by John Calvin
REMARKS
(1.) If the most Holy Father trembles at that example of the Divine vengeance, it is strange why he is so very solicitous about this one fault of the Emperor, (if fault it should be called,) and slumbers so secure over the countless villainies of his own sons. God punished the negligence of Eli in not chastising his sons, (1 Sam. ii. 31.) The Apostle Paul enjoins that the sons of a Christian pastor be well behaved, and well trained in the fear of the Lord, (1 Tim. iii. 4.) One Paul Farnese has a son, and by him grandsons, besides bastards, who still spring from the old dotard, and his half-rotten carcass. What kind of person is Pier-Luigi? I will say the severest of all the things which can be said, and yet most true—Italy never produced such a monster before! Paul, why do you not bestir yourself? When the execrable lusts of this your son have risen to heaven, when the land is polluted by their abomination, when the whole world is crying out, do you not think it time to exercise severity? What shall I say of his avarice? What of his rapacity? What of his cruelty? Although, in all these things, he has surpassed all others, he is still inferior to yourself. Then what has the world long been indignantly saying of your grandsons, and of your whole family? If Eli was punished for indulgence, will you pass with impunity, when you not only in silence connive at the horrid crimes of your sons, but lend them a helping hand? When it is certain you openly approve, and as to a great part admit without disguise, that they perpetrate them at your instigation. Does not the justice of God here alarm you? Does no fear strike deep into your soul? But now more than enough of actual sons. You give out that you are the father of all Christians. In the deplorable corruption of the world, is there any room for taciturnity? You are silent, however, and though you know, and with your eyes see, that the world is rushing to destruction, you bear it in silence. If God did not spare Eli, what punishment, think you, is impending over yourself? I come nearer home. In what state is your See, which ought to be to you as a family? What are your vicars doing? What kind of traffic is going on in your court? How do your clergy comport themselves? What Sodom will you find for me, where there ever was greater impunity for all kinds of evil? More abandoned shamelessness? More unbridled licentiousness? And now, just as if you had nothing to do at home, you fear lest the wrath of God may be impending over your head for this one fault—if you silently allow peace and equality of rights to be conceded to the Protestants, until the question of religion shall be discussed, if you tolerate Caesar in promising, without your order, a Council, as well as a legitimate determination of the cause.
(2.) Here Athaliah comes into my mind. For, as that abandoned woman, when she saw King Joash placed upon the throne, felt that her own tyranny had fallen, and cried out, "Treason ! treason!" (2 Kings xi. 14;) so this vile priest, when he sees even the smallest infringement on the tyranny, which, against the will of God and man, he most impiously arrogates to himself, confounds heaven and earth, as if nothing in the world were any longer safe.
(3.) O how many signal proofs has Caesar received of this paternal love! Did not Christian princes dread this idol as some sinister deity, they might disclose strange offices of charity which each has individually experienced at his hand. But what need is there to divulge the secrets of princes, as if it were not plain to the humblest individual what kind of father he has hitherto shown himself to be?
(4.) Once, indeed, the specious gloss of the Romish harlot was the boasted unity of the Church, but it has now been worn off by long use. It has so often been blown away by the blast of the Lord's mouth, and so effaced by the clear testimony of Scripture, that she is no longer able with it to hide her ugliness even from the blind. For Christ is the only bond of holy unity. He who departs from him disturbs and violates unity, while out of him there is nothing but sacrilegious conspiracy. Roman antichrist invites us to himself, under the pretense of unity, and pronounces all to be schismatics who do not spontaneously submit to be harnessed to the yoke of his tyranny. We, however, on the other hand, hear the words of Christ, "Where the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together." We hear the Spirit exhorting us to be "of one heart, of one mind," but in Christ. We hear the pious admonition of Hilary, "The name of peace is, indeed, specious, and the idea of unity beautiful, but who knows not that the only united peace of the Church and the Gospel is that which is of Christ?" Let Farnese then show that Christ is on his side, and he will prove that the unity of the Church is with him. But seeing it is impossible to adhere to him without denying Christ, he who turns aside from him makes no departure from the Church, but discriminates between the true Church and a church adulterous and false.
(5.) According to the definition of Farnese, the order, the discipline, the perfection of Christianity, consist in allowing the tyranny of his See to remain untouched. All other things may go, for, compared with these, he counts them all as nothing. Here, then, we recognize the Helen for whom he fights, and at the same time the cause of the fear which he expressed at the outset. For he not only foresees ruin impending over his throne, but he feels that, unless he bestir himself, his seat of abomination is already overthrown. Allow him, as of old, to wanton secure in the tranquil possession of his tyranny, and he will be content. As if the state of the Church were duly settled, he will congratulate himself and all other men. Though Rome be a sink of wickedness scarcely better than hell itself though the holy Papal clergy, with loosened reins, breaking through all laws, and casting off all sense of honour, prostitute themselves to every kind of impiety, though the whole world be fearfully corrupt, there will, notwithstanding, be a well-ordered discipline, provided nothing is attempted against the majesty of the Romish See !
(6.) No doubt, it is a heinous crime, that when the assembling of a Council was considered, the name of the Pope should have been suppressed ! As if Constantine had bestowed on Sylvester the privilege of convening the Council of Arles, and had not called it, of his own right, in the exercise of his imperial authority, and as if he had not summoned Sylvester himself to come; or as if Theodosius had waited for either the determination or the nod of the Roman Bishop in calling the Council of Aquilcia, over which Ambrose presided. Here is a General Council, held in Italy, at which the Roman Bishop was not present, and no one in his name; nay, in the acts of that Council he is never once mentioned. But we must pardon Farnese when he acts the part of wicked Jesabel, seeing he has a similar cause. For, in the same way in which she clamored when Ahab of his royal authority assembled the people, that it might be determined once for all whether God or Baal were to be worshipped, so this worthless man clamors as if everything were lost, and a great crime committed, because the Emperor has undertaken to provide for the assembling of a Council. But then he alleges, that both by divine and human law this power is competent only to himself! It is easy to throw out the assertion, but we desiderate the proof. Was there ever a more impudent falsehood than this? Not a single syllable of divine law can he produce, unless, indeed, he make out that he himself is God. But perhaps human law favors him? Not one whit more. For who called the first Council of Nice, and who called those of Ephesus, of Constantinople, of Chalcedon? And, not to be tedious in enumerating, who, for whole five hundred years, assembled all the General Councils that were held during that period, but the Emperor alone? But, perhaps, it was done after the Pope had interponed his authority? Nay, even without his consent. Will Faruese show, that in this matter the nod of the Pope was waited for, or even his advice asked? But he now not only arrogates to himself this privilege, so that the Emperor must not attempt any thing without consulting him, but he insists, at the same time, that there is nothing which he cannot and will not do. To obtain this, he must previously abolish all acts of Councils, and all ancient history. For by these, it is not the Pope who issues edicts to the Emperor, but the Emperor to all Bishops. And when the Bishops speak, they declare that they were summoned not by the command or beck of the Roman Bishop, but by Imperial edict. On one occasion, indeed, in procuring the Synod of Chaleedon, Leo interfered. But in what way? In ordering or decreeing? There is nothing to that effect in his letters, which are extant, and may easily be seen, but by humbly entreating the Emperor to summon all Bishops, according to custom. The thing, therefore, which Leo then earnestly entreated, when done in the present day, Farnese makes the ground of a bitter charge, maintaining it to be almost a species of apostasy. Let him, therefore, seek support for his fictitious authority in some other quarter than from either God or man.
(7.) In one instance, where the Pope made some such claim in the Council of Carthage, the African Bishops stoutly, as became them, withstood his dishonest ambition, and when he pretended that jurisdiction over the Churches was given him by a Canon of the Council of Nice, they gave no credit to it, but sent to Constantinople, and other Greek cities, to investigate the fact. Ultimately, it was discovered that the acts of the Council had been corrupted by the most Holy Father, that he might pervert them in rearing up his tyranny; at least the copies which were produced from his archives did not correspond with copies that were certainly genuine. Accordingly, his demand was rejected, not without strong suspicion of forgery. But he says, that here also laws human and divine support him. What God, pray, ever appointed the Pope examiner, arbiter, and judge of all causes relating to the Church or to faith? And what laws of men, what decrees can he produce to that effect? Ambrose, indeed, says, that questions of faith ought to be discussed in the Church in presence of the people; and the question then under discussion was the leading article of our faith. He does not say before the Pope's tribunal. I admit, he says, that they are to be judged by priests, but he by no means gives the judgment to one Pope. Had he done so, he must have sinned grievously, when at the Council of Aquileia he was not only present at the investigation of a most important cause, but actually presided. Let Farnese inveigh against Ambrose for having dared, after he had persuaded the Emperor to summon a Council, to hold it, though in the absence of the Roman Bishop, and there determine the view which ought to be taken of our Saviour's divinity. Where, I ask, were the human laws of which Farnese boasts, when in Italy a General Council treated of the essentials of religion, no doubt, after inviting the Roman Bishop, but when no one appeared as his representative? Where, too, when a cause of the greatest moment was carried from Melehiades, the Roman Bishop, to the Bishop of Aries? Donatus of Casa Nigra had a dispute with Cecilianus. It was not a civil matter, but an ecclesiastical cause, and embraced no unimportant articles of Christian doctrine, viz., the Unity of the Church, and the Communion of Saints. Constantine the Great had first made Melehiades judge, but after he had given judgment, the ease was carried, on the appeal of Donatus, to the Bishop of Aries. Such is the testimony of Augustine. Why did not Melohiades protest that every thing was wickedly thrown into confusion, when supreme judicial authority was wrested from him? It remains, therefore, for Farnese to show to those who take him for an oracle, that he is Cephas the head.
(8.) As if the Emperor had wished the decision to be given according to the caprice of each individual, and not to he taken from the Holy Word of God, after duly weighing both sides of the question! As if, too, he had committed to laics the office of deciding for themselves, and not rather of inquiring into what was taught by the Word of God. If this fact is new to Farnese, he must have very little acquaintance with antiquity.
(9.) If this view of Farnese is adopted, there will be no occasion for a Council. The matter will be quickly dispatched, if those who come forward to give an account of their doctrine are, while the cause is unpleaded, to he declared assertors of damnable heresies. Nor, in sooth, does the most Holy Father act imprudently. For, what more desirable than to slay your enemies with a single word? But there is this inconvenience, that those who are so atrociously condemned nobly and strenuously defend themselves against the calumny, while, at the same time, they charge home upon the Pope himself the guilt not only of impiety, and wickedness of every kind, but prove him to be Antichrist, the head of all the wicked.
(10.) What? Is not good King Josiah culogised by the Holy Spirit, because, when he saw the offerings consumed by the priests, he appointed his scribe to reckon with them? (2 Kings xii. 10.) Where, then, the sin should Christian princes in the present day, after his example, when they see the resources of the Church engulfed in the whirlpools of the Pope, and shamefully squandered with the greatest villainy, put forth their hands to stop the sacrilege? The first question here is, to what use is the property of the Church destined? the second, to whom belongs its administration? and the third, if the ordinary administration is vicious, and calls for thorough correction, by whom is the remedy to be applied? It is on the last of these that the Emperor has promised to take the sense of the States, and we can easily understand what cause Farnese has to make an uproar.
(11.) An epithet must be supplied; for Protestants are out of a church, but it is the Popish Church. They were condemned, but it was without being heard. If, however, it be true, that wherever the pure truth of Christ, together with an entire consent in mind sad doctrine with all the godly in Christ, exists, there, too, the real unity of the Church exists, Protestants assuredly are not aliens from the Church.
(12.) Nay, what man, whether prince or private individual, if he has only a spark of Christian zeal, desires not that a state of matters so deplorable should, with all possible dispatch, be relieved? Who does not perceive that it is vain to look for any help from the Pope? He, therefore, who is offended that a remedy so necessary has been sought out by the Emperor, can only betray his own impiety. But it is well he immediately after declares that he was speaking of certain hired slaves.
(13.) I should like to know which of these things is repugnant to the institution of Christ, and to right order in the Church. I know they are said to be so, but by whom? If the devil is the father of lies, who will put any faith in his vicar?
(14.) Truly a strange metamorphosis! The Pope begins to be so religious, that he is horrified when he hears that peace has been made with Protestants. But it is strange, on the other hand, that he quietly bargains with courtesans, and dreads no contamination from the pay of panderism, that he lets the Jews off for an annual pension, permitting them not only with impunity to despise the Christian name, but to commit open robbery by their usury; in fine, that he has no aversion even to the Turks. But his holiness appears, especially in this, that he is afraid, with the Apostle Paul, lest evil communication corrupt good manners. Wicked apostate! Nay, prince of all apostasy! What hast thou to do with the holy sentiment of the Apostle? thou, who, after spending days with villainous advisers in scheming treachery, in coining fraud, in kindling up wars, in devising new kinds of rapine, in plotting the destruction of the innocent, in pulling down the Church, and putting religion to flight, then spendest the rest of thy time with epicures, in sensual indulgence, or amid a tribe of harlots wallow in the mire, neither speaking nor hearing any thing that does not either breathe execrable impiety, or by its obscenity stimulate those vile passions, which, though enfeebled, yet have not altogether ceased to act.
(15.) We must be all attention, for there now seems to be something in his complaint. I admit, indeed, that Church order is so important in the sight of God, that he who invades another's office cannot escape punishment for his temerity.
(16.) If there were any rational ground for preserving the tyranny for which Farnese now contends, the most valid of all would be that no one might dare to interfere with the correction of priests. If, therefore, we concede to Farnese, that it is an unlawful usurpation, that it is great sacrilege for princes, when the Pope is lethargic, and the whole clergy yawmng, to attempt to relieve the perishing Church, the question is decided. How does the Emperor exculpate himself from this serious charge? First, although it is not every man's business to engage in removing the corruption's of the Church, and restore it to its proper state, how can this right justly be denied to Christian Princes? Farnese objects, that by so doing they invade the sacerdotal chair. But it always seemed otherwise to the holy Fathers, who held no practice more ancient than for Princes to employ their authority in reducing careless and dishonest priests to order, and in depriving of their dignities such as were unworthy of them. Farnese, therefore, labors under a hallucination, when he does not see how great a difference there is between the two things, between occupying the chair, and appointing proper persons to sit in it, there to rule with reason and justice.
(17.) This much all concede—that order in the Church ought not to be disturbed. The whole question, therefore, depends on the definition of order. Order requires that there be distinct functions. We grant this. But distinction is not inconsistent with union. There is nothing to prevent those who hold different offices from accomplishing many things by common exertions, by jointly rolling the same stone; in a word, nothing to prevent one, in any urgent necessity, from sometimes taking the place of another.
(18.) Let Farnese then grant to us that the state of the Church was ordered according to the will of Christ, and we will readily grant, that whoever presumes to touch it even with his little finger, with the view of uprooting it, is chargeable with impious audacity. But, since that barbarian, or rather brute-like confusion of the Papacy, is far remote from the holy rule of Christ, have done with this misapplication of the term "Divine Providence," to which a grievous insult is offered, when it is erroneously and impudently employed to cloak a tyranny, utterly at variance with the kingdom of Christ.
(19.) Uzzah was punished because he presumed to put forth his hand to the ark of God, from well-intentioned but inconsiderate zeal, namely, by taking upon him the duty of the priests, while they were standing near and ready to perform it. Where now, among the whole Popish clergy, is there one priest who is intent on supporting the ark of the Lord? Uzzah was punished, because, both at variance with his vocation, and against the clear prohibition of God, he broke through and touched the ark. Where the interdict of God, where the strictly defined vocation, which debars the Emperor from caring for the Church? Isaiah calls upon all kings to undertake that care, (Is. xlix. 23.) Uzzah was punished, because, prematurely, with unseasonable fervor, he rushed in to support the ark. But how different the case, when David, finding the ark lying on the ground covered with mire, exposed to the affronts of the ungodly, attempts to raise it up, and issues an edict, calling upon the priests to bring it up to its place. But how dare a harpy like you order others to remove their hands from the ark!—you, who, after throwing it down with your impure beak, are ignominiously trampling it under your feet? Can it be lawful for you to fill the ark of God with abominations, to profane it with the greatest contumely, to prostitute it to any mockery of Satan, to rend it into pieces, and insult its sanctity; and must it be impious for Princes, and the whole Christian people, to cleanse away its impurities, to replace its parts, and draw near to put it in repair?
(20.) What will not this madman dare, who is not ashamed to compare himself to Moses and Aaron? He says that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, came to a fearful end, because they murmured against the priests of the Lord. But in what is it that you resemble Moses? Are you a priest of the Lord, you who put every thing sacred to flight? Jehu not only stirred up a tumult against the priests of Baal, but pursuing them sword in hand, slew the whole of them in the temple of their idol, (2 Kings x. 25.) A noble deed, approved by the testimony of God! Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, wounded Moses only with their tongue, and the earth swallowed them alive. Be you, therefore, different from what you are, before you debar princes from assaillng you, by claiming the rights and honors of the priesthood.
(21.) The priesthood of Aaron "served a shadow," but contained within it no vain emblem of the truth, and was founded on the sacred authority of God. But does the Pope exhibit any thing except a mask? On what foundation does his tyranny lean? In fine, by whose authority, from the highest to the least, are priests initiated in their sacrilegious flinction by a magical rather than a Christian rite? Do their utmost, they will never support the kind of priesthood on which they plume themselves by a single syllable of Scripture.
(22.) A perverse custom is nothing more than an ancient error. But, at any rate, who will admit it to be a custom of the church, that those who have the name of prelates, be their characters and conduct what they may, though there is nothing they less resemble than the name they bear, may go about as they list, devouring the flock of Christ, while no man must dare to oppose their robbery? In what Barbary, pray, could this custom prevail, that banolitti, under the protection of a name, might with impunity, and without restriction, destroy, kill, waste, and squander, and whenever anyone uttered a whisper about curbing their villainy, might raise a clamor, and accuse him of confounding things sacred and profane?
(23.) When these three things have been made clear, viz., first, That the Emperor has undertaken the reformation of the Church, not from necessity, but from presumption; secondly, That the Church has been committed to priests in such a sense, that all whose hands are not anointed are kept aloof from it, just as from offering incense; and, thirdly, That the Papal priesthood, equally with the Levitical, has its origin from God, the example of Uzzah will perhaps apply to the present case. On the other hand, if none of these things is clear, and it can be readily evinced that the Emperor had no alternative but to interfere, unless he was willing, while in perfect knowledge, to wink at the destruction of the Church, and that nothing was more appropriate to his character, whereas the Papal priesthood is consecrated by nothing better than sacrilege and anathema, what support does the example of Uzzah give to Farnese? Let him, I say, show that the power of convening a Council, and of restoring the Church to its true condition, is committed to priests alone, like the burning of incense, but is forbidden to kings. Here truth openly remonstrates. Let him show that the Emperor causelessly interferes, and while matters are well arranged, is led on merely by ambition, or a depraved love of change. Let him show that the Emperor has thrust aside the lawful priest, and is violently seizing upon an altar interdicted to him. But where is the priest who stands ready to perform the duty? Where the barriers by which the pious solicitude of the Emperor is excluded, so that it must not break through; and where the temerity or licentiousness of attempting a work, which to decline would be at once the greatest heartlessness and perfidy?
It may be worth while here to notice the acute reasoning of Farnese's scribe. To enact laws concerning religion is, he says, sacrifice, and sacrifice most acceptable to God; and, therefore, it is altogether inconsistent with the Emperor's office. This, however, is not to argue, but to throw everything into confusion, as swine do. For what is it to give alms? What to devote one's self to the public good? What to confine the people to the pure worship of God? What, in fine, to dedicate ourselves to God? Are not these, too, sacrifices, and sacrifices of a sweet and grateful odor? And yet they are common to all the pious. And, moreover, what babbling to say that the enacting of laws respecting religion is a thing pleasing to God, when Scripture proclaims it to be the offspring of diabolical presumption ! It is the duty of Caesar, and of all mankind, to listen to only one Legislator, in every thing which pertains to the internal government of the soul, and to submit, without exception, to all the laws which he has decreed.
(24.) Not contented with the common prerogative of priests, Farnese mounts an eminence of his own—"Ours," says he, "in particular." By what right ?—because to us has been given the power of binding and loosing. What, then, to others? for it was said at the same time to all the apostles, "Whatsoever ye shall bind." That which Christ communicates to all will you, with predatory violence, seize for yourself? Will you strip the Church naked, that you may clothe yourself in her spoils?
(25.) Truly an excellent privilege—that priests may rush with impunity into all kinds of wickedness, and judgment be left to God alone. But if it be so, to what end that ancient discipline of the clergy, which, though now existing only on paper, once was practiced in the Church? When bishops assume to themselves the sole right of passing judgment on priests, they endeavor, after the manner of the giants, to push God from his seat. But such permission has been given to bishops. Where? If God has claimed it for himself alone, are not you, in transferring it to priests, just making them gods? Is not this, too, wondrously acute? "I will require it of pastors," saith the Lord; therefore, cognizance belongs only to God, and no man may lawfully assume it, even for a time. What? does not the Lord also require the blood of the innocent at the hand of murderers.? Does not he require thefts, rapine, and all injuries whatsoever? Does he not require of the wicked all the wickedness which they may have perpetrated? Therefore, (according to this driveling logic of Farnese,) let judgment be abolished, let the punishment of crimes cease; for judgment must be left to God alone. Surely this judgment of God alone is not over priests only, but over all men, whatever be their station. And why are princes called gods, but just because judgment has been committed to them?
(26.) What angel, or rather what demon, revealed this to Farnese? Since the judgments of God proceed on various grounds, who can, at his own hand, determine the particular ground? Solomon certainly denies that human intellect can discern when it is that God visits in love, and when in hatred, saying, that "all things come alike to all; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked," (Eccies. ix. 2.) The fact must, therefore, be determined by the Word of God; but Farnese remembers well whose person he represents. For, on one occasion, the devil, whom he serves, thus stipulated with Christ, "All these will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me." So also Faniese's predecessors. When we served the Queen of heaven, "then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil," (Jer. xliv. 17.) But let us now hear the rewards which he affirms to have been conferred for worshipping his See, and the punishments inflicted for contempt of it.
(27.) He adduces Constantine the Great, with the view of making us give credit to the fictitious donation of which he boasts. So shameless is he, that silly tales, which even children now laugh at, he hesitates not to obtrude on the Emperor as sure oracles. Once, indeed, the foolish Canonists with solemn brow prated of this figment, but there is no longer any room for such absurdities. On what account, moreover, does he make Theodosius to he so faithful a worshipper of his See? Though that Emperor paid singular respect to Ambrose, it is nowhere read that he ever held in estimation either the Roman Chair, or those who sat in it. It is certainly strange, that Firnese did not add Trajan to his list! Then, what kind of pretext has he for referring the victories of Charlemagne to one superstition or crafty design, viz., his exaltation of the seat of abomination ? When out of the many heroic and memorable acts of Charlemagne he singles out this fault, he just does as those do who among gold gather nothing but dross.
(28.) Who would not say, that the barking of this impure dog should be put down by sticks and stones rather than words, when he ascribes the Divine vengeance inflicted on Justinian, not to the manifest impiety which he displayed in supporting the Eutychian heresy, but solely to his contumacy in impairing the majesty of the Roman See? Anastasius, too, impugns the orthodox faith. He is professedly the favorer and assertor of an execrable blasphemy against Christ. He does what in him lies to overturn a pious and salutary doctrine concerning the mystery of incarnation. He disturbs the whole Church, and dismembers it by pernicious dissensions. At length, struck by lightning, he comes to a miserable end. Farnese pronounces the sole cause of his death to be his rebellion against Gelasius and Hormisdas. Does any man believe it?
(29.) Mauritius, now an old man, after he had held the empire for twenty years, is insidiously and most perfidiously assassinated by Phocas, one of his soldiers. Farnese, as if he had been present at the counsels of God, interprets this death to have been a punishment for contempt of the Roman See. It were to be wished, indeed, that a Prince, otherwise quiet and peaceful, had not mixed himself up with the depraved factions of the bishops, or had chosen to repress rather than to favor the ambition of John. But the question should be, why did Gregory then ask, not why would Mauritius not permit, that any one should be regarded as universal bishop, since this title was, as he says, nefarious, iniquitous, profane, abominable, and the forerunner of Antichrist? But, to pass over this too, where is the equality of Farnese, when, in speaking of a Prince who was villanously murdered, he condemns him merely because he did not show himself obsequious to the Roman See, and lauds a parricide, who drew his sword against a master from whom he had received the greatest kindness, and thus by perfidy, and an abominable crime, obtained the empire; lands him because he showed greater willingness to deck the Roman idol and exalt its power? And yet what other object had Phocas in all his largesses to the Romish See, than to purchase, as by nefarious paction, the favor of the city of Rome, because he knew that he was deservedly detested by the Greeks?
(30.) It is strange that when the pay is so good, Farnese does not procure more learned scribes. For what ignorance of history does it betray, first, to blunder shamefully in the names, setting down Constans for Justiulan; and, secondly, while all the Greek Emperors were in the same condition, to mention it as the condition only of a few? But, perhaps, this is artfully done, because he could not find in others any punishment which he might employ as a bugbear.
(31.) The vices of Henry's character it is not necessary here to extenuate. But if it be inquired, what were the seeds of contention between him and Hildebrand, and in what way the strife was conducted, it will assuredly be found that Hildebrand, a man of a crafty and malicious temper, inflamed with an insatiable ambition, and possessing, moreover, both the confidence and excessive cruelty of a gladiator, seeing Henry dissipating himself in luxury, and while abandoned to his passions, still haughty and ferocious, adopted the resolution of dismembering the empire. By what engines, then, did he assail Henry? What arm did he use to the very last, in order to crush him? Having absolved the German Princes from their allegiance, i.e., granted them a license to commit perjury, influenced some by false terrors, intimidated others by menaces, corrupted others by flattery, and amused the Elector of Bavaria with the hopes of the empire, suddenly, with intestine war, as with one great conflagration, he set all Germany in a blaze. When Henry suppliantly approached and threw himself prostrate before him, he spurned him with the utmost haughtiness. And he set no bounds to his passionate and intolerable pride, until he had both the Emperor and the empire at his feet. It seemed a small matter only to have Caesar for his vassal. He must also, after destroying the empire, be sole tyrant. And yet Farnese has the hardihood to make mention of a history which clearly testifies, or rather is an indubitable proof, that never, out of the infernal regions, did there exist monsters so foul, as that their foulness is not surpassed by the flagitiousness of the Roman See.
(32.) Why did he not also put Frederick I. into his list? Nay, why did he not frame a long catalogue of emperors? The more mildly any emperor conducted himself, the more arrogantly the Roman Antichrists took advantage of his disposition, making no scruple of shamefully insulting him, while any, who, with somewhat more spirit, withstood their insolence, were made to feel what it was to provoke the rage of furious beasts. It being clear that your predecessors, Farnese, insulted the Caesars, and that, for the most part, without provocation, by their more than unbridled lust, their more than a tyrant's cruelty, and their ungovernable fury, will you, too, presume to charge our Emperor as guilty before God, because he has not allowed himself to be trampled upon by savage beasts? Is it thus, impious man, you would make God at once the supporter and minister of your iniquity?
(33.) I indeed admit that dire vengeance from God impends over all who make it their endeavor to violate the unity of the Church. But what greater violation of unity, than when purity of doctrine is adulterated, and agreement in it destroyed, and Christ, in consequence, torn as it were to pieces? And who, Faruese, but yourself, is the author and high priest of this dismemberment? I know it is not your fault that we do not all preach one head upon earth, one Roman See, as Mother and Queen; but whose fault is it but yours that we do not all from the heart confess one God and one faith, as we have all one baptism? But why do you call that the Principal See, which, destitute now for above eight hundred years of a true bishop, first gave a place to dead images, and is at this day occupied by a leader in impiety, a most cruel tyrant of souls, an inveterate enemy of Christ, a prime devastator of the Church?
(34.) There cannot be the least doubt that the Jews are suffering merited punishment for despising and opposing Christ. The Greeks, too, are oppressed by a cruel and miserable bondage, but the cause is obscure, if we do not search for it in the Word of God. Farnese conjectures it has happened because of their rebellion against the Holy See. If I may conjecture, I would rather suppose it to have happened because they carried their pride to such a height, that they were the first to aspire to that tyranny over the whole Church which the Pope now usurps; because, from excessive fondness for novelty, they broke down into various sects, and because, from depraved ambition to signalize themselves by something better than the sacred institutions of Christ, they degenerated from the pure standard of the Gospel. Which of these two conjectures is the more probable? It is certain that the faults which I assign as the cause are condemned by the judgment of God. But if men are to be listened to, while, out of their own brain, they invent any kind of causes, with no less plausibility might the Greeks, while the power and majesty of their empire were unimpaired, have upbraided the Romans with suffering the punishment of their rebellion, for having resisted the See of Constantinople in the dispute concerning the primacy; although, as I observed, when that dispute was first agitated, the Roman Bishop did not aspire to primacy, but only maintained that his own place was not inferior to that of the Bishop of Constantinople.
In one word, Farnese would fain persuade us, that the only sin in the world deserving of the Divine wrath, deserving of all punishments, in short, the source of all evil, is, that all men do not show obsequiousness to him, do not hang upon his nod, do not worship him as a God. Who but a madman will allow himself to be persuaded of this? But were all men disposed to believe it, it is incumbent on him, first, to show what similar demerits the Hungarians have, whose condition is in no respect better than that of the Greeks. Explain to us, I say, by what fault of theirs the Hungarians have been brought into the same servitude with the Greeks, though you have always abused them as if they had been the vilest bondmen, and they, just like slaves confined in their workshops, and working in chains, have resisted none of your commands.
How childishly then you trifle, when, as if it were a settled point, you haughtily declare that the tyranny of your See was never spurned with impunity? But it is certain that Christ was not slightly moved at the contempt shown to his vicegerent! How dare you, with polluted lips, thus insult Christ? First, Who exalted you to this honour? For, as an Apostle declares, no man ought to assume honour to himself, (Heb. v.4.) It was said to Peter, "Feed my sheep," (John xxi. 17.) True, but the same thing was said to all. That ancient smoke, by which you were wont to blind the eyes of men, has long since vanished away. With what face, then, dare you arrogate to yourself so proud a title—a title which, were any angel to claim, he would deserve to be anathematized? In the opinion of Gregory, (your predecessor, as you boast,) any man who should make himself universal Bishop, were he Roman or not, was wicked, impious, sacrilegious, the vicar of Satan, and the forerunner of Antichrist. You must, therefore, either condemn Gregory as a blasphemer of your See, or bear the burden of his heavy sentence.
But now, to spare this execrable blasphemy, let us assume that the doctrine which Cypriot teaches, on the authority of the Apostles and Prophets, is false, viz., that there is one bishoprick in the Church of Christ, part of which bishoprick each bishop holds entire; and let us grant that that supremacy is transferred to some one individual, by what right, or semblance of right, can it be claimed by one so desperately abandoned as you? You, the successor of Peter! you, who have no more resemblance to him than any Nero, or Domitian, or Caligula! But, perhaps you would rather have me name Heliogabalus, who added to the empire a new priesthood. All these emperors were unquestionably high priests in name, for the superstition of the time so allowed, but you now usurp the name among a Christian people, contrary to law and justice, contrary to the inviolable decree of Christ, and contrary to the injunctions of all the holy Fathers. You, the vicegerent of Christ! you, whose every thought, and wish, and action, are directed to the extinction of Christ, provided only the empty name remain, with which, as with a meretricious glare, you may deceive us! You, the vicegerent of Christ, whom now the very children all know to be very Antichrist! What kind of Christ will you fabricate for us, if you wish his image to be represented in your tyranny? We see a high priest of all impiety, a standard-bearer of Satan, a fierce tyrant, a cruel murderer of souls, in short, the son of perdition, whom the Apostle describes; and must we regard him as the vicegerent of Christ? We see, I say, the wolf by which the sheep of Christ are devoured, we see the thief by whom they are carried off; we see the prowler by whom they are slain, and still must we esteem him the vicegerent of Christ?
(35.) Themistocles, when about to offer a sacrifice to justice, is said to have exclaimed, "O goddess, if thou any where exist!" When the Pope calls his conscience as a witness, must we not ask where it exists? Orators sometimes call up from the infernal regions those whose personal presence they judge appropriate to their cause, but there is no room for this in the case of the Pope, for whom there is neither a heaven nor a hell. It is only for him, then, who holds this chimera in his hands, to believe that Farnese will cheerfully shed his blood for the peace of the Church. But if we look to the fact, we will find that though Paul Farnese knows what it is to shed the blood of others, he has learned to spare his own. Certainly, if it could have been believed up to this time, that there was a particle of conscience still remaining in a Pope, his manifest perjury, in this instance, would make it clear how completely he has shaken himself free both from fear of God and regard for man.
(36.) An equitable provision doubtless, that the Protestants shall be given up to the Pope for judgment! Why? For he says he is their judge. Sole judge? He assumes at his Council, as coadjutors, his own venerable brethren, whom he also besprinkles with a portion of honour! Is it that the flock of sheep may be delivered to as many wolves? Whatever their character be, they are the persons to take cognizance! If on one occasion Paul was entitled to say, "I wist not, brethren, that it was the high priest," what are we entitled in the present day to say of these fierce vultures? In one word, I would only say, let them show themselves to be the Lord's priests, and I will, without difficulty, concede to them a power of judging. But seeing plainly what they are, I am entitled again and again to ask who appointed them judges or rulers?
(37.) The honorable title which the Holy Spirit bestows on princes and civil magistrates, (as is evident, both from the passage itself, and also from the interpretation of Christ,) Constantine, who was not well read in the Scriptures, and if history speaks true, was then a catechumen, transferred by mistake to the priests. Farnese thinks, that in calling in its aid, he has found the shield of Achilles. The point, then, to be determined is, to which of the two we are to give credit, to God or Constantine, in interpreting the passage, "I said ye are gods?" At the same time, I admit that when Constantine saw the Bishops inflamed with a kind of deadly rage, lacerating each other, sparing Anus, and deserting the cause of Christ, in order that they might indulge their own passions, he acted prudently in refusing to have any thing to do with their libels. But how far Constantine was from being of Farnese's mind, and how false Farnese is in sheltering himself under his name, may easily be judged from his letter to the Nicomedians, as given in the First Book of Theodoret. "If;" says he, "we have chaste, orthodox, and modest bishops, we rejoice. But if any one shall unadvisedly and presumptuously employ himself in fomenting disturbances, his presumption must be checked by the servant of God, i.e., by my executive authority." Since Farnese wishes our Emperor Charles to make Constantine in all respects his model, he cannot object to allow, not merely his presumption, but his unbridled rage, to be curbed by his hand.
(38.) It is true Farnese has sometimes made a show of calling a Council; but any one who believes that he ever thought seriously of holding a Council, has not a particle of soundness in his brain. he knows that the world, as if famishing, has long been gaping eagerly for a Council, and he knows that all accuse him of extreme cruelty, in so long dragging out the time by endless evasions. Why not, then, when it can cost him nothing, satisfy the ignorant by now and then summoning a Council? If any man wonder why the Pope is so much afraid of a Council, though no good man will find a place in it, let him hence consider how monstrous a species of tyranny that must be, which can only be maintained in fear and terror.
(39.) Here we see what it is that alarms the most holy Father. He does not wish the cause of the Protestants to be managed in the way of hearing and discussing, but thinks the most convenient plan would be to begin by condemning them; although, indeed, he will scarcely honour them so far as to begin anew to take up a cause which he has already decided, but will order the sentence already passed to be executed. And, certainly, he does not consult ill for his own schemes, when he anxiously avoids the discussion of a cause so full of doubt and peril to himself. What, then, is left to the Protestants, even were audience allowed them, but to abandon their defense, and yield up to him their persons and their all?
(40.) It were, indeed, desirable that all the Germans would sincerely unite in adopting a pure faith, and cling together under one common head, namely, Christ; nay, that the whole world could be brought to this unity, so accomplishing that which undoubtedly constitutes the true perfection of the Church, forming one sheepfold under one Shepherd. But the Pope objects, because it is nothing to him that one God be acknowledged by all, and the whole world governed by the pure doctrine and under the auspices of Christ, if he himself is not adored as head. Therefore, although he who has no God cannot, without falsehood, call God to witness, still, lest you should suppose that he is always false, there is one thing which he here affirms truly, viz., that there is nothing he more longs for, than to bring back under his yoke all those who have thrown it off; and whom he regards as incorrigible.
(41.) As if he had called the Council with any hope of assembling it, and had not rather intentionally selected the time which would be most unsuitable for a peaceful consultation. When he was well aware that the two principal monarchs of the Christian world were kept asunder by war, and that in several places the trumpet for battle was almost sounding, then he pretended that he wished to hold a Council. Who will believe he was such a fool as to hope for it? Hence, one may easily conjecture that he never acts without dissimulation. For how came it to pass that he abandoned it when affairs were tranquil? After making a fluster for some time with summoning a Council, first to meet at Mantun, and afterwards at Verona, both of them vanished into a Bull; and now, in unsettled times, amidst the sound of arms, he bestirs himself as if he had found the fittest opportunity!
(42.) O abandoned impudence! It is strange, that, during the writing of this passage, he did not order his scribe to groan and squeeze one little tear from his left eye. But he is not less foolish than dishonest in acting this play before the Emperor, as if the Emperor did not know him. Let him, therefore, look out for a stranger. And yet where will he find one, though he search from east to west, who does not know that he cheats both God and man? But to proceed, to what place does he summon the Council ?—to Trent. He will he clever, indeed, if he finds the Germans so silly, as of their own accord to throw themselves into the wolves' jaws. How will the Council he composed? Of Milesians, beyond a doubt, who cannot bear even the shadow of a good man among them. What equity or moderation in conducting the investigation? Perhaps they will come, honest and unbiased by prejudice, to calm and pious deliberation. Nay, Farnese even now says that the cause which is to be brought under discussion is already condemned. It would be superfluous, therefore, to spend one little hour in discussing it. However, not to seem too stern or too cruel, they will gravely set themselves to hear—"Go, officer, call the Protestants; if they desire to propose anything to the Council, let them give the substance of it in an humble petition, that they may not offend the delicate ears of the holy Fathers." Having heard the demands of the petitioners, it will be convenient, first of all, to ascertain whether they concede to the holy Fathers, without challenge, the power of judging them and their doctrine; and, next, whether, abandoning the reformation which they have established, and abjuring the doctrine which they have embraced, they are prepared to reinstate, as before their banishment, the faith and all the ritual of the holy Roman See. If they hesitate as to the former, they will immediately be declared schismatics; if they refuse to do the latter, they will be twice heretics. It will therefore, be necessary to determine forthwith how their contumacy is to be punished. For it will be unlawful to touch a single matter, unless the Church is restored out and out. Meanwhile, the Christian world being distracted by a civil war persecuting and oppressing the Protestants, the reformation of the Church will he delayed. The venerable clergy, however, will not be idle. There will everywhere be need of many bellows to blow the fire. But after they have once returned to tranquil possession, should any one dare to make any farther mention of convening a Council, he will be proclaimed by all with one mouth a turbulent, a seditious fellow, and an enemy of unity. It is certain, according to Farnese's view, even the Emperor himself could not attempt it with impunity. Let leave, however, be granted to the Emperor to petition for a Council, still it will be free to the Pope to refuse; and having met with a refusal, let him beware of going a step farther, ,unless he wishes to suffer the punishment of his presumption after the manner of Uzzah, or to come to some other dreadful end. Of the ordering of the Council I will speak by and by, if I find time.
(43.) Who can now wonder that the Pope claims primacy over every description of mortals, since he here makes himself the president of angels also? But I fear I may have been misled by an ambiguity in the name. I certainly have been mistaken. For what angels could he mean, except those whom he has always been accustomed to use as counselors? Among them is the one who of old was a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets to destroy Ahab. If one could do so much there, what will some thousands do here? For this, however, Faruese is justly liable to censure,—in sending to the under benches those who are to preside over the Council, and sit higher than its chair. For not even is he himself so great a god, as not to be the servant of the father of lies. Certainly, one who subjects his person and his life to magical divinations, is by acknowledgment less than the devil whom he invokes. Still, I care not what he professes, when I see what it is he does.
(44.) He is a father, and such a father as the poets describe Saturn to have been, one who devours his children. Whoever will not obey what he says, he excludes from the number of the children of God. But it is well that his thunder is Salmonean, not divine.
(45.) The first point here is, that no doctrine shall be received that does not proceed from the tripod of the Roman See. Having obtained this, how can there remain any ground for dispute? Accordingly, he does not object to discussion concerning doctrine, and the purifying and reforming of the Church, provided he sits judge, and the whole controversy is decided by his nod. Not contented, however, with this, he takes another precaution, allowing those things only to be taken into consideration which he and his cohort of angels choose, prescribing the mode of pleading, imposing silence as often as he pleases, and whenever his stamp is heard, making all tremble. Is it so? Protestants complain that the worship of God is corrupted, his glory extinguished, or, at least, greatly obscured, the kingdom of Christ overturned, religion adulterated, the doctrine of truth partly vitiated, partly buried, the Church miserably torn and wasted, the sacraments prostituted to a vile and shameful gain, souls redeemed by the blood of Christ made the subject of a sacrilegious trafficking, and the ministry or pastoral office, than which nothing ought to be more salutary to the world, converted into a deadly tyranny. They charge the Pope and his adherents with the guilt of all these evils, and they are prepared to demonstrate, as with the finger, that he is Antichrist. They decline not, should the proof fail, not only to bear the penalty of calumny, but all punishments, however severe. All that they demand is audience before a fair tribunal, and audience on the condition that the cause be determined according to the sacred Word of God, yet without disregarding the ancient customs of the Fathers. What says the most Holy Father to this? He, indeed, allows cognizance, but on the terms which I have stated. But this is just the same as if a robber, when accused of the robbery and murder committed by him, were to say that he does not refuse to be judged, but on the condition that the tribunal shall be erected by himself; that he from it shall pronounce judgment in his own cause, that nothing shall be advanced against his will, that nothing offensive to him shall be uttered, that he shall be pressed by no evidence, but shall so regulate the whole pleading of the cause, that he may without any molestation secure impunity for his enemies. Here we see the reason why Imperial Diets are not competent to hear this cause.
(46.) The second point relates to ecclesiastical revenues, and then the doctrine maintained is, that if hitherto there has been any vice in the administration of them, if any illicit usurpation, it can only be corrected by the judgment of the Pope. Who can doubt that the Pope has reasons for insisting upon this? For what access would be given to Princes to make innovations, were they admitted here? We know what unrestrained luxury prevails in the present day among Bishops, Abbots, and those who follow in their train. Princes might hear that the wealth which is now so shamefully dilapidated is the patrimony of the poor, and then who would not rise against these squanders, did they not anticipate interference by forcing themselves into order? Princes might learn from the ancient Canons what the distribution should be, and to whom it belongs, and they might in consequence insist on restoring the ancient deaconship. They aright hear that no man should be supported out of the revenues of the Church who does not fulfill his function, and they might therefore proclaim, that all lazy bellies are to be discarded. Were this done, how few out of the many legions would remain? What Bishop in the present day performs his duty, nay, pretends to perform it? What Parson does? Hence Canons and others might be brought back to the old form of Presbytery. Then this profane, that is, as they term it, lay correction, might not only travel to other churches, but might find its way to the hitherto inaccessible See of Rome itself. What else would this be than to confound heaven and earth? Would it not be a criminal indignity to the terrestrial god, that his rule of life should be dictated, that the expense of his table should be prescribed, that his accounts should be annually called for? And not only so, but whatever he has seized from others by unjust violence, or stolen by fraud, might be wrested from him. Nay, more, he might be forced to restore what he pillaged from the empire, and possesses as of right; in short, to disgorge all the rapine which he has engulfed during so many years.
Still, if any greater necessity required it, all this might be conceded. But now, why should the Princes invade another's office when so equitable a method is here prescribed by Farnese? For who is better fitted to effect a cure than he who has a thorough knowledge of the disease? The corruptions which entirely put an end to the ancient deaconship must be cleared out and removed! On whom is it fitter that this office should be imposed, than on those who are not only aware of the evils, but also the authors of them? Let us wait and see what kind of amendment will take place, if free power be left to the priests, either to act or refrain from acting. Not thus good King Josiah, who charged his scribe not only with the revenue destined for maintenance, but also with the sacred offerings. And yet Farnese is not ashamed to accuse the States of the Empire of sacrilege, if they interfere to check his sacrilege.
(47.) To what the concession made to the Protestants amounts I need not here explain, though in substance it comes to this, that they are not to be prematurely oppressed by unjust prejudices, until their cause has been duly investigated and judged. His Holiness orders all this to be rescinded. The thing, at first sight, seems harsh, but there is a reason under. For what if Protestants should come to the Council in possession of all their rights? Would not the Holy See be injured were discussion to be entered upon as if matters were doubtful? Therefore, it is not without cause the Pope contends so strenuously that they shall not have the benefit of any privilege. For what more convenient for him, or more expeditious, than that they should be dragged thither, as felons, or pay the penalty of their absence? There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the expediency, but we ask, is it just and right? Farewell honesty, says Farnese; let utility prevail. This, indeed, is the usual course of Roman justice; but he forgets that he is speaking in Germany, where the faith, once pledged, is religiously observed, and there is some sense of shame. In Germany, I say, it is new and unusual to break promises, to resile from solemn obligations, and regard nothing as firmly ratified, except in so far as conducive to self-interest. But, if it is abhorrent from the common custom of Germany to count a promise as nothing, and retract it at pleasure, what more alien to the character of its Emperor? The conclusion is, that whatever stipulations the Emperor has made with the Protestants, whatever transacted and determined, must be declared null and void. True, among men there is nothing holier than faith; but it was long ago decreed that faith is not to be kept with heretics. But, if an oath has been interposed? As if it did not belong to Pontiffs to loose from an oath as often as they see fit! But it is a perpetual and inviolable law of the empire, that what is promised must he performed. What then? Is not the Pope superior to laws? Nay, what are laws to him? But is it not unworthy of the majesty of the Emperor to abandon his decree? It is enough that all turpitude is wiped away by the sanctity of the Pope. But the deed has been executed. As if the absolution of the Pope did not suffice for nullifying all deeds. Thus, indeed, he was wont to act in former times. Of this we have a signal proof in the case of John Huss, whom the Romans, after alluring him to Constance by a safe-conduct, cruelly murdered. The Emperor Sigismund, a prince of a mild, and by no means a sanguinary temper, was present. When he, thinking it most disgraceful both to himself and the whole empire, that an individual whom he had taken under his power and protection should, in his presence, and so actually under his protection, be hurried off to die by the executioner, earnestly interceded to prevent the barbarous cruelty, the decree was framed by the holy Fathers, that faith is not to be kept with heretics. By this the conscience of the Emperor was set free from the oath, while he was ridiculed for his simplicity and bashfulness, in fearing that any disgrace could still accrue to him from violating, or at least neglecting his faith.
But we are now in another age. The world, which was then blind, has opened its eyes. In the minds of the Germans there still resides a remembrance of the foul act, warning them to beware of ever again joining themselves as associates in Roman perfidy. More especially, there is an Emperor who will never be induced to bring his faith and dignity into bondage to Farnese. It is known how oft he has been urged to cruelty by that Satan, and what bellows have been blown to kindle him into flame. He has, however, stood firm to his purpose, and among his many noble and heroic virtues, the one worthiest of all admiration is, that, during these commotions of the empire, he has never allowed himself to be turned aside, either from moderation and clemency, or from a religious regard to his word.