The Necessity of Reforming the

The Necessity of Reforming the

The Necessity of

Reforming the Church

John Calvin

To The Most Invincible Emperor Charles V., And The Most

Illustrious Princes And Other Orders, Now Holding A Diet Of The

Empire At Spires, [1543]

A HUMBLE EXHORTATION

Seriously to Undertake The Task Of Restoring The Church.

Presented In The Name Of All Those Who Wish Christ To Reign.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

August Emperor

Divine Truth Lay Burried by Darkness and Perversion

The Holy Supper

Christ, our Redeemer, Was in a Great Measure Defrauded

Purifying the Church from Corruption

AUGUST EMPEROR,

You have summoned this Diet, that, in concert with the Most

Illustrious Princes and other Orders of the Empire, you may at

length deliberate and decide upon the means of ameliorating the

present condition of the Church, which we all see to be very

miserable, and almost desperate. Now, therefore, while you are

seated at this consultation, I humbly beg and implore, first of your

Imperial Majesty, and at the same time of you also, Most Illustrious

Princes, and distinguished Personages, that you will not decline to

read, and diligently ponder, what I have to lay before you. The

magnitude and weightiness of the cause may well excite in you an

eagerness to hear, and I will set the matter so plainly in your view,

that you can have no difficulty in determining what course to adopt.

Whoever I am, I here profess to plead in defense, both of sound

doctrine and of the Church. In this character I seem at all events

entitled to expect that you will not deny me audience until such time

as it may appear whether I falsely usurp the character, or whether I

faithfully perform its duties, and make good what I profess. But

though I feel that I am by no means equal to so great a task, I am not

at all afraid, that after you have heard the nature of my office, I shall

be accused either of folly or presumption in having ventured thus to

appear before you. There are two circumstances by which men are

wont to recommend, or at least to justify, their conduct. If a thing is

done honestly, and from pious zeal, we deem it worthy of praise; if it

is done under the pressure of public necessity, we at least deem it not

unworthy of excuse. Since both of these apply here, I am confident,

from your equity, that I shall easily obtain your approval of my

design. For where can I exert myself to better purpose or more

honestly, where, too, in a matter at this time more necessary, than in

attempting, according to my ability, to aid the Church of Christ,

whose claims it is unlawful in any instance to deny, and which is now

in grievous distress, and in extreme danger? But there is no occasion

for a long preface concerning myself. Receive what I say as you

would do if it were pronounced by the united voice of all those who

either have already taken care to restore the Church, or are desirous

that it should be restored to true order. In this situation are several

Princes, of not the humblest class, and not a few distinguished

communities. For all these I speak, though as an individual, yet so

that it is more truly they who at once, and with one mouth, speak

through me. To these add the countless multitude of pious men, who,

scattered over the various regions of the Christian world, still

unanimously concur with me in this pleading. In short, regard this as

the common address of all who so eminently deplore the present

corruption of the Church, that they are unable to bear it longer, and

are determined not to rest till they see some amendment. I am aware

of the odious names with which we are branded; but, meanwhile,

whatever be the name by which it is thought proper to designate us,

hear our cause, and, after you have heard, judge what the place is

which we are entitled to hold.

First, then, the question is not, Whether the Church labors

under diseases both numerous and grievous, (this is admitted even

by all moderate judges,) but whether the diseases are of a kind the

cure of which admits not of longer delay, and as to which, therefore,

it is neither useful nor becoming to await the result of slow remedies.

We are accused of rash and impious innovation, for having ventured

to propose any change at all on the former state of the Church. What!

Even if it has not been done either with out cause or imperfectly? I

hear there are persons who, even in this case, do not hesitate to

condemn us; their opinion being, that we were indeed right in

desiring amendment, but not right in attempting it. From such

persons, all I would ask at present is, that they will for a little

suspend their judgment until I shall have shown from fact that we

have not been prematurely hasty — have not attempted any thing

rashly, any thing alien from our duty — have, in fine, done nothing

until compelled by the highest necessity. To enable me to prove this,

it is necessary to attend to the matters in dispute.

We maintain, then, that at the commencement, when God raised

up Luther and others, who held forth a torch to light us into the way

of salvation, and who, by their ministry, founded and reared our

churches, those heads of doctrine in which the truth of our religion,

those in which the pure and legitimate sonship of God, and those in

which the salvation of men are comprehended, were in a great

measure obsolete. We maintain that the use of the sacraments was in

many ways vitiated and polluted. And we maintain that the

government of the Church was converted into a species of foul and

insufferable tyranny. But, perhaps these averments have not force

enough to move certain individuals until they are better explained.

This, therefore, I will do, not as the subject demands, but as far as my

ability will permit. Here, however, I have no intention to review and

discuss all our controversies; that would require a long discourse,

and this is not the place for it. I wish only to show how just and

necessary the causes were which forced us to the changes for which

we are blamed. To accomplish this, I must take up together the three

following points.

First, I must briefly enumerate the evils which

compelled us to seek for remedies.

Secondly, I must show that the particular remedies

which our Reformers employed were apt and

salutary.

Thirdly, I must make it plain that we were not at

liberty any longer to delay putting forth our hand,

in as much as the matter demanded instant

amendment.

The first point, as I merely advert to it for the purpose of

clearing my way to the other two, I will endeavor to dispose of in a

few words, but in wiping off the heavy charge of sacrilegious audacity

and sedition, founded on the allegation, that we have improperly,

and with intemperate haste usurped an office which did not belong

to us, I will dwell at greater length. If it be inquired, then, by what

things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst

us and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not

only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the

other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity,

viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly

worshipped; and, secondly of the source from which salvation is to

be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory

in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After

these come the Sacraments and the Government of the Church,

which, as they were instituted for the preservation of these branches

of doctrine, ought not to be employed for any other purpose; and

indeed, the only means of ascertaining whether they are

administered purely and in due form, or otherwise, is to bring them

to this test. If any one is desirous of a clearer and more familiar

illustration, I would say, that rule in the Church, the pastoral office,

and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the

doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, and points out the

ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of

salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively and

active, and, in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcass.

As to what I have yet said, there is no controversy among the

pious, or among men of right and sane mind.

Let us now see what is meant by the due worship of God. Its

chief foundation is to acknowledge Him to be, as He is, the only

source of all virtue, justice, holiness, wisdom, truth, power,

goodness, mercy, life, and salvation; in accordance with this, to

ascribe and render to Him the glory of all that is good, to seek all

things in Him alone, and in every want have recourse to Him alone.

Hence arises prayer, hence praise and thanksgiving — these being

attestations to the glory which we attribute to Him. This is that

genuine sanctification of His name which He requires of us above all

things. To this is united adoration, by which we manifest for Him the

reverence due to his greatness and excellency, and to this ceremonies

are subservient, as helps or instruments, in order that, in the

performance of divine worship, the body may be exercised at the

same time with the soul. Next after these comes self-abasement,

when, renouncing the world and the flesh, we are transformed in the

renewing of our mind, and living no longer to ourselves, submit to be

ruled and actuated by Him. By this self-abasement we are trained to

obedience and devotedness to his will, so that his fear reigns in our

hearts, and regulates all the actions of our lives. That in these things

consists the true and sincere worship which alone God approves, and

in which alone He delights, is both taught by the Holy Spirit

throughout the Scriptures and is also, antecedent to discussion, the

obvious dictate of piety. Nor from the beginning was there any other

method of worshipping God, the only difference being, that this

spiritual truth, which with us is naked and simple, was under the

former dispensation wrapt up in figures. And this is the meaning of

our Savior's words,

"The hour cometh, and now is, when the true

worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and

in truth," (John 4:23.)

For by these words he meant not to declare that God was not

worshipped by the fathers in this spiritual manner, but only to point

out a distinction in the external form, viz., That while they had the

Spirit shadowed forth by many figures, we have it in simplicity. But it

has always been an acknowledged point, that God, who is a Spirit,

must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and

vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not

adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the

injunction of Him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we

would have Him to approve our worship, this rule, which he

everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully

observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning

and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience

only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish His authority

that we do not follow our own pleasures but depend entirely on his

sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at

liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we

have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our

wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions.

Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of

dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject

all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly,

too, does he, in express terms, define our limits that we may not, by

fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke His anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God

disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His

Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated,

as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do

has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of

zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless,

but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His

worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a

contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct,

"Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do

they worship me, teaching for doctrines the

commandments of men," (1 Samuel 15:22;

Matthew 15:9.)

Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie.

Mere "will worship" evqeloqrhskei,a is vanity. This is the decision,

and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

Will your Imperial Majesty now be pleased to recognize, and will

you, Most Illustrious Princes, lend me your attention, while I show

how utterly at variance with this view are all the observances, in

which, throughout the Christian world in the present day, divine

worship is made to consist? In word, indeed, they concede to God the

glory of all that is good, but, in reality, they rob him of the half, or

more than the half, by partitioning his perfections among the saints.

Let our adversaries use what evasions they may, and defame us for

exaggerating what they pretend to be trivial errors, I will simply state

the fact as every man perceives it. Divine offices are distributed

among the saints as if they had been appointed colleagues to the

Supreme God, and, in a multitude of instances, they are made to do

his work, while He is kept out of view. The thing I complain of is just

what everybody confesses by a vulgar proverb. For what is meant by

saying, "the Lord cannot be known for apostles," unless it be that, by

the height to which apostles are raised, the dignity of Christ is sunk,

or at least obscured? The consequence of this perversity is, that

mankind, forsaking the fountain of living waters, have learned, as

Jeremiah tells us, to hew them out

"cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water,"

(Jeremiah 2:13.)

For where is it that they seek for salvation and every other good?

Is it in God alone? The whole tenor of their lives openly proclaims

the contrary. They say, indeed, that they seek salvation and every

other good in Him; but it is mere pretense, seeing they seek them

elsewhere.

Of this fact, we have clear proof in the corruptions by which

prayer was first vitiated, and afterwards in a great measure perverted

and extinguished. We have observed, that prayer affords a test

whether or not suppliants render due glory to God. In like manner,

will it enable us to discover whether, after robbing Him of his glory,

they transfer it to the creatures. In genuine prayer, something more

is required than mere entreaty. The suppliant must feel assured that

God is the only being to whom he ought to flee, both because He only

can succor him in necessity; and also, because He has engaged to do

it. But no man can have this conviction unless he pays regard both to

the command by which God calls us to himself, and to the promise of

listening to our prayers which is annexed to the command. The

command was not thus regarded when the generality of mankind

invoked angels and dead men promiscuously with God, and the wiser

part, if they did not invoke them instead of God, at least regarded

them as mediators, at whose intercession God granted their requests.

Where, then, was the promise which is founded entirely on the

intercession of Christ? Passing by Christ, the only Mediator, each

betook himself to the patron who had struck his fancy, or if at any

time a place was given to Christ, it was one in which he remained

unnoticed, like some ordinary individual in a crowd. Then, although

nothing is more repugnant to the nature of genuine prayer than

doubt and distrust, so much did these prevail, that they were almost

regarded as necessary, in order to pray aright. And why was this?

Just because the world understood not the force of the expressions in

which God invites us to pray to him, engages to do whatsoever we

ask in reliance on his command and promises and sets forth Christ as

the Advocate in whose name our prayers are heard. Besides, let the

public prayers which are in common use in Churches be examined. It

will be found that they are stained with numberless impurities. From

them, therefore, we have it in our power to judge how much this part

of divine worship was vitiated. Nor was there less corruption in the

expressions of thanksgiving. To this fact, testimony is borne by the

public hymns, in which the saints are lauded for every blessing, just

as if they were the colleagues of God.

Then what shall I say of adoration? Do not men pay to images

and statues the very same reverence which they pay to God? It is an

error to suppose that there is any difference between this madness

and that of the heathen. For God forbids us not only to worship

images, but to regard them as the residence of his divinity, and

worship it as residing in them. The very same pretexts which the

patrons of this abomination employ in the present day, were

formerly employed by the heathen to cloak their impiety. Besides, it

is undeniable that saints, nay, their very bones, garments, shoes, and

images, are adored even in the place of God. But some subtle

disputant will object, that there are divers species of adoration, —

that the honor of dulia, as they term it, is given to saints, their

images, and their bones; and that latria is reserved for God as due to

him only, unless we are to except hyperdulia a species which as the

infatuation increased, was invented to set the blessed Virgin above

the rest. As if these subtle distinctions were either known or present

to the minds of those who prostrate themselves before images.

Meanwhile, the world is full of idolatry not less gross, and if I may so

speak, not less capable of being felt, than was the ancient idolatry of

the Egyptians, which all the Prophets everywhere so strongly

reprobate.

I am merely glancing at each of these corruptions, because I will

afterwards more clearly expose their demerits.

I come now to ceremonies, which, while they ought to be grave

attestations of divine worship, are rather a mere mockery of God. A

new Judaism, as a substitute for that which God had distinctly

abrogated, has again been reared up by means of numerous puerile

extravagances, collected from different quarters; and with these have

been mixed up certain impious rites, partly borrowed from the

heathen, and more adapted to some theatrical show than to the

dignity of our religion. The first evil here is, that an immense number

of ceremonies, which God had by his authority abrogated, once for

all, have been again revived. The next evil is, that while ceremonies

ought to be living exercises of piety, men are vainly occupied with

numbers of them that are both frivolous and useless. But by far the

most deadly evil of all is, that after men have thus mocked God with

ceremonies of one kind or other, they think they have fulfilled their

duty as admirably as if these ceremonies included in them the whole

essence of piety and divine worship.

With regard to self-abasement, on which depends regeneration

to newness of life, the whole doctrine was entirely obliterated from

the minds of men, or, at least, half buried, so that it was known to

few, and to them but slenderly. But the spiritual sacrifice which the

Lord in an especial manner recommends, is to mortify the old, and

be transformed into a new man. It may be, perhaps, that preachers

stammer out something about these words, but that they have no

idea of the things meant by them is apparent even from this, — that

they strenuously oppose us in our attempt to restore this branch of

divine worship. If at any time they discourse on repentance, they

only glance, as if in contempt, at the points of principal moment, and

dwell entirely on certain external exercises of the body, which, as

Paul assures us, are not of the highest utility, (Colossians 2:23; 1

Timothy 4:8.) What makes this perverseness the more intolerable is,

that the generality, under a pernicious error, pursue the shadow for

the substance, and, overlooking true repentance, devote their whole

attention to abstinence, vigils, and other things, which Paul terms

"beggarly elements" of the world.

Having observed that the sword of God is the test which

discriminates between his true worship and that which is false and

vitiated, we thence readily infer that the whole form of divine

worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere

corruption. For men pay no regard to what God has commanded, or

to what he approves, in order that they may serve him in a becoming

manner, but assume to themselves a license of devising modes of

worship, and afterwards, obtruding them upon him as a substitute

for obedience. If in what I say I seem to exaggerate, let an

examination be made of all the acts by which the generality suppose

that they worship God. I dare scarcely accept a tenth part as not the

random offspring of their own brain. What more would we? God

rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and employs his

Word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience. When shaking

off this yoke, we wander after our own fictions, and offer to him a

worship, the work of human rashness; how much soever it may

delight ourselves, in his sight it is vain trifling, nay, vileness and

pollution. The advocates of human traditions paint them in fair and

gaudy colors; and Paul certainly admits that they carry with them a

show of wisdom; but as God values obedience more than all

sacrifices, it ought to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of

worship, that it is not sanctioned by the command of God.

We come now to what we have set down as the second principal

branch of Christian doctrine, viz., knowledge of the source from

which salvation is to be obtained. Now, the knowledge of our

salvation presents three different stages. First, we must begin with a

sense of individual wretchedness, filling us with despondency as if

we were spiritually dead. This affect is produced when the original

and hereditary depravity of our nature is set before us as the source

of all evil — a depravity which begets in us distrust, rebellion against

God, pride, avarice, lust, and all kinds of evil concupiscence, and

making us averse to all rectitude and justice, holds us captive under

the yoke of sin; and when, moreover, each individual, on the

disclosure of his own sins, feeling confounded at his turpitude, is

forced to be dissatisfied with himself and to account himself and all

that he has of his own as less than nothing; then, on the other hand,

conscience being cited to the bar of God, becomes sensible of the

curse under which it lies, and, as if it had received a warning of

eternal death, learns to tremble at the divine anger. This, I say, is the

first stage in the way to salvation when the sinner, overwhelmed and

prostrated, despairs of all carnal aid, yet does not harden himself

against the justice of God, or become stupidly callous, but, trembling

and anxious, groans in agony, and sighs for relief. From this he

should rise to the second stage. This he does when, animated by the

knowledge of Christ, he again begins to breathe. For to one humbled

in the manner in which we have described, no other course remains

but to turn to Christ, that through his interposition he may be

delivered from misery. But the only man who thus seeks salvation in

Christ is the man who is aware of the extent of his power; that is,

acknowledges Him as the only Priest who reconciles us to the Father,

and His death as the only sacrifice by which sin is expiated, the

divine justice satisfied, and a true and perfect righteousness

acquired; who, in fine, does not divide the work between himself and

Christ, but acknowledges it to be by mere gratuitous favor that he is

justified in the sight of God. From this stage also he must rise to the

third, when instructed in the grace of Christ, and in the fruits of his

death and resurrection, he rests in him with firm and solid

confidence, feeling assured that Christ is so completely his own, that

he possesses in him righteousness and life.

Now, see how sadly this doctrine has been perverted. On the

subject of original sin, perplexing questions have been raised by the

Schoolmen, who have done what they could to explain away this fatal

disease; for in their discussions they reduce it to little more than

excess of bodily appetite and lust. Of that blindness and vanity of

intellect, whence unbelief and superstition proceed, of inward

depravity of soul, of pride, ambition, stubbornness, and other secret

sources of evils they say not a word. And sermons are not a whit

more sound. Then, as to the doctrine of free will, as preached before

Luther and other Reformers appeared, what effect could it have but

to fill men with an overweening opinion of their own virtue, swelling

them out with vanity, and leaving no room for the grace and

assistance of the Holy Spirit? But why dwell on this? There is no

point which is more keenly contested, none in which our adversaries

are more inveterate in their opposition, than that of justification,

namely, as to whether we obtain it by faith or by works. On no

account will they allow us to give Christ the honor of being called our

righteousness, unless their works come in at the same time for a

share of the merit. The dispute is not, whether good works ought to

be performed by the pious, and whether they are accepted by God

and rewarded by him, but whether, by their own worth, they

reconcile us to God; whether we acquire eternal life at their price,

whether they are compensations which are made to the justice of

God, so as to take away guilt, and whether they are to be confided in

as a ground of salvation. We condemn the error which enjoins men

to have more respect to their own works than to Christ, as a means of

rendering God propitious, of meriting His favor, and obtaining the

inheritance of eternal life; in short, as a means of becoming righteous

in His sight. First, they plume themselves on the merit of works, as if

they laid God under obligations to them. Pride such as this, what is it

but a fatal intoxication of soul? For instead of Christ, they adore

themselves, and dream of possessing life while they are immersed in

the profound abyss of death. It may be said that I am exaggerating on

this head, but no man can deny the trite doctrine of the schools and

churches to be, that it is by works we must merit the favor of God,

and by works acquire eternal life — that any hope of salvation

unpropped by good works is rash and presumptuous — that we are

reconciled to God by the satisfaction of good works, and not by a

gratuitous remission of sins — that good works are meritorious of

eternal salvation, not because they are freely imputed for

righteousness through the merits of Christ, but in terms of law; and

that men, as often as they lose the grace of God, are reconciled to

Him, not by a free pardon, but by what they term works of

satisfaction, these works being supplemented by the merits of Christ

and martyrs, provided only the sinner deserves to be so assisted. It is

certain, that before Luther became known to the world, all men were

fascinated by these impious dogmas; and even in the present day,

there is no part of our doctrine which our opponents impugn with

greater earnestness and obstinacy.

Lastly, there was another most pestilential error, which not only

occupied the minds of men, but was regarded as one of the principal

articles of faith, of which it was impious to doubt, viz., that believers

ought to be perpetually in suspense and uncertainty as to their

interest in the divine favor. By this suggestion of the devil, the power

of faith was completely extinguished, the benefits of Christ's

purchase destroyed, and the salvation of men overthrown. For, as

Paul declares, that faith only is Christian faith which inspires our

hearts with confidence, and emboldens us to appear in the presence

of God, (Romans 5:2.) On no other view could his doctrine in another

passage be maintained, viz., that

"we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby

we cry, Abba, Father," (Romans 8:15.)

But what is the effect of that hesitancy which our enemies

require in their disciples, save to annihilate all confidence in the

promises of God? Paul argues, that

"If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made

void, and the promise made of none effect,"

(Romans 4:14.)

Why so? Just because the law keeps a man in doubt, and does

not permit him to entertain a sure and firm confidence. But they, on

the other hand, dream of a faith, which, excluding and repelling man

from that confidence which Paul requires, throws him back upon

conjecture, to be tossed like a reed shaken by the wind. And it is not

surprising that after they had once founded their hope of salvation

on the merit of works, they plunged into all this absurdity. It could

not but happen, that from such a precipice they should have such a

fall. For what can man find in his works but materials for doubt, and,

finally, for despair? We thus see how error led to error.

Here, mighty Emperor, and most Illustrious Princes, it will be

necessary to recall to your remembrance what I formerly observed,

viz., that the safety of the Church depends as much on this doctrine

as human life does on the soul. If the purity of this doctrine is in any

degree impaired, the Church has received a deadly wound; and,

therefore, when I shall have shown that it was for the greater part

extinguished, it will be the same as if I had shown that the Church

had been brought to the very brink of destruction. As yet, I have only

alluded to this in passing, but by-and-by I will unfold it more clearly.

I come now to those things which I have likened to the body,

viz., government and the dispensation of the sacraments, of which,

when the doctrine is subverted, the power and utility are gone,

although the external form should be faultless. What, then, if there

was no soundness in them externally or internally? And it is not

difficult to demonstrate that this was the fact. First, in regard to the

sacraments, ceremonies devised by men were placed in the same

rank with the mysteries instituted by Christ. For seven sacraments

were received without any distinction, though Christ appointed two

only, the others resting merely on human authority. Yet to these the

grace of God was held to be annexed, just as much as if Christ had

been present in them. Moreover, the two which Christ instituted

were fearfully corrupted. Baptism was so disguised by superfluous

additions, that scarcely a vestige of pure and genuine baptism could

be traced; while the Holy Supper was not only corrupted by

extraneous observances, but its very form was altogether changed.

What Christ commanded to be done, and in what order, is perfectly

clear. But in contempt of his command, a theatrical exhibition was

got up, and substituted for the Supper. For what resemblance is there

between the Mass and the true Supper of our Lord? While the

command of Christ enjoins believers to communicate with each

other in the sacred symbols of his body and blood, the thing seen at

Mass ought more properly to be termed excommunion. For the priest

separates himself from the rest of the assembly, and devours apart

that which ought to have been brought forward into the midst and

distributed. Then, as if he were some successor of Aaron, he pretends

that he offers a sacrifice to expiate the sins of the people. But where

does Christ once mention sacrifice? He bids us take, eat, and drink.

Who authorises men to convert taking into offering? And what is the

effect of the change but to make the perpetual and inviolable edict of

Christ yield to their devices? This is, indeed, a grievous evil. But still

worse is the superstition which applies this work to the living and the

dead, as a procuring cause of grace. In this way the efficacy of

Christ's death has been transferred to a vain theatrical show, and the

dignity of an eternal priesthood wrested from him to be bestowed

upon men. If, at any time, the people are called to communion, they

are admitted only to half a share. Why should this be? Christ holds

forth the cup to all, and bids all drink of it: In opposition to this, men

interdict the assembly of the faithful from touching the cup. Thus the

signs, which by the authority of Christ were connected by an

indissoluble tie, are separated by human caprice. Besides, the

consecration, both of baptism and of the mass, differs in no respect

whatever from magical incantations. For by breathings and

whisperings, and unintelligible sounds, they think they work

mysteries. As if it had been the wish of Christ, that in the

performance of religious rites his word should be mumbled over, and

not rather pronounced in a clear voice. There is no obscurity in the

words by which the gospel expresses the power, nature, and use of

baptism. Then, in the Supper, Christ does not mutter over the bread,

but addresses the apostles in distinct terms, when he announces the

promise and subjoins the command, "this do in remembrance of

me." Instead of this public commemoration, they whisper out secret

exorcisms, fitter, as I have observed, for magical arts than

sacraments. The first thing we complain of here is, that the people

are entertained with showy ceremonies, while not a word is said of

their significancy and truth. For there is no use in the sacraments

unless the thing which the sign visibly represents is explained in

accordance with the Word of God. Therefore, when the people are

presented with nothing but empty figures, with which to feed the eye,

while they hear no doctrine which might direct them to the proper

end, they look no farther than the external act. Hence that most

pestilential superstition, under which, as if the sacraments alone

were sufficient for salvation, without feeling any solicitude about

faith or repentance, or even Christ himself, they fasten upon the sign

instead of the thing signified by it. And, indeed, not only among the

rude vulgar, but in the schools also, the impious dogma everywhere

obtained, that the sacraments were effectual by themselves, if not

obstructed in their operation by mortal sin; as if the sacraments had

been given for any other end or use than to lead us by the hand to

Christ. Then, in addition to this, after consecrating the bread by a

perverse incantation, rather than a pious rite, they keep it in a little

box, and occasionally carry it about in solemn state, that it may be

adored and prayed to instead of Christ. Accordingly, when any

danger presses, they flee to that bread as their only protection, use it

as a charm against all accidents, and, in asking pardon of God,

employ it as the best expiation; as if Christ, when he gave us his body

in the sacrament, had meant that it should be prostituted to all sorts

of absurdity. For what is the amount of the promise? Simply this, —

that as often as we received the sacrament, we should be partakers of

his body and blood — "Take," says he, "eat and drink; this is my

body, this is my blood. This do in remembrance of me." Do we not

see that the promise is on either side inclosed by limits within which

we must confine ourselves if we would secure what it offers? Those,

therefore, are deceived who imagine that apart from the legitimate

use of the sacrament, they have anything but common and

unconsecrated bread. Then, again, there is a profanation common to

all these religious rites, viz., that they are made the subjects of a

disgraceful traffic, as if they had been instituted for no other purpose

than to be subservient to gain. Nor is this traffic conducted secretly

or bashfully; it is plied openly, as at the public mart. It is known in

each particular district how much a mass sells for. Other rites, too,

have their fixed prices. In short, any one who considers must see that

Churches are just ordinary shops, and that there is no kind of sacred

rite which is not there exposed for sale.

Were I to go over the faults of ecclesiastical government in

detail, I should never have done. I will, therefore, only point to some

of the grosser sort, which cannot be disguised. And, first, the pastoral

office itself, as instituted by Christ, has long been in desuetude. His

object in appointing Bishops and Pastors, or whatever the name be

by which they are called, certainly was, as Paul declares, that they

might edify the Church with sound doctrine. According to this view,

no man is a true pastor of the Church who does not perform the

office of teaching. But, in the present day, almost all those who have

the name of pastors have left that work to others. Scarcely one in a

hundred of the Bishops will be found who ever mounts the pulpit in

order to teach. And no wonder; for bishoprics have degenerated into

secular principalities. Pastors of inferior rank, again, either think

that they fulfill their office by frivolous performances altogether alien

from the command of Christ, or, after the example of the Bishops,

throw even this part of the duty on the shoulders of others. Hence

the letting of sacerdotal offices is not less common than the letting of

farms. What would we more? The spiritual government which Christ

recommended has totally disappeared, and a new and mongrel

species of government has been introduced, which, under whatever

name it may pass current, has no more resemblance to the former

than the world has to the kingdom of Christ. If it be objected, that the

fault of those who neglect their duty ought not to be imputed to the

order, I answer, first, that the evil is of such general prevalence, that

it may be regarded as the common rule; and, secondly, that, were we

to assume that all the Bishops, and all the Presbyters under them,

reside each in his particular station, and do what in the present day

is regarded as professional duty, they would never fulfill the true

institution of Christ. They would sing or mutter in the church, exhibit

themselves in theatrical vestments, and go through numerous

ceremonies, but they would seldom, if ever, teach. According to the

precept of Christ, however, no man can claim for himself the office of

bishop or pastor who does not feed his flock with the Word of the

Lord.

Then while those who preside in the Church ought to excel

others, and shine by the example of a holier life, how well do those

who hold the office in the present day correspond in this respect to

their vocation! At a time when the corruption of the world is at its

height, there is no order more addicted to all kinds of wickedness. I

wish that by their innocence they would refute what I say. How

gladly would I at once retract. But their turpitude stands exposed to

the eyes of all — exposed their insatiable avarice and rapacity —

exposed their intolerable pride and cruelty. The noise of indecent

revelry and dancing, the rage of gaming, and entertainments,

abounding in all kinds of intemperance, are in their houses only

ordinary occurrences, while they glory in their luxurious delicacies,

as if they were distinguished virtues. To pass over other things in

silence, what impunity in that celibacy which of itself they regard as a

title to esteem! I feel ashamed to unveil enormities which I had much

rather suppress, if they could be corrected by silence. Nor will I

divulge what is done in secret. The pollutions which openly appear

are more than sufficient. How many priests, pray, are free from

whoredom? Nay, how many of their houses are infamous for daily

acts of lewdness? How many honorable families do they defile by

their vagabond lusts? For my part, I have no pleasure in exposing

their vices, and it is no part of my design, but it is of importance to

observe what a wide difference there is between the conduct of the

priesthood of the present day, and that which true ministers of Christ

and his Church are bound to pursue.

Not the least important branch of ecclesiastical government is

the due and regular election and ordination of those who are to rule.

The Word of God furnishes a standard by which all such

appointments ought to be tested, and there exist many decrees of

ancient Councils which carefully and wisely provide for every thing

which relates to the proper method of election. Let our adversaries

then produce even a solitary instance of canonical election, and I will

yield them the victory. We know the kind of examination which the

Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, (Epistles of Timothy and Titus,)

requires a pastor to undergo, and that which the ancient laws of the

Fathers enjoin. At the present day, in appointing Bishops is anything

of the kind perceived? Nay, how few of those who are raised to the

office are endowed even slenderly with those qualities without which

they cannot be fit ministers of the Church? We see the order which

the Apostles observed in ordaining ministers, that which the

primitive Church afterwards followed, and, finally, that which the

ancient Canons require to be observed. Were I to complain that at

present this order is spurned and rejected, would not the complaint

be just? What, then, should I say that every thing honorable is

trampled upon, and promotion obtained by the most disgraceful and

flagitious proceedings? The fact is of universal notoriety. For

ecclesiastical honors are either purchased for a set price, or seized by

the hand of violence, or secured by nefarious actions, or acquired by

sordid sycophancy. Occasionally even, they are the hire paid for

panderism and similar services. In short, more shameless

proceedings are exhibited here than ever occur in the acquisition of

secular possessions.

And would that those who preside in the Church, when they

corrupt its government, only sinned for themselves, or at least

injured others by nothing but by their bad example! But the most

crying evil of all is, that they exercise a most cruel tyranny, and that a

tyranny over souls. Nay, what is the vaunted power of the Church in

the present day, but a lawless, licentious, unrestricted domination

over souls, subjecting them to the most miserable bondage? Christ

gave to the Apostles an authority similar to that which God had

conferred on the Prophets, an authority exactly defined, viz., to act as

his ambassadors to men. Now, the invariable law is, that he who is

entrusted with an embassy must faithfully and religiously conform to

his instructions. This is stated in express terms in the Apostolical

commission, — "Go and teach all nations whatsoever things I have

delivered unto you." Likewise "preach," (not anything you please,)

but the "gospel." If it is asked what the authority is with which their

successors were invested, we have the definition of Peter, which

enjoins all who speak in the Church to speak "the oracles" of God.

Now, however, those who would be thought the rulers of the Church

arrogate to themselves a licence to speak whatsoever they please, and

to insist that as soon as they have spoken they shall be implicitly

obeyed. It will be averred that this is a calumny, and that the only

right which they assume is that of sanctioning by their authority

what the Holy Spirit has revealed. They will, accordingly, maintain

that they do not subject the consciences of believers to their own

devices or caprice, but only to the oracles of the Spirit, which, being

revealed to them, they confirm and promulgate to others. Forsooth

an ingenious pretext! No man doubts that in whatever the Holy

Spirit delivers by their hands they are to be unhesitatingly obeyed.

But when they add that they cannot deliver anything but the genuine

oracles of the Holy Spirit, because they are under his guidance, and

that all their decisions cannot but be true, because they sit in chairs

of verity, is not this just to measure their power by their caprice? For

if all their decrees, without exception, are to be received as oracles,

there is no limit to their power. What tyrant ever so monstrously

abused the patience of his subjects as to insist that every thing he

proclaimed should be received as a message from heaven! Tyrants,

no doubt, will have their edicts obeyed, be the edicts what they may.

But these men demand much more. We must believe that the Holy

Spirit speaks when they obtrude upon us what they have dreamed.

We see, accordingly, how hard and iniquitous the bondage is in

which, when armed with this power, they have enthralled the souls of

the faithful. Laws have been piled above laws, to be so many snares

to the conscience. For they have not confined these laws to matters of

external order, but applied them to the interior and spiritual

government of the soul. And no end was made until they amounted

to that immense multitude, which now looks not unlike a labyrinth.

Indeed, some of them seem framed for the very purpose of troubling

and torturing consciences, while the observance of them is enforced

with not less strictness than if they contained the whole substance of

piety. Nay, though in regard to the violation of the commands of

God, either no question is asked, or slight penances are inflicted, any

thing done contrary to the decrees of men requires the highest

expiation. While the Church is oppressed by this tyrannical yoke, any

one who dares to say a word against it is instantly condemned as a

heretic. In short, to give vent to our grief is a capital offense. And in

order to ensure the possession of this insufferable domination, they,

by sanguinary edicts, prevent the people from reading and

understanding the Scriptures, and fulminate against those who stir

any question as to their power. This excessive rigor increases from

day to day, so that now on the subject of religion it is scarcely

permitted to make any inquiry at all.

Divine Truth Lay Burried by Darkness

and Perversion

At the time when divine truth lay buried under this vast and

dense cloud of darkness — when religion was sullied by so many

impious superstitions — when by horrid blasphemies the worship of

God was corrupted, and His glory laid prostrate — when by a

multitude of perverse opinions, the benefit of redemption was

frustrated, and men, intoxicated with a fatal confidence in works,

sought salvation any where rather than in Christ—when the

administration of the Sacraments was partly maimed and torn

asunder, partly adulterated by the admixture of numerous fictions,

and partly profaned by traffickings for gain — when the government

of the Church had degenerated into mere confusion and devastation

— when those who sat in the seat of pastors first did most vital injury

to the Church by the dissoluteness of their lives, and, secondly,

exercised a cruel and most noxious tyranny over souls, by every kind

of error, leading men like sheep to the slaughter; — then Luther

arose, and after him others, who with united counsels sought out

means and methods by which religion might be purged from all these

defilements, the doctrine of godliness restored to its integrity, and

the Church raised out of its calamitous into somewhat of a tolerable

condition. The same course we are still pursuing in the present day.

I come now, as I proposed, to consider the remedies which we

have employed for the correction of these evils, not here intending to

describe the manner in which we proceeded, (that will afterwards be

seen,) but only to make it manifest that we have had no other end in

view than to ameliorate in some degree the very miserable condition

of the Church. Our doctrine has been assailed, and still is every day,

by many atrocious calumnies. Some declaim loudly against it in their

sermons; others attack and traduce it in their writings. Both rake

together every thing by which they hope to bring it into disrepute

among the ignorant. But the Confession of our Faith, which we

presented to your Imperial Majesty, is before the world, and clearly

testifies how undeservedly we are harassed by so many odious

accusations. And we have always been ready in times past, as we are

at the present day, to render an account of our doctrine. In a word,

there is no doctrine preached in our churches but that which we

openly profess. As to controverted points, they are clearly and

honestly explained in our Confession, while every thing relating to

them has been copiously treated and diligently expounded by our

writers. Hence judges not unjust must be satisfied how far we are

from every thing like impiety. This much, certainly, must be clear

alike to just and unjust, that our reformers have done no small

service to the Church, in stirring up the world as from the deep

darkness of ignorance, to read the Scriptures, in laboring diligently

to make them better understood, and in happily throwing light on

certain points of doctrine of the highest practical importance. In

sermons little else was heard than old wives' fables, and fictions

equally frivolous. The schools resounded with brawling questions,

but Scripture was seldom mentioned. Those who held the

government of the Church made it their sole care to prevent any

diminution of their gains, and, accordingly, had no difficulty in

permitting whatever tended to fill their coffers. Even the most

prejudiced, how much soever they may in other respects defame our

doctrine, admit that our people have in some degree reformed these

evils.

I am willing, however, that all the advantage which the Church

may have derived from our labors shall have no effect in alleviating

our fault, if in any other respect we have done her injury. Therefore,

let there be an examination of our whole doctrine, of our form of

administering the sacraments, and our method of governing the

Church; and in none of these three things will it be found that we

have made any change upon the ancient form, without attempting to

restore it to the exact standard of the Word of God.

To return to the division which we formerly adopted. All our

controversies concerning doctrine relate either to the legitimate

worship of God, or to the ground of salvation. As to the former,

unquestionably we do exhort men to worship God neither in a frigid

nor a careless manner; and while we point out the mode, we neither

lose sight of the end, nor omit any thing which bears upon the point.

We proclaim the glory of God in terms far loftier than it was wont to

be proclaimed before, and we earnestly labor to make the perfections

in which His glory shines better and better known. His benefits

towards ourselves we extol as eloquently as we can, while we call

upon others to reverence His Majesty, render due homage to His

greatness, feel due gratitude for His mercies, and unite in showing

forth His praise. In this way there is infused into their hearts that

solid confidence which afterwards gives birth to prayer; and in this

way, too, each one is trained to genuine self-denial, so that his will

being brought into obedience to God, he bids farewell to his own

desires. In short, as God requires us to worship Him in a spiritual

manner, so we most zealously urge men to all the spiritual sacrifices

which He recommends.

Even our enemies cannot deny our assiduity in exhorting men to

expect the good which they desire from none but God, to confide in

His power, rest in His goodness, depend on His truth, and turn to

Him with the whole heart — to recline upon Him with full hope, and

recur to Him in necessity, that is, at every moment to ascribe to Him

every good thing which we enjoy, and show we do so by open

expressions of praise. And that none may be deterred by difficulty of

access, we proclaim that a complete fountain of blessings is opened

up to us in Christ, and that out of it we may draw for every need. Our

writings are witnesses, and our sermons witnesses, how frequent and

sedulous we are in recommending true repentance, urging men to

renounce their own reason and carnal desires, and themselves

entirely, that they may be brought into obedience to God alone, and

live no longer to themselves, but to Him. Nor, at the same time, do

we overlook external duties and works of charity, which follow on

such renovation. This, I say, is the sure and unerring form of

worship, which we know that He approves, because it is the form

which His word prescribes, and these the only sacrifices of the

Christian Church which have His sanction.

Since, therefore, in our churches, only God is adored in pious

form without superstition, since His goodness, wisdom, power, truth,

and other perfections, are there preached more fully than any where

else—since He is invoked with true faith in the name of Christ, His

mercies celebrated both with heart and tongue, and men constantly

urged to a simple and sincere obedience; since, in fine, nothing is

heard but what tends to promote the sanctification of His name,

what cause have those who call themselves Christians to be so

inveterate against us? First, loving darkness rather than light, they

cannot tolerate the sharpness with which we, as in duty sound,

rebuke the gross idolatry which is every where beheld in the world.

When God is worshipped in images, when fictitious worship is

instituted in His name, when supplication is made to the images of

saints, and divine honors paid to dead men's bones, against these,

and similar abominations, we protest, describing them in their true

colors. For this cause, those who hate our doctrine inveigh against us

and represent us as heretics who have dared to abolish the worship

of God, as of old approved by the Church. Concerning this name of

church, which they are ever and anon holding up before them as a

kind of shield, we will shortly speak. Meanwhile, how perverse, when

these flagitious corruptions are manifest, not only to defend them,

but cloak their deformity, by impudently pretending that they belong

to the genuine worship of God!

Both parties confess, that in the sight of God idolatry is an

execrable crime. But when we attack the worship of images, our

adversaries immediately take the opposite side, and lend their

support to the crime which they had verbally concurred with us in

condemning. Nay, what is more ridiculous, after agreeing with us as

to the term in Greek, it is no sooner turned into Latin than their

opposition begins. For they strenuously defend the worship of

images, though they condemn idolatry — ingenious men denying

that the honor which they pay to images is worship; as if, in

comparing it with ancient idolatry, it were possible to see any

difference. Idolaters pretended that they worshipped the celestial

gods, though under corporeal figures which represented them. What

else do our adversaries pretend? But does God accept of such

excuses? Did the prophets cease to rebuke the madness of the

Egyptians, when, out of the secret mysteries of their theology, they

drew subtle distinctions under which to screen themselves? What,

too, do we suppose the brazen serpent, whom the Jews worshipped,

to have been, but some thing which they honored as a representation

of God? "The Gentiles," says Ambrose, (in Psalm 118,) "worship

wood, because they think it an image of God, whereas the invisible

image of God is not in that which is seen, but specially in that which

is not seen." And what is it that is done in the present day? Do they

not prostrate themselves before images, as if God were present in

them? Did they not suppose the power and grace of God attached to

pictures and statues, would they flee to them when they are desirous

to pray?

I have not yet adverted to the grosser superstitions, though these

cannot be confined to the ignorant, since they are approved by public

consent. They adorn their idols now with flowers and chaplets, now

with robes, vests, zones, purses, and frivolities of every kind. They

light tapers and burn incense before them, and carry them on their

shoulders in solemn state. When they pray to the image of

Christopher or Barbara, they mutter over the Lord's Prayer and the

angels' salutation. The fairer or dingier the images are, the greater is

their excellence supposed to be. To this is added a new

recommendation from fabulous miracles. Some they pretend to have

spoken, others to have extinguished a fire in the church by trampling

on it, others to have removed of their own accord to a new abode,

others to have dropt from heaven. While the whole world teems with

these and similar delusions, and the fact is perfectly notorious, we,

who have brought back the worship of the one God to the rule of his

Word, we, who are blameless in this matter, and have purged our

churches, not only of idolatry but of superstition also, are accused of

violating the worship of God, because we have discarded the worship

of images, that is, as we call it, idolatry, but as our adversaries will

have it, idolodulia.

But, besides the clear testimonies which are everywhere met

with in Scripture, we are also supported by the authority of the

ancient Church. All the writers of a purer age describe the abuse of

images among the Gentiles as not differing from what is seen in the

world in the present day; and their observations on the subject are

not less applicable to the present age than to the persons whom they

then censured. As to the charge which they bring against us for

discarding images, as well as the bones and relics of saints, it is easily

answered. For none of these things ought to be valued at more than

the brazen serpent, and the reasons for removing them were not less

valid than those of Hezekiah for breaking it. It is certain that the

idolomania, with which the minds of men are now fascinated, cannot

be cured otherwise than by removing bodily the source of the

infatuation. And we have too much experience of the absolute truth

of St Augustine's sentiment,

"No man prays or worships looking on an image

without being impressed with the idea that it is

listening to him." (Ephesians 4:9.)

And, likewise, (in Psalm 115:4,) "Images, from having a mouth,

eyes, ears, and feet, are more effectual to mislead an unhappy soul

than to correct it, because they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor

walk." Also, "The effect in a manner extorted by the external shape is,

that the soul living in a body, thinks a body which it sees so very like

its own must have similar powers of perception." As to the matter of

relics, it is almost incredible how impudently the world has been

cheated. I can mention three relics of our Savior's circumcision;

likewise fourteen nails which are exhibited for the three by which he

was fixed to the cross; three robes for that seamless one on which the

soldiers cast lots; two inscriptions that were placed over the cross;

three spears by which our Savior's side was pierced, and about five

sets of linen clothes which wrapt his body in the tomb. Besides, they

show all the articles used at the institution of the Lord's Supper, and

an infinite number of similar impositions. There is no saint of any

celebrity of whom two or three bodies are not in existence. I can

name the place where a piece of pumice stone was long held in high

veneration as the skull of Peter. Decency will not permit me to

mention fouler exhibitions? Undeservedly, therefore, are we blamed

for having studied to purify the Church of God from such pollutions.

In regard to the worship of God, our adversaries next accuse us,

because, omitting empty and childish observances, tending only to

hypocrisy, we worship God more simply. That we have in no respect

detracted from the spiritual worship of God, is attested by fact. Nay,

when it had in a great measure gone into desuetude, we have

reinstated it in its former rights. Let us now see whether the offense

taken at us is just. In regard to doctrine, I maintain that we make

common cause with the prophets. For, next to idolatry, there is

nothing for which they rebuke the people more sharply than for

falsely imagining that the worship of God consisted in external show.

For what is the sum of their declarations? That God dwells not, and

sets no value on ceremonies considered only in themselves, that he

looks to the faith and truth of the heart, and that the only end for

which he commanded, and for which he approves them, is, that they

may be pure exercises of faith, and prayer, and praise. The writings

of all the prophets are full of attestations to this effect. Nor, as I have

observed, was there any thing for which they labored more. Now, it

cannot, without effrontery, be denied, that when our Reformers

appeared, the world was more than ever smitten with this blindness.

It was therefore absolutely necessary to urge men with these

prophetical rebukes, and draw them off, as by force, from that

infatuation, that they might no longer imagine that God was satisfied

with naked ceremonies, as children are with shows. There was a like

necessity for urging the doctrine of the spiritual worship of God — a

doctrine which had almost vanished from the minds of men. That

both of these things have been faithfully performed by us in times

past, and still are, both our writings and our sermons clearly prove.

In inveighing against ceremonies themselves, and also in

abrogating a great part of them, we confess that there is some

difference between us and the prophets. They inveighed against their

countrymen for confining the worship of God to external ceremonies;

but still ceremonies which God himself had instituted; we complain

that the same honor is paid to frivolities of man's devising. They,

while condemning superstition, left untouched a multitude of

ceremonies which God had enjoined, and which were useful and

appropriate to an age of tutelage; our business has been to correct

numerous rites which had either crept in through oversight, or been

turned to abuse; and which, moreover, by no means accorded with

the time. For, if we would not throw every thing into confusion, we

must never lose sight of the distinction between the old and the new

dispensations, and of the fact that ceremonies, the observance of

which was useful under the law, are now not only superfluous, but

vicious and absurd. When Christ was absent and not yet manifested,

ceremonies, by shadowing him forth, cherished the hope of his

advent in the breasts of believers; but now that his glory is present

and conspicuous, they only obscure it. And we see what God himself

has done. For those ceremonies which He had commanded for a time

He has now abrogated forever. Paul explains the reason, — first, that

since the body has been manifested in Christ, the types have, of

course, been withdrawn; and, secondly, that God is now pleased to

instruct his Church after a different manner, (Galatians 4:5;

Colossians 2:4, 14, 17). Since, then, God has freed his Church from

the bondage which he had imposed upon it, can anything, I ask, be

more perverse than for men to introduce a new bondage in place of

the old? Since God has prescribed a certain economy, how

presumptuous to set up one which is contrary to it, and openly

repudiated by Him! But the worst of all is, that though God has so

often and so strictly interdicted all modes of worship prescribed by

man, the only worship paid to him consisted of human inventions.

What ground, then, have our enemies to vociferate that in this matter

we have given religion to the winds? First, we have not laid even a

finger on anything which Christ does not discountenance as of no

value, when he declares that it is vain to worship God with human

traditions. The thing might, perhaps, have been more tolerable if the

only effect had been that men lost their pains by an unavailing

worship; but since as I have observed God in many passages forbids

any new worship unsanctioned by his Word; since he declares that

he is grievously offended with the presumption which invents such

worship, and threatens it with severe punishment, it is clear that the

reformation which we have introduced was demanded by a strong

necessity.

I am not unaware how difficult it is to persuade the world that

God rejects and even abominates every thing relating to his worship

that is devised by human reason. The delusion on this head is owing

to several causes, — "Every one thinks highly of his own," as the old

proverb expresses it. Hence the offspring of our own brain delights

us, and besides, as Paul admits, this fictitious worship often presents

some show of wisdom. Then, as it has for the most part an external

splendor which pleases the eye, it is more agreeable to our carnal

nature, than that which alone God requires and approves, but which

is less ostentatious. But there is nothing which so blinds the

understandings of men, and misleads them in their judgments in this

matter, as hypocrisy. For while it is incumbent on true worshippers

to give the heart and mind, men are always desirous to invent a mode

of serving God of a totally different description, their object being to

perform to him certain bodily observances, and keep the mind to

themselves. Moreover, they imagine that when they obtrude upon

him external pomp, they have, by this artifice, evaded the necessity

of giving themselves. And this is the reason why they submit to

innumerable observances which miserably fatigue them without

measure and without end, and why they choose to wander in a

perpetual labyrinth, rather than worship God simply in spirit and in

truth.

It is mere calumny, then, in our enemies to accuse us of alluring

men by facilities and indulgence. For were the option given, there is

nothing which the carnal man would not prefer to do rather than

consent to worship God as prescribed by our doctrine. It is easy to

use the words faith and repentance, but the things are most difficult

to perform. He, therefore, who makes the worship of God consist in

these, by no means loosens the reins of discipline, but compels men

to the course which they are most afraid to take. Of this we have

most pregnant proof from fact. Men will allow themselves to be

astricted by numerous severe laws, to be obliged to numerous

laborious observances, to wear a severe and heavy yoke; in short,

there is no annoyance to which they will not submit, provided there

is no mention of the heart. Hence, it appears, that there is nothing to

which the human mind is more averse than to that spiritual truth

which is the constant topic of our sermons, and nothing with which it

is more engrossed than that splendid glare on which our adversaries

so strongly insist. The very Majesty of God extorts this much from us,

that we are unable to withdraw entirely from his service. Therefore,

as we cannot evade the necessity of worshipping him, our only

remaining course is to seek out indirect substitutes that we may not

be obliged to come directly into his presence; or rather, by means of

external ceremonies, like specious masks, we hide the inward malice

of the heart, and, in order that we may not be forced to give it to him,

interpose bodily observances, like a wall of partition. It is with the

greatest reluctance that the world allows itself to be driven from such

subterfuges as these; and hence the outcry against us for having

dragged them out into the open light of day, out of their lurking

places, where they securely sported with God.

In prayer there are three things which we have corrected.

Discarding the intercession of saints, we have brought men back to

Christ, that they might learn both to invoke the Father in his name,

and trust in him as Mediator, and we have taught them to pray, first,

with firm and solid confidence, and, secondly, with understanding

also, instead of continuing as formerly to mutter over confused

prayers in an unknown tongue. Here we are assailed with bitter

reproaches as at once acting contumeliously towards the saints, and

defrauding believers of an invaluable privilege. Both charges we

deny. It is no injury to saints not to permit the office of Christ to be

attributed to them, and there is no honor of which we deprive them,

save that which was improperly and rashly bestowed upon them by

human error. I will not mention anything which may not be pointed

to with the finger. First, when men are about to pray, they imagine

God to be at a great distance, and that they cannot have access to him

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

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

alone as Christ's vicar is in the ascendant, and domineers without

law and without measure, after the manner of a tyrant, nay, with

more abandoned effrontery than any tyrant. The rest of the body is

framed more according to his standard than that of Christ. The light

of which Cyprian speaks is extinguished, the copious fountain cut off;

in short, the only thing exhibited is the tallness of the tree, but a tree

dissevered from its root.

I am aware that our adversaries have good reason for laboring so

strenuously to maintain the primacy of the Romish See. They feel

that on it both themselves and their all depend. But your part, Most

Invincible Emperor, and Most Illustrious Princes, is to be on your

guard in order that they may not with vain glosses deceive you, as

they are wont to deceive the unwary. And, first, this vaunted

supremacy, even themselves are forced to confess, was established by

no divine authority, but by the mere will of man. At least, when we

give proof of this fact, though they do not expressly assent, they seem

as if ashamed to maintain the opposite. There was a time, indeed,

when they audaciously perverted certain passages of Scripture to

confirm this palpable falsehood, but as soon as we came to close

quarters, it was found easy to pluck out of their hands the bits of lath,

to which, when at a distance, they had given the appearance of

swords. Abandoned, accordingly, by the Word of God, they flee for

aid to antiquity. But here, also, without much ado, we dislodge them.

For both the writings of holy Fathers, the acts of Councils, and all

history, make it plain that this height of power, which the Roman

Pontiff has now possessed for about four hundred years, was

attained gradually, or rather was either craftily crept into, or

violently seized. But let us forgive them this, and let them take for

granted that primacy was divinely bestowed on the Romish See, and

has been sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient Church;

still there is room for this primacy only on the supposition that Rome

has both a true church and a true bishop. For the honor of the seat

cannot remain after the seat itself has ceased to exist. I ask, then, in

what respect the Roman Pontiff performs the duty of a bishop, so as

to oblige us to recognize him as a bishop? There is a celebrated

saying of Augustine, "Bishopric is the name of an office, and not a

mere title of honor." And ancient Synods define the duties of a

bishop to consist in feeding the people by the preaching the Word, in

administering, the sacraments, in curbing clergy and people by holy

discipline, and, in order not to be distracted from these duties, in

withdrawing from all the ordinary cares of the present life. In all

these duties, presbyters ought to be the bishop's coadjutors. Which

of them do the Pope and his Cardinals pretend to perform? Let them

say, then, on what ground they claim to be regarded as legitimate

pastors, while they do not, with their little finger, in appearance

even, touch any part of the duty.

But let us grant all these things, viz., that he is a bishop who

entirely neglects every part of his duty, and that a Church which is

destitute, as well of the ministry of the Word as of the pure

administration of the Sacraments; still, what answer is made when

we add not only that these are wanting, but that every thing which

exists is directly the reverse? For several centuries that See has been

possessed by impious superstitions, open idolatry, perverse

doctrines, while those great truths, in which the Christian religion

chiefly consists, have been suppressed. By the prostitution of the

Sacraments to filthy lucre, and other abominations, Christ has been

held up to such extreme derision, that he has in a manner been

crucified afresh. Can she be the mother of all churches, who not only

does not retain, I do not say the face, but even a single lineament, of

the true Church, and has snapt asunder all those bonds of holy

communion by which believers should be linked together? The

Roman Pontiff is now opposing himself to the reviving doctrines of

the gospel, just as if his head were at stake. Does he not, by this very

fact, demonstrate that there will be no safety for his See unless he

can put to flight the kingdom of Christ? Your Imperial Majesty is

aware how wide a field of discussion here opens upon me. But to

conclude this point in a few words: I deny that See to be Apostolical,

wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostacy — I deny him to be

the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel

demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist — I deny him to be

the successor of Peter, who is doing his utmost to demolish every

edifice that Peter built — and I deny him to be the head of the

Church, who by his tyranny lacerates and dismembers the Church,

after dissevering her from Christ, her true and only Head. Let these

denials be answered by those who are so bent on chaining the

hierarchy of the Church to the Romish See, that they hesitate not to

subordinate the sure and tried doctrines of the gospel to the

authority of the Pope. Yea, I say, let them answer; only do you, Most

Invincible Emperor, and Most Illustrious Princes, consider whether,

in so calling upon them, the thing I ask is just or unjust.

Purifying the Church from Corruption

From what has been said, it will doubtless be easy for you to

perceive how little attention is due to the calumny of our adversaries,

when they accuse us of impious presumption, and as it were

inexpiable audacity, in having attempted to purify the Church from

corruption, both in doctrine and ceremonies, without waiting for the

beck of the Roman Pontiff. They say we have done what private

individuals have no right to do. But, in regard to ameliorating the

condition of the Church, what was to be hoped from him to whom we

were required to give place? Any man who considers how Luther and

the other Reformers acted at the outset, and how they afterwards

proceeded, will deem it unnecessary to call upon us for any defense.

When matters were still entire, Luther himself humbly besought the

Pontiff that he would be pleased to cure the very grievous disorders

of the Church. Did his supplication succeed? The evils having still

increased, the necessity of the case, even had Luther been silent,

should have been stimulus enough to urge the Pope to delay no

longer. The whole Christian world plainly demanded this of him, and

he had in his hands the means of satisfying the pious wishes of all.

Did he do so? He now talks of impediments. But if the fact be traced

to its source, it will be found that he has all along been, both to

himself and to others, the only impediment. But why insist on these

lighter arguments? Is it not in itself alone an argument of sufficient

clearness and sufficient weight, that, from the commencement up to

the present time, he gives us no hope of transacting with him until

we again bury Christ, and return to every impiety which formerly

existed, that he may establish them on a firmer basis than before?

This, unquestionably, is the reason why still, in the present day, our

opponents so strenuously maintain that we had no right to

intermeddle with the revival of the church — not that the thing was

not necessary, (this it were too desperate effrontery to deny,) but

because they are desirous that as well the safety as the ruin of the

Church should be suspended on the mere beck and pleasure of the

Roman Pontiff.

Let us now attend to the only remedy left us by those who think

it impiety to move a finger, how great soever the evils by which the

Church is oppressed. They put us off to an universal council. What?

If the major part, from obstinacy, rush upon their own destruction,

must we therefore perish along with them, when we have the means

of consulting for our own safety? But they tell us it is unlawful to

violate the unity of the Church, and that unity is violated if any party

decide an article of faith by themselves, without calling in the others.

Then they enlarge on the inconveniences to which such a course

might lead — that nothing could be expected but fearful devastation

and chaotic confusions were each people and nation to adopt for

itself its peculiar form of faith. Things like these might be said justly,

and even appositely to the occasion, if any one member of the

Church, in contempt of unity, should of its own accord separate itself

from the others. But that is not the point now in dispute. I wish,

indeed, it were possible for all the monarchs and states of the

Christian world to unite in a holy league, and resolve on a

simultaneous amendment of the present evils. But since we see that

some are averse to amelioration, and that others involved in war, or

occupied with other cares, cannot give their attention to the subject,

how long, pray, must we, in waiting for others, defer consulting for

ourselves? And more freely to explain the source of all our evils, we

see that the Roman Pontiff, if he can prevent it, will never permit all

churches to unite, I do not say in due consultation, but in assembling

any council at all. He will, indeed, as often as he is asked, give

promises in abundance, provided he sees all the ways shut up, and all

modes of access interrupted, while he has in his hand obstructions

which he can every now and then throw in, so as never to want

pretexts for tergiversation. With a few exceptions, he has all the

cardinals, bishops, and abbots, consenting with him in this matter,

since their only thought is how to retain possession of their usurped

tyranny. As to the welfare or destruction of the Church, it gives them

not the least concern.

I am not afraid, Most Invincible Caesar, and Most Illustrious

Princes, that my statement will seem incredible, or that it will be

difficult to persuade you of its truth. Nay, rather I appeal to the

consciences of you all, whether I have stated any thing which your

own experience does not confirm. Meanwhile, the Church lies in the

greatest peril. An infinite number of souls, not knowing in what

direction to turn, are miserably perplexed; many even, forestalled by

death, perish, if not saved miraculously by the Lord; diversified sects

arise; numbers, whose impiety was formerly hid, assume, from the

present dissensions, a license to believe nothing at all, while many

minds, otherwise not ill disposed, begin to part with their religious

impressions. There is no discipline to check these evils; amongst us

who glory in the name of Christ only, and have the same baptism,

there is no more agreement than if we professed religions entirely

different. And the most miserable thing of all is, that there is at hand,

nay, almost in sight, a breaking up of the whole Church, for which,

after it has taken place, it will be in vain to seek for remedies. Seeing,

therefore, that in bringing assistance to the Church in her great

distress and extreme danger, no celerity can be too rapid, what else

do those who put us off to a General Council, of which there is no

prospect, but insult both God and man? The Germans must therefore

submit to have this sentence passed upon them, that they choose to

look on quietly and see the Church of God perish from their land,

when they have the means of curing her disorders, or they must

instantly bestir themselves to the work. This second alternative they

will never adopt so speedily, as not to be even now deservedly

condemned for not adopting sooner. But those persons, whoever

they be, who, under the pretext of a General Council, interpose delay,

clearly have no other end in view, than by this artifice to spin out the

time, and are no more to be listened to than if they confessed in word

what they in deed demonstrate, that they are prepared to purchase

their private advantage by the destruction of the Church.

But it is said that it would be unprecedented for the Germans

alone to undertake this reformation; that in no case when

controversy has arisen concerning the doctrines of religion, was it

ever heard that a single province could undertake the investigation

and decision. What is this I hear? Do they imagine that by their mere

assertion they will persuade the world to believe what the histories of

all times refute? As often as some new heresy emerged, or the

Church was disturbed by some dispute, was it not the usual custom

immediately to convene a Provincial Synod, that the disturbance

might thereby be terminated? It never was the custom to recur to a

General Council until the other remedy had been tried. Before

bishops from the whole Christian world met at Nice to confute Arius,

several Synods had been held with that view in the East. For the sake

of brevity, I pass over the other instances, but the thing which our

enemies shun as unusual is proved by the writings of the ancients to

have been the ordinary practice. Have done, then, with this lying

pretense of novelty.

Had this superstitious idea possessed the African Bishops, they

would have been too late in meeting the Donatists and Pelagians.

The Donatists had already gained over a great part of Africa to their

faction, nor was any place entirely free from the contagion. It was a

controversy of the greatest moment, relating to the unity of the

Church and the due administration of baptism. According to the new

wisdom of our opponents, the orthodox Bishops, in order not to cut

themselves off from the other members of the Church, ought to have

referred the question to a General Council. Is this what they do? Nay,

rather, knowing that in extinguishing an actual fire no time can be

lost, they press and follow close upon the Donatists, now summoning

them to a Synod, now coming, as it were, to close quarters with them

in discussion.

Let our enemies condemn of impious separation from the

Church, Augustine, and the other holy men of that age who

concurred with him, for having, by imperial authority, without

convoking a General Council, forced the Donatists to dispute with

them, and hesitated not to treat in a Provincial Synod of a most

difficult and dangerous controversy. There, too, Pelagius had shown

his horns; instantly a Synod was held to repress his audacity. When,

after having for a short time feigned penitence, he had returned to

his vomit, with the stigma which had been fixed on his impiety in

Africa he betook himself to Rome, where he was received with

considerable favor. What course do the pious Bishops take? Do they

allege that they are only a member of the Church, and must wait for

relief from a General Council? Nay, they them selves assemble on the

very first opportunity, and again and again anathematise the impious

dogma with which many had now been infected, freely deciding and

defining what ought to be held on the subjects of original sin and

regenerating grace. Afterwards, indeed, they send to Rome a copy of

their proceedings, partly that, by a common authority and consent,

they may the more effectually crush the contumacy of the heretics,

partly that they may admonish others of a danger, against which all

ought to stand upon their guard. The flatterers of the Roman Pontiff

give the matter a different turn, as if the Bishops had suspended

their judgment until the proceedings were ratified by Innocent V.,

who then presided over the Church of Rome. But this impudent

averment is more than refuted by the words of the holy Fathers. For

they neither ask Innocent to counsel them as to what they ought to

do, nor do they refer it to him to decide, nor do they wait for his nod

and authority, but they narrate that they had already taken

cognisance of the cause, and passed sentence, condemning both the

man and the doctrine, in order that Innocent, too, might imitate

their example, if he desired not to fail in his duty. These things were

done while as yet the churches agreed with each other in sound

doctrine. Now, then, when all things threaten ruin if not speedily

remedied, why hang waiting for the consent of those who leave not a

stone unturned to prevent the truth of God, which they had put to

flight from again beaming forth?

Ambrose, in his day, had a controversy with Auxentius on the

primary article of our faith, viz., the divinity of Christ. The Emperor

favored the view of Auxentius. He does not, however, appeal to a

General Council, under the pretext of its being unlawful that so

important a cause should be decided in any other manner. He only

demands, that, being a question of faith, it should be discussed in the

church in presence of the people. And to what end the Provincial

Synods, which were once regularly held twice a-year, unless that

Bishops might consult together on emerging circumstances, as the

nineteenth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explains. An ancient

enactment orders that the Bishops of every province shall convene

twice a-year. The Council of Chalcedon gives us the reason, that any

errors which may have emerged may be corrected. Our opponents,

contrary to what all know, deny the lawfulness of touching a

corruption of doctrine or manners, until it has been laid before a

General Council. Nay, the very subterfuge by which the Arians

Palladius and Secundinianus declined the Council of Aquileia was,

because it was not full and general, all the Eastern Bishops being

absent, and few even of the West making their appearance. And it is

certain that of the Italians scarcely a half had convened. The Roman

Bishop had neither come in person, nor sent any one of his

presbyters to represent him. To all these objections Ambrose replies,

that it was not a thing with out example for the Western Bishops to

hold a synod since the practice was familiar to those of the East —

that the pious Emperors who summoned the Council had acted

wisely in leaving all at liberty to come, without compelling any; and,

accordingly, all who thought proper had come, none being

prohibited. Though the heretics continued to press their quibbling

objections, the holy Fathers did not, therefore, abandon their

purpose. Assuredly, after such examples, your Imperial Majesty is

not to be prohibited from using the means within your reach of

bringing back the body of the empire to sacred concord.

Though, as has been observed, our enemies, who advise

procrastination, do it not with the view of shortly after consulting for

the welfare of the Church, but only of gaining time by delay,

knowing, that if they can throw us back to a General Council, the

truce will be long enough; let us, however, assume that there is no

obstacle to a General Council being immediately called; let us even

assume that it has been summoned in good earnest, that the day of

meeting is at hand, and all things prepared. The Roman Pontiff will,

of course, preside, or if he declines to come, he will send one of his

Cardinals as Legate to preside in his stead, and he will doubtless

select the one whom he believes will be most faithful to his interests.

The rest of the Cardinals will take their seats, and next them the

Bishops and Abbots. The seats beneath will be occupied by ordinary

members, who are, for the most part, selected for subservience to the

views of those above. It will, indeed, happen, that some few honest

men will have seats among them, but they will be despised for the

smallness of their number, and, made weak by fear, or dispirited by

the hopelessness of doing any good, will be silent. Should any one of

them, per chance, attempt to speak, he will instantly be put down by

noise and clamor. But the great body will be ready to suffer any

thing, sooner than allow the Church to be restored to a better

condition.

I say nothing of doctrine. Would that they could only come to

the cause with an honest and docile temper. But it is certain as

certainty itself, that the single resolution of all will be not to listen to

any thing that is said, or to the arguments by which it is supported,

be they what they may. Nay, they will not only stuff their ears with

stubbornness and obstinacy, that they may not obey the truth, but

will also arm themselves with ferocity to resist it. And why? Is it

credible that those who do not admit into their ears any mention of

sound doctrine, will spontaneously withdraw their opposition, as

soon as it comes to be a matter of present practice? Can we hope that

those who are constantly plotting to prevent the fallen kingdom of

Christ from again rising in the world, will give a helping hand to raise

it up, and advance it? Will those who are now, with fire and sword,

raging against the truth, and doing all they can to whet and inflame

the cruelty of others, show themselves moderate and humane? But

were there nothing else, I leave it to your prudence, Most Invincible

Emperor, and yours, Most Illustrious Princes, to consider whether or

not it is for the private interest of the Roman Pontiff, and his whole

faction, that the Church should be restored to true order, and its

most corrupt condition reformed, according to the strict standard of

the gospel. How much it is their wont to forget their own advantage,

and, in disregard of it, to engage with heart and soul in promoting

the common welfare, you have learned by a sure experience!

Sire, will you leave the Church to them, that they may decide

concerning its reformation at their own will, or rather their own

caprice? Will you remain waiting for their nod, resolved never to

consult for the Church till they consent? If they know this to be your

intention, they will disentangle themselves by an easy process. They

will decide that things must remain as they are. But let us suppose

that they will be so overcome, either by a sense of shame, or by the

authority of your Majesty, and the other Princes, as to put on some

appearance of moderation, and part with some small portion of their

power; will they, even of their own accord, condescend so far as to

allow themselves to be reduced into order, that the kingdom of Christ

may be upraised? But if they will not, to what end is the care of

reforming the Church committed to them, unless it be to expose the

sheep to the wolves? If there is no other alternative, it were better

that the Church should be given up as desperate, than that she

should fall into the hands of such physicians.

It had, indeed, become those who have the name and hold the

office of pastors, to be the first of all to fly to her assistance. It had, I

admit, become them to come forward as leaders, and unite the

princes with them, as associates and coadjutors in this holy work.

But what if they decline to do it themselves? What if they are

unwilling it should be done by others? What if they leave not a stone

unturned in order to prevent it? Are we, then, still to have regard to

them? must no man move till they give the signal? Must we still

listen to that solemn saw of theirs, "Nothing must be attempted till

the Pope has approved?" Let your Majesty, then, be assured, and do

you also, Most Illustrious Princes and distinguished personages, lay

it to heart, as a certain fact, that the Church, not only betrayed,

deserted, and left destitute by her pastors, but vexed, overwhelmed

with calamity, and doomed to destruction, throws herself on your

protection. Nay, rather view it in this way — God has now furnished

you with the means of giving a sure and striking proof of your fidelity

towards Him. There is nothing in which all men ought to feel a

deeper interest, nothing in which God wishes us to exhibit a more

intense zeal, than in endeavoring that the glory of His name may

remain unimpaired, His kingdom be advanced, and the pure

doctrine, which alone can guide us to true worship, flourish in full

vigor. How much more, therefore, does it become princes to make

these things their care, to design, commence, and prosecute them to

a close, seeing God has honored them with a communication of His

name, that they may be on earth the guardians and vindicators of His

glory? Be unwilling, I beseech you, to lend an ear to ungodly men,

who either cajole you with a false show of counsel, in order that the

Church may receive no alleviation at your hand, or disparage the

cause — though it is the greatest of all causes — that you may be

more remiss in undertaking it, or urge you to violent methods of

proceeding in it. Hitherto, Most Invincible Emperor, in endeavoring

to inflame you with rage, and, in a manner, clothe you in armor, they

have lost their labor, and you will certainly transmit to posterity the

distinguished praise, both of mildness and prudence, in not having

suffered yourself to be once moved from moderation by the turbulent

counsels, which have been so often and so strongly pressed upon

you. Be it at all times your care that this praise be not wrested from

you by the importunity of our enemies. Augustine acknowledges the

discipline to be bad which terrifies heretics, but does not teach them.

If heretics, who, by their intemperance, and without any just cause,

disturb the Church, are to be treated with a mildness ensuring that

instruction shall always precede chastisement, how much more

becoming is it to use humanity in this cause, in which we call God

and men to witness that we seek nothing but a sincere consent on

both sides to the pure doctrine of God? That the Roman Pontiff and

his followers breathe nothing but blood and slaughter, you yourself,

Sire, are the best witness. Had you yielded to their fury, Germany

had long ago been deluged with her own blood. You, too, Most

Illustrious Princes, well know the fact. Can it be that it is the Spirit of

God which drives them on headlong to such cruelty? But thus it is;

licentiousness, which has long stalked abroad without hinderance,

no sooner feels the curb than it breaks out into madness. If there are

any, besides those who desire to see us crushed by violence and

arms, either enkindled by the breath of others, or instigated from

within by an inconsiderate zeal, they hate a cause which they know

not. For the very same thing of which Tertullian complains in his

Apology, as having happened to the Church when she first arose, is

also experienced by us in the present day. We are condemned merely

from prejudice against our name, without any investigation of our

cause. And what do we contend for now, save that our cause, after

due cognisance has once been taken of it, may at length be decided,

according to truth and equity, and not according to any falsely

preconceived opinion? Sire, it is, indeed, a noble proof both of

humanity and of singular wisdom, that you have hitherto resisted the

urgency with which our enemies have endeavored to hurry you into

an unjust severity. The next best thing is not to yield to the

pernicious counsels of those who, under specious pretexts for delay,

have for a long time hindered this holy work, (I mean the

reformation of the Church;) and what is worse, are endeavoring to

prevent it altogether.

There is, perhaps, one remaining difficulty which prevents you

from commencing the work. Very many, not otherwise indisposed,

are deterred from engaging in this holy undertaking, merely because

antecedently to the attempt they despair of its success. But here two

things ought to be considered; the one, that the difficulty is not so

great as it appears to be, and the other, that, however great it be,

there is nothing in it which ought to dispirit you, when you reflect

that it is the cause of God, and that He overruling it, both our hopes

may be surpassed and our impressions prove erroneous. The former

of these it is no part of my present design to explain; a fitter

opportunity will be found, when once the matter comes to be taken

into serious consideration. This only I will say, that the execution will

be more expeditious, and of less difficulty than is commonly

supposed, provided there is courage enough in attempting it.

However, considering, according to the well known sentiment of an

old proverb, that there is nothing illustrious which is not also

difficult and arduous, can we wonder, that in the greatest and most

excellent of all causes, we must fight our way through many

difficulties? I have already observed, that if we would not give deep

offense to God, our minds must take a loftier view. For it is just to

measure the power of God by the extent of our own powers, if we

hope no more of the restoration of the Church than the present state

of affairs seems to promise. How slender soever the hope of success,

God bids us be of good courage, and put far away every thing like

fear, that we may with alacrity begirt ourselves for the work. Thus

far, at least, let us do Him honor. Confiding in his Almighty power,

let us not decline to try what the success is which He may be pleased

to give.

In the present condition of the empire, your Imperial Majesty,

and you, Most Illustrious Princes, necessarily involved in various

cares, and distracted by a multiplicity of business, are agitated, and

in a manner tempest-tossed. But be always assured, that of all works

this one is undoubtedly entitled to take precedence. I feel what nerve,

what earnestness, what urgency, what ardor, the treatment of this

subject requires. And I am well aware that persons will not be

wanting to express their surprise, that on a subject so noble and

splendid I should be so cold. But what could I do? I bend under its

weight and magnitude; and I therefore see not how I can do better

than set the matter before you simply, without any embellishment of

words, that you may afterwards ponder and scrutinize it. First, call to

mind the fearful calamities of the Church, which might move to pity

even minds of iron. Nay, set before your eyes her squalid and

unsightly form, and the sad devastation which is everywhere beheld.

How long, pray, will you allow the spouse of Christ, the mother of

you all, to lie thus prostrated and afflicted — thus, too, when she is

imploring your protection, and when the means of relief are in your

hand? Next, consider how much worse calamities impend. Final

destruction cannot be far off, unless you interpose with the utmost

speed. Christ will, indeed, in the way which to him seems good,

preserve his Church miraculously, and beyond human expectation;

but this I say, that the consequence of a little longer delay on your

part will be, that in Germany we shall not have even the form of a

Church. Look round, and see how many indications threaten that

ruin which it is your duty to prevent, and announce that it is actually

at hand. These things speak loud enough, though I were silent.

Such indications, however, ought not only to move us by their

actual aspect; they ought also to remind us of coming vengeance.

Divine worship being vitiated by so many false opinions, and

perverted by so many impious and foul superstitions, the sacred

Majesty of God is insulted with atrocious contumely, his holy name

profaned, his glory only not trampled under foot. Nay, while the

whole Christian world is openly polluted with idolatry, men adore,

instead of Him, their own fictions. A thousand superstitions reign,

superstitions which are just so many open insults to Him. The power

of Christ is almost obliterated from the minds of men, the hope of

salvation is transferred from him to empty, frivolous, and nugatory

ceremonies, while there is a pollution of the Sacraments not less to

be execrated. Baptism is deformed by numerous additions, the Holy

Supper is prostituted to all kinds of ignominy, religion throughout

has degenerated into an entirely different form.

If we are negligent in remedying these evils, God assuredly will

not forget himself. How could He who declares that he will not allow

his honor to be in any way impaired, fail to interpose when it is cast

down and destroyed? How could He who threatens with destruction

all the nations among whom prophecy shall have failed, permit our

open and contumacious contempt of the prophecies to go

unpunished? How could He who punished a slight stain on his

Supper so severely in the Corinthians, spare us in presuming to

pollute it with so many unutterable blasphemies? How could He

who, by the mouths of all his prophets, testifies and proclaims that

he is armed with vengeance against idolatry, leave untouched in us

so many monstrous idolatries? Assuredly He does not so leave them,

for we see how, sword in hand, he urges and pursues us. The Turkish

war now occupies the minds of all, and fills them with alarm. It well

may. Consultations are held to prepare the means of resistance. This,

too, is prudently and necessarily done. All exclaim that there is need

of no ordinary dispatch. I admit that there cannot be too much

dispatch, provided, in the meantime, the consultation which ought to

be first, the consultation how to restore the Church to its proper

state, is neither neglected nor retarded. Already delays more than

enough have been interposed. The fuel of the Turkish war is within,

shut up in our bowels, and must first be removed, if we would

successfully drive back the war itself.

In future, therefore, as often as you shall hear the croaking note

— The business of reforming the Church must be delayed for the

present — there will be time enough to accomplish it after other

matters are transacted — remember, Most Invincible Emperor, and

Most Illustrious Princes, that the matter on which you are to

deliberate is, whether you are to leave to your posterity some empire

or none. Yet, why do I speak of posterity? Even now, while your own

eyes behold, it is half bent, and totters to its final ruin. In regard to

ourselves, whatever be the event, we will always be supported, in the

sight of God, by the consciousness that we have desired both to

promote his glory and do good to his Church; that we have labored

faithfully for that end; that, in short, we have done what we could.

Our conscience tells us, that in all our wishes, and all our endeavors,

we have had no other aim. And we have essayed, by clear proof, to

testify the fact. And, certainly, while we feel assured, that we both

care for and do the work of the Lord, we are also confident, that he

will by no means be wanting either to himself or to it.

But be the issue what it may, we will never repent of having

begun, and of having proceeded thus far. The Holy Spirit is a faithful

and unerring witness to our doctrine. We know, I say, that it is the

eternal truth of God that we preach. We are, indeed, desirous, as we

ought to be, that our ministry may prove salutary to the world; but to

give it this effect belongs to God, not to us. If, to punish, partly the

ingratitude, and partly the stubbornness of those to whom we desire

to do good, success must prove desperate, and all things go to worse,

I will say what it befits a Christian man to say, and what all who are

true to this holy profession will subscribe:—We will die, but in death

even be conquerors, not only because through it we shall have a sure

passage to a better life, but because we know that our blood will be as

seed to propagate the Divine truth which men now despise.

-----

MONERGISM BOOKS

The Necessity of Reforming the Church, by John Calvin, Copyright ©

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright

Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted

the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text

of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced,

transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored

in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system,

in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now

known or hereinafter invented, without the express written

permission of Monergism Books.

ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions April 2019 Requests for information

should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn,

OR 97068

↑ Back to top