reason.
But if the Apostles did not consider it right to neglect the word of God in order to administer alms, this proves that one man cannot properly discharge the offices of both a good prince and a good bishop.
It is not fitting that we should neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
The Apostles, by reason of the excellent gifts they had received from God, were far more capable of bearing great responsibilities than anyone who has succeeded them. Yet even they confessed that they could not attend simultaneously to the ministry of the word and the distribution of alms without failing beneath the burden. How, then, could these men, who are nothing in comparison with the Apostles, surpass their diligence a hundredfold?
It was certainly an excessively rash undertaking even to attempt such a thing, yet the attempt was made. Everyone can see what resulted from it, and indeed no other outcome was possible: these men abandoned their own calling in order to perform the work of others.
The princes who bestowed so much of their possessions upon the bishops to enrich them may have acted from some zeal for godliness. But by this excessive generosity they made exceedingly poor provision for the good of the Church, whose true and ancient integrity they corrupted—or rather, entirely destroyed.
The bishops, for their part, who exploited the generosity of princes for their own advantage, have thereby sufficiently demonstrated that they are not bishops at all.
To conclude briefly concerning both kinds of power which they now contend so vigorously to preserve, it is easy to see what they are seeking. If they surrendered their spiritual kingdom and yielded it to Jesus Christ, there would be no danger to the glory of God, sound doctrine, or the welfare of the Church.
Likewise, if they relinquished their secular power, the common welfare of the Church would suffer no loss. But because they imagine that nothing can prosper unless they rule—as the Prophet says—with harshness and force, they are carried away and blinded by an insatiable lust for dominion.
With force and cruelty you have ruled them.
But enough has been said in passing concerning the temporal possessions of the Church. I now return to the spiritual kingdom, which is properly the subject under consideration.
When they find themselves deprived of every rational defense of this kingdom, they retreat to this final and miserable refuge. They claim that although they are ignorant in understanding and corrupt in heart, the word of God nevertheless remains in force, commanding us to obey our superiors. And although they impose harsh and unjust laws, our Lord commands us to do everything the scribes and Pharisees say, even when they bind together unbearable burdens that they themselves would not touch with a finger.
The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they command you to observe, observe and do. But do not act according to their works, for they say and do not. They bind heavy and unbearable burdens and lay them upon men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
What, then? If we were required to receive the teaching of every pastor without distinction, why was it necessary for us to be warned so frequently and carefully by the word of God not to listen to the teaching of false Prophets and false pastors?
The Lord says:
Do not listen to the words of the Prophets who prophesy to you, for they teach you falsehood and proclaim visions from their own hearts, not what has proceeded from the mouth of the Lord.
Again:
Beware of false Prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Nor would Saint John have warned us without reason to test the spirits to determine whether they are from God.
Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine whether they are from God.
The messengers of the devil are not exempt from this examination, since even the angels of heaven are subject to it.
Moreover, does not our Lord’s declaration that if one blind man leads another, both will fall into the ditch sufficiently show us that we must carefully consider which pastors we hear, and that it is unwise to listen indiscriminately to them all?
If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
They cannot, therefore, terrify us with their titles of authority and draw us into their blindness. On the contrary, we see how carefully our Lord warns us, so that we may not readily allow ourselves to be led astray by the error of others, whatever imposing title may serve as its disguise. For if his word is true, all blind guides—whether called bishops, prelates, or pontiffs—can do nothing but draw those who follow them into the same ruin.
There remains their other claim concerning laws which, they say, must be obeyed even if they are a hundred times wicked and unjust. They argue that the question is not whether we assent to errors, but only whether we who are subject to authority obey the rigorous commands of our superiors, which we are not permitted to reject.
But our Lord, by the truth of his word, fully defends us against this sophistry and delivers us from servitude, preserving us in the liberty he purchased for us by his sacred blood. For it is not true—as they maliciously pretend—that the matter concerns only the endurance of some harsh oppression in our bodies. Their aim is to deprive our consciences of their liberty, that is, of the fruit they receive through the blood of Christ, and to torment them with miserable servitude.
Yet let us pass over this point as though it were of slight importance. Do we imagine it a matter of little consequence to rob God of his kingdom, which he desires above all things to preserve for himself? Yet he is robbed of it whenever he is worshiped according to laws invented by men, since he wills to be the sole Lawgiver of his own worship and service.
Lest anyone regard this as a matter of little importance, let him hear how highly our Lord esteems it:
Because this people has worshiped me according to the commandments and doctrines of men, behold, I will again perform a great and marvelous work among them. The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be brought to nothing.
In another place:
In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Many find it strange that our Lord threatens to bring such a marvelous judgment upon a people because they worshiped him according to the commandments and doctrines of men, and that he declares such worship vain. But if they understood what it means to depend upon the mouth of God alone in matters of religion—that is, in matters of heavenly wisdom—they would likewise see that the Lord has no slight reason for abhorring all disorderly worship offered to him according to the foolish desires of men.
Although those who worship him in this manner possess some appearance of humility by submitting themselves to human laws for his honor, they are not at all humble before God. Indeed, they impose upon him the very laws they themselves observe.
For this reason Saint Paul so diligently exhorts us to beware of being deceived by human traditions. He employs a very fitting Greek term signifying “will-worship”—that is, worship invented by the will of men without the word of God.
These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in willworship and false humility.
It is certain that both our own wisdom and the wisdom of all men must become foolishness to us, so that we may acknowledge God alone as wise. Those who imagine that they please him through observances invented according to human preference are far removed from this path.
This has been done for many ages, even within our own memory, and continues today in lands where the creature possesses greater authority than the Creator. Their religion—if it deserves to be called religion—is confused with more numerous and foolish superstitions than ever existed in pagan idolatry. For what can the human mind produce except carnal and foolish things that clearly reveal the author from whom they proceeded?
There is something worse still. Once men begin to place religion in these vain traditions, that perversity is immediately followed by the execrable corruption Christ reproached in the Pharisees: the commandment of God is despised and abolished in order to preserve the commandments of men.
You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
I shall not contend against our present lawmakers merely with my own words. I grant them the victory if they can prove that this accusation of Christ is not directed against them.
But how can they excuse themselves, when among them it is considered a hundred times more horrible a sin not to have confessed once a year into the ear of a priest than to have lived wickedly throughout the entire year; to have touched meat with the tip of one’s tongue on Friday than to have defiled every member of one’s body each day by fornication; to have put one’s hand to honest labor on a feast day than to have employed one’s whole body in wicked deeds throughout the week; for a priest to be joined in lawful marriage than to be stained with a thousand adulteries; to have failed to fulfill a vow of pilgrimage than to have broken one’s faith in every promise; not to have spent one’s money upon the extravagant splendor of their churches than to have abandoned a poor person in extreme need; to have passed before an idol without removing one’s hat than to have despised every person in the world; or not to have muttered long and meaningless words at appointed hours than never to have prayed with genuine affection?
What does it mean to nullify the commandment of God for the sake of human traditions, if this is not it?
They coldly commend obedience to God’s commandments as though merely discharging a formal obligation, while demanding complete obedience to their own with as much earnestness as though the whole power of godliness consisted in them.
They punish transgressions of God’s law with the fines of trivial satisfactions, yet punish the violation of one of their own decrees with nothing less than imprisonment, fire, or the sword. They are ready enough to pardon those who despise God, but pursue those who despise their authority with implacable hatred even to death.
They so instruct those whom they hold captive in ignorance that they would rather see the whole law of God overthrown than a single point of what they call the commandments of the Church.
First, it is already a serious departure from the right path when, over matters that are slight and—if judged according to God’s standard—indifferent, one person despises, condemns, and rejects another. Yet, as though this evil were not already great enough, these weak and beggarly elements of the world, as Saint Paul calls them, are now esteemed more highly than the heavenly ordinances of God.
How do you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be enslaved?
A man is absolved of adultery but condemned for what he eats. A lawful wife is forbidden to one who is permitted to keep a prostitute. This is the fruit of such corrupt obedience: the more it bows before men, the further it withdraws from God.
“Why, then,” they ask, “did Christ command men to bear the intolerable burdens imposed by the scribes and Pharisees?”
But I ask them in return: why did Christ elsewhere command us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, calling their leaven—as the Evangelist Saint Matthew explains it—everything they mingled from their own teaching with the pure word of God?
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
What more do we require when we are commanded to flee from and guard ourselves against all their doctrine? It is therefore perfectly evident that in the other passage our Lord did not intend the consciences of his people to be burdened with the Pharisees’ own traditions.
The words themselves, unless twisted by sophistry, do not approach such a meaning. Our Lord was about to speak publicly against the wicked lives of the Pharisees. He therefore first instructed his hearers that although they saw nothing in the Pharisees’ conduct worthy of imitation, they should not reject what the Pharisees taught verbally when they sat in Moses’ seat—that is, when they explained the law.
The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they command you to observe, observe and do; but do not act according to their works, for they say and do not.
Some simple people, upon hearing that believers’ consciences must not be bound by human traditions and that God is worshiped in vain by means of them, suppose that the same must be said of regulations established to preserve order in the Church. We must therefore correct their error.
It is admittedly easy to be mistaken here, since at first sight the difference between these two kinds of regulations is not apparent.
But we shall explain the whole matter so clearly that no one should afterward be deceived by their resemblance.
Let us begin with this consideration: if we recognize that every human society requires some form of government to preserve peace and concord, and that every undertaking requires some order to maintain public decency and even basic civility among men, then these things must especially be observed in churches. Churches are preserved by good order and are entirely dissipated by discord.
Therefore, if we desire to provide properly for the preservation of the Church, we must diligently ensure that everything is done decently and in good order, as Saint Paul commands.
Let all things be done decently and in good order.
Since there is such great diversity among human minds and judgments, no system of government could continue among them unless it were established by definite laws, and no order could be properly maintained without some settled form.
Far from condemning laws directed toward this end, we affirm that without them churches would immediately become disordered and deformed. For Saint Paul’s requirement that everything be done decently and in order could not otherwise be fulfilled unless order and propriety were preserved by some settled form.
Nevertheless, we must always take great care that such observances are not regarded as necessary to salvation and thus made binding upon consciences, nor that the honor and worship of God be placed in them as though true godliness consisted in their observance.
This distinction alone separates the accursed constitutions by which, as we have said, true religion is obscured and consciences plunged into ruin from the holy ordinances of the Church, which always aim at one of two ends: either to preserve decency in the fellowship of believers or to maintain peace and concord among them.
Once it is understood that a law has been established as a rule of propriety, the superstition into which those fall who place the worship of God in human inventions is removed. Furthermore, once it is understood that the law aims only at the common good of men, the false notion of obligation and necessity is overthrown—the notion that troubles consciences when traditions are regarded as necessary to salvation.
The purpose of recognizing this distinction is simply that we may nourish love among ourselves by serving one another.
We have examples of the first kind in Saint Paul, when he forbids women to teach publicly and directs them not to appear except with their heads covered.
Let your women keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak.
Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.
We also possess everyday examples among ourselves: praying publicly on our knees and with uncovered heads; not burying the dead without first wrapping them in a burial cloth; and not handling the sacraments of our Lord irreverently or indecently.
What, then? Is there so great a mystery in a woman’s head covering that it is a serious crime for her to go into the street bareheaded? Is silence so absolutely commanded to her that she cannot speak without committing a grave offense? Is there such inherent sanctity in bending the knees or wrapping a dead body that these practices cannot be omitted without sin?
Certainly not. If the urgent need of her neighbor left a woman no time to cover her head, she would commit no sin by running to his aid bareheaded. There are also occasions when it would be better for her to speak than to remain silent. Nothing prevents a sick person who cannot kneel from praying while standing upright. Finally, if no cloth is available in which to wrap a dead body, it is better to bury it naked than to leave it unburied.
Nevertheless, in governing ourselves in these matters, we should follow the customs and laws of the country in which we live, together with a settled rule of modesty showing us what ought to be practiced and what ought to be avoided.
If anyone fails in these matters through forgetfulness or inadvertence, there is no sin. If he does so out of contempt, his obstinacy deserves condemnation. If anyone wishes to argue and appear wiser than he ought, let him consider whether he can justify himself before God.
As for us, Saint Paul’s words should satisfy us:
We have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
Examples of the second kind include appointed times for public prayers, preaching, and baptisms; places designated for these purposes; the singing of hymns or psalms; the days appointed for receiving the Lord’s Supper; the manner of administering excommunication; and other similar matters.
It makes no essential difference which days or hours are chosen, what form the building takes, or which psalms are sung on one day or another. Nevertheless, settled days and hours must be appointed, and the place must be large enough to receive the congregation, if peace and concord are to be preserved.
For what disputes and confusion would arise if everyone were permitted to alter according to his own preference the things belonging to public order? No single arrangement would ever please everyone if such matters were left unsettled and subject to each person’s will.
We must therefore take diligent care that no error arises to obscure or pollute the pure integrity of this practice. This may be accomplished if every ceremony employed possesses some evident usefulness, if only a few are adopted, and especially if the pastor remains watchful to close the way against all false opinions through sound teaching.
Such knowledge will preserve the full liberty of each one of us in all these matters. Nevertheless, each person will voluntarily place some restraint upon his liberty whenever the propriety or love of which we have spoken requires it.
It will also cause us to observe these practices without superstition and prevent us from compelling others to observe them with excessive rigor. We shall not imagine that the worship of God is improved by a multitude of ceremonies, nor will one church despise another because of differences in outward forms.
Finally, rather than establishing a perpetual law concerning such matters, we shall direct the whole purpose and use of ceremonies toward the edification of the Church. According to the requirements of that edification, we must be prepared to permit not only the alteration of a particular ceremony but also the removal and abolition of all those previously observed.
The present age provides certain proof that, according to the needs of the time, it is often exceedingly beneficial to abolish certain observances which are neither indecent nor evil in themselves.
In former times, such blindness and ignorance prevailed that churches clung to ceremonies with so corrupt an opinion and so obstinate a zeal that they can scarcely be properly cleansed from the horrible superstitions in which they have been buried unless many ceremonies are removed—ceremonies which may originally have been established for good reasons and which are not in themselves blameworthy.
If anyone stubbornly insists upon defending them, his obstinacy would be both wicked and harmful. Considered in themselves, we have already confessed that there is nothing evil in them. But when considered together with their circumstances, it becomes evident that the abuse of ceremonies has rooted such error in human hearts that it cannot easily be corrected unless the objects that continually renew the occasion for error are removed.
For this reason, Hezekiah is praised by the testimony of the Holy Spirit for breaking and destroying the bronze serpent which Moses had raised at God’s command.
He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it.
There would have been nothing wrong in preserving it as a memorial of God’s grace if it had not begun to serve the people’s idolatry. But since the good king had no other means of correcting the impiety committed by the people through their abuse of that serpent, he had no less reason to destroy it than Moses had possessed for raising it.
For corrupt human judgment must be treated like a weak stomach, from which foods difficult to digest are withheld, even though those same foods would have been wholesome for a strong and healthy stomach.