Part 3
into it by a just cause. This they do, not in ignorance, but with
cunning design, namely, because they know that there is nothing
more odious than the rash haste which they impute to us. And yet
they, at the same time, betray their own impiety in speaking so
contemptuously of matters of the greatest moment. And is it indeed
so, that when we complain that the worship of God was profaned —
that His honor was utterly impaired — that the doctrine of salvation
was entangled with numerous destructive errors—that the virtue of
Christ's death was suppressed—and that, in short, all things sacred
were sacrilegiously polluted; is it indeed so, that we are to be derided
and charged with the folly of disturbing ourselves and the whole
world besides, to no purpose, with disputes about insignificant
questions?
But as a cursory glance at these things is not sufficient, it will
now be necessary more diligently to explain to you the dignity and
importance of the points in dispute, so as to make it manifest, not
only that they were not unworthy of notice, but that we could not
possibly overlook them without involving ourselves in the greatest
guilt, and becoming chargeable with impious perfidy towards God.
This is the third of the three heads, of which at the outset I proposed
to treat.
First, then, I wish to know, with what face they can call
themselves Christians, when they charge us with rashly disturbing
the Church with disputes about matters of no importance. For, if
they set as much value on our religion as the ancient idolaters did on
their superstitions, they would not speak so contemptuously of zeal
for its preservation, but, in imitation of idolaters, would give it the
precedence of all other cares and business. For, when idolaters spoke
of fighting for their altars and their hearths, they alleged what they
believed to be the best and strongest of all causes. Our opponents, on
the contrary, regard as almost superfluous a contest which is
undertaken for the glory of God and the salvation of men. For it is
not true, as has been alleged, that we dispute about a worthless
shadow. The whole substance of the Christian religion is brought into
question. Were nothing else involved, is the eternal and inviolable
truth of God, that truth to which he rendered so many illustrious
testimonies, in confirming which so many holy prophets and so
many martyrs met their death, truth heralded and witnessed by the
Son of God himself, and ultimately sealed with his blood, is that
truth of so little value, that it may be trampled under foot, while we
look on and are silent?
But I descend to particulars. We know how execrable a thing
idolatry is in the sight of God, and history abounds with narratives of
the dreadful punishments with which He visited it, both in the
Israelitish people and in other nations. From his own mouth, we hear
the same vengeance denounced against all ages. For to us he speaks
when he swears by his holy name, that he will not suffer his glory to
be transferred to idols, and when he declares that he is a jealous God,
taking vengeance, to the third and fourth generation, upon all sins,
and more especially on this one. This is the sin on account of which
Moses, who was other wise of so meek a temper, being inflamed by
the Spirit of God, ordered the Levites
"to go in and out from gate to gate throughout the
camp, and slay every man his brother, and every
man his companion, and every man his neighbor,"
(Exodus 32:27;)
the sin on account of which God so often punished his chosen people,
afflicting them with sword, pestilence, and famine, and, in short, all
kinds of calamity; the sin on account of which, especially, the
kingdom, first of Israel, and then of Judah, was laid waste, Jerusalem
the holy city destroyed, the temple of God (the only temple then
existing in the world) laid in ruins, and the people whom he had
selected out of all the nations of the earth to be peculiarly his own,
entering into covenant with them, that they alone might bear his
standard, and live under his rule and protection — the people, in
short, from whom Christ was to spring, were doomed to all kinds of
disaster, stript of all dignity, driven into exile, and brought to the
brink of destruction. It were too long here to give a full detail, for
there is not a page in the Prophets which does not proclaim aloud
that there is nothing which more provokes the divine indignation.
What then? When we saw idolatry openly and everywhere stalking
abroad, were we to connive at it? To have done so would have just
been to rock the world in its sleep of death, that it might not awake.
Be pleased, Most Invincible Cæsar, and Most Illustrious Princes,
to call to mind the many corruptions by which, as I have already
shown, the worship of God was polluted, and you will assuredly find
that impiety had broken out like a deluge, under which religion was
completely submerged. Hence, divine honors were paid to images,
and prayers everywhere offered to them, under the pretense that the
power and deity of God resided in them. Hence, too, dead saints were
worshipped exactly in the manner in which of old the Israelites
worshipped Baalim. And by the artifice of Satan, numerous other
modes had been devised by which the glory of God was torn to
pieces. The Lord exclaims, that he burns with jealousy when any idol
is erected, and Paul demonstrates, by his own example, that His
servants should be zealous in asserting His glory, (Acts 17:16.) It is
no common zeal for the house of God which ought to penetrate and
engross the hearts of believers. When, therefore, the Divine glory was
polluted, or rather lacerated, in so many ways, would it not have
been perfidy if we had winked or been silent? A dog, seeing any
violence offered to his master, will instantly bark; could we, in
silence, see the sacred name of God dishonored so blasphemously?
In such a case, how could it have been said,
"The reproaches of them that reproached thee are
fallen upon me?" (Psalm 49:9.)
The mockery which worships God with nought but external
gestures and absurd human fictions, how could we, without sin,
allow to pass unrebuked? We know how much he hates hypocrisy,
and yet in that fictitious worship, which was everywhere in use,
hypocrisy reigned. We hear how bitter the terms in which the
Prophets inveigh against all worship fabricated by human rashness.
But a good intention, i.e., an insane licence of daring whatever man
pleased, was deemed the perfection of worship. For it is certain that
in the whole body of worship which had been established, there was
scarcely a single observance which had an authoritative sanction
from the Word of God. We are not in this matter to stand either by
our own or by other men's judgments. We must listen to the voice of
God, and hear in what estimation he holds that profanation of
worship which is displayed when men, overleaping the boundaries of
His Word, run riot in their own inventions. The reasons which he
assigns for punishing the Israelites with blindness, after they had lost
the pious and holy discipline of the Church, are two, viz., the
prevalence of hypocrisy, and will-worship, evqeloqrhskeian,
meaning thereby a form of worship contrived by man.
"Forasmuch," saith he, "as the people draw near
me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor
me, but have removed their heart far from me, and
their fear toward me is taught by the precept of
men; therefore I will proceed to do a marvelous
work among this people, even a marvelous work
and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men
shall perish, and the understanding of their
prudent men shall be hid," (Isaiah 29:13, 14.)
When God stirred us up, a similar or worse perversity openly
domineered throughout the Church. While God, then, was
thundering from heaven, were we to sit quiet?
Perhaps they will consider as a trivial error the custom which
prevailed, in defiance of the clear prohibition of God, of repeating the
public prayers in an unknown tongue. But since it is manifest that by
such procedure God was mocked, they cannot deny that we had too
good cause to object to it. Then, what shall I say of the blasphemies
which rung in the public hymns, and which no pious man is able to
hear without the utmost horror? We all know the epithets which they
applied to Mary — styling her the gate of heaven, hope, life, and
salvation; and to such a degree of infatuation and madness had they
proceeded, that they even gave her a right to order Christ! For still in
many churches is heard the execrable and impious stanza, "Ask the
Father; command the Son." In terms in no respect more modest do
they celebrate certain of the saints, and these, too, saints of their own
making, i.e., individuals whom they, on their own judgment, have
admitted into the catalogue of saints. For, among the multitude of
praises which they sing to Claud, they call him "the light of the
blind," "the guide of the erring," "the life and resurrection of the
dead." The forms of prayer in daily use are stuffed with similar
blasphemies. The Lord denounces the severest threatenings against
those who, either in oaths or in prayers, confounded his name with
Baalim. What vengeance, then, impends over our heads when we not
only confound him with saints as minor gods, but with signal insult
rob Christ of the proper and peculiar titles with which he is
distinguished, in order that we may bestow them on creatures? Were
we to be silent here, also, and by perfidious silence call down on
ourselves his heavy judgments?
I say nothing of the fact that no man prayed, and that indeed no
man could pray, to God with firm faith, i.e., in good earnest. For
Christ being, in a manner, buried, the necessary consequence was,
that men were always in doubt whether God had a Father's kindness
toward them — whether he was disposed to assist them — and
whether he took any interest in their salvation. What! was it an error
either trivial or tolerable, when the eternal priesthood of Christ, as if
it had been set up to be preyed upon, was bestowed, without
distinction, on any individual among the saints? Let us remember
that Christ, by his death, purchased for himself the honor of being
the eternal advocate and peace-maker to present our prayers and our
persons to the Father; to obtain supplies of grace for us, and enable
us to hope we shall obtain what we ask. As he alone died for us, and
redeemed us by his death, so he admits of no partnership in this
honor. Therefore, what fouler blasphemy than that which is ever and
anon in the mouths of our opponents, viz., that Christ is indeed the
only mediator of redemption, but that all the saints are mediators of
intercession? Is not Christ in this way left inglorious? as if, after
having once in his death performed the office of priest, he had ever
after resigned it to the saints. Are we, then, to be silent when the
peculiar dignity of Christ, the dignity which cost him such a price, is
wrested from him with the greatest contumely, and distributed
among the saints, as if it were lawful spoil? But it seems that when
they speak thus they do not deny that Christ intercedes for us even
now; only we are to understand that he does it along with the saints,
i.e., just as any other one in the catalogue. It must have been a
mighty honor which Christ purchased for himself by his blood, if all
he obtained was to be the associate of Hugo, Lubin, or some of the
merest dregs of saintship which the Roman Pontiff has conferred at
his own pleasure. For the question is not, whether the saints even do
pray, (this being a subject of which it is better to have no knowledge,
as Scripture does not mention it,) but the question is, whether, after
passing by Christ, or treating him with neglect, or positively
abandoning him altogether, we are entitled to look round for the
patronage of saints, or, if they will have it in plainer terms, whether
Christ is the only priest who opens up an asylum for us in heaven,
leads us thither by the hand, and, by his intercession, inclines the
Father to listen to our prayers, so that we ought to cast ourselves
entirely on his advocacy, and present our prayers in his name; or
whether, on the contrary, he holds this office in common with the
saints?
Christ, our Redeemer, Was in a Great
Measure Defrauded
I have shown above that Christ was in a great measure
defrauded, not of the honor of the priesthood merely, but also of the
gratitude due for his benefits. True, he is called a Redeemer, but in a
manner which implies that men also, by their own free will, redeem
themselves from the bondage of sin and death. True, he is called
righteousness and salvation, but so that men still procure salvation
for themselves, by the merit of their works; for this inestimable gift,
which no eloquence of men or angels is able adequately to describe,
the schoolmen are not ashamed to restrict, telling us that though he
confers the first merit, i.e., as they explain it, the occasion of
meriting, yet after receiving this help, we merit eternal life by our
own works. True, they confess that we are washed from our sins by
the blood of Christ, but so that every individual cleanses himself by
washings elsewhere obtained. True, the death of Christ receives the
name of a sacrifice, but so that sins are expiated by the daily
sacrifices of men. True, Christ is said to have reconciled us to the
Father, but with this reservation, that men, by their own
satisfactions, buy off the punishments which they owe to the justice
of God. When supplementary aid is sought from the benefit of the
keys, no more honor is paid to Christ than to Cyprian or Cyricius.
For, in making up the treasury of the Church, the merits of Christ
and of martyrs are thrown together in the slump.
In all these things, have we not just as many execrable
blasphemies as we have words, blasphemies by which the glory of
Christ is rent, and torn to shreds? For, being in a great measure
despoiled of his honor he retains the name, while he wants the
power. Here, too, no doubt, we might have been silent, though we
saw the Son, on whom the Father hath bestowed all authority, and
power, and glory, and in whom alone he bids us glory, so classified
with his servants, that he had scarcely any pre-eminence above them.
When we saw his benefits thus in oblivion — when we saw his virtue
destroyed by the ingratitude of men — when we saw the price of his
blood held in no estimation, and the fruits of his death almost
annihilated — when, in fine, we saw him so deformed by false and
profane opinions, that he had more resemblance to an unsubstantial
phantom than to himself, did it behove us to bear it calmly and
silently? O accursed patience, if, when the honor of God is impaired,
not to say prostrated, we are so slightly affected, that we can wink
and pass on! O ill-bestowed benefits of Christ, if we can permit the
memory of them to be thus suppressed by impious blasphemies!
I again return to the second branch of Christian doctrine.
Who can deny that men are laboring under a kind of delirium,
when they suppose that they procure eternal life by the merit of their
works? I admit that they conjoin the grace of God with their works,
but in as much as their confidence of obtaining acceptance is made to
depend on their own worthiness, it is clear that the ground of their
confidence and boasting lies in their works. The trite and favourite
doctrine of the schools, the opinion deeply seated in almost all
minds, is — that every individual is loved by God in exact proportion
to his deserts. Entertaining this view, are not souls, by means of a
confidence which the devil inspires, raised to a height, from which,
as from a loftier precipice, they are afterwards plunged into the gulf
of despair? Again, when they pretend to merit the favor of God, it is
not merely by true obedience, but by frivolous observances, of no
value. The meritorious works to which the first place is assigned are
these — to mumble over a multitude of little prayers, to erect altars,
and place statues or pictures thereon — to frequent churches, and
run up and down from one church to another — to hear many masses
and to buy some — to wear out their bodies, by I know not what
abstinences — abstinences having nothing in common with Christian
fasting; and, in particular, to be most careful in observing the
traditions of men. In the matter of satisfactions, is it not even a
greater infatuation which makes them, after the manner of the
heathen, set out in quest of expiations, by which they may reconcile
themselves to God? After all these attempts, after great and long
fatigue, what did they gain? Doing every thing with a dubious and
trembling conscience, they were always exposed to that fearful
anxiety, or rather that dire torment, of which I have already spoken,
because they were enjoined to doubt whether their persons and their
works were not hateful to God. Confidence being in this way
overthrown, the necessary consequence was, as Paul declares, that
the promise of the eternal inheritance was made void. In such
circumstances, what became of the salvation of men? Where there
was such necessity for speaking, had we kept silence, we should have
been not only ungrateful and treacherous towards God, but also cruel
towards men, over whom we saw eternal destruction impending,
unless they were brought back into the proper path.
Were a dog to see an injury offered to his master, equal to the
insult which is offered to God in the sacraments, he would instantly
bark, and expose his own life to danger, sooner than silently allow his
master to be so insulted. Ought we to show less devotedness to God
than a brute is wont to show to man? I say nothing of the fact that
rites, founded merely on human authority, have been put on a
footing with the mysteries instituted by Christ, and recommended by
his Divine authority, though the procedure is deserving of the
severest rebuke. But when the mysteries themselves were thus
corrupted, by the many superstitions, and dishonored by the many
false opinions, to which we have already adverted, for base and filthy
lucre, ought we to have dissembled and borne it, or pretended not to
see? Christ with a whip drove the money-changers out of the temple,
threw down their tables, and scattered their merchandise. I admit it
is not lawful for every man to take the whip into his own hand, but it
is, incumbent on all who professedly belong to Christ to burn with
the zeal with which Christ was animated, when he vindicated the
glory of his Father. Therefore, that profanation of the temple, at
which he, in a manner so marked, expressed his strong displeasure,
it is at least our part to condemn, in a free, firm, and decided tone.
Who is ignorant that sacraments have now for a long time been sold
in churches, as openly as the wares which stand exposed in the
public market? Other rites, too, have their fixed price, while as to
some a bargain is not struck till after long higgling.
But since the instances which are exhibited in the Lord's Supper
are manifest, and of a nature more heinous than in the case of other
rites, come and say with what conscience could we have connived at
profanations of it, at once so numerous and so blasphemous? Seeing
that even now I want words to express them, with what justice are we
charged with excessive vehemence in inveighing against them? By
the sacred body of Christ, which hung in sacrifice for us, by the holy
blood which he shed for our ablution, I here beseech your Imperial
Majesty, and you, Most Illustrious Princes, that you will be pleased
seriously to consider how great must be the mystery in which that
body is set before us for meat, and that blood for drink; to consider
how carefully, how religiously, it ought to be kept unpolluted. What
ingratitude, then, must it be when this heavenly mystery, which
Christ has committed to us like a most precious jewel, is trodden
under feet of swine, for any man to look on, and be silent? But we
may see it not only trodden, but also defiled by every species of
pollution. What an insult was offered, when the efficacy of Christ's
death was transferred to a theatrical performance by men — when
some priestling, as if he had been the successor of Christ, interposed
himself as a Mediator between God and man—when, after destroying
the virtue of the only sacrifice, a thousand sacrifices of expiation
were daily offered in a single city — when Christ was sacrificed a
thousand times a-day, as if he had not done enough in once dying for
us? In heaping all these insults upon Christ, they abused the
character of the Holy Supper; for they are all included in this single
notion of sacrifice. I am not ignorant of the glosses which our
opponents employ, in order to screen their absurdities. Up to the
present age, they impudently practiced all the abominations to which
I have referred; but being now detected, they burrow in new holes,
without being able, however, to hide their turpitude. They taught
that the mass was a sacrifice, by which the sins not only of the living,
but also of the dead, were expiated. What do they now gain by
quibbling, except it be to betray their impudence? How deeply, too, is
the sacrament polluted, when, instead of the open preaching of the
Word, which constitutes its legitimate consecration, a charm is
wrought with the bread by means of whiffs and whispers? When,
instead of being distributed among the assembly of the faithful, it is
devoured apart by one man, or set aside for another's use? And
when, even in the case where a kind of distribution is made, the
people are, in defiance of the clear injunction of our Lord, defrauded
of the half, I mean the cup? What delirium to fancy that by their
exercises the substance of bread is transmuted into Christ? How
shameful to see a trade in masses plied as unblushingly as a trade in
shoes! For if it is true, as they say, that the thing they vend is the
merit of Christ's death, the insult which they offer to Christ is not less
gross than if they spat in his face.
Be pleased, Most Invincible Emperor, and Most Illustrious
Princes, to call to mind the disaster which of old befell the
Corinthians on account of one, and that not at first sight, so very
heinous an abuse of this sacrament. Each brought from home his
own supper, not as a common contribution, but that the rich might
feast luxuriantly while the poor hungered. For this cause the Lord
chastised them with a severe and deadly pestilence. Such is the
account of Paul, who, at the same time, bids us regard it as a paternal
rod, by which the Lord called them to repentance. From this infer
what we have at this day to expect, who have not declined merely in
some little iota from the genuine institution of Christ, but wandered
to an immeasurable distance from it; who have not only corrupted its
purity in one instance, but defaced it in numerous instances, and
these, too, of a shocking description; who have not merely interfered
with its legitimate end, by some single abuse, but perverted its whole
administration. Nor can it be doubted, that now, for some time, God
has begun to avenge this impiety. Now, for many years in succession,
the world has been pressed by numerous varying troubles and
calamities, until it has at length arrived at almost the extreme of
wretchedness. We, indeed, stand amazed at our disasters, or suggest
other reasons why God so afflicts us. But if we reflect how slight the
error by which the Corinthians had vitiated the sacred Supper was, if
contrasted with all the defilements by which, in the present day, it is
sullied and polluted amongst ourselves, it is strange not to perceive
that God, who so severely punished them, is justly more offended
with us.
Were I to follow out all the flagitious corruptions of ecclesiastical
government, I should enter an interminable forest. Of the lives of the
priests, for many reasons, I at present decline to speak; but there are
three vices of an intolerable description, on which each individual
may reflect for himself: First, Disregarding the character of a holy
vocation, clerical offices are everywhere acquired either by violence
or by simony, or by other dishonest and impious arts: Secondly, The
rulers of the Church, in so far as regards the performance of their
duties, are more like empty shadows or lifeless images than true
ministers; and, Thirdly, When they ought to govern consciences in
accordance with the Word of God, they oppress them with an
iniquitous tyranny, and hold them in bondage by the fetters of many
impious laws. Is it true, that, not only in contempt of the laws of God
and man, but in the absence of everything like a sense of shame, foul
disorder reigns in the appointment of Bishops and Presbyters? that
caprice assumes the place of justice, simony is seldom absent, and, as
if these were evils of no consequence, the correction of them is
deferred to a future age? What is become of the duty of teaching —
the proper characteristic of the ministry? As to true liberty of
conscience, we know how many struggles Paul engaged in, and how
earnestly he contended in its defense; but every person who judges
impartially must certainly perceive, that at the present time we have
much more cause to contend for it. In a corruption of sound doctrine
so extreme, in a pollution of the sacraments so nefarious, in a
condition of the Church so deplorable, those who maintain that we
ought not to have felt so strongly, would have been satisfied with
nothing less than a perfidious tolerance, by which we should have
betrayed the worship of God, the glory of Christ, the salvation of
men, the entire administration of the sacraments, and the
government of the Church. There is something specious in the name
of moderation, and tolerance is a quality which has a fair
appearance, and seems worthy of praise; but the rule which we must
observe at all hazards is, never to endure patiently that the sacred
name of God should be assailed with impious blasphemy — that his
eternal truth should be suppressed by the devil's lies — that Christ
should be insulted, his holy mysteries polluted, unhappy souls
cruelly murdered, and the Church left to writhe in extremity under
the effect of a deadly wound. This would be not meekness, but
indifference about things to which all others ought to be postponed.
I trust I have now clearly shown, as I proposed, that in
correcting the corruption of the Church, we have by no means been
more urgent than the case demanded. Even those who blame us are
aware of this, and, accordingly, they have recourse to another charge,
viz., that the utmost we have gained by our interference has been to
fill the Christian world, which was formerly at peace, with intestine
discord — that so far from any amendment appearing, things have
gone on to worse — that of those who have embraced our doctrine
few have been made better, nay, that some have been emboldened, if
not to greater, at least to more unrestrained licentiousness. They
object, moreover, that in our churches there is no discipline, no laws
of abstinence, no exercises of humility; that the people, thrown loose
from the yoke, riot with impunity in vicious courses. Lastly, they
throw upon us the odium of seizing on the property of ecclesiastics,
asserting that our princes have made a rush upon it as if it had been
lawful spoil; that in this way the Church has been violently and
shamefully plundered, and that now the patrimony of the Church is
possessed indiscriminately by those who, amid the uproar of
contention, have usurped it without law or any proper title.
I, for my part, deny not that when impiety reigned, her kingdom
was disturbed by us. But if, at the moment when the light of sound
and pious doctrine beamed upon the world, all, as in duty bound,
had spontaneously, and with ready mind, lent their aid, there would
at the present day be no less peace and quietness in all the churches,
(the kingdom of Christ flourishing,) than in the days when Antichrist
tyrannised. Let those who, it is manifest impede the course of truth,
desist from waging war with Christ, and there will instantly be
perfect concord; or let them desist from throwing upon us the blame
of dissensions, which they themselves excite. For it is certainly most
unfair, while they refuse all terms of peace unless Antichrist be
permitted, after putting the doctrine of piety to flight, and as it were
again consigning Christ to the tombs to subjugate the Church; it is
most unfair not only to boast as if they themselves were innocent,
but also to insult over us; and that we, who desire nothing else than
unity, and whose only bond of union is the eternal truth of God,
should bear all the blame and odium, as much as if we were the
authors of dissension. In regard to the allegation, that no fruit has
been produced by our doctrine, I am well aware that profane men
deride us, and allege that in probing sores which are incurable, we
only enlarge the ulcer. For their opinion is, that the desperate
condition of the Church makes it vain to attempt remedies, there
being no hope of cure; and they hence conclude that the best course
is not to meddle with an evil well fixed. Those who speak in this way
understand not that the restoration of the Church is the work of God,
and no more depends on the hopes and opinions of men, than the
resurrection of the dead, or any other miracle of that description.
Here, therefore, we are not to wait for facility of actions either from
the will of men, or the temper of the times, but must rush forward
through the midst of despair. It is the will of our Master that his
gospel be preached. Let us obey his command, and follow
whithersoever he calls. What the success will be it is not ours to
inquire. Our only duty is to wish for what is best, and beseech it of
the Lord in prayer; to strive with all zeal, solicitude, and diligence, to
bring about the desired result, and, at the same time, to submit with
patience to whatever that result may be.
Groundless, therefore, is the charge brought against us of not
having done all the good which we wished, and which was to be
desired. God bids us plant and water. We have done so. He alone
gives the increase. What, then, if he chooses not to give according to
our wish? If it is clear that we have faithfully done our part, let not
our adversaries require more of us: if the result is unfavourable, let
them expostulate with God. But the pretense that no benefit has
resulted from our doctrine is most false. I say nothing of the
correction of external idolatry, and of numerous superstitions and
errors; though that is not to be counted of no moment. But is there
no fruit in this, that many who are truly pious feel their obligation to
us, in that they have at length learned to worship God with a pure
heart, and to invoke him with a calm conscience, have been freed
from perpetual torments, and furnished with true delight in Christ,
so as to be able to confide in him? But if we are asked for proofs
which every eye can see, it has not fared so unhappily with us that we
cannot point to numerous sources of rejoicing. How many who
formerly led a vicious course of life have been so reformed as to seem
converted into new men? How many whose past lives had been free
from censure, nay, who were held in the highest estimation, have,
instead of retrograding, been able to testify by their conduct that our
ministry has proved neither barren nor unfruitful? Our enemies, no
doubt, have it in their power to traduce and lacerate us by their
calumnies, especially among the ignorant; but this they can never
wrest from us, viz., that in those who have embraced our doctrine,
greater innocence, integrity, and true holiness, are found, than in all
who among them are deemed of greatest excellence. But if there are
any (and we confess the number is but too great) who pervert the
gospel, by giving loose reins to their passions, the circumstance,
assuredly, is not new; and if it was, how can we be made to bear the
blame of it? It is admitted that the gospel is the only rule of a good
and holy life; but in the fact that all do not allow themselves to be
ruled by it, and that some, as if set free from restraint, even sin more
presumptuously, we recognize the truth of Simeon's saying, that
Christ
"is set up, that the thoughts of many hearts may be
revealed," (Luke 2:35.)
If God sees meet to kindle the light of the gospel, in order that
the hidden iniquity of the wicked may be exposed, out of this to
concoct a charge against the ministers of the gospel, and their
preaching, is the utmost stretch of malice and effrontery. But I do
them no injury when I retort upon them the very thing out of which
they attempt to rear up a charge against us. For where do the
despisers of God learn their daring licentiousness, except it be from
imagining, amid the uproar of dissensions, that there is nothing
which they are not licensed to do? In this, therefore, let them
recognize it as their own crime, viz., that by retarding the course of
truth, they encourage the wicked with hopes of impunity.
As to the vituperative allegation, that we are devoid of discipline
and laws, fitted to keep the people under due restraint, we are
provided with a twofold answer. Were I to say that discipline is
adequately established among us, I should be refuted by the daily
discourses, in which our teachers lament that it still lies neglected.
But while I deny not that we want the blessing of thorough discipline,
still, I say, it ought to be considered who the persons are to whom it
has hitherto been, and still is, owing that we do not enjoy it, in order
that they may be made to bear the blame. Let our enemies deny, if
they can, that they employ every artifice for the purpose, not only of
hampering our exertions in forming and constituting our churches,
but also of defeating and overthrowing whatever we begin. We labor
sedulously in building up the Church, and when we are intent on the
work, they, ever and anon, make a hostile entrance to disturb our
operations, and allow us no interval which we might employ in
arranging the domestic concerns of the Church. After this they
upbraid us with the dilapidation of which they are themselves the
cause. What kind of ingenuousness is this, to give us constant
annoyance, and then make it a charge against us, that, in
consequence of that annoyance, we are not at leisure to arrange all
the departments of the Church? God is witness to our grief, men
witnesses to our complaints, on account of the distance we still are
from perfection. But then it is said, there are some things pertaining
to discipline which we have discarded. True; but as men are wont, in
rebuilding a fallen edifice, to drag out and collect the fragments
which lie in heaps, or scattered about, in order that they may fit each
into its proper place, so were we obliged to act. For if any part of
ancient discipline survived, it was so mixed and buried with the
confused mass of ruins; it had so lost its pristine form, that no use
could be made of it till it was gathered out from amidst the
confusion.
I wish, at all events, our opponents would stimulate us by their
example. But how? The discipline which they clamorously maintain
that we have not, do they themselves possess? Would it not be better
were they to unite with us in admitting and confessing their fault
before God, than to upbraid us with what may instantly be retorted
on their own heads?
Discipline consists of two parts, the one relating to the clergy,
the other to the people. Now, I wish to know with what strictness
they confine their clergy to an upright and chaste behavior. That
purer and more refined holiness to which the ancient canons bind
the clergy, I exact not of them. For I know how they laugh in their
hearts when any one raises up from oblivion those laws which have
now been dead for several ages. All I ask of their clergy is common
decency, so that, if they are not distinguished for purity of life, they
may, at least, not be infamous for turpitude. When any one, by
means of gifts, or favor, or sordid obsequiousness, or surreptitious
certificates, winds his way into the priesthood, the canons pronounce
it simony, and order it as such to be punished. How many, in the
present day, enter the priesthood by any other means? But adieu, as I
have said, to that stern rigour. Still, were no enactment on the
subject in existence, how disgraceful is it that the houses of bishops
should be forges of open and adulterous simony? What shall I say of
the Roman See, where it now seems matter of course that sacerdotal
offices are openly disposed of to the highest bidder, or where they are
the hire paid for panderism and sorcery, and the obscene crimes? If
common sense has any influence amongst us, can it but seem
monstrous that boys of twelve years of age should be made
archbishops? When Christ was buffetted, was he more insulted than
by this? Can there be a greater mockery to God and man, than when
a boy is set to rule a Christian people, and installed in the seat of a
father and pastor?
The injunctions of the canons concerning bishops and
presbyters are, that all should be vigilant in their stations, and no
one long absent from his church. But, let us suppose that there was
no such precept, who sees not that the Christian name is subjected to
the derision even of Turks, when the denomination of pastor of a
church is given to one who does not pay it a single visit during his
whole life? For, as to constant residence in the place where he has
been appointed pastor, it is now long since an example of it became
rare. Bishops and abbots either hold their own courts, or dwell in
ordinary in the courts of princes. Each, according to his disposition,
selects the place where he may live in luxury. Those, again, who take
more pleasure in their nest, are truly said to reside in their benefices,
for they are lazy bellies, to whom nothing is less known than their
duty!
It was forbidden by the ancient canons to give two churches to
one individual. Well, let this prohibition be as if it had never been.
Still, with what gloss will they excuse the absurdity of bestowing five
benefices, or more, on one man? of allowing one, and that one
sometimes a boy, to possess three bishoprics, seated at such a
distance from each other that he could scarcely make the circuit of
them in a year, were he to do nothing else?
The canons require, that in promoting priests, a strict and
minute examination be made into life and doctrine. Let us concede to
the present times, that they cannot be tied down to so stern a rule.
But we see how the ignorant, and those utterly devoid both of
learning and prudence, are inducted without discrimination. Even in
hiring a mule-driver, more regard is paid to his past life than in
choosing a priest. This is no fiction, no exaggeration. True, they go
through the form like players on a stage, that they may exhibit some
image of ancient practice. The bishops, or their suffragans, put the
question, whether those whom they have determined to ordain are
worthy? There is some one present to answer that they are worthy.
There is no occasion to go far for a witness, or to bribe him for his
testimony. The answer is merely a form; all beadles, tonsors, and
doorkeepers, know it by heart.
Then, after ordination, the least suspicion of lewdness in the
clergy ought, according to the ancient canons, to be corrected, and
the proof of it punished with deposition and excommunication. Let
us remit somewhat of this ancient rigour. Yet, what will be said to
such a toleration of daily lewdness, as might almost imply a right to
commit it? The canons declare, that on no account shall a clergyman
be permitted to indulge in hunting, or gaming, or revelry, and
dancing. Nay, they even expel from the ministry every man to whom
any kind of infamy attaches. In like manner, all who involve
themselves in secular affairs, or so intermeddle in civil offices as to
distract their attention from the ministry — all, in fine, who are not
assiduous in the discharge of their duties, they order to be severely
censured, and, if they repent not, deposed. It will be objected, that
these severe remedies, which cut all vices to the quick, this age
cannot bear. Be it so, I do not call upon them for so much purity. But
that an unbridled licentiousness should reign in the clergy, a
licentiousness so unbridled that they, more than any other order,
give additional taint to a world already most corrupt, who can forgive
them?
With regard to the discipline exercised over the people, the
matter stands thus: — Provided the domination of the clergy remains
intact, provided no deduction is made from their tribute or plunder,
almost any thing else is done with impunity, or carelessly
overlooked. We see the general prevalence of all kinds of wickedness
in the manners of society. In proof of this, I will call no other
witnesses than your Imperial Majesty and Most Illustrious Princes. I
admit that the fact is attributable to many causes, but among the
many, the primary cause is, that the priests, either from indulgence
or carelessness, have allowed the wicked to give loose reins to their
lusts. How do they act at the present hour? What care do they
employ in eradicating vices, or at least in checking them? Where
their admonitions? Where their censures? To omit other things, what
use is made of excommunication, that best nerve of discipline? True,
they possess, under the name of excommunication, a tyrannical
thunderbolt which they hurl at those whom they call contumacious.
But what contumacy do they punish, unless it be of persons who,
when cited to their tribunal about money matters, have either not
appeared, or, from poverty, have failed to satisfy their demands?
Accordingly, the most salutary remedy for chastising the guilty, they
merely abuse in vexing the poor and the innocent. They have,
moreover, the ridiculous custom of sometimes flagellating hidden
crimes with an anathema, as in the case where a theft has been
committed and the thief is unknown. This practice is altogether at
variance with the institution of Christ. But, though so many
disgraceful proceedings take place openly before the eyes of all, as to
them excommunication is asleep. And yet the very persons among
whom all these disorders prevail have the hardihood to upbraid us
with want of order! No doubt, if we are equally guilty, we gain
nothing by accusing them; but in what I have hitherto said, my object
has not been, by recrimination, to evade the charge which they bring
against us, but to show the real value of that discipline which they
complain that we have overthrown. If it is thought proper to compare
the two, we are confident that our disorder, such as it is, will be
found at all events some what more orderly than the kind of order in
which they glory. I mean not to palliate or flatter our defects, when I
thus speak. I know how much we require to be improved.
Undoubtedly, were God to call us to account, excuse would be
difficult; but when called to answer our enemies we have a better
cause, and an easier victory than we could wish.
With similar effrontery, they clamor that we have seized upon
the wealth of the Church, and applied it to secular purposes. Were I
to say that we have not sinned in this respect, I should lie. Indeed,
changes of such magnitude are seldom made without bringing some
inconveniences along with them. If, herein, aught has been done
wrong, I excuse it not. But, with what face do our adversaries present
this charge against us? They say, it is sacrilege to convert the wealth
of the Church to secular uses. I admit it. They add, that we do so. I
reply, that we have not the least objection to answer for ourselves,
provided they, too, in their turn, come prepared to plead their cause.
We will immediately attend to our own case; meanwhile, let us see
what they do. Of bishops I say nothing, except what all see, that they
not only rival princes in the splendor of their dress, the luxuries of
their table, the number of their servants, the magnificence of their
palaces, in short, every kind of luxury; but also, that they dilapidate
and squander ecclesiastical revenues, in expenditure of a much more
shameful description. I say nothing of field sports, nothing of
gaming, nothing of the other pleasures which absorb no small
portion of their incomes. But, to take from the Church, in order to
spend on pimps and harlots, is surely too bad. Then how absurd, not
only to plume themselves on pomp and show, but to carry them to
the utmost excess.
Time was, when poverty in priests was deemed glorious. So it
was in the Council of Aquila. On one occasion, too, it was decreed
that a bishop should reside within a short distance of his church in a
humble dwelling, with a scanty table and mean furniture, (Conc.
Carth. 4. cap. 4 Can. 14.) But, without going to that ancient rigor,
after numerous corruptions had crept in with the progress of wealth,
even then the ancient law was again confirmed which divided
ecclesiastical revenues into four portions; one to go to the bishop for
hospitality, and the relief of those in want, another to the clergy, a
third to the poor, and a fourth to the repairing of churches. Gregory
attests that this rule was in full observance even in his day. Besides,
were there no laws on the subject, and at one time there were none,
(for that which I have mentioned was, as in the case of other laws,
rendered necessary by the corruption of manners,) still there is no
man who will not admit the truth of what Jerome says, (ad
Nepotianum,) that it is the glory of a bishop to provide for the wants
of the poor, and the disgrace of all priests to have a hankering after
private wealth. It will, perhaps, be thought that another injunction,
which he gives in the same passage, is too severe, viz., that open table
should be kept for the poor, and for strangers. It is, however, equally
well-founded.
The nearer abbots approach to bishops in extent of revenue, the
more they resemble them. Canons and parish priests, not deriving
enough from one cure for gluttony, luxury, and pomp, soon found
out a compendious method of remedying the inconvenience. For
there is nothing to prevent him who could, in one month, swallow
much more than he draws in a year, from holding four or five
benefices. The burden is nothing thought of. For there are vicars at
hand ready to stoop, and take it on their shoulders, provided they are
allowed to gobble up some small portion of the proceeds. Nay, few
are found who will be contented with one bishopric, or one abbacy.
Those of the clergy who live at the public expense of the Church,
though able to live on their patrimony, Jerome styles sacrilegious, (C.
Cler. I. Quaest. 2.) What, then, must be thought of those who at once
engulf three bishoprics, i.e., from fifty to a hundred tolerable
patrimonies? And, lest they complain that they are unjustly traduced
for the fault of a few, what are we to think of those who not only
luxuriate on the public revenues of the Church, but abuse them in
paying the hire of panders and courtesans? I speak only of what is
notorious.
Then, were we to ask, I say, not at the whole order, but at the
few who reside in their benefices, by what right they receive even a
frugal and moderate stipend, even such a question they are not able
to answer. For what duties do they perform in return? In the same
way as anciently, under the law, those who served at the altar lived
by the altar,
"even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which
preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (1
Corinthians 9:9.)
These are Paul's words. Let them, then, show us that they are
ministers of the gospel, and I will have no difficulty in conceding
their right to stipend. The ox must not be muzzled that treadeth out
the corn. But is it not altogether at variance with reason that the
ploughing oxen should starve, and the lazy asses be fed? They will
say, however, that they serve at the altar. I answer, that the priests
under the law deserved maintenance, by ministering at an altar; but
that, as Paul declares, the case under the New Testament is different.
And what are those altar services, for which they allege that
maintenance is due to them? Forsooth, that they may perform their
masses and chant in churches, i.e., partly labor to no purpose, and
partly perpetrate sacrilege, thereby provoking the anger of God. See
for what it is that they are alimented at the public expense!
There are some who accuse our princes of inexpiable sacrilege,
as having, with violence and the greatest injustice, seized upon the
patrimony of the Church, which had been consecrated to God, and as
now dilapidating it for profane uses.
I have already declared that I am unwilling to be the apologist of
everything that is done amongst us; nay, rather, I openly declare my
dissatisfaction that more regard is not paid to the due application of
ecclesiastical revenues to those purposes only for which they were
destined. This I deplore in common with all good men. But the only
point under discussion at present is, whether our princes
sacrilegiously seized on the revenues of the Church, when they
appropriated what they had rescued out of the hands of priests and
monks? Is it profanation to apply these to some other purpose than
stuffing such lazy bellies? For it is their own cause which our
adversaries plead, not the cause of Christ and his Church. No doubt,
heavy judgments are denounced against those who rob the Church,
and carry off for their own use what belongs to her. But the reason is
at the same time added, viz., because they defraud true ministers of
their maintenance, and because, starving the poor to death, they are
guilty of their blood. But what have our opponents to do with this?
For who among their whole tribe can make the declaration which
Ambrose once made, that whatever he possessed was the revenue of
the needy; and again, that every thing which a bishop possesses
belongs to the poor? (Ambrose, Epist. Lib. 5. Ep. 31 et 33.) say, how
few of them do not abuse what they possess with as much license as
if it had been given to be profusely squandered as they list? It is vain,
therefore, for them to expostulate, because deprived of that which
they possessed without any right, and wasted with the greatest
iniquity.
And it was not only lawful, but necessary also, for our princes so
to deprive them. When they saw the Church absolutely destitute of
true ministers, and the revenues destined for their support absorbed
by lazy idle men; when they saw the patrimony of Christ and the poor
either ingulfed by a few, or dissolutely wasted on expensive luxuries,
were they not to interfere? Nay, when they saw the obstinate enemies
of the truth lying like an incubus on the patrimony of the Church,
and abusing it, to attack Christ, to oppress sound doctrine, and
persecute its ministers, was it not right immediately to wrest it from
their hands, that, at all events, they might not be armed and
equipped by the resources of the Church to vex the Church? King
Josiah is commended, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, because,
on perceiving that the sacred oblations were improperly consumed
by the priests, he appointed an officer to call them to account, (2
Chronicles 24:14.) And yet they were priests whom God had
entrusted with the ordinary administration. What, then, is to be done
with those who exercise no lawful ministry, and who not only, like
them, neglect the repairing of the temple, but exert all their nerves
and resources to pull down the Church?
But some one will ask, how are the appropriated revenues
administered? Certainly not in a manner altogether free from blame,
but still in a manner far better and holier than by our enemies. Out of
them, at all events, true ministers are supported, who feed their
flocks with the doctrine of salvation, whereas, formerly, churches left
utterly destitute of pastors were burdened with the payment of them.
Wherever schools or hospitals for the poor existed they remain; in
some instances their revenues have been increased; in none have
they been diminished. In many places, also, in lieu of monasteries,
hospitals have been established where there were none before; in
others new schools have been erected, in which not only have regular
salaries been given to the masters, but youths also are trained, in the
hope of being afterwards of service to the Church.
In fine, churches derive many advantages in common from these
revenues, with which, before, only monks and priests were gorged.
Nor is it a small portion which is devoted to extraordinary expenses,
though these are well entitled to be taken into account. It is certain
that much more is consumed when matters are in disorder, than
would be if proper arrangements were made among the churches.
But nothing could be more unjust than to deny to our princes and
magistrates the right of making expenditure of this kind, not for their
private benefit, but to meet the public necessities of the Church.
Besides, our adversaries forget to deduct their spoliations and unjust
exactions, by which communities were pillaged for sacrifices, of
which they are now relieved. But there is one reason which renders
all this discussion, in a great measure, superfluous. More than three
years ago, our princes declared their readiness to make restitution,
provided the same course were enforced against those who detain a
much larger amount for a less honorable cause, and who are guilty of
much greater corruption in the administration of it. Our princes,
therefore, stand bound to your Imperial Majesty by their promise.
The document also is before the world; so that this should not be any
hinderance to uniformity of doctrine.
The last and principal charge which they bring against us is, that
we have made a schism in the Church. And here they boldly maintain
against us, that in no case is it lawful to break the unity of the
Church. How far they do us injustice, the books of our authors bear
witness. Now, however, let them take this brief reply — that we
neither dissent from the Church, nor are aliens from her
communion. But, as by this specious name of Church, they are wont
to cast dust in the eyes even of persons otherwise pious and right-
hearted, I beseech your Imperial Majesty, and you, Most Illustrious
Princes, first, to divest yourselves of all prejudice, that you may give
an impartial ear to our defense; secondly, not to be instantly terrified
on hearing the name of Church, but to remember that the Prophets
and Apostles had, with the pretended church of their days, a contest
similar to that which you see us have in the present day with the
Roman Pontiff and his whole train. When they, by the command of
God, inveighed freely against idolatry, superstition, and the
profanation of the temple, and its sacred rites, against the
carelessness and lethargy of priests, and against the general avarice,
cruelty, and licentiousness, they were constantly met with the
objection which our opponents have ever in their mouths — that by
dissenting from the common opinion, they violated the unity of the
Church. The ordinary government of the Church was then vested in
the priests. They had not presumptuously arrogated it to themselves,
but God had conferred it upon them by his law. It would occupy too
much time to point out all the instances. Let us, therefore, be
contented with a single instance, in the case of Jeremiah.
He had to do with the whole college of priests, and the arms with
which they attacked him were these,
"Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah;
for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor
counsel from the wise, nor the word from the
prophet," (Jeremiah 18:18.)
They had among them a High Priest, to reject whose judgment
was a capital crime, and they had the whole order to which God
himself had committed the government of the Jewish Church
concurring with them. If the unity of the Church is violated by him,
who, instructed solely by Divine truth, opposes himself to ordinary
authority, the prophet must be a schismatic; because, not at all
deterred by such menaces from warring with the impiety of the
priests, he steadily persevered. That the eternal truth of God,
preached by the prophets and apostles, is on our side, we are
prepared to show, and it is indeed easy for any man to perceive. But
all that is done is to assail us with this battering-ram, "Nothing can
excuse withdrawal from the Church." We deny out and out that we
do so. With what, then, do they urge us? With nothing more than
this, that to them belongs the ordinary government of the Church.
But how much better right had the enemies of Jeremiah to use this
argument? To them, at all events, there still remained a legal
priesthood, instituted by God; so that their vocation was
unquestionable. Those who, in the present day, have the name of
prelates, cannot prove their vocation by any laws, human or divine.
Be it, however, that in this respect both are on a footing, still, unless
they previously convict the holy prophet of schism, they will prove
nothing against us by that specious title of Church. I have thus
mentioned one prophet as an example. But all the others declare that
they had the same battle to fight — wicked priests endeavoring to
overwhelm them by a perversion of this term Church. And how did
the apostles act? Was it not necessary for them, in professing
themselves the servants of Christ, to declare war upon the
synagogue? And yet the office and dignity of the priesthood were not
then lost. But it will be said, that, though the prophets and apostles
dissented from wicked priests in doctrine, they still cultivated
communion with them in sacrifices and prayers. I admit they did,
provided they were not forced into idolatry. But which of the
prophets do we read of as having ever sacrificed in Bethel? Which of
the faithful, do we suppose, communicated in impure sacrifices,
when the temple was polluted by Antiochus, and profane rites were
introduced into it?
On the whole, we conclude that the servants of God never felt
themselves obstructed by this empty title of Church, when it was put
forward to support the reign of impiety. It is not enough, therefore,
simply to throw out the name of Church, but judgment must be used
to ascertain which is the true Church, and what is the nature of its
unity. And the thing necessary to be attended to, first of all, is, to
beware of separating the Church from Christ its Head. When I say
Christ, I include the doctrine of his gospel, which he sealed with his
blood. Our adversaries, therefore, if they would persuade us that they
are the true Church, must, first of all, show that the true doctrine of
God is among them; and this is the meaning of what we often repeat,
viz., that the uniform characteristics of a wellordered Church are the
preaching of sound doctrine, and the pure administration of the
Sacraments. For, since Paul declares that the Church is
"built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets," (Ephesians 2:20)
it necessarily follows that any church not resting on this foundation
must immediately fall. I come now to our opponents.
They, no doubt, boast in lofty terms that Christ is on their side.
As soon as they exhibit him in their word we will believe it, but not
sooner. They, in the same way, insist on the term Church. But where,
we ask, is that doctrine which Paul declares to be the only foundation
of the Church? Doubtless your Imperial Majesty now sees that there
is a vast difference between assailing us with the reality and assailing
us only with the name of Church. We are as ready to confess as they
are that those who abandon the Church, the common mother of the
faithful, the "pillar and ground of the truth," revolt from Christ also;
but we mean a Church which, from incorruptible seed, begets
children for immortality, and, when begotten, nourishes them with
spiritual food, (that seed and food being the Word of God,) and
which, by its ministry, preserves entire the truth which God
deposited in its bosom. This mark is in no degree doubtful, in no
degree fallacious, and it is the mark which God himself impressed
upon his Church, that she might be discerned thereby. Do we seem
unjust in demanding to see this mark? Wherever it exists not, no face
of a church is seen. If the name, merely, is put forward, we have only
to quote the wellknown passage of Jeremiah,
"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of
the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of
the Lord, are these," (Jeremiah 7:4.)
"Is this house, which is called by my name, become
a den of robbers in your eyes?" (Jeremiah 7:11.)
In like manner, the unity of the Church, such as Paul describes
it, we protest we hold sacred, and we denounce anathema against all
who in any way violate it. The principle from which Paul derives
unity is, that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all" who hath called us into one hope, (Ephesians 4:4, 5.)
Therefore, we are one body and one spirit, as is here enjoined, if we
adhere to God only, i.e., be sound to each other by the tie of faith. We
ought, moreover, to remember what is said in another passage, "that
faith cometh by the word of God." Let it, therefore, be a fixed point,
that a holy unity exists amongst us, when, consenting in pure
doctrine, we are united in Christ alone. And, indeed, if concurrence
in any kind of doctrine were sufficient, in what possible way could
the Church of God be distinguished from the impious factions of the
wicked? Wherefore, the Apostle shortly after adds, that the ministry
was instituted "for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come
in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God: That
we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up
into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ," (Ephesians
4:1215.) Could he more plainly comprise the whole unity of the
Church in a holy agreement in true doctrine, than when he calls us
back to Christ and to faith, which is included in the knowledge of
him, and to obedience to the truth? Nor is any lengthened
demonstration of this needed by those who believe the Church to be
that sheepfold of which Christ alone is the Shepherd, and where his
voice only is heard, and distinguished from the voice of strangers.
And this is confirmed by Paul, when he prays for the Romans,
"The God of patience and consolation grant you to
be like minded one toward another, according to
Christ Jesus; that ye may with one mind and one
mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ," (Romans 15:5, 6.)
Let our opponents, then, in the first instance, draw near to
Christ, and then let them convict us of schism, in daring to dissent
from them in doctrine. But, since I have made it plain, that Christ is
banished from their society, and the doctrine of his gospel
exterminated, their charge against us simply amounts to this, that we
adhere to Christ in preference to them. For what man, pray, will
believe that those who refuse to be led away from Christ and his
truth, in order to deliver themselves into the power of men, are
thereby schismatics, and deserters from the communion of the
Church? I certainly admit that respect is to be shown to priests, and
that there is great danger in despising ordinary authority. If, then,
they were to say, that we are not at our own hand to resist ordinary
authority, we should have no difficulty in subscribing to the
sentiment. For we are not so rude, as not to see what confusion must
arise when the authority of rulers is not respected. Let pastors, then,
have their due honor — an honor, however, not derogatory in any
degree to the supreme authority of Christ, to whom it behoves them
and every man to be subject. For God declares, by Malachi, that the
government of the Israelitish Church was committed to the priests,
under the condition that they should faithfully fulfill the covenant
made with them, viz., that their "lips should keep knowledge," and
expound the law to the people, (Malachi 2:7.) When the priests
altogether failed in this condition, he declares, that, by their perfidy,
the covenant was abrogated and made null. Pastors are mistaken if
they imagine that they are invested with the government of the
Church on any other terms than that of being ministers and
witnesses of the truth of God. As long, therefore, as, in opposition to
the law and to the nature of their office, they eagerly wage war with
the truth of God, let them not arrogate to themselves a power which
God never bestowed, either formerly on priests, or now on bishops,
on any other terms than those which have been mentioned.
But, because they hold that the communion of the Church is
confined to a kind of regimen which they have struck out for
themselves, they think it sufficient to decide the victory in their
favor, when they point to our alienation from the Romish See. But to
this vaunted primacy of the Romish See it is not difficult to reply. It
is a subject, however, on which I will not here enter, both because it
would occupy too much time, and because it has been amply
discussed by our writers. I will only beg your Imperial Majesty, and
Most Illustrious Princes, to listen to Cyprian, when he points out a
better method of ascertaining the true communion of the Church,
than that of referring it, as our opponents do, to the Roman Pontiff
alone. For, after placing the only source of ecclesiastical concord in
the episcopal authority of Christ, which episcopal authority he
affirms that each bishop, to the extent to which it has been
communicated, holds entire, he thus proceeds: "There is one church,
which, by the increase of its fruitfulness, spreads into a multitude,
just as there are many rays of the sun, but only one light, many
branches in a tree, but one trunk, upheld by its tenacious root; and
when many streams flow from one fountain, though, from the
copiousness of the supply, there seems a division into parts, still, in
regard to the origin, unity is preserved. Separate a ray from the body
of the sun, the unity of the light is not divided. Break a branch from a
tree, that which is broken cannot germinate. Cut off a stream from
the fountain, and it dries up. So, also, the Church of God, irradiated
with light, sends its beams over the whole world. Still it is one light
which is everywhere diffused. The unity of the body is not violated."
(Cyprian De Unitat. Ecclesiae.) Heresies and Schisms, therefore,
arise when a return is not made to the origin of truth, when neither
the head is regarded, nor the doctrine of the heavenly Master
preserved. Let them then show us a hierarchy in which the bishops
are distinguished, but not for refusing to be subject to Christ, in
which they depend upon him as the only head, and act solely with
reference to him, in which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with
each other, bound together by no other tie than his truth; then,
indeed, I will confess that there is no anathema too strong for those
who do not regard them with reverence, and yield them the fullest
obedience. But is there any thing like this in that false mask of
hierarchy on which they plume themselves? The Roman Pontiff