Part 2
without the guidance of some patron. Nor is this false opinion
current among the rude and unlearned only, but even those who
would be thought leaders of the blind entertain it. Then, in looking
out for patrons, every one follows his own fancy. One selects Mary,
another Michael, another Peter. Christ they very seldom honor with a
place in the list. Nay, there is scarcely one in a hundred who would
not be amazed, as at some new prodigy, were he to hear Christ
named as an intercessor. Therefore, passing by Christ, they all trust
to the patronage of saints. Then the superstition creeps in farther
and farther, till they invoke the saints promiscuously, just as they do
God. I admit, indeed, that when they desire to speak more definitely,
all they ask of the saints is to assist them before God with their
prayers. But more frequently, confounding this distinction, they
address and implore at one time God, and at another the saints, just
according to the impulse of the moment. Nay, each saint has a
peculiar province allotted to him. One gives rain, another fair
weather, one delivers from fever, another from shipwreck. But, to say
nothing of these profane heathen delusions which everywhere prevail
in churches, this one impiety may suffice for all, that the great body
of mankind, in inviting intercessors from this quarter and from that,
neglect Christ, the only one whom God has set forth, and confide less
in the Divine protection than in the patronage of saints.
But our censurers, even those of them who have somewhat more
regard to equity, blame us for excess in having discarded entirely
from our prayers the mention of dead saints. But will they tell me
wherein, according to their view, lies the sin of faithfully observing
the rule laid down by Christ, the Supreme Teacher, and by the
Prophets and Apostles, and of not omitting any thing which either
the Holy Spirit has taught in Scripture, or the servants of God have
practiced from the beginning of the world down to the days of the
Apostles? There is scarcely any subject on which the Holy Spirit
more carefully prescribes than on the proper method of prayer; but
there is not a syllable which teaches us to have recourse to the
assistance of dead saints. Many of the prayers offered up by believers
are extant. In none of them is there even a single example of such
recourse. Sometimes, indeed, the Israelites entreated God to
remember Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and David likewise. But all
they meant by such expressions was, that he should be mindful of the
covenant which he had made with them, and bless their posterity
according to his promise. For the covenant of grace, which was
ultimately to be ratified in Christ, those holy patriarchs had received
in their own name, and in that of their posterity. Wherefore, the
faithful of the Israelitish Church do not, by such mention of the
patriarchs, seek intercession from the dead, but simply appeal to the
promise which had been deposited with them until it should be fully
ratified in the hand of Christ. How extravagant, then, and infatuated,
to abandon the form of prayer which the Lord has recommended,
and without any injunction, and with no example, to introduce into
prayer the intercession of saints? But briefly to conclude this point, I
take my stand on the declaration of Paul, that no prayer is genuine
which springs not from faith, and that faith cometh by the Word of
God, (Romans 10:14.) In these words he has if I mistake not,
distinctly intimated that the Word of God is the only sure foundation
for prayer. And while he elsewhere says, that every action of our lives
should be preceded by faith, i.e., a conscientious assurance, he shows
that this is specially requisite in prayer, more so, indeed, than in any
other employment. It is, however, still more conclusive of the point,
when he declares that prayer depends on the Word of God. For it is
just as if he had prohibited all men from opening their mouths until
such time as God puts words into them. This is our wall of brass,
which all the powers of hell will in vain attempt to break down. Since,
then, there exists a clear command to invoke God only; since, again,
one Mediator is proposed, whose intercession must support our
prayers; since a promise has, moreover, been added, that whatever
we ask in the name of Christ we shall obtain, men must pardon us, if
we follow the certain truth of God, in preference to their frivolous
fictions. It is surely incumbent on those who, in their prayers,
introduce the intercession of the dead, that they may thereby be
assisted more easily to obtain what they ask, to prove one of two
things, — either that they are so taught by the Word of God, or that
men have licence to pray as they please. But in regard to the former,
it is plain that they are destitute of authority from the Scriptures, as
well as of any approved example of such intercession, while, as to the
latter, Paul declares that none can invoke God, save those who have
been taught by his Word to pray. On this depends the confidence
with which it becomes pious minds to be actuated and imbued when
they engage in prayer. The men of the world supplicate God,
dubious, meanwhile, of success. For they neither rely upon the
promise, nor perceive the force of what is meant by having a
Mediator through whom they will assuredly obtain what they ask.
Moreover, God enjoins us to come free from doubt, (Matthew 21:22.)
Accordingly, prayer proceeding from true faith obtains favor with
God; whereas prayer accompanied with distrust rather alienates Him
from us. For this is the proper mark which discriminates between
genuine invocation and the profane wandering prayers of the
heathen. And, indeed, where faith is wanting, prayer ceases to be
divine worship. It is to this James refers when he says,
"If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God; but
let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For he that
doubteth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the
winds, and tossed," (James 1:6.)
It is not surprising that he who has no interest in Christ, the true
Mediator, thus fluctuates in uncertainty and distrust. For, as Paul
declares it is through Christ only that we have boldness and access
with confidence to the Father. We have, therefore, taught men when
brought to Christ no longer to doubt and waver in their prayers, as
they were wont to do, but to rest secure in the word of the Lord, a
word which, when it once penetrates the soul, drives far from it all
dubiety, which is repugnant to faith.
It remains to point out the third fault in prayer, which I said that
we have corrected. Whereas men generally prayed in an unknown
tongue, we have taught them to pray with understanding. Every man,
accordingly, is taught by our doctrine to know, when he prays in
private, what it is he asks of God, while the public prayers in our
churches are framed so as to be understood by all. And it is the
dictate of natural reason that it should be so, even if God had given
no precept on the subject. For the design of prayer is to make God
the conscious witness of our necessities, and as it were to pour out
our hearts before him. But nothing is more at variance with this
design than to move the tongue without thought and intelligence.
And yet, to such a degree of absurdity had it come, that to pray in the
vulgar tongue was almost regarded as an offense against religion. I
can name an Archbishop who threatened with incarceration, and the
severer penances, the person who should repeat the Lord's Prayer
aloud in any language but Latin. The general belief, however, was,
that it mattered not in what language a man prayed at home,
provided he had what was called a final intention directed to prayer;
but that in churches the dignity of the service required that Latin
should be the only language in which prayers were couched.
There seems, as I lately observed, something monstrous in this
determination to hold converse with God in sounds which fall
without meaning from the tongue. Even if God did not declare his
displeasure, nature herself, without a monitor, rejects it. Besides, it is
easy to infer from the whole tenor of Scripture how deeply God
abominates such an invention. As to the public prayers of the
Church, the words of Paul are clear — the unlearned cannot say
Amen if the benediction is pronounced in an unknown tongue. And
this makes it the more strange, that those who first introduced this
perverse practice, ultimately had the effrontery to maintain, that the
very thing which Paul regards as ineffably absurd, was conducive to
the majesty of prayer. The method by which, in our churches, all pray
in common in the popular tongue, and males and females
indiscriminately sing the Psalms, our adversaries may ridicule if they
will, provided the Holy Spirit bears testimony to us from heaven,
while he repudiates the confused, unmeaning sounds which are
uttered elsewhere.
In the second principal branch of doctrine, viz., that which
relates to the ground of salvation, and the method of obtaining it,
many questions are involved: For, when we tell a man to seek
righteousness and life out of himself, i.e., in Christ only, because he
has nothing in himself but sin and death, a controversy immediately
arises with reference to the freedom and powers of the will. For, if
man has any ability of his own to serve God, he does not obtain
salvation entirely by the grace of Christ, but in part bestows it on
himself. On the other hand, if the whole of salvation is attributed to
the grace of Christ, man has no thing left, has no virtue of his own by
which he can assist himself to procure salvation. But though our
opponents concede that man, in every good deed, is assisted by the
Holy Spirit, they nevertheless claim for him a share in the operation.
This they do, because they perceive not how deep the wound is which
was inflicted on our nature by the fall of our first parents. No doubt,
they agree with us in holding the doctrine of original sin, but they
afterwards modify its effects, maintaining that the powers of man are
only weakened, not wholly depraved. Their view, accordingly, is, that
man, being tainted with original corruption, is, in consequence of the
weakening of his powers, unable to act aright; but that, being aided
by the grace of God, he has something of his own, and from himself,
which he is able to contribute. We, again, though we deny not that
man acts spontaneously, and of free will, when he is guided by the
Holy Spirit, maintain that his whole nature is so imbued with
depravity, that of himself he possesses no ability whatever to act
aright. Thus far, therefore, do we dissent from those who oppose our
doctrine, that while they neither humble man sufficiently, nor duly
estimate the blessing of regeneration, we lay him completely
prostrate, that he may become sensible of his utter insufficiency in
regard to spiritual righteousness, and learn to seek it, not partially,
but wholly, from God. To some not very equitable judges, we seem,
perhaps, to carry the matter too far; but there is nothing absurd in
our doctrine, or at variance either with Scripture or with the general
consent of the ancient Church. Nay, we are able, without any
difficulty, to confirm our doctrine to the very letter out of the mouth
of Augustine; and, accordingly, several of those who are otherwise
disaffected to our cause, but somewhat sounder in their judgments,
do not venture to contradict us on this head. It is certain, as I have
already observed, that we differ from others only in this, that by
convincing man of his poverty and powerlessness, we train him more
effectually to true humility, leading him to renounce all self-
confidence, and throw himself entirely upon God; and that, in like
manner, we train him more effectually to gratitude, by leading him to
ascribe, as in truth he ought, every good thing which he possesses to
the kindness of God. They, on the other hand, intoxicating him with
a perverse opinion of his own virtue, precipitate his ruin, inflating
him with impious arrogance against God, to whom he ascribes the
glory of his justification in no greater degree than to himself. To
these errors they add a third, viz., that, in all their discussions
concerning the corruption of human nature, they usually stop short
at the grosser carnal desires, without touching on deeper-seated and
more deadly diseases; and hence it is, that those who are trained in
their school easily forgive themselves the foulest sins, as no sins at
all, provided they are hid.
The next question relates to the value and merit of works. We
both render to good works their due praise, and we deny not that a
reward is reserved for them with God; but we take three exceptions,
on which the whole of our remaining controversy concerning the
work of salvation hinges.
First, we maintain, that of what description soever any man's
works may be, he is regarded as righteous before God, simply on the
footing of gratuitous mercy; because God, without any respect to
works, freely adopts him in Christ, by imputing the righteousness of
Christ to him, as if it were his own. This we call the righteousness of
faith, viz., when a man, made void and empty of all confidence in
works, feels convinced that the only ground of his acceptance with
God is a righteousness which is wanting to himself, and is sorrowed
from Christ. The point on which the world always goes astray, (for
this error has prevailed in almost every age,) is in imagining that
man, however partially defective he may be, still in some degree
merits the favor of God by works. But Scripture declares, "Cursed is
every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the
book of the law to do them." Under this curse must necessarily lie all
who are judged by works — none being exempted save those who
entirely renounce all confidence in works, and put on Christ, that
they may be justified in Him, by the gratuitous acceptance of God.
The ground of our justification, therefore, is, that God reconciles us
to himself, from regard not to our works, but to Christ alone, and, by
gratuitous adoption, makes us, instead of children of wrath, to be his
own children. So long as God looks to our works, he perceives no
reason why he ought to love us. Wherefore, it is necessary to bury
our sins, and impute to us the obedience of Christ, (because the only
obedience which can stand his scrutiny,) and adopt us as righteous
through His merits. This is the clear and uniform doctrine of
Scripture, "witnessed," as Paul says, "by the law and the prophets,"
(Romans 3:21;) and so explained by the gospel, that a clearer law
cannot be desired. Paul contrasts the righteousness of the law with
the righteousness of the gospel, placing the former in works, and the
latter in the grace of Christ, (Romans 10:5, etc.) He does not divide it
into two halves, giving works the one, and Christ the other; but he
ascribes it to Christ entirely, that we are judged righteous in the sight
of God.
There are here two questions; first, whether the glory of our
salvation is to be divided between ourselves and God: and, secondly,
whether, as in the sight of God, our conscience can with safety put
any confidence in works. On the former question, Paul's decision is
— let every mouth "be stopped, and the whole world become guilty
before God." "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God —
being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus;" and that "to declare His righteousness, that he might
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus," (Romans
3:19, etc.) We simply follow this definition, while our opponents
maintain that man is not justified by the grace of God, in any sense
which does not reserve part of the praise for his own works.
On the second question, Paul reasons thus:
"If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made
void, and the promise made of none effect."
Whence he concludes "it is of faith," "to the end
the promise might be sure to all the seed,"
(Romans 4:14, 16.)
And again,
"Being justified by faith, we have peace with God,"
(Romans 5:1;)
and no longer dread His presence. And he intimates that every one
feels in his own experience, that our consciences cannot but be in
perpetual disquietude and fluctuation, so long as we look for
protection from works, and that we enjoy serene and placid
tranquillity then only, when we have recourse to Christ as the only
haven of true confidence. We add nothing to Paul's doctrine; but that
restless dubiety of conscience, which he regards as absurd, is placed
by our opponents among the primary axioms of their faith.
The second exception which we take relates to the remission of
sins. Our opponents, not being able to deny that men, during their
whole lives walk haltingly, and often times even fall, are obliged,
whether they will or not, to confess that all need pardon, in order to
supply their want of righteousness. But then they have imaginary
satisfactions, by means of which those who have sinned purchase
back the favor of God. In this class, they place first contrition, and
next works, which they term works of supererogation, and penances,
which God inflicts on sinners. But, as they are still sensible that these
compensations fall far short of the just measure required, they call in
the aid of a new species of satisfaction from another quarter, namely,
from the benefit of the keys. And they say, that by the keys the
treasury of the Church is unlocked, and what is wanting to ourselves
supplied out of the merits of Christ and the saints. We, on the
contrary, maintain that the sins of men are forgiven freely, and we
acknowledge no other satisfaction than that which Christ
accomplished, when, by the sacrifice of his death, he expiated our
sins. Therefore, we preach that it is the purchase of Christ alone
which reconciles us to God, and that no compensations are taken
into account, because our heavenly Father contented with the sole
expiation of Christ, requires none from us. In the Scriptures we have
clear proof of this our doctrine, which, indeed, ought to be called not
ours, but rather that of the Church Catholic. For the only method of
regaining the divine favor, set forth by the Apostle, is, that
"He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no
sin, that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him," (2 Corinthians 5:21.)
And in another passage, where he is speaking of the remission of
sins, he declares that through it righteousness without works is
imputed to us, (Romans 6:5). We, therefore, strenuously, yet truly,
maintain that their idea of meriting reconciliation with God by
satisfactions, and buying off the penalties due to his justice, is
execrable blasphemy, in as much as it destroys the doctrine which
Isaiah delivers concerning Christ — that
"the chastisement of our peace was upon Him,"
(Isaiah 53:5)
The absurd fiction concerning works of supererogation we
discard for many reasons; but there are two of more than sufficient
weight — the one, that it is impossible to tolerate the idea of man
being able to perform to God more than he ought; and the other, that
as by the term supererogation, they for the most part understand
voluntary acts of worship which their own brain has devised, and
which they obtrude upon God, it is lost labor and pains, so far are
such acts from having any title to be regarded as expiations which
appease the divine anger. Moreover, that mixing up of the blood of
Christ with the blood of martyrs, and forming out of them a
heterogeneous mass of merits or satisfactions, to buy off the
punishments due to sin, are things which we have not tolerated, and
which we ought not to tolerate. For, as Augustine says, (Tract. in
Joan. 84,) "No martyr's blood has been shed for the remission of
sins. This was the work of Christ alone, and in this work he has
bestowed not a thing which we should imitate, but one we should
gratefully receive." With Augustine Leo admirably accords, when he
thus writes, (Ep. 81, item, 97,) "Though precious in the sight of God
has been the death of his many saints, yet no innocent man's
slaughter was the propitiation of the world; the just received crowns,
did not give them, and the constancy of the faithful has furnished
examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness."
Our third and last exception relates to the recompence of works
— we maintaining that it depends not on their own value or merit,
but rather on the mere benignity of God. Our opponents, indeed,
admit that there is no proportion between the merit of the work and
its reward; but they do not attend to what is of primary moment in
the matter, viz., that the good works of believers are never so pure as
that they can please without pardon. They consider not, I say, that
they are always sprinkled with some spots or blemishes, because they
never proceed from that pure and perfect love of God which is
demanded by the Law. Our doctrine, therefore, is, that the good
works of believers are always devoid of a spotless purity which can
stand the inspection of God; nay, that when they are tried by the
strict rule of justice, they are, to a certain extent, impure. But, when
once God has graciously adopted believers, he not only accepts and
loves their persons, but their works also, and condescends to honor
them with a reward. In one word, as we said of man, so we may say
of works, — they are justified not by their own desert, but by the
merits of Christ alone; the faults by which they would otherwise
displease being covered by the sacrifice of Christ. This consideration
is of very great practical importance, both in retaining men in the
fear of God, that they may not arrogate to their works that which
proceeds from his fatherly kindness; and also in inspiring them with
the best consolation, and so preventing them from giving way to
despondency, when they reflect on the imperfection or impurity of
their works, by reminding them that God, of his paternal indulgence,
is pleased to pardon it.
Having considered the two principal heads of doctrine, we come
now to the Sacraments, in which we have not made any correction
which we are unable to defend by sure and approved authority.
Whereas, seven sacraments were supposed to have been instituted by
Christ, we have discarded five of the number, and have demonstrated
them to be ceremonies of man's devising, with the exception of
marriage, which we acknowledge to have been indeed commanded
by God, but not in order that it might be a sacrament. Nor is it a
dispute about nothing when we separate rites thus superadded on
the part of men, though, in other respects, they should be neither
wicked nor useless, from those symbols which Christ with his own
lips committed to us and was pleased to make the testimonials of
spiritual gifts, — gifts to which, as they are not in the power of man,
men have no right to testify. It is assuredly no vulgar matter to seal
upon our hearts the sacred favor of God, to offer Christ, and give a
visible representation of the blessings which we enjoy in him. This
being the office of the sacraments, not to discriminate between them
and rites originating with man, is to confound heaven with earth.
Here, indeed, a twofold error had prevailed. Making no distinction
between things human and divine, they derogated exceedingly from
the sacred Word of God, on which the whole power of the sacraments
depends, while they also falsely imagined Christ to be the author of
rites which had no higher than a human origin.
From baptism, in like manner, have we rescinded many
additions which were partly useless, and partly, from their
superstitious tendency, noxious. We know the form of baptism which
the apostles received from Christ, which they observed during their
lifetime, and which they finally left to posterity. But the simplicity
which had been approved by the authority of Christ, and the practice
of the apostles, did not satisfy succeeding ages. I am not at present
discussing whether those persons were influenced by sound reasons,
who afterwards added chrism, salt, spittle, and tapers. I only say,
what every one must know, that to such a height had superstition or
folly risen, that more value was set on these additions than on the
genuineness of baptism itself. We have studied also to banish the
preposterous confidence which stopped short at the external acts and
paid not the least regard to Christ. For, as well in the schools as in
sermons, they so extolled the efficacy of signs, that, instead of
directing men to Christ, they taught them to confide in the visible
elements. Lastly, we have brought into our Churches the ancient
custom of accompanying the administration of the sacraments with
an explanation of the doctrine contained in it, and at the same time
expounding with all diligence and fidelity both their advantages and
their legitimate use; so that, in this respect, even our opponents
cannot find any ground of censure. But nothing is more alien to the
nature of a sacrament than to set before the people an empty
spectacle, unaccompanied with explanation of the mystery. There is a
well known passage quoted by Gratian out of Augustine — "If the
word is wanting, the water is nothing but an element." What he
means by word he immediately explains when he says, "That is, the
word of faith which we preach." Our opponents, therefore, ought not
to think it a novelty when we disapprove of mere exhibition of the
mystery. For this is a sacrilegious divorce, which reverses the order
instituted by Christ. Another additional fault in the mode of
administration, commonly used elsewhere, is that the thing which
they consider as a religious act is not understood, just as is the case
in the performance of magical incantations.
The Holy Supper
I have already observed, that the other sacrament of the
Christian Church, the Holy Supper of our Lord, was not only
corrupted, but nearly abolished. Wherefore it was the more
necessary for us to labor in restoring its purity. First, it was necessary
to eradicate from the minds of men that impious fiction of sacrifice,
the source of many absurdities. For, besides the introduction of a rite
of oblation in opposition to the express institution of Christ, there
had been added a most pestilential opinion, that this act of oblation
was an expiation for sin. Thus, the dignity of the priesthood, which
belonged exclusively to Christ, had been transferred to mortal men,
and the virtue of his death to their own act. Thus, also, it had come to
be applied in behalf of the living and the dead. We have, therefore,
abrogated that fictitious immolation and restored communion,
which had been in a very great measure obsolete. For, provided men
went once a year to the Lord's Table, they thought it enough, for all
the remainder of that period, to be spectators of what was done by
the priest, under the pretext, indeed, of administering the Lord's
Supper, but without any vestige of the Supper in it. For what are the
words of the Lord? Take, says he, and distribute among yourselves.
But in the mass, instead of taking, there is a pretense of offering,
while there are no distributions and even no invitation. The priest,
like a member cut off from the rest of the body, prepares it for
himself alone. How immense the difference between the things! We
have, besides, restored to the people the use of the cup, which,
though it was not only permitted, but committed to them by our
Lord, was taken from them (it could only be) at the suggestion of
Satan. Of ceremonies, there are numbers which we have discarded,
partly because they had multiplied out of measure, partly because
some savored too much of Judaism, and others, the inventions of
ignorant men, ill accorded with the gravity of so high a mystery. But,
granting that there was no other evil in them than that they had crept
in through oversight, was it not a sufficient ground for their abolition
that we saw the vulgar gazing upon them in stupid amazement?
In condemning the fiction of transubstantiation, and like wise
the custom of keeping and carrying about the bread, we were
impelled by a stronger necessity. First, it is repugnant to the plain
words of Christ; and, secondly, it is abhorrent to the very nature of a
sacrament. For there is no sacrament where there is no visible
symbol to correspond to the spiritual truth which it represents. And
with regard to the Supper, what Paul says is clear, —
"We being many are one bread, and one body: for
we are all partakers of that one bread," (1
Corinthians 10:17.)
Where is the analogy or similitude of a visible sign in the Supper
to correspond to the body and blood of our Lord, if it is neither bread
that we eat, nor wine that we drink, but only some empty phantom
that mocks the eye? Add that to this fiction a worse superstition
perpetually adheres, viz., that men cling to that bread as if to God,
and worship it as God, in the manner in which we have seen it done.
While the sacrament ought to have been a means of raising pious
minds to heaven, the sacred symbols of the Supper were abused to an
entirely different purpose, and men, contented with gazing upon
them and worshipping them, never once thought of Christ.
The carrying about of the bread in solemn state, or setting it on
an elevated spot to be adored, are corruptions altogether inconsistent
with the institution of Christ. For in the Supper the Lord sets before
us his body and bloods but it is in order that we may eat and drink.
Accordingly, he, in the first place, gives the command, by which he
bids us take, eat, and drink, and then he, in the next place, subjoins
and annexes the promise, in which he testifies, that what we eat is his
body, and what we drink is his blood. Those, therefore, who either
keep the bread set apart, or who carry it about to be worshipped,
seeing they separate the promise from the command, in other words,
sever an indissoluble tie, imagine, indeed, that they have the body of
Christ, whereas, in fact, they have nothing but an idol which they
have devised for themselves. For this promise of Christ, by which he
offers his own body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine,
belongs to those only who receive them at his hand, to celebrate the
mystery in the manner which he enjoins; while to those who at their
own hand pervert them to a different purpose, and so have not the
promise, there remains nothing but their own dream.
Lastly, we have revived the practice of explaining the doctrine
and unfolding the mystery to the people; whereas, formerly, the
priest not only used a strange tongue, but muttered in a whisper the
words by which he pretended to consecrate the bread and wine. Here
our censurers have nothing to carp at, unless it be at our having
simply followed the command of Christ. For he did not by a tacit
exorcism command the bread to become his body, but with clear
voice declared to his apostles that he gave them his body.
At the same time, as in the case of Baptism, so also in the case of
the Lord's Supper, we explain to the people faithfully, and as
carefully as we can, its end, efficacy, advantages, and use. First, we
exhort all to come with faith, that by means of it they may inwardly
discern the thing which is visibly represented, viz., the spiritual food
by which alone their souls are nourished unto life eternal. We hold,
that in this ordinance the Lord does not promise or figure by signs,
any thing which he does not exhibit in reality; and we, therefore,
preach that the body and blood of Christ are both observed to us by
the Lord in the Supper, and received by us. Nor do we thus teach that
the bread and wine are symbols, without immediately adding that
there is a truth which is conjoined with them, and which they
represent. We are not silent in proclaiming what, and how excellent
the fruit is which thence redounds to us and how noble the pledge of
life and salvation which our consciences therein receive. None,
indeed, who have any candor will deny, that with us this solemn
ordinance is much more clearly explained, and its dignity more fully
extolled, than is ever done elsewhere.
In the government of the Church we do not differ from others in
anything for which we cannot give a most sufficient reason. The
pastoral office we have restored, both according to the apostolic rule,
and the practice of the primitive church, by insisting that every one
who rules in the Church shall also teach. We hold that none are to be
continued in the office but those who are diligent in performing its
duties. In selecting them our advice has been, that more care and
religion should be exercised, and we have ourselves studied so to act.
It is well known what kind of examination bishops exercise by means
of their suffragans or vicars, and we might even be able to conjecture
what its nature is from the fruit which it produces. It is needless to
observe how many lazy and good-for-nothing persons they every
where promote to the honor of the priesthood. Among us should
some ministers be found of no great learning, still none is admitted
who is not at least tolerably apt to teach. That all are not more
perfect is to be imputed more to the calamity of the times than to us.
This, however, is, and always will be, our just boast, that the
ministers of our Church cannot seem to have been carelessly chosen
if they are compared with others. But while we are superior in a
considerable degree in the matter of trial and election, in this we
particularly excel, that no man holds the pastoral office amongst us
without executing its duties. Accordingly, none of our churches is
seen without the ordinary preaching of the Word.
As it would shame our adversaries to deny these facts, (for in a
matter so clear, what could they gain by the denial?) they quarrel
with us, first, concerning the right and power, and, secondly,
concerning the form of ordination. They quote ancient canons, which
give the superintendence of this matter to the bishops and clergy.
They allege a constant succession by which this right has been
handed down to them, even from the apostles themselves. They deny
that it can be lawfully transferred elsewhere. I wish they had, by their
merit, retained a title to this boasted possession. But if we consider,
first, the order in which for several ages bishops have been advanced
to this dignity, next, the manner in which they conduct themselves in
it, and, lastly, the kind of persons whom they are accustomed to
ordain, and to whom they commit the government of churches, we
shall see that this succession on which they pride themselves was
long ago interrupted. The ancient canons require, that he who is to
be admitted to the office of bishop or presbyters shall previously
undergo a strict examination, both as to life and doctrine. Clear
evidence of this is extant among the acts of the fourth African
Council. Moreover, the magistracy and people had a discretionary
power (arbitrium) of approving or refusing the individual who was
nominated by the clergy, in order that no man might be intruded on
the unwilling or not consenting. "Let him who is to preside over all,"
(says Leo, Ep. 90.,) "be elected by all; for he who is appointed, while
unknown and unexamined, must of necessity be violently intruded."
Again, (Ep. 77.,) "Let regard be had to the attestation of the
honorable, the subscription of the clergy, and the consent of the
magistracy and people. Reason permits not any other mode of
procedure." Cyprian also contends for the very same thing, and,
indeed, in stronger terms, affirming it as sanctioned by Divine
authority, that the priest be elected in presence of the people, before
the eyes of all, that he may be approved as fit and worthy by the
testimony of all. This rule was in force for a short time while the state
of the church was tolerable; for the letters of Gregory are full of
passages which show that it was carefully observed in his day.
As the Holy Spirit in Scripture imposes on all bishops the
necessity of teaching, so in the ancient church it would have been
thought monstrous to nominate a bishop who should not, by
teaching, demonstrate that he was a pastor also. Nor were they
admitted to the office on any other condition.
The same rule prevailed in regard to presbyters, each being set
apart to a particular parish. Hence those decrees, "Let them not
involve themselves in secular affairs, let them not make distant
excursions from their churches, let them not be long absent." Then it
was enjoined by synodal decrees, that at the ordination of a bishop
all the other bishops of the province should assemble, or if that could
not be conveniently done, at least three should be present. And the
object of this was, that no man might force an entrance by tumult, or
creep in by stealth, or insinuate himself by indirect artifices. In the
ordination of a presbyter, each bishop admitted a council of his own
presbyters. These things, which might be narrated more fully, and
confirmed more accurately in a set discourse, I here only mention in
passing, because they afford an easy means of judging how much
importance is due to this smoke of succession with which our
bishops endeavor to blind us.
They maintain that Christ left as a heritage to the apostles, the
sole right of appointing over churches whomsoever they pleased, and
they complain that we, in exercising the ministry without their
authority, have, with sacrilegious temerity, invaded their province.
How do they prove it? Because they have succeeded the apostles in
an unbroken series. But is this enough, when all other things are
different? It would be ridiculous to say so; they do say it, however. In
their elections, no account is taken either of life or doctrine. The
right of voting had been wrested from the people. Nay, even
excluding the rest of the clergy, the dignitaries have drawn the whole
power to themselves. The Roman Pontiff, again, wresting it from the
provincial Bishop, arrogates it to himself alone. Then, as if they had
been appointed to secular dominion, there is nothing they less think
of than episcopal duty. In short, while they seem to have entered into
a conspiracy not to have any kind of resemblance either to the
Apostles or the holy Fathers of the Church, they merely clothe
themselves with the pretense that they are descended from them in
an unbroken succession; as if Christ had ever enacted it into a law,
that whatever might be the conduct of those who presided over the
Church, they should be recognized as holding the place of the
Apostles, or as if the office were some hereditary possession, which
transmits alike to the worthy and the unworthy. And then, as is said
of the Milesians, they have taken precautions not to admit a single
worthy person into their society; or if, perchance, they have
unawares admitted him, they do not permit him to remain. It is of
the generality I speak. For I deny not that there are a few good men
among them, who, however, are either silent from fear, or not
listened to. From those, then, who persecute the doctrine of Christ
with fire and sword, who permit no man with impunity to speak
sincerely of Christ, who, in every possible way, impede the course of
truth, who strenuously resist our attempt to raise the Church from
the distressed condition into which they have brought her, who
suspect all those who take a deep and pious interest in the welfare of
the Church, and either keep them out of the ministry, or, if they have
been admitted, thrust them out — of such persons, forsooth, it were
to be expected that they would, with their own hands, instal into the
office faithful ministers to instruct the people in pure religion!
But, since the sentiment of Gregory has passed into a common
proverb, that "those who abuse privilege deserve to lose privilege,"
they must either become entirely different from what they are, and
select a different sort of persons to govern the Church, and adopt a
different method of election, or they must cease to complain that
they are improperly and injuriously despoiled of what in justice
belonged to them. Or, if they would have me to speak more plainly,
they must obtain their bishoprics by different means from those by
which they have obtained them, they must ordain others to the office
after a different way and manner; and if they wish to be recognised
as bishops, they must fulfill their duty by feeding the people. If they
would retain the power of nominating and ordaining, let them
restore that just and serious examination of life and doctrine, which
has for many ages been obsolete among them. But this one reason
ought to be as good as a thousand, viz., that any man, who, by his
conduct, shows that he is an enemy of sound doctrine, whatever title
he may meanwhile boast, has lost all title to authority in the Church.
We know what injunctions ancient councils give concerning heretics,
and what power they leave them. They certainly in express terms
forbid any man to apply to them for ordination. No one, therefore,
can lay claim to the right of ordaining, who does not, by purity of
doctrine, preserve the unity of the Church. Now, we maintain that
those who, in the present day, under the name of bishops, preside
over churches, not only are not faithful ministers and guardians of
sound doctrine, but rather its bitterest enemies. We maintain that
their sole aim is, to banish Christ and the truth of his gospel, and
sanction idolatry and impiety, — the most pernicious and deadly
errors. We maintain that they, not only in word, pertinaciously
impugn the true doctrine of godliness, but are infuriated against all
who would rescue it from obscurity. Against the many impediments
which they throw in the way, we studiously ply our labors in behalf of
the Church, and for so doing, they expostulate with us as if we were
making an illegal incursion into their province!
As to the form or ceremony of ordination, it is, forsooth, a
mighty matter about which to molest us. Because with us the hands
of priests are not anointed, because we do not blow into their face,
because we do not clothe them in white and such like attire, they
think our ordination is not duly performed. But the only ceremony
we read of, as used in ancient times, was the laying on of hands.
Those other forms are recent, and have nought to recommend them
but the exceeding scrupulosity with which they are now generally
observed. But what is this to the point? In matters so important, a
higher than human authority is required. Hence, as often as the
circumstances of the times demand, we are at liberty to change such
rites as men have invented without express sanction, while those of
more recent introduction are still less to be regarded. They put a
chalice and paten into the hands of those whom they ordain to be
priests. Why? That they may inaugurate them for sacrificing. But by
what command? Christ never conferred this function on the apostles,
nor did he ever wish it to be undertaken by their successors. It is
absurd, therefore, to molest us about the form of ordination, in
which we differ not either from the rule of Christ, or the practice of
the apostles, or the custom of the ancient Church, whereas that form
of theirs, which they accuse us of neglecting, they are not able to
defend by the Word of God, by sound reason, or the pretext of
antiquity.
On the subject of ecclesiastical regimen, there are laws of which
we readily adopt such as are not snares for the conscience, or such as
tend to the preservation of common order; but those which had
either been tyrannically imposed to hold consciences in bondage, or
were more subservient to superstition than to edification, we were
forced to abrogate. Now, our enemies first charge us with
fastidiousness and undue haste, and, secondly, accuse us of aiming at
carnal indulgence, by shaking off the yoke of discipline, in order that
we may wanton as we please. But, as I have already observed, we are
by no means averse to the reverent observance of whatever rules are
fitted to ensure that all things be done decently and in order, while,
in regard to every single observance which we have abrogated, we
refuse not to show cause why it behoved us so to do. Assuredly there
is no difficulty in proving that the Church labored exceedingly under
a load of human traditions, and that it was necessary, if her interest
were consulted, that this load should be lessened. There is a well
known complaint by Augustine, wherein he deplores it as the
calamity of his time, that the Church which God, in his mercy,
wished to be free, was even then so overburdened, that the condition
of the Jews was more tolerable, (Epist. 2, ad Januarium.) It is
probable that since that period the number has increased almost
tenfold. Much more has the rigorous exaction of them increased.
What then, if that holy man were now to rise and behold the
countless multitude of laws under which miserable consciences
groan oppressed? What if, on the other hand, he were to see the
strictness with which the observance of them is enforced? Our
censurers will, perhaps, object that we might, with Augustine, have
lamented over any thing which displeased us, but that we ought not
to have supplied our hand to the work of correction. This objection is
easily refuted. For, this pernicious error of supposing that human
laws were necessary to be observed, required to be corrected. As I
have said, we deny not that laws enacted with a view to external
policy ought to be carefully obeyed, but in regard to the regulation of
the conscience, we hold that there is no legislator but God. To Him
alone, then, be reserved this authority, which He claims for himself
in many passages of Scripture. In this matter, however, were
subverted, first, the honor of God, from which it is impious to
derogate in any degree, and, secondly, genuine liberty of consciences
— a liberty which, as Paul strenuously insists, must not be subjected
to the will of men. As it was, therefore, our duty to deliver the
consciences of the faithful from the undue bondage in which they
were held, so we have taught that they are free and unfettered by
human laws and that this freedom which was purchased by the blood
of Christ, cannot be infringed. If any one thinks we are blameable in
this he must attribute the same blame to Christ and his Apostles. I do
not yet enumerate the other evils which compelled us to set our face
against human traditions. I will mention only two, and I am
confident that, after I have mentioned them, all impartial readers
will be satisfied. The one is, that as some of these traditions
demanded things which it was impossible to perform, their only
effect was to lead men to hypocrisy, or plunge them into despair; and
the other, that all of them had practically realized what our Savior
rebuked in the Pharisees — they had made the commandments of
God of none effect.
I will here adduce examples by which this will be made more
clear.
There are three things, in particular, for which they are offended
with us: — First, that we have given liberty to eat flesh on any day;
secondly, that we have permitted marriage to priests; and, thirdly,
that we have rejected the secret confession which was made in a
priest's ear.
Let our opponents answer honestly. Is not the man who may
have tasted flesh on Friday punished more severely than the man
who may have spent the whole year in a constant course of lewdness?
Is it not deemed a more capital offense in a priest to marry than to be
caught a hundred times in adultery? Do they not pardon him who
has contemned many of the divine precepts on easier terms than him
who may have neglected once a-year to confess his sins into the ear
of a priest? Is it not monstrous, I ask, that it should seem a slight and
venial offense to violate the holy law of God, and that it should be
judged an inexpiable crime to transgress the decrees of men? The
case, I admit, is not without precedent. For, as I have already
observed, the wickedness with which our Savior charges the
Pharisees is,
"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of
none effect through your tradition," (Matthew
15:6.)
Moreover, the arrogance of antichrist, of which Paul speaks, is,
"That he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God," (2 Thessalonians
2:4.)
For where is the incomparable majesty of God, after mortal man
has been exalted to such a height that his laws take precedence of
God's eternal decrees? I omit that an apostle describes the
prohibitions of meats and of marriage as a doctrine of devils, (1
Timothy 4:1-3.) That is surely bad enough; but the crowning impiety
is to set man in a higher rank than God. If they deny the truth of my
statement, I appeal to fact.
Then, what are those two laws of celibacy and auricular
confession but dire murderers of souls? As all the ministers of their
churches vow perpetual chastity, it becomes unlawful for them, ever
after, from the terms in which the vow is conceived, to take wives.
What, then, if one has not received the gift of continence? "There
must be no exception here," is the answer. But experience shows how
much better it would have been never to have imposed this yoke
upon priests, than to shut them up in a furnace of lust, to burn with a
perpetual flame. Our adversaries recount the praises of virginity;
they recount also the advantages of celibacy, in order to prove that
priests have not been rashly interdicted from marrying. They even
talk of it as decent and honorable. But will they by all these things
prove the lawfulness of fettering consciences which Christ not only
left free and unfettered, but whose freedom he has vindicated by his
own authority, and at the price of his own blood? Paul does not
presume to do so, (1 Corinthians 7:35.) Whence, then, this new
license? Then, though virginity be extolled to the skies, what has this
to do with the celibacy of priests, with whose obscenity the whole air
is tainted? If the chastity which they profess in word they also
exhibited in deed, then, perhaps, I might allow them to say that it is
comely so to do. But when every man knows that the prohibition of
marriage is only a license to priests to commit gross sin, with what
face, I ask, dare they make any mention of comeliness? As to those
whose infamy is not notorious, that it may not he necessary for me to
discuss the matter with them at length, I leave them to the tribunal of
God, that they may there talk of their chastity.
It will be said that this law is imposed on none but those who
vow spontaneously. But what greater necessity can be imagined than
that by which they are forced to vow? The condition announced to all
is, that none shall be admitted to the priesthood who has not
previously, by vow, bound himself to perpetual celibacy, and that he
who has vowed must be forced, even against his will, to perform what
he has once undertaken — that no excuse for the contrary can be
listened to. Still, they maintain that a celibacy so exacted is
voluntary. But, while rhetoricians may be allowed to detail the
disadvantages of marriage, and the advantages of celibacy, that, by
declaiming on such topics in the schools they may improve their
style, nothing they can say will prove the propriety of leading
miserable consciences into a deadly snare, in which they must
perpetually writhe till they are strangled. And the ridiculous part is,
that, amidst all this flagitious turpitude, even hypocrisy finds a place.
For, whatever their conduct may be, they deem themselves better
than others, for the simple reason that they have no wives.
The case is the same with confession. For they number up the
advantages which follow from it. We, on the contrary, are equally
prepared to point out not a few dangers which are justly to be
dreaded, and to refer to numerous most grievous evils which have
actually flowed from it. These, I say, are the kind of arguments which
both parties may employ. But the perpetual rule of Christ, which can
not be changed or bent in this direction or in that; nay, which cannot,
without impiety, be controverted, is, that conscience must not be
brought into bondage. Besides, the law on which our opponents
insist is one which can only torture souls, and ultimately destroy
them. For it requires every individual to confess all his sins, once a
year, to his own priest; when this is not done, it leaves him no hope
of obtaining pardon. It has been experimentally found by those who
have made the trial seriously, that is, in the true fear of God, that it is
not possible thus to confess even a hundredth part of our sins. The
consequence was, that not having any mode of extricating
themselves, they were driven to despair. Those, again, who desired to
satisfy God in a more careless manner, found this confession a most
complete cloak for hypocrisy. For, thinking that they obtained an
acquittal at the bar of God as soon as they had disgorged their sins
into the ear of a priest, they were sold to sin more freely, in
consequence of the expeditious mode in which they were
disburdened. Then, having in their minds a fixed persuasion that
they fulfilled what the law enjoined, they thought that of whatever
sort the enumeration might be, it comprehended all their sins,
though, in point of fact, it did not embrace the thousandth part. See,
then, on what ground our adversaries vociferate that we have
destroyed the discipline of the Church, — simply because we have
studied to succor miserable consciences when perishing under the
pressure of a most cruel tyranny, and dragging hypocrites out of their
lurking-places into open day, that they might both examine
themselves more closely, and begin to have a better idea of the
Divine justice, which they formerly evaded.
But some one will say, that however numerous the abuses, and
however deserving of correction, still laws, in other respects sacred
and useful, and in a manner consecrated by a high antiquity, ought
not to have been thus abolished instantly and altogether.
In regard to the eating of flesh, my simple answer is, that the
doctrine we hold accords with that of the ancient Church, in which
we know that it was free to eat flesh at all times, or to abstain from it.
The prohibition of the marriage of priests I admit to be ancient,
as is also the vow of perpetual continence, taken by nuns and monks.
But if they concede that the declared will of God outweighs human
custom, why, when perfectly aware that the will of God is with us,
and clearly supports our views do they seek to quarrel with us about
antiquity? The doctrine is clear, "marriage is honorable in all,"
(Hebrews 13:4.) Paul expressly speaks of Bishops as husbands, (1
Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6.) As a general rule, he enjoins marriage on all
of a particular temperament, and classes the interdiction of marriage
among the "doctrines of devils," (1 Timothy 4:3.) What avails it to set
human custom in opposition to the clear declarations of the Holy
Spirit, unless men are to be preferred to God? And it is of importance
to observe how unfair judges they are, who, in this matter, allege
against us the practice of the ancient Church. Is there any antiquity
of the Church, either earlier, or of higher authority, than the days of
the Apostles? But our opponents will not deny, that at that time
marriage was permitted to all the ministers of the Church, and used
by them. If the Apostles were of opinion that priests ought to be
restrained from marrying, why did they defraud the Church of so
great a boon? Yet, after them, about two hundred and fifty years
elapsed, until the Council of Nice, when, as Sozomen relates, the
question of enjoining celibacy on ministers was agitated, but by the
interference of Paphnutius, the whole affair went off. For it is related,
that after he, being himself a bachelor, had declared that a law of
celibacy was not to be tolerated, the whole council readily assented to
this opinion. But superstition gradually increasing, the law, which
was then repudiated, was at length enacted. Among those Canons,
which, as well from their antiquity, as the uncertainty of their author,
bear the name of Apostolical, there is one which does not permit any
clerical persons, except singers and readers, to marry, after they have
been admitted to office. But by a previous Canon, priests and
deacons are prohibited from putting away their wives under the
pretext of religion. And in the fourth Canon of the Council of Gangra,
anathema is pronounced against those who made a difference
between a married and an unmarried clergy man, so as to absent
themselves when he officiated. Hence it appears that there was still
in those times considerably more equity than a subsequent age
manifested.
Here, however, it was not my intention to discuss this subject
fully. I only thought it proper to indicate in passing, that the
primitive and purer Church is not in this matter so adverse to us as
our enemies pretend. But grant that it is, why do they accuse us as
fiercely as if we were confounding things sacred and profane, or as if
we could not easily retort against them, that we accord far better
with the ancient Church than they do? Marriage, which the ancients
denied to priests, we show! What do they say to the licentiousness
which has everywhere obtained among them? They will deny that
they approve it. But if they were desirous to obey the ancient Canons,
it would become them to chastise it more severely. The punishment
which the Council of Neo-Cesarea inflicts on a presbyter who
married was deposition, while one guilty of adultery or fornication it
punishes far more severely, adding to deposition excommunication
also. In the present day, the marriage of a priest is deemed a capital
crime, while for his hundred acts of whoredom he is mulcted in a
small sum of money. Doubtless, if those who first passed the law of
celibacy were now alive, instructed by present experience, they would
be the first to abrogate it. However, as I have already said, it would
be the height of injustice to condemn us on the authority of men, in a
matter in which we are openly acquitted by the voice of God.
With regard to confession, we have a briefer and readier
defense. Our opponents cannot show that the necessity of confessing
was imposed earlier than Innocent III. For twelve hundred years this
tyranny, for which they contend with us so keenly, was unknown to
the Christian world. But there is a decree of the Lateran Council!
True! But of the same description as many others. Those who have
any tolerable knowledge of history are aware of the equal ignorance
and ferocity of those times. This, indeed, is in accordance with the
common observation, that the most ignorant governors are always
the most imperious. But all pious souls will bear me witness, in what
a maze those must be entangled who think themselves obliged by
that law. To this cruel torturing of consciences has been added the
blasphemous presumption of making it essential to the remission of
sin. For they pretend that none obtain pardon from God but those
who are disposed to confess. What is this, pray, but for men to
prescribe at their own hand the mode in which a sinner is reconciled
to God — God offering pardon simply, while they withhold it until a
condition which they have added shall have been fulfilled? On the
other hand, the people were possessed with this most pernicious
superstition, viz., that as soon as they had disburdened themselves of
their sins, by pouring them into the ear of a priest, they were
completely freed from guilt. This opinion many abused to a more
unrestrained indulgence in sin, while even those who were more
influenced by the fear of God paid greater regard to the priest than to
Christ. That public and solemn acknowledgment, (exomologesis, as
Cyprian calls it,) which penitents were anciently obliged to make
when they were to be reconciled to the Church, there is no sane man
who does not commend and willingly adopt, provided it be not
stretched to some other end than that for which it was instituted. In
short, we have no controversy in this matter with the ancient Church;
we only wish, as we ought, to rid the necks of believers of a modern
tyranny of recent date. Besides, when any person, in order to obtain
consolation and counsel, visits his minister in private, and familiarly
deposits in his breast the causes of his anxiety, we by no means
object, provided it is done freely, and not of constraint. Let every
man, I say, be left at liberty to do in this matter what he feels to be
expedient for himself; let no man's conscience be tied down by fixed
laws.
I hope your Imperial Majesty, and you, Most Illustrious Princes,
will be satisfied with this apology. It is certainly just.
But how deservedly soever we complain that the doctrine of
truth was corrupted, and the whole body of Christianity sullied by
numerous blemishes, still our censurers deny that this was cause
sufficient for so disturbing the Church, and, in a manner, convulsing
the whole world.
We, indeed, are not so stupid as not to perceive how desirable it
is to avoid public tumults, nor so savage as not to be touched, and
even to shudder in our inmost soul, on beholding the troubled
condition in which the Church now is. But with what fairness is the
blame of existing commotions imputed to us, when they have not
been, in the least degree, excited by us? Nay, with what face is the
crime of disturbing the Church laid to our charge by the very persons
who obviously are the authors of all these disturbances? This is just
the case of the wolves complaining of the lambs.
When Luther at first appeared, he merely touched, with a gentle
hand, a few abuses of the grossest description, now grown
intolerable. And he did it with a modesty which intimated that he
had more desire to see them corrected, than determination to correct
them himself. The opposite party forthwith sounded to arms; and
when the contention was more and more inflamed, our enemies
deemed it the best and shortest method to suppress the truth by
cruelty and violence. Accordingly, when our people challenged them
to friendly discussion, and desired to settle disputes by calm
arguments, they were cruelly persecuted with sanguinary edicts,
until matters have been brought to the present miserable pass.
Nor is this calumny against us without precedent. With the very
same charge which we are now forced to hear, wicked Ahab once
upbraided Elijah, viz., that he was the disturber of Israel. But the
holy Prophet by his reply acquitted us;
"I," says he, "have not troubled Israel, but thou and
thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the
commandments of the Lord's and thou hast
followed Baalim," (I Kings 18:17, 18.)
It is unfair, therefore, to load us with odium, on account of the
fierce contest concerning religion which this day rages in
Christendom, unless, in deed, it be thought proper first to condemn
Elijah, with whom we have a common defense. His sole excuse is,
that he had fought only to vindicate the glory and restore the pure
worship of God, and he retorts the charge of exciting contention and
disturbances upon those who stirred up tumults as a means of
resisting the truth. And what is it that we have done hitherto, and
what do we even now, but strive that the one God may be worshipped
amongst us, and that his simple truth may reign in the Church? If
our adversaries deny this, let them, at least, convict us of impious
doctrine before they charge it upon us as a fault, that we dissent from
others. For what were we to do? The only terms on which we could
purchase peace were to betray the truth of God by silence. Though,
indeed, it would not have been enough to be silent, unless we had
also, by tacit consents approved of impious doctrine, of open
blasphemies against God, and the most degrading superstitions.
What else, then, at the very least, could we do, than testify with a
clear voice that we had no fellowship with impiety? We have,
therefore, simply studied to do what was our duty. That matters have
blazed forth into such hostile strife is an evil, the blame of which
must rest with those who chose to confound heaven and earth, rather
than give a place to pious and sound doctrine — their object being, by
whatever means, to keep possession of the tyranny which they had
usurped.
It ought to be sufficient, and more than sufficient, for our
defense, that the sacred truth of God, in asserting which we sustain
so many contests, is on our side, whereas our adversaries, in
contending with us, war not so much against us as God himself. Then
it is not of our own accord that we engage in this fervor of
contention. It is their intemperance which has dragged us into it
against our expectation. Let the result, then, have been what it may,
there is no reason why we should be loaded with hatred. For as it is
not ours to govern events, neither is it ours to prevent them. But
there is an ancient practice which the wicked have resorted to in all
ages, viz., to take occasion from the preaching of the gospel to excite
tumult, and then to defame the gospel as the cause of dissension —
dissension which, even in the absence of opportunity, they wickedly
and eagerly court. And, as in the primitive Church, the prophecy
behoved to be fulfilled, that Christ should be to his own countrymen
a stone of stumbling and rock of offense, so it is not surprising if the
same thing holds true in our time also. It may well indeed be thought
strange for the builders to reject the stone which ought to occupy the
principal place in the foundations but as this happened at the
beginning, in the case of Christ, let it not surprise us that it is also a
common event in the present day. Here I entreat your Imperial
Majesty, and you, most Illustrious Princes, that as oft as this
unhappy rending of the Church, and the other countless evils which
have sprung from dissension, either occur to your own thoughts, or
are suggested by others, you would, at the same time, call to mind
that Christ has been set up as a sign to be spoken against, and that
his gospel, wherever it is preached, instantly inflames the rage and
resistance of the wicked. Then, from conflict a shock must
necessarily ensue. Hence the uniform fate of the gospel, from its first
commencement, has been, and always will be, even unto the end, to
be preached in the world amid great contention. But it is the part of
the prudent to consider from what source the evil springs. Whoever
does this will readily free us from all blame. It certainly behoved us
to bear testimony to the truth, as we have done. Woe to the world if it
chooses to challenge Christ to combat, rather than embrace the peace
which He offers! The man who will not bear to be corrected will
undoubtedly be crushed by Him.
But here again it is objected, that all the corruptions of the
Church are not to be corrected by such harsh remedies — that they
are not to be cut in to the quick — that not even is medicine to be
applied to all, but some are to be treated gently, and others
submitted to, if they cannot without difficulty be removed. I answer,
that we are not so unacquainted with ordinary life as not to know
that the Church always has been, and always will be, liable to some
defects which the pious are indeed bound to disapprove, but which
are to be borne rather than be made a cause of fierce contention. But
our adversaries are unjust when they accuse us of being excessively
morose, as if we had brought the Church into trouble on account of
small and trivial errors. For to their other misrepresentations they
add this one also, of endeavoring, by every artifice in their power, to
extenuate the importance of the things which we have made the
subject of controversy; the object being to make it seem that we have
been hurried on by a love of quarrelling, and not that we were drawn