INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
By John Calvin
A New Translation
by
Henry Beveridge, Esq.
_________
BOOK
FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
ARGUMENT.
In the former Books an exposition
has been given of the three parts of the Apostles’ Creed concerning God
the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier. It now remains to treat, in this
last Book, of the Church and the Communion of Saints, or of the external means
or helps by which God invites us to fellowship with Christ, and keeps us in it.
The twenty Chapters of which it consists may be conveniently reduced to
three particular heads-viz. I. Of the Church. II. Of the Sacraments. III. Of
Civil Government.
The first head occupies the first thirteen chapters;
but these may all be reduced to four-viz. I. Of the marks of the Church, or the
means by which the Church may be discerned, since it is necessary to cultivate
unity with the Church. This is considered in Chapters 1 and 2-II. Of the rule or
government of the Church. The order of government, Chap. 3. The form in use in
the primitive Church, Chap. 4. The form at present existing in the Papacy, Chap.
5. The primacy of the Pope, Chap. 6. The gradual rise of his usurpation, Chap.
7-III. Of the power of the Church. The power in relation to doctrine as
possessed either by individuals, Chap. 8; or universally as in Councils, Chap.
9. The power of enacting laws, Chap. 10. The extent of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, Chap. 11-IV. Of the discipline of the Church. The chief use of
discipline, Chap. 12. The abuse of it, Chap. 13.
The second general
head, Of the Sacraments, comprehends three particulars,-I. Of the Sacraments in
general, Chap. 14-II. Of the two Sacraments in particular. Of Baptism, Chap. 15.
Of PÊdobaptism, Chap. 16. Of the Lord’s Supper, Chap. 17. Of
profaning the Lord’s Supper, Chap. 18. Of the five Sacraments falsely so
called, Chap. 19.
The third general head, Of Civil Government. This
considered first generally, and then under the separate heads of Magistrates,
Laws, and People.
INSTITUTES
OF
THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
_________
BOOK
FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 1.
OF THE
TRUE CHURCH. DUTY OF CULTIVATING UNITY WITH HER, AS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE
GODLY.
The three divisions of this chapter are,-I. The article of
the Creed concerning the Holy Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints
briefly expounded. The grounds on which the Church claims our reverence, sec.
1-6. II. Of the marks of the Church, sec. 7-9. III. The necessity of cleaving to
the Holy Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints. Refutation of the errors
of the Novatians, Anabaptists, and other schismatics, in regard to this matter,
sec. 10-29.
Sections.
1. The church now to be considered.
With her God has deposited whatever is necessary to faith and good order. A
summary of what is contained in this Book. Why it begins with the Church.
2. In what sense the article of the Creed concerning the Church is to
be understood. Why we should say, “I believe the Church,” not
“I believe in the Church.” The purport of this article. Why the
Church is called Catholic or Universal.
3. What meant by the Communion
of Saints. Whether it is inconsistent with various gifts in the saints, or with
civil order. Uses of this article concerning the Church and the Communion of
Saints. Must the Church be visible in order to our maintaining unity with
her?
4. The name of Mother given to the Church shows how necessary it is
to know her. No salvation out of the Church.
5. The Church is our
mother, inasmuch as God has committed to her the kind office of bringing us up
in the faith until we attain full age. This method of education not to be
despised. Useful to us in two ways. This utility destroyed by those who despise
the pastors and teachers of the Church. The petulance of such despisers
repressed by reason and Scripture. For this education of the Church her children
enjoined to meet in the sanctuary. The abuse of churches both before and since
the advent of Christ. Their proper use.
6. Her ministry effectual, but
not without the Spirit of God. Passages in proof of this.
7. Second part
of the Chapter. Concerning the marks of the Church. In what respect the Church
is invisible. In what respect she is visible.
8. God alone knoweth them
that are his. Still he has given marks to discern his children.
9. These
marks are the ministry of the word, and administration of the sacraments
instituted by Christ. The same rule not to be followed in judging of individuals
and of churches.
10. We must on no account forsake the Church
distinguished by such marks. Those who act otherwise are apostates, deserters of
the truth and of the household of God, deniers of God and Christ, violators of
the mystical marriage.
11. These marks to be the more carefully
observed, because Satan strives to efface them, or to make us revolt from the
Church. The twofold error of despising the true, and submitting to a false
Church.
12. Though the common profession should contain some
corruption, this is not a sufficient reason for forsaking the visible Church.
Some of these corruptions specified. Caution necessary. The duty of the members.
13. The immoral lives of certain professors no ground for abandoning
the Church. Error on this head of the ancient and modern Cathari. Their first
objection. Answer to it from three of our Saviour’s parables.
14.
Second objection. Answer from a consideration of the state of the Corinthian
Church, and the Churches of Galatia.
15. Third objection and answer.
16. The origin of these objections. A description of Schismatics. Their
portraiture by Augustine. A pious counsel respecting these scandals, and a safe
remedy against them.
17. Fourth objection and answer. Answer confirmed
by the divine promises.
18. Another confirmation from the example of
Christ and of the faithful servants of God. The appearance of the Church in the
days of the prophets.
19. Appearance of the Church in the days of
Christ and the apostles, and their immediate followers.
20. Fifth
objection. Answer to the ancient and modern Cathari, and to the Novatians,
concerning the forgiveness of sins
21. Answer to the fifth objection
continued. By the forgiveness of sins believers are enabled to remain
perpetually in the Church.
22. The keys of the Church given for the
express purpose of securing this benefit. A summary of the answer to the fifth
objection.
23. Sixth objection, formerly advanced by the Novatians, and
renewed by the Anabaptists. This error confuted by the Lord’s
Prayer.
24. A second answer, founded on some examples under the Old
Testament.
25. A third answer, confirmed by passages from Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Solomon. A fourth answer, derived from sacrifices.
26. A
fifth answer, from the New Testament. Some special examples.
27.
General examples. A celebrated passage. The arrangement of the Creed.
28 Objection, that voluntary transgression excludes from the Church.
29. Last objection of the Novatians, founded on the solemn renewal of
repentance required by the Church for more heinous offences. Answer.
1.
IN the last Book, it has been shown, that by the faith of the gospel Christ
becomes ours, and we are made partakers of the salvation and eternal blessedness
procured by him. But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our
mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and
may increase and make progress until its consummation, God, in accommodation to
our infirmity, has added such helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the
gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors
and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people (Eph. 4:11); he has
invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce
to holy consent in the faith, and to right order. In particular, he has
instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in
fostering and confirming our faith. For seeing we are shut up in the prison of
the body, and have not yet attained to the rank of angels, God, in accommodation
to our capacity, has in his admirable providence provided a method by which,
though widely separated, we might still draw near to him. Wherefore, due order
requires that we first treat of the Church, of its Government, Orders, and
Power; next, of the Sacraments; and, lastly, of Civil Government;-at the same
time guarding pious readers against the corruptions of the Papacy, by which
Satan has adulterated all that God had appointed for our salvation. I will begin
with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not
only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are
babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow
up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has
thus joined, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9): to those to whom he is a
Father, the Church must also be a mother. This was true not merely under the
Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; since Paul declares that we are
the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26).
2. When in
the Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made not only to the
visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God,
including in the number even those who have departed this life. And,
accordingly, the word used is “believe,” because oftentimes no
difference can be observed between the children of God and the profane, between
his proper flock and the untamed herd. The particle in is often
interpolated, but without any probable ground. I confess, indeed, that it is the
more usual form, and is not unsupported by antiquity, since the Nicene Creed, as
quoted in Ecclesiastical History, adds the preposition. At the same time, we may
perceive from early writers, that the expression received without controversy in
ancient times was to believe “the Church,” and not “in the
Church.” This is not only the expression used by Augustine, and that
ancient writer, whoever he may have been, whose treatise, De Symboli
Expositione, is extant under the name of Cyprian, but they distinctly remark
that the addition of the preposition would make the expression improper, and
they give good grounds for so thinking. We declare that we believe in God, both
because our mind reclines upon him as true, and our confidence is fully
satisfied in him. This cannot be said of the Church, just as it cannot be said
of the forgiveness of sins, or the resurrection of the body. Wherefore, although
I am unwilling to dispute about words, yet I would rather keep to the proper
form, as better fitted to express the thing that is meant, than affect terms by
which the meaning is causelessly obscured. The object of the expression is to
teach us, that though the devil leaves no stone unturned in order to destroy the
grace of Christ, and the enemies of God rush with insane violence in the same
direction, it cannot be extinguished,-the blood of Christ cannot be rendered
barren, and prevented from producing fruit. Hence, regard must be had both to
the secret election and to the internal calling of God, because he alone
“knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:19); and as Paul expresses it,
holds them as it were enclosed under his seal, although, at the same time, they
wear his insignia, and are thus distinguished from the reprobate. But as they
are a small and despised number, concealed in an immense crowd, like a few
grains of wheat buried among a heap of chaff, to God alone must be left the
knowledge of his Church, of which his secret election forms the foundation.
[3] Nor is it enough to embrace the number
of the elect in thought and intention merely. By the unity of the Church we must
understand a unity into which we feel persuaded that we are truly ingrafted. For
unless we are united with all the other members under Christ our head, no hope
of the future inheritance awaits us. Hence the Church is called Catholic or
Universal (August. Ep. 48), for two or three cannot be invented without dividing
Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in
Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into
one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by
living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity,
called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in
one God and Christ. For although the sad devastation which everywhere meets our
view may proclaim that no Church remains, let us know that the death of Christ
produces fruit, and that God wondrously preserves his Church, while placing it
as it were in concealment. Thus it was said to Elijah, “Yet I have left me
seven thousand in Israel” (1 Kings 19:18).
3. Moreover, this
article of the Creed relates in some measure to the external Church, that every
one of us must maintain brotherly concord with all the children of God, give due
authority to the Church, and, in short, conduct ourselves as sheep of the flock.
And hence the additional expression, the “communion of saints;” for
this clause, though usually omitted by ancient writers, must not be overlooked,
as it admirably expresses the quality of the Church; just as if it had been
said, that saints are united in the fellowship of Christ on this condition, that
all the blessings which God bestows upon them are mutually communicated to each
other. This, however, is not incompatible with a diversity of graces, for we
know that the gifts of the Spirit are variously distributed; nor is it
incompatible with civil order, by which each is permitted privately to possess
his own means, it being necessary for the preservation of peace among men that
distinct rights of property should exist among them. Still a community is
asserted, such as Luke describes when he says, “The multitude of them that
believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32); and Paul, when he
reminds the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are
called in one hope of your calling” (Eph. 4:4). For if they are truly
persuaded that God is the common Father of them all, and Christ their common
head, they cannot but be united together in brotherly love, and mutually impart
their blessings to each other. Then it is of the highest importance for us to
know what benefit thence redounds to us. For when we believe the Church, it is
in order that we may be firmly persuaded that we are its members. In this way
our salvation rests on a foundation so firm and sure, that though the whole
fabric of the world were to give way, it could not be destroyed. First, it
stands with the election of God, and cannot change or fail, any more than his
eternal providence. Next, it is in a manner united with the stability of Christ,
who will no more allow his faithful followers to be dissevered from him, than he
would allow his own members to be torn to pieces. We may add, that so long as we
continue in the bosom of the Church, we are sure that the truth will remain with
us. Lastly, we feel that we have an interest in such promises as these,
“In Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance” (Joel 2:32;
Obad. 17); “God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved” (Ps.
46:5). So available is communion with the Church to keep us in the fellowship of
God. In the very term communion there is great consolation; because, while we
are assured that everything which God bestows on his members belongs to us, all
the blessings conferred upon them confirm our hope. But in order to embrace the
unity of the Church in this manner, it is not necessary, as I have observed, to
see it with our eyes, or feel it with our hands. Nay, rather from its being
placed in faith, we are reminded that our thoughts are to dwell upon it, as much
when it escapes our perception as when it openly appears. Nor is our faith the
worse for apprehending what is unknown, since we are not enjoined here to
distinguish between the elect and the reprobate (this belongs not to us, but to
God only), but to feel firmly assured in our minds, that all those who, by the
mercy of God the Father, through the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, have become
partakers with Christ, are set apart as the proper and peculiar possession of
God, and that as we are of the number, we are also partakers of this great
grace.
4. But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible
Church, [4] let us learn, from her
single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is,
since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in
the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short,
keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we
become like the angels (Mt. 22:30). For our weakness does not permit us to leave
the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the
pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as
Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32). To their testimony Ezekiel
subscribes, when he declares, “They shall not be in the assembly of my
people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of
Israel” (Ezek. 3:9); as, on the other hand, those who turn to the
cultivation of true piety are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of
Jerusalem. For which reason it is said in the psalm, “Remember me, O Lord,
with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy
salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the
gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance” (Ps.
106:4, 5). By these words the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of
spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of
the Church is always fatal.
5. But let us proceed to a full exposition
of this view. Paul says that our Saviour “ascended far above all heavens,
that he might fill all things. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets;
and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of the ministry, 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, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ” (Eph. 4:10-13). We see that God, who might perfect his people in a
moment, chooses not to bring them to manhood in any other way than by the
education of the Church. We see the mode of doing it expressed; the preaching of
celestial doctrine is committed to pastors. We see that all without exception
are brought into the same order, that they may with meek and docile spirit allow
themselves to be governed by teachers appointed for this purpose. Isaiah had
long before given this as the characteristic of the kingdom of Christ, “My
Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not
depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever”
(Isa. 59:21). Hence it follows, that all who reject the spiritual food of the
soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of
hunger and famine. God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality
of his gospel, as Paul reminds us, “Faith cometh by hearing” (Rom.
10:17). God reserves to himself the power of maintaining it, but it is by the
preaching of the gospel, as Paul also declares, that he brings it forth and
unfolds it. With this view, it pleased him in ancient times that sacred meetings
should be held in the sanctuary, that consent in faith might be nourished by
doctrine proceeding from the lips of the priest. Those magnificent titles, as
when the temple is called God’s rest, his sanctuary, his habitation, and
when he is said to dwell between the cherubims (Ps 32:13, 14; 80:1), are used
for no other purpose than to procure respect, love, reverence, and dignity to
the ministry of heavenly doctrine, to which otherwise the appearance of an
insignificant human being might be in no slight degree derogatory. Therefore, to
teach us that the treasure offered to us in earthen vessels is of inestimable
value (2 Cor. 4:7), God himself appears and, as the author of this ordinance,
requires his presence to be recognised in his own institution. Accordingly,
after forbidding his people to give heed to familiar spirits, wizards, and other
superstitions (Lev. 19:30, 31), he adds, that he will give what ought to be
sufficient for all-namely, that he will never leave them without prophets. For,
as he did not commit his ancient people to angels, but raised up teachers on the
earth to perform a truly angelical office, so he is pleased to instruct us in
the present day by human means. But as anciently he did not confine himself to
the law merely, but added priests as interpreters, from whose lips the people
might inquire after his true meaning, so in the present day he would not only
have us to be attentive to reading, but has appointed masters to give us their
assistance. In this there is a twofold advantage. For, on the one hand, he by an
admirable test proves our obedience when we listen to his ministers just as we
would to himself; while, on the other hand, he consults our weakness in being
pleased to address us after the manner of men by means of interpreters, that he
may thus allure us to himself, instead of driving us away by his thunder. How
well this familiar mode of teaching is suited to us all the godly are aware,
from the dread with which the divine majesty justly inspires them.
Those
who think that the authority of the doctrine is impaired by the insignificance
of the men who are called to teach, betray their ingratitude; for among the many
noble endowments with which God has adorned the human race, one of the most
remarkable is, that he deigns to consecrate the mouths and tongues of men to his
service, making his own voice to be heard in them. Wherefore, let us not on our
part decline obediently to embrace the doctrine of salvation, delivered by his
command and mouth; because, although the power of God is not confined to
external means, he has, however, confined us to his ordinary method of teaching,
which method, when fanatics refuse to observe, they entangle themselves in many
fatal snares. Pride, or fastidiousness, or emulation, induces many to persuade
themselves that they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in
private, and thus to despise public meetings, and deem preaching superfluous.
But since as much as in them lies they loose or burst the sacred bond of unity,
none of them escapes the just punishment of this impious divorce, but become
fascinated with pestiferous errors, and the foulest delusions. Wherefore, in
order that the pure simplicity of the faith may flourish among us, let us not
decline to use this exercise of piety, which God by his institution of it has
shown to be necessary, and which he so highly recommends. None, even among the
most petulant of men, would venture to say, that we are to shut our ears against
God, but in all ages prophets and pious teachers have had a difficult contest to
maintain with the ungodly, whose perverseness cannot submit to the yoke of being
taught by the lips and ministry of men. This is just the same as if they were to
destroy the impress of God as exhibited to us in doctrine. For no other reason
were believers anciently enjoined to seek the face of God in the sanctuary (Ps.
105:4) (an injunction so often repeated in the Law), than because the doctrine
of the Law, and the exhortations of the prophets, were to them a living image of
God. Thus Paul declares, that in his preaching the glory of God shone in the
face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). The more detestable are the apostates who
delight in producing schisms in churches, just as if they wished to drive the
sheep from the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves. Let us hold,
agreeably to the passage we quoted from Paul, that the Church can only be
edified by external preaching, and that there is no other bond by which the
saints can be kept together than by uniting with one consent to observe the
order which God has appointed in his Church for learning and making progress.
For this end, especially, as I have observed, believers were anciently enjoined
under the Law to flock together to the sanctuary; for when Moses speaks of the
habitation of God, he at the same time calls it the place of the name of God,
the place where he will record his name (Exod. 20:24); thus plainly teaching
that no use could be made of it without the doctrine of godliness. And there can
be no doubt that, for the same reason, David complains with great bitterness of
soul, that by the tyrannical cruelty of his enemies he was prevented from
entering the tabernacle (Ps. 84). To many the complaint seems childish, as if no
great loss were sustained, not much pleasure lost, by exclusion from the temple,
provided other amusements were enjoyed. David, however, laments this one
deprivation, as filling him with anxiety and sadness, tormenting, and almost
destroying him. This he does because there is nothing on which believers set a
higher value than on this aid, by which God gradually raises his people to
heaven. For it is to be observed, that he always exhibited himself to the holy
patriarchs in the mirror of his doctrine in such a way as to make their
knowledge spiritual. Whence the temple is not only styled his face, but also,
for the purpose of removing all superstition, is termed his footstool (Ps.
132:7; 99:5). Herein is the unity of the faith happily realised, when all, from
the highest to the lowest, aspire to the head. All the temples which the
Gentiles built to God with a different intention were a mere profanation of his
worship,-a profanation into which the Jews also fell, though not with equal
grossness. With this Stephen upbraids them in the words of Isaiah when he says,
“Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith
the Prophet, Heaven is my throne,” &c. (Acts 7:48). For God only
consecrates temples to their legitimate use by his word. And when we rashly
attempt anything without his order, immediately setting out from a bad
principle, we introduce adventitious fictions, by which evil is propagated
without measure. It was inconsiderate in Xerxes when, by the advice of the
magians, he burnt or pulled down all the temples of Greece, because he thought
it absurd that God, to whom all things ought to be free and open, should be
enclosed by walls and roofs, as if it were not in the power of God in a manner
to descend to us, that he may be near to us, and yet neither change his place
nor affect us by earthly means, but rather, by a kind of vehicles, raise us
aloft to his own heavenly glory, which, with its immensity, fills all things,
and in height is above the heavens.
6. Moreover, as at this time there
is a great dispute as to the efficacy of the ministry, some extravagantly
overrating its dignity, and others erroneously maintaining, that what is
peculiar to the Spirit of God is transferred to mortal man, when we suppose that
ministers and teachers penetrate to the mind and heart, so as to correct the
blindness of the one, and the hardness of the other; it is necessary to place
this controversy on its proper footing. The arguments on both sides will be
disposed of without trouble, by distinctly attending to the passages in which
God, the author of preaching, connects his Spirit with it, and then promises a
beneficial result; or, on the other hand, to the passages in which God,
separating himself from external means, claims for himself alone both the
commencement and the whole course of faith. The office of the second Elias was,
as Malachi declares, to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children,
and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Mal. 4:6). Christ
declares that he sent the Apostles to produce fruit from his labours (John
15:16). What this fruit is Peter briefly defines, when he says that we are
begotten again of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23). Hence Paul glories, that by
means of the Gospel he had begotten the Corinthians, who were the seals of his
apostleship (1 Cor. 4:15); moreover, that his was not a ministry of the letter,
which only sounded in the ear, but that the effectual agency of the Spirit was
given to him, in order that his doctrine might not be in vain (1 Cor. 9:2; 2
Cor. 3:6). In this sense he elsewhere declares that his Gospel was not in word,
but in power (1 Thess. 1:5). He also affirms that the Galatians received the
Spirit by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2). In short, in several passages he not
only makes himself a fellow-worker with God, but attributes to himself the
province of bestowing salvation (1 Cor. 3:9). All these things he certainly
never uttered with the view of attributing to himself one iota apart from God,
as he elsewhere briefly explains. “For this cause also thank we God
without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us,
ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God,
which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13).
Again, in another place, “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles” (Gal. 2:8). And that he allows no more to ministers is obvious
from other passages. “So then neither is he that planteth anything,
neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. 3:7).
Again, “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace
of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10). And it is indeed necessary to
keep these sentences in view, since God, in ascribing to himself the
illumination of the mind and renewal of the heart, reminds us that it is
sacrilege for man to claim any part of either to himself. Still every one who
listens with docility to the ministers whom God appoints, will know by the
beneficial result, that for good reason God is pleased with this method of
teaching, and for good reason has laid believers under this modest yoke.
7. The judgment which ought to be formed concerning the visible Church
which comes under our observation, must, I think, be sufficiently clear from
what has been said. I have observed that the Scriptures speak of the Church in
two ways. Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it
really is before God-the Church into which none are admitted but those who by
the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit
true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who
dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the
world. Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind
scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who
by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper
profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the
Lord, and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of
it. In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing
of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious, avaricious,
envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impurer lives, who are tolerated for a
time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due
strictness of discipline is not always observed. Hence, as it is necessary to
believe the invisible Church, [5]
which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this
Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion.
8. Accordingly, inasmuch as it was of importance to us to recognise it,
the Lord has distinguished it by certain marks, and as it were symbols. It is,
indeed, the special prerogative of God to know those who are his, as Paul
declares in the passage already quoted (2 Tim. 2:19). And doubtless it has been
so provided as a check on human rashness, the experience of every day reminding
us how far his secret judgments surpass our apprehension. For even those who
seemed most abandoned, and who had been completely despaired of, are by his
goodness recalled to life, while those who seemed most stable often fall. Hence,
as Augustine says, “In regard to the secret predestination of God, there
are very many sheep without, and very many wolves within” (August. Hom. in
Joan. 45). For he knows, and has his mark on those who know neither him nor
themselves. Of those again who openly bear his badge, his eyes alone see who of
them are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere even to the end, which alone is
the completion of salvation. On the other hand, foreseeing that it was in some
degree expedient for us to know who are to be regarded by us as his sons, he has
in this matter accommodated himself to our capacity. But as here full certainty
was not necessary, he has in its place substituted the judgment of charity, by
which we acknowledge all as members of the Church who by confession of faith,
regularity of conduct, and participation in the sacraments, unite with us in
acknowledging the same God and Christ.
[6] The knowledge of his body, inasmuch as
he knew it to be more necessary for our salvation, he has made known to us by
surer marks.
9. Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth
conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and
heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution
of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some
existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt. 18:20). But
that we may have a clear summary of this subject, we must proceed by the
following steps:-The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all
nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one
truth of divine doctrine, and are bound together by the tie of a common
religion. In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different
towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of
them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends
single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to
such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not
been cut off by a public decision. There is, however, a slight difference in the
mode of judging of individuals and of churches. For it may happen in practice
that those whom we deem not altogether worthy of the fellowship of believers, we
yet ought to treat as brethren, and regard as believers, on account of the
common consent of the Church in tolerating and bearing with them in the body of
Christ. Such persons we do not approve by our suffrage as members of the Church,
but we leave them the place which they hold among the people of God, until they
are legitimately deprived of it. With regard to the general body we must feel
differently; if they have the ministry of the word, and honour the
administration of the sacraments, they are undoubtedly entitled to be ranked
with the Church, because it is certain that these things are not without a
beneficial result. Thus we both maintain the Church universal in its unity,
which malignant minds have always been eager to dissever, and deny not due
authority to lawful assemblies distributed as circumstances require.
[7]
10. We have said that the
symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the
observance of the sacraments, for these cannot anywhere exist without producing
fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is
preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is
received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. Be this as
it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments
are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without
deception or ambiguity and no man may with impunity spurn her authority, or
reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures,
far less revolt from her, and violate her unity (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and
Chap. 8 sec. 12). For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of
his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian
society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he
regards as deserters of religion. So highly does he recommend her authority,
that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired. For
there is no small weight in the designation given to her, “the house of
God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). By
these words Paul intimates, that to prevent the truth from perishing in the
world. the Church is its faithful guardian, because God has been pleased to
preserve the pure preaching of his word by her instrumentality, and to exhibit
himself to us as a parent while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and
provides whatever is conducive to our salvation. Moreover, no mean praise is
conferred on the Church when she is said to have been chosen and set apart by
Christ as his spouse, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such
thing” (Eph. 5:27), as “his body, the fulness of him that filleth
all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Whence it follows, that revolt from the Church is
denial of God and Christ. Wherefore there is the more necessity to beware of a
dissent so iniquitous; for seeing by it we aim as far as in us lies at the
destruction of God’s truth, we deserve to be crushed by the full thunder
of his anger. No crime can be imagined more atrocious than that of
sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the sacred marriage which the only
begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with us.
11. Wherefore
let these marks be carefully impressed upon our minds, and let us estimate them
as in the sight of the Lord. There is nothing on which Satan is more intent than
to destroy and efface one or both of them-at one time to delete and abolish
these marks, and thereby destroy the true and genuine distinction of the Church;
at another, to bring them into contempt, and so hurry us into open revolt from
the Church. To his wiles it was owing that for several ages the pure preaching
of the word disappeared, and now, with the same dishonest aim, he labours to
overthrow the ministry, which, however, Christ has so ordered in his Church,
that if it is removed the whole edifice must fall. How perilous, then, nay, how
fatal the temptation, when we even entertain a thought of separating ourselves
from that assembly in which are beheld the signs and badges which the Lord has
deemed sufficient to characterise his Church! We see how great caution should be
employed in both respects. That we may not be imposed upon by the name of
Church, every congregation which claims the name must be brought to that test as
to a Lydian stone. If it holds the order instituted by the Lord in word and
sacraments there will be no deception; we may safely pay it the honour due to a
church: on the other hand, if it exhibit itself without word and sacraments, we
must in this case be no less careful to avoid the imposture than we were to shun
pride and presumption in the other.
12. When we say that the pure
ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and
earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both
exist, our meaning is, that we are never to discard it so long as these remain,
though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults. Nay, even in the
administration of word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to
alienate us from its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in
the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to
be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that
God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends
on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of
controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why
should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one,
without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the
soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to
speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the
Lord?51[6] The words of the Apostle
are, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in
anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you”
(Phil. 3:15). Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as
to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of
dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed,
but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we
must either have no church at all, or pardon delusion in those things of which
one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting
salvation. Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors,
as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say
is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church,
provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of
piety consists,51[7] and keep the use
of the sacraments instituted by the Lord. Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what
is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of
Paul, “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first
hold his peace” (1 Cor. 14:30). From this it is evident that to each
member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public
edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In
other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor,
continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly
arranged.51[8]
13. Our
indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct.
Here there is great danger of falling, and Satan employs all his machinations to
ensnare us. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false
persuasion of absolute holiness, as if they had already become a kind of
a”rial spirits,51[9] spurn the
society of all in whom they see that something human still remains. Such of old
were the Cathari and the Donatists, who were similarly infatuated. Such in the
present day are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have made
superior progress. Others, again, sin in this respect, not so much from that
insane pride as from inconsiderate zeal. Seeing that among those to whom the
gospel is preached, the fruit produced is not in accordance with the doctrine,
they forthwith conclude that there no church exists. The offence is indeed well
founded, and it is one to which in this most unhappy age we give far too much
occasion. It is impossible to excuse our accursed sluggishness, which the Lord
will not leave unpunished, as he is already beginning sharply to chastise us.
Woe then to us who, by our dissolute licence of wickedness, cause weak
consciences to be wounded! Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn,
by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires
mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking
there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct,
they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they
think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. They allege that the Church
of God is holy. But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a
mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable
in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken,
but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a
field which, planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with
tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn. Let
them hear, in fine, that it is a thrashing-floor in which the collected wheat
lies concealed under the chaff, until, cleansed by the fanners and the sieve, it
is at length laid up in the granary. If the Lord declares that the Church will
labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the
day of judgment, it is in vain to look for a church altogether free from blemish
(Mt. 13).
14. They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice
which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s
sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred,
but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin
merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them
execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in
doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the
organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls?
Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of
Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only
does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of
Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians,
where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and
avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is
openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a
father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in
derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are
made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither
decently nor in order:52[0] If there
the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament
is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a
tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so
morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all
but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found
churches?52[1]
15. They also
object, that Paul sharply rebukes the Corinthians for permitting an heinous
offender in their communion, and then lays down a general sentence, by which he
declares it unlawful even to eat bread with a man of impure life (1 Cor. 5:11,
12). Here they exclaim, If it is not lawful to eat ordinary bread, how can it be
lawful to eat the Lord’s bread? I admit, that it is a great disgrace if
dogs and swine are admitted among the children of God; much more, if the sacred
body of Christ is prostituted to them. And, indeed, when churches are well
regulated, they will not bear the wicked in their bosom, nor will they admit the
worthy and unworthy indiscriminately to that sacred feast. But because pastors
are not always sedulously vigilant, are sometimes also more indulgent than they
ought, or are prevented from acting so strictly as they could wish; the
consequence is, that even the openly wicked are not always excluded from the
fellowship of the saints. This I admit to be a vice, and I have no wish to
extenuate it, seeing that Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians. But
although the Church fail in her duty, it does not therefore follow that every
private individual is to decide the question of separation for himself. I deny
not that it is the duty of a pious man to withdraw from all private intercourse
with the wicked, and not entangle himself with them by any voluntary tie; but it
is one thing to shun the society of the wicked, and another to renounce the
communion of the Church through hatred of them. Those who think it sacrilege to
partake the Lord’s bread with the wicked, are in this more rigid than
Paul.52[2] For when he exhorts us to
pure and holy communion, he does not require that we should examine others, or
that every one should examine the whole church, but that each should examine
himself (1 Cor. 11:28, 29). If it were unlawful to communicate with the
unworthy, Paul would certainly have ordered us to take heed that there were no
individual in the whole body by whose impurity we might be defiled, but now that
he only requires each to examine himself, he shows that it does no harm to us
though some who are unworthy present themselves along with us. To the same
effect he afterwards adds, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth
and drinketh damnation to himself.” He says not to others, but
to himself. And justly; for the right of admitting or excluding ought not
to be left to the decision of individuals. Cognisance of this point, which
cannot be exercised without due order, as shall afterwards be more fully shown,
belongs to the whole church. It would therefore be unjust to hold any private
individual as polluted by the unworthiness of another, whom he neither can nor
ought to keep back from communion.
16. Still, however, even the good
are sometimes affected by this inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, though we
shall find that this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a
false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself, and true zeal for it.
Accordingly, those who are the most forward, and, as it were, leaders in
producing revolt from the Church, have, for the most part, no other motive than
to display their own superiority by despising all other men. Well and wisely,
therefore, does Augustine say, “Seeing that pious reason and the mode of
ecclesiastical discipline ought specially to regard the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace, which the Apostle enjoins us to keep, by bearing with one
another (for if we keep it not, the application of medicine is not only
superfluous, but pernicious, and therefore proves to be no medicine); those bad
sons who, not from hatred of other men’s iniquities, but zeal for their
own contentions, attempt altogether to draw away, or at least to divide, weak
brethren ensnared by the glare of their name, while swollen with pride, stuffed
with petulance, insidiously calumnious, and turbulently seditious, use the cloak
of a rigorous severity, that they may not seem devoid of the light of truth, and
pervert to sacrilegious schism, and purposes of excision, those things which are
enjoined in the Holy Scriptures (due regard being had to sincere love, and the
unity of peace), to correct a brother’s faults by the appliance of a
moderate cure” (August. Cont. Parmen. cap. 1). To the pious and placid his
advice is, mercifully to correct what they can, and to bear patiently with what
they cannot correct, in love lamenting and mourning until God either reform or
correct, or at the harvest root up the tares, and scatter the chaff (Ibid. cap.
2). Let all the godly study to provide themselves with these weapons, lest,
while they deem themselves strenuous and ardent defenders of righteousness, they
revolt from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only kingdom of righteousness.
For as God has been pleased that the communion of his Church shall be maintained
in this external society, any one who, from hatred of the ungodly, violates the
bond of this society, enters on a downward course, in which he incurs great
danger of cutting himself off from the communion of saints. Let them reflect,
that in a numerous body there are several who may escape their notice, and yet
are truly righteous and innocent in the eyes of the Lord. Let them reflect, that
of those who seem diseased, there are many who are far from taking pleasure or
flattering themselves in their faults, and who, ever and anon aroused by a
serious fear of the Lord, aspire to greater integrity. Let them reflect, that
they have no right to pass judgment on a man for one act, since the holiest
sometimes make the most grievous fall. Let them reflect, that in the ministry of
the word and participation of the sacraments, the power to collect the Church is
too great to be deprived of all its efficacy, by the fault of some ungodly men.
Lastly, let them reflect, that in estimating the Church, divine is of more force
than human judgment.
17. Since they also argue that there is good reason
for the Church being called holy, it is necessary to consider what the holiness
is in which it excels, lest by refusing to acknowledge any church, save one that
is completely perfect, we leave no church at all. It is true, indeed, as Paul
says, that Christ “loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he
might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph.
5:25-27). Nevertheless, it is true, that the Lord is daily smoothing its
wrinkles, and wiping away its spots. Hence it follows, that its holiness is not
yet perfect. Such, then, is the holiness of the Church: it makes daily progress,
but is not yet perfect; it daily advances, but as yet has not reached the goal,
as will elsewhere be more fully explained. Therefore, when the Prophets foretel,
“Then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through
her any more;”-”It shall be called, The way of holiness; the unclean
shall not pass over it” (Joel 3:17; Isa. 35:8), let us not understand it
as if no blemish remained in the members of the Church: but only that with there
whole heart they aspire after holiness and perfect purity: and hence, that
purity which they have not yet fully attained is, by the kindness of God,
attributed to them. And though the indications of such a kind of holiness
existing among men are too rare, we must understand, that at no period since the
world began has the Lord been without his Church, nor ever shall be till the
final consummation of all things.
[8] For although, at the very outset, the
whole human race was vitiated and corrupted by the sin of Adam, yet of this kind
of polluted mass he always sanctifies some vessels to honour, that no age may be
left without experience of his mercy. This he has declared by sure promises,
such as the following: “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have
sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up
thy throne to all generations” (Ps. 89:3, 4). “The Lord hath chosen
Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will
I dwell” (Ps. 132:13, 14). “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the
sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a
light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of
hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord,
then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for
ever” (Jer. 31:35, 36).
18. On this head, Christ himself, his
apostles, and almost all the prophets, have furnished us with examples. Fearful
are the descriptions in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others,
deplore the diseases of the Church of Jerusalem. In the people, the rulers, and
the priests, corruption prevailed to such a degree, that Isaiah hesitates not to
liken Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa. 1:10). Religion was partly despised,
partly adulterated, while in regard to morals, we everywhere meet with accounts
of theft, robbery, perfidy, murder, and similar crimes. The prophets, however,
did not therefore either form new churches for themselves, or erect new altars
on which they might have separate sacrifices, but whatever their countrymen
might be, reflecting that the Lord had deposited his word with them, and
instituted the ceremonies by which he was then worshipped, they stretched out
pure hands to him, though amid the company of the ungodly. Certainly, had they
thought that they thereby contracted any pollution, they would have died a
hundred deaths sooner than suffered themselves to be dragged thither. Nothing,
therefore, prevented them from separating themselves, but a desire of preserving
unity. But if the holy prophets felt no obligation to withdraw from the Church
on account of the very numerous and heinous crimes, not of one or two
individuals, but almost of the whole people, we arrogate too much to ourselves,
if we presume forthwith to withdraw from the communion of the Church, because
the lives of all accord not with our judgment, or even with the Christian
profession.
19. Then what kind of age was that of Christ and the
apostles? Yet neither could the desperate impiety of the Pharisees, nor the
dissolute licentiousness of manners which everywhere prevailed, prevent them
from using the same sacred rites with the people, and meeting in one common
temple for the public exercises of religion. And why so, but just because they
knew that those who joined in these sacred rites with a pure conscience were not
at all polluted by the society of the wicked? If any one is little moved by
prophets and apostles, let him at least defer to the authority of Christ. Well,
therefore, does Cyprian say, “Although tares or unclean vessels are seen
in the Church, that is no reason why we ourselves should withdraw from the
Church; we must only labour that we may be able to be wheat; we must give our
endeavour, and strive as far as we can, to be vessels of gold or silver. But to
break the earthen vessels belongs to the Lord alone, to whom a rod of iron has
been given: let no one arrogate to himself what is peculiar to the Son alone,
and think himself sufficient to winnow the floor and cleanse the chaff, and
separate all the tares by human judgment. What depraved zeal thus assumes to
itself is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption” (Cyprian, Lib. 3
Ep. 5). Let both points, therefore, be regarded as fixed; first, that
there is no excuse for him who spontaneously abandons the external communion of
a church in which the word of God is preached and the sacraments are
administered; secondly, that notwithstanding of the faults of a few or of
many, there is nothing to prevent us from there duly professing our faith in the
ordinances instituted by God, because a pious conscience is not injured by the
unworthiness of another, whether he be a pastor or a private individual; and
sacred rites are not less pure and salutary to a man who is holy and upright,
from being at the same time handled by the impure.
20. Their moroseness
and pride proceed even to greater lengths. Refusing to acknowledge any church
that is not pure from the minutest blemish, they take offence at sound teachers
for exhorting believers to make progress, and so teaching them to groan during
their whole lives under the burden of sin, and flee for pardon. For they preten
[3] that in this way believers are
led away from perfection. I admit that we are not to labour feebly or coldly in
urging perfection, far less to desist from urging it; but I hold that it is a
device of the devil to fill our minds with a confident belief of it while we are
still in our course. Accordingly, in the Creed forgiveness of sins is
appropriately subjoined to belief as to the Church, because none obtain
forgiveness but those who are citizens, and of the household of the Church, as
we read in the Prophet (Is. 33:24). The first place, therefore, should be given
to the building of the heavenly Jerusalem, in which God afterwards is pleased to
wipe away the iniquity of all who betake themselves to it. I say, however, that
the Church must first be built; not that there can be any church without
forgiveness of sins, but because the Lord has not promised his mercy save in the
communion of saints. Therefore, our first entrance into the Church and the
kingdom of God is by forgiveness of sins, without which we have no covenant nor
union with God. For thus he speaks by the Prophet, “In that day will I
make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of
heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow,
and the sword, and the battle, out of the earth, and will make them to lie down
safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto
me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in
mercies” (Hos. 2:18, 19). We see in what way the Lord reconciles us to
himself by his mercy. So in another passage, where he foretells that the people
whom he had scattered in anger will again be gathered together, “I will
cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me”
(Jer. 33:8). Wherefore, our initiation into the fellowship of the Church is, by
the symbol of ablution, to teach us that we have no admission into the family of
God, unless by his goodness our impurities are previously washed away.
21. Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and
admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in
it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards
to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only
granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not
conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of
divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift
specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of
reconciliation to be daily delivered to them. Wherefore, as during our whole
lives we carry about with us the remains of sin, we could not continue in the
Church one single moment were we not sustained by the uninterrupted grace of God
in forgiving our sins. On the other hand, the Lord has called his people to
eternal salvation, and therefore they ought to consider that pardon for their
sins is always ready. Hence let us surely hold that if we are admitted and
ingrafted into the body of the Church, the forgiveness of sins has been
bestowed, and is daily bestowed on us, in divine liberality, through the
intervention of Christ’s merits, and the sanctification of the Spirit.
22. To impart this blessing to us, the keys have been given to the
Church (Mt. 16:19; 18:18). For when Christ gave the command to the apostles, and
conferred the power of forgiving sins, he not merely intended that they should
loose the sins of those who should be converted from impiety to the faith of
Christ;52[4] but, moreover, that
they should perpetually perform this office among believers. This Paul teaches,
when he says that the embassy of reconciliation has been committed to the
ministers of the Church, that they may ever and anon in the name of Christ
exhort the people to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). Therefore, in the
communion of saints our sins are constantly forgiven by the ministry of the
Church, when presbyters or bishops, to whom the office has been committed,
confirm pious consciences, in the hope of pardon and forgiveness by the promises
of the gospel, and that as well in public as in private, as the case requires.
For there are many who, from their infirmity, stand in need of special
pacification, and Paul declares that he testified of the grace of Christ not
only in the public assembly, but from house to house, reminding each
individually of the doctrine of salvation (Acts 20:20, 21). Three things are
here to be observed. First, Whatever be the holiness which the children of God
possess, it is always under the condition, that so long as they dwell in a
mortal body, they cannot stand before God without forgiveness of sins. Secondly,
This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we
continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the
ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or
the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the
power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful.
Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of
sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which
relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place.
23. But since
those frantic spirits of whom I have spoken attempt to rob the Church of this
the only anchor of salvation, consciences must be more firmly strengthened
against this pestilential opinion. The Novatians, in ancient times, agitated the
Churches with this dogma, but in our day, not unlike the Novatians are some of
the Anabaptists, who have fallen into the same delirious dreams. For they
pretend that in baptism, the people of God are regenerated to a pure and
angelical life, which is not polluted by any carnal defilements. But if a man
sin after baptism, they leave him nothing except the inexorable judgment of God.
In short, to the sinner who has lapsed after receiving grace they give no hope
of pardon, because they admit no other forgiveness of sins save that by which we
are first regenerated. But although no falsehood is more clearly refuted by
Scripture, yet as these men find means of imposition (as Novatus also of old had
very many followers), let us briefly show how much they rave, to the destruction
both of themselves and others. In the first place, since by the command of our
Lord the saints daily repeat this prayer, “Forgive us our debts”
(Mt. 6:12), they confess that they are debtors. Nor do they ask in vain; for the
Lord has only enjoined them to ask what he will give. Nay, while he has declared
that the whole prayer will be heard by his Father, he has sealed this absolution
with a peculiar promise. What more do we wish? The Lord requires of his saints
confession of sins during their whole lives, and that without ceasing, and
promises pardon. How presumptuous, then, to exempt them from sin, or when they
have stumbled, to exclude them altogether from grace? Then whom does he enjoin
us to pardon seventy and seven times? Is it not our brethren? (Mt. 18:22) And
why has he so enjoined but that we may imitate his clemency? He therefore
pardons not once or twice only, but as often as, under a sense of our faults, we
feel alarmed, and sighing call upon him.
24. And to begin almost with
the very first commencement of the Church: the Patriarchs had been circumcised,
admitted to a participation in the covenant, and doubtless instructed by their
father’s care in righteousness and integrity, when they conspired to
commit fratricide. The crime was one which the most abandoned robbers would have
abominated.52[5] At length, softened
by the remonstrances of Judah, they sold him; this also was intolerable cruelty.
Simeon and Levi took a nefarious revenge on the sons of Sychem, one, too,
condemned by the judgment of their father. Reuben, with execrable lust, defiled
his father’s bed. Judah, when seeking to commit whoredom, sinned against
the law of nature with his daughter-in-law. But so far are they from being
expunged from the chosen people, that they are rather raised to be its heads.
What, moreover, of David? when on the throne of righteousness, with what
iniquity did he make way for blind lust, by the shedding of innocent blood? He
had already been regenerated, and, as one of the regenerated, received
distinguished approbation from the Lord. But he perpetrated a crime at which
even the Gentiles would have been horrified, and yet obtained pardon. And not to
dwell on special examples, all the promises of divine mercy extant in the Law
and the Prophets are so many proofs that the Lord is ready to forgive the
offences of his people. For why does Moses promise a future period, when the
people who had fallen into rebellion should return to the Lord? “Then the
Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will
return and gather thee from all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath
scattered thee” (Deut. 30:3).
25. But I am unwilling to begin an
enumeration which never could be finished. The prophetical books are filled with
similar promises, offering mercy to a people covered with innumerable
transgressions. What crime is more heinous than rebellion? It is styled divorce
between God and the Church, and yet, by his goodness, it is surmounted. They
say, “If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another
man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly
polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again
unto me, saith the Lord.” “Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith
the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for I am merciful,
saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever” (Jer. 3:1, 12). And
surely he could not have a different feeling who declares, “I have no
pleasure in the death of him that dieth;” “Wherefore turn
yourselves, and live ye” (Ezek. 18:23, 32). Accordingly, when Solomon
dedicated the temple, one of the uses for which it was destined was, that
prayers offered up for the pardon of sins might there be heard. “If they
sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou be angry with
them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive unto
the land of the enemy, far or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves in the
land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto
thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and
have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with
all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies which led
them away captive, and pray unto thee towards their land, which thou gavest unto
their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built
for thy name: then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy
dwelling-place, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people that have
sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed
against thee” (1 Kings 8:46-50). Nor in vain in the Law did God ordain a
daily sacrifice for sins. Had he not foreseen that his people were constantly to
labour under the disease of sin, he never would have appointed these remedies.
26. Did the advent of Christ, by which the fulness of grace was
displayed, deprive believers of this privilege of supplicating for the pardon of
their sins? If they offended against the Lord, were they not to obtain any
mercy? What were it but to say that Christ came not for the salvation, but for
the destruction of his people, if the divine indulgence in pardoning sin, which
was constantly provided for the saints under the Old Testament, is now declared
to have been taken away? But if we give credit to the Scriptures, when
distinctly proclaiming that in Christ alone the grace and loving-kindness of the
Lord have fully appeared, the riches of his mercy been poured out,
reconciliation between God and man accomplished (Tit. 2:11; 3:4; 2 Tim. 1:9,
10), let us not doubt that the clemency of our heavenly Father, instead of being
cut off or curtailed, is in much greater exuberance. Nor are proofs of this
wanting. Peter, who had heard our Saviour declare that he who did not confess
his name before men would be denied before the angels of God, denied him thrice
in one night, and not without execration; yet he is not denied pardon (Mark
8:38). Those who lived disorderly among the Thessalonians, though chastised, are
still invited to repentance (2 Thess. 3:6). Not even is Simon Magus thrown into
despair. He is rather told to hope, since Peter invites him to have recourse to
prayer (Acts 8:22).
27. What shall we say to the fact, that occasionally
whole churches have been implicated in the grossest sins, and yet Paul, instead
of giving them over to destruction, rather mercifully extricated them? The
defection of the Galatians was no trivial fault; the Corinthians were still less
excusable, the iniquities prevailing among them being more numerous and not less
heinous, yet neither are excluded from the mercy of the Lord. Nay, the very
persons who had sinned above others in uncleanness and fornication are expressly
invited to repentance. The covenant of the Lord remains, and ever will remain,
inviolable, that covenant which he solemnly ratified with Christ the true
Solomon, and his members, in these words: “If his children forsake my law,
and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my
commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their
iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving-kindness will I not utterly take
from him” (Ps. 89:30-33). In short, by the very arrangement of the Creed,
we are reminded that forgiveness of sins always resides in the Church of Christ,
for after the Church is as it were constituted, forgiveness of sins is
subjoined.
28. Some persons who have somewhat more discernment, seeing
that the dogma of Novatus is so clearly refuted in Scripture, do not make every
fault unpardonable, but that voluntary transgression of the Law into which a man
falls knowingly and willingly. Those who speak thus allow pardon to those sins
only that have been committed through ignorance. But since the Lord has in the
Law ordered some sacrifices to be offered in expiation of the voluntary sins of
believers, and others to redeem sins of ignorance (Lev. 4), how perverse is it
to concede no expiation to a voluntary sin? I hold nothing to be more plain,
than that the one sacrifice of Christ avails to remit the voluntary sins of
believers, the Lord having attested this by carnal sacrifices as emblems. Then
how is David, who was so well instructed in the Law, to be excused by ignorance?
Did David, who was daily punishing it in others, not know how heinous a crime
murder and adultery was? Did the patriarchs deem fratricide a lawful act? Had
the Corinthians made so little proficiency as to imagine that God was pleased
with lasciviousness, impurity, whoredom, hatred, and strife? Was Peter, after
being so carefully warned, ignorant how heinous it was to forswear his Master?
Therefore, let us not by our malice shut the door against the divine mercy, when
so benignly manifested.
29. I am not unaware, that by the sins which are
daily forgiven to believers, ancient writers have understood the lighter errors
which creep in through the infirmity of the flesh, while they thought that the
formal repentance which was then exacted for more heinous crimes was no more to
be repeated than Baptism. This opinion is not to be viewed as if they wished to
plunge those into despair who had fallen from their first repentance, or to
extenuate those errors as if they were of no account before God. For they knew
that the saints often stumble through unbelief, that superfluous oaths
occasionally escape them, that they sometimes boil with anger, nay, break out
into open invectives, and labour, besides, under other evils, which are in no
slight degree offensive to the Lord; but they so called them to distinguish them
from public crimes, which came under the cognisance of the Church, and produced
much scandal.52[6] The great
difficulty they had in pardoning those who had done something that called for
ecclesiastical animadversion, was not because they thought it difficult to
obtain pardon from the Lord, but by this severity they wished to deter others
from rushing precipitately into crimes, which, by their demerit, would alienate
them from the communion of the Church. Still the word of the Lord, which here
ought to be our only rule, certainly prescribes greater moderation, since it
teaches that the rigour of discipline must not be stretched so far as to
overwhelm with grief the individual for whose benefit it should specially be
designed (2 Cor. 2:7), as we have above discoursed at greater length.
CHAPTER 2.
COMPARISON
BETWEEN THE FALSE CHURCH AND THE TRUE.
The divisions of the
chapter are,-I. Description of a spurious Church, resembling the Papacy vaunting
of personal succession, of which a refutation is subjoined. sec. 1-4. II. An
answer, in name of the orthodox Churches, to the Popish accusations of heresy
and schism. A description of the Churches existing at present under the Papacy.
Sections.
1. Recapitulation of the matters treated in the
previous chapter. Substance of the present chapter-viz. Where lying and
falsehood prevail, no Church exists. There is falsehood wherever the pure
doctrine of Christ is not in vigour.
2. This falsehood prevails under
the Papacy. Hence the Papacy is not a Church. Still the Papists extol their own
Church, and charge those who dissent from it with heresy and schism. They
attempt to defend their vaunting by the name of personal succession. A
succession which abandons the truth of Christ proved to be of no
importance.
3. This proof confirmed, 1. By examples and passages of
Scripture; 2. By reason and the authority of Augustine.
4. Whatever the
Papists may pretend, there is no Church where the word of God appears
not.
5. The objection of personal succession, and the charge of heresy
and schism, refuted, both from Scripture and Augustine.
6. The same
thing confirmed by the authority of Cyprian. The anathemas of the Papists of no
consequence.
7. The churches of the Papists in the same situation as
those of the Israelites, which revolted to superstition and idolatry under
Jeroboam.
8. The character of those Israelitish churches.
9.
Hence the Papists act unjustly when they would compel us to communion with
their Church. Their two demands. Answer to the first. Sum of the question. Why
we cannot take part in the external worship of the Papists.
10. Second
demand of the Papists answered.
11. Although the Papacy cannot properly
be called a Church, still, against the will of Antichrist himself, there is some
vestige of a Church in the Papacy, as Baptism and some other remnants.
12. The name of Church not conceded to the Papacy, though under its
domination there have been some kind of churches. Herein is a fulfilment of
Paul’s prophecy, that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God.
Deplorable condition of such churches. Summary of the chapter.
1. HOW
much the ministry of the word and sacraments should weigh with us, and how far
reverence for it should extend, so as to be a perpetual badge for distinguishing
the Church, has been explained; for we have shown, first, that wherever it
exists entire and unimpaired, no errors of conduct, no defects should prevent us
from giving the name of Church
;52[7] and, secondly, that trivial
errors in this ministry ought not to make us regard it as illegitimate.
Moreover, we have shown that the errors to which such pardon is due, are those
by which the fundamental doctrine of religion is not injured, and by which those
articles of religion, in which all believers should agree, are not suppressed,
while, in regard to the sacraments, the defects are such as neither destroy nor
impair the legitimate institution of their Author.
[9] But as soon as falsehood has forced
its way into the citadel of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine
is inverted, and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, the death of the Church
undoubtedly ensues, just as the life of man is destroyed when his throat is
pierced, or his vitals mortally wounded. This is clearly evinced by the words of
Paul when he says, that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone”
(Eph. 2:20). If the Church is founded on the doctrine of the apostles and
prophets, by which believers are enjoined to place their salvation in Christ
alone, then if that doctrine is destroyed, how can the Church continue to stand?
The Church must necessarily fall whenever that sum of religion which alone can
sustain it has given way. Again, if the true Church is “the pillar and
ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), it is certain that there is no Church
where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.
2. Since this is
the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church
there survives.52[8] There, instead
of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of
lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light.
In place of the Lord’s Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the
worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions;
doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded,
the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in
declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being
dissevered from the Church of Christ. The communion. of the Church was not
instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and
other kinds of evil, but rather to retain us in the fear of God and obedience of
the truth. They, indeed, vaunt loudly of their
Church,52[9] as if there was not
another in the world; and then, as if the matter were ended, they make out that
all are schismatics who withdraw from obedience to that Church which they thus
depict, that all are heretics who presume to whisper against its doctrine (see
sec 5). But by what arguments do they prove their possession of the true Church?
They appeal to ancient records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and
Spain, pretending to derive their origin from those holy men who, by sound
doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine, and reared the
edifice of the Church with their blood; they pretend that the Church thus
consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs was preserved from
destruction by a perpetual succession of bishops. They dwell on the importance
which IrenÊus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others, attached to this
succession (see sec. 3). How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations
are, I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with me, to
understand without any difficulty. I would also exhort our opponents to give
their serious attention, if I had any hope of being able to benefit them by
instruction; but since they have laid aside all regard to truth, and make it
their only aim to prosecute their own ends in whatever way they can, I will only
make a few observations by which good men and lovers of truth may disentangle
themselves from their quibbles. First, I ask them why they do not quote Africa,
and Egypt, and all Asia, just because in all those regions there was a cessation
of that sacred succession, by the aid of which they vaunt of having continued
churches. They therefore fall back on the assertion, that they have the true
Church, because ever since it began to exist it was never destitute of bishops,
because they succeeded each other in an unbroken series. But what if I bring
Greece before them? Therefore, I again ask them, Why they say that the Church
perished among the Greeks, among whom there never was any interruption in the
succession of bishops-a succession, in their opinion, the only guardian and
preserver of the Church? They make the Greeks schismatics. Why? because, by
revolting from the Apostolic See, they lost their privilege. What? Do not those
who revolt from Christ much more deserve to lose it? It follows, therefore, that
the pretence of succession is vain, if posterity do not retain the truth of
Christ, which was handed down to them by their fathers, safe and uncorrupted,
and continue in it.
3. In the present day, therefore, the presence of
the Romanists is just the same as that which appears to have been formerly used
by the Jews, when the Prophets of the Lord charged them with blindness, impiety,
and idolatry. For as the Jews proudly vaunted of their temple, ceremonies, and
priesthood, by which, with strong reason, as they supposed, they measured the
Church, so, instead of the Church, we are presented by the Romanists with
certain external masks, which often are far from being connected with the
Church, and without which the Church can perfectly exist. Wherefore, we need no
other argument to refute them than that with which Jeremiah opposed the foolish
confidence of the Jews-namely, “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The
temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are
these” (Jer. 7:4). The Lord recognises nothing as his own, save when his
word is heard and religiously observed. Thus, though the glory of God sat in the
sanctuary between the cherubim (Ezek. 10:4), and he had promised that he would
there have his stated abode, still when the priests corrupted his worship by
depraved superstitions, he transferred it elsewhere, and left the place without
any sanctity. If that temple which seemed consecrated for the perpetual
habitation of God, could be abandoned by God and become profane, the Romanists
have no ground to pretend that God is so bound to persons or places, and fixed
to external observances, that he must remain with those who have only the name
and semblance of a Church. This is the question which Paul discusses in the
Epistle to the Romans, from the ninth to the twelfth chapter. Weak consciences
were greatly disturbed, when those who seemed to be the people of God not only
rejected, but even persecuted the doctrine of the Gospel. Therefore, after
expounding doctrine, he removes this difficulty, denying that those Jews, the
enemies of the truth, were the Church, though they wanted nothing which might
otherwise have been desired to the external form of the Church. The ground of
his denial is, that they did not embrace Christ. In the Epistle to the
Galatians, when comparing Ishmael with Isaac, he says still more expressly, that
many hold a place in the Church to whom the inheritance does not belong, because
they were not the offspring of a free parent. From this he proceeds to draw a
contrast between two Jerusalems, because as the Law was given on Mount Sinai,
but the Gospel proceeded from Jerusalem, so many who were born and brought up in
servitude confidently boast that they are the sons of God and of the Church;
nay, while they are themselves degenerate, proudly despise the genuine sons of
God. Let us also, in like manner, when we hear that it was once declared from
heaven, “Cast out the bondmaid and her son,” trust to this
inviolable decree, and boldly despise their unmeaning boasts. For if they plume
themselves on external profession, Ishmael also was circumcised: if they found
on antiquity, he was the first-born: and yet we see that he was rejected. If the
reason is asked, Paul assigns it (Rom. 9:6), that those only are accounted sons
who are born of the pure and legitimate seed of doctrine. On this ground God
declares that he was not astricted to impious priests, though he had made a
covenant with their father Levi, to be their angel, or interpreter (Mal. 2:4);
nay, he retorts the false boast by which they were wont to rise against the
Prophets-namely, that the dignity of the priesthood was to be held in singular
estimation. This he himself willingly admits: and he disputes with them, on the
ground that he is ready to fulfil the covenant, while they, by not fulfilling it
on their part, deserve to be rejected. Here, then, is the value of succession
when not conjoined with imitation and corresponding conduct: posterity, as soon
as they are convicted of having revolted from their origin, are deprived of all
honour; unless, indeed, we are prepared to say, that because Caiaphas succeeded
many pious priests (nay, the series from Aaron to him was continuous), that
accursed assembly deserved the name of Church. Even in earthly governments, no
one would bear to see the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and the like,
described as the true condition of a republic, because they succeeded such men
as Brutus, Scipio, and
Camillus.53[0] That in the
government of the Church especially, nothing is more absurd than to disregard
doctrine, and place succession in persons. Nor, indeed, was anything farther
from the intention of the holy teachers, whom they falsely obtrude upon us, than
to maintain distinctly that churches exist, as by hereditary right, wherever
bishops have been uniformly succeeded by bishops. But while it was without
controversy that no change had been made in doctrine from the beginning down to
their day, they assumed it to be a sufficient refutation of all their errors,
that they were opposed to the doctrine maintained constantly, and with unanimous
consent, even by the apostles themselves. They have, therefore, no longer any
ground for proceeding to make a gloss of the name of the Church, which we regard
with due reverence; but when we come to definition, not only (to use the common
expression) does the water adhere to them, but they stick in their own mire,
because they substitute a vile prostitute for the sacred spouse of Christ. That
the substitution may not deceive us, let us, among other admonitions, attend to
the following from Augustine. Speaking of the Church, he says, “She
herself is sometimes obscured, and, as it were, beclouded by a multitude of
scandals; sometimes, in a time of tranquillity, she appears quiet and free;
sometimes she is covered and tossed by the billows of tribulation and
trial.”-(August. ad Vincent. Epist. 48). As instances, he mentions that
the strongest pillars of the Church often bravely endured exile for the faith,
or lay hid throughout the world.
4. In this way the Romanists assail us
in the present day, and terrify the unskilful with the name of Church, while
they are the deadly adversaries of Christ. Therefore, although they exhibit a
temple, a priesthood, and other similar masks, the empty glare by which they
dazzle the eyes of the simple should not move us in the least to admit that
there is a Church where the word of God appears not. The Lord furnished us with
an unfailing test when he said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice” (John 18:37). Again, “I am the good shepherd, and know my
sheep, and am known of mine.” “My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me.” A little before he had said, when the shepherd
“putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow
him; for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee
from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:14, 4, 5).
Why then do we, of our own accord, form so infatuated an estimate of the Church,
since Christ has designated it by a sign in which is nothing in the least degree
equivocal, a sign which is everywhere seen, the existence of which infallibly
proves the existence of the Church, while its absence proves the absence of
everything that properly bears the name of Church? Paul declares that the Church
is not founded either upon the judgments of men or the priesthood, but upon the
doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets (Eph. 2:20). Nay, Jerusalem is to be
distinguished from Babylon, the Church of Christ from a conspiracy of Satan, by
the discriminating test which our Saviour has applied to them, “He that is
of God, heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are
not of God” (John 8:47). In short, since the Church is the kingdom of
Christ, and he reigns only by his word, can there be any doubt as to the
falsehood of those statements by which the kingdom of Christ is represented
without his sceptre, in other words, without his sacred word?
5. As to
their charge of heresy and schism, because we preach a different doctrine, and
submit not to their laws, and meet apart from them for Prayer, Baptism, the
administration of the Supper, and other sacred rites, it is indeed a very
serious accusation, but one which needs not a long and laboured defence. The
name of heretics and schismatics is applied to those who, by dissenting from the
Church, destroy its communion. This communion is held together by two
chains-viz. consent in sound doctrine and brotherly charity. Hence the
distinction which Augustine makes between heretics and schismatics is, that the
former corrupt the purity of the faith by false dogmas, whereas the latter
sometimes, even while holding the same faith, break the bond of union (August.
Lib. QuÊst. in Evang. Mt.). But the thing to be observed is, that this
union of charity so depends on unity of faith, as to have in it its beginning,
its end, in fine, its only rule. Let us therefore remember, that whenever
ecclesiastical unity is commended to us, the thing required is, that while our
minds consent in Christ, our wills also be united together by mutual good-will
in Christ. Accordingly Paul, when he exhorts us to it, takes for his fundamental
principle that there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph.
4:5). Nay, when he tells us to be “of one accord, of one mind,” he
immediately adds, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ
Jesus” (Phil. 2:2, 5); intimating, that where the word of the Lord is not,
it is not a union of believers, but a faction of the ungodly.
6. Cyprian,
also, following Paul, derives the fountain of ecclesiastical concord from the
one bishopric of Christ, and afterwards adds, “There is one Church, which
by increase from fecundity is more widely extended to a multitude, just as there
are many rays of the sun, but one light, and many branches of a tree, but one
trunk upheld by the tenacious root. When many streams flow from one fountain,
though there seems wide spreading numerosity from the overflowing copiousness of
the supply, yet unity remains in the origin. Pluck a ray from the body of the
sun, and the unity sustains no division. Break a branch from a tree, and the
branch will not germinate. Cut off a stream from a fountain, that which is thus
cut off dries up. So the Church, pervaded by the light of the Lord, extends over
the whole globe, and yet the light which is everywhere diffused is one”
(Cyprian, de Simplicit. PrÊlat.). Words could not more elegantly express
the inseparable connection which all the members of Christ have with each other.
We see how he constantly calls us back to the head. Accordingly, he declares
that when heresies and schisms arise, it is because men return not to the origin
of the truth, because they seek not the head, because they keep not the doctrine
of the heavenly Master. Let them now go and clamour against us as heretics for
having withdrawn from their Church, since the only cause of our estrangement is,
that they cannot tolerate a pure profession of the truth. I say nothing of their
having expelled us by anathemas and curses. The fact is more than sufficient to
excuse us, unless they would also make schismatics of the apostles, with whom we
have a common cause. Christ, I say, forewarned his apostles, “they shall
put you out of the synagogues” (John 16:2). The synagogues of which he
speaks were then held to be lawful churches. Seeing then it is certain that we
were cast out, and we are prepared to show that this was done for the name of
Christ, the cause should first be ascertained before any decision is given
either for or against us. This, however, if they choose, I am willing to leave
to them; to me it is enough that we behoved to withdraw from them in order to
draw near to Christ.
7. The place which we ought to assign to all the
churches on which the tyranny of the Romish idol has seized will better appear
if we compare them with the ancient Israelitish Church, as delineated by the
prophets. So long as the Jews and Israelites persisted in the laws of the
covenant, a true Church existed among them; in other words, they by the kindness
of God obtained the benefits of a Church. True doctrine was contained in the
law, and the ministry of it was committed to the prophets and priests. They were
initiated in religion by the sign of circumcision, and by the other sacraments
trained and confirmed in the faith. There can be no doubt that the titles with
which the Lord honoured his Church were applicable to their society. After they
forsook the law of the Lord, and degenerated into idolatry and superstition,
they partly lost the privilege. For who can presume to deny the title of the
Church to those with whom the Lord deposited the preaching of his word and the
observance of his mysteries? On the other hand, who may presume to give the name
of Church, without reservation, to that assembly by which the word of God is
openly and with impunity trampled under foot-where his ministry, its chief
support, and the very soul of the Church, is destroyed?
8. What then?
(some one will say); was there not a particle of the Church left to the Jews
from the date of their revolt to idolatry? The answer is easy. First, I say that
in the defection itself there were several gradations; for we cannot hold that
the lapses by which both Judah and Israel turned aside from the pure worship of
God were the same. Jeroboam, when he fabricated the calves against the express
prohibition of God, and dedicated an unlawful place for worship, corrupted
religion entirely. The Jews became degenerate in manners and superstitious
opinions before they made any improper change in the external form of religion.
For although they had adopted many perverse ceremonies under Rehoboam, yet, as
the doctrine of the law and the priesthood, and the rites which God had
instituted, continued at Jerusalem, the pious still had the Church in a
tolerable state. In regard to the Israelites, matters which, up to the time of
Ahab, had certainly not been reformed, then became worse. Those who succeeded
him, until the overthrow of the kingdom, were partly like him, and partly (when
they wished to be somewhat better) followed the example of Jeroboam, while all,
without exception, were wicked and idolatrous. In Judea different changes now
and then took place, some kings corrupting the worship of God by false and
superstitious inventions, and others attempting to reform it, until, at length,
the priests themselves polluted the temple of God by profane and abominable
rites.
9. Now then let the Papists, in order to extenuate their vices as
much as possible, deny, if they can, that the state of religion is as much
vitiated and corrupted with them as it was in the kingdom of Israel under
Jeroboam. They have a grosser idolatry, and in doctrine are not one whit more
pure; rather, perhaps, they are even still more impure. God, nay, even those
possessed of a moderate degree of judgment, will bear me witness, and the thing
itself is too manifest to require me to enlarge upon it. When they would force
us to the communion of their Church, they make two demands upon us-first, that
we join in their prayers, their sacrifices, and all their ceremonies; and,
secondly, that whatever honour, power, and jurisdiction, Christ has given to his
Church, the same we must attribute to theirs. In regard to the first, I admit
that all the prophets who were at Jerusalem, when matters there were very
corrupt, neither sacrificed apart nor held separate meetings for prayer. For
they had the command of God, which enjoined them to meet in the temple of
Solomon, and they knew that the Levitical priests, whom the Lord had appointed
over sacred matters, and who were not yet discarded, how unworthy soever they
might be of that honour, were still entitled to hold
it53[1] (Exod. 24:9). But the
principal point in the whole question is, that they were not compelled to any
superstitious worship, nay, they undertook nothing but what had been instituted
by God. But in these men, I mean the Papists, where is the resemblance? Scarcely
can we hold any meeting with them without polluting ourselves with open
idolatry. Their principal bond of communion is undoubtedly in the Mass, which we
abominate as the greatest sacrilege. Whether this is justly or rashly done will
be elsewhere seen (see chap. 18; see also Book 2, chap. 15, sec. 6)It is now
sufficient to show that our case is different from that of the prophets, who,
when they were present at the sacred rites of the ungodly, were not obliged to
witness or use any ceremonies but those which were instituted by God. But if we
would have an example in all respects similar, let us take one from the kingdom
of Israel. Under the ordinance of Jeroboam, circumcision remained, sacrifices
were offered, the law was deemed holy, and the God whom they had received from
their fathers was worshipped; but in consequence of invented and forbidden modes
of worship, everything which was done there God disapproved and condemned. Show
me one prophet or pious man who once worshipped or offered sacrifice in Bethel.
They knew that they could not do it without defiling themselves with some kind
of sacrilege. We hold, therefore, that the communion of the Church ought not to
be carried so far by the godly as to lay them under a necessity of following it
when it has degenerated to profane and polluted rites.
10. With regard
to the second point, our objections are still stronger. For when the Church is
considered in that particular point of view as the Church, whose judgment we are
bound to revere, whose authority acknowledge, whose admonitions obey, whose
censures dread, whose communion religiously cultivate in every respect, we
cannot concede that they have a Church, without obliging ourselves to subjection
and obedience. Still we are willing to concede what the Prophets conceded to the
Jews and Israelites of their day, when with them matters were in a similar, or
even in a better condition. For we see how they uniformly exclaim against their
meetings as profane conventicles, to which it is not more lawful for them to
assent than to abjure God (Isa. 1:14). And certainly if those were churches, it
follows, that Elijah, Micaiah, and others in Israel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea,
and those of like character in Judah, whom the prophets, priests, and people of
their day, hated and execrated more than the uncircumcised, were aliens from the
Church of God. If those were churches, then the Church was no longer the pillar
of the truth, but the stay of falsehood, not the tabernacle of the living God,
but a receptacle of idols. They were, therefore, under the necessity of refusing
consent to their meetings, since consent was nothing else than impious
conspiracy against God. For this same reason, should any one acknowledge those
meetings of the present day, which are contaminated by idolatry, superstition,
and impious doctrine, as churches, full communion with which a Christian must
maintain so far as to agree with them even in doctrine, he will greatly err. For
if they are churches, the power of the keys belongs to them, whereas the keys
are inseparably connected with the word which they have put to flight. Again, if
they are churches, they can claim the promise of Christ, “Whatsoever ye
bind,” &c.; whereas, on the contrary, they discard from their
communion all who sincerely profess themselves the servants of Christ.
Therefore, either the promise of Christ is vain, or in this respect, at least,
they are not churches. In fine, instead of the ministry of the word, they have
schools of impiety, and sinks of all kinds of error. Therefore, in this point of
view, they either are not churches, or no badge will remain by which the lawful
meetings of the faithful can be distinguished from the meetings of Turks.
11. Still, as in ancient times, there remained among the Jews certain
special privileges of a Church, so in the present day we deny not to the Papists
those vestiges of a Church which the Lord has allowed to remain among them amid
the dissipation. When the Lord had once made his covenant with the Jews, it was
preserved not so much by them as by its own strength, supported by which it
withstood their impiety. Such, then, is the certainty and constancy of the
divine goodness, that the covenant of the Lord continued there and his faith
could not be obliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned
by their impure hands as not still to he a true sign and sacrament of his
covenant. Hence the children who were born to them the Lord called his own
(Ezek. 16:20), though, unless by special blessing, they in no respect belonged
to him. So having deposited his covenant in Gaul, Italy, Germany, Spain, and
England, when these countries were oppressed by the tyranny of Antichrist, He,
in order that his covenant might remain inviolable, first preserved baptism
there as an evidence of the covenant;-baptism, which, consecrated by his lips,
retains its power in spite of human depravity; secondly, He provided by his
providence that there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from
utterly perishing. But as in pulling down buildings the foundations and ruins
are often permitted to remain, so he did not suffer Antichrist either to subvert
his Church from its foundation, or to level it with the ground (though, to
punish the ingratitude of men who had despised his word, he allowed a fearful
shaking and dismembering to take place), but was pleased that amid the
devastation the edifice should remain, though half in ruins.
12.
Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the
Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. The question we
raise only relates to the true and legitimate constitution of the Church,
implying communion in sacred rites, which are the signs of profession, and
especially in doctrine.53[2] Daniel
and Paul foretold that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (Dan. 9:27; 2
Thess. 2:4); we regard the Roman Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of
that wicked and abominable
kingdom.53[3] By placing his seat in
the temple of God, it is intimated that his kingdom would not be such as to
destroy the name either of Christ or of his Church. Hence, then, it is obvious
that we do not at all deny that churches remain under his tyranny; churches,
however, which by sacrilegious impiety he has profaned, by cruel domination has
oppressed, by evil and deadly doctrines like poisoned potions has corrupted and
almost slain; churches where Christ lies half-buried, the gospel is suppressed,
piety is put to flight, and the worship of God almost abolished; where, in
short, all things are in such disorder as to present the appearance of Babylon
rather than the holy city of God. In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as
the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably
torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still
remain-symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor
human depravity can destroy. But as, on the other hand, those marks to which we
ought especially to have respect in this discussion are effaced, I say that the
whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate
Church.
CHAPTER 3.
OF THE
TEACHERS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH. THEIR ELECTION AND
OFFICE.
The three heads of this chapter are,-I. A few preliminary
remarks on Church order, on the end, utility, necessity, and dignity of the
Christian ministry, sec. 1-3. II. A separate consideration of the persons
performing Ecclesiastical functions, sec. 4-10. III. Of the Ordination or
calling of the ministers of the Church, sec. 10-16.
Sections.
1. Summary of the chapter. Reasons why God, in
governing the Church, uses the ministry of men. 1. To declare his condescension.
2. To train us to humility and obedience. 3. To bind us to each other in mutual
charity. These reasons confirmed by Scripture.
2. This ministry of men
most useful to the whole Church. Its advantages enumerated.
3. The
honourable terms in which the ministry is spoken of. Its necessity established
by numerous examples.
4. Second part of the chapter, treating of
Ecclesiastical office-bearers in particular. Some of them, as Apostles,
Prophets, and Evangelists, temporary. Others, as Pastors and Teachers, perpetual
and indispensable.
5. Considering the office of Evangelist and Apostle
as one, we have Pastors corresponding with Apostles, and Teachers with Prophets.
Why the name of Apostles specially conferred on the twelve.
6. As to
the Apostles so also to Pastors the preaching of the Word and the administration
of the sacraments has been committed. How the Word should be preached.
7. Regularly every Pastor should have a separate church assigned to
him. This, however, admits of modification, when duly and regularly made by
public authority.
8. Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, and Ministers, are
used by the Apostles as one and the same. Some functions, as being temporary,
are omitted. Two-namely, those of Elders and Deacons-as pertaining to the
ministry of the Word, are retained.
9. Distinction between Deacons.
Some employed in distributing alms, others in taking care of the poor.
10. Third part of the chapter, treating of the Ordination or calling of
the ministers of the Church.
11. A twofold calling-viz. an external and
an internal. Mode in which both are to be viewed.
12. 1. Who are to be
appointed ministers? 2. Mode of appointment.
13. 3. By whom the
appointment is to be made. Why the Apostles were elected by Christ alone. Of the
calling and election of St Paul.
14. Ordinary Pastors are designated by
other Pastors. Why certain of the Apostles also were designated by men.
15. The election of Pastors does not belong to one individual. Other
Pastors should preside, and the people consent and approve.
16. Form in
which the ministers of the Church are to be ordained. No express precept but
one. Laying on of hands.
1. WE are now to speak of the order in which the
Lord has been pleased that his Church should be governed. For though it is right
that he alone should rule and reign in the Church, that he should preside and be
conspicuous in it, and that its government should be exercised and administered
solely by his word; yet as he does not dwell among us in visible presence, so as
to declare his will to us by his own lips, he in this (as we have said) uses the
ministry of men, by making them, as it were, his
substitutes,53[4] not by
transferring his right and honour to them, but only doing his own work by their
lips, just as an artificer uses a tool for any purpose. What I have previously
expounded (chap. 1 sec. 5) I am again forced to repeat. God might have acted, in
this respect, by himself, without any aid or instrument, or might even have done
it by angels; but there are several reasons why he rather chooses to employ
men.53[5] First, in this way he
declares his condescension towards us, employing men to perform the function of
his ambassadors in the world, to be the interpreters of his secret will; in
short, to represent his own person. Thus he shows by experience that it is not
to no purpose he calls us his temples, since by man’s mouth he gives
responses to men as from a sanctuary. Secondly, it forms a most excellent and
useful training to humility, when he accustoms us to obey his word though
preached by men like ourselves, or, it may be, our inferiors in worth. Did he
himself speak from heaven, it were no wonder if his sacred oracles were received
by all ears and minds reverently and without delay. For who would not dread his
present power? who would not fall prostrate at the first view of his great
majesty? who would not be overpowered by that immeasurable splendour? But when a
feeble man, sprung from the dust, speaks in the name of God, we give the best
proof of our piety and obedience, by listening with docility to his servant,
though not in any respect our superior. Accordingly, he hides the treasure of
his heavenly wisdom in frail earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7), that he may have a
more certain proof of the estimation in which it is held by us. Moreover,
nothing was fitter to cherish mutual charity than to bind men together by this
tie, appointing one of them as a pastor to teach the others who are enjoined to
be disciples, and receive the common doctrine from a single mouth. For did every
man suffice for himself, and stand in no need of another’s aid (such is
the pride of the human intellect), each would despise all others, and be in his
turn despised. The Lord, therefore, has astricted his Church to what he foresaw
would be the strongest bond of unity when he deposited the doctrine of eternal
life and salvation with men, that by their hands he might communicate it to
others. To this Paul had respect when he wrote to the Ephesians, “There is
one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according
to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on
high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended,
what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that
he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of the ministry, 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, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love,
may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom
the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,
maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph
4:4-16).
2. By these words he shows that the ministry of men, which God
employs in governing the Church, is a principal bond by which believers are kept
together in one body. He also intimates, that the Church cannot be kept safe,
unless supported by those guards to which the Lord has been pleased to commit
its safety. Christ “ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill
all things” (Eph. 4:10). The mode of filling is this: By the ministers to
whom he has committed this office, and given grace to discharge it, he dispenses
and distributes his gifts to the Church, and thus exhibits himself as in a
manner actually present by exerting the energy of his Spirit in this his
institution, so as to prevent it from being vain or fruitless. In this way, the
renewal of the saints is accomplished, and the body of Christ is edified; in
this way we grow up in all things unto Him who is the Head, and unite with one
another; in this way we are all brought into the unity of Christ, provided
prophecy flourishes among us, provided we receive his apostles, and despise not
the doctrine which is administered to us. Whoever, therefore, studies to abolish
this order and kind of government of which we speak, or disparages it as of
minor importance, plots the devastation, or rather the ruin and destruction, of
the Church. For neither are the light and heat of the sun, nor meat and drink,
so necessary to sustain and cherish the present life, as is the apostolical and
pastoral office to preserve a Church in the earth.
3. Accordingly, I
have observed above, that God has repeatedly commended its dignity by the titles
which he has bestowed upon it, in order that we might hold it in the highest
estimation, as among the most excellent of our blessings. He declares, that in
raising up teachers, he confers a special benefit on men, when he bids his
prophet exclaim, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him
that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace” (Isa. 52:7); when he
calls the apostles the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Mt. 5:13,
14). Nor could the office be more highly eulogised than when he said, “He
that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me” (Luke
10:16). But the most striking passage of all is that in the Second Epistle to
the Corinthians, where Paul treats as it were professedly of this question. He
contends, that there is nothing in the Church more noble and glorious than the
ministry of the Gospel, seeing it is the administration of the Spirit of
righteousness and eternal life. These and similar passages should have the
effect of preventing that method of governing and maintaining the Church by
ministers, a method which the Lord has ratified for ever, from seeming worthless
in our eyes, and at length becoming obsolete by contempt. How very necessary it
is, he has declared not only by words but also by examples. When he was pleased
to shed the light of his truth in greater effulgence on Cornelius, he sent an
angel from heaven to despatch Peter to him (Acts 10:3). When he was pleased to
call Paul to the knowledge of himself, and ingraft him into the Church, he does
not address him with his own voice, but sends him to a man from whom he may both
obtain the doctrine of salvation and the sanctification of baptism (Acts
9:6-20). If it was not by mere accident that the angel, who is the interpreter
of God, abstains from declaring the will of God, and orders a man to be called
to declare it; that Christ, the only Master of believers, commits Paul to the
teaching of a man, that Paul whom he had determined to carry into the third
heaven, and honour with a wondrous revelation of things that could not be spoken
(2 Cor. 12:2), who will presume to despise or disregard as superfluous that
ministry, whose utility God has been pleased to attest by such evidence?
4. Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to the
institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, Apostles; secondly,
Prophets; thirdly, Evangelists; fourthly, Pastors; and,
lastly, Teachers (Eph. 4:11). Of these, only the two last have an
ordinary office in the Church. The Lord raised up the other three at the
beginning of his kingdom, and still occasionally raises them up when the
necessity of the times requires. The nature of the apostolic function is clear
from the command, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to
every creature” (Mark 16:15). No fixed limits are given them, but the
whole world is assigned to be reduced under the obedience of Christ, that by
spreading the Gospel as widely as they could, they might everywhere erect his
kingdom. Accordingly, Paul, when he would approve his apostleship, does not say
that he had acquired some one city for Christ, but had propagated the Gospel far
and wide-had not built on another man’s foundation, but planted churches
where the name of his Lord was unheard. The apostles, therefore, were sent forth
to bring back the world from its revolt to the true obedience of God, and
everywhere establish his kingdom by the preaching of the Gospel; or, if you
choose, they were like the first architects of the Church, to lay its
foundations throughout the world. By Prophets, he means not all
interpreters of the divine will, but those who excelled by special revelation;
none such now exist, or they are less manifest. By Evangelists, I mean
those who, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and
even acted as their substitutes. Such were Luke, Timothy, Titus, and the like;
perhaps, also, the seventy disciples whom our Saviour appointed in the second
place to the apostles (Luke 10:1). According to this interpretation, which
appears to me consonant both to the words and the meaning of Paul, those three
functions were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure
so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least
where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ; although I deny not,
that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in
their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back
the Church from the revolt of Antichrist. The office I nevertheless call
extraordinary, because it has no place in churches duly constituted. Next come
Pastors and Teachers, with whom the Church never can dispense, and
between whom, I think, there is this difference, that teachers preside not over
discipline, or the administration of the sacraments, or admonitions, or
exhortations, but the interpretation of Scripture only, in order that pure and
sound doctrine may be maintained among believers. But all these are embraced in
the pastoral office.
5. We now understand what offices in the government
of the Church were temporary, and what offices were instituted to be of
perpetual duration. But if we class evangelists with apostles, we shall have two
like offices in a manner corresponding to each other. For the same resemblance
which our teachers have to the ancient prophets pastors have to the apostles.
The prophetical office was more excellent in respect of the special gift of
revelation which accompanied it, but the office of teachers was almost of the
same nature, and had altogether the same end. In like manner, the twelve, whom
the Lord chose to publish the new preaching of the Gospel to the world (Luke
6:13), excelled others in rank and dignity. For although, from the nature of the
case, and etymology of the word, all ecclesiastical officers may be properly
called apostles, because they are all sent by the Lord and are his messengers,
yet as it was of great importance that a sure attestation should be given to the
mission of those who delivered a new and extraordinary message, it was right
that the twelve (to the number of whom Paul was afterwards added) should be
distinguished from others by a peculiar title. The same name, indeed, is given
by Paul to Andronicus and Junia, who, he says, were “of note among the
apostles” (Rom. 16:7); but when he would speak properly, he confines the
term to that primary order. And this is the common use of Scripture. Still
pastors (except that each has the government of a particular church assigned to
him) have the same function as apostles. The nature of this function let us now
see still more clearly.
6. When our Lord sent forth the apostles, he
gave them a commission (as has been lately said) to preach the Gospel, and
baptise those who believed for the remission of sins. He had previously
commanded that they should distribute the sacred symbols of his body and blood
after his example (Mt. 28:19; Luke 22:19). Such is the sacred, inviolable, and
perpetual law, enjoined on those who succeed to the place of the apostles,-they
receive a commission to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. Whence
we infer that those who neglect both of these falsely pretend to the office of
apostles. But what shall we say of pastors? Paul speaks not of himself only but
of all pastors, when he says, “Let a man so account of us, as of the
ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (I Cor. 4:1).
Again, in another passage, he describes a bishop as one “holding fast the
faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both
to exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Tit. 1:9). From these and similar
passages which everywhere occur, we may infer that the two principal parts of
the office of pastors are to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments.
But the method of teaching consists not merely in public addresses, it extends
also to private admonitions. Thus Paul takes the Ephesians to witness, “I
kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have showed you, and have
taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and
also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus
Christ.” A little after he says, “Remember, that, for the space of
three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears”
(Acts 20:20, 31). Our present purpose, however, is not to enumerate the separate
qualities of a good pastor, but only to indicate what those profess who call
themselves pastors-viz. that in presiding over the Church they have not an
indolent dignity, but must train the people to true piety by the doctrine of
Christ, administer the sacred mysteries, preserve and exercise right discipline.
To those who are set as watchmen in the Church the Lord declares, “When I
say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor
speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same
wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine
hand” (Ezek. 3:18). What Paul says of himself is applicable to all
pastors: “For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for
necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel”
(1 Cor. 4:16). In short, what the apostles did to the whole world, every pastor
should do to the flock over which he is appointed.
7. While we assign a
church to each pastor, we deny not that he who is fixed to one church may assist
other churches, whether any disturbance has occurred which requires his
presence, or his advice is asked on some doubtful matter. But because that
policy is necessary to maintain the peace of the Church, each has his proper
duty assigned, lest all should become disorderly, run up and down without any
certain vocation, flock together promiscuously to one spot, and capriciously
leave the churches vacant, being more solicitous for their own convenience than
for the edification of the Church. This arrangement ought, as far as possible,
to be commonly observed, that every one, content with his own limits, may not
encroach on another’s province. Nor is this a human invention. It is an
ordinance of God. For we read that Paul and Barnabas appointed presbyters over
each of the churches of Lystra, Antioch, and Iconium (Acts 14:23); and Paul
himself enjoins Titus to ordain presbyters in every town (Tit. 1:5). In like
manner, he mentions the bishops of the Philippians, and Archippus, the bishop of
the Colossians (Phil. 1:1; Col. 4:17). And in the Acts we have his celebrated
address to the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus (Acts 20:28). Let every one,
then, who undertakes the government and care of one church, know that he is
bound by this law of divine vocation, not that he is astricted to the soil (as
lawyers speak), that is, enslaved, and, as it were, fixed, as to be unable to
move a foot if public utility so require, and the thing is done duly and in
order; but he who has been called to one place ought not to think of removing,
nor seek to be set free when he deems it for his own advantage. Again, if it is
expedient for any one to be transferred to another place, he ought not to
attempt it of his own private motive, but to wait for public authority.
8. In giving the name of bishops, presbyters, and pastors,
indiscriminately to those who govern churches, I have done it on the authority
of Scripture, which uses the words as synonymous. To all who discharge the
ministry of the word it gives the name of bishops. Thus Paul, after enjoining
Titus to ordain elders in every city, immediately adds, “A bishop must be
blameless,” &c. (Tit. 1:5, 7). So in another place he salutes several
bishops in one church (Phil. 1:1). And in the Acts, the elders of Ephesus, whom
he is said to have called together, he, in the course of his address, designates
as bishops (Acts 20:17). Here it is to be observed, that we have hitherto
enumerated those offices only which consist in the ministry of the word; nor
does Paul make mention of any others in the passage which we have quoted from
the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians. But in the Epistle to the
Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he enumerates other offices,
as powers, gifts of healing, interpretation, government, care of the poor (Rom.
12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28). As to those which were temporary, I say nothing, for it is
not worth while to dwell upon them. But there are two of perpetual duration-viz.
government and care of the poor. By these governors I understand seniors
selected from the people to unite with the bishops in pronouncing censures and
exercising discipline. For this is the only meaning which can be given to the
passage, “He that ruleth with diligence” (Rom. 12:8). From the
beginning, therefore, each church had its
senate,53[6] composed of pious,
grave, and venerable men, in whom was lodged the power of correcting faults. Of
this power we shall afterwards speak. Moreover, experience shows that this
arrangement was not confined to one age, and therefore we are to regard the
office of government as necessary for all ages.
9. The care of the poor
was committed to deacons, of whom two classes are mentioned by Paul in the
Epistle to the Romans, “He that giveth, let him do it with
simplicity;” “he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom.
12:8). As it is certain that he is here speaking of public offices of the
Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the
former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those
who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the
widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For
there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting
themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought
to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the
Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of
the poor themselves. For although the term ????????? has a more extensive
meaning, Scripture specially gives the name of deacons to those whom the Church
appoints to dispense alms, and take care of the poor, constituting them as it
were stewards of the public treasury of the poor. Their origin, institution, and
office, is described by Luke (Acts 6:3). When a murmuring arose among the
Greeks, because in the administration of the poor their widows were neglected,
the apostles, excusing themselves that they were unable to discharge both
offices, to preach the word and serve tables, requested the multitude to elect
seven men of good report, to whom the office might be committed. Such deacons as
the Apostolic Church had, it becomes us to have after her example.
10.
Now seeing that in the sacred assembly all things ought to be done decently and
in order (1 Cor. 14:40), there is nothing in which this ought to be more
carefully observed than in settling government, irregularity in any respect
being nowhere more perilous. Wherefore, lest restless and turbulent men should
presumptuously push themselves forward to teach or rule (an event which actually
was to happen), it was expressly provided that no one should assume a public
office in the Church without a call (Heb. 5:4; Jer. 17:16). Therefore, if any
one would be deemed a true minister of the Church, he must first be duly
called; and, secondly, he must answer to his calling; that is, undertake
and execute the office assigned to him. This may often be observed in Paul, who,
when he would approve his apostleship, almost always alleges a call, together
with his fidelity in discharging the office. If so great a minister of Christ
dares not arrogate to himself authority to be heard in the Church, unless as
having been appointed to it by the command of his Lord, and faithfully
performing what has been intrusted to him, how great the effrontery for any man,
devoid of one or both of them, to demand for himself such honour. But as we have
already touched on the necessity of executing the office, let us now treat only
of the call.
11. The subject is comprehended under four heads-viz.
who are to be appointed ministers, in what way, by whom, and
with what rite or initiatory ceremony. I am speaking of the external and
formal call which relates to the public order of the Church, while I say nothing
of that secret call of which every minister is conscious before God, but has not
the Church as a witness of it; I mean, the good testimony of our heart, that we
undertake the offered office neither from ambition nor avarice, nor any other
selfish feeling, but a sincere fear of God and desire to edify the Church. This,
as I have said, is indeed necessary for every one of us, if we would approve our
ministry to God. Still, however, a man may have been duly called by the Church,
though he may have accepted with a bad conscience, provided his wickedness is
not manifest. It is usual also to say, that private men are called to the
ministry when they seem fit and apt to discharge it; that is, because learning,
conjoined with piety and the other endowments of a good pastor, is a kind of
preparation for the office. For those whom the Lord has destined for this great
office he previously provides with the armour which is requisite for the
discharge of it, that they may not come empty and unprepared. Hence Paul, in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, when treating of the offices, first enumerates
the gifts in which those who performed the offices ought to excel. But as this
is the first of the four heads which I mentioned, let us now proceed to it.
12. What persons should be elected bishops is treated at length by Paul
in two passages (Tit. 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:1). The substance is, that none are to be
chosen save those who are of sound doctrine and holy lives, and not notorious
for any defect which might destroy their authority and bring disgrace on the
ministry. The description of deacons and elders is entirely similar (see chapter
4 sec. 10-13). We must always take care that they are not unfit for or unequal
to the burden imposed upon them; in other words, that they are provided with the
means which will be necessary to fulfil their office. Thus our Saviour, when
about to send his apostles, provided them with the arms and instruments which
were indispensably requisite.53[7]
And Paul, after portraying the character of a good and genuine bishop,
admonishes Timothy not to contaminate himself by choosing an improper person for
the office. The expression, in what way, I use not in reference to the
rite of choosing, but only to the religious fear which is to be observed in
election. Hence the fastings and prayers which Luke narrates that the faithful
employed when they elected presbyters (Acts 14:23). For, understanding that the
business was the most serious in which they could engage, they did not venture
to act without the greatest reverence and solicitude. But above all, they were
earnest in prayer, imploring from God the spirit of wisdom and discernment.
13. The third division which we have adopted is, by whom
ministers are to be chosen. A certain rule on this head cannot be obtained from
the appointment of the apostles, which was somewhat different from the common
call of others. As theirs was an extraordinary ministry, in order to render it
conspicuous by some more distinguished mark, those who were to discharge it
behoved to be called and appointed by the mouth of the Lord himself. It was not,
therefore, by any human election, but at the sole command of God and Christ,
that they prepared themselves for the work. Hence, when the apostles were
desirous to substitute another in the place of Judas, they did not venture to
nominate any one certainly, but brought forward two, that the Lord might declare
by lot which of them he wished to succeed (Acts 1:23). In this way we ought to
understand Paul’s declaration, that he was made an apostle, “not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1).
The former-viz. not of men-he had in common with all the pious ministers
of the word, for no one could duly perform the office unless called by God. The
other was proper and peculiar to him. And while he glories in it, he boasts that
he had not only what pertains to a true and lawful pastor, but he also brings
forward the insignia of his apostleship. For when there were some among the
Galatians who, seeking to disparage his authority, represented him as some
ordinary disciple, substituted in place of the primary apostles, he, in order to
maintain unimpaired the dignity of his ministry, against which he knew that
these attempts were made, felt it necessary to show that he was in no respect
inferior to the other apostles. Accordingly, he affirms that he was not chosen
by the judgment of men, like some ordinary bishop, but by the mouth and manifest
oracle of the Lord himself.
14. But no sober person will deny that the
regular mode of lawful calling is, that bishops should be designated by men,
since there are numerous passages of Scripture to this effect. Nor, as has been
said, is there anything contrary to this in Paul’s protestation, that he
was not sent either of man, or by man, seeing he is not there speaking of the
ordinary election of ministers, but claiming for himself what was peculiar to
the apostles: although the Lord in thus selecting Paul by special privilege,
subjected him in the meantime to the discipline of an ecclesiastical call: for
Luke relates, “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost
said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them” (Acts 13:2). Why this separation and laying on of hands after the
Holy Spirit had attested their election, unless that ecclesiastical discipline
might be preserved in appointing ministers by men? God could not give a more
illustrious proof of his approbation of this order, than by causing Paul to be
set apart by the Church after he had previously declared that he had appointed
him to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. The same thing we may see in the election
of Matthias. As the apostolic office was of such importance that they did not
venture to appoint any one to it of their own judgment, they bring forward two,
on one of whom the lot might fall, that thus the election might have a sure
testimony from heaven, and, at the same time, the policy of the Church might not
be disregarded.
15. The next question is, Whether a minister should be
chosen by the whole Church, or only by colleagues and
elders, who have the charge of discipline; or whether they may be
appointed by the authority of one
individual?53[8] Those who attribute
this right to one individual quote the words of Paul to Titus “For this
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are
wanting, and ordain elders in every city” (Tit. 1:5); and also to Timothy,
“Lay hands suddenly on no man” (l Tim. 5:22). But they are mistaken
if they suppose that Timothy so reigned at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, as to
dispose of all things at their own pleasure. They only presided by previously
giving good and salutary counsels to the people, not by doing alone whatever
pleased them, while all others were excluded. Lest this should seem to be a
fiction of mine, I will make it plain by a similar example. Luke relates that
Barnabas and Paul ordained elders throughout the churches, but he at the same
time marks the plan or mode when he says that it was done by suffrage. The words
are, ??????????????????????????????????????????????? (Acts 14:23). They
therefore selected (creabant) two; but the whole body, as was the custom
of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they
wished to have. Thus it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the
consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but
because he received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election.
Certainly it is not credible that Paul conceded more to Timothy and Titus than
he assumed to himself. Now we see that his custom was to appoint bishops by the
suffrages of the people. We must therefore interpret the above passages, so as
not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church. Rightly,
therefore, does Cyprian contend for it as of divine authority, that the priest
be chosen in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and be approved as
worthy and fit by public judgment and testimony, (Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 3).
Indeed, we see that by the command of the Lord, the practice in electing the
Levitical priests was to bring them forward in view of the people before
consecration. Nor is Matthias enrolled among the number of the apostles, nor are
the seven deacons elected in any other way, than at the sight and approval of
the people (Acts 6:2). “Those examples,” says Cyprian, “show
that the ordination of a priest behoved not to take place, unless under the
consciousness of the people assisting, so that that ordination was just and
legitimate which was vouched by the testimony of all.” We see, then, that
ministers are legitimately called according to the word of God, when those who
may have seemed fit are elected on the consent and approbation of the people.
Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error
should be committed by the general body either through levity, or bad passion,
or tumult.
16. It remains to consider the form of ordination, to which
we have assigned the last place in the call (see chap. 4, sec. 14, 15). It is
certain, that when the apostles appointed any one to the ministry, they used no
other ceremony than the laying on of hands. This form was derived, I think, from
the custom of the Jews, who, by the laying on of hands, in a manner presented to
God whatever they wished to be blessed and consecrated. Thus Jacob, when about
to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, placed his hands upon their heads (Gen. 48:14).
The same thing was done by our Lord, when he prayed over the little children
(Mt. 19:15). With the same intent (as I imagine), the Jews, according to the
injunction of the law, laid hands upon their sacrifices. Wherefore, the
apostles, by the laying on of hands, intimated that they made an offering to God
of him whom they admitted to the ministry; though they also did the same thing
over those on whom they conferred the visible gifts of the Spirit (Acts 8:17;
19:6). However this be, it was the regular form, whenever they called any one to
the sacred ministry. In this way they consecrated pastors and teachers; in this
way they consecrated deacons. But though there is no fixed precept concerning
the laying on of hands, yet as we see that it was uniformly observed by the
apostles, this careful observance ought to be regarded by us in the light of a
precept (see chap. 14, sec. 20; chap. 19, sec. 31). And it is certainly useful,
that by such a symbol the dignity of the ministry should be commended to the
people, and he who is ordained, reminded that he is no longer his own, but is
bound in service to God and the Church. Besides, it will not prove an empty
sign, if it be restored to its genuine origin. For if the Spirit of God has not
instituted anything in the Church in vain, this ceremony of his appointment we
shall feel not to be useless, provided it be not superstitiously abused. Lastly,
it is to observed, that it was not the whole people, but only pastors, who laid
hands on ministers, though it is uncertain whether or not several always laid
their hands: it is certain, that in the case of the deacons, it was done by Paul
and Barnabas, and some few others (Acts 6:6; 13:3). But in another place, Paul
mentions that he himself, without any others, laid hands on Timothy.
“Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God
which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6). For what is
said in the First Epistle, of the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery, I do not understand as if Paul were speaking of the college of
Elders. By the expression, I understand the ordination itself; as if he had
said, Act so, that the gift which you received by the laying on of hands, when I
made you a presbyter, may not be in vain.
CHAPTER
4.
OF THE STATE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, AND THE
MODE OF GOVERNMENT IN USE BEFORE THE PAPACY.
The divisions of this
chapter are,-I. The mode of government in the primitive Church, sec 1-10. II.
The formal ordination of Bishops and Ministers in the primitive Church, sec.
10-15.
Sections.
1. The method of government in the
primitive Church. Not in every respect conformable to the rule of the word of
God. Three distinct orders of Ministers.
2. First, the Bishop, for the
sake of preserving order, presided over the Presbyters or Pastors. The office of
Bishop. Presbyter and Bishop the same. The institution of this order ancient.
3. The office of Bishop and Presbyters. Strictly preserved in the
primitive Church.
4. Of Archbishops and Patriarchs. Very seldom used.
For what end instituted. Hierarchy an improper name, and not used in
Scripture.
5. Deacons, the second order of Ministers in the primitive
Church. Their proper office. The Bishop their inspector. Subdeacons, their
assistants. Archdeacons, their presidents. The reading of the Gospel, an
adventitious office conferred in honour on the Deacons.
6. Mode in which
the goods of the Church were anciently dispensed. 1. The support of the poor. 2.
Due provision for the ministers of the Church.
7. The administration at
first free and voluntary. The revenues of the Church afterwards classed under
four heads.
8. A third part of the revenues devoted to the fabric of
churches. To this, however, when necessary, the claim of the poor was preferred.
Sayings, testimonies, and examples to this effect, from Cyril, Acatius, Jerome,
Exuperius, Ambrose.
9. The Clerici, among whom were the Doorkeepers and
Acolytes, were the names given to exercises used as a kind of training for
tyros.
10. Second part of the chapter, treating of the calling of
Ministers. Some error introduced in course of time in respect to celibacy from
excessive strictness. In regard to the ordination of Ministers, full regard not
always paid to the consent of the people. Why the people less anxious to
maintain their right. Ordinations took place at stated times.
11. In the
ordination of Bishops the liberty of the people maintained.
12. Certain
limits afterwards introduced to restrain the inconsiderate licence of the
multitude.
13. This mode of election long prevailed. Testimony of
Gregory. Nothing repugnant to this in the decretals of Gratian.
14. The
form of ordination in the ancient Church.
15. This form gradually
changed.
1. HITHERTO we have discoursed of the order of church government
as delivered to us in the pure word of God, and of ministerial offices as
instituted by Christ (chap. 1 sec. 5, 6; chap. 3). Now that the whole subject
may be more clearly and familiarly explained, and also better fixed in our
minds, it will be useful to attend to the form of the early church, as this will
give us a kind of visible representation of the divine institution. For although
the bishops of those times published many canons, in which they seemed to
express more than is expressed by the sacred volume, yet they were so cautious
in framing all their economy on the word of God, the only standard, that it is
easy to see that they scarcely in any respect departed from it. Even if
something may be wanting in these enactments, still, as they were sincerely
desirous to preserve the divine institution, and have not strayed far from it,
it will be of great benefit here briefly to explain what their observance was.
As we have stated that three classes of ministers are set before us in
Scripture, so the early Church distributed all its ministers into three orders.
For from the order of presbyters, part were selected as pastors and teachers,
while to the remainder was committed the censure of manners and discipline. To
the deacons belonged the care of the poor and the dispensing of alms. Readers
and Acolytes were not the names of certain offices; but those whom they called
clergy, they accustomed from their youth to serve the Church by certain
exercises, that they might the better understand for what they were destined,
and afterwards come better prepared for their duty, as I will shortly show at
greater length. Accordingly, Jerome, in setting forth five orders in the Church,
enumerates Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Believers, Catechumens: to the other
Clergy and Monks he gives no proper
place53[9] (Hieron. in Jes. c. 9).
2. All, therefore, to whom the office of teaching was committed, they
called presbyters, and in each city these presbyters selected one of their
number to whom they gave the special title of bishop, lest, as usually happens,
from equality dissension should arise. The bishop, however, was not so superior
in honour and dignity as to have dominion over his colleagues, but as it belongs
to a president in an assembly to bring matters before them, collect their
opinions, take precedence of others in consulting, advising, exhorting, guide
the whole procedure by his authority, and execute what is decreed by common
consent, a bishop held the same office in a meeting of presbyters. And the
ancients themselves confess that this practice was introduced by human
arrangement, according to the exigency of the times. Thus Jerome, on the Epistle
to Titus, cap. 1, says, “A bishop is the same as a presbyter. And before
dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and
it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, churches were
governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, that the seeds of
dissension might be plucked up, the whole charge was devolved upon mendatory
rescripts, preventions, and the like. But they all conduct one. Therefore, as
presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who
presides, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by
custom than in consequence of our Lord’s appointment, and ought to rule
the Church for the common good.” In another place he shows how ancient the
custom was (Hieron. Epist. ad Evang.). For he says that at Alexandria, from Mark
the Evangelist, as far down as Heraclas and Dionysius, presbyters always placed
one, selected from themselves, in a higher rank, and gave him the name of
bishop. Each city, therefore, had a college of presbyters, consisting of pastors
and teachers. For they all performed to the people that office of teaching,
exhorting, and correcting, which Paul enjoins on bishops (Tit. 1:9); and that
they might leave a seed behind them, they made it their business to train the
younger men who had devoted themselves to the sacred warfare. To each city was
assigned a certain district which took presbyters from it, and was considered as
it were incorporated into that church. Each presbyter, as I have said, merely to
preserve order and peace, was under one bishop, who, though he excelled others
in dignity, was subject to the meeting of the brethren. But if the district
which was under his bishopric was too large for him to be able to discharge all
the duties of bishop, presbyters were distributed over it in certain places to
act as his substitutes in minor matters. These were called Chorepiscopi
(rural bishops), because they represented the bishops throughout the province.
3. But, in regard to the office of which we now treat, the bishop as
well as the presbyters behoved to employ themselves in the administration of
word and sacraments. For, at Alexandria only (as Arius had there troubled the
Church), it was enacted, that no presbyter should deliver an address to the
people, as Socrates says, Tripartit. Hist. Lib. 9. Jerome does not conceal his
dissatisfaction with the enactment (Hieron. Epist. ad Evagr.). It certainly
would have been deemed monstrous for one to give himself out as a bishop, and
yet not show himself a true bishop by his conduct. Such, then, was the
strictness of those times, that all ministers were obliged to fulfil the office
as the Lord requires of them. Nor do I refer to the practice of one age only,
since not even in the time of Gregory, when the Church had almost fallen
(certainly had greatly degenerated from ancient purity), would any bishop have
been tolerated who abstained from preaching. In some part of his twenty-fourth
Epistle he says, “The priest dies when no sound is heard from him: for he
calls forth the wrath of the unseen Judge against him if he walks without the
sound of preaching.” Elsewhere he says, “When Paul testifies that he
is pure from the blood of all men (Acts 20:26), by his words, we, who are called
priests, are charged, are arraigned, are shown to be guilty, since to those sins
which we have of our own we add the deaths of other men, for we commit murder as
often as lukewarm and silent we see them daily going to destruction”
(Gregor. Hom. in Ezek. 11:26 ). He calls himself and others silent when less
assiduous in their work than they ought to be. Since he does not spare even
those who did their duty partially, what think you would he do in the case of
those who entirely neglected it? For a long time, therefore, it was regarded in
the Church as the first duty of a bishop to feed the people by the word of God,
or to edify the Church, in public and private, with sound doctrine.
4.
As to the fact, that each province had an archbishop among the bishops (see
chap. 7 sec. 15), and, moreover, that, in the Council of Nice, patriarchs were
appointed to be superior to archbishops, in order and dignity, this was designed
for the preservation of discipline, although, in treating of the subject here,
it ought not to be omitted, that the practice was very rare. The chief reason
for which these orders were instituted was, that if anything occurred in any
church which could not well be explicated by a few, it might be referred to a
provincial synod. If the magnitude or difficulty of the case demanded a larger
discussion, patriarchs were employed along with
synods,54[0] and from them there was
no appeal except to a General Council. To the government thus constituted some
gave the name of Hierarchy-a name, in my opinion, improper, certainly one not
used by Scripture. For the Holy Spirit designed to provide that no one should
dream of primacy or domination in regard to the government of the Church. But
if, disregarding the term, we look to the thing, we shall find that the ancient
bishops had no wish to frame a form of church government different from that
which God has prescribed in his word.
5. Nor was the case of deacons
then different from what it had been under the apostles (chap. 3 sec. 6). For
they received the daily offerings of the faithful, and the annual revenues of
the Church, that they might apply them to their true uses; in other words,
partly in maintaining ministers, and partly in supporting the poor; at the sight
of the bishop, however, to whom they every year gave an account of their
stewardship. For, although the canons uniformly make the bishop the dispenser of
all the goods of the Church, this is not to be understood as if he by himself
undertook that charge, but because it belonged to him to prescribe to the deacon
who were to be admitted to the public alimony of the Church, and point out to
what persons, and in what portions, the residue was to be distributed, and
because he was entitled to see whether the deacon faithfully performed his
office. Thus, in the canons which they ascribe to the apostles, it is said,
“We command that the bishop have the affairs of the Church under his
control. For if the souls of men, which are more precious, have been intrusted
to him, much more is he entitled to have the charge of money matters, so that
under his control all may be dispensed to the poor by the presbyters and
deacons, that the ministration may be made reverently and with due care.”
And in the Council of Antioch, it was decreed (cap. 35), that bishops, who
inter-meddled with the effects of the Church, without the knowledge of the
presbyters and deacons, should be restrained. But there is no occasion to
discuss this point farther, since it is evident, from many of the letters of
Gregory, that even at that time, when the ecclesiastical ordinances were
otherwise much vitiated, it was still the practice for the deacons to be, under
the bishops, the stewards of the poor. It is probable that at the first
subdeacons were attached to the deacons, to assist them in the management of the
poor; but the distinction was gradually lost. Archdeacons began to be appointed
when the extent of the revenues demanded a new and more exact method of
administration, though Jerome mentions that it already existed in his
day.54[1] To them belonged the
amount of revenues, possessions, and furniture, and the charge of the daily
offerings. Hence Gregory declares to the Archdeacon Solitanus, that the blame
rested with him, if any of the goods of the Church perished through his fraud or
negligence. The reading of the word to the people, and exhortation to prayer,
was assigned to them, and they were permitted, moreover, to give the cup in the
sacred Supper; but this was done for the purpose of honouring their office, that
they might perform it with greater reverence, when they were reminded by such
symbols that what they discharged was not some profane stewardship, but a
spiritual function dedicated to God.
6. Hence, also, we may judge what
was the use, and of what nature was the distribution of ecclesiastical goods.
You may everywhere find, both from the decrees of synods, and from ancient
writers, that whatever the Church possessed, either in lands or in money, was
the patrimony of the poor. Accordingly, the saying is ever and anon sounded in
the ears of bishops and deacons, Remember that you are not handling your own
property, but that destined for the necessities of the poor; if you dishonestly
conceal or dilapidate it, you will be guilty of blood. Hence they are admonished
to distribute them to those to whom they are due, with the greatest fear and
reverence, as in the sight of God, without respect of persons. Hence, also, in
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other like bishops, those grave obtestations
in which they assert their integrity before the people. But since it is just in
itself, and was sanctioned by a divine law, that those who devote their labour
to the Church shall be supported at the public expense of the Church, and some
presbyters in that age having consecrated their patrimony to God, had become
voluntarily poor, the distribution was so made that aliment was afforded to
ministers, and the poor were not neglected. Meanwhile, it was provided that the
ministers themselves, who ought to be an example of frugality to others, should
not have so much as might be abused for luxury or delicacy; but only what might
be needful to support their wants: “For those clergy, who can be supported
by their own patrimony,” says Jerome, “commit sacrilege if they
accept what belongs to the poor, and by such abuse eat and drink judgment to
themselves.”
7. At first the administration was free and voluntary,
when bishops and deacons were faithful of their own accord, and when integrity
of conscience and purity of life supplied the place of laws. Afterwards, when,
from the cupidity and depraved desires of some, bad examples arose, canons were
framed, to correct these evils, and divided the revenues of the Church into four
parts, assigning one to the clergy, another to the poor, another to the repair
of churches and other edifices, a fourth to the poor,
whether54[2] strangers or natives.
For though other canons attribute this last part to the bishop, it differs in no
respect from the division which I have mentioned. For they do not mean that it
is his property, which he may devour alone or squander in any way he pleases,
but that it may enable him to use the hospitality which Paul requires in that
order (1 Tim. 3:2). This is the interpretation of Gelasius and Gregory. For the
only reason which Gelasius gives why the bishop should claim anything to himself
is, that he may be able to bestow it on captives and strangers. Gregory speaks
still more clearly: “It is the custom of the Apostolic See,” says
he, “to give command to the bishop who has been ordained, to divide all
the revenues into four portions-namely, one to the bishop and his household for
hospitality and maintenance, another to the clergy, a third to the poor, a
fourth to the repair of churches.” The bishop, therefore, could not
lawfully take for his own use more than was sufficient for moderate and frugal
food and clothing. When any one began to wanton either in luxury or ostentation
and show, he was immediately reprimanded by his colleagues, and if he obeyed
not, was deprived of his honours.
8. Moreover, the sum expended on the
adorning of churches was at first very trifling, and even afterwards, when the
Church had become somewhat more wealthy, they in that matter observed
mediocrity. Still, whatever money was then collected was reserved for the poor,
when any greater necessity occurred. Thus Cyril, when a famine prevailed in the
province of Jerusalem, and the want could not otherwise be supplied, took the
vessels and robes and sold them for the support of the poor. In like manner,
Acatius, Bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of the Persians were almost
destroyed by famine, having assembled the clergy, and delivered this noble
address, “Our God has no need either of chalices or salvers, for he
neither eats nor drinks” (Tripart. Hist. Lib. 5 and Lib. 11 c. 16) melted
down the plate, that he might be able to furnish food and obtain the means of
ransoming the miserable. Jerome also, while inveighing against the excessive
splendour of churches, relates that Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, in his day,
though he carried the body of the Lord in a wicker basket, and his blood in a
glass, nevertheless suffered no poor man to be hungry (Hieron. ad Nepotian).
What I lately said of Acatius, Ambrose relates of himself. For when the Arians
assailed him for having broken down the sacred vessels for the ransom of
captives, he made this most admirable excuse: “He who sent the apostles
without gold has also gathered churches without gold. The Church has gold not to
keep but to distribute, and give support in necessity. What need is there of
keeping what is of no benefit? Are we ignorant how much gold and silver the
Assyrians carried off from the temple of the Lord? Is it not better for a priest
to melt them for the support of the poor, if other means are wanting, than for a
sacrilegious enemy to carry them away? Would not the Lord say, Why have you
suffered so many poor to die of hunger, and you certainly had gold wherewith to
minister to their support? Why have so many captives been carried away and not
redeemed? Why have so many been slain by the enemy? It had been better to
preserve living than metallic vessels. These charges you will not be able to
answer: for what could you say? I feared lest the temple of God should want
ornament. He would answer, Sacraments require not gold, and things which are not
bought with gold please not by gold. The ornament of the Sacraments is the
ransom of captives” (Ambros. de Offic. Lib. 2 c. 28). In a word, we see
the exact truth of what he elsewhere says-viz. that whatever the Church then
possessed was the revenue of the needy. Again, A bishop has nothing but what
belongs to the poor (Ambros. Lib. 5 Ep. 31, 33).
9. We have now reviewed
the ministerial offices of the ancient Church. For others, of which
ecclesiastical writers make mention, were rather exercises and preparations than
distinct offices. These holy men, that they might leave a nursery of the Church
behind them, received young men, who, with the consent and authority of their
parents, devoted themselves to the spiritual warfare under their guardianship
and training, and so formed them from their tender years, that they might not
enter on the discharge of the office as ignorant novices. All who received this
training were designated by the general name of Clerks. I could wish that
some more appropriate name had been given them, for this appellation had its
origin in error, or at least improper feeling, since the whole church is by
Peter denominated ?????? (clerus), that is, the inheritance of the Lord
(1 Pet. 5:3). It was in itself, however, a most sacred and salutary institution,
that those who wished to devote themselves and their labour to the Church should
be brought up under the charge of the bishop; so that no one should minister in
the Church unless he had been previously well trained, unless he had in early
life imbibed sound doctrine, unless by stricter discipline he had formed habits
of gravity and severer morals, been withdrawn from ordinary business, and
accustomed to spiritual cares and studies. For as tyros in the military art are
trained by mock fights for true and serious warfare, so there was a rudimental
training by which they were exercised in clerical duty before they were actually
appointed to office. First, then, they intrusted them with the opening and
shutting of the church, and called them Ostiarii. Next, they gave the name of
Acolytes to those who assisted the bishop in domestic services, and constantly
attended him, first, as a mark of respect; and, secondly, that no suspicion
might arise.54[3] Moreover, that
they might gradually become known to the people, and recommend themselves to
them, and at the same time might learn to stand the gaze of all, and speak
before all, that they might not, when appointed presbyters, be overcome with
shame when they came forward to teach, the office of reading in the desk was
given them.54[4] In this way they
were gradually advanced, that they might prove their carefulness in separate
exercises, until they were appointed subdeacons. All I mean by this is, that
these were rather the rudimentary exercises of tyros than functions which were
accounted among the true ministries of the Church.
10. In regard to what
we have set down as the first and second heads in the calling of ministers-viz.
the persons to be elected and the religious care to be therein exercised-the
ancient Church followed the injunction of Paul, and the examples of the
apostles. For they were accustomed to meet for the election of pastors with the
greatest reverence, and with earnest prayer to God. Moreover, they had a form of
examination by which they tested the life and doctrine of those who were to be
elected by the standard of Paul (1 Tim. 3:2); only here they sometimes erred
from excessive strictness, by exacting more of a bishop than Paul requires, and
especially, in process of time, by exacting celibacy: but in other respects
their practice corresponded with Paul’s description. In regard to our
third head, however-viz. Who were entitled to appoint ministers?-they did not
always observe the same rule. Anciently none were admitted to the number of the
clergy without the consent of the whole people: and hence Cyprian makes a
laboured apology for having appointed Aurelius a reader without consulting the
Church, because, although done contrary to custom, it was not done without
reason. He thus premises: “In ordaining clergy, dearest brethren, we are
wont previously to consult you, and weigh the manners and merits of each by the
common advice” (Cyprian. Lib. 2 Ep. 5). But as in these minor
exercises54[5] there was no great
danger, inasmuch as they were appointed to a long probation and unimportant
function, the consent of the people ceased to be asked. Afterwards, in other
orders also, with the exception of the bishopric, the people usually left the
choice and decision to the bishop and presbyters, who thus determined who were
fit and worthy, unless, perhaps, when new presbyters were appointed to parishes,
for then the express consent of the inhabitants of the place behoved to be
given. Nor is it strange that in this matter the people were not very anxious to
maintain their right, for no subdeacon was appointed who had not given a long
proof of his conduct in the clerical office, agreeably to the strictness of
discipline then in use. After he had approved himself in that degree, he was
appointed deacon, and thereafter, if he conducted himself faithfully, he
attained to the honour of a presbyter. Thus none were promoted whose conduct had
not, in truth, been tested for many years under the eye of the people. There
were also many canons for punishing their faults, so that the Church, if she did
not neglect the remedies, was not burdened with bad presbyters or deacons. In
the case of presbyters, indeed, the consent of the citizens was always required,
as is attested by the canon (Primus Distinct. 67), which is attributed to
Anacletus. In fine, all ordinations took place at stated periods of the year,
that none might creep in stealthily without the consent of the faithful, or be
promoted with too much facility without witnesses.
11. In electing
bishops, the people long retained their right of preventing any one from being
intruded who was not acceptable to all. Accordingly, it was forbidden by the
Council of Antioch to induct any one on the unwilling. This also Leo I.
carefully confirms. Hence these passages: “Let him be elected whom the
clergy and people or the majority demand.” Again. “Let him who is to
preside over all be elected by all” (Leo, Ep. 90, cap. 2). He, therefore,
who is appointed while unknown and unexamined, must of necessity be violently
intruded. Again, “Let him be elected who is chosen by the clergy, and
called by the people, and let him be consecrated by the provincials with the
judgment of the metropolitan.” So careful were the holy fathers that this
liberty of the people should on no account be diminished, that when a general
council, assembled at Constantinople, were ordaining Nectarius, they declined to
do it without the approbation of the whole clergy and people, as their letter to
the Roman synod testified. Accordingly, when any bishop nominated his successor,
the act was not ratified without consulting the whole people. Of this you have
not only an example, but the form, in Augustine, in the nomination of Eradius
(August. Ep. 110). And Theodoret, after relating that Peter was the successor
nominated by Athanasius, immediately adds, that the sacerdotal order ratified
it, that the magistracy, chief men, and whole people, by their acclamation
approved.54[6]
12. It was,
indeed, decreed (and I admit on the best grounds) by the Council of Laodicea
(Can. 18) that the election should not be left to crowds. For it scarcely ever
happens that so many heads, with one consent, settle any affair well. It
generally holds true, “Incertum scindi studia in contraria
vulgus;”-”Opposing wishes rend the fickle crowd.” For, first,
the clergy alone selected, and presented him whom they had selected to the
magistrate, or senate, and chief men. These, after deliberation, put their
signature to the election, if it seemed proper, if not, they chose another whom
they more highly approved. The matter was then laid before the multitude, who,
although not bound by those previous proceedings, were less able to act
tumultuously. Or, if the matter began with the multitude, it was only that it
might be known whom they were most desirous to have; the wishes of the people
being heard, the clergy at length elected. Thus, it was neither lawful for the
clergy to appoint whom they chose, nor were they, however, under the necessity
of yielding to the foolish desires of the people. Leo sets down this order, when
he says, “The wishes of the citizens, the testimonies of the people, the
choice of the honourable, the election of the clergy, are to be waited
for” (Leo, Ep. 87). Again, “Let the testimony of the honourable, the
subscription of the clergy, the consent of the magistracy and people, be
obtained; otherwise (says he) it must on no account be done.” Nor is
anything more intended by the decree of the Counci1 of Laodicea, than that the
clergy and rulers were not to allow themselves to be carried away by the rash
multitude, but rather by their prudence and gravity to repress their foolish
desires whenever there was occasion.
13. This mode of election was still
in force in the time of Gregory, and probably continued to a much later period.
Many of his letters which are extant clearly prove this, for whenever a new
bishop is to be elected, his custom is to write to the clergy, magistrates, and
people; sometimes also to the governor, according to the nature of the
government. But if, on account of the unsettled state of the Church, he gives
the oversight of the election to a neighbouring bishop, he always requires a
formal decision confirmed by the subscriptions of all. Nay, when one Constantius
was elected Bishop of Milan, and in consequence of the incursions of the
Barbarians many of the Milanese had fled to Genoa, he thought that the election
would not be lawful unless they too were called together and gave their assent
(Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 69). Nay, five hundred years have not elapsed since Pope
Nicholas fixed the election of the Roman Pontiff in this way, first, that the
cardinals should precede; next, that they should join to themselves the other
clergy; and, lastly, that the election should be ratified by the consent of the
people. And in the end he recites the decree of Leo, which I lately quoted, and
orders it to be enforced in future. But should the malice of the wicked so
prevail that the clergy are obliged to quit the city, in order to make a pure
election, he, however, orders that some of the people shall, at the same time,
be present. The suffrage of the Emperor, as far as we can understand, was
required only in two churches, those of Rome and Constantinople, these being the
two seats of empire. For when Ambrose was sent by Valentinianus to Milan with
authority to superintend the election of a new bishop, it was an extraordinary
proceeding, in consequence of the violent factions which raged among the
citizens. But at Rome the authority of the Emperor in the election of the bishop
was so great, that Gregory says he was appointed to the government of the Church
by his order (Gregor. Lib. 1 Ep. 5), though he had been called by the people in
regular form. The custom, however, was, that when the magistrates, clergy, and
people, nominated any one, he was forthwith presented to the Emperor, who either
by approving ratified, or by disapproving annulled the election. There is
nothing contrary to this practice in the decretals which are collected by
Gratian. where all that is said is, that it was on no account to be tolerated,
that canonical election should be abolished, and a king should at pleasure
appoint a bishop, and that one thus promoted by violent authority was not to be
consecrated by the metropolitans. For it is one thing to deprive the Church of
her right, and transfer it entirely to the caprice of a single individual; it is
another thing to assign to a king or emperor the honour of confirming a
legitimate election by his authority.
14. It now remains to treat of the
form by which the ministers of the ancient Church were initiated to their office
after election. This was termed by the Latins, Ordination or consecration, and
by the Greeks ???????????, sometimes also ???????????, though ???????????
properly denotes that mode of election by which suffrages are declared by a show
of hands. There is extant a decree of the Council of Nice, to the effect that
the metropolitans, with all the bishops of the province, were to meet to ordain
him who was chosen. But if, from distance, or sickness, or any other necessary
cause, part were prevented, three at least should meet, and those who were
absent signify their consent by letter. And this canon, after it had fallen into
desuetude, was afterwards renewed by several councils. All, or at least all who
had not an excuse, were enjoined to be present, in order that a stricter
examination might be had of the life and doctrine of him who was to be ordained;
for the thing was not done without examination. And it appears, from the words
of Cyprian, that, in old time, they were not wont to be called after the
election, but to be present at the election, and with the view of their acting
as moderators, that no disorder might be committed by the crowd. For after
saying that the people had the power either of choosing worthy or refusing
unworthy priests, he immediately adds, “For which reason, we must
carefully observe and hold by the divine and apostolic tradition (which is
observed by us also, and almost by all the provinces), that for the due
performance of ordinations all the nearest bishops of the province should meet
with the people over whom the person is proposed to be ordained, and the bishop
should be elected in presence of the people. But as they were sometimes too
slowly assembled, and there was a risk that some might abuse the delay for
purposes of intrigue, it was thought that it would be sufficient if they came
after the designation was made, and on due investigation consecrated him who had
been approved.
15. While this was done everywhere without exception, a
different custom gradually gained ground-namely, that those who were elected
should go to the metropolitan to obtain ordination. This was owing more to
ambition, and the corruption of the ancient custom, than to any good reason. And
not long after, the authority of the Romish See being now increased, another
still worse custom was introduced, of applying to it for the consecration of the
bishops of almost all Italy. This we may observe from the letters of Gregory
(Lib. 2 Ep. 69, 76). The ancient right was preserved by a few cities only which
had not yielded so easily; for instance, Milan. Perhaps metropolitan sees only
retained their privilege. For, in order to consecrate an archbishop, it was the
practice for all the provincial bishops to meet in the metropolitan city. The
form used was the laying on of hands (chap. 19 sec. 28, 31). I do not read that
any other ceremonies were used, except that, in the public meeting, the bishops
had some dress to distinguish them from the other presbyters. Presbyters, also,
and deacons, were ordained by the laying on of hands; but each bishop, with the
college of presbyters, ordained his own presbyters. But though they all did the
same act, yet because the bishop presided, and the ordination was performed as
it were under his auspices, it was said to be his. Hence ancient writers often
say that a presbyter does not differ in any respect from a bishop except in not
having the power of ordaining.
CHAPTER
5.
THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT UTTERLY CORRUPTED
BY THE TYRANNY OF THE PAPACY.
This chapter consists of two
parts,-I. Who are called to the ministry under the Papacy, their character, and
the ground of their appointment, sec. l-7. II. How far they fulfil their office,
sec. 8-19.
Sections.
1. Who and what kind of persons are
uniformly appointed bishops in the Papacy. 1. No inquiry into doctrine. 2. In
regard to character, the unlearned and dissolute, boys, or men of wicked lives,
chosen.
2. The right of the people taken away, though maintained by
Leo, Cyprian, and Councils. It follows that there is no Canonical election in
the Papacy. Two objections answered. Papal elections, what. Kind of persons
elected.
3. A fuller explanation of the answer to the second objection,
unfolding the errors of people, bishops, and princes.
4. No election of
presbyters and deacons in the Papacy. 1. Because they are ordained for a
different end. 2. Contrary to the command of Scripture and the Council of
Chalcedon, no station is assigned them. 3. Both the name and thing adulterated
by a thousand frauds.
5. Refutation of those corruptions. Proper end of
ordination. Of trial, and other necessary things. For these, wicked and
sanguinary men have substituted vain show and deplorable blindness.
6.
Second corruption relating to the assignation of benefices which they call
collation. Manifold abuses here exposed. Why the offices of priests are in the
Papacy called benefices.
7. One individual appointed over five or six
churches. This most shameful corruption severely condemned by many Councils.
8. Second part of the chapter-viz. how the office is discharged. Monks
who have no place among Presbyters. Objection answered.
9. Presbyters
divided into beneficiaries and mercenaries. The beneficiaries are bishops,
parsons, canons, chaplains, abbots, priors. The mercenaries condemned by the
word of God.
10. The name of beneficiaries given to idle priests who
perform no office in the church. Objection answered. What kind of persons the
canons should be. Another objection answered. The beneficiaries not true
presbyters.
11. The bishops and rectors of parishes, by deserting their
churches, glory only in an empty name.
12. The seeds of this evil in
the age of Gregory, who inveighs against mercenaries. More sharply rebuked by
Bernard.
13. The supreme Popish administration described. Ridiculous
allegation of those so-called ministers of the Church. Answer.
14.
Their shameful morals. Scarcely one who would not have been excommunicated or
deposed by the ancient canons.
15. No true diaconate existing in the
Papacy, though they have still the shadow of it. Corruption of the practice of
the primitive Church in regard to deacons.
16. Ecclesiastical property,
which was formerly administered by true deacons, plundered by bishops and
canons, in defraud of the poor.
17. Blasphemous defence of these
robbers. Answer. Kings doing homage to Christ. Theodosius. A saying of Ambrose.
18. Another defence with regard to the adorning of churches. Answer.
19. Concluding answer, showing that the diaconate is completely
subverted by the Papacy.
1. IT may now be proper to bring under the eye
of the reader the order of church government observed by the Roman See and all
its satellites, and the whole of that hierarchy, which they have perpetually in
their mouths, and compare it with the description we have given of the primitive
and early Church, that the contrast may make it manifest what kind of church
those have who plume themselves on the very title, as sufficient to outweigh, or
rather overwhelm us. It will be best to begin with the call, that we may see who
are called to the ministry, with what character, and on what grounds. Thereafter
we will consider how far they faithfully fulfil their office. We shall give the
first place to the bishops; would that they could claim the honour of holding
the first rank in this disscussion! But the subject does not allow me even to
touch it lightly, without exposing their disgrace. Still, let me remember in
what kind of writing I am engaged, and not allow my discourse, which ought to be
framed for simple teaching, to wander beyond its proper limits. But let any of
them, who have not laid aside all modesty, tell me what kind of bishops are
uniformly elected in the present day. Any examination of doctrine is too old
fashioned, but if any respect is had to doctrine, they make choice of some
lawyer who knows better how to plead in the forum than to preach in the church.
This much is certain, that for a hundred years, scarcely one in a hundred has
been elected who had any acquaintance with sacred doctrine. I do not spare
former ages because they were much better, but because the question now relates
only to the present Church. If morals be inquired into, we shall find few or
almost none whom the ancient canons would not have judged unworthy. If one was
not a drunkard, he was a fornicator; if one was free from this vice, he was
either a gambler or sportsman, or a loose liver in some respect. For there are
lighter faults which, according to the ancient canons, exclude from the
episcopal office. But the most absurd thing of all is, that even boys scarcely
ten years of age are, by the permission of the Pope, made bishops. Such is the
effrontery and stupidity to which they have arrived, that they have no dread
even of that last and monstrous iniquity, which is altogether abhorrent even
from natural feeling. Hence it appears what kind of elections these must have
been, when such supine negligence existed.
2. Then in election, the
whole right has been taken from the people. Vows, assents, subscriptions, and
all things of this sort, have disappeared; the whole power has been given to the
canons alone. First, they confer the episcopal office on whomsoever they please;
by-and-by they bring him forth into the view of the people, but it is to be
adored, not examined. But Leo protests that no reason permits this, and declares
it to be a violent imposition (Leo, Ep. 90, cap. 2). Cyprian, after declaring it
to be of divine authority, that election should not take place without the
consent of the people, shows that a different procedure is at variance with the
word of God. Numerous decrees of councils most strictly forbid it to be
otherwise done, and if done, order it to be null. If this is true, there is not
throughout the whole Papacy in the present day any canonical election in
accordance either with divine or ecclesiastical law. Now, were there no other
evil in this, what excuse can they give for having robbed the Church of her
right? But the corruption of the times required (they say), that since hatred
and party-spirit prevailed with the people and magistrates in the election of
bishops more than right and sound judgment, the determination should be confined
to a few. Allow that this was the last remedy in desperate circumstances. When
the cure was seen to be more hurtful than the disease, why was not a remedy
provided for this new evil? But it is said that the course which the Canons must
follow is strictly prescribed. But can we doubt, that even in old times the
people, on meeting to elect a bishop, were aware that they were bound by the
most sacred laws, when they saw a rule prescribed by the word of God? That one
sentence in which God describes the true character of a bishop ought justly to
be of more weight than ten thousand canons. Nevertheless, carried away by the
worst of feelings, they had no regard to law or equity. So in the present day,
though most excellent laws have been made, they remain buried in writing.
Meanwhile, the general and approved practice is (and it is carried on as it were
systematically), that drunkards, fornicators, gamblers, are everywhere promoted
to this honour; nay, this is little: bishoprics are the rewards of adulterers
and panders: for when they are given to hunters and hawkers, things may be
considered at the best. To excuse such unworthy procedure in any way, were to be
wicked over much. The people had a most excellent canon prescribed to them by
the word of God-viz. that a bishop must be blameless, apt to teach, not a
brawler, &c. (1 Tim. 3:2). Why, then, was the province of electing
transferred from the people to these men? Just because among the tumults and
factions of the people the word of God was not heard. And, on the other hand,
why is it not in the present day transferred from these men, who not only
violate all laws, but having cast off shame, libidinously, avariciously, and
ambitiously, mix and confound things human and divine?
3. But it is not
true to say that the thing was devised as a remedy. We read, that in old times
tumults often arose in cities at the election of bishops; yet no one ever
ventured to think of depriving the citizens of their right: for they had other
methods by which they could either prevent the fault, or correct it when
committed. I will state the matter as it truly is. When the people began to be
negligent in making their choice, and left the business, as less suited to them,
to the presbyters, these abused the opportunity to usurp a domination, which
they afterwards established by putting forth new canons. Ordination is now
nothing else than a mere mockery. For the kind of examination of which they make
a display is so empty and trifling, that it even entirely wants the semblance.
Therefore. when sovereigns, by paction with the Roman Pontiffs, obtained for
themselves the right of nominating bishops, the Church sustained no new injury,
because the canons were merely deprived of an election which they had seized
without any right, or acquired by stealth. Nothing, indeed, can be more
disgraceful, than that bishops should be sent from courts to take possession of
churches, and pious princes would do well to desist from such corruption. For
there is an impious spoliation of the Church whenever any people have a bishop
intruded whom they have not asked, or at least freely approved. But that
disorderly practice, which long existed in churches, gave occasion to sovereigns
to assume to themselves the presentation of bishops. They wished the benefice to
belong to themselves, rather than to those who had no better right to it, and
who equally abused it.
4. Such is the famous call, on account of which
bishops boast that they are the successors of the apostles. They say, moreover,
that they alone can competently appoint presbyters. But herein they most
shamefully corrupt the ancient institution, that they by their ordination
appoint not presbyters to guide and feed the people, but priests to sacrifice.
In like manner, when they consecrate deacons, they pay no regard to their true
and proper office, but only ordain to certain ceremonies concerning the cup and
patent. But in the Council of Chalcedon it was, on the contrary, decreed that
there should be no absolute ordinations, that is, ordinations without assigning
to the ordained a place where they were to exercise their office. This decree is
most useful for two reasons-first, That churches may not be burdened with
superfluous expense, nor idle men receive what ought to be distributed to the
poor; and, secondly, That those who are ordained may consider that they are not
promoted merely to an honorary office, but intrusted with a duty which they are
solemnly bound to discharge. But the Roman authorities (who think that nothing
is to be cared for in religion but their belly) consider the first title to be a
revenue adequate to their support, whether it be from their own patrimony or
from the priesthood. Accordingly, when they ordain presbyters or deacons,
without any anxiety as to where they ought to minister, they confer the order,
provided those ordained are sufficiently rich to support themselves. But what
man can admit that the title which the decree of the council requires is an
annual revenue for sustenance? Again, when more recent canons made bishops
liable in the support of those whom they had ordained without a fit title, that
they might thus repress too great facility, a method was devised of eluding the
penalty. For he who is ordained promises that whatever be the title named he
will be contented with it. In this way he is precluded from an action for
aliment. I say nothing of the thousand frauds which are here committed, as when
some falsely claim the empty titles of benefices, from which they cannot obtain
a sixpence of revenue, and others by secret stipulation obtain a temporary
appointment, which they promise that they will immediately restore, but
sometimes do not. There are still more mysteries of the same kind.
5.
But although these grosser abuses were removed, is it not at all times absurd to
appoint a presbyter without assigning him a locality? For when they ordain it is
only to sacrifice. But the legitimate ordination of a presbyter is to the
government of the Church, while deacons are called to the charge of alms. It is
true, many pompous ceremonies are used to disguise the act, that mere show may
excite veneration in the simple; but what effect can these semblances have upon
men of sound minds, when beneath them there is nothing solid or true? They used
ceremonies either borrowed from Judaism or devised by themselves; from these it
were better if they would abstain. Of the trial (for it is unnecessary to say
anything of the shadow which they retain), of the consent of the people, of
other necessary things, there is no mention. By shadow, I mean those ridiculous
gesticulations framed in inept and frigid imitation of antiquity. The bishops
have their vicars, who, previous to ordination, inquire into doctrine. But what
is the inquiry? Is it whether they are able to read their Missals, or whether
they can decline some common noun which occurs in the lesson, or conjugate a
verb, or give the meaning of some one word? For it is not necessary to give the
sense of a single sentence. And yet even those who are deficient in these
puerile elements are not repelled, provided they bring the recommendation of
money or influence. Of the same nature is the question which is thrice put in an
unintelligible voice, when the persons who are to be ordained are brought to the
altar-viz. Are they worthy of the honour? One (who never saw them, but has his
part in the play, that no form may be wanting) answers, They are
worthy.54[7] What can you accuse in
these venerable fathers save that, by indulging in such sacrilegious sport, they
shamelessly laugh at God and man? But as they have long been in possession of
the thing, they think they have now a legal title to it. For any one who
ventures to open his lips against these palpable and flagrant iniquities is
hurried off to a capital trial, like one who had in old time divulged the
mysteries of Ceres. Would they act thus if they had any belief in a God?
6. Then in the collation of benefices (which was formerly conjoined with
ordination, but is now altogether separate), how much better do they conduct
themselves? But they have many reasons to give, for it is not bishops alone who
confer the office of priests (and even in their case, where they are called
Collators, they have not always the full right), but others have the
presentation, while they only retain the honorary title of collations. To these
are added nominations from schools, resignations, either simple or by way of
exchange, commendatory rescripts, preventions, and the like. But they all
conduct themselves in such a way that one cannot upbraid another. I maintain
that, in the Papacy in the present day, scarcely one benefice in a hundred is
conferred without simony, as the ancients have defined it (Calv. in Art. 8:21).
I say not that all purchase for a certain sum; but show me one in twenty who
does not attain to the priesthood by some sinister method. Some owe their
promotion to kindred or affinity, others to the influence of their parents,
while others procure favour by obsequiousness. In short, the end for which the
offices are conferred is, that provision may be made not for churches, but for
those who receive them. Accordingly, they call them benefices, by which name
they sufficiently declare, that they look on them in no other light than as the
largesses by which princes either court the favour or reward the services of
their soldiers. I say nothing of the fact, that these rewards are conferred on
barbers, cooks, grooms, and dross of that sort. At present, indeed, there are no
cases in law courts which make a greater noise than those concerning sacerdotal
offices, so that you may regard them as nothing else than game set before dogs
to be hunted. Is it tolerable even to hear the name of pastors given to those
who have forced their way into the possession of a church as into an
enemy’s country? who have evicted it by forensic brawls? who have bought
it for a price? who have laboured for it by sordid sycophancy? who, while
scarcely lisping boys, have obtained it like heritage from uncles and relatives?
Sometimes even bastards obtain it from their fathers.
7. Was the
licentiousness of the people, however corrupt and lawless, ever carried to such
a height? But a more monstrous thing still is, that one man (I say not what kind
of man, but certainly one who cannot govern himself) is appointed to the charge
of five or six churches. In the courts of princes in the present day, you may
see youths who are thrice abbots, twice bishops, once archbishops. Everywhere
are Canons loaded with five, six, or seven cures, of not one of which they take
the least charge, except to draw the income. I will not object that the word of
God cries aloud against this: it has long ceased to have the least weight with
them. I will not object that many councils denounce the severest punishment
against this dishonest practice; these, too, when it suits them, they boldly
contemn. But I say that it is monstrous wickedness, altogether opposed to God,
to nature, and to ecclesiastical government, that one thief should lie brooding
over several churches, that the name of pastor should be given to one who, even
if he were willing, could not be present among his flock, and yet (such is their
impudence) they cloak these abominations with the name of church, that they may
exempt them from all blame. Nay, if you please, in these iniquities is contained
that sacred succession to which, as they boast, it is owing that the Church does
not perish.
8. Let us now see, as the second mark for estimating a
legitimate pastor, how faithfully they discharge their office. Of the priests
who are there elected, some are called monks, others seculars. The former herd
was unknown to the early Church; even to hold such a place in the Church is so
repugnant to the monastic profession, that in old times, when persons were
elected out of monasteries to clerical offices, they ceased to be monks. And,
accordingly, Gregory, though in his time there were many abuses, did not suffer
the offices to be thus confounded (Gregor. Lib. 3 Ep. 11). For he insists that
those who have been appointed abbots shall resign the clerical office, because
no one can be properly at the same time a monk and a clerk, the one being an
obstacle to the other. Now, were I to ask how he can well fulfil his office who
is declared by the canons to be unfit, what answer, pray, will they give? They
will quote those abortive decrees of Innocent and Boniface, by which monks are
admitted to the honour and power of the priesthood, though they remain in their
monasteries. But is it at all reasonable that any unlearned ass, as soon as he
has seized upon the Roman See, may by one little word overturn all antiquity?
But of this matter afterwards. Let it now suffice, that in the purer times of
the Church it was regarded as a great absurdity for a monk to hold the office of
priest. For Jerome declares that he does not the office of priest while he is
living among monks, and ranks himself as one of the people to be governed by the
priests. But to concede this to them, what duty do they perform? Some of the
mendicants preach, while all the other monks chant or mutter masses in their
cells; as if either our Saviour had wished, or the nature of the office permits,
presbyters to be made for such a purpose. When Scripture plainly testifies that
it is the duty of a presbyter to rule his own church (Acts 20:28), is it not
impious profanation to transfer it to another purpose, nay, altogether to change
the sacred institution of God? For when they are ordained, they are expressly
forbidden to do what God enjoins on all presbyters. For this is their cant, Let
a monk, contented with his cell, neither presume to administer the sacraments,
nor hold any other public office. Let them deny, if they can, that it is open
mockery of God when any one is appointed a presbyter in order to abstain from
his proper and genuine office, and when he who has the name is not able to have
the thing.
9. I come to the seculars, some of whom are (as they speak)
beneficiaries; that is, have offices by which they are maintained, while others
let out their services, day by day, to chant or say masses, and live in a manner
on a stipend thus collected. Benefices either have a cure of souls, as
bishoprics and parochial charges, or they are the stipends of delicate men, who
gain a livelihood by chanting; as prebends, canonries, parsonships, deaneries,
chaplainships, and the like; although, things being now turned upside down, the
offices of abbot and prior are not only conferred on secular presbyters, but on
boys also by privilege, that is, by common and usual custom. In regard to the
mercenaries who seek their food from day to day, what else could they do than
they actually do, in other words, prostitute themselves in an illiberal and
disgraceful manner for gain, especially from the vast multitude of them with
which the world now teems? Hence, as they dare not beg openly, or think that in
this way they would gain little, they go about like hungry dogs, and by a kind
of barking importunity extort from the unwilling what they may deposit in their
hungry stomachs. Were I here to attempt to describe how disgraceful it is to the
Church, that the honour and office of a presbyter should come to this, I should
never have done. My readers, therefore, must not expect from me a discourse
which can fully represent this flagitious indignity. I briefly say, that if it
is the office of a presbyter (and this both the word of God prescribes (1 Cor.
4:1) and the ancient canons enjoin) to feed the Church, and administer the
spiritual kingdom of Christ, all those priests who have no work or stipend, save
in the traffic of masses, not only fail in their office, but have no lawful
office to discharge. No place is given them to teach, they have no people to
govern. In short, nothing is left them but an altar on which to sacrifice
Christ; this is to sacrifice not to God but to demons, as we shall afterwards
show (see chap.18 sec. 3, 9, 14).
10. I am not here touching on
extraneous faults,54[8] but only on
the intestine evil which lies at the root of the very institution. I will add a
sentence which will sound strange in their ears, but which, as it is true, it is
right to express, that canons, deans, chaplains, provosts, and all who are
maintained in idle offices of priesthood, are to be viewed in the same light.
For what service can they perform to the Church? The preaching of the word, the
care of discipline, and the administration of the Sacraments, they have shaken
off as burdens too grievous to be borne. What then remains on which they can
plume themselves as being true presbyters? Merely chanting and pompous
ceremonies. But what is this to the point? If they allege custom, use, or the
long prescription, I, on the contrary, appeal to the definition by which our
Saviour has described true presbyters, and shown the qualities of those who are
to be regarded as presbyters. But if they cannot endure the hard law of
submitting to the rule of Christ, let them at least allow the cause to be
decided by the authority of the primitive Church. Their condition will not be
one whit improved when decided according to the ancient canons. Those who have
degenerated into Canons ought to be presbyters, as they formerly were, to rule
the Church in common with the bishop, and be, as it were, his colleagues in the
pastoral office. What they call deaneries of the chapter have no concern with
the true government of the Church, much less chaplainships and other similar
worthless names. In what light then are they all to be regarded? Assuredly, both
the word of Christ and the practice of the primitive Church exclude them from
the honour of presbyters. They maintain, however, that they are presbyters; but
we must unmask them, and we shall find that their whole profession is most alien
from the office of presbyters, as that office is described to us by the
apostles, and was discharged in the primitive Church. All such offices,
therefore, by whatever titles they are distinguished, as they are novelties, and
certainly not supported either by the institution of God or the ancient practice
of the Church, ought to have no place in a description of that spiritual
government which the Church received, and was consecrated by the mouth of the
Lord himself. Or (if they would have me express it in ruder and coarser terms),
since chaplains, canons, deans, provosts, and such like lazy-bellies, do not
even, with one finger, touch a particle of the office, which is necessarily
required in presbyters, they must not be permitted falsely to usurp the honour,
and thereby violate the holy institution of Christ.
11. There still
remain bishops and rectors of parishes; and I wish that they would contend for
the maintenance of their office. I would willingly grant that they have a pious
and excellent office if they would discharge it; but when they desert the
churches committed to them, and throwing the care upon others, would still be
considered pastors, they just act as if the office of pastor were to do nothing.
If any usurer, who never stirs from the city, were to give himself out as a
ploughman or vine-dresser; or a soldier, who has constantly been in the field or
the camp, and has never seen books or the forum, to pass for a lawyer, who could
tolerate the absurdity? Much more absurdly do those act who would be called and
deemed lawful pastors of the Church, and are unwilling so to be. How few are
those who in appearance even take the superintendence of their church? Many
spend their lives in devouring the revenues of churches which they never visit
even for the purpose of inspection. Some once a-year go themselves or send a
steward, that nothing may be lost in the letting of them. When the corruption
first crept in, those who wished to enjoy this kind of vacation pleaded
privilege, but it is now a rare case for any one to reside in his church. They
look upon them merely in the light of farms, over which they appoint their
vicars as grieves or husbandmen. But it is repugnant to common sense to regard
him as a shepherd who has never seen a sheep of his flock.
12. It
appears that in the time of Gregory some of the seeds of this corruption
existed, the rulers of churches having begun to be more negligent in teaching;
for he thus bitterly complains: “The world is full of priests, and yet
labourers in the harvest are rare, for we indeed undertake the office of the
priesthood, but we perform not the work of the office” (Gregor. Hom. 17).
Again, “As they have no bowels of love, they would be thought lords, but
do not at all acknowledge themselves to be fathers. They change a post of
humility into the elevation of ascendancy.” Again, “But we, O
pastors! what are we doing, we who obtain the hire but are not labourers? We
have fallen off to extraneous business; we undertake one thing, we perform
another; we leave the ministry of the word, and, to our punishment, as I see,
are called bishops, holding the honour of the name, not the power.” Since
he uses such bitterness of expression against those who were only less diligent
or sedulous in their office, what, pray, would he have said if he had seen that
very few bishops, if any at all, and scarcely one in a hundred of the other
clergy, mounted the pulpit once in their whole lifetime? For to such a degree of
infatuation have men come, that it is thought beneath the episcopal dignity to
preach a sermon to the people. In the time of Bernard things had become still
worse. Accordingly, we see how bitterly he inveighs against the whole order, and
yet there is reason to believe that matters were then in a much better state
than now.
13. Whoever will duly examine and weigh the whole form of
ecclesiastical government as now existing in the Papacy, will find that there is
no kind of spoliation in which robbers act more licentiously, without law or
measure. Certainly all things are so unlike, nay, so opposed to the institution
of Christ, have so degenerated from the ancient customs and practices of the
Church, are so repugnant to nature and reason, that a greater injury cannot be
done to Christ than to use his name in defending this disorderly rule. We (say
they) are the pillars of the Church, the priests of religion, the vicegerents of
Christ, the heads of the faithful, because the apostolic authority has come to
us by succession. As if they were speaking to stocks, they perpetually plume
themselves on these absurdities. Whenever they make such boasts, I, in my turn,
will ask, What have they in common with the apostles? We are not now treating of
some hereditary honour which can come to men while they are asleep, but of the
office of preaching, which they so greatly shun. In like manner, when we
maintain that their kingdom is the tyranny of Antichrist, they immediately
object that their venerable hierarchy has often been extolled by great and holy
men, as if the holy fathers, when they commended the ecclesiastical hierarchy or
spiritual government handed down to them by the apostles, ever dreamed of that
shapeless and dreary chaos where bishoprics are held for the most part by
ignorant asses, who do not even know the first and ordinary rudiments of the
faith, or occasionally by boys who have just left their nurse; or if any are
more learned (this, however, is a rare case), they regard the episcopal office
as nothing else than a title of magnificence and splendour; where the rectors of
churches no more think of feeding the flock than a cobbler does of ploughing,
where all things are so confounded by a confusion worse than that of Babel, that
no genuine trace of paternal government is any longer to be seen.
14.
But if we descend to conduct, where is that light of the world which Christ
requires, where the salt of the earth, where that sanctity which might operate
as a perpetual censorship? In the present day, there is no order of men more
notorious for luxury, effeminacy, delicacy, and all kinds of licentiousness; in
no order are more apt or skilful teachers of imposture, fraud, treachery, and
perfidy; nowhere is there more skill or audacity in mischief, to say nothing of
ostentation, pride, rapacity, and cruelty. In bearing these the world is so
disgusted, that there is no fear lest I seem to exaggerate. One thing I say,
which even they themselves will not be able to deny: Among bishops there is
scarcely an individual, and among the parochial clergy not one in a hundred,
who, if sentence were passed on his conduct according to the ancient canons,
would not deserve to be excommunicated, or at least deposed from his office. I
seem to say what is almost incredible, so completely has that ancient discipline
which enjoined strict censure of the morals of the clergy become obsolete; but
such the fact really is. Let those who serve under the banner and auspices of
the Romish See now go and boast of their sacerdotal order. It is certain that
that which they have is neither from Christ, nor his apostles, nor the fathers,
nor the early Church.
15. Let the deacons now come forward and show
their most sacred distribution of ecclesiastical goods (see chap. 19 sec. 32).
Although their deacons are not at all elected for that purpose, for the only
injunction which they lay upon them is to minister at the altar, to read the
Gospel, or chant and perform I know not what frivolous acts. Nothing is said of
alms, nothing of the care of the poor, nothing at all of the function which they
formerly performed. I am speaking of the institution itself; for if we look to
what they do, theirs, in fact, is no office, but only a step to the priesthood.
In one thing, those who hold the place of deacons in the mass exhibit an empty
image of antiquity, for they receive the offerings previous to consecration.
Now, the ancient practice was, that before the communion of the Supper the
faithful mutually kissed each other, and offered alms at the altar; thus
declaring their love, first by symbol, and afterwards by an act of beneficence.
The deacon, who was steward of the poor, received what was given that he might
distribute it. Now, of these alms no more comes to the poor than if they were
cast into the sea. They, therefore, delude the Church by that lying deaconship.
Assuredly in this they have nothing resembling the apostolical institution or
the ancient practice. The very distribution of goods they have transferred
elsewhere, and have so settled it that nothing can be imagined more disorderly.
For as robbers, after murdering their victims, divide the plunder, so these men,
after extinguishing the light of God’s word, as if they had murdered the
Church, have imagined that whatever had been dedicated to pious uses was set
down for prey and plunder. Accordingly, they have made a division, each seizing
for himself as much as he could.
16. All those ancient methods which we
have explained are not only disturbed but altogether disguised and expunged. The
chief part of the plunder has gone to bishops and city presbyters, who, having
thus enriched themselves, have been converted into canons. That the partition
was a mere scramble is apparent from this, that even to this day they are
litigating as to the proportions. Be this as it may, the decision has provided
that out of all the goods of the Church not one penny shall go to the poor, to
whom at least the half belonged. The canons expressly assign a fourth part to
them, while the other fourth they destine to the bishops, that they may expend
it in hospitality and other offices of kindness. I say nothing as to what the
clergy ought to do with their portion, or the use to which they ought to apply
it, for it has been clearly shown that what is set apart for churches,
buildings, and other expenditure, ought in necessity to be given to the poor. If
they had one spark of the fear of God in their heart, could they, I ask, bear
the consciousness that all their food and clothing is the produce of theft, nay,
of sacrilege? But as they are little moved by the judgment of God, they should
at least reflect that those whom they would persuade that the orders of their
Church are so beautiful and well arranged as they are wont to boast, are men
endued with sense and reason. Let them briefly answer whether the diaconate is a
licence to rob and steal. If they deny this, they will be forced to confess that
no diaconate remains among them, since the whole administration of their
ecclesiastical resources has been openly converted into sacrilegious
depredation.
17. But here they use a very fair gloss, for they say that
the dignity of the Church is not unbecomingly maintained by this magnificence.
And certain of their sect are so impudent as to dare openly to boast that thus
only are fulfilled the prophecies, in which the ancient prophets describe the
splendour of Christ’s kingdom, where the sacerdotal order is exhibited in
royal attire, that it was not without cause that God made the following promises
to his Church: “All kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall
serve him” (Ps. 72:11). “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Sion;
put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city” (Isa. 52:1).
“All they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense, and
they shall show forth the praises of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be
gathered together unto thee” (Isa. 60:6, 7). I fear I should seem childish
were I to dwell long in refuting this dishonesty. I am unwilling, therefore, to
use words unnecessarily; I ask, however, were any Jew to misapply these
passages, what answer would they give? They would rebuke his stupidity in making
a carnal and worldly application of things spiritually said of Christ’s
spiritual kingdom. For we know that under the image of earthly objects the
prophets have delineated to us the heavenly glory which ought to shine in the
Church. For in those blessings with these words literally express, the Church
never less abounded than under the apostles; and yet all admit that the power of
Christ’s kingdom was then most flourishing. What, then, is the meaning of
the above passages? That everything which is precious, sublime, and illustrious,
ought to be made subject to the Lord. As to its being said expressly of kings,
that they will submit to Christ, that they will throw their diadems at his feet,
that they will dedicate their resources to the Church, when was this more truly
and fully manifested than when Theodosius, having thrown aside the purple and
left the insignia of empire, like one of the people humbled himself before God
and the Church in solemn repentance? than when he and other like pious princes
made it their study and their care to preserve pure doctrine in the Church, to
cherish and protect sound teachers? But that priests did not then luxuriate in
superfluous wealth is sufficiently declared by this one sentence of the Counci1
of Aquileia, over which Ambrose presided, “Poverty in the priests of
the Lord is glorious.” It is certain that the bishops then had some
means by which they might have rendered the glory of the Church conspicuous, if
they had deemed them the true ornaments of the Church. But knowing that nothing
was more adverse to the duty of pastors than to plume themselves on the
delicacies of the table, on splendid clothes, numerous attendants, and
magnificent places, they cultivated and followed the humility and modesty, nay,
the very poverty, which Christ has consecrated among his servants.
18.
But not to be tedious, let us again briefly sum up and show how far that
distribution, or rather squandering, of ecclesiastical goods which now exists
differs from the true diaconate, which both the word of God recommends and the
ancient Church observed (Book 1 chap. 11. sec. 7, 13; Book 3 chap. 20 sec. 30;
supra, chap. 4 sec. 8). I say, that what is employed on the adorning of
churches is improperly laid out, if not accompanied with that moderation which
the very nature of sacred things prescribes, and which the apostles and other
holy fathers prescribed, both by precept and example. But is anything like this
seen in churches in the present day? Whatever accords, I do not say with that
ancient frugality, but with decent mediocrity, is rejected. Nought pleases but
what savours of luxury and the corruption of the times. Meanwhile, so far are
they from taking due care of living temples, that they would allow thousands of
the poor to perish sooner than break down the smallest cup or platter to relieve
their necessity. That I may not decide too severely at my own hand, I would only
ask the pious reader to consider what Exuperius, the Bishop of Thoulouse, whom
we have mentioned, what Acatius, or Ambrose, or any one like minded, if they
were to rise from the dead, would say? Certainly, while the necessities of the
poor are so great, they would not approve of their funds being carried away from
them as superfluous; not to mention that, even were there no poor, the uses to
which they are applied are noxious in many respects and useful in none. But I
appeal not to men. These goods have been dedicated to Christ, and ought to be
distributed at his pleasure. In vain, however, will they make that to be
expenditure for Christ which they have squandered contrary to his commands,
though, to confess the truth, the ordinary revenue of the Church is not much
curtailed by these expenses. No bishoprics are so opulent, no abbacies so
productive, in short, no benefices so numerous and ample, as to suffice for the
gluttony of priests. But while they would spare themselves, they induce the
people by superstition to employ what ought to have been distributed to the poor
in building temples, erecting statues, buying plate, and providing costly
garments. Thus the daily alms are swallowed up in this abyss.
19. Of the
revenue which they derive from lands and property, what else can I say than what
I have already said, and is manifest before the eyes of all? We see with what
kind of fidelity the greatest portion is administered by those who are called
bishops and abbots. What madness is it to seek ecclesiastical order here? Is it
becoming in those whose life ought to have been a singular example of frugality,
modesty, continence, and humility, to rival princes in the number of their
attendants, the splendour of their dwellings, the delicacies of dressing and
feasting? Can anything be more contrary to the duty of those whom the eternal
and inviolable edict of God forbids to long for filthy lucre, and orders to be
contented with simple food, not only to lay hands on villages and castles, but
also invade the largest provinces, and even seize on empire itself? If they
despise the word of God, what answer will they give to the ancient canons of
councils, which decree that the bishop shall have a little dwelling not far from
the church, a frugal table and furniture? (Conc. Carth. cap. 14, 15). What
answer will they give to the declaration of the Council of Aquileia, in which
poverty in the priests of the Lord is pronounced glorious? For, the injunction
which Jerome gives to Nepotian, to make the poor and strangers acquainted with
his table, and have Christ with them as a guest, they would, perhaps, repudiate
as too austere. What he immediately adds it would shame them to acknowledge-viz.
that the glory of a bishop is to provide for the sustenance of the poor, that
the disgrace of all priests is to study their own riches. This they cannot admit
without covering themselves with disgrace. But it is unnecessary here to press
them so hard, since all we wished was to demonstrate that the legitimate order
of deacons has long ago been abolished, and that they can no longer plume
themselves on this order in commendation of their Church. This, I think, has
been completely established.
CHAPTER
6.
OF THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMISH
SEE.
The divisions of this chapter are,-I. Question stated, and an
argument for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff drawn from the Old Testament
refuted, sec. 1, 2. II. Reply to various arguments in support of the Papacy
founded on the words, “Thou art Peter,” &c., sec. 3-17.
Sections.
1. Brief recapitulation. Why the subject of
primacy not yet mentioned. Represented by Papists as the bond of ecclesiastical
unity. Setting out with this axiom, they begin to debate about their hierarchy.
2. Question stated. An attempted proof from the office of High Priest
among the Jews. Two answers.
3. Arguments for primacy from the New
Testament. Two answers.
4. Another answer. The keys given to the other
apostles as well as to Peter. Other two arguments answered by passages of
Cyprian and Augustine.
5. Another argument answered.
6. Answer
to the argument that the Church is founded on Peter, from its being said,
“Upon this rock I will build my Church.”
7. Answer
confirmed by passages of Scripture.
8. Even allowing Peter’s
superiority in some respect, this is no proof of the primacy of the Roman
Pontiff. Other arguments answered.
9. Distinction between civil and
ecclesiastical government. Christ alone the Head of the Church. Argument that
there is still a ministerial head answered.
10. Paul, in giving a
representation of the Church, makes no mention of this ministerial head.
11. Even though Peter were ministerial head, it does not follow that
the Pope is so also. Argument founded on Paul’s having lived and died at
Rome.
12. On the hypothesis of the Papists, the primacy belongs to the
Church of Antioch.
13. Absurdity of the Popish hypothesis.
14.
Peter was not the Bishop of Rome.
15. Same subject continued.
16. Argument that the unity of the Church cannot be maintained without
a supreme head on earth. Answer, stating three reasons why great respect was
paid in early times to the See of Rome.
17. Opinion of early times on
the subject of the unity of the Church. No primacy attributed to the Church of
Rome. Christ alone regarded as the Head of the Universal Church.
1.
HITHERTO we have reviewed those ecclesiastical orders which existed in the
government of the primitive Church; but afterwards corrupted by time, and
thereafter more and more vitiated, now only retain the name in the Papal Church,
and are, in fact, nothing but mere masks, so that the contrast will enable the
pious reader to judge what kind of Church that is, for revolting from which we
are charged with schism. But, on the head and crown of the whole matter, I mean
the primacy of the Roman See, from which they undertake to prove that the
Catholic Church is to be found only with
them,54[9] we have not yet touched,
because it did not take its origin either in the institution of Christ, or the
practice of the early Church, as did those other parts, in regard to which we
have shown, that though they were ancient in their origin, they in process of
time altogether degenerated, nay, assumed an entirely new form. And yet they
endeavour to persuade the world that the chief and only bond of ecclesiastical
unity is to adhere to the Roman See, and continue in subjection to it. I say,
the prop on which they chiefly lean, when they would deprive us of the Church,
and arrogate it to themselves, is, that they retain the head on which the unity
of the Church depends, and without which it must necessarily be rent and go to
pieces. For they regard the Church as a kind of mutilated trunk if it be not
subject to the Romish See as its head. Accordingly, when they debate about their
hierarchy they always set out with the axiom: The Roman Pontiff (as the vicar of
Christ, who is the Head of the Church) presides in his stead over the universal
Church, and the Church is not rightly constituted unless that See hold the
primacy over all others. The nature of this claim must, therefore, be
considered, that we may not omit anything which pertains to the proper
government of the Church.
2. The question, then, may be thus stated, Is
it necessary for the true order of the hierarchy (as they term it), or of
ecclesiastical order, that one See should surpass the others in dignity and
power, so as to be the head of the whole body? We subject the Church to unjust
laws if we lay this necessity upon her without sanction from the word of God.
Therefore, if our opponents would prove what they maintain, it behoves them
first of all to show that this economy was instituted by Christ. For this
purpose, they refer to the office of high priest under the law, and the supreme
jurisdiction which God appointed at
Jerusalem.55[0] But the solution is
easy, and it is manifold if one does not satisfy them. First, no reason obliges
us to extend what was useful in one nation to the whole world; nay, the cases of
one nation and of the whole world are widely different. Because the Jews were
hemmed in on every side by idolaters, God fixed the seat of his worship in the
central region of the earth, that they might not be distracted by a variety of
religions; there he appointed one priest to whom they might all look up, that
they might be the better kept in unity. But now when the true religion has been
diffused over the whole globe, who sees not that it is altogether absurd to give
the government of East and West to one individual? It is just as if one were to
contend that the whole world ought to be governed by one prefect, because one
district has not several
prefects.55[1] But there is still
another reason why that institution ought not to be drawn into a precedent.
Every one knows that the high priest was a type of Christ; now, the priesthood
being transferred, that right must also be transferred. To whom, then, was it
transferred? certainly not to the Pope, as he dares impudently to boast when he
arrogates this title to himself, but to Christ, who, as he alone holds the
office without vicar or successor, does not resign the honour to any other. For
this priesthood consists not in doctrine only, but in the propitiation which
Christ made by his death, and the intercession which he now makes with the
Father (Heb. 7:11).
3. That example, therefore, which is seen to have
been temporary, they have no right to bind upon us as by a perpetual law. In the
New Testament there is nothing which they can produce in confirmation of their
opinion, but its having been said to one, “Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16:18). Again, “Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me?” “Feed my lambs” (John 21:15). But to
give strength to these proofs, they must, in the first place, show, that to him
who is ordered to feed the flock of Christ power is given over all churches, and
that to bind and loose is nothing else than to preside over the whole world. But
as Peter had received a command from the Lord, so he exhorts all other
presbyters to feed the Church (1 Pet. 5:2). Hence we are entitled to infer,
that, by that expression of Christ, nothing more was given to Peter than to the
others, or that the right which Peter had received he communicated equally to
others. But not to argue to no purpose, we elsewhere have, from the lips of
Christ himself, a clear exposition of what it is to bind and loose. It is just
to retain and remit sins (John 10:23). The mode of loosing and binding is
explained throughout Scripture: but especially in that passage in which Paul
declares that the ministers of the Gospel are commissioned to reconcile men to
God, and at the same time to exercise discipline over those who reject the
benefit (2 Cor. 5:18; 10:16).
4. How unbecomingly they wrest the
passages of binding and loosing I have elsewhere glanced at, and will in a short
time more fully explain. It may now be worth while merely to see what they can
extract from our Saviour’s celebrated answer to Peter. He promised him the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and said, that whatever things he bound on earth
should be bound in heaven (Mt. 16:19). The moment we are agreed as to the
meaning of the keys, and the mode of binding, all dispute will cease. For the
Pope will willingly omit that office assigned to the apostles, which, full of
labour and toil, would interfere with his luxuries without giving any gain.
Since heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, it is by an elegant
metaphor distinguished by the name of keys. Again, the only mode in which
men are bound and loosed is, in the latter case, when they are reconciled to God
by faith, and in the former, more strictly bound by unbelief. Were this all that
the Pope arrogated to himself, I believe there would be none to envy him or stir
the question. But because this laborious and very far from lucrative succession
is by no means pleasing to the Pope, the dispute immediately arises as to what
it was that Christ promised to Peter. From the very nature of the case, I infer
that nothing more is denoted than the dignity which cannot be separated from the
burden of the apostolic office. For, admitting the definition which I have given
(and it cannot without effrontery be rejected), nothing is here given to Peter
that was not common to him with his colleagues. On any other view, not only
would injustice be done to their persons, but the very majesty of the doctrine
would be impaired. They object; but what, pray, is gained by striking against
this stone? The utmost they can make out is, that as the preaching of the same
gospel was enjoined on all the apostles, so the power of binding and loosing was
bestowed upon them in common. Christ (they say) constituted Peter prince of the
whole Church when he promised to give him the keys. But what he then promised to
one he elsewhere delivers, and as it were hands over, to all the rest. If the
same right, which was promised to one, is bestowed upon all, in what respect is
that one superior to his colleagues? He excels (they say) in this, that he
receives both in common, and by himself, what is given to the others in common
only. What if I should answer with Cyprian, and Augustine, that Christ did not
do this to prefer one to the other, but in order to commend the unity of his
Church? For Cyprian thus speaks: “In the person of one man he gave the
keys to all, that he might denote the unity of all; the rest, therefore, were
the same that Peter was, being admitted to an equal participation of honour and
power, but a beginning is made from unity that the Church of Christ may be shown
to be one” (Cyprian, de Simplic. PrÊlat.). Augustine’s words
are, “Had not the mystery of the Church been in Peter, our Lord would not
have said to him, I will give thee the keys. For if this was said to Peter, the
Church has them not; but if the Church has them, then when Peter received the
keys he represented the whole Church” (August. Hom. in Joann. 50). Again,
“All were asked, but Peter alone answers, Thou art the Christ; and it is
said to him, I will give thee the keys; as if he alone had received the power of
loosing and binding; whereas he both spoke for all, and received in common with
all, being, as it were, the representative of unity. One received for all,
because there is unity in all” (Hom. 124).
5. But we nowhere read
of its being said to any other, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church”! (Mt. 16:18); as if Christ then affirmed anything else of
Peter, than Paul and Peter himself affirm of all Christians (Eph. 2:20; 1 Peter
2:5). The former describes Christ as the chief corner-stone, on whom are built
all who grow up into a holy temple in the Lord; the latter describes us as
living stones who are founded on that elect and precious stone, and being so
joined and compacted, are united to our God, and to each other. Peter (they say)
is above others, because the name was specially given to him. I willingly
concede to Peter the honour of being placed among the first in the building of
the Church, or (if they prefer it) of being the first among the faithful; but I
will not allow them to infer from this that he has a primacy over others. For
what kind of inference is this? Peter surpasses others in fervid zeal, in
doctrine, in magnanimity; therefore, he has power over them: as if we might not
with greater plausibility infer, that Andrew is prior to Peter in order, because
he preceded him in time, and brought him to Christ (John 1:40, 42); but this I
omit. Let Peter have the preeminence, still there is a great difference between
the honour of rank and the possession of power. We see that the Apostles usually
left it to Peter to address the meeting, and in some measure take precedence in
relating, exhorting, admonishing, but we nowhere read anything at all of power.
6. Though we are not yet come to that part of the discussion, I would
merely observe at present, how futilely those argue who, out of the mere name of
Peter, would rear up a governing power over the whole Church. For the ancient
quibble which they at first used to give a colour-viz. The Church is founded
upon Peter, because it is said, “On this rock,” &c.-is
undeserving of notice, not to say of refutation. Some of the Fathers so
expounded!55[2] But when the whole
of Scripture is repugnant to the exposition, why is their authority brought
forward in opposition to God? nay, why do we contend about the meaning of these
words, as if it were obscure or ambiguous, when nothing can be more clear and
certain? Peter had confessed in his own name, and that of his brethren, that
Christ was the Son of God (Mt. 16:16). On this rock Christ builds his Church,
because it is the only foundation; as Paul says, “Other foundation than
this can no man lay” (1 Cor. 3:11). Therefore, I do not here repudiate the
authority of the Fathers, because I am destitute of passages from them to prove
what I say, were I disposed to quote them; but as I have observed, I am
unwilling to annoy my readers by debating so clear a matter, especially since
the subject has long ago been fully handled and expounded by our writers.
7. And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than
Scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what office and
power Peter held among the apostles, how he acted among them, how he was
received by them (Acts 15:7). Run over all these passages, and the utmost you
will find is, that Peter was one of twelve, their equal and colleague, not their
master. He indeed brings the matter before the council when anything is to be
done, and advises as to what is necessary, but he, at the same time, listens to
the others, not only conceding to them an opportunity of expressing their
sentiments, but allowing them to decide; and when they have decided, he follows
and obeys. When he writes to pastors, he does not command authoritatively as a
superior, but makes them his colleagues, and courteously advises as equals are
wont to do (1 Pet. 5:1). When he is accused of having gone in to the Gentiles,
though the accusation is unfounded, he replies to it, and clears himself (Acts
11:3). Being ordered by his colleagues to go with John into Samaria, he declines
not (Acts 8:14). The apostles, by sending him, declare that they by no means
regard him as a superior, while he, by obeying and undertaking the embassy
committed to him, confesses that he is associated with them, and has no
authority over them. But if none of these facts existed, the one Epistle to the
Galatians would easily remove all doubt, there being almost two chapters in
which the whole for which Paul contends is, that in regard to the honour of the
apostleship, he is the equal of Peter (Gal. 1:18; 2:8). Hence he states, that he
went to Peter, not to acknowledge subjection, but only to make their agreement
in doctrine manifest to all; that Peter himself asked no acknowledgment of the
kind, but gave him the right hand of fellowship, that they might be common
labourers in the vineyard; that not less grace was bestowed on him among the
Gentiles than on Peter among the Jews: in fine, that Peter, when he was not
acting with strict fidelity, was rebuked by him, and submitted to the rebuke
(Gal. 2:11). All these things make it manifest, either that there was an
equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter had no more authority
over the rest than they had over him. This point, as I have said, Paul handles
professedly, in order that no one might give a preference over him, in respect
of apostleship, to Peter or John, who were colleagues, not masters.
8.
But were I to concede to them what they ask with regard to Peter-viz. that he
was the chief of the apostles, and surpassed the others in dignity-there is no
ground for making a universal rule out of a special example, or wresting a
single fact into a perpetual enactment, seeing that the two things are widely
different. One was chief among the apostles, just because they were few in
number. If one man presided over twelve, will it follow that one ought to
preside over a hundred thousand? That twelve had one among them to direct all is
nothing strange. Nature admits, the human mind requires, that in every meeting,
though all are equal in power, there should be one as a kind of moderator to
whom the others should look up. There is no senate without a consul, no bench of
judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a provost, no
company without a master. Thus there would be no absurdity were we to confess
that the apostles had conferred such a primacy on Peter. But an arrangement
which is effectual among a few must not be forthwith transferred to the whole
world, which no one man is able to govern. But (say they) it is observed that
not less in nature as a whole, than in each of its parts, there is one supreme
head. Proof of this it pleases them to derive from cranes and bees, which always
place themselves under the guidance of one, not of several. I admit the examples
which they produce; but do bees flock together from all parts of the world to
choose one queen? Each queen is contented with her own hive. So among cranes,
each flock has its own king. What can they prove from this, except that each
church ought to have its bishop? They refer us to the examples of states,
quoting from Homer, ?????????????????????????, “a many-headed rule is not
good;” and other "passages to the same effect from heathen writers in
commendation of monarchy. The answer is easy. Monarchy is not lauded by
Homer’s Ulysses, or by others, as if one individual ought to govern the
whole world; but they mean to intimate that one kingdom does not admit of two
kings, and that empire, as one expresses it (Lucan. Lib. 1), cannot bear a
partner.
9. Be it, however, as they will have it (though the thing is
most absurd; be it), that it were good and useful for the whole world to be
under one monarchy, I will not, therefore, admit that the same thing should take
effect in the government of the Church. Her only Head is Christ, under whose
government we are all united to each other, according to that order and form of
policy which he himself has prescribed. Wherefore they offer an egregious insult
to Christ, when under this pretext they would have one man to preside over the
whole Church, seeing the Church can never be without a head, “even Christ,
from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which
every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
every part, maketh increase of the body” (Eph. 4:15, 16). See how all men,
without exception, are placed in the body, while the honour and name of Head is
left to Christ alone. See how to each member is assigned a certain measure, a
finite and limited function, while both the perfection of grace and the supreme
power of government reside only in Christ. I am not unaware of the cavilling
objection which they are wont to urge-viz. that Christ is properly called the
only Head, because he alone reigns by his own authority and in his own name; but
that there is nothing in this to prevent what they call another
ministerial head from being under him, and acting as his substitute. But
this cavil cannot avail them, until they previously show that this office was
ordained by Christ. For the apostle teaches, that the whole subministration is
diffused through the members, while the power flows from one celestial
Head;55[9] or, if they will have it
more plainly, since Scripture testifies that Christ is Head, and claims this
honour for himself alone, it ought not to be transferred to any other than him
whom Christ himself has made his vicegerent. But not only is there no passage to
this effect, but it can be amply refuted by many passages.
10. Paul
sometimes depicts a living image of the Church, but makes no mention of a single
head. On the contrary, we may infer from his description, that it is foreign to
the institution of Christ. Christ, by his ascension, took away his visible
presence from us, and yet he ascended that he might fill all things: now,
therefore, he is present in the Church, and always will be. When Paul would show
the mode in which he exhibits himself, he calls our attention to the ministerial
offices which he employs: “Unto every one of us is given grace according
to the measure of the gift of Christ;” “And he gave some, apostles;
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers.”55[4] Why does he
not say, that one presided over all to act as his substitute? The passage
particularly required this, and it ought not on any account to have been omitted
if it had been true. Christ, he says, is present with us. How? By the ministry
of men whom he appointed over the government of the Church. Why not rather by a
ministerial head whom he appointed his substitute? He speaks of unity, but it is
in God and in the faith of Christ. He attributes nothing to men but a common
ministry, and a special mode to each. Why, when thus commending unity, does he
not, after saying, “one body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one
hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4),
immediately add, one Supreme Pontiff to keep the Church in unity? Nothing could
have been said more aptly if the case had really been so. Let that passage be
diligently pondered, and there will be no doubt that Paul there meant to give a
complete representation of that sacred and ecclesiastical government to which
posterity have given the name of hierarchy. Not only does he not place a
monarchy among ministers, but even intimates that there is none. There can also
be no doubt, that he meant to express the mode of connection by which believers
unite with Christ the Head. There he not only makes no mention of a ministerial
head, but attributes a particular operation to each of the members, according to
the measure of grace distributed to each. Nor is there any ground for subtle
philosophical comparisons between the celestial and the earthly hierarchy. For
it is not safe to be wise above measure with regard to the former, and in
constituting the latter, the only type which it behoves us to follow is that
which our Lord himself has delineated in his own word.
11. I will now
make them another concession, which they will never obtain from men of sound
mind-viz. that the primacy of the Church was fixed in Peter, with the view of
remaining for ever by perpetual succession. Still how will they prove that his
See was so fixed at Rome, that whosoever becomes Bishop of that city is to
preside over the whole world? By what authority do they annex this dignity to a
particular place, when it was given without any mention of place? Peter, they
say, lived and died at Rome. What did Christ himself do? Did he not discharge
his episcopate while he lived, and complete the office of the priesthood by
dying at Jerusalem? The Prince of pastors, the chief Shepherd, the Head of the
Church, could not procure honour for a place, and Peter, so far his inferior,
could! Is not this worse than childish trifling? Christ conferred the honour of
primacy on Peter. Peter had his See at Rome, therefore he fixed the seat of the
primacy there. In this way the Israelites of old must have placed the seat of
the primacy in the wilderness, where Moses, the chief teacher and prince of
prophets, discharged his ministry and died.
12. Let us see, however, how
admirably they reason. Peter, they say, had the first place among the apostles;
therefore, the church in which he sat ought to have the privilege. But where did
he first sit? At Antioch, they say. Therefore, the church of Antioch justly
claims the primacy. They acknowledge that she was once the first, but that
Peter, by removing from it, transferred the honour which he had brought with him
to Rome. For there is extant, under the name of Pope Marcellus, a letter to the
presbyters of Antioch, in which he says, “The See of Peter, at the outset,
was with you, and was afterwards, by the order of the Lord, translated
hither.” Thus the church of Antioch, which was once the first, yielded to
the See of Rome. But by what oracle did that good man learn that the Lord had so
ordered? For if the question is to be determined in regular form, they must say
whether they hold the privilege to be personal, or real, or mixed. One of the
three it must be. If they say personal, then it has nothing to do with place; if
real, then when once given to a place it is not lost by the death or departure
of the person. It remains that they must hold it to be mixed; then the mere
consideration of place is not sufficient unless the person also correspond. Let
them choose which they will, I will forthwith infer, and easily prove, that Rome
has no ground to arrogate the primacy.
13. However, be it so. Let the
primacy have been (as they vainly allege) transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why
did not Antioch retain the second place? For if Rome has the first, simply
because Peter had his See there at the end of his life, to which place should
the second be given sooner than to that where he first had his See? How comes
it, then, that Alexandria takes precedence of Antioch? How can the church of a
disciple be superior to the See of Peter? If honour is due to a church according
to the dignity of its founder, what shall we say of other churches? Paul names
three individuals who seemed to be pillars-viz. James, Peter, and John (Gal.
2:9). If, in honour of Peter, the first place is given to the Roman See, do not
the churches of Ephesus and Jerusalem, where John and James were fixed, deserve
the second and third places? But in ancient times Jerusalem held the last place
among the Patriarchates, and Ephesus was not able to secure even the lowest
corner. Other churches too have passed away, churches which Paul founded, and
over which the apostles presided. The See of Mark, who was only one of the
disciples, has obtained honour. Let them either confess that that arrangement
was preposterous, or let them concede that it is not always true that each
church is entitled to the degree of honour which its founder possessed.
14. But I do not see that any credit is due to their allegation of
Peter’s occupation of the Roman See. Certainly it is, that the statement
of Eusebius, that he presided over it for twenty-five years, is easily refuted.
For it appears from the first and second chapters of Galatians, that he was at
Jerusalem about twenty years after the death of Christ, and afterwards came to
Antioch. [0] How long he remained
here is uncertain; Gregory counts seven, and Eusebius twenty-five years. But
from our Saviour’s death to the end of Nero’s reign (under which
they state that he was put to death), will be found only thirty-seven
years. [1] For our Lord suffered in
the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. If you cut off the twenty years,
during which, as Paul testifies, Peter dwelt at Jerusalem, there will remain at
most seventeen years; and these must be divided between his two episcopates. If
he dwelt long at Antioch, his See at Rome must have been of short duration. This
we may demonstrate still more clearly. Paul wrote to the Romans while he was on
his journey to Jerusalem, where he was apprehended and conveyed to Rome (Rom.
15:15, 16). It is therefore probable that this letter was written four years
before his arrival at Rome. [2]
Still there is no mention of Peter, as there certainly would have been if he had
been ruling that church. Nay, in the end of the Epistle, where he enumerates a
long list of individuals whom he orders to be saluted, and in which it may be
supposed he includes all who were known to him, he says nothing at all of Peter.
To men of sound judgment, there is no need here of a long and subtle
demonstration; the nature of the case itself, and the whole subject of the
Epistle, proclaim that he ought not to have passed over Peter if he had been at
Rome.
15. Paul is afterwards conveyed as a prisoner to Rome. Luke
relates that he was received by the brethren, but says nothing of Peter. From
Rome he writes to many churches. He even sends salutations from certain
individuals, but does not by a single word intimate that Peter was then there.
Who, pray, will believe that he would have said nothing of him if he had been
present? Nay, in the Epistle to the Philippians, after saying that he had no one
who cared for the work of the Lord so faithfully as Timothy, he complains, that
“all seek their own” (Phil. 2:21)
[3]. And to Timothy he makes the more
grievous complaint, that no man was present at his first defence, that all men
forsook him (2 Tim. 4:16). Where then was Peter?
[4] If they say that he was at Rome, how
disgraceful the charge which Paul brings against him of being a deserter of the
Gospel! For he is speaking of believers, since he adds, “The Lord lay it
not to their charge.” At what time, therefore, and how long, did Peter
hold that See? The uniform opinion of authors is, that he governed that church
until his death. But these authors are not agreed as to who was his successor.
Some say Linus, others Clement. And they relate many absurd fables concerning a
discussion between him and Simon Magus. Nor does Augustine, when treating of
superstition, disguise the fact, that owing to an opinion rashly entertained, it
had become customary at Rome to fast on the day on which Peter carried away the
palm from Simon Magus (August. ad Januar. Ep. 2). In short, the affairs of that
period are so involved from the variety of opinions, that credit is not to be
given rashly to anything we read concerning it. And yet, from this agreement of
authors, I do not dispute that he died there, but that he was bishop,
particularly for a long period, I cannot believe.
[5] I do not, however, attach much
importance to the point, since Paul testifies, that the apostleship of Peter
pertained especially to the Jews, but his own specially to us. Therefore, in
order that that compact which they made between themselves, nay, that the
arrangement of the Holy Spirit may be firmly established among us, we ought to
pay more regard to the apostleship of Paul than to that of Peter, since the Holy
Spirit, in allotting them different provinces, destined Peter for the Jews and
Paul for us. Let the Romanists, therefore, seek their primacy somewhere else
than in the word of God, which gives not the least foundation for it.
16. Let us now come to the Primitive Church, that it may also appear
that our opponents plume themselves on its support, not less falsely and
unadvisedly than on the testimony of the word of God. When they lay it down as
an axiom, that the unity of the Church cannot be maintained unless there be one
supreme head on earth whom all the members should obey; and that, accordingly,
our Lord gave the primacy to Peter, and thereafter, by right of succession, to
the See of Rome, there to remain even to the end, they assert that this has
always been observed from the beginning. But since they improperly wrest many
passages, I would first premise, that I deny not that the early Christians
uniformly give high honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence.
This, I think, is owing chiefly to three causes. The opinion which had prevailed
(I know not how), that that Church was founded and constituted by the ministry
of Peter, had great effect in procuring influence and authority. Hence, in the
East, it was, as a mark of honour, designated the Apostolic See. Secondly, as
the seat of empire was there, and it was for this reason to be presumed, that
the most distinguished for learning, prudence, skill, and experience, were there
more than elsewhere, account was justly taken of the circumstance, lest the
celebrity of the city, and the much more excellent gifts of God also, might seem
to be despised. To these was added a third cause, that when the churches of the
East, of Greece and of Africa, were kept in a constant turmoil by differences of
opinion, the Church of Rome was calmer and less troubled. To this it was owing,
that pious and holy bishops, when driven from their sees, often betook
themselves to Rome as an asylum or haven. For as the people of the West are of a
less acute and versatile turn of mind than those of Asia or Africa, so they are
less desirous of innovations. It therefore added very great authority to the
Roman Church, that in those dubious times it was not so much unsettled as
others, and adhered more firmly to the doctrine once delivered, as shall
immediately be better explained. For these three causes, I say, she was held in
no ordinary estimation, and received many distinguished testimonies from ancient
writers.
17. But since on this our opponents would rear up a primacy and
supreme authority over other churches, they, as I have said, greatly err. That
this may better appear, I will first briefly show what the views of early
writers are as to this unity which they so strongly urge. Jerome, in writing to
Nepotian, after enumerating many examples of unity, descends at length to the
ecclesiastical hierarchy. He says, “Every bishop of a church, every
archpresbyter, every archdeacon, and the whole ecclesiastical order, depends on
its own rulers.” Here a Roman presbyter speaks and commends unity in
ecclesiastical order. Why does he not mention that all the churches are bound
together by one Head as a common bond? There was nothing more appropriate to the
point in hand, and it cannot be said that he omitted it through forgetfulness;
there was nothing he would more willingly have mentioned had the fact permitted.
He therefore undoubtedly owns, that the true method of unity is that which
Cyprian admirably describes in these words: “The episcopate is one, part
of which is held entire by each bishop, and the Church is one, which, by the
increase of fecundity, extends more widely in numbers. As there are many rays of
the sun and one light, many branches of a tree and one trunk, upheld by its
tenacious root, and as very many streams flow from one fountain, and though
numbers seem diffused by the largeness of the overflowing supply, yet unity is
preserved entire in the source, so the Church, pervaded with the light of the
Lord, sends her rays over the whole globe, and yet is one light, which is
everywhere diffused without separating the unity of the body, extends her
branches over the whole globe, and sends forth flowing streams; still the head
is one, and the source one” (Cyprian, de Simplie. PrÊlat.).
Afterwards he says, “The spouse of Christ cannot be an adulteress: she
knows one house, and with chaste modesty keeps the sanctity of one bed.”
See how he makes the bishopric of Christ alone universal, as comprehending under
it the whole Church: See how he says that part of it is held entire by all who
discharge the episcopal office under this head. Where is the primacy of the
Roman See, if the entire bishopric resides in Christ alone, and a part of it is
held entire by each? My object in these remarks is, to show the reader, in
passing, that that axiom of the unity of an earthly kind in the hierarchy, which
the Romanists assume as confessed and indubitable, was altogether unknown to the
ancient Church.
CHAPTER 7.
OF
THE BEGINNING AND RISE OF THE ROMISH PAPACY, TILL IT ATTAINED A HEIGHT BY WHICH
THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS DESTROYED, AND ALL TRUE RULE
OVERTHROWN.
There are five heads in this chapter. I. The
Patriarchate given and confirmed to the Bishop of Rome, first by the Council of
Nice, and afterwards by that of Chalcedon though by no means approved of by
other bishops, was the commencement of the Papacy, sec. 1-4. II. The Church at
Rome, by taking pious exiles under its protection, and also thereby protecting
wicked men who fled to her, helped forward the mystery of iniquity, although at
that time neither the ordination of bishops, nor admonitions and censures, nor
the right of convening Councils, nor the right of receiving appeals, belonged to
the Roman Bishop, whose profane meddling with these things was condemned by
Gregory, sec. 5-13. III. After the Council of Turin, disputes arose as to the
authority of Metropolitans. Disgraceful strife between the Patriarchs of Rome
and Constantinople. The vile assassin Phocas put an end to these brawls at the
instigation of Boniface, sec. 14-18. IV. To the dishonest arts of Boniface
succeeded fouler frauds devised in more modern times, and expressly condemned by
Gregory and Bernard. sec. 19-21. V. The Papacy at length appeared complete in
all its parts, the seat of Antichrist. Its impiety, execrable tyranny, and
wickedness, portrayed, sec. 23-30.
Sections.
1. First
part of the chapter, in which the commencement of the Papacy is assigned to the
Council of Nice. In subsequent Councils other bishops presided. No attempt then
made to claim the first place.
2. Though the Roman Bishop presided in
the Council of Chalcedon, this was owing to special circumstances. The same
right not given to his successors in other Councils.
3. The ancient
Fathers did not give the title of Primate to the Roman Bishop.
4.
Gregory was vehement in opposition to the title when claimed by the Bishop of
Constantinople, and did not claim it for himself.
5. Second part of the
chapter, explaining the ambitious attempts of the Roman See to obtain the
primacy. Their reception of pious exiles. Hearing the appeals and complaints of
heretics. Their ambition in this respect offensive to the African Church.
6. The power of the Roman Bishops in ordaining bishops, appointing
councils, deciding controversies, &c., confined to their own
Patriarchate.
7. If they censured other bishops, they themselves were
censured in their turn.
8. They had no right of calling provincial
councils except within their own boundaries. The calling of a universal council
belonged solely to the Emperor.
9. Appeal to the Roman See not
acknowledged by other bishops. Stoutly resisted by the Bishops of France and
Africa. The impudence and falsehood of the Roman Pontiff detected.
10.
Proof from history that the Roman had no jurisdiction over other churches.
11. The decretal epistles of no avail in support of this usurped
jurisdiction.
12. The authority of the Roman Bishop extended in the
time of Gregory. Still it only consisted in aiding other bishops with their own
consent, or at the command of the Emperor.
13. Even the extent of
jurisdiction, thus voluntarily conferred, objected to by Gregory as interfering
with better duties.
14. Third part of the chapter, showing the increase
of the power of the Papacy in defining the limits of Metropolitans. This gave
rise to the decree of the Council of Turin. This decree haughtily annulled by
Innocent.
15. Hence the great struggle for precedency between the Sees
of Rome and Constantinople. The pride and ambition of the Roman Bishops
unfolded.
16. Many attempts of the Bishop of Constantinople to deprive
the Bishop of Rome of the primacy.
17. Phocas murders the Emperor, and
gives Rome the primacy.
18. The Papal tyranny shortly after
established. Bitter complaints by Bernard.
19. Fourth part of the
chapter. Altered appearance of the Roman See since the days of Gregory.
20. The present demands of the Romanists not formerly conceded.
Fictions of Gregory IX. and Martin.
21. Without mentioning the
opposition of Cyprian, of councils, and historical facts, the claims now made
were condemned by Gregory himself.
22. The abuses of which Gregory and
Bernard complained now increased and sanctioned.
23. The fifth and last
part of the chapter, containing the chief answer to the claims of the
Papacy-viz. that the Pope is not a bishop in the house of God. This answer
confirmed by an enumeration of the essential parts of the episcopal office.
24. A second confirmation by appeal to the institution of Christ. A
third confirmation e contrario-viz. That in doctrine and morals the Roman
Pontiff is altogether different from a true bishop. Conclusion, that Rome is not
the Apostolic See, but the Papacy.
25. Proof from Daniel and Paul that
the Pope is Antichrist.
26. Rome could not now claim the primacy, even
though she had formerly been the first See, especially considering the base
trafficking in which she has engaged.
27. Personal character of Popes.
Irreligious opinions held by some of them.
28. John XXII. heretical in
regard to the immortality of the soul. His name, therefore, ought to be expunged
from the catalogue of Popes, or rather, there is no foundation for the claim of
perpetuity of faith in the Roman See.
29. Some Roman Pontiffs atheists,
or sworn enemies of religion. Their immoral lives. Practice of the Cardinals and
Romish clergy.
30. Cardinals were formerly merely presbyters of the
Roman Church, and far inferior to bishops. As they now are, they have no true
and legitimate office in the Church. Conclusion.
1. IN regard to the
antiquity of the primacy of the Roman See, there is nothing in favour of its
establishment more ancient than the decree of the Council of Nice, by which the
first place among the Patriarchs is assigned to the Bishop of Rome, and he is
enjoined to take care of the suburban churches. While the council, in dividing
between him and the other Patriarchs, assigns the proper limits of each, it
certainly does not appoint him head of all, but only one ofthe chief. Vitus and
Vincentius attended on the part of Julius, who then governed the Roman Church,
and to them the fourth place was given. I ask, if Julius was acknowledged the
head of the Church, would his legates have been consigned to the fourth place?
Would Athanasius have presided in the council where a representative of the
hierarchal order should have been most conspicuous? In the Council of Ephesus,
it appears that Celestinus (who was then Roman Pontiff) used a cunning device to
secure the dignity of his See. For when he sent his deputies, he made Cyril of
Alexandria, who otherwise would have presided, his substitute. Why that
commission, but just that his name might stand connected with the first See? His
legates sit in an inferior place, are asked their opinion along with others, and
subscribe in their order, while, at the same time, his name is coupled with that
of the Patriarch of Alexandria. What shall I say of the second Council of
Ephesus, where, while the deputies of Leo were present, the Alexandrian
Patriarch Dioscorus presided as in his own right? They wil1 object that this was
not an orthodox council, since by it the venerable Flavianus was condemned,
Eutyches acquitted, and his heresy approved. Yet when the council was met, and
the bishops distributed the places among themselves, the deputies of the Roman
Church sat among the others just as in a sacred and lawful Council. Still they
contend not for the first place, but yield it to another: this they never would
have done if they had thought it their own by right. For the Roman bishops were
never ashamed to stir up the greatest strife in contending for honours, and for
this cause alone, to trouble and harass the Church with many pernicious
contests; but because Leo saw that it would be too extravagant to ask the first
place for his legates, he omitted to do it.
2. Next came the Council of
Chalcedon, in which, by concession of the Emperor, the legates of the Roman
Church occupied the first place. But Leo himself confesses that this was an
extraordinary privilege; for when he asks it of the Emperor Marcian and
Pulcheria Augusta, he does not maintain that it is due to him, but only pretends
that the Eastern bishops who presided in the Council of Ephesus had thrown all
into confusion, and made a bad use of their power. Therefore, seeing there was
need of a grave moderator, and it was not probable that those who had once been
so fickle and tumultuous would be fit for this purpose, he requests that,
because of the fault and unfitness of others, the office of governing should be
transferred to him. That which is asked as a special privilege, and out of the
usual order, certainly is not due by a common law. When it is only pretended
that there is need of a new president, because the former ones had behaved
themselves improperly, it is plain that the thing asked was not previously done,
and ought not to be made perpetual, being done only in respect of a present
danger. The Roman Pontiff, therefore, holds the first place in the Council of
Chalcedon, not because it is due to his See, but because the council is in want
of a grave and fit moderator, while those who ought to have presided exclude
themselves by their intemperance and passion. This statement the successor of
Leo approved by his procedure. For when he sent his legates to the fifth
Council, that of Constantinople, which was held long after, he did not quarrel
for the first seat, but readily allowed Mennas, the patriarch of Constantinople,
to preside. In like manner, in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was
present, we perceive that not the legates of the Roman See, but Aurelius, the
archbishop of the place, presided, although there was then a question as to the
authority of the Roman Pontiff. Nay, even in Italy itself, a universal council
was held (that of Aquileia), at which the Roman Bishop was not present. Ambrose,
who was then in high favour with the Emperor, presided, and no mention is made
of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, owing to the dignity of Ambrose, the See of
Milan was then more illustrious than that of Rome.
3. In regard to the
mere title of primate and other titles of pride, of which that pontiff now makes
a wondrous boast, it is not difficult to understand how and in what way they
crept in. Cyprian often makes mention of Cornelius (Cyprian. Lib. 2 Ep. 2; Lib.
4 Ep. 6), nor does he distinguish him by any other name than that of brother, or
fellow bishop, or colleague. When he writes to Stephen, the successor of
Cornelius, he not only makes him the equal of himself and others, but addresses
him in harsh terms, charging him at one time with presumption, at another with
ignorance. After Cyprian, we have the judgment of the whole African Church on
the subject. For the Council of Carthage enjoined that none should be called
chief of the priests, or first bishop, but only bishop of the first See. But any
one who will examine the more ancient records will find that the Roman Pontiff
was then contented with the common appellation of brother. Certainly, as long as
the true and pure form of the Church continued, all these names of pride on
which the Roman See afterwards began to plume itself, were altogether unheard
of; none knew what was meant by the supreme Pontiff, and the only head of the
Church on earth. Had the Roman Bishop presumed to assume any such title, there
were right-hearted men who would immediately have repressed his folly. Jerome,
seeing he was a Roman presbyter, was not slow to proclaim the dignity of his
church, in as far as fact and the circumstances of the times permitted, and yet
we see how he brings it under due subordination. “If authority is asked,
the world is greater than a city. Why produce to me the custom of one city? Why
vindicate a small number with whom superciliousness has originated against the
laws of the Church? Wherever the bishop be, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or
Constantinople, or Rhegium, the merit is the same, and the priesthood the same.
The power of riches, or the humbleness of poverty, do not make a bishop superior
or inferior” (Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr.).
4. The controversy
concerning the title of universal bishop arose at length in the time of Gregory,
and was occasioned by the ambition of John of Constantinople. For he wished to
make himself universal, a thing which no other had ever attempted. In that
controversy, Gregory does not allege that he is deprived of a right which
belonged to him, but he strongly insists that the appellation is profane, nay,
blasphemous, nay the forerunner of Antichrist. “The whole Church falls
from its state, if he who is called universal falls” (Greg. Lib. 4 Ep.
76). Again, “It is very difficult to bear patiently that one who is our
brother and fellow bishop should alone be called bishop, while all others are
despised. But in this pride of his, what else is intimated but that the days of
Antichrist are already near? For he is imitating him, who, despising the company
of angels, attempted to ascend the pinnacle of greatness” (Lib. 4 Ep. 76).
He elsewhere says to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch:
“None of my predecessors ever desired to use this profane term: for if one
patriarch is called universal, it is derogatory to the name of patriarch in
others. But far be it from any Christian mind to wish to arrogate to itself that
which would in any degree, however slight, impair the honour of his
brethren” (Lib. 4 Ep. 80). “To consent to that impious term is
nothing else than to lose the faith” (Lib. 4 Ep. 83). “What we owe
to the preservation of the unity of the faith is one thing, what we owe to the
suppression of pride is another. I speak with confidence, for every one that
calls himself, or desires to be called, universal priest, is by his pride a
forerunner of Antichrist, because he acts proudly in preferring himself to
others” (Lib. 7 Ep. 154). Thus, again, in a letter to Anastasius of
Antioch, “I said, that he could not have peace with us unless he corrected
the presumption of a superstitious and haughty term which the first apostate
invented; and (to say nothing of the injury to your honour) if one bishop is
called universal, the whole Church goes to ruin when that universal bishop
falls” (Lib. 4 Ep. 188). But when he writes, that this honour was offered
to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon (Lib. 4 Ep. 76, 80; Lib. 7 Ep. 76), he says
what has no semblance of truth; nothing of the kind is found among the acts of
that council. And Leo himself, who, in many letters, impugns the decree which
was then made in honour of the See of Constantinople, undoubtedly would not have
omitted this argument, which was the most plausible of all, if it was true that
he himself repudiated what was given to him. One who, in other respects, was
rather too desirous of honour, would not have omitted what would have been to
his praise. Gregory, therefore, is incorrect in saying, that that title was
conferred on the Roman See by the Council of Chalcedon; not to mention how
ridiculous it is for him to say, that it proceeded from that sacred council, and
yet to term it wicked, profane, nefarious, proud, and blasphemous, nay, devised
by the devil, and promulgated by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds, that
his predecessor refused it, lest by that which was given to one individually,
all priests should be deprived of their due honour. In another place, he says,
“None ever wished to be called by such a name; none arrogated this rash
name to himself, lest, by seizing on the honour of supremacy in the office of
the Pontificate, he might seem to deny it to all his brethren” (Gregor.
Lib. 4 Ep. 82).
5. I come now to jurisdiction, which the Roman Pontiff
asserts as an incontrovertible proposition that he possesses over all churches.
I am aware of the great disputes which anciently existed on this subject: for
there never was a time when the Roman See did not aim at authority over other
churches. And here it will not be out of place to investigate the means by which
she gradually attained to some influence. I am not now referring to that
unlimited power which she seized at a comparatively recent period. The
consideration of that we shall defer to its own place. But it is worth while
here briefly to show in what way, and by what means, she formerly raised
herself, so as to arrogate some authority over other churches. When the churches
of the East were troubled and rent by the factions of the Arians, under the
Emperors Constantius and Constans, sons of Constantine the Great; and
Athanasius, the principal defender of the orthodox faith, had been driven from
his see, the calamity obliged him to come to Rome, in order that by the
authority of this see he might both repress the rage of his enemies, and confirm
the orthodox under their distress. He was honourably received by Julius, who was
then bishop, and engaged those of the West to undertake the defence of his
cause. Therefore, when the orthodox stood greatly in need of external aid, and
perceived that their chief protection lay in the Roman See, they willingly
bestowed upon it all the authority they could. But the utmost extent of this
was, that its communion was held in high estimation, and it was deemed
ignominious to be excommunicated by it. Dishonest bad men afterwards added much
to its authority, for when they wished to escape lawful tribunals, they betook
themselves to Rome as an asylum. Accordingly, if any presbyter was condemned by
his bishop, or if any bishop was condemned by the synod of his province, he
appealed to Rome. These appeals the Roman bishops received more eagerly than
they ought, because it seemed a species of extraordinary power to interpose in
matters with which their connection was so very remote. Thus, when Eutyches was
condemned by Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that the
sentence was unjust. He, nothing loth, no less presumptuously than abruptly,
undertook the patronage of a bad cause, and inveighed bitterly against
Flavianus, as having condemned an innocent man without due investigation: and
thus the effect of Leo’s ambition was, that for some time the impiety of
Eutyches was confirmed. It is certain that in Africa the same thing repeatedly
occurred, for whenever any miscreant had been condemned by his ordinary judge,
he fled to Rome, and brought many calumnious charges against his own people. The
Roman See was always ready to interpose. This dishonesty obliged the African
bishops to decree that no one should carry an appeal beyond sea under pain of
excommunication.
6. Be this as it may, let us consider what right or
authority the Roman See then possessed. Ecclesiastical power may be reduced to
four heads-viz. ordination of bishops, calling of councils, hearing of appeals
(or jurisdiction), inflicting monitory chastisements or censures. All ancient
councils enjoin that bishops shall be ordained by their own Metropolitans; they
nowhere enjoin an application to the Roman Bishop, except in his own
patriarchate. Gradually, however, it became customary for all Italian bishops to
go to Rome for consecration, with the exception of the Metropolitans, who did
not allow themselves to be thus brought into subjection; but when any
Metropolitan was to be ordained, the Roman Bishop sent one of his presbyters
merely to be present, but not to preside. An example of this kind is extant in
Gregory (Lib. 2 Ep. 68, 70), in the consecration of Constantius of Milan, after
the death of Laurence. I do not, however, think that this was a very ancient
custom. At first, as a mark of respect and good-will, they sent deputies to one
another to witness the ordination, and attest their communion. What was thus
voluntary afterwards began to be regarded as necessary. However this be, it is
certain that anciently the Roman Bishop had no power of ordaining except within
the bounds of his own patriarchate, that is, as a canon of the Council of Nice
expresses it, in suburban churches. To ordination was added the sending of a
synodical epistle, but this implied no authority. The patriarchs were
accustomed, immediately after consecration, to attest their faith by a formal
writing, in which they declared that they assented to sacred and orthodox
councils. Thus, by rendering an account of their faith, they mutually approved
of each other. If the Roman Bishop had received this confession from others, and
not given it, he would therein have been acknowledged superior; but when it
behoved to give as well as to receive, and to be subject to the common law, this
was a sign of equality, not of lordship. Of this we have an example in a letter
of Gregory to Anastasius and Cyriac of Constantinople, and in another letter to
all the patriarchs together (Gregor. Lib. 1 Ep. 24, 25; Lib. 6 Ep. 169).
7. Next come admonitions or censures. These the Roman
Bishops anciently employed towards others, and in their turn received.
IrenÊus sharply rebuked Victor for rashly troubling the Church with a
pernicious schism, for a matter of no moment. He submitted without objecting.
Holy bishops were then wont to use the freedom as brethren, of admonishing and
rebuking the Roman Prelate when he happened to err. He in his turn, when the
case required, reminded others of their duty, and reprimanded them for their
faults. For Cyprian, when he exhorts Stephen to admonish the bishops of France,
does not found on his larger power, but on the common right which priests have
in regard to each other (Cyprian. Lib. 3 Ep. 13). I ask if Stephen had then
presided over France, would not Cyprian have said, “Check them, for they
are yours”? but his language is very different. “The brotherly
fellowship which binds us together requires that we should mutually admonish
each other” (Cyprian. ad Pomp. Cont. Epist. Steph.) And we see also with
what severity of expression, a man otherwise of a mild temper, inveighs against
Stephen himself, when he thinks him chargeable with insolence. Therefore, it
does not yet appear in this respect that the Roman Bishop possessed any
jurisdiction over those who did not belong to his province.
8. In regard
to calling of councils, it was the duty of every Metropolitan to assemble a
provincial synod at stated times. Here the Roman Bishop had no jurisdiction,
while the Emperor alone could summon a general council. Had any of the bishops
attempted this, not only would those out of the province not have obeyed the
call, but a tumult would instantly have arisen. Therefore the Emperor gave
intimation to all alike to attend. Socrates, indeed, relates that Julius
expostulated with the Eastern bishops for not having called him to the Council
of Antioch, seeing it was forbidden by the canons that anything should be
decided without the knowledge of the Roman Bishop (Tripart. Hist. Lib. 4). But
who does not perceive that this is to be understood of those decrees which bind
the whole Church? At the same time, it is not strange if, in deference both to
the antiquity and largeness of the city, and the dignity of the see, no
universal decree concerning religion should be made in the absence of the Bishop
of Rome, provided he did not refuse to be present. But what has this to do with
the dominion of the whole Church? For we deny not that he was one of the
principal bishops, though we are unwilling to admit what the Romanists now
contend for-viz. that he had power over all.
9. The fourth remaining
species of power is that of hearing appeals. It is evident that the
supreme power belongs to him to whose tribunal appeals are made. Many had
repeatedly appealed to the Roman Pontiff. He also had endeavoured to bring
causes under his cognisance, but he had always been derided whenever he went
beyond his own boundaries. I say nothing of the East and of Greece, but it is
certain, that the bishops of France stoutly resisted when he seemed to assume
authority over them. In Africa, the subject was long disputed, for in the
Council of Milevita, at which Augustine was present, when those who carried
appeals beyond seas were excommunicated, the Roman Pontiff attempted to obtain
an alteration of the decree, and sent legates to show that the privilege of
hearing appeals was given him by the Council of Nice. The legates produced acts
of the council drawn from the armoury of their church. The African bishops
resisted, and maintained, that credit was not to be given to the Bishop of Rome
in his own cause; accordingly, they said that they would send to Constantinople,
and other cities of Greece, where less suspicious copies might be had. It was
found that nothing like what the Romanists had pretended was contained in the
acts, and thus the decree which abrogated the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman
Pontiff was confirmed. In this matter was manifested the egregious effrontery of
the Roman Pontiff. For when he had fraudulently substituted the Council of
Sardis for that of Nice, he was disgracefully detected in a palpable falsehood;
but still greater and more impudent was the iniquity of those who added a
fictitious letter to the Council, in which some Bishop of Carthage condemns the
arrogance of Aurelius his predecessor, in promising to withdraw himself from
obedience to the Apostolic See, and making a surrender of himself and his
church, suppliantly prays for pardon. These are the noble records of antiquity
on which the majesty of the Roman See is founded, while, under the pretext of
antiquity, they deal in falsehoods so puerile, that even a blind man might feel
them. “Aurelius (says he), elated by diabolical audacity and contumacy,
was rebellious against Christ and St Peter, and, accordingly, deserved to be
anathematised.” What does Augustine say? and what the many Fathers who
were present at the Council of Milevita? But what need is there to give a
lengthened refutation of that absurd writing, which not even Romanists, if they
have any modesty left them, can look at without a deep feeling of shame? Thus
Gratian, whether through malice or ignorance, I know not, after quoting the
decree, That those are to be deprived of communion who carry appeals beyond
seas, subjoins the exception, Unless, perhaps, they have appealed to the Roman
See (Grat. 2, QuÊst. 4, cap. Placuit.). What can you make of creatures
like these, who are so devoid of common sense that they set down as an exception
from the law the very thing on account of which, as everybody sees, the law was
made? For the Council, in condemning transmarine appeals, simply prohibits an
appeal to Rome. Yet this worthy expounder excepts Rome from the common law.
10. But (to end the question at once) the kind of jurisdiction which
belonged to the Roman Bishop one narrative will make manifest. Donatus of Casa
Nigra had accused Cecilianus the Bishop of Carthage. Cecilianus was condemned
without a hearing: for, having ascertained that the bishops had entered into a
conspiracy against him, he refused to appear. The case was brought before the
Emperor Constantine. who, wishing the matter to be ended by an ecclesiastical
decision; gave the cognisance of it to Melciades, the Roman Bishop, appointing
as his colleagues some bishops from Italy, France, and Spain. If it formed part
of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Roman See to hear appeals in ecclesiastical
causes, why did he allow others to be conjoined with him at the Emperor’s
discretion? nay, why does he undertake to decide more from the command of the
Emperor than his own office? But let us hear what afterwards happened (see
August. Ep. 162, et alibi). Cecilianus prevails. Donatus of Casa Nigra is
thrown in his calumnious action and appeals. Constantine devolves the decision
of the appeal on the Bishop of Arles, who sits as judge, to give sentence after
the Roman Pontiff.55[5] If the Roman
See has supreme power not subject to appeal, why does Melciades allow himself to
be so greatly insulted as to have the Bishop of Arles preferred to him? And who
is the Emperor that does this? Constantine, who they boast not only made it his
constant study, but employed all the resources of the empire to enlarge the
dignity of that see. We see, therefore, how far in every way the Roman Pontiff
was from that supreme dominion, which he asserts to have been given him by
Christ over all churches, and which he falsely alleges that he possessed in all
ages, with the consent of the whole world.
11. I know how many epistles
there are, how many rescripts and edicts in which there is nothing which the
pontiffs do not ascribe and confidently arrogate to themselves. But all men of
the least intellect and learning know, that the greater part of them are in
themselves so absurd, that it is easy at the first sight to detect the forge
from which they have come. Does any man of sense and soberness think that
Anacletus is the author of that famous interpretation which is given in Gratian,
under the name of Anacletus-viz. that Cephas is head? (Dist. 22, cap.
Sacrosancta.) Numerous follies of the same kind which Gratian has heaped
together without judgment, the Romanists of the present day employ against us in
defence of their see. The smoke, by which, in the former days of ignorance, they
imposed upon the ignorant, they would still vend in the present light. I am
unwilling to take much trouble in refuting things which, by their extreme
absurdity, plainly refute themselves. I admit the existence of genuine epistles
by ancient Pontiffs, in which they pronounce magnificent eulogiums on the extent
of their see. Such are some of the epistles of Leo. For as he possessed learning
and eloquence, so he was excessively desirous of glory and dominion; but the
true question is, whether or not, when he thus extolled himself, the churches
gave credit to his testimony? It appears that many were offended with his
ambition, and also resisted his cupidity. He in one place appoints the Bishop of
Thessalonica his vicar throughout Greece and other neighbouring regions (Leo,
Ep. 85), and elsewhere gives the same office to the Bishop of Arles or some
other throughout France (Ep. 83). In like manner, he appointed Hormisdas, Bishop
of Hispala, his vicar throughout Spain, but he uniformly makes this reservation,
that in giving such commissions, the ancient privileges of the Metropolitans
were to remain safe and entire. These appointments, therefore, were made on the
condition, that no bishop should be impeded in his ordinary jurisdiction, no
Metropolitan in taking cognisance of appeals, no provincial council in
constituting churches. But what else was this than to decline all jurisdiction,
and to interpose for the purpose of settling discord only, in so far as the law
and nature of ecclesiastical communion admit?
12. In the time of
Gregory, that ancient rule was greatly changed. For when the empire was
convulsed and torn, when France and Spain were suffering from the many disasters
which they ever and anon received, when Illyricum was laid waste, Italy
harassed, and Africa almost destroyed by uninterrupted calamities, in order
that, during these civil convulsions, the integrity of the faith might remain,
or at least not entirely perish, the bishops in all quarters attached themselves
more to the Roman Pontiff. In this way, not only the dignity, but also the power
of the see, exceedingly increased, although I attach no great importance to the
means by which this was accomplished. It is certain, that it was then greater
than in former ages. And yet it was very different from the unbridled dominion
of one ruling others as he pleased. Still the reverence paid to the Roman See
was such, that by its authority it could guide and repress those whom their own
colleagues were unable to keep to their duty; for Gregory is careful ever and
anon to testify that he was not less faithful in preserving the rights of
others, that in insisting that his own should be preserved. “I do
not,” says he, “under the stimulus of ambition, derogate from any
man’s right, but desire to honour my brethren in all things”
(Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 68). There is no sentence in his writings in which he boasts
more proudly of the extent of his primacy than the following: “I know not
what bishop is not subject to the Roman See, when he is discovered in a
fault” (Leo. Lib. 2, Epist. 68). However, he immediately adds,
“Where faults do not call for interference, all are equal according to the
rule of humility.” He claims for himself the right of correcting those who
have sinned; if all do their duty, he puts himself on a footing of equality. He,
indeed, claimed this right, and those who chose assented to it, while those who
were not pleased with it were at liberty to object with impunity; and it is
known that the greater part did so. We may add, that he is then speaking of the
primate of Byzantium, who, when condemned by a provincial synod, repudiated the
whole judgment. His colleagues had informed the Emperor of his contumacy, and
the Emperor had given the cognisance of the matter to Gregory. We see,
therefore, that he does not interfere in any way with the ordinary jurisdiction,
and that, in acting as a subsidiary to others, he acts entirely by the
Emperor’s command.
13. At this time, therefore, the whole power of
the Roman Bishop consisted in opposing stubborn and ungovernable spirits, where
some extraordinary remedy was required, and this in order to assist other
bishops, not to interfere with them. Therefore, he assumes no more power over
others than he elsewhere gives others over himself, when he confesses that he is
ready to be corrected by all, amended by all (Lib. 2 Ep. 37). So, in another
p]ace, though he orders the Bishop of Aquileia to come to Rome to plead his
cause in a controversy as to doctrine which had arisen between himself and
others, he thus orders not of his own authority, but in obedience to the
Emperor’s command. Nor does he declare that he himself will be sole judge,
but promises to call a synod, by which the whole business may be determined. But
although the moderation was still such, that the power of the Roman See had
certain limits which it was not permitted to overstep, and the Roman Bishop
himself was not more above than under others, it appears how much Gregory was
dissatisfied with this state of matters. For he ever and anon complains, that
he, under the colour of the episcopate, was brought back to the world, and was
more involved in earthly cares than when living as a laic; that he, in that
honourable office, was oppressed by the tumult of secular affairs. Elsewhere he
says, “So many burdensome occupations depress me, that my mind cannot at
all rise to things above. I am shaken by the many billows of causes, and after
they are quieted, am afflicted by the tempests of a tumultuous life, so that I
may truly say I am come into the depths of the sea, and the flood has
overwhelmed me.” From this I infer what he would have said if he had
fallen on the present times. If he did not fulfil, he at least did the duty of a
pastor. He declined the administration of civil power, and acknowledged himself
subject, like others, to the Emperor. He did not interfere with the management
of other churches, unless forced by necessity. And yet he thinks himself in a
labyrinth, because he cannot devote himself entirely to the duty of a bishop.
14. At that time, as has already been said, the Bishop of Constantinople
was disputing with the Bishop of Rome for the primacy. For after the seat of
empire was fixed at Constantinople, the majesty of the empire seemed to demand
that that church should have the next place of honour to that of Rome. And
certainly, at the outset, nothing had tended more to give the primacy to Rome,
than that it was then the capital of the empire. In Gratian, (Dist. 80), there
is a rescript under the name of Pope Lucinus, to the effect that the only way in
which the cities where Metropolitans and Primates ought to preside were
distinguished, was by means of the civil government which had previously
existed. There is a similar rescript under the name of Pope Clement, in which he
says, that patriarchs were appointed in those cities which had previously had
the first flamens. Although this is absurd, it was borrowed from what was true.
For it is certain, that in order to make as little change as possible, provinces
were distributed according to the state of matters then existing, and Primates
and Metropolitans were placed in those cities which surpassed others in honours
and power. Accordingly, it was decreed in the Council of Turin, that the cities
of every province which were first in the civil government should be the first
sees of bishops. But if it should happen that the honour of civil government was
transferred from one city to another, then the right of the metropolis should be
at the same time transferred thither. But Innocent, the Roman Pontiff, seeing
that the ancient dignity of the city had been decaying ever since the seat of
empire had been transferred to Constantinople, and fearing for his see, enacted
a contrary law, in which he denies the necessity of changing metropolitan
churches as imperial metropolitan cities were changed. But the authority of a
synod is justly to be preferred to the opinion of one individual, and Innocent
himself should be suspected in his own cause. However this be, he by his caveat
shows the original rule to have been, that Metropolitans should be distributed
according to the order of the empire.
15. Agreeably to this ancient
custom, the first Council of Constantinople decreed that the bishop of that city
should take precedence after the Roman Pontiff, because it was a new Rome. But
long after, when a similar decree was made at Chalcedon, Leo keenly protested
(Socrat. Hist. Trop. Lib. 9 cap. 13). And not only did he permit himself to set
at nought what six hundred bishops or more had decreed, but he even assailed
them with bitter reproaches, because they had derogated from other sees in the
honour which they had presumed to confer on the Church of Constantinople (in
Decr. 22, Distinct. cap. Constantinop.). What, pray, could have incited the man
to trouble the world for so small an affair but mere ambition? He says, that
what the Council of Nice had once sanctioned ought to have been inviolable; as
if the Christian faith was in any danger if one church was preferred to another;
or as if separate Patriarchates had been established on any other grounds than
that of policy. But we know that policy varies with times, nay, demands various
changes. It is therefore futile in Leo to pretend that the See of Constantinople
ought not to receive the honour which was given to that of Alexandria, by the
authority of the Council of Nice. For it is the dictate of common sense, that
the decree was one of those which might be abrogated, in respect of a change of
times. What shall we say to the fact, that none of the Eastern churches, though
chiefly interested, objected? Proterius, who had been appointed at Alexandria
instead of Dioscorus, was certainly present; other patriarchs whose honour was
impaired were present. It belonged to them to interfere, not to Leo, whose
station remained entire. While all of them are silent, many assent, and the
Roman Bishop alone resists, it is easy to judge what it is that moves him; just
because he foresaw what happened not long after, that when the glory of ancient
Rome declined, Constantinople, not contented with the second place, would
dispute the primacy with her. And yet his clamour was not so successful as to
prevent the decree of the council from being ratified. Accordingly, his
successors seeing themselves defeated, quietly desisted from that petulance, and
allowed the Bishop of Constantinople to be regarded as the second Patriarch.
16. But shortly after, John, who, in the time of Gregory, presided over
the church of Constantinople, went so far as to say that he was universal
Patriarch. Here Gregory, that he might not be wanting to his See in a most
excellent cause, constantly opposed. And certainly it was impossible to tolerate
the pride and madness of John, who wished to make the limits of his bishopric
equal to the limits of the empire. This, which Gregory denies to another, he
claims not for himself, but abominates the title by whomsoever used, as wicked,
impious, and nefarious. Nay, he is offended with Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria,
who had honoured him with this title, “See (says he, Lib. 8 Ep. 30) in the
address of the letter which you have directed to me, though I prohibited you,
you have taken care to write a word of proud signification by calling me
Universa1 Pope. What I ask is, that your holiness do not go farther, because,
whatever is given to another more than reason demands is withdrawn from you. I
do not regard that as honour by which I see that the honour of my brethren is
diminished. For my honour is the universal honour of the Church, and entire
prerogative of my brethren. If your holiness calls me universal Pope, it denies
itself to be this whole which it acknowledges me to be.” The cause of
Gregory was indeed good and honourable; but John, aided by the favour of the
Emperor Maurice, could not be dissuaded from his purpose. Cyriac also, his
successor, never allowed himself to be spoken to on the subject.
17. At
length Phocas, who had slain Maurice, and usurped his place (more friendly to
the Romans, for what reason I know not, or rather because he had been crowned
king there without opposition), conceded to Boniface III. what Gregory by no
means demanded-viz. that Rome should be the head of all the churches. In this
way the controversy was ended. And yet this kindness of the Emperor to the
Romans would not have been of very much avail had not other circumstances
occurred. For shortly after Greece and all Asia were cut off from his communion,
while all the reverence which he received from France was obedience only in so
far as she pleased. She was brought into subjection for the first time when
Pepin got possession of the throne. For Zachary, the Roman Pontiff, having aided
him in his perfidy and robbery when he expelled the lawful sovereign, and seized
upon the kingdom, which lay exposed as a kind of prey, was rewarded by having
the jurisdiction of the Roman See established over the churches of France. In
the same way as robbers are wont to divide and share the common spoil, those two
worthies arranged that Pepin should have the worldly and civil power by spoiling
the true prince, while Zachary should become the head of all the bishops, and
have the spiritual power. This, though weak at the first (as usually happens
with new power), was afterwards confirmed by the authority of Charlemagne for a
very similar cause. For he too was under obligation to the Roman Pontiff, to
whose zeal he was indebted for the honour of empire. Though there is reason to
believe that the churches had previously been greatly altered, it is certain
that the ancient form of the Church was then only completely effaced in Gaul and
Germany. There are still extant among the archives of the Parliament of Paris
short commentaries on those times, which, in treating of ecclesiastical affairs,
make mention of the compacts both of Pepin and Charlemagne with the Roman
Pontiff. Hence we may infer that the ancient state of matters was then changed.
18. From that time, while everywhere matters were becoming daily worse,
the tyranny of the Roman Bishop was established, and ever and anon increased,
and this partly by the ignorance, partly by the sluggishness, of the bishops.
For while he was arrogating everything to himself, and proceeding more and more
to exalt himself without measure, contrary to law and right, the bishops did not
exert themselves so zealously as they ought in curbing his pretensions. And
though they had not been deficient in spirit, they were devoid of true doctrine
and experience, so that they were by no means fit for so important an effort.
Accordingly, we see how great and monstrous was the profanation of all sacred
things, and the dissipation of the whole ecclesiastical order at Rome, in the
age of Bernard. He complains (Lib. 1 de Consider. ad Eugen.) that the ambitious,
avaricious, demoniacal, sacrilegious, fornicators, incestuous, and similar
miscreants, flocked from all quarters of the world to Rome, that by apostolic
authority they might acquire or retain ecclesiastical honours: that fraud,
circumvention, and violence, prevailed. The mode of judging causes then in use
he describes as execrable, as disgraceful, not only to the Church, but the bar.
He exclaims that the Church is filled with the ambitious: that not one is more
afraid to perpetrate crimes than robbers in their den when they share the spoils
of the traveller. “Few (say he) look to the mouth of the legislator, but
all to his hands. Not without cause, however: for their hands do the whole
business of the Pope. What kind of thing is it when those are bought by the
spoils of the Church, who say to you, Well done, well done? The life of the poor
is sown in the highways of the rich: silver glitters in the mire: they run
together from all sides: it is not the poorer that takes it up, but the
stronger, or, perhaps, he who runs fastest. That custom, however, or rather that
death, comes not of you: I wish it would end in you. While these things are
going on, you, a pastor, come forth robed in much costly clothing. If I might
presume to say it, this is more the pasture of demons than of sheep. Peter,
forsooth, acted thus; Paul sported thus. Your court has been more accustomed to
receive good men than to make them. The bad do not gain much there, but the good
degenerate.” Then when he describes the abuses of appeals, no pious man
can read them without being horrified. At length, speaking of the unbridled
cupidity of the Roman See in usurping jurisdiction, he thus concludes (Lib. 3 de
Concil.), “I express the murmur and common complaint of the churches.
Their cry is, that they are maimed and dismembered. There are none, or very few,
who do not lament or fear that plague. Do you ask what plague? Abbots are
encroached upon by bishops, bishops by archbishops, &c. It is strange if
this can be excused. By thus acting, you prove that you have the fulness of
power, but not the fulness of righteousness. You do this because you are able;
but whether you also ought to do it is the question. You are appointed to
preserve, not to envy, the honour and rank of each.” I have thought it
proper to quote these few passages out of many, partly that my readers may see
how grievously the Church had then fallen, partly, too, that they may see with
what grief and lamentation all pious men beheld this calamity.
19. But
though we were to concede to the Roman Pontiff of the present day the eminence
and extent of jurisdiction which his see had in the middle ages, as in the time
of Leo and Gregory, what would this be to the existing Papacy? I am not now
speaking of worldly dominion, or of civil power, which will afterwards be
explained in their own place (chap. 11 sec. 8-14); but what resemblance is there
between the spiritual government of which they boast and the state of those
times? The only definition which they give of the Pope is, that he is the
supreme head of the Church on earth, and the universal bishop of the whole
globe. The Pontiffs themselves, when they speak of their authority, declare with
great superciliousness, that the power of commanding belongs to them,-that the
necessity of obedience remains with others,-that all their decrees are to be
regarded as confirmed by the divine voice of Peter,-that provincial synods, from
not having the presence of the Pope, are deficient in authority,-that they can
ordain the clergy of any church,-and can summon to their See any who have been
ordained elsewhere. Innumerable things of this kind are contained in the farrago
of Gratian, which I do not mention, that I may not be tedious to my readers. The
whole comes to this, that to the Roman Pontiff belongs the supreme cognisance of
all ecclesiastical causes, whether in determining and defining doctrines, or in
enacting laws, or in appointing discipline, or in giving sentences. It were also
tedious and superfluous to review the privileges which they assume to themselves
in what they call reservations. But the most intolerable of all things is their
leaving no judicial authority in the world to restrain and curb them when they
licentiously abuse their immense power. “No man (say
they55[6]) is entitled to alter the
judgment of this See, on account of the primacy of the Roman Church.”
Again, “The judge shall not be judged either by the emperor, or by kings,
or by the clergy, or by the people.” It is surely imperious enough for one
man to appoint himself the judge of all, while he will not submit to the
judgment of any. But what if he tyrannises over the people of God? if he
dissipates and lays waste the kingdom of Christ? if he troubles the whole
Church? if he convert the pastoral office into robbery? Nay, though he should be
the most abandoned of all, he insists that none can call him to account. The
language of Pontiffs is, “God has been pleased to terminate the causes of
other men by men, but the Prelate of this See he has reserved unquestioned for
his own judgment.” Again, “The deeds of subjects are judged by us;
ours by God only.”
20. And in order that edicts of this kind might
have more weight, they falsely substituted the names of ancient Pontiffs, as if
matters had been so constituted from the beginning, while it is absolutely
certain that whatever attributes more to the Pontiff than we have stated to have
been given to him by ancient councils, is new and of recent fabrication. Nay,
they have carried their effrontery so far as to publish a rescript under the
name of Anastasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in which he testifies that
it was appointed by ancient regulations, that nothing should be done in the
remotest provinces without being previously referred to the Roman See. Besides
its extreme folly, who can believe it credible that such an eulogium on the
Roman See proceeded from an opponent and rival of its honour and dignity? But
doubtless it was necessary that those Antichrists should proceed to such a
degree of madness and blindness, that their iniquity might be manifest to all
men of sound mind who will only open their eyes. The decretal epistles collected
by Gregory IX., also the Clementines and Extravagants of Martin, breathe still
more plainly, and in more bombastic terms bespeak this boundless ferocity and
tyranny, as it were, of barbarian kings. But these are the oracles out of which
the Romanists would have their Papacy to be judged. Hence have sprung those
famous axioms which have the force of oracles throughout the Papacy in the
present day-viz. that the Pope cannot err; that the Pope is superior to
councils; that the Pope is the universal bishop of all churches, and the chief
Head of the Church on earth. I say nothing of the still greater absurdities
which are babbled by the foolish canonists in their schools, absurdities,
however, which Roman theologians not only assent to, but even applaud in
flattery of their idol.
21. I will not treat with them on the strictest
terms. In opposition to their great insolence, some would quote the language
which Cyprian used to the bishops in the council over which he presided:
“None of us styles himself bishop of bishops, or forces his colleagues to
the necessity of obeying by the tyranny of terror.” Some might object what
was long after decreed at Carthage, “Let no one be called the prince of
priests or first bishop;” and might gather many proofs from history, and
canons from councils, and many passages from ancient writers, which bring the
Roman Pontiff into due order. But these I omit, that I may not seem to press too
hard upon them. However, let these worthy defenders of the Roman See tell me
with what face they can defend the title of universal bishop, while they see it
so often anathematised by Gregory. If effect is to be given to his testimony,
then they, by making their Pontiff universal, declare him to be Antichrist. The
name of head was not more approved. For Gregory thus speaks: “Peter
was the chief member in the body, John, Andrew, and James, the heads of
particular communities. All, however, are under one head members of the Church:
nay, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under
grace, all perfecting the body of the Lord, are constituted members: none of
them ever wished to be styled universal” (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 83). When the
Pontiff arrogates to himself the power of ordering, he little accords with what
Gregory elsewhere says. For Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, having said that he
had received an order from him, he replies in this manner: “This word
order I beg you to take out of my hearing, for I know who I am, and who
you are: in station you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I therefore
did not order, but took care to suggest what seemed useful” (Gregor. Lib.
7 Ep. 80). When the Pope extends his jurisdiction without limit, he does great
and atrocious injustice not only to other bishops, but to each single church,
tearing and dismembering them, that he may build his see upon their ruins. When
he exempts himself from all tribunals, and wishes to reign in the manner of a
tyrant, holding his own caprice to be his only law, the thing is too insulting,
and too foreign to ecclesiastical rule, to be on any account submitted to. It is
altogether abhorrent, not only from pious feeling, but also from common sense.
22. But that I may not be forced to discuss and follow out each point
singly, I again appeal to those who, in the present day, would be thought the
best and most faithful defenders of the Roman See, whether they are not ashamed
to defend the existing state of the Papacy, which is clearly a hundred times
more corrupt than in the days of Gregory and Bernard, though even then these
holy men were so much displeased with it. Gregory everywhere complains (Lib. 1
Ep. 5; item, Ep. 7, 25, &c.) that he was distracted above measure by
foreign occupations: that under colour of the episcopate he was taken back to
the world, being subject to more worldly cares than he remembered to have ever
had when a laic; that he was so oppressed by the trouble of secular affairs, as
to be unable to raise his mind to things above; that he was so tossed by the
many billows of causes, and afflicted by the tempests of a tumultuous life, that
he might well say, “I am come into the depths of the sea.” It is
certain, that amid these worldly occupations, he could teach the people in
sermons, admonish in private, and correct those who required it; order the
Church, give counsel to his colleagues, and exhort them to their duty. Moreover,
some time was left for writing, and yet he deplores it as his calamity, that he
was plunged into the very deepest sea. If the administration at that time was a
sea, what shall we say of the present Papacy? For what resemblance is there
between the periods? Now there are no sermons, no care for discipline, no zeal
for churches, no spiritual function; nothing, in short, but the world. And yet
this labyrinth is lauded as if nothing could be found better ordered and
arranged. What complaints also does Bernard pour forth, what groans does he
utter, when he beholds the vices of his own age? What then would he have done on
beholding this iron, or, if possible, worse than iron, age of ours? How
dishonest, therefore, not only obstinately to defend as sacred and divine what
all the saints have always with one mouth disapproved, but to abuse their
testimony in favour of the Papacy, which, it is evident, was altogether unknown
to them? Although I admit, in respect to the time of Bernard, that all things
were so corrupt as to make it not unlike our own. But it betrays a want of all
sense of shame to seek any excuse from that middle period-namely, from that of
Leo, Gregory, and the like-for it is just as if one were to vindicate the
monarchy of the CÊsars by lauding the ancient state of the Roman empire;
in other words, were to borrow the praises of liberty in order to eulogise
tyranny.
23. Lastly, Although all these things were granted, an entirely
new question arises, when we deny that there is at Rome a Church in which
privileges of this nature can reside; when we deny that there is a bishop to
sustain the dignity of these privileges. Assume, therefore, that all these
things are true (though we have already extorted the contrary from them), that
Peter was by the words of Christ constituted head of the universal Church, and
that the honour thus conferred upon him he deposited in the Roman See, that this
was sanctioned by the authority of the ancient Church, and confirmed by long
use; that supreme power was always with one consent devolved by all on the Roman
Pontiff, that while he was the judge of all causes and all men, he was subject
to the judgment of none. Let even more be conceded to them if they will, I
answer, in one word, that none of these things avail if there be not a Church
and a Bishop at Rome. They must of necessity concede to me that she is not a
mother of churches who is not herself a church, that he cannot be the chief of
bishops who is not himself a bishop. Would they then have the Apostolic See at
Rome? Let them give me a true and lawful apostleship. Would they have a supreme
pontiff, let them give me a bishop. But how? Where will they show me any
semblance of a church? They, no doubt, talk of one, and have it ever in their
mouths. But surely the Church is recognised by certain marks, and bishopric is
the name of an office. I am not now speaking of the people but of the
government, which ought perpetually to be conspicuous in the Church. Where,
then, is a ministry such as the institution of Christ requires? Let us remember
what was formerly said of the duty of presbyters and bishops. If we bring the
office of cardinals to that test, we will acknowledge that they are nothing less
than presbyters. But I should like to know what one quality of a bishop the Pope
himself has? The first point in the office of a bishop is to instruct the people
in the word of God; the second and next to it is to administer the sacraments;
the third is to admonish and exhort, to correct those who are in fault, and
restrain the people by holy discipline. Which of these things does he do? Nay,
which of these things does he pretend to do? Let them say, then, on what ground
they will have him to be regarded as a bishop, who does not even in semblance
touch any part of the duty with his little finger.
24. It is not with a
bishop as with a king; the latter, though he does not execute the proper duty of
a king, nevertheless retains the title and the honour; but in deciding on a
bishop respect is had to the command of Christ, to which effect ought always to
be given in the Church. Let the Romanists then untie this knot. I deny that
their pontiff is the prince of bishops, seeing he is no bishop. This allegation
of mine they must prove to be false if they would succeed in theirs. What then
do I maintain? That he has nothing proper to a bishop, but is in all things the
opposite of a bishop. But with what shall I here begin? With doctrine or with
morals? What shall I say, or what shall I pass in silence, or where shall I end?
This I maintain: while in the present day the world is so inundated with
perverse and impious doctrines, so full of all kinds of superstition, so blinded
by error and sunk in idolatry, there is not one of them which has not emanated
from the Papacy, or at least been confirmed by it. Nor is there any other reason
why the pontiffs are so enraged against the reviving doctrine of the Gospel, why
they stretch every nerve to oppress it, and urge all kings and princes to
cruelty, than just that they see their whole dominion tottering and falling to
pieces the moment the Gospel of Christ prevails. Leo was cruel and Clement
sanguinary, Paul is truculent. But in assailing the truth, it is not so much
natural temper that impels them as the conviction that they have no other method
of maintaining their power. Therefore, seeing they cannot be safe unless they
put Christ to flight, they labour in this cause as if they were fighting for
their altars and hearths, for their own lives and those of their adherents. What
then? Shall we recognise the Apostolic See where we see nothing but horrible
apostacy? Shall he be the vicar of Christ who, by his furious efforts in
persecuting the Gospel, plainly declares himself to be Antichrist? Shall he be
the successor of Peter who goes about with fire and sword demolishing everything
that Peter built? Shall he be the Head of the Church who, after dissevering the
Church from Christ, her only true Head, tears and lacerates her members? Rome,
indeed, was once the mother of all the churches, but since she began to be the
seat of Antichrist she ceased to be what she was.
25. To some we seem
slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those
who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance
against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest
any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested
by us against the Roman Pontiff, I wil1 briefly show that they can only be
understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of
God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person
of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity
(Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a
tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature
is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but
rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church
as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from
the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that
defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of
abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the
Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue
in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the
mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to
work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be
introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2:3;
Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that
he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading
feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when
pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing
then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself
the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he
is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.
26. Let the Romanists now go and oppose us with antiquity; as if, amid
such a complete change in every respect, the honour of the See can continue
where there is no See. Eusebius says that God, to make way for his vengeance,
transferred the Church which was at Jerusalem to Pella (Euseb. Lib. 3 cap. 5).
What we are told was once done may have been done repeatedly. Hence it is too
absurd and ridiculous so to fix the honour of the primacy to a particular spot,
so that he who is in fact the most inveterate enemy of Christ, the chief
adversary of the Gospel, the greatest devastator and waster of the Church, the
most cruel slayer and murderer of the saints, should be, nevertheless, regarded
as the vicegerent of Christ, the successor of Peter, the first priest of the
Church, merely because he occupies what was formerly the first of all sees. I do
not say how great the difference is between the chancery of the Pope and
well-regulated order in the Church; although this one fact might well set the
question at rest. For no man of sound mind will include the episcopate in lead
and bulls, much less in that administration of captions and circumscriptions, in
which the spiritual government of the Pope is supposed to consist. It has
therefore been elegantly said, that that vaunted Roman Church was long ago
converted into a temporal court, the only thing which is now seen at Rome. I am
not here speaking of the vices of individuals, but demonstrating that the Papacy
itself is diametrically opposed to the ecclesiastical system.
27. But if
we come to individuals, it is well known what kind of vicars of Christ we shall
find. No doubt, Julius and Leo, and Clement and Paul, will be pillars of the
Christian faith, the first interpreters of religion, though they knew nothing
more of Christ than they had learned in the school of Lucian. But why give the
names of three or four pontiffs? as if there were any doubt as to the kind of
religion professed by pontiffs, with their College of Cardinals, and professors,
in the present day. The first head of the secret theology which is in vogue
among them is, that there is no God. Another, that whatever things have been
written and are taught concerning Christ are lies and
imposture.55[7] A third, that the
doctrine of a future life and final resurrection is a mere fable. All do not
think, few speak thus; I confess it. Yet it is long since this began to be the
ordinary religion of pontiffs; and though the thing is notorious to all who know
Rome, Roman theologians cease not to boast that by special privilege our Saviour
has provided that the Pope cannot err, because it was said to Peter, “I
have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not”(Luke 22:32). What, pray, do
they gain by their effrontery, but to let the whole world understand that they
have reached the extreme of wickedness, so as neither to fear God nor regard
man?
28. But let us suppose that the iniquity of these pontiffs whom I
have mentioned is not known, as they have not published it either in sermons or
writings, but betrayed it only at table or in their chamber, or at least within
the walls of their court. But if they would have the privilege which they claim
to be confirmed, they must expunge from their list of pontiffs John
XXII.,55[8] who publicly maintained
that the soul is mortal, and perishes with the body till the day of
resurrection. And to show you that the whole See with its chief props then
utterly fell, none of the Cardinals opposed his madness, only the Faculty of
Paris urged the king to insist on a recantation. The king interdicted his
subjects from communion with him, unless he would immediately recant, and
published his interdict in the usual way by a herald. Thus necessitated, he
abjured his error. This example relieves me from the necessity of disputing
further with my opponents, when they say that the Roman See and its pontiffs
cannot err in the faith, from its being said to Peter, “I have prayed for
thee that thy faith fail not.” Certainly by this shameful lapse he fell
from the faith, and became a noted proof to posterity, that all are not Peters
who succeed Peter in the episcopate; although the thing is too childish in
itself to need an answer: for if they insist on applying everything that was
said to Peter to the successors of Peter, it will follow, that they are all
Satans, because our Lord once said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan,
thou art an offence unto me.” It is as easy for us to retort the latter
saying as for them to adduce the former.
29. But I have no pleasure in
this absurd mode of disputation, and therefore return to the point from which I
digressed. To fix down Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Church to a particular
spot, so that every one who presides in it, should he be a devil, must still be
deemed vicegerent of Christ, and the head of the Church, because that spot was
formerly the See of Peter, is not only impious and insulting to Christ, but
absurd and contrary to common sense. For a long period, the Roman Pontiffs have
either been altogether devoid of religion, or been its greatest enemies. The see
which they occupy, therefore, no more makes them the vicars of Christ, than it
makes an idol to become God, when it is placed in the temple of God (2 Thess.
2:4). Then, if manners be inquired into, let the Popes answer for themselves,
what there is in them that can make them be recognised for bishops. First, the
mode of life at Rome, while they not only connive and are silent, but also
tacitly approve, is altogether unworthy of bishops, whose duty it is to curb the
licence of the people by the strictness of discipline. But I will not be so
rigid with them as to charge them with the faults of others. But when they with
their household, with almost the whole College of Cardinals, and the whole body
of their clergy, are so devoted to wickedness, obscenity, uncleanness, iniquity,
and crime of every description, that they resemble monsters more than men, they
herein betray that they are nothing less than bishops. They need not fear that I
will make a farther disclosure of their turpitude. For it is painful to wade
through such filthy mire, and I must spare modest ears. But I think I have amply
demonstrated what I proposed-viz. that though Rome was formerly the first of
churches, she deserves not in the present day to be regarded as one of her
minutest members.
30. In regard to those whom they call Cardinals, I
know not how it happened that they rose so suddenly to such a height. In the age
of Gregory, the name was applied to bishops only (Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 15, 77, 79;
Ep. 6, 25). For whenever he makes mention of cardinals, he assigns them not only
to the Roman Church, but to every other church, so that, in short, a Cardinal
priest is nothing else than a bishop. I do not find the name among the
writers of a former age. I see, however, that they were inferior to bishops,
whom they now far surpass. There is a well-known passage in Augustine:
“Although, in regard to terms of honour which custom has fixed in the
Church, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, yet in many
things, Augustine is inferior to Jerome” (August. ad Hieron. Ep. 19).
Here, certainly, he is not distinguishing a presbyter of the Roman Church from
other presbyters, but placing all of them alike after bishops. And so strictly
was this observed, that at the Council of Carthage, when two legates of the
Roman See were present, one a bishop, and the other a presbyter, the latter was
put in the lowest place. But not to dwell too much on ancient times, we have
account of a Council held at Rome, under Gregory, at which the presbyters sit in
the lowest place, and subscribe by themselves, while deacons do not subscribe at
all. And, indeed, they had no office at that time, unless to be present under
the bishop, and assist him in the administration of word and sacraments. So much
is their lot now changed, that they have become associates of kings and
CÊsars. And there can be no doubt that they have grown gradually with
their head, until they reached their present pinnacle of dignity. This much it
seemed proper to say in passing, that my readers may understand how very widely
the Roman See, as it now exists, differs from the ancient See, under which it
endeavours to cloak and defend itself. But whatever they were formerly, as they
have no true and legitimate office in the Church, they only retain a colour and
empty mask; nay, as they are in all respects the opposite of true ministers, the
thing which Gregory so often writes must, of necessity, have befallen them. His
words are, “Weeping, I say, groaning, I declare it; when the sacerdotal
order has fallen within, it cannot long stand without” (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep.
55, 56; Lib. 5 Ep. 7). Nay, rather what Malachi says of such persons must be
fulfilled in them: “Ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to
stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of
hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the
people” (Mal. 2:8, 9). I now leave all the pious to judge what the supreme
pinnacle of the Roman hierarchy must be, to which the Papists, with nefarious
effrontery, hesitate not to subject the word of God itself, that word which
should be venerable and holy in earth and heaven, to men and angels.
CHAPTER 8.
OF THE POWER OF
THE CHURCH IN ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE UNBRIDLED LICENCE OF THE PAPAL CHURCH IN
DESTROYING PURITY OF DOCTRINE.
This chapter is divided into two
parts,-I. The limits within which the Church ought to confine herself in matters
of this kind, sec. 1-9. II. The Roman Church convicted of having transgressed
these limits, sec. 10-16.
Sections.
1. The marks and
government of the Church having been considered in the seven previous chapters,
the power of the Church is now considered under three heads-viz. Doctrine,
Legislation, Jurisdiction.
2. The authority and power given to
Church-officers not given to themselves, but their office. This shown in the
case of Moses and the Levitical priesthood.
3. The same thing shown in
the case of the Prophets.
4. Same thing shown in the case of the
Apostles, and of Christ himself.
5. The Church astricted to the written
Word of God. Christ the only teacher of the Church. From his lips ministers must
derive whatever they teach for the salvation of others. Various modes of divine
teaching. 1. Personal revelations.
6. Second mode of teaching-viz. by
the Law and the Prophets. The Prophets were in regard to doctrine, the
expounders of the Law. To these were added Historical Narratives and the Psalms.
7. Last mode of teaching by our Saviour himself manifested in the
flesh. Different names given to this dispensation, to show that we are not to
dream of anything more perfect than the written word.
8. Nothing can be
lawfully taught in the Church, that is not contained in the writings of the
Prophets and Apostles, as dictated by the Spirit of Christ.
9. Neither
the Apostles, nor apostolic men. nor the whole Church, allowed to overstep these
limits. This confirmed by passages of Peter and Paul. Argument a
fortiori.
10. The Roman tyrants have taught a different
doctrine-viz. that Councils cannot err, and, therefore, may coin new dogmas.
11. Answer to the Papistical arguments for the authority of the Church.
Argument, that the Church is to be led into all truth. Answer. This promise made
not only to the whole Church, but to every individual believer.
12.
Answers continued.
13. Answers continued.
14. Argument, that
the Church should supply the deficiency of the written word by traditions.
Answer.
15. Argument founded on Mt. 18:17. Answer.
16.
Objections founded on Infant Baptism, and the Canon of the Council of Nice, as
to the consubstantiality of the Son. Answer.
1. WE come now to the third
division-viz. the Power of the Church, as existing either in individual
bishops, or in councils, whether provincial or general. I speak only of the
spiritual power which is proper to the Church, and which consists either in
doctrine, or jurisdiction, or in enacting laws. In regard to doctrine, there are
two divisions-viz. the authority of delivering dogmas, and the interpretation of
them. Before we begin to treat of each in particular, I wish to remind the pious
reader, that whatever is taught respecting the power of the Church, ought to
have reference to the end for which Paul declares (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10) that it
was given-namely, for edification, and not for destruction, those who use it
lawfully deeming themselves to be nothing more than servants of Christ, and, at
the same time, servants of the people in Christ. Moreover, the only mode by
which ministers can edify the Church is, by studying to maintain the authority
of Christ, which cannot be unimpaired, unless that which he received of the
Father is left to him-viz. to be the only Master of the Church. For it was not
said of any other but of himself alone, “Hear him” (Mt. 17:5).
Ecclesiastical power, therefore, is not to be mischievously adorned, but it is
to be confined within certain limits, so as not to be drawn hither and thither
at the caprice of men. For this purpose, it will be of great use to observe how
it is described by Prophets and Apostles. For if we concede unreservedly to men
all the power which they think proper to assume, it is easy to see how soon it
will degenerate into a tyranny which is altogether alien from the Church of
Christ.
2. Therefore, it is here necessary to remember, that whatever
authority and dignity the Holy Spirit in Scripture confers on priests, or
prophets, or apostles, or successors of Apostles, is wholly given not to men
themselves, but to the ministry to which they are appointed; or, to speak more
plainly, to the word, to the ministry of which they are appointed. For were we
to go over the whole in order, we should find that they were not invested with
authority to teach or give responses, save in the name and word of the Lord. For
whenever they are called to office, they are enjoined not to bring anything of
their own, but to speak by the mouth of the Lord. Nor does he bring them forward
to be heard by the people, before he has instructed them what they are to speak,
lest they should speak anything but his own word. Moses, the prince of all the
prophets, was to be heard in preference to others (Exod. 3:4; Deut. 17:9); but
he is previously furnished with his orders, that he may not be able to speak at
all except from the Lord. Accordingly, when the people embraced his doctrine,
they are said to have believed the Lord, and his servant Moses (Exod. 14:31). It
was also provided under the severest sanctions, that the authority of the
priests should not be despised (Exod. 17:9). But the Lord, at the same time,
shows in what terms they were to be heard, when he says that he made his
covenant with Levi, that the law of truth might be in his mouth (Mal. 2:4-6). A
little after he adds, “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and
they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of
hosts.” Therefore, if the priest would be heard, let him show himself to
be the messenger of God; that is, let him faithfully deliver the commands which
he has received from his Maker. When the mode of hearing, then, is treated of,
it is expressly said, “According to the sentence of the law which they
shall teach thee” (Deut. 17:11).
3. The nature of the power
conferred upon the prophets in general is elegantly described by Ezekiel:
“Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel:
therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me” (Ezek.
3:17). Is not he who is ordered to hear at the mouth of the Lord prohibited from
devising anything of himself? And what is meant by giving a warning from the
Lord, but just to speak so as to be able confidently to declare that the word
which he delivers is not his own but the Lord’s? The same thing is
expressed by Jeremiah in different terms, “The prophet that hath a dream,
let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word
faithfully” (Jer. 23:28). Surely God here declares the law to all, and it
is a law which does not allow any one to teach more than he has been ordered. He
afterwards gives the name of chaff to whatever has not proceeded from himself
alone. Accordingly, none of the prophets opened his mouth unless preceded by the
word of the Lord. Hence we so often meet with the expressions, “The word
of the Lord, The burden of the Lord, Thus saith the Lord, The mouth of the Lord
hath spoken it.”55[9] And
justly, for Isaiah exclaims that his lips are unclean (Isa. 6:5); and Jeremiah
confesses that he knows not how to speak because he is a child (Jer. 1:6). Could
anything proceed from the unclean lips of the one, and the childish lips of the
other, if they spoke their own language, but what was unclean or childish? But
their lips were holy and pure when they began to be organs of the Holy Spirit.
The prophets, after being thus strictly bound not to deliver anything but what
they received, are invested with great power and illustrious titles. For when
the Lord declares, “See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and
over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw
down, to build, and to plant,” he at the same time gives the reason,
“Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth “ (Jer. 1:9, 10).
4. Now, if you look to the apostles, they are commended by many
distinguished titles, as the Light of the world, and the Salt of the earth, to
be heard in Christ’s stead, whatever they bound or loosed on earth being
bound or loosed in heaven (Mt. 5:13, 14; Luke 10:16; John 20:23). But they
declare in their own name what the authority was which their office conferred on
them-viz. if they are apostles they must not speak their own pleasure, but
faithfully deliver the commands of him by whom they are sent. The words in which
Christ defined their embassy are sufficiently clear, “Go ye, therefore,
and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you” (Mt. 28:19, 20). Nay, that none might be permitted to
decline this law, he received it and imposed it on himself. “My doctrine
is not mine, but his that sent me” (John 7:16). He who always was the only
and eternal counsellor of the Father, who by the Father was constituted Lord and
Master of all, yet because he performed the ministry of teaching, prescribed to
all ministers by his example the rule which they ought to follow in teaching.
The power of the Church, therefore, is not infinite, but is subject to the word
of the Lord, and, as it were, included in it.
5. But though the rule
which always existed in the Church from the beginning, and ought to exist in the
present day, is, that the servants of God are only to teach what they have
learned from himself, yet, according to the variety of times, they have had
different methods of learning. The mode which now exists differs very much from
that of former times. First, if it is true, as Christ says, “Neither
knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal him” (Mt. 11:27), then those who wish to attain to the knowledge of
God behoved always to be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could they
have comprehended the mysteries of God in their mind, or declared them to
others, unless by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of the Father
are known? The only way, therefore, by which in ancient times holy men knew God,
was by beholding him in the Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I mean that God
never manifested himself to men by any other means than by his Son, that is, his
own only wisdom, light, and truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and others, drew all the heavenly doctrine which they
possessed. [6] From the same
fountain all the prophets also drew all the heavenly oracles which they
published. For this wisdom did not always display itself in one manner. With the
patriarchs he employed secret revelations, but, at the same time, in order to
confirm these, had recourse to signs so as to make it impossible for them to
doubt that it was God that spake to them. What the patriarchs received they
handed down to posterity, for God had, in depositing it with them, bound them
thus to propagate it, while their children and descendants knew by the inward
teaching of God, that what they heard was of heaven and not of earth.
6.
But when God determined to give a more illustrious form to the Church, he was
pleased to commit and consign his word to writing, that the priests might there
seek what they were to teach the people, and every doctrine delivered be brought
to it as a test (Mal. 2:7). Accordingly, after the promulgation of the Law, when
the priests are enjoined to teach from the mouth of the Lord, the meaning is,
that they are not to teach anything extraneous or alien to that kind of doctrine
which God had summed up in the Law, while it was unlawful for them to add to it
or take from it. Next followed the prophets, by whom God published the new
oracles which were added to the Law, not so new, however, but that they flowed
from the Law, and had respect to it. For in so far as regards doctrine, they
were only interpreters of the Law, adding nothing to it but predictions of
future events. With this exception, all that they delivered was pure exposition
of the Law. But as the Lord was pleased that doctrine should exist in a clearer
and more ample form, the better to satisfy weak consciences, he commanded the
prophecies also to be committed to writing, and to be held part of his word. To
these at the same time were added historical details, which are also the
composition of prophets, but dictated by the Holy Spirit;
[7] I include the Psalms among the
Prophecies, the quality which we attribute to the latter belonging also to the
former. The whole body, therefore, composed of the Law, the Prophets, the
Psalms, and Histories, formed the word of the Lord to his ancient people, and by
it as a standard, priests and teachers, before the advent of Christ, were bound
to test their doctrine, nor was it lawful for them to turn aside either to the
right hand or the left, because their whole office was confined to this-to give
responses to the people from the mouth of God. This is gathered from a
celebrated passage of Malachi, in which it is enjoined to remember the Law, and
give heed to it until the preaching of the Gospel (Mal. 4:4). For he thus
restrains men from all adventitious doctrines, and does not allow them to
deviate in the least from the path which Moses had faithfully pointed out. And
the reason why David so magnificently extols the Law, and pronounces so many
encomiums on it (Ps. 19, 119), was, that the Jews might not long after any
extraneous aid, all perfection being included in it.
7. But when at
length the Wisdom of God was manifested in the flesh, he fully unfolded to us
all that the human mind can comprehend, or ought to think of the heavenly
Father. Now, therefore, since Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has arisen, we
have the perfect refulgence of divine truth, like the brightness of noon-day,
whereas the light was previously dim. It was no ordinary blessing which the
apostle intended to publish when he wrote: “God, who at sundry times and
in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in
these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:1, 2); for he
intimates, nay, openly declares, that God will not henceforth, as formerly,
speak by this one and by that one, that he will not add prophecy to prophecy, or
revelation to revelation, but has so completed all the parts of teaching in the
Son, that it is to be regarded as his last and eternal testimony. For which
reason, the whole period of the new dispensation, from the time when Christ
appeared to us with the preaching of his Gospel, until the day of judgment, is
designated by the last hour, the last times, the last days, that,
contented with the perfection of Christ’s doctrine, we may learn to frame
no new doctrine for ourselves, or admit any one devised by others. With good
cause, therefore, the Father appointed the Son our teacher, with special
prerogative, commanding that he and no human being should be heard. When he
said, “Hear him” (Mt. 17:5), he commended his office to us, in few
words, indeed, but words of more weight and energy than is commonly supposed,
for it is just as if he had withdrawn us from all doctrines of man, and confined
us to him alone, ordering us to seek the whole doctrine of salvation from him
alone, to depend on him alone, and cleave to him alone; in short (as the words
express), to listen only to his voice. And, indeed, what can now be expected or
desired from man, when the very Word of life has appeared before us, and
familiarly explained himself? Nay, every mouth should be stopped when once he
has spoken, in whom, according to the pleasure of our heavenly Father,
“are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3), and
spoken as became the Wisdom of God (which is in no part defective) and the
Messiah (from whom the revelation of all things was expected) (John 4:25); in
other words, has so spoken as to leave nothing to be spoken by others after him.
8. Let this then be a sure axiom-that there is no word of God to which
place should be given in the Church save that which is contained, first, in the
Law and the Prophets; and, secondly, in the writings of the Apostles, and that
the only due method of teaching in the Church is according to the prescription
and rule of his word. Hence also we infer that nothing else was permitted to the
apostles than was formerly permitted to the prophets-namely, to expound the
ancient Scriptures, and show that the things there delivered are fulfilled in
Christ: this, however, they could not do unless from the Lord; that is, unless
the Spirit of Christ went before, and in a manner dictated words to them.
[8] For Christ thus defined the terms of
their embassy, when he commanded them to go and teach, not what they themselves
had at random fabricated, but whatsoever he had commanded (Mt. 28:20). And
nothing can be plainer than his words in another passage, “Be not ye
called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ” (Mt. 23:8-10). To
impress this more deeply in their minds, he in the same place repeats it twice.
And because from ignorance they were unable to comprehend the things which they
had heard and learned from the lips of their Master, the Spirit of truth is
promised to guide them unto all truth (John 14:26; 16:13). The restriction
should be carefully attended to. The office which he assigns to the Holy Spirit
is to bring to remembrance what his own lips had previously taught.
9.
Accordingly, Peter, who was perfectly instructed by his Master as to the extent
of what was permitted to him, leaves nothing more to himself or others than to
dispense the doctrine delivered by God. “If any man speak, let him speak
as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11); that is, not hesitatingly, as those
are wont whose convictions are imperfect, but with the full confidence which
becomes a servant of God, provided with a sure message. What else is this than
to banish all the inventions of the human mind (whatever be the head which may
have devised them), that the pure word of God may be taught and learned in the
Church of the faithful,-than to discard the decrees, or rather fictions of men
(whatever be their rank), that the decrees of God alone may remain steadfast?
These are “the weapons of our warfare,” which “are not carnal,
but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down
imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of
God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”
(2 Cor. 10:4, 5). Here is the supreme power with which pastors of the Church, by
whatever name they are called, should be invested- namely, to dare all boldly
for the word of God, compelling all the virtue, glory, wisdom, and rank of the
world to yield and obey its majesty; to command all from the highest to the
lowest, trusting to its power to build up the house of Christ and overthrow the
house of Satan; to feed the sheep and chase away the wolves; to instruct and
exhort the docile, to accuse, rebuke, and subdue the rebellious and petulant, to
bind and loose; in fine, if need be, to fire and fulminate, but all in the word
of God. Although, as I have observed, there is this difference between the
apostles and their successors, they were sure and authentic amanuenses of the
Holy Spirit; [9] and, therefore,
their writings are to be regarded as the oracles of God, whereas others have no
other office than to teach what is delivered and sealed in the holy Scriptures.
We conclude, therefore, that it does not now belong to faithful ministers to
coin some new doctrine, but simply to adhere to the doctrine to which all,
without exception, are made subject. When I say this, I mean to show not only
what each individual, but what the whole Church, is bound to do. In regard to
individuals, Paul certainly had been appointed an apostle to the Corinthians,
and yet he declares that he has no dominion over their faith (2 Cor. 1:24). Who
will now presume to arrogate a dominion to which the apostle declares that he
himself was not competent? But if he had acknowledged such licence in teaching,
that every pastor could justly demand implicit faith in whatever he delivered,
he never would have laid it down as a rule to the Corinthians, that while two or
three prophets spoke, the others should judge, and that, if anything was
revealed to one sitting by, the first should be silent (1 Cor. 14:29, 30). Thus
he spared none, but subjected the authority of all to the censure of the word of
God. But it will be said, that with regard to the whole Church the case is
different. I answer, that in another place Paul meets the objection also when he
says, that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17).
In other words, if faith depends upon the word of God alone, if it regards and
reclines on it alone, what place is left for any word of man? He who knows what
faith is can never hesitate here, for it must possess a strength sufficient to
stand intrepid and invincible against Satan, the machinations of hell, and the
whole world. This strength can be found only in the word of God. Then the reason
to which we ought here to have regard is universal: God deprives man of the
power of producing any new doctrine, in order that he alone may be our master in
spiritual teaching, as he alone is true, and can neither lie nor deceive. This
reason applies not less to the whole Church than to every individual believer.
10. But if this power of the church which is here described be
contrasted with that which spiritual tyrants, falsely styling themselves bishops
and religious prelates, have now for several ages exercised among the people of
God, there will be no more agreement than that of Christ with Belial. It is not
my intention here to unfold the manner, the unworthy manner, in which they have
used their tyranny; I will only state the doctrine which they maintain in the
present day, first, in writing, and then, by fire and sword. Taking it for
granted, that a universal council is a true representation of the Church, they
set out with this principle, and, at the same time, lay it down as
incontrovertible, that such councils are under the immediate guidance of the
Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err. But as they rule councils, nay,
constitute them, they in fact claim for themselves whatever they maintain to be
due to councils. Therefore, they will have our faith to stand and fall at their
pleasure, so that whatever they have determined on either side must be firmly
seated in our minds; what they approve must be approved by us without any doubt;
what they condemn we also must hold to be justly condemned. Meanwhile, at their
own caprice, and in contempt of the word of God, they coin doctrines to which
they in this way demand our assent, declaring that no man can be a Christian
unless he assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative, if not
with explicit, yet with implicit faith, because it belongs to the Church to
frame new articles of faith.
11. First, let us hear by what arguments
they prove that this authority was given to the Church, and then we shall see
how far their allegations concerning the Church avail them. The Church, they
say, has the noble promise that she will never be deserted by Christ her spouse,
but be guided by his Spirit into all truth. But of the promises which they are
wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole
Church. For although the Lord spake to the twelve apostles, when he said,
“Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mt.
28:20); and again, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth”
(John 14:16, 17), he made these promises not only to the twelve, but to each of
them separately, nay, in like manner, to other disciples whom he already had
received, or was afterwards to receive. When they interpret these promises,
which are replete with consolation, in such a way as if they were not given to
any particular Christian but to the whole Church together, what else is it but
to deprive Christians of the confidence which they ought thence to have derived,
to animate them in their course? I deny not that the whole body of the faithful
is furnished with a manifold variety of gifts, and endued with a far larger and
richer treasure of heavenly wisdom than each Christian apart; nor do I mean that
this was said of believers in general, as implying that all possess the spirit
of wisdom and knowledge in an equal degree: but we are not to give permission to
the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its
proper meaning. Omitting this, however, I simply hold what is true-viz. that the
Lord is always present with his people, and guides them by his Spirit. He is the
Spirit, not of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but of sure revelation,
wisdom, truth, and light, from whom they can, without deception, learn the
things which have been given to them (1 Cor. 2:12); in other words, “what
is the hope of their calling, and what the riches of the glory of their
inheritance in the saints” (Eph. 1:18). But while believers, even those of
them who are endued with more excellent graces, obtain in the present life only
the first-fruits, and, as it were, a foretaste of the Spirit, nothing better
remains to them than, under a consciousness of their weakness, to confine
themselves anxiously within the limits of the word of God, lest, in following
their own sense too far, they forthwith stray from the right path, being left
without that Spirit, by whose teaching alone truth is discerned from falsehood.
For all confess with Paul, that “they have not yet reached the goal”
(Phil. 3:12). Accordingly, they rather aim at daily progress than glory in
perfection.
12. But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in
part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the Church. Although
there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true. God, indeed,
measures out the gifts of his Spirit to each of the members, so that nothing
necessary to the whole body is wanting, since the gifts are bestowed for the
common advantage. The riches of the Church, however, are always of such a
nature, that much is wanting to that supreme perfection of which our opponents
boast. Still the Church is not left destitute in any part, but always has as
much as is sufficient, for the Lord knows what her necessities require. But to
keep her in humility and pious modesty, he bestows no more on her than he knows
to be expedient. I am aware, it is usual here to object, that Christ hath
cleansed the Church “with the washing of water by the word: that he might
present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle” (Eph.
5:26, 27), and that it is therefore called the “pillar and ground of the
truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). But the former passage rather shows what Christ
daily performs in it, than what he has already perfected. For if he daily
sanctifies all his people, purifies, refines them, and wipes away their stains,
it is certain that they have still some spots and wrinkles, and that their
sanctification is in some measure defective. How vain and fabulous is it to
suppose that the Church, all whose members are somewhat spotted and impure, is
completely holy and spotless in every part? It is true, therefore, that the
Church is sanctified by Christ, but here the commencement of her sanctification
only is seen; the end and entire completion will be effected when Christ, the
Holy of holies, shall truly and completely fill her with his holiness. It is
true also, that her stains and wrinkles have been effaced, but so that the
process is continued every day, until Christ at his advent will entirely remove
every remaining defect. For unless we admit this, we shall be constrained to
hold with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is perfected in
this life: like the Cathari and Donatists we shall tolerate no infirmity in the
Church.56[0] The other passage, as
we have elsewhere seen (chap. 1 sec. 10), has a very different meaning from what
they put upon it. For when Paul instructed Timothy, and trained him to the
office of a true bishop, he says, he did it in order that he might learn how to
behave himself in the Church of God. And to make him devote himself to the work
with greater seriousness and zeal, he adds, that the Church is the pillar and
ground of the truth. And what else do these words mean, than just that the truth
of God is preserved in the Church, and preserved by the instrumentality of
preaching; as he elsewhere says, that Christ “gave some, apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”
“that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in
love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ”?
(Eph. 4:11, 14, 15) The reason, therefore, why the truth, instead of being
extinguished in the world, remains unimpaired, is, because he has the Church as
a faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained. But if this
guardianship consists in the ministry of the Prophets and Apostles, it follows,
that the whole depends upon this-viz. that the word of the Lord is faithfully
preserved and maintained in purity.
13. And that my readers may the
better understand the hinge on which the question chiefly turns, I will briefly
explain what our opponents demand, and what we resist. When they deny that the
Church can err, their end and meaning are to this effect: Since the Church is
governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the word; in whatever
direction she moves, she cannot think or speak anything but the truth, and
hence, if she determines anything without or beside the word of God, it must be
regarded in no other light than if it were a divine oracle. If we grant the
first point-viz. that the Church cannot err in things necessary to salvation-our
meaning is, that she cannot err, because she has altogether discarded her own
wisdom, and submits to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the word of God.
Here then is the difference. They place the authority of the Church without the
word of God; we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it.
And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord
and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips? In every
well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in every
well-regulated school the doctrine of the master only is listened to. Wherefore,
let not the Church be wise in herself, nor think any thing of herself, but let
her consider her wisdom terminated when he ceases to speak. In this way she will
distrust all the inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word of
God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitation but rest in full assurance and
unwavering constancy. Trusting to the liberal promises which she has received,
she will have the means of nobly maintaining her faith, never doubting that the
Holy Spirit is always present with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At
the same time, she will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his
Spirit. “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all
truth” (John 16:13). How? “He shall bring to your remembrance all
things whatsoever I have said unto you.” He declares, therefore, that
nothing more is to be expected of his Spirit than to enlighten our minds to
perceive the truth of his doctrine. Hence Chrysostom most shrewdly observes,
“Many boast of the Holy Spirit, but with those who speak their own it is a
false pretence. As Christ declared that he spoke not of himself (John 12:50;
14:10), because he spoke according to the Law and the Prophets; so, if anything
contrary to the Gospel is obtruded under the name of the Holy Spirit, let us not
believe it. For as Christ is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, so is
the Spirit the fulfilment of the Gospel” (Chrysost. Serm. de Sancto et
Adorando Spiritu.) Thus far Chrysostom. We may now easily infer how erroneously
our opponents act in vaunting of the Holy Spirit, for no other end than to give
the credit of his name to strange doctrines, extraneous to the word of God,
whereas he himself desires to be inseparably connected with the word of God; and
Christ declares the same thing of him, when he promises him to the Church. And
so indeed it is. The soberness which our Lord once prescribed to his Church, he
wishes to be perpetually observed. He forbade that anything should be added to
his word, and that anything should be taken from it. This is the inviolable
decree of God and the Holy Spirit, a decree which our opponents endeavour to
annul when they pretend that the Church is guided by the Spirit without the
word.
14. Here again they mutter that the Church behoved to add
something to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles themselves
behoved orally to supply what they had less clearly taught, since Christ said to
them, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now” (John 16:12), and that these are the points which have been received,
without writing, merely by use and custom. But what effrontery is this? The
disciples, I admit, were ignorant and almost indocile when our Lord thus
addressed them, but were they still in this condition when they committed his
doctrine to writing, so as afterwards to be under the necessity of supplying
orally that which, through ignorance, they had omitted to write? If they were
guided by the Spirit of truth unto all truth when they published their writings,
what prevented them from embracing a full knowledge of the Gospel, and
consigning it therein? But let us grant them what they ask, provided they point
out the things which behoved to be revealed without writing. Should they presume
to attempt this, I will address, them in the words of Augustine, “When the
Lord is silent, who of us may say, this is, or that is? or if we should presume
to say it, how do we prove it?” (August. in Joann. 96) But why do I
contend superfluously? Every child knows that in the writings of the apostles,
which these men represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result
of that revelation which the Lord then promised to them.
15. What, say
they, did not Christ declare that nothing which the Church teaches and decrees
can be gainsayed, when he enjoined that every one who presumes to contradict
should be regarded as a heathen man and a publican? (Mt. 18:17.) First, there is
here no mention of doctrine, but her authority to censure, for correction is
asserted, in order that none who had been admonished or reprimanded might oppose
her judgment. But to say nothing of this, it is very strange that those men are
so lost to all sense of shame, that they hesitate not to plume themselves on
this declaration. For what, pray, will they make of it, but just that the
consent of the Church, a consent never given but to the word of God, is not to
be despised? The Church is to be heard, say they. Who denies this? since she
decides nothing but according to the word of God. If they demand more than this,
let them know that the words of Christ give them no countenance. I ought not to
seem contentious when I so vehemently insist that we cannot concede to the
Church any new doctrine; in other words, allow her to teach and oracularly
deliver more than the Lord has revealed in his word. Men of sense see how great
the danger is if so much authority is once conceded to men. They see also how
wide a door is opened for the jeers and cavils of the ungodly, if we admit that
Christians are to receive the opinions of men as if they were oracles. We may
add, that our Saviour, speaking according to the circumstances of his times,
gave the name of Church to the Sanhedrim, that the disciples might learn
afterwards to revere the sacred meetings of the Church. Hence it would follow,
that single cities and districts would have equal liberty in coining dogmas.
16. The examples which they bring do not avail them. They say that
pÊdobaptism proceeds not so much on a plain command of Scripture, as on a
decree of the Church. It would be a miserable asylum if, in defence of
pÊdobaptism, we were obliged to betake ourselves to the bare authority of
the Church; but it will be made plain enough elsewhere (chap. 16) that it is far
otherwise. In like manner, when they object that we nowhere find in the
Scriptures what was declared in the Council of Nice-viz. that the Son is
consubstantial with the Father (see August. Ep. 178)-they do a grievous
injustice to the Fathers, as if they had rashly condemned Arius for not swearing
to their words, though professing the whole of that doctrine which is contained
in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. I admit that the expression does
not exist in Scripture, but seeing it is there so often declared that there is
one God, and Christ is so often called true and eternal God, one with the
Father, what do the Nicene Fathers do when they affirm that he is of one
essence, than simply declare the genuine meaning of Scripture? Theodoret relates
that Constantine, in opening their meeting, spoke as follows: “In the
discussion of divine matters, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit stands recorded.
The Gospels and apostolical writings, with the oracles of the prophets, fully
show us the meaning of the Deity. Therefore, laying aside discord, let us take
the exposition of questions from the words of the Spirit” (Theodoret.
Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1 c. 5). There was none who opposed this sound advice; none
who objected that the Church could add something of her own, that the Spirit did
not reveal all things to the apostles, or at least that they did not deliver
them to posterity, and so forth. If the point on which our opponents insist is
true, Constantine, first, was in error in robbing the Church of her power; and,
secondly, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate it, their silence was a
kind of perfidy, and made them traitors to Ecclesiastical law. But since
Theodoret relates that they readily embraced what the Emperor said, it is
evident that this new dogma was then wholly
unknown.
CHAPTER 9.
OF
COUNCILS AND THEIR
AUTHORITY.56[1]
Since
Papists regard their Councils as expressing the sentiment and consent of the
Church, particularly as regards the authority of declaring dogmas and the
exposition of them, it was necessary to treat of Councils before proceeding to
consider that part of ecclesiastical power which relates to doctrine. I. First,
the authority of Councils in delivering dogmas is discussed, and it is shown
that the Spirit of God is not so bound to the Pastors of the Church as opponents
suppose. Their objections refuted, sec. 1-7. II. The errors, contradictions, and
weaknesses, of certain Councils exposed. A refutation of the subterfuge, that
those set over us are to be obeyed without distinction, sec. 8-12. III. Of the
authority of Councils as regards the interpretation of Scripture, sec. 13, 14.
Sections.
1. The true nature of Councils.
2.
Whence the authority of Councils is derived. What meant by assembling in the
name of Christ.
3. Objection, that no truth remains in the Church if it
be not in Pastors and Councils. Answer, showing by passages from the Old
Testament that Pastors were often devoid of the spirit of knowledge and truth.
4. Passages from the New Testament showing that our times were to be
subject to the same evil. This confirmed by the example of almost all ages.
5. All not Pastors who pretend to be so.
6. Objection, that
General Councils represent the Church. Answer, showing the absurdity of this
objection from passages in the Old Testament.
7. Passages to the same
effect from the New Testament.
8. Councils have authority only in so
far as accordant with Scripture. Testimony of Augustine. Councils of Nice,
Constantinople, and Ephesus, Subsequent Councils more impure, and to be received
with limitation.
9. Contradictory decisions of Councils. Those agreeing
with divine truth to be received. Those at variance with it to be rejected. This
confirmed by the example of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of
Nice; also of the Council of Chalcedon, and second Council of Ephesus.
10. Errors of purer Councils. Four causes of these errors. An example
from the Council of Nice.
11. Another example from the Council of
Chalcedon. The same errors in Provincial Councils.
12. Evasion of the
Papists. Three answers. Conclusion of the discussion as to the power of the
Church in relation to doctrine.
13. Last part of the chapter. Power of
the Church in interpreting Scripture. From what source interpretation is to be
derived. Means of preserving unity in the Church.
14. Impudent attempt
of the Papists to establish their tyranny refuted. Things at variance with
Scripture sanctioned by their Councils. Instance in the prohibition of marriage
and communion in both kinds.
1. WERE I now to concede all that they ask
concerning the Church, it would not greatly aid them in their object. For
everything that is said of the Church they immediately transfer to councils,
which, in their opinion, represent the Church. Nay, when they contend so
doggedly for the power of the Church, their only object is to devolve the whole
which they extort on the Roman Pontiff and his conclave. Before I begin to
discuss this question, two points must be briefly premised. First, though I mean
to be more rigid in discussing this subject, it is not because I set less value
than I ought on ancient councils. I venerate them from my heart, and would have
all to hold them in due honour.56[2]
But there must be some limitation, there must be nothing derogatory to Christ.
Moreover, it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share
the honour with any man. Now, I hold that he presides only when he governs the
whole assembly by his word and Spirit. Secondly, in attributing less to councils
than my opponents demand, it is not because I have any fear that councils are
favourable to their cause and adverse to ours. For as we are amply provided by
the word of the Lord with the means of proving our doctrine and overthrowing the
whole Papacy, and thus have no great need of other aid, so, if the case required
it, ancient councils furnish us in a great measure with what might be sufficient
for both purposes.
2. Let us now proceed to the subject itself. If we
consult Scripture on the authority of councils, there is no promise more
remarkable than that which is contained in these words of our Saviour,
“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them.” But this is just as applicable to any particular meeting
as to a universal council. And yet the important part of the question does not
lie here, but in the condition which is added-viz. that Christ will be in the
midst of a council, provided it be assembled in his name. Wherefore, though our
opponents should name councils of thousands of bishops it will little avail
them; nor will they induce us to believe that they are, as they maintain, guided
by the Holy Spirit, until they make it credible that they assemble in the name
of Christ: since it is as possible for wicked and dishonest to conspire against
Christ, as for good and honest bishops to meet together in his name. Of this we
have a clear proof in very many of the decrees which have proceeded from
councils. But this will be afterwards seen. At present I only reply in one word,
that our Saviour’s promise is made to those only who assemble in his name.
How, then, is such an assembly to be defined? I deny that those assemble in the
name of Christ who, disregarding his command by which he forbids anything to be
added to the word of God or taken from it, determine everything at their own
pleasure, who, not contented with the oracles of Scripture, that is, with the
only rule of perfect wisdom, devise some novelty out of their own head (Deut.
4:2; Rev. 22:18). Certainly, since our Saviour has not promised to be present
with all councils of whatever description, but has given a peculiar mark for
distinguishing true and lawful councils from others, we ought not by any means
to lose sight of the distinction. The covenant which God anciently made with the
Levitical priests was to teach at his mouth (Mal. 2:7). This he always required
of the prophets, and we see also that it was the law given to the apostles. On
those who violate this covenant God bestows neither the honour of the priesthood
nor any authority. Let my opponents solve this difficulty if they would subject
my faith to the decrees of man, without authority from the word of God.
3. Their idea that the truth cannot remain in the Church unless it exist
among pastors, and that the Church herself cannot exist unless displayed in
general councils, is very far from holding true if the prophets have left us a
correct description of their own times. In the time of Isaiah there was a Church
at Jerusalem which the Lord had not yet abandoned. But of pastors he thus
speaks: “His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb
dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are
greedy dogs which never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot
understand: they all look to their own way” (Isa. 56:10, 11). In the same
way Hosea says, “The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: but the prophet
is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his
God” (Hosea 9:8). Here, by ironically connecting them with God, he shows
that the pretext of the priesthood was vain. There was also a Church in the time
of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of pastors: “From the prophet even
unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.” Again, “The prophets
prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them,
neither spake unto them” (Jer. 6:13; 14:14). And not to be prolix with
quotations, read the whole of his thirty-third and fortieth chapters. Then, on
the other hand, Ezekiel inveighs against them in no milder terms. “There
is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion
ravening the prey; they have devoured souls.” “Her priests have
violated my law, and profaned mine holy things” (Ezek. 22:25, 26). There
is more to the same purpose. Similar complaints abound throughout the prophets;
nothing is of more frequent recurrence.
4. But perhaps, though this
great evil prevailed among the Jews, our age is exempt from it. Would that it
were so; but the Holy Spirit declared that it would be otherwise. For
Peter’s words are clear, “But there were false prophets among the
people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily will bring
in damnable heresies” (2 Peter 2:1). See how he predicts impending danger,
not from ordinary believers, but from those who should plume themselves on the
name of pastors and teachers. Besides, how often did Christ and his apostles
foretell that the greatest dangers with which the Church was threatened would
come from pastors? (Mt. 24:11, 24). Nay, Paul openly declares, that Antichrist
would have his seat in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4); thereby intimating,
that the fearful calamity of which he was speaking would come only from those
who should have their seat in the Church as pastors. And in another passage he
shows that the introduction of this great evil was almost at hand. For in
addressing the Elders of Ephesus, he says, “I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also
of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them” (Acts 20:29, 30). How great corruption might a long
series of years introduce among pastors, when they could degenerate so much
within so short a time? And not to fill my pages with details, we are reminded
by the examples of almost every age, that the truth is not always cherished in
the bosoms of pastors, and that the safety of the Church depends not on their
state. It was becoming that those appointed to preserve the peace and safety of
the Church should be its presidents and guardians; but it is one thing to
perform what you owe, and another to owe what you do not perform.
5. Let
no man, however, understand me as if I were desirous in everything rashly and
unreservedly to overthrow the authority of
pastors.56[3] All I advise is, to
exercise discrimination, and not suppose, as a matter of course, that all who
call themselves pastors are so in reality. But the Pope, with the whole crew of
his bishops, for no other reason but because they are called pastors, shake off
obedience to the word of God, invert all things, and turn them hither and
thither at their pleasure; meanwhile, they insist that they cannot be destitute
of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them, that
the Church subsists in them, and dies with them, as if the Lord did not still
inflict his judgments, and in the present day punish the world for its
wickedness, in the same way in which he punished the ingratitude of the ancient
people-namely, by smiting pastors with astonishment and blindness (Zech. 12:4).
These stupid men understand not that they are just chiming in with those of
ancient times who warred with the word of God. For the enemies of Jeremiah thus
set themselves against the truth, “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” (Jer. 18:18).
6. Hence it is
easy to reply to their allegation concerning general councils. It cannot be
denied, that the Jews had a true Church under the prophets. But had a general
council then been composed of the priests, what kind of appearance would the
Church have had? We hear the Lord denouncing not against one or two of them, but
the whole order: “The priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall
wonder” (Jer. 4:9). Again, “The law shall perish from the priest,
and counsel from the ancients” (Ezek. 7:26). Again, “Therefore night
shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto
you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and
the day shall be dark over them,” &c. (Micah 3:6). Now, had all men of
this description been collected together, what spirit would have presided over
their meeting? Of this we have a notable instance in the council which Ahab
convened (1 Kings 22:6, 22). Four hundred prophets were present. But because
they had met with no other intention than to flatter the impious king, Satan is
sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all their mouths. The truth is there
unanimously condemned. Micaiah is judged a heretic, is smitten, and cast into
prison. So was it done to Jeremiah, and so to the other prophets.
7. But
there is one memorable example which may suffice for all. In the council which
the priests and Pharisees assembled at Jerusalem against Christ (John 11:47),
what is wanting, in so far as external appearance is concerned? Had there been
no Church then at Jerusalem, Christ would never have joined in the sacrifices
and other ceremonies. A solemn meeting is held; the high priest presides; the
whole sacerdotal order take their seats, and yet Christ is condemned, and his
doctrine is put to flight. This atrocity proves that the Church was not at all
included in that council. But there is no danger that anything of the kind will
happen with us. Who has told us so? Too much security in a matter of so great
importance lies open to the charge of sluggishness. Nay, when the Spirit, by the
mouth of Paul, foretells, in distinct terms, that a defection will take place, a
defection which cannot come until pastors first forsake God (2 Thess. 2:3), why
do we spontaneously walk blindfold to our own destruction? Wherefore, we cannot
on any account admit that the Church consists in a meeting of pastors, as to
whom the Lord has nowhere promised that they would always be good, but has
sometimes foretold that they would be wicked. When he warns us of danger, it is
to make us use greater caution.
8. What, then, you will say, is there no
authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that
all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is
said, made one complete erasure. But you are bringing them all (it will be said)
under subordination, and so leaving every one at liberty to receive or reject
the decrees of councils as he pleases. By no means; but whenever the decree of a
council is produced, the first thing I would wish to be done is, to examine at
what time it was held, on what occasion, with what intention, and who were
present at it; next I would bring the subject discussed to the standard of
Scripture. And this I would do in such a way that the decision of the council
should have its weight, and be regarded in the light of a prior judgment, yet
not so as to prevent the application of the test which I have mentioned. I wish
all had observed the method which Augustine prescribes in his Third Book against
Maximinus, when he wished to silence the cavils of this heretic against the
decrees of councils, “I ought not to oppose the Council of Nice to you,
nor ought you to oppose that of Ariminum to me, as prejudging the question. I am
not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let
thing contend with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason, on the authority
of Scripture, an authority not peculiar to either, but common to all.” In
this way, councils would be duly respected, and yet the highest place would be
given to Scripture, everything being brought to it as a test. Thus those ancient
Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like,
which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as
sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but
the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with
spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.
In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and
moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. But as matters
usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how
much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age. I
doubt not, however, that even in those more corrupt ages, councils had their
bishops of better character. But it happened with them as the Roman senators of
old complained in regard to their decrees. Opinions being numbered, not weighed,
the better were obliged to give way to the greater number. They certainly put
forth many impious sentiments. There is no need here to collect instances, both
because it would be tedious, and because it has been done by others so
carefully, as not to leave much to be added.
9. Moreover, why should I
review the contests of council with council? Nor is there any ground for
whispering to me, that when councils are at variance, one or other of them is
not a lawful council. For how shall we ascertain this? Just, if I mistake not,
by judging from Scripture that the decrees are not orthodox. For this alone is
the sure law of discrimination. It is now about nine hundred years since the
Council of Constantinople, convened under the Emperor Leo, determined that the
images set up in temples were to be thrown down and broken to pieces. Shortly
after, the Council of Nice, which was assembled by Irene, through dislike of the
former, decreed that images were to be restored. Which of the two councils shall
we acknowledge to be lawful? The latter has usually prevailed, and secured a
place for images in churches. But Augustine maintains that this could not be
done without the greatest danger of idolatry. Epiphanius, at a later period,
speaks much more harshly (Epist. ad Joann. Hierosolym. et Lib. 3 contra
HÊres.). For he says, it is an unspeakable abomination to see images in a
Christian temple. Could those who speak thus approve of that council if they
were alive in the present day? But if historians speak true, and we believe
their acts, not only images themselves, but the worship of them, were there
sanctioned. Now it is plain that this decree emanated from Satan. Do they not
show, by corrupting and wresting Scripture, that they held it in derision? This
I have made sufficiently clear in a former part of the work (see Book I. chap.
11 sec. 14). Be this as it may, we shall never be able to distinguish between
contradictory and dissenting councils, which have been many, unless we weigh
them all in that balance for men and angels, I mean, the word of God. Thus we
embrace the Council of Chalcedon, and repudiate the second of Ephesus, because
the latter sanctioned the impiety of Eutyches, and the former condemned it. The
judgment of these holy men was founded on the Scriptures, and while we follow
it, we desire that the word of God, which illuminated them, may now also
illuminate us. Let the Romanists now go and boast after their manner, that the
Holy Spirit is fixed and tied to their councils.
10. Even in their
ancient and purer councils there is something to be desiderated, either because
the otherwise learned and prudent men who attended, being distracted by the
business in hand, did not attend to many things beside; or because, occupied
with grave and more serious measures, they winked at some of lesser moment; or
simply because, as men, they were deceived through ignorance, or were sometimes
carried headlong by some feeling in excess. Of this last case (which seems the
most difficult of all to avoid) we have a striking example in the Council of
Nice, which has been unanimously received, as it deserves, with the utmost
veneration. For when the primary article of our faith was there in peril, and
Arius, its enemy, was present, ready to engage any one in combat, and it was of
the utmost moment that those who had come to attack Arius should be agreed, they
nevertheless, feeling secure amid all these dangers, nay, as it were, forgetting
their gravity, modesty, and politeness, laying aside the discussion which was
before them (as if they had met for the express purpose of gratifying Arius),
began to give way to intestine dissensions, and turn the pen, which should have
been employed against Arius, against each other. Foul accusations were heard,
libels flew up and down, and they never would have ceased from their contention
until they had stabbed each other with mutual wounds, had not the Emperor
Constantine interfered, and declaring that the investigation of their lives was
a matter above his cognisance, repressed their intemperance by flattery rather
than censure. In how many respects is it probable that councils, held
subsequently to this, have erred? Nor does the fact stand in need of a long
demonstration; any one who reads their acts will observe many infirmities, not
to use a stronger term.
11. Even Leo, the Roman Pontiff, hesitates not
to charge the Council of Chalcedon, which he admits to be orthodox in its
doctrines, with ambition and inconsiderate rashness. He denies not that it was
lawful, but openly maintains that it might have erred. Some may think me foolish
in labouring to point out errors of this description, since my opponents admit
that councils may err in things not necessary to salvation. My labour, however,
is not superfluous. For although compelled, they admit this in word, yet by
obtruding upon us the determination of all councils, in all matters without
distinction, as the oracles of the Holy Spirit, they exact more than they had at
the outset assumed. By thus acting what do they maintain but just that councils
cannot err, of if they err, it is unlawful for us to perceive the truth, or
refuse assent to their errors? At the same time, all I mean to infer from what I
have said is, that though councils, otherwise pious and holy, were governed by
the Holy Spirit, he yet allowed them to share the lot of humanity, lest we
should confide too much in men. This is a much better view than that of Gregory
Nanzianzen, who says (Ep. 55), that he never saw any council end well. In
asserting that all, without exception, ended ill, he leaves them little
authority. There is no necessity for making separate mention of provincial
councils, since it is easy to estimate, from the case of general councils, how
much authority they ought to have in framing articles of faith, and deciding
what kind of doctrine is to be received.
12. But our Romanists, when, in
defending their cause, they see all rational grounds slip from beneath them,
betake themselves to a last miserable subterfuge. Although they should be dull
in intellect and counsel, and most depraved in heart and will, still the word of
the Lord remains, which commands us to obey those who have the rule over us
(Heb. 13:17). Is it indeed so? What if I should deny that those who act thus
have the rule over us? They ought not to claim for themselves more than Joshua
had, who was both a prophet of the Lord and an excellent pastor. Let us then
hear in what terms the Lord introduced him to his office. “This book of
the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day
and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written
therein: for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and thou shalt have good
success” (Josh. 1:7, 8). Our spiritual rulers, therefore, will be those
who turn not from the law of the Lord to the right hand or the left. But if the
doctrine of all pastors is to be received without hesitation, why are we so
often and so anxiously admonished by the Lord not to give heed to false
prophets? “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the
prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain: they speak a vision of
their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:16).
Again, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s
clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Mt. 7:15). In vain also
would John exhort us to try the spirits whether they be of God (1 John 4:1).
From this judgment not even angels are exempted (Gal. 1:8); far less Satan with
his lies. And what is meant by the expression, “If the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch”? (Mt. 15:14) Does it not
sufficiently declare that there is a great difference among the pastors who are
to be heard, that all are not to be heard indiscriminately? Wherefore they have
no ground for deterring us by their name, in order to draw us into a
participation of their blindness, since we see, on the contrary, that the Lord
has used special care to guard us from allowing ourselves to be led away by the
errors of others, whatever be the mask under which they may lurk. For if the
answer of our Saviour is true, blind guides, whether high priests, prelates, or
pontiffs, can do nothing more than hurry us over the same precipice with
themselves. Wherefore, let no names of councils, pastors, and bishops (which may
be used on false pretences as well as truly), hinder us from giving heed to the
evidence both of words and facts, and bringing all spirits to the test of the
divine word, that we may prove whether they are of God.
13. Having
proved that no power was given to the Church to set up any new doctrine, let us
now treat of the power attributed to them in the interpretation of Scripture. We
readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not
a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss
the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this
kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the
Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to
his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide. Secondly,
When bishops have assembled in one place, they deliberate more conveniently in
common, fixing both the doctrine and the form of teaching it, lest diversity
give offence. Thirdly, Paul prescribes this method of determining doctrine. For
when he gives the power of deciding to a single church, he shows what the course
of procedure should be in more important cases-namely, that the churches
together are to take common cognisance. And the very feeling of piety tells us,
that if any one trouble the Church with some novelty in doctrine, and the matter
be carried so far that there is danger of a greater dissension, the churches
should first meet, examine the question, and at length, after due discussion,
decide according to Scripture, which may both put an end to doubt in the people,
and stop the mouths of wicked and restless men, so as to prevent the matter from
proceeding farther. Thus when Arius arose, the Council of Nice was convened, and
by its authority both crushed the wicked attempts of this impious man, and
restored peace to the churches which he had vexed, and asserted the eternal
divinity of Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Thereafter, when
Eunomius and Macedonius raised new disturbances, their madness was met with a
similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople; the impiety of Nestorius was
defeated by the Council of Ephesus. In short, this was from the first the usual
method of preserving unity in the Church whenever Satan commenced his
machinations. But let us remember, that all ages and places are not favoured
with an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and like vindicators of sound doctrine,
whom the Lord then raised up. Nay, let us consider what happened in the second
Council of Ephesus when the Eutychian heresy prevailed. Flavianus, of holy
memory, with some pious men, was driven into exile, and many similar crimes were
committed, because, instead of the Spirit of the Lord, Dioscorus, a factious
man, of a very bad disposition, presided. But the Church was not there. I admit
it; for I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church though it be
oppressed by one council, but is wondrously preserved by the Lord to rise again,
and prove victorious in his own time. I deny, however, that every interpretation
of Scripture is true and certain which has received the votes of a council.
14. But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the
power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils, and that without challenge.
For they employ it as a pretext for giving the name of an interpretation of
Scripture to everything which is determined in councils. Of purgatory, the
intercession of saints, and auricular confession, and the like, not one syllable
can be found in Scripture. But as all these have been sanctioned by the
authority of the Church, or, to speak more correctly, have been received by
opinion and practice, every one of them is to be held as an interpretation of
Scripture. And not only so, but whatever a council has determined against
Scripture is to have the name of an interpretation. Christ bids all drink of the
cup which he holds forth in the Supper. The Council of Constance prohibited the
giving of it to the people, and determined that the priest alone should drink.
Though this is diametrically opposed to the institution of Christ (Mt. 26:26),
they will have it to be regarded as his interpretation. Paul terms the
prohibition of marriage a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1, 3); and the Spirit
elsewhere declares that “marriage is honourable in all” (Heb. 13:4).
Having afterwards interdicted their priests from marriage, they insist on this
as a true and genuine interpretation of Scripture, though nothing can be
imagined more alien to it. Should any one venture to open his lips in
opposition, he will be judged a heretic, since the determination of the Church
is without challenge, and it is unlawful to have any doubt as to the accuracy of
her interpretation. Why should I assail such effrontery? to point to it is to
condemn it. Their dogma with regard to the power of approving Scripture I
intentionally omit. For to subject the oracles of God in this way to the censure
of men, and hold that they are sanctioned because they please men, is a
blasphemy which deserves not to be mentioned. Besides, I have already touched
upon it (Book 1 chap. 7; 8 sec. 9). I will ask them one question, however. If
the authority of Scripture is founded on the approbation of the Church, will
they quote the decree of a council to that effect? I believe they cannot. Why,
then, did Arius allow himself to be vanquished at the Council of Nice by
passages adduced from the Gospel of John? According to these, he was at liberty
to repudiate them, as they had not previously been approved by any general
council. They allege an old catalogue, which they call the Canon, and say that
it originated in a decision of the Church. But I again ask, In what council was
that Canon published? Here they must be dumb. Besides, I wish to know what they
believe that Canon to be. For I see that the ancients are little agreed with
regard to it. If effect is to be given to what Jerome says (PrÊf. in Lib.
Solom.), the Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the like, must take their
place in the Apocrypha: but this they will not tolerate on any account.
CHAPTER 10.
OF THE POWER OF
MAKING LAWS. THE CRUELTY OF THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS, IN THIS RESPECT, IN
TYRANNICALLY OPPRESSING AND DESTROYING SOULS.
This chapter
treats,-I. Of human constitutions in general. Of the distinction between Civil
and Ecclesiastical Laws. Of conscience, why and in what sense ministers cannot
impose laws on the conscience, sec. 1-8. II. Of traditions or Popish
constitutions relating to ceremonies and discipline. The many vices inherent in
them, sec. 9-17. Arguments in favour of those traditions refuted, sec. 17-26.
III. Of Ecclesiastical constitutions that are good and lawful, sec. 27-32.
Sections.
1. The power of the Church in enacting laws.
This made a source of human traditions. Impiety of these traditions.
2.
Many of the Papistical traditions not only difficult, but impossible to be
observed.
3. That the question may be more conveniently explained,
nature of conscience must be defined.
4. Definition of conscience
explained. Examples in illustration of the definition.
5. Paul’s
doctrine of submission to magistrates for conscience sake, gives no countenance
to the Popish doctrine of the obligation of traditions.
6. The question
stated. A brief mode of deciding it.
7. A perfect rule of life in the
Law. God our only Lawgiver.
8. The traditions of the Papacy
contradictory to the Word of God.
9. Ceremonial traditions of the
Papists. Their impiety. Substituted for the true worship of God.
10.
Through these ceremonies the commandment of God made void.
11. Some of
these ceremonies useless and childish. Their endless variety. Introduce Judaism.
12. Absurdity of these ceremonies borrowed from Judaism and Paganism.
13. Their intolerable number condemned by Augustine.
14.
Injury thus done to the Church. They cannot be excused.
15. Mislead
the superstitious. Used as a kind of show and for incantation. Prostituted to
gain.
16. All such traditions liable to similar objections.
17.
Arguments in favour of traditions answered.
18. Answer continued.
19. Illustration taken from the simple administration of the
Lord’s Supper, under the Apostles, and the complicated ceremonies of the
Papists.
20. Another illustration from the use of Holy Water.
21. An argument in favour of traditions founded on the decision of the
Apostles and elders at Jerusalem. This decision explained.
22. Some
things in the Papacy may be admitted for a time for the sake of weak brethren.
23. Observance of the Popish traditions inconsistent with Christian
liberty, torturing to the conscience, and insulting to God.
24. All
human inventions in religion displeasing to God. Reason. Confirmed by an
example.
25. An argument founded on the examples of Samuel and Manoah.
Answer.
26. Argument that Christ wished such burdens to be borne.
Answer.
27. Third part of the chapter, treating of lawful
Ecclesiastical arrangements. Their foundation in the general axiom, that all
things be done decently and in order. Two extremes to be avoided.
28.
All Ecclesiastical arrangements to be thus tested. What Paul means by things
done decently and in order.
29. Nothing decent in the Popish
ceremonies. Description of true decency. Examples of Christian decency and
order.
30. No arrangement decent and orderly, unless founded on the
authority of God, and derived from Scripture. Charity the best guide in these
matters.
31. Constitutions thus framed not to be neglected or
despised.
32. Cautions to be observed in regard to such
constitutions.
1. WE come now to the second part of power, which,
according to them, consists in the enacting of laws, from which source
innumerable traditions have arisen, to be as many deadly snares to miserable
souls. For they have not been more scrupulous than the Scribes and Pharisees in
laying burdens on the shoulders of others, which they would not touch with their
finger (Mt 23:4; Luke 11:16). I have elsewhere shown (Book 3 chap. 4 sec. 4-7)
how cruel murder they commit by their doctrine of auricular confession. The same
violence is not apparent in other laws, but those which seem most tolerable
press tyrannically on the conscience. I say nothing as to the mode in which they
adulterate the worship of God, and rob God himself, who is the only Lawgiver, of
his right. The power we have now to consider is, whether it be lawful for the
Church to bind laws upon the conscience? In this discussion, civil order is not
touched; but the only point considered is, how God may be duly worshipped
according to the rule which he has prescribed, and how our spiritual liberty,
with reference to God, may remain unimpaired. In ordinary language, the name of
human traditions is given to all decrees concerning the worship of God, which
men have issued without the authority of his word. We contend against these, not
against the sacred and useful constitutions of the Church, which tend to
preserve discipline, or decency, or peace. Our aim is to curb the unlimited and
barbarous empire usurped over souls by those who would be thought pastors of the
Church, but who are in fact its most cruel murderers. They say that the laws
which they enact are spiritual, pertaining to the soul, and they affirm that
they are necessary to eternal life. But thus the kingdom of Christ, as I lately
observed, is invaded; thus the liberty, which he has given to the consciences of
believers, is completely oppressed and overthrown. I say nothing as to the great
impiety with which, to sanction the observance of their laws, they declare that
from it they seek forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation, while they
make the whole sum of religion and piety to consist in it. What I contend for
is, that necessity ought not to be laid on consciences in matters in which
Christ has made them free; and unless freed, cannot, as we have previously shown
(Book 3 chap. 19), have peace with God. They must acknowledge Christ their
deliverer, as their only king, and be ruled by the only law of liberty-namely,
the sacred word of the Gospel-if they would retain the grace which they have
once received in Christ: they must be subject to no bondage, be bound by no
chains.
2. These Solons, indeed, imagine that their constitutions are
laws of liberty, a pleasant yoke, a light burden: but who sees not that this is
mere falsehood. They themselves, indeed, feel not the burden of their laws.
Having cast off the fear of God, they securely and assiduously disregard their
own laws as well as those which are divine. Those, however, who feel any
interest in their salvation, are far from thinking themselves free so long as
they are entangled in these snares. We see how great caution Paul employed in
this matter, not venturing to impose a fetter in any one thing, and with good
reason: he certainly foresaw how great a wound would be inflicted on the
conscience if these things should be made necessary which the Lord had left
free. On the contrary, it is scarcely possible to count the constitutions which
these men have most grievously enforced, under the penalty of eternal death, and
which they exact with the greatest rigour, as necessary to salvation. And while
very many of them are most difficult of observance, the whole taken together are
impossible; so great is the mass. How, then, possibly can those, on whom this
mountain of difficulty lies, avoid being perplexed with extreme anxiety, and
filled with terror? My intention here then is, to impugn constitutions of this
description; constitutions enacted for the purpose of binding the conscience
inwardly before God, and imposing religious duties, as if they enjoined things
necessary to salvation.
3. Many are greatly puzzled with this question,
from not distinguishing, with sufficient care, between what is called the
external forum and the forum of
conscience56[4] (Book 3 chap. 19 sec
15). Moreover, the difficulty is increased by the terms in which Paul enjoins
obedience to magistrates, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience
sake” (Rom. 13:5); and from which it would follow, that civil laws also
bind the conscience. But if this were so, nothing that we have said of spiritual
government, in the last chapter, and are to say in this, would stand. To solve
this difficulty, we must first understand what is meant by conscience. The
definition must be derived from the etymology of the term. As when men, with the
mind and intellect, apprehend the knowledge of things, they are thereby said to
know, and hence the name of science or knowledge is used; so, when they have, in
addition to this, a sense of the divine judgment, as a witness not permitting
them to hide their sins, but bringing them as criminals before the tribunal of
the judge, that sense is called conscience. For it occupies a kind of middle
place between God and man, not suffering man to suppress what he knows in
himself, but following him out until it bring him to conviction. This is what
Paul means, when he says that conscience bears witness, “our thoughts the
meanwhile accusing or else excusing each other” (Rom. 2:15). Simple
knowledge, therefore, might exist in a man, as it were, shut up, and therefore
the sense which sists men before the judgment-seat of God has been placed over
him as a sentinel, to observe and spy out all his secrets, that nothing may
remain buried in darkness. Hence the old proverb, Conscience is a thousand
witnesses. For this reason, Peter also uses the “answer of a good
conscience towards God” (1 Pet. 3:21); for tranquillity of mind, when,
persuaded of the grace of Christ, we with boldness present ourselves before God.
And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that we have “no more
conscience of sins,” that we are freed or acquitted, so that sin no longer
accuses us (Heb. 10:2).
4. Wherefore, as works have respect to men, so
conscience bears reference to God; and hence a good conscience is nothing but
inward integrity of heart. In this sense, Paul says, that “the end of the
commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of
faith unfeigned” (1 Tim. 1:5). He afterwards, in the same chapter, shows
how widely it differs from intellect, saying, the, “some having put
away” a good conscience, “concerning faith have made
shipwreck.” For by these words he intimates, that it is a living
inclination to worship God, a sincere desire to live piously and holily.
Sometimes, indeed, it is extended to men also, as when Paul declares,
“Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence
toward God, and toward men” (Acts 24:16). But this is said, because the
benefits of a good conscience flow forth and reach even to men. Properly
speaking, however, it respects God alone, as I have already said. Hence a law
may be said to bind the conscience when it simply binds a man without referring
to men, or taking them into account. For example, God enjoins us not only to
keep our mind chaste and pure from all lust, but prohibits every kind of
obscenity in word, and all external lasciviousness. This law my conscience is
bound to observe, though there were not another man in the world. Thus he who
behaves intemperately not only sins by setting a bad example to his brethren,
but stands convicted in his conscience before God. Another rule holds in the
case of things which are in themselves indifferent. For we ought to abstain when
they give offence, but conscience is free. Thus Paul says of meat consecrated to
idols, “If any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols,
eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake;”
“conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other” (1 Cor. 10:28,
29). A believer would sin, if, after being warned, he should still eat such kind
of meat. But however necessary abstinence may be in respect of a brother, as
prescribed by the Lord, conscience ceases not to retain its liberty. We see how
the law, while binding the external work, leaves the conscience free.
5.
Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming
a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we
say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences
have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between
the earthly forum and the forum of
conscience.56[5] When the whole
world was enveloped in the thickest darkness of ignorance, it was still held
(like a small ray of light which remained unextinguished) that conscience was
superior to all human judgments. Although this, which was acknowledged in word,
was afterwards violated in fact, yet God was pleased that there should even then
exist an attestation to liberty, exempting the conscience from the tyranny of
man. But we have not yet explained the difficulty which arises from the words of
Paul. For if we must obey princes not only from fear of punishment but for
conscience sake, it seems to follow, that the laws of princes have dominion over
the conscience. If this is true, the same thing must be affirmed of
ecclesiastical laws. I answer, that the first thing to be done here is to
distinguish between the genus and the species. For though individual laws do not
reach the conscience, yet we are bound by the general command of God, which
enjoins us to submit to magistrates. And this is the point on which Paul’s
discussion turns-viz. that magistrates are to be honoured, because they are
ordained of God (Rom. 13:1). Meanwhile, he does not at all teach that the laws
enacted by them reach to the internal government of the soul, since he
everywhere proclaims that the worship of God, and the spiritual rule of living
righteously, are superior to all the decrees of men. Another thing also worthy
of observation, and depending on what has been already said, is, that human
laws, whether enacted by magistrates or by the Church, are necessary to be
observed (I speak of such as are just and good), but do not therefore in
themselves bind the conscience, because the whole necessity of observing them
respects the general end, and consists not in the things commanded. Very
different, however, is the case of those which prescribe a new form of
worshipping God, and introduce necessity into things that are free.
6.
Such, however, are what in the present day are called ecclesiastical
constitutions by the Papacy, and are brought forward as part of the true and
necessary worship of God. But as they are without number, so they form
innumerable fetters to bind and ensnare the soul. Though, in expounding the law,
we have adverted to this subject (Book 3 chap. 4 sec. 6), yet as this is more
properly the place for a full discussion of it, I will now study to give a
summary of it as carefully as I can. I shall, however, omit the branch relating
to the tyranny with which false bishops arrogate to themselves the right of
teaching whatever they please, having already considered it as far as seemed
necessary, but shall treat at length of the power which they claim of enacting
laws. The pretext, then, on which our false bishops burden the conscience with
new laws is, that the Lord has constituted them spiritual legislators, and given
them the government of the Church. Hence they maintain that everything which
they order and prescribe must, of necessity, be observed by the Christian
people, that he who violates their commands is guilty of a twofold disobedience,
being a rebel both against God and the Church. Assuredly, if they were true
bishops, I would give them some authority in this matter, not so much as they
demand, but so much as is requisite for duly arranging the polity of the Church;
but since they are anything but what they would be thought, they cannot possibly
assume anything to themselves, however little, without being in excess. But as
this also has been elsewhere shown, let us grant for the present, that whatever
power true bishops possess justly belongs to them, still I deny that they have
been set over believers as legislators to prescribe a rule of life at their own
hands, or bind the people committed to them to their decrees. When I say this, I
mean that they are not at all entitled to insist that whatever they devise
without authority from the word of God shall be observed by the Church as matter
of necessity. Since such power was unknown to the apostles, and was so often
denied to the ministers of the Church by our Lord himself, I wonder how any have
dared to usurp, and dare in the present day to defend it, without any precedent
from the apostles, and against the manifest prohibition of God.
7.
Everything relating to a perfect rule of life the Lord has so comprehended in
his law, that he has left nothing for men to add to the summary there given. His
object in doing this was, first, that since all rectitude of conduct consists in
regulating all our actions by his will as a standard, he alone should be
regarded as the master and guide of our life; and, secondly, that he might show
that there is nothing which he more requires of us than obedience. For this
reason James says, “He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his
brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law:” “There is
one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy” (James 4:11, 12). We
hear how God claims it as his own peculiar privilege to rule us by his laws.
This had been said before by Isaiah, though somewhat obscurely, “The Lord
is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save
us” (Isa. 33:22). Both passages show that the power of life and death
belongs to him who has power over the soul. Nay, James clearly expresses this.
This power no man may assume to himself. God, therefore, to whom the power of
saving and destroying belongs, must be acknowledged as the only King of souls,
or, as the words of Isaiah express it, he is our king and judge, and lawgiver
and saviour. So Peter, when he reminds pastors of their duty, exhorts them to
feed the flock without lording it over the heritage (1 Pet. 5:2); meaning by
heritage the body of believers. If we duly consider that it is unlawful to
transfer to man what God declares to belong only to himself, we shall see that
this completely cuts off all the power claimed by those who would take it upon
them to order anything in the Church without authority from the word of God.
8. Moreover, since the whole question depends on this, that God being
the only lawgiver, it is unlawful for men to assume that honour to themselves,
it will be proper to keep in mind the two reasons for which God claims this
solely for himself. The one reason is, that his will is to us the perfect rule
of all righteousness and holiness, and that thus in the knowledge of it we have
a perfect rule of life. The other reason is, that when the right and proper
method of worshipping him is in question, he whom we ought to obey, and on whose
will we ought to depend, alone has authority over our souls. When these two
reasons are attended to, it will be easy to decide what human constitutions are
contrary to the word of the Lord. Of this description are all those which are
devised as part of the true worship of God, and the observance of which is bound
upon the conscience, as of necessary obligation. Let us remember then to weigh
all human laws in this balance, if we would have a sure test which will not
allow us to go astray. The former reason is urged by Paul in the Epistle to the
Colossians against the false apostles who attempted to lay new burdens on the
churches. The second reason he more frequently employs in the Epistle to the
Galatians in a similar case. In the Epistle to the Colossians, then, he
maintains that the doctrine of the true worship of God is not to be sought from
men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully taught us in what way he is to be
worshipped. To demonstrate this, he says in the first chapter, that in the
gospel is contained all wisdom, that the man of God may be made perfect in
Christ. In the beginning of the second chapter, he says that all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, and from this he concludes that
believers should beware of being led away from the flock of Christ by vain
philosophy, according to the constitutions of men (Col. 2:10). In the end of the
chapter, he still more decisively condemns all ??????????????? that is,
fictitious modes of worship which men themselves devise or receive from others,
and all precepts whatsoever which they presume to deliver at their own hand
concerning the worship of God. We hold, therefore, that all constitutions are
impious in the observance of which the worship of God is pretended to be placed.
The passages in the Galatians in which he insists that fetters are not to be
bound on the conscience (which ought to be ruled by God alone), are sufficiently
plain, especially chapter 5. Let it, therefore, suffice to refer to them.
9. But that the whole matter may be made plainer by examples, it will be
proper, before we proceed, to apply the doctrine to our own times. The
constitutions which they call ecclesiastical, and by which the Pope, with his
adherents, burdens the Church, we hold to be pernicious and impious, while our
opponents defend them as sacred and salutary. Now there are two kinds of them,
some relating to ceremonies and rites, and others more especially to discipline.
Have we, then, any just cause for impugning both? Assuredly a juster cause than
we could wish. First, do not their authors themselves distinctly declare that
the very essence of the worship of God (so to speak) is contained in them? For
what end do they bring forward their ceremonies but just that God may be
worshipped by them? Nor is this done merely by error in the ignorant multitude,
but with the approbation of those who hold the place of teachers. I am not now
adverting to the gross abominations by which they have plotted the adulteration
of all godliness, but they would not deem it to be so atrocious a crime to err
in any minute tradition, did they not make the worship of God subordinate to
their fictions. Since Paul then declares it to be intolerable that the
legitimate worship of God should be subjected to the will of men, wherein do we
err when we are unable to tolerate this in the present day? especially when we
are enjoined to worship God according to the elements of this world-a thing
which Paul declares to be adverse to Christ (Col 2:20). On the other hand, the
mode in which they lay consciences under the strict necessity of observing
whatever they enjoin, is not unknown. When we protest against this, we make
common cause with Paul, who will on no account allow the consciences of
believers to be brought under human bondage.
10. Moreover, the worst of
all is, that when once religion begins to be composed of such vain fictions, the
perversion is immediately succeeded by the abominable depravity with which our
Lord upbraids the Pharisees of making the commandment of God void through their
traditions (Mt. 15:3). I am unwilling to dispute with our present legislators in
my own words;-let them gain the victory if they can clear themselves from this
accusation of Christ. But how can they do so, seeing they regard it as
immeasurably more wicked to allow the year to pass without auricular confession,
than to have spent it in the greatest iniquity: to have infected their tongue
with a slight tasting of flesh on Friday, than to have daily polluted the whole
body with whoredom: to have put their hand to honest labour on a day consecrated
to some one or other of their saintlings, than to have constantly employed all
their members in the greatest crimes: for a priest to be united to one in lawful
wedlock, than to be engaged in a thousand adulteries: to have failed in
performing a votive pilgrimage, than to have broken faith in every promise: not
to have expended profusely on the monstrous, superfluous, and useless luxury of
churches, than to have denied the poor in their greatest necessities: to have
passed an idol without honour, than to have treated the whole human race with
contumely: not to have muttered long unmeaning sentences at certain times, than
never to have framed one proper prayer? What is meant by making the word of God
void by tradition, if this is not done when recommending the ordinances of God
only frigidly and perfunctorily, they nevertheless studiously and anxiously urge
strict obedience to their own ordinances, as if the whole power of piety was
contained in them;-when vindicating the transgression of the divine Law with
trivial satisfactions, they visit the minutest violation of one of their decrees
with no lighter punishment than imprisonment, exile, fire, or sword?-When
neither severe nor inexorable against the despisers of God, they persecute to
extremity, with implacable hatred, those who despise themselves, and so train
all those whose simplicity they hold in thraldom, that they would sooner see the
whole law of God subverted than one iota of what they call the precepts of the
Church infringed. First, there is a grievous delinquency in this, that one
contemns, judges, and casts off his neighbour for trivial matters,-matters
which, if the judgment of God is to decide, are free. But now, as if this were a
small evil, those frivolous elements of this world (as Paul terms them in his
Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. 4:9) are deemed of more value than the heavenly
oracles of God. He who is all but acquitted for adultery is judged in meat; and
he to whom whoredom is permitted is forbidden to marry. This, forsooth, is all
that is gained by that prevaricating obedience, which only turns away from God
to the same extent that it inclines to men.
11. There are other two
grave vices which we disapprove in these constitutions. First, They prescribe
observances which are in a great measure useless, and are sometimes absurd;
secondly, by the vast multitude of them, pious consciences are oppressed, and
being carried back to a kind of Judaism, so cling to shadows that they cannot
come to Christ. My allegation that they are useless and absurd will, I know,
scarcely be credited by carnal wisdom, to which they are so pleasing, that the
Church seems to be altogether defaced when they are taken away. But this is just
what Paul says, that they “have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship,
and humility, and neglecting of the body” (Col. 2:23); a most salutary
admonition, of which we ought never to lose sight. Human traditions, he says,
deceive by an appearance of wisdom. Whence this show? Just that being framed by
men, the human mind recognises in them that which is its own, and embraces it
when recognised more willingly than anything, however good, which is less
suitable to its vanity. Secondly, That they seem to be a fit training to
humility, while they keep the minds of men grovelling on the ground under their
yoke; hence they have another recommendation. Lastly, Because they seem to have
a tendency to curb the will of the flesh, and to subdue it by the rigour of
abstinence, they seem to be wisely devised. But what does Paul say to all this?
Does he pluck off those masks lest the simple should be deluded by a false
pretext? Deeming it sufficient for their refutation to say that they were
devices of men, he passes all these things without refutation, as things of no
value. Nay, because he knew that all fictitious worship is condemned in the
Church, and is the more suspected by believers, the more pleasing it is to the
human mind-because he knew that this false show of outward humility differs so
widely from true humility that it can be easily discerned; -finally, because he
knew that this tutelage is valued at no more than bodily exercise, he wished the
very things which commended human traditions to the ignorant to be regarded by
believers as the refutation of them.
12. Thus, in the present day, not
only the unlearned vulgar, but every one in proportion as he is inflated by
worldly wisdom, is wonderfully captivated by the glare of ceremonies, while
hypocrites and silly women think that nothing can be imagined better or more
beautiful. But those who thoroughly examine them, and weigh them more truly
according to the rule of godliness, in regard to the value of all such
ceremonies, know, first, that they are trifles of no utility; secondly, that
they are impostures which delude the eyes of the spectators with empty show. I
am speaking of those ceremonies which the Roman masters will have to be great
mysteries, while we know by experience that they are mere mockery. Nor is it
strange that their authors have gone the length of deluding themselves and
others by mere frivolities, because they have taken their model partly from the
dreams of the Gentiles, partly, like apes, have rashly imitated the ancient
rites of the Mosaic Law, with which we have nothing more to do than with the
sacrifices of animals and other similar things. Assuredly, were there no other
proof, no sane man would expect any good from such an ill-assorted farrago. And
the case itself plainly demonstrates that very many ceremonies have no other use
than to stupify the people rather than teach them. In like manner, to those new
canons which pervert discipline rather than preserve it, hypocrites attach much
importance; but a closer examination will show that they are nothing but the
shadowy and evanescent phantom of discipline.
13. To come to the second
fault, who sees not that ceremonies, by being heaped one upon another, have
grown to such a multitude, that it is impossible to tolerate them in the
Christian Church? Hence it is, that in ceremonies a strange mixture of Judaism
is apparent, while other observances prove a deadly snare to pious minds.
Augustine complained that in his time, while the precepts of God were neglected,
prejudice everywhere prevailed to such an extent, that he who touched the ground
barefoot during his octave was censured more severely than he who buried his
wits in wine. He complained that the Church, which God in mercy wished to be
free, was so oppressed that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable
(August. Ep. 119). Had that holy man fallen on our day, in what terms would he
have deplored the bondage now existing? For the number is tenfold greater, and
each iota is exacted a hundred times more rigidly than then. This is the usual
course; when once those perverse legislators have usurped authority, they make
no end of their commands and prohibitions until they reach the extreme of
harshness. This Paul elegantly intimated by these words,-”If ye be dead
with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world,
are ye subject to ordinances? Touch not, taste not, handle not” (Col.
2:20, 21). For while the word ????????? signifies both to eat and to touch, it
is doubtless taken in the former sense, that there may not be a superfluous
repetition. Here, therefore, he most admirably describes the progress of false
apostles. The way in which superstition begins is this: they forbid not only to
eat, but even to chew gently; after they have obtained this, they forbid even to
taste. This also being yielded to them, they deem it unlawful to touch even with
the finger.
14. We justly condemn this tyranny in human constitutions,
in consequence of which miserable consciences are strangely tormented by
innumerable edicts, and the excessive exaction of them. Of the canons relating
to discipline, we have spoken elsewhere (supra, sec. 12; also chapter
12). What shall I say of ceremonies, the effect of which has been, that we have
almost buried Christ, and returned to Jewish figures? “Our Lord Christ
(says Augustine, Ep. 118) bound together the society of his new people by
sacraments, very few in number, most excellent in signification, most easy of
observance.” How widely different this simplicity is from the multitude
and variety of rites in which we see the Church entangled in the present day,
cannot well be told. I am aware of the artifice by which some acute men excuse
this perverseness. They say that there are numbers among us equally rude as any
among the Israelitish people, and that for their sakes has been introduced this
tutelage, which though the stronger may do without, they, however, ought not to
neglect, seeing that it is useful to weak brethren. I answer, that we are not
unaware of what is due to the weakness of brethren, but, on the other hand, we
object that the method of consulting for the weak is not to bury them under a
great mass of ceremonies. It was not without cause that God distinguished
between us and his ancient people, by training them like children by means of
signs and figures, and training us more simply, without so much external show.
Paul’s words are, “The heir, as long as he is a
child,”-”is under tutors and governors” (Gal. 4:1, 2). This
was the state of the Jews under the law. But we are like adults who, being freed
from tutory and curatory, have no need of puerile rudiments. God certainly
foresaw what kind of people he was to have in his Church, and in what way they
were to be governed. Now, he distinguished between us and the Jews in the way
which has been described. Therefore, it is a foolish method of consulting for
the ignorant to set up the Judaism which Christ has abrogated. This
dissimilitude between the ancient and his new people Christ expressed when he
said to the woman of Samaria, “The hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23).
This, no doubt, had always been done; but the new worshippers differ from the
old in this, that while under Moses the spiritual worship of God was shadowed,
and, as it were, entangled by many ceremonies, these have been abolished, and
worship is now more simple. Those, accordingly, who confound this distinction,
subvert the order instituted and sanctioned by Christ. Therefore you will ask,
Are no ceremonies to be given to the more ignorant, as a help to their
ignorance? I do not say so; for I think that help of this description is very
useful to them. All I contend for is the employment of such a measure as may
illustrate, not obscure Christ. Hence a few ceremonies have been divinely
appointed, and these by no means laborious, in order that they may evince a
present Christ. To the Jews a greater number were given, that they might be
images of an absent Christ. In saying he was absent, I mean not in power, but in
the mode of expression. Therefore, to secure due moderation, it is necessary to
retain that fewness in number, facility in observance, and significancy of
meaning which consists in clearness. Of what use is it to say that this is not
done? The fact is obvious to every eye.
15. I here say nothing of the
pernicious opinions with which the minds of men are imbued, as that these are
sacrifices by which propitiation is made to God, by which sins are expiated, by
which righteousness and salvation are procured. It will be maintained that
things good in themselves are not vitiated by errors of this description, since
in acts expressly enjoined by God similar errors may be committed. There is
nothing, however, more unbecoming than the fact, that works devised by the will
of man are held in such estimation as to be thought worthy of eternal life. The
works commanded by God receive a reward, because the Lawgiver himself accepts of
them as marks of obedience. They do not, therefore, take their value from their
own dignity or their own merit, but because God sets this high value on our
obedience toward him. I am here speaking of that perfection of works which is
commanded by God, but is not performed by men. The works of the law are accepted
merely by the free kindness of God, because the obedience is infirm and
defective. But as we are not here considering how far works avail without
Christ, let us omit that question. I again repeat, as properly belonging to the
present subject, that whatever commendation works have, they have it in respect
of obedience, which alone God regards, as he testifies by the prophet, “I
spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: but this
thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice “ (Jer. 7:22). Of fictitious
works he elsewhere speaks, “Wherefore do you spend your money for that
which is not bread”? (Isa. 55:2; 29:13). Again, “In vain do they
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9).
They cannot, therefore, excuse themselves from the charge of allowing wretched
people to seek in these external frivolities a righteousness which they may
present to God, and by which they may stand before the celestial tribunal.
Besides, it is not a fault deservedly stigmatised, that they exhibit unmeaning
ceremonies as a kind of stage-play or magical incantation? For it is certain
that all ceremonies are corrupt and noxious which do not direct men to Christ.
But the ceremonies in use in the Papacy are separated from doctrine, so that
they confine men to signs altogether devoid of meaning. Lastly (as the belly is
an ingenious contriver), it is clear, that many of their ceremonies have been
invented by greedy priests as lures for catching money. But whatever be their
origin, they are all so prostituted to filthy lucre, that a great part of them
must be rescinded if we would prevent a profane and sacrilegious traffic from
being carried on in the Church.
16. Although I seem not to be delivering
the general doctrine concerning human constitutions, but adapting my discourse
wholly to our own age, yet nothing has been said which may not be useful to all
ages. For whenever men begin the superstitious practice of worshipping God with
their own fictions, all the laws enacted for this purpose forthwith degenerate
into those gross abuses. For the curse which God denounces-viz. to strike those
who worship him with the doctrines of men with stupor and blindness-is not
confined to any one age, but applies to all ages. The uniform result of this
blindness is, that there is no kind of absurdity escaped by those who, despising
the many admonitions of God, spontaneously entangle themselves in these deadly
fetters. But if, without any regard to circumstances, you would simply know the
character belonging at all times to those human traditions which ought to be
repudiated by the Church, and condemned by all the
godly,56[6] the definition which we
formerly gave is clear and certain-viz. That they include all the laws enacted
by men, without authority from the word of God, for the purpose either of
prescribing the mode of divine worship, or laying a religious obligation on the
conscience, as enjoining things necessary to salvation. If to one or both of
these are added the other evils of obscuring the clearness of the Gospel by
their multitude, of giving no edification, of being useless and frivolous
occupations rather than true exercises of piety, of being set up for sordid ends
and filthy lucre, of being difficult of observance, and contaminated by
pernicious superstitions, we shall have the means of detecting the quantity of
mischief which they occasion.
17. I understand what their answer will
be-viz. that these traditions are not from themselves, but from God. For to
prevent the Church from erring, it is guided by the Holy Spirit, whose authority
resides in them. This being conceded, it at the same time follows, that their
traditions are revelations by the Holy Spirit, and cannot be disregarded without
impiety and contempt of God. And that they may not seem to have attempted
anything without high authority, they will have it to be believed that a great
part of their observances is derived from the apostles. For they contend, that
in one instance they have a sufficient proof of what the apostles did in other
cases. The instance is, when the apostles assembled in council, announced to all
the Gentiles as the opinion of the council, that they should “abstain from
pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
blood” (Acts 15:20, 29). We have already explained, how, in order to extol
themselves, they falsely assume the name of Church (Chap. 8 sec. 10-13). If, in
regard to the present cause, we remove all masks and glosses (a thing, indeed,
which ought to be our first care, and also is our highest interest), and
consider what kind of Church Christ wishes to have, that we may form and adapt
ourselves to it as a standard, it will readily appear that it is not a property
of the Church to disregard the limits of the word of God, and wanton and
luxuriate in enacting new laws. Does not the law which was once given to the
Church endure for ever? “What things soever I command you, observe to do
it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32). And
in another place, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and
thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:6). Since they cannot deny that this was
said to the Church, what else do they proclaim but their contumacy, when,
notwithstanding of such prohibitions, they profess to add to the doctrine of
God, and dare to intermingle their own with it? Far be it from us to assent to
the falsehood by which they offer such insult to the Church. Let us understand
that the name of Church is falsely pretended wherever men contend for that rash
human licence which cannot confine itself within the boundaries prescribed by
the word of God, but petulantly breaks out, and has recourse to its own
inventions. In the above passage there is nothing involved, nothing obscure,
nothing ambiguous; the whole Church is forbidden to add to, or take from the
word of God, in relation to his worship and salutary precepts. But that was said
merely of the Law, which was succeeded by the Prophets and the whole Gospel
dispensation! This I admit, but I at the same time add, that these are
fulfilments of the Law, rather than additions or diminutions. Now, if the Lord
does not permit anything to be added to, or taken from the ministry of Moses,
though wrapt up, if I may so speak, in many folds of obscurity, until he furnish
a clearer doctrine by his servants the Prophets, and at last by his beloved Son,
why should we not suppose that we are much more strictly prohibited from making
any addition to the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Gospel? The Lord
cannot forget himself, and it is long since he declared that nothing is so
offensive to him as to be worshipped by human inventions. Hence those celebrated
declarations of the Prophets, which ought continually to ring in our ears,
“I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I
brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;
but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God,
and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded
you” (Jer. 7:22, 23). “I earnestly protested unto your fathers, in
the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising
early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice” (Jer. 11:7). There are other
passages of the same kind, but the most noted of all is, “Hath the Lord as
great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the
Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatry” (1 Sam. 15: 22, 23). It is easy, therefore, to prove, that
whenever human inventions in this respect are defended by the authority of the
Church, they cannot be vindicated from the charge of impiety, and that the name
of Church is falsely assumed.
18. For this reason we freely inveigh
against that tyranny of human traditions which is haughtily obtruded upon us in
the name of the Church. Nor do we hold the Church in derision (as our
adversaries, for the purpose of producing obloquy, unjustly accuse us), but we
attribute to her the praise of obedience, than which there is none which she
acknowledges to be greater. They themselves rather are emphatically injurious to
the Church, in representing her as contumacious to her Lord, when they pretend
that she goes farther than the word of God allows, to say nothing of their
combined impudence and malice, in continually vociferating about the power of
the Church, while they meanwhile disguise both the command which the Lord has
given her, and the obedience which she owes to the command. But if our wish is
as it ought to be, to agree with the Church, it is of more consequence to
consider and remember the injunction which the Lord has given both to us and to
the Church, to obey him with one consent. For there can be no doubt that we
shall best agree with the Church when we show ourselves obedient to the Lord in
all things. But to ascribe the origin of the traditions by which the Church has
hitherto been oppressed to the apostles is mere imposition, since the whole
substance of the doctrine of the apostles is, that conscience must not be
burdened with new observances, nor the worship of God contaminated by our
inventions. Then, if any credit is to be given to ancient histories and records,
what they attribute to the apostles was not only unknown to them, but was never
heard by them. Nor let them pretend that most of their decrees, though not
delivered in writing, were received by use and practice, being things which they
could not understand while Christ was in the world, but which they learned after
his ascension, by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The meaning of that passage
has been explained elsewhere (Chap. 8 sec. 14). In regard to the present
question, they make themselves truly ridiculous, seeing it is manifest that all
those mysteries which so long were undiscovered by the apostles, are partly
Jewish or Gentile observances, the former of which had anciently been
promulgated among the Jews, and the latter among all the Gentiles, partly absurd
gesticulations and empty ceremonies, which stupid priests, who have neither
sense nor letters, can duly perform; nay, which children and mountebanks perform
so appropriately, that it seems impossible to have fitter priests for such
sacrifices. If there were no records, men of sense would judge from the very
nature of the case, that such a mass of rites and observances did not rush into
the Church all at once, but crept in gradually. For though the venerable
bishops, who were nearest in time to the apostles, introduced some things
pertaining to order and discipline, those who came after them, and those after
them again, had not enough of consideration, while they had too much curiosity
and cupidity, he who came last always vying in foolish emulation with his
predecessors, so as not to be surpassed in the invention of novelties. And
because there was a danger that these inventions, from which they anticipated
praise from posterity, might soon become obsolete, they were much more rigorous
in insisting on the observance of them. This false zeal has produced a great
part of the rites which these men represent as apostolical. This history
attests.
19. And not to become prolix, by giving a catalogue of all, we
shall be contented with one example. Under the apostles there was great
simplicity in administering the Lord’s Supper. Their immediate successors
made some additions to the dignity of the ordinance, which are not to be
disapproved. Afterwards came foolish imitators, who, by ever and anon patching
various fragments together, have left us those sacerdotal vestments which we see
in the mass, those altar ornaments, those gesticulations, and whole farrago of
useless observances.56[7] But they
object, that in old time the persuasion was, that those things which were done
with the consent of the whole Church proceeded from the apostles. Of this they
quote Augustine as a witness. I will give the explanation in the very words of
Augustine. “Those things which are observed over the whole world we may
understand to have been appointed either by the apostles themselves, or by
general councils, whose authority in the Church is most beneficial, as the
annual solemn celebration of our Lord’s passion, resurrection, and
ascension to heaven, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and any other
occurrence observed by the whole Church wherever it exists” (August. Ep.
118). In giving so few examples, who sees not that he meant to refer the
observances then in use to authors deserving of faith and reverence;-observances
few and sober, by which it was expedient that the order of the Church should be
maintained? How widely does this differ from the view of our Roman masters, who
insist that there is no paltry ceremony among them which is not apostolical?
20. Not to be tedious, I will give only one example. Should any one ask
them where they get their holy water, they will at once answer,-from the
apostles. As if I did not know who the Roman bishop is, to whom history ascribes
the invention, and who, if he had admitted the apostles to his council,
assuredly never would have adulterated baptism by a foreign and unseasonable
symbol; although it does not seem probable to me that the origin of that
consecration is so ancient as is there recorded. For when Augustine says (Ep.
118) that certain churches in his day rejected the formal imitation of Christ in
the washing of feet, lest that rite should seem to pertain to baptism, he
intimates that there was then no kind of washing which had any resemblance to
baptism. Be this as it may, I will never admit that the apostolic spirit gave
rise to that daily sign by which baptism, while brought back to remembrance, is
in a manner repeated. I attach no importance to the fact, that Augustine
elsewhere ascribes other things to the apostles. For as he has nothing better
than conjecture, it is not sufficient for forming a judgment concerning a matter
of so much moment. Lastly, though we should grant that the things which he
mentions are derived from the apostolic age, there is a great difference between
instituting some exercise of piety, which believers may use with a free
conscience, or may abstain from if they think the observance not to be useful,
and enacting a law which brings the conscience into bondage. Now, indeed,
whoever is the author from whom they are derived, since we see the great abuses
to which they have led, there is nothing to prevent us from abrogating them
without any imputation on him, since he never recommended them in such a way as
to lay us under a fixed and immovable obligation to observe them.
21. It
gives them no great help, in defending their tyranny, to pretend the example of
the apostles. The apostles and elders of the primitive Church, according to
them, sanctioned a decree without any authority from Christ, by which they
commanded all the Gentiles to abstain from meat offered to idols, from things
strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:20). If this was lawful for them, why should
not their successors be allowed to imitate the example as often as occasion
requires? Would that they would always imitate them both in this and in other
matters! For I am ready to prove, on valid grounds, that here nothing new has
been instituted or decreed by the apostles. For when Peter declares in that
council, that God is tempted if a yoke is laid on the necks of the disciples, he
overthrows his own argument if he afterwards allows a yoke to be imposed on
them. But it is imposed if the apostles, on their own authority, prohibit the
Gentiles from touching meat offered to idols, things strangled, and blood. The
difficulty still remains, that they seem nevertheless to prohibit them. But this
will easily be removed by attending more closely to the meaning of their decree.
The first thing in order, and the chief thing in importance, is, that the
Gentiles were to retain their liberty, which was not to be disturbed, and that
they were not to be annoyed with the observances of the Law. As yet, the decree
is all in our favour. The reservation which immediately follows is not a new law
enacted by the apostles, but a divine and eternal command of God against the
violation of charity, which does not detract one iota from that liberty. It only
reminds the Gentiles how they are to accommodate themselves to their brother,
and to not abuse their liberty for an occasion of offence. Let the second head,
therefore, be, that the Gentiles are to use an innoxious liberty, giving no
offence to the brethren. Still, however, they prescribe some certain thing-viz.
they show and point out, as was expedient at the time, what those things are by
which they may give offence to their brethren, that they may avoid them; but
they add no novelty of their own to the eternal law of God, which forbids the
offence of brethren.
22. As in the case where faithful pastors,
presiding over churches not yet well constituted, should intimate to their
flocks not to eat flesh on Friday until the weak among whom they live become
strong, or to work on a holiday, or any other similar things, although, when
superstition is laid aside, these matters are in themselves indifferent, still,
where offence is given to the brethren, they cannot be done without sin; so
there are times when believers cannot set this example before weak brethren
without most grievously wounding their consciences. Who but a slanderer would
say that a new law is enacted by those who, it is evident, only guard against
scandals which their Master has distinctly forbidden? But nothing more than this
can be said of the apostles, who had no other end in view, in removing grounds
of offence, than to enforce the divine Law, which prohibits offence; as if they
had said, The Lord hath commanded you not to hurt a weak brother; but meats
offered to idols, things strangled, and blood, ye cannot eat, without offending
weak brethren; we, therefore, require you, in the word of the Lord, not to eat
with offence. And to prove that the apostles had respect to this, the best
witness is Paul, who writes as follows, undoubtedly according to the sentiments
of the council: “As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things
which are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in
the world, and that there is none other God but one.”-”Howbeit,
there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol
unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience
being weak is defiled.”-”But take heed lest by any means this
liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak” (1 Cor.
8:4-9). Any one who duly considers these things will not be imposed upon by the
gloss which these men employ when, as a cloak to their tyranny, they pretend
that the apostles had begun by their decree to infringe the liberty of the
Church. But that they may be unable to escape without confessing the accuracy of
this explanation, let them tell me by what authority they have dared to abrogate
this very decree. It was, it seems, because there was no longer any danger of
those offences and dissensions which the apostles wished to obviate, and they
knew that the law was to be judged by its end. Seeing, therefore, the law was
passed with a view to charity, there is nothing prescribed in it except in so
far as required by charity. In confessing that the transgression of this law is
nothing but a violation of charity, do they not at the same time acknowledge
that it was not some adventitious supplement to the law of God, but a genuine
and simple adaptation of it to the times and manners for which it was destined?
23. But though such laws are hundreds of times unjust and injurious to
us, still they contend that they are to be heard without exception; for the
thing asked of us is not to consent to errors, but only to submit to the strict
commands of those set over us,-commands which we are not at liberty to decline
(1 Pet. 2:18). But here also the Lord comes to the succour of his word, and
frees us from this bondage by asserting the liberty which he has purchased for
us by his sacred blood, and the benefit of which he has more than once attested
by his word. For the thing required of us is not (as they maliciously pretend)
to endure some grievous oppression in our body, but to be tortured in our
consciences, and brought into bondage: in other words, robbed of the benefits of
Christ’s blood. Let us omit this, however, as if it were irrelevant to the
point. Do we think it a small matter that the Lord is deprived of his kingdom
which he so strictly claims for himself? Now, he is deprived of it as often as
he is worshipped with laws of human invention, since his will is to be sole
legislator of his worship. And lest any one should consider this as of small
moment, let us hear how the Lord himself estimates it. “Forasmuch as this
people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have
removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the
precept of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among
the people, even a marvellous 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). And in another place, “But in vain do they worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9). And, indeed,
when the children of Israel polluted themselves with manifold idolatries, the
cause of the whole evil is ascribed to that impure mixture caused by their
disregarding the commandments of God, and framing new modes of worship.
Accordingly, sacred history relates that the new inhabitants who had been
brought by the king of Assyria from Babylon to inhabit Samaria were torn and
destroyed by wild beasts, because they knew not the judgment or statutes of the
God of that land (2 Kings 17:24-34). Though they had done nothing wrong in
ceremonies, still their empty show could not have been approved by God.
Meanwhile he ceased not to punish them for the violation of his worship by the
introduction of fictions alien from his word. Hence it is afterwards said that,
terrified by the punishment, they adopted the rites prescribed in the Law; but
as they did not yet worship God purely, it is twice repeated that they feared
him and feared not. Hence we infer that part of the reverence due to him
consists in worshipping him simply in the way which he commands, without
mingling any inventions of our own. And, accordingly, pious princes are
repeatedly praised (2 Kings 22:1, &c.) for acting according to all his
precepts, and not declining either to the right hand or the left. I go further:
although there be no open manifestation of impiety in fictitious worship, it is
strictly condemned by the Spirit, inasmuch as it is a departure from the command
of God. The altar of Ahaz, a model of which had been brought from Damascus (2
Kings 16:10), might have seemed to give additional ornament to the temple,
seeing it was his intention there to offer sacrifices to God only, and to do it
more splendidly than at the first ancient altar: yet we see how the Spirit
detests the audacious attempt, for no other reasons but because human inventions
are in the worship of God impure corruptions. And the more clearly the will of
God has been manifested to us, the less excusable is our petulance in attempting
anything. Accordingly, the guilt of Manasses is aggravated by the circumstance
of having erected a new altar at Jerusalem, of which the Lord said, “In
Jerusalem will I put my name” (2 Kings 22:3, 4), because the authority of
God was thereby professedly rejected.
24. Many wonder why God threatens
so sternly that he will bring astonishment on the people who worship him with
the commandments of men, and declares that it is in vain to worship him with the
commandments of men. But if they would consider what it is in the matter of
religion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, to depend on God alone, they would, at
the same time, see that it is not on slight grounds the Lord abominates perverse
service of this description, which is offered him at the caprice of the human
will. For although there is some show of humility in the obedience of those who
obey such laws in worshipping God, yet they are by no means humble, since they
prescribe to him the very laws which they observe. This is the reason why Paul
would have us so carefully to beware of being deceived by the traditions of men,
and what is called ???????????????, that is, voluntary worship, worship devised
by men without sanction from God. Thus it is, indeed: we must be fools in regard
to our own wisdom and all the wisdom of men, in order that we may allow him
alone to be wise. This course is by no means observed by those who seek to
approve themselves to him by paltry observances of man’s devising, and, as
it were, against his will obtrude upon him a prevaricating obedience which is
yielded to men. This is the course which has been pursued for several ages, and
within our own recollection, and is still pursued in the present day in those
places in which the power of the creature is more than that of the Creator,
where religion (if religion it deserves to be called) is polluted with more
numerous, and more absurd superstitions, than ever Paganism was. For what could
human sense produce but things carnal and fatuous, and savouring of their
authors?
25. When the patrons of superstition cloak them, by pretending
that Samuel sacrificed in Ramath, and though he did so contrary to the Law, yet
pleased God (l Sam 7:17), it is easy to answer, that he did not set up any
second altar in opposition to the only true one; but, as the place for the Ark
of the Covenant had not been fixed, he sacrificed in the town where he dwelt, as
being the most convenient. It certainly never was the intention of the holy
prophet to make any innovation in sacred things, in regard to which the Lord had
so strictly forbidden addition or diminution. The case of Manoah I consider to
have been extraordinary and special. He, though a private man, offered sacrifice
to God, and did it not without approbation, because he did it not from a rash
movement of his own mind, but by divine inspiration (Judges 13:19). How much God
abominates all the devices of men in his worship, we have a striking proof in
the case of one not inferior to Manoah-viz. Gideon, whose ephod brought ruin not
only on himself and his family, but on the whole people (Judges 8:27). In short,
every adventitious invention, by which men desire to worship God, is nothing
else than a pollution of true holiness.
26. Why then, they ask, did
Christ say that the intolerable burdens, imposed by Scribes and Pharisees, were
to be borne? (Mt. 23:3) Nay, rather, why did he say in another place that we
were to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees? (Mt. 16:6) meaning by leaven, as
the Evangelist Matthew explains it, whatever of human doctrine is mingled with
the pure word of God. What can be plainer than that we are enjoined to shun and
beware of their whole doctrine? From this it is most certain, that in the other
passage our Lord never meant that the consciences of his people were to be
harassed by the mere traditions of the Pharisees. And the words themselves,
unless when wrested, have no such meaning. Our Lord, indeed, beginning to
inveigh against the manners of the Pharisees, first instructs his hearers
simply, that though they saw nothing to follow in the lives of the Pharisees,
they should not, however, cease to do what they verbally taught when they sat in
the seat of Moses, that is, to expound the Law. All he meant, therefore, was to
guard the common people against being led by the bad example of their teachers
to despise doctrine. But as some are not at all moved by reason, and always
require authority, I will quote a passage from Augustine, in which the very same
thing is expressed. “The Lord’s sheepfold has persons set over it,
of whom some are faithful, others hirelings. Those who are faithful are true
shepherds; learn, however, that hirelings also are necessary. For many in the
Church, pursuing temporal advantages, preach Christ, and the voice of Christ is
heard by them, and the sheep follow not a hireling, but the shepherd by means of
a hireling. Learn that hirelings were pointed out by the Lord himself. The
Scribes and Pharisees, says he, sit in Moses’ seat; what they tell you,
do, but what they do, do ye not. What is this but to say, Hear the voice of the
shepherd by means of hirelings? Sitting in the chair, they teach the Law of God,
and therefore God teaches by them; but if they choose to teach their own, hear
not, do not.” Thus far Augustine. (August. in Joann. Tract. 46)
27. But as very many ignorant persons, on hearing that it is impious to
bind the conscience, and vain to worship God with human traditions, apply one
blot to all the laws by which the order of the Church is established, it will be
proper to obviate their error. Here, indeed, the danger of mistake is great: for
it is not easy to see at first sight how widely the two things differ. But I
will, in a few words, make the matter so clear, that no one will be imposed upon
by the resemblance. First, then, let us understand that if in every human
society some kind of government is necessary to insure the common peace and
maintain concord, if in transacting business some form must always be observed,
which public decency, and hence humanity itself, require us not to disregard,
this ought especially to be observed in churches, which are best sustained by a
constitution in all respects well ordered, and without which concord can have no
existence. Wherefore, if we would provide for the safety of the Church, we must
always carefully attend to Paul’s injunction, that all things be done
decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). But seeing there is such diversity in the
manners of men, such variety in their minds, such repugnance in their judgments
and dispositions, no policy is sufficiently firm unless fortified by certain
laws, nor can any rite be observed without a fixed form. So far, therefore, are
we from condemning the laws which conduce to this, that we hold that the removal
of them would unnerve the Church, deface and dissipate it entirely. For
Paul’s injunction, that all things be done decently and in order, cannot
be observed unless order and decency be secured by the addition of ordinances,
as a kind of bonds. In these ordinances, however, we must always attend to the
exception, that they must not be thought necessary to salvation, nor lay the
conscience under a religious obligation; they must not be compared to the
worship of God, nor substituted for piety.
28. We have, therefore, a
most excellent and sure mark to distinguish between those impious constitutions
(by which, as we have said, true religion is overthrown, and conscience
subverted) and the legitimate observances of the Church, if we remember that one
of two things, or both together, are always intended-viz. that in the sacred
assembly of the faithful, all things may be done decently, and with becoming
dignity, and that human society may be maintained in order by certain bonds, as
it were, of moderation and humanity. For when a law is understood to have been
made for the sake of public decency, there is no room for the superstition into
which those fall who measure the worship of God by human inventions. On the
other hand, when a law is known to be intended for common use, that false idea
of its obligation and necessity, which gives great alarm to the conscience, when
traditions are deemed necessary to salvation, is overthrown; since nothing here
is sought but the maintenance of charity by a common office. But it may be
proper to explain more clearly what is meant by the decency which Paul commends,
and also what is comprehended under order. And the object of decency is, partly
that by the use of rites, which produce reverence in sacred matters, we may be
excited to piety, and partly that the modesty and gravity which ought to be seen
in all honourable actions may here especially be conspicuous. In order, the
first thing is, that those who preside know the law and rule of right
government, while those who are governed be accustomed to obedience and right
discipline. The second thing is, that by duly arranging the state of the Church,
provision be made for peace and tranquillity.
29. We shall not,
therefore, give the name of decency to that which only ministers an empty
pleasure: such, for example, as is seen in that theatrical display which the
Papists exhibit in their public service, where nothing appears but a mask of
useless splendour, and luxury without any fruit. But we give the name of decency
to that which, suited to the reverence of sacred mysteries, forms a fit exercise
for piety, or at least gives an ornament adapted to the action, and is not
without fruit, but reminds believers of the great modesty, seriousness, and
reverence, with which sacred things ought to be treated. Moreover, ceremonies,
in order to be exercises of piety, must lead us directly to Christ. In like
manner, we shall not make order consist in that nugatory pomp which gives
nothing but evanescent splendour, but in that arrangement which removes all
confusion, barbarism, contumacy, all turbulence and dissension. Of the former
class we have examples (1 Cor. 11:5, 21), where Paul says, that profane
entertainments must not be intermingled with the sacred Supper of the Lord; that
women must not appear in public uncovered. And there are many other things which
we have in daily practice, such as praying on our knees, and with our head
uncovered, administering the sacraments of the Lord, not sordidly, but with some
degree of dignity; employing some degree of solemnity in the burial of our dead,
and so forth. In the other class are the hours set apart for public prayer,
sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places,
singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like. To
the same list especially may be referred those things which preserve discipline,
as catechising, ecclesiastical censures, excommunication, fastings, &c. Thus
all ecclesiastical constitutions, which we admit to be sacred and salutary, may
be reduced to two heads, the one relating to rites and ceremonies, the other to
discipline and peace.
30. But as there is here a danger, on the one
hand, lest false bishops should thence derive a pretext for their impious and
tyrannical laws, and, on the other, lest some, too apt to take alarm, should,
from fear of the above evils, leave no place for laws, however holy, it may here
be proper to declare, that I approve of those human constitutions only which are
founded on the authority of God, and derived from Scripture, and are therefore
altogether divine. Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee which is
made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a human tradition, which any
one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect? I say, that it is human, and that at
the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that
decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle; and it
is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general,
rather than expounded. From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought
of the whole class-viz. that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts
of divine worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has
faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded, in his sacred oracles, so that in
them he alone is the only Master to be heard. But as in external discipline and
ceremonies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every particular that we ought
to observe (he foresaw that this depended on the nature of the times, and that
one form would not suit all ages), in them we must have recourse to the general
rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the
Church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not
delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary
to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to
the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the
interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as
to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or
incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to
hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.
31. Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the
duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and
without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They
are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference,
far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What
liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this
liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and
perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for
human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because
we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise
in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet,
so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence
fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is
there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot
be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such
haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins
not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on
which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent.
Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray
standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of
grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait
till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and
institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself,
declare what is to be done or avoided. Here, if any error is committed through
imprudence or forgetfulness, no crime is perpetrated; but if this is done from
contempt, such contumacy must be disapproved. In like manner, it is of no
consequence what the days and hours are, what the nature of the edifices, and
what psalms are sung on each day. But it is proper that there should be certain
days and stated hours, and a place fit for receiving all, if any regard is had
to the preservation of peace. For what a seed-bed of quarrels will confusion in
such matters be, if every one is allowed at pleasure to alter what pertains to
common order? All will not be satisfied with the same course if matters, placed
as it were on debateable ground, are left to the determination of individuals.
But if any one here becomes clamorous, and would be wiser than he ought, let him
consider how he will approve his moroseness to the Lord. Paul’s answer
ought to satisfy us, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such
custom, neither the churches of God.”
32. Moreover, we must use
the utmost diligence to prevent any error from creeping in which may either
taint or sully this pure use. In this we shall succeed, if whatever observances
we use are manifestly useful, and very few in number; especially if to this is
added the teaching of a faithful pastor, which may prevent access to erroneous
opinions. The effect of this procedure is, that in all these matters each
retains his freedom, and yet at the same time voluntarily subjects it to a kind
of necessity, in so far as the decency of which we have spoken or charity
demands. Next, that in the observance of these things we may not fall into any
superstition, nor rigidly require too much from others, let us not imagine that
the worship of God is improved by a multitude of ceremonies: let not church
despise church because of a difference in external discipline. Lastly, instead
of here laying down any perpetual law for ourselves, let us refer the whole end
and use of observances to the edification of the Church, at whose request let us
without offence allow not only something to be changed, but even observances
which were formerly in use to be inverted. For the present age is a proof that
the nature of times allows that certain rites, not otherwise impious or
unbecoming, may be abrogated according to circumstances. Such was the ignorance
and blindness of former times; with such erroneous ideas and pertinacious zeal
did churches formerly cling to ceremonies, that they can scarcely be purified
from monstrous superstitions without the removal of many ceremonies which were
formerly established, not without cause, and which in themselves are not
chargeable with any impiety.
CHAPTER
11.
OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH, AND THE
ABUSES OF IT, AS
EXEMPLIFIED IN THE
PAPACY.
This chapter may be conveniently comprehended under two
heads,-I. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, its necessity, origin, description, and
essential parts-viz. the sacred ministry of the word, and discipline of
excommunication, of which the aim, use, and abuse are explained, sec. 1-8. II.
Refutation of the arguments advanced by Papists in defence of the tyranny of
Pontiffs, the right of both swords, imperial pomp and dignity, foreign
jurisdiction, and immunity from civil jurisdiction, sec.
9-16.
Sections.
1. The power of the Church in regard to
jurisdiction. The necessity, origin, and nature of this jurisdiction. The power
of the keys to be considered in two points of view. The first view expounded.
2. Second view expounded. How the Church binds and looses in the way of
discipline. Abuse of the keys in the Papacy.
3. The discipline of
excommunication of perpetual endurance. Distinction between civil and
ecclesiastical power.
4. The perpetual endurance of the discipline of
excommunication confirmed. Duly ordered under the Emperors and Christian
magistrates.
5. The aim and use of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the
primitive Church. Spiritual power was kept entirely distinct from the power of
the sword.
6. Spiritual power was not administered by one individual,
but by a lawful consistory. Gradual change. First, the clergy alone interfered
in the judicial proceedings of the Church. The bishop afterwards appropriated
them to himself.
7. The bishops afterwards transferred the rights thus
appropriated to their officials, and converted spiritual jurisdiction into a
profane tribunal.
8. Recapitulation. The Papal power confuted. Christ
wished to debar the ministers of the word from civil rule and worldly power.
9. Objections of the Papists. 1. By this external splendour the glory
of Christ is displayed. 2. It does not interfere with the duties of their
calling. Both objections answered.
10. The commencement and gradual
progress of the Papistical tyranny. Causes, 1. Curiosity; 2. Ambition; 3.
Violence; 4. Hypocrisy; 5. Impiety.
11. Last cause, the mystery of
iniquity, and the Satanic fury of Antichrist usurping worldly dominion. The Pope
claims both swords.
12. The pretended donation of Constantine. Its
futility exposed.
13. When, and by what means, the Roman Pontiffs
attained to imperial dignity. Hildebrand its founder.
14. By what acts
they seized on Rome and other territories. Disgraceful rapacity.
15.
Claim of immunity from civil jurisdiction. Contrast between this pretended
immunity and the moderation of the early bishops.
16. What end the
early bishops aimed at in steadfastly resisting civil encroachment.
1. IT
remains to consider the third, and, indeed, when matters are well arranged, the
principal part of ecclesiastical power, which, as we have said, consists in
jurisdiction. Now, the whole jurisdiction of the Church relates to discipline,
of which we are shortly to treat. For as no city or village can exist without a
magistrate and government, so the Church of God, as I have already taught, but
am again obliged to repeat, needs a kind of spiritual government. This is
altogether distinct from civil government, and is so far from impeding or
impairing it, that it rather does much to aid and promote it. Therefore, this
power of jurisdiction is, in one word, nothing but the order provided for the
preservation of spiritual polity. To this end, there were established in the
Church from the first, tribunals which might take cognisance of morals,
animadvert on vices, and exercise the office of the keys. This order is
mentioned by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians under the name of
governments (1 Cor. 12:28): in like manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, when
he says, “He that ruleth with diligence” (Rom. 12:8). For he is not
addressing magistrates, none of whom were then Christians, but those who were
joined with pastors in the spiritual government of the Church. In the Epistle to
Timothy, also, he mentions two kinds of presbyters, some who labour in the word,
and others who do not perform the office of preaching, but rule well (1 Tim.
5:17). By this latter class there is no doubt he means those who were appointed
to the inspection of manners, and the whole use of the keys. For the power of
which we speak wholly depends on the keys which Christ bestowed on the Church in
the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, where he orders, that those who depise
private admonition should be sharply rebuked in public, and if they persist in
their contumacy, be expelled from the society of believers. Moreover, those
admonitions and corrections cannot be made without investigation, and hence the
necessity of some judicial procedure and order. Wherefore, if we would not make
void the promise of the keys, and abolish altogether excommunication, solemn
admonitions, and everything of that description, we must, of necessity, give
some jurisdiction to the Church. Let the reader observe that we are not here
treating of the general authority of doctrine, as in Mt. 21 and John 20, but
maintaining that the right of the Sanhedrim is transferred to the fold of
Christ. Till that time, the power of government had belonged to the Jews. This
Christ establishes in his Church, in as far as it was a pure institution, and
with a heavy sanction. Thus it behoved to be, since the judgment of a poor and
despised Church might otherwise be spurned by rash and haughty men. And lest it
occasion any difficulty to the reader, that Christ in the same words makes a
considerable difference between the two things, it will here be proper to
explain. There are two passages which speak of binding and loosing. The one is
Mt. 16, where Christ, after promising that he will give the keys of the kingdom
of heaven to Peter, immediately adds, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven” (Mt. 16:19). These words have the very same meaning as
those in the Gospel of John, where, being about to send forth the disciples to
preach, after breathing on them, he says, “Whose soever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained” (John 20:23). I will give an interpretation, not subtle, not
forced, not wrested, but genuine, natural, and obvious. This command concerning
remitting and retaining sins, and that promise made to Peter concerning binding
and loosing, ought to be referred to nothing but the ministry of the word. When
the Lord committed it to the apostles, he, at the same time, provided them with
this power of binding and loosing. For what is the sum of the gospel, but just
that all being the slaves of sin and death, are loosed and set free by the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus, while those who do not receive and
acknowledge Christ as a deliverer and redeemer are condemned and doomed to
eternal chains? When the Lord delivered this message to his apostles, to be
carried by them into all nations, in order to prove that it was his own message,
and proceeded from him, he honoured it with this distinguished testimony, and
that as an admirable confirmation both to the apostles themselves, and to all
those to whom it was to come. It was of importance that the apostles should have
a constant and complete assurance of their preaching, which they were not only
to exercise with infinite labour, anxiety, molestation, and peril, but
ultimately to seal with their blood. That they might know that it was not vain
or void, but full of power and efficacy, it was of importance, I say, that
amidst all their anxieties, dangers, and difficulties, they might feel persuaded
that they were doing the work of God; that though the whole world withstood and
opposed them, they might know that God was for them; that not having Christ the
author of their doctrine bodily present on the earth, they might understand that
he was in heaven to confirm the truth of the doctrine which he had delivered to
them. On the other hand, it was necessary that their hearers should be most
certainly assured that the doctrine of the gospel was not the word of the
apostles, but of God himself; not a voice rising from the earth, but descending
from heaven. For such things as the forgiveness of sins, the promise of eternal
life, and message of salvation, cannot be in the power of man. Christ therefore
testified, that in the preaching of the gospel the apostles only acted
ministerially; that it was he who, by their mouths as organs, spoke and promised
all; that, therefore, the forgiveness of sins which they announced was the true
promise of’ God; the condemnation which they pronounced, the certain
judgment of God. This attestation was given to all ages, and remains firm,
rendering all certain and secure, that the word of the gospel, by whomsoever it
may be preached, is the very word of God, promulgated at the supreme tribunal,
written in the book of life, ratified firm and fixed in heaven. We now
understand that the power of the keys is simply the preaching of the gospel in
those places, and in so far as men are concerned, it is not so much power as
ministry. Properly speaking, Christ did not give this power to men but to his
word, of which he made men the ministers.
2. The other passage, in which
binding and loosing are mentioned, is in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew,
where Christ says, “If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen
man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven” (Mt. 18:17, 18). This passage is not altogether similar to the
former, but is to be understood somewhat differently. But in saying that they
are different, I do not mean that there is not much affinity between them.
First, they are similar in this, that they are both general statements, that
there is always the same power of binding and loosing (namely, by the word of
God), the same command, the same promise. They differ in this, that the former
passage relates specially to the preaching which the ministers of the word
perform, the latter relates to the discipline of excommunication which has been
committed to the Church. Now, the Church binds him whom she excommunicates, not
by plunging him into eternal ruin and despair, but condemning his life and
manners, and admonishing him, that, unless he repent, he is condemned. She
looses him whom she receives into communion, because she makes him, as it were,
a partaker of the unity which she has in Christ Jesus. Let no one, therefore,
contumaciously despise the judgment of the Church, or account it a small matter
that he is condemned by the suffrages of the faithful. The Lord testifies that
such judgment of the faithful is nothing else than the promulgation of his own
sentence, and that what they do on earth is ratified in heaven. For they have
the word of God by which they condemn the perverse: they have the word by which
they take back the penitent into favour. Now, they cannot err nor disagree with
the judgment of God, because they judge only according to the law of God, which
is not an uncertain or worldly opinion, but the holy will of God, an oracle of
heaven. On these two passages, which I think I have briefly, as well as
familiarly and truly expounded, these madmen, without any discrimination, as
they are borne along by their spirit of giddiness, attempt to found at one time
confession, at another excommunication, at another jurisdiction, at another the
right of making laws, at another indulgences. The former passage they adduce for
the purpose of rearing up the primacy of the Roman See. So well known are the
keys to those who have thought proper to fit them with locks and doors, that you
would say their whole life had been spent in the mechanic art.
3. Some,
in imagining that all these things were temporary, as magistrates were still
strangers to our profession of religion, are led astray, by not observing the
distinction and dissimilarity between ecclesiastical and civil power. For the
Church has not the right of the sword to punish or restrain, has no power to
coerce, no prison nor other punishments which the magistrate is wont to inflict.
Then the object in view is not to punish the sinner against his will, but to
obtain a profession of penitence by voluntary chastisement. The two things,
therefore, are widely different, because neither does the Church assume anything
to herself which is proper to the magistrate, nor is the magistrate competent to
what is done by the Church. This will be made clearer by an example. Does any
one get intoxicated. In a well-ordered city his punishment will be imprisonment.
Has he committed whoredom? The punishment will be similar, or rather more
severe. Thus satisfaction will be given to the laws, the magistrates, and the
external tribunal. But the consequence will be, that the offender wil1 give no
signs of repentance, but will rather fret and murmur. Will the Church not here
interfere? Such persons cannot be admitted to the Lord’s Supper without
doing injury to Christ and his sacred institution. Reason demands that he who,
by a bad example, gives offence to the Church, shall remove the offence which he
has caused by a formal declaration of repentance. The reason adduced by those
who take a contrary view is frigid. Christ, they say, gave this office to the
Church when there were no magistrates to execute it. But it often happens that
the magistrate is negligent, nay, sometimes himself requires to be chastised; as
was the case with the Emperor Theodosius. Moreover, the same thing may be said
regarding the whole ministry of the word. Now, therefore, according to that
view, let pastors cease to censure manifest iniquities, let them cease to chide,
accuse, and rebuke. For there are Christian magistrates who ought to correct
these things by the laws and the sword. But as the magistrate ought to purge the
Church of offences by corporal punishment and coercion, so the minister ought,
in his turn, to assist the magistrate in diminishing the number of offenders.
Thus they ought to combine their efforts, the one being not an impediment but a
help to the other.
4. And indeed, on attending more closely to the words
of Christ, it will readily appear that the state and order of the Church there
described is perpetual, not temporary. For it were incongruous that those who
refuse to obey our admonitions should be transferred to the magistrate-a course,
however, which would be necessary if he were to succeed to the place of the
Church. Why should the promise, “Verily I say unto you, What thing soever
ye shall bind on earth,” be limited to one, or to a few years? Moreover,
Christ has here made no new enactment, but followed the custom always observed
in the Church of his ancient people, thereby intimating, that the Church cannot
dispense with the spiritual jurisdiction which existed from the beginning. This
has been confirmed by the consent of all times. For when emperors and
magistrates began to assume the Christian name, spiritual jurisdiction was not
forthwith abolished, but was only so arranged as not in any respect to impair
civil jurisdiction, or be confounded with it. And justly. For the magistrate, if
he is pious, will have no wish to exempt himself from the common subjection of
the children of God, not the least part of which is to subject himself to the
Church, judging according to the word of God; so far is it from being his duty
to abolish that judgment. For, as Ambrose says, “What more honourable
title can an emperor have than to be called a son of the Church? A good emperor
is within the Church, not above the Church” (Ambros. ad Valent. Ep. 32).
Those, therefore, who to adorn the magistrate strip the Church of this power,
not only corrupt the sentiment of Christ by a false interpretation, but pass no
light condemnation on the many holy bishops who have existed since the days of
the apostles, for having on a false pretext usurped the honour and office of the
civil magistrate.
5. But, on the other hand, it will be proper to see
what was anciently the true use of ecclesiastical discipline, and how great the
abuses which crept in, that we may know what of ancient practice is to be
abolished, and what restored, if we would, after overthrowing the kingdom of
Antichrist, again set up the true kingdom of Christ. First, the object in view
is to prevent the occurrence of scandals, and when they arise, to remove them.
In the use two things are to be considered: first, that this spiritual power be
altogether distinct from the power of the sword; secondly, that it be not
administered at the will of one individual, but by a lawful consistory (1 Cor.
5:4). Both were observed in the purer times of the Church. For holy bishops did
not exercise their power by fine, imprisonment, or other civil penalties, but as
became them, employed the word of God only. For the severest punishment of the
Church, and, as it were, her last thunderbolt, is excommunication, which is not
used unless in necessity.56[8] This,
moreover, requires neither violence nor physical force, but is contented with
the might of the word of God. [0] In
short, the jurisdiction of the ancient Church was nothing else than (if I may so
speak) a practical declaration of what Paul teaches concerning the spiritual
power of pastors. “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty
through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and
every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing
into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in a
readiness to revenge all disobedience” (2 Cor. 10:4-6). As this is done by
the preaching of doctrine, so in order that doctrine may not be held in
derision, those who profess to be of the household of faith ought to be judged
according to the doctrine which is taught. Now this cannot be done without
connecting with the office of the ministry a right of summoning those who are to
be privately admonished or sharply rebuked, a right, moreover, of keeping back
from the communion of the Lord’s Supper, those who cannot be admitted
without profaning this high ordinance. Hence, when Paul elsewhere asks,
“What have I to do to judge them also that are without?” (1 Cor.
5:12), he makes the members of the Church subject to censures for the correction
of their vices, and intimates the existence of tribunals from which no believer
is exempted.
6. This power, as we have already stated, did not belong to
an individual who could exercise it as he pleased, but belonged to the
consistory of elders, which was in the Church what a council is in a city.
Cyprian, when mentioning those by whom it was exercised in his time, usually
associates the whole clergy with the bishop (Cyprian, Lib. 3 Ep. 14, 19). In
another place, he shows that though the clergy presided, the people, at the same
time, were not excluded from cognisance: for he thus writes:-”From the
commencement of my bishopric, I determined to do nothing without the advice of
the clergy, nothing without the consent of the people.” But the common and
usual method of exercising this jurisdiction was by the council of presbyters,
of whom, as I have said, there were two classes. Some were for teaching, others
were only censors of manners. This institution gradually degenerated from its
primitive form, so that, in the time of Ambrose, the clergy alone had cognisance
of ecclesiastical causes. Of this he complains in the following
terms:-”The ancient synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had elders,
without whose advice nothing was done: this has grown obsolete, by whose fault I
know not, unless it be by the sloth, or rather the pride, of teachers, who would
have it seem that they only are somewhat” (Ambros. in 1 Tim. 5). We see
how indignant this holy man was because the better state was in some degree
impaired, and yet the order which then existed was at least tolerable. What,
then, had he seen those shapeless ruins which exhibit no trace of the ancient
edifice? How would he have lamented? First, contrary to what was right and
lawful, the bishop appropriated to himself what was given to the whole Church.
For this is just as if the consul had expelled the senate, and usurped the whole
empire. For as he is superior in rank to the others, so the authority of the
consistory is greater than that of one individual. It was, therefore, a gross
iniquity, when one man, transferring the common power to himself, paved the way
for tyrannical licence, robbed the Church of what was its own, suppressed and
discarded the consistory ordained by the Spirit of Christ.
7. But as
evil always produces evil, the bishops, disdaining this jurisdiction as a thing
unworthy of their care, devolved it on others. Hence the appointment of
officials to supply their place. I am not now speaking of the character of this
class of persons; all I say is, that they differ in no respect from civil
judges. And yet they call it spiritual jurisdiction, though all the litigation
relates to worldly affairs. Were there no other evil in this, how can they
presume to call a litigious forum a church court? But there are admonitions;
there is excommunication. This is the way in which God is mocked. Does some poor
man owe a sum of money? He is summoned: if he appears, he is found liable; when
found liable, if he pays not, he is admonished. After the second admonition, the
next step is excommunication. If he appears not, he is admonished to appear; if
he delays, he is admonished, and by-and-by excommunicated. I ask, is there any
resemblance whatever between this and the institution of Christ, or ancient
custom or ecclesiastical procedure? But there, too, vices are censured.
Whoredom, lasciviousness, drunkenness, and similar iniquities, they not only
tolerate, but by a kind of tacit approbation encourage and confirm, and that not
among the people only, but also among the clergy. Out of many they summon a few,
either that they may not seem to wink too strongly, or that they may mulct them
in money. I say nothing of the plunder, rapine, peculation, and sacrilege, which
are there committed. I say nothing of the kind of persons who are for the most
part appointed to the office. It is enough, and more than enough, that when the
Romanists boast of their spiritual jurisdiction, we are ready to show that
nothing is more contrary to the procedure instituted by Christ, that it has no
more resemblance to ancient practice than darkness has to light.
8.
Although we have not said all that might here be adduced, and even what has been
said is only briefly glanced at, enough, I trust, has been said to leave no man
in doubt that the spiritual power on which the Pope plumes himself, with all his
adherents, is impious contradiction of the word of God, and unjust tyranny
against his people. Under the name of spiritual power, I include both their
audacity in framing new doctrines, by which they led the miserable people away
from the genuine purity of the word of God, the iniquitous traditions by which
they ensnared them, and the pseudo-ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they
exercise by suffragans and officials. For if we allow Christ to reign amongst
us, the whole of that domination cannot but immediately tumble and fall. The
right of the sword which they also claim for themselves, not being exercised
against consciences, does not fall to be considered in this place. Here,
however, it is worth while to observe, that they are always like themselves,
there being nothing which they less resemble than that which they would be
thought to be-viz. pastors of the Church. I speak not of the vices of particular
men, but of the common wickedness, and, consequently, the pestiferous nature of
the whole order, which is thought to be mutilated if not distinguished by wealth
and haughty titles. If in this matter we seek the authority of Christ, there can
be no doubt that he intended to debar the ministers of his word from civil
domination and worldly power when he said, “The princes of the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon
them. But it shall not be so among you” (Mt. 20:25, 26). For he intimates
not only that the office of pastor is distinct from the office of prince, but
that the things differ so widely that they cannot be united in the same
individual. Moses indeed held both (Exod. 18:16); but, first, this was the
effect of a rare miracle; and, secondly, it was temporary, until matters should
be better arranged. For when a certain form is prescribed by the Lord, the civil
government is left to Moses, and he is ordered to resign the priesthood to his
brother. And justly; for it is more than nature can do, for one man to bear both
burdens. This has in all ages been carefully observed in the Church. Never did
any bishop, so long as any true appearance of a church remained, think of
usurping the right of the sword: so that, in the age of Ambrose, it was a common
proverb, that emperors longed more for the priesthood than priests for imperial
power.56[9] For the expression which
he afterwards adds was fixed in all minds, Palaces belong to the emperor,
churches to the priest.
9. But after a method was devised by which
bishops might hold the title, honour, and wealth of their office without burden
and solicitude, that they might be left altogether idle, the right of the sword
was given them, or rather, they themselves usurped it. With what pretext will
they defend this effrontery? Was it the part of bishops to entangle themselves
with the cognisance of causes, and the administration of states and provinces,
and embrace occupations so very alien to them-of bishops, who require so much
time and labour in their own office, that though they devote themselves to it
diligently and entirely, without distraction from other avocations, they are
scarcely sufficient? But such is their perverseness, that they hesitate not to
boast that in this way the dignity of Christ’s kingdom is duly maintained,
and they, at the same time, are not withdrawn from their own vocation. In regard
to the former allegation, if it is a comely ornament of the sacred office, that
those holding it be so elevated as to become formidable to the greatest
monarchs, they have ground to expostulate with Christ, who in this respect has
grievously curtailed their honour. For what, according to their view, can be
more insulting than these words, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise
authority over them”? “But ye shall not be so” (Luke 22:25,
26). And yet he imposes no harder law on his servants than he had previously
laid on himself. “Who,” says he, “made me a judge or divider
over you?” (Luke 12:14) We see that he unreservedly refuses the office of
judging; and this he would not have done if the thing had been in accordance
with his office. To the subordination to which the Lord thus redu