Introduction
To The Most Invincible Emperor Charles V., And The Most Illustrious Princes And Other Orders, Now Holding A Diet Of The Empire At Spires (1543)
A HUMBLE EXHORTATION
Seriously to Undertake The Task Of Restoring The Church.
Presented In The Name Of All Those Who Wish Christ To Reign.
AUGUST EMPEROR,
You have called this Diet so that, together with the Most Illustrious Princes and other Orders of the Empire, you may finally discuss and decide on ways to improve the Church's current condition, which we all see is truly miserable and nearly hopeless. Now, as you gather for this consultation, I humbly ask and plead, first with your Imperial Majesty, and also with you, Most Illustrious Princes and distinguished Personages, that you will not refuse to read and carefully consider what I have to present to you. The importance and seriousness of this cause should make you eager to listen, and I will present the matter so clearly that you will have no trouble deciding what course to take. Whoever I am, I stand here to defend both sound doctrine and the Church. In this role I seem entitled to expect that you will not refuse to hear me until you can determine whether I falsely claim this role, or whether I faithfully carry out its duties and prove what I claim. Though I know I'm not fully equal to such a great task, I'm not at all afraid that after you hear the nature of my office, I'll be accused of either foolishness or arrogance for daring to appear before you. There are two circumstances that people usually use to recommend, or at least justify, their actions. If something is done honestly and from sincere commitment, we consider it worthy of praise; if it's done under the pressure of public necessity, we at least consider it worthy of excuse. Since both of these apply here, I'm confident, based on your fairness, that I will easily gain your approval of my purpose. For where can I work to better purpose or more honestly, and where, too, on a matter more necessary at this time, than in trying, according to my ability, to help the Church of Christ, whose claims we must never deny, and which is now in serious distress and extreme danger? But there's no need for a long introduction about myself. Receive what I say as you would if it were spoken by the united voice of all those who have either already worked to restore the Church, or want to see it restored to true order. In this situation are several Princes, not of the lowest rank, and quite a few distinguished communities. For all these I speak, though as an individual, yet so that it's more truly they who, at once and with one voice, speak through me. To these add the countless multitude of godly people who, scattered across the various regions of the Christian world, still unanimously agree with me in this plea. In short, regard this as the common address of all who so deeply mourn the Church's present corruption that they can't bear it any longer, and are determined not to rest until they see some improvement. I'm aware of the hateful names we're branded with; but in the meantime, whatever name you think proper to call us, hear our cause, and after you've heard it, judge what place we're entitled to hold.
The real question isn't whether the Church suffers from serious and widespread problems (even moderate observers admit this much). The question is whether these problems are so urgent that they can't wait any longer for treatment, and whether it makes any sense to rely on slow remedies when immediate action is needed. We're accused of reckless and godless innovation for daring to propose any changes to the Church's existing state. What, even if we had good reasons and did it properly? I hear some people condemn us regardless. They say we were right to want reform but wrong to actually pursue it. All I ask of such people right now is that they hold off on their judgment until I can show them, based on the facts, that we haven't acted too hastily, that we haven't done anything reckless or beyond our responsibility, and that we've done nothing until we were forced to by absolute necessity. To prove this, we need to look at what's actually being disputed.
We argue, then, that when God first raised up Luther and others to hold up a light showing us the path to salvation, and who through their work founded and built our churches, the core doctrines containing the truth of our religion, the pure and legitimate nature of God's children, and the salvation of humanity had largely been forgotten. We maintain that the sacraments had been corrupted and defiled in many ways. And we maintain that church government had degenerated into a kind of vile and intolerable tyranny. But perhaps these claims won't persuade certain people until they're better explained. So I'll do that now, not as fully as the subject deserves, but as well as I'm able. However, I don't intend here to review and discuss all our controversies. That would require a lengthy treatment, and this isn't the place for it. I only want to show how just and necessary were the reasons that forced us to make the changes for which we're criticized. To accomplish this, I need to address three points together.
1. First, I'll briefly list the evils that compelled us to seek remedies. 2. Second, I'll show that the specific remedies our Reformers used were appropriate and beneficial. 3. Third, I'll make it clear that we couldn't delay any longer in taking action, since the situation demanded immediate correction.
The first point I'll address only briefly, since I'm mentioning it mainly to clear the way for the other two. But I'll spend more time refuting the serious charge of sacrilegious audacity and sedition, which rests on the claim that we improperly and rashly seized an office that wasn't ours to take. If we ask what chiefly sustains the Christian religion among us and maintains its truth, we'll find that two things not only hold the primary place but encompass all the other parts, and therefore the whole substance of Christianity: first, knowledge of how God should be properly worshiped, and second, knowledge of where salvation comes from. When these are ignored, we may boast the name of Christians, but our profession is empty and meaningless. After these come the Sacraments and the Government of the Church, which were instituted to preserve these doctrines and shouldn't be used for any other purpose. In fact, the only way to determine whether they're administered purely and properly is to test them against these standards. If anyone wants a clearer and more familiar illustration, I'd say that church government, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order resemble the body, while the doctrine that regulates proper worship of God and shows the foundation on which human consciences must rest their hope of salvation is the soul that animates the body, makes it lively and active, and in short, prevents it from being a dead and useless corpse.
As for what I've said so far, there's no controversy among the godly or among people of sound and sensible mind.
Let us now examine what the proper worship of God really means. Its foundation is recognizing Him for what He truly is: the only source of all virtue, justice, holiness, wisdom, truth, power, goodness, mercy, life, and salvation. Once we understand this, we must give Him credit for everything good, seek all things from Him alone, and turn to Him in every need. This is where prayer comes from, along with praise and thanksgiving. These are all ways we acknowledge the glory we attribute to Him. This is the genuine honoring of His name that He requires above all else. Connected to this is adoration, through which we show Him the reverence His greatness and excellence deserve. Ceremonies serve this purpose as well, acting as tools or aids so that when we worship God, our bodies can participate along with our souls. After these comes self-denial: when we renounce the world and the flesh, we are transformed by the renewal of our minds. No longer living for ourselves, we submit to His rule and direction. Through this self-denial we learn obedience and devotion to His will, so that reverence for Him governs our hearts and shapes every action in our lives. The Holy Spirit teaches throughout Scripture that true and sincere worship consists of these things alone, and that God approves of and delights in nothing else. Even before we examine the issue closely, piety itself makes this obvious. From the beginning, there has never been any other way to worship God. The only difference is that this spiritual truth, which for us is plain and straightforward, was wrapped up in symbolic forms under the old arrangement. This is what our Savior meant when He said, "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23).
By these words, Christ didn't mean that the patriarchs failed to worship God in this spiritual way. He was simply pointing out a difference in outward form: while they had the Spirit represented through many symbols and ceremonies, we have Him directly and simply. But it has always been understood that God, who is Spirit, must be worshipped in spirit and truth.
Furthermore, the principle that separates pure worship from corrupted worship applies universally. We can't just adopt whatever approach seems right to us. We must look to the commands of the One who alone has the right to set the terms. So if we want God to accept our worship, we need to carefully follow this rule, which He enforces with absolute strictness everywhere in Scripture. There are two reasons why the Lord condemns and forbids all invented forms of worship, requiring us to obey only His own voice. First, it establishes His authority when we don't follow our own preferences but depend entirely on His sovereignty. Second, we're so foolish that when left to our own devices, all we can do is wander off course. And once we've strayed from the right path, our wandering never ends until we're buried under a pile of superstitions. The Lord is right, then, to assert His complete authority by strictly commanding what He wants us to do and immediately rejecting all human inventions that contradict His command. He's also right to explicitly define our boundaries so that we don't provoke His anger by creating twisted forms of worship.
I know how hard it is to convince people that God rejects any form of worship not explicitly authorized by His Word. The opposite belief clings to them so deeply it's practically in their bones: whatever they do is acceptable as long as it shows some kind of enthusiasm for God's honor. But God doesn't just see such efforts as pointless. He actively hates whatever we do out of zeal for His worship if it contradicts His commands. So what do we accomplish by going against Him? God's words are clear and unmistakable:
"Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (1 Sam 15:22; Matt 15:9).
Every addition to His word, especially in matters of worship, is a lie. Self-invented worship is worthless. This is the verdict, and once the judge has spoken, there's no point in continuing the debate.
Will Your Imperial Majesty now be pleased to recognize, and will you, Most Illustrious Princes, give me your attention while I show how completely at odds with this view are all the practices that make up what passes for divine worship throughout the Christian world today? In words, they certainly grant God the glory for all that is good, but in reality, they rob Him of half or more than half by dividing His perfections among the saints. Our adversaries may use whatever excuses they like and accuse us of exaggerating what they claim are trivial errors, but I will simply state the facts as everyone perceives them. Divine responsibilities are distributed among the saints as if they had been appointed colleagues to the Supreme God, and in many instances, they are made to do His work while He is kept out of view. What I'm complaining about is exactly what everyone acknowledges in a common proverb. For what does it mean to say, "the Lord cannot be known for apostles," unless it means that by the height to which apostles are raised, the dignity of Christ is lowered, or at least obscured? The result of this perversity is that humanity, abandoning the fountain of living waters, has learned, as Jeremiah tells us, to dig for themselves "cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Jer 2:13).
For where do they seek salvation and every other good? Is it in God alone? The whole pattern of their lives openly proclaims the contrary. They say they seek salvation and every other good in Him, but it's mere pretense, since they actually seek them elsewhere.
We can see clear evidence of this in how prayer was first corrupted and then largely perverted and destroyed. I've pointed out that prayer provides a test of whether worshipers give God the glory He deserves. In the same way, it reveals whether they've robbed Him of His glory and transferred it to created beings instead. Genuine prayer requires more than just making requests. The person praying must be convinced that God is the only one he should turn to, both because only God can help him in his need and because God has promised to do so. But no one can have this conviction unless he pays attention both to the command by which God calls us to Himself and to the promise of hearing our prayers that comes with that command.
This command wasn't properly regarded when most people invoked angels and dead saints indiscriminately along with God, and the more educated among them, even if they didn't invoke these figures instead of God, at least treated them as mediators whose intercession secured God's favor. Where, then, was the promise that rests entirely on Christ's intercession? Bypassing Christ, the only Mediator, each person turned to whatever patron saint caught his fancy, or if Christ was given any place at all, it was one where He remained unnoticed, like some ordinary person lost in a crowd. Then, although nothing contradicts the nature of genuine prayer more than doubt and distrust, these attitudes became so prevalent that they were almost considered necessary for proper prayer. Why? Simply because people didn't understand the meaning of God's words when He invites us to pray to Him, promises to do whatever we ask in reliance on His command and promises, and presents Christ as the Advocate in whose name our prayers are heard.
Beyond this, consider the public prayers commonly used in churches. You'll find them stained with countless impurities. From these, we can judge how badly this aspect of worship was corrupted. The expressions of thanksgiving were no less corrupt. The public hymns prove this, praising the saints for every blessing as if they were God's partners.
Now what should I say about worship? Don't people show images and statues exactly the same reverence they show to God? It's a mistake to think there's any difference between this madness and that of the pagans. God doesn't just forbid us to worship images. He forbids us to treat them as dwelling places for His divinity and to worship Him as if He lives in them. The very same excuses that defenders of this abomination use today were once used by pagans to cover up their impiety. Besides, it's undeniable that saints (and even their bones, clothes, shoes, and images) are worshiped in God's place. But some clever debater will object that there are different types of worship: that the honor of dulia, as they call it, is given to saints, their images, and their bones, while latria is reserved for God alone as His exclusive right. Unless, of course, we make an exception for hyperdulia, a category invented as the delusion grew, to elevate the blessed Virgin above the rest. As if these subtle distinctions were either known or present in the minds of those who prostrate themselves before images. Meanwhile, the world is full of idolatry just as crude, and if I may say so, just as tangible, as the ancient idolatry of the Egyptians that all the Prophets everywhere condemned so strongly.
I'm only touching briefly on each of these corruptions, because I will expose their faults more clearly later.
I turn now to ceremonies. These should serve as serious expressions of divine worship, but instead they mock God. A new form of Judaism has been erected to replace the one God clearly abolished. This reconstruction consists of countless childish rituals gathered from various sources, mixed with certain impious practices borrowed partly from paganism. These ceremonies are better suited to a theatrical performance than to the dignity of our faith.
The first problem is this: an enormous number of ceremonies that God authoritatively abolished, once and for all, have been brought back to life. The second problem is that while ceremonies should be living expressions of devotion, people waste their time on countless rituals that are both trivial and pointless. But the most destructive problem of all is this: after people have mocked God with one ceremony or another, they believe they've fulfilled their duty admirably, as if these ceremonies contained the entire essence of devotion and divine worship.
When it comes to self-abasement, which is the foundation of regeneration into a new life, the entire doctrine had been completely erased from people's minds, or at least half buried, so that only a few knew about it, and even they understood it poorly. Yet the spiritual sacrifice that the Lord especially commends is to put to death the old self and be transformed into a new person. Perhaps preachers mumble something about these words, but it's clear they have no real understanding of what they mean. This becomes obvious from the way they vigorously oppose us when we try to restore this aspect of divine worship. Whenever they talk about repentance, they only glance dismissively at the most important points and focus entirely on certain external bodily exercises that, as Paul assures us, aren't of the highest value (Col 2:23; 1 Tim 4:8). What makes this perverseness even more intolerable is that most people, trapped in a destructive error, chase after the shadow instead of the substance. They overlook true repentance and devote all their attention to fasting, vigils, and other things that Paul calls the "beggarly elements" of the world.
Since God's sword is the test that separates true worship from false and corrupted worship, we can easily conclude that the entire system of worship commonly practiced today is nothing but corruption. People don't care what God has commanded or what He approves when it comes to serving Him properly. Instead, they take it upon themselves to invent their own forms of worship and then force these on Him as a replacement for obedience. If you think I'm exaggerating, just examine all the practices that most people assume constitute worshiping God. I'd be surprised if even a tenth of them weren't just random ideas they came up with themselves. What more needs to be said? God rejects, condemns, and hates all invented worship. He uses His Word like a bridle to keep us in complete obedience. When we throw off this restraint and chase after our own inventions, offering Him worship that comes from human recklessness, it may please us greatly, but in His sight it's empty nonsense, or worse, it's vile and polluted. Those who defend human traditions dress them up in attractive colors, and Paul certainly admits they have an appearance of wisdom. But since God values obedience more than all sacrifices, it should be enough to reject any form of worship that God's command doesn't authorize.
We now turn to what we've identified as the second main branch of Christian doctrine: knowing where salvation comes from. Understanding our salvation involves three distinct stages.
First, we must start with a deep awareness of our own wretchedness, filling us with despair as though we were spiritually dead. This feeling comes when we see the original and inherited corruption of our nature as the source of all evil. This corruption produces in us distrust, rebellion against God, pride, greed, lust, and every kind of evil desire. It makes us hostile to everything right and just, holding us captive under sin's control. When each person's own sins are exposed, they feel ashamed of their depravity and are forced to be disgusted with themselves, counting themselves and everything they have as worth less than nothing. Then, when conscience is summoned before God's judgment seat, it becomes aware of the curse it's under. As if receiving a warning of eternal death, it learns to tremble at God's anger. This, I'm saying, is the first stage on the path to salvation: when the sinner, overwhelmed and brought low, gives up hope in any human help, yet doesn't harden himself against God's justice or become numbly indifferent. Instead, trembling and anxious, he groans in agony and longs for relief.
From here he should move to the second stage. He does this when, encouraged by knowing Christ, he begins to breathe again. For someone humbled in the way I've just described, no other option remains but to turn to Christ so that through His intervention he may be rescued from misery. But the only person who truly seeks salvation in Christ this way is the one who understands the full extent of His power. That is, he recognizes Him as the only Priest who reconciles us to the Father, and His death as the only sacrifice that atones for sin, satisfies God's justice, and secures true and perfect righteousness. In short, he doesn't split the work between himself and Christ but acknowledges that he's justified in God's sight purely by free grace.
From this stage he must also rise to the third, when, having learned about Christ's grace and the benefits of His death and resurrection, he rests in Him with firm and solid confidence. He feels assured that Christ is so completely his own that he possesses in Him both righteousness and life.
Look at how tragically this teaching has been twisted. When it comes to original sin, the Scholastics have raised confusing questions and done everything they can to downplay this fatal disease. In their discussions, they reduce it to little more than excessive bodily appetite and lust. They say nothing about the blindness and emptiness of the mind that produces unbelief and superstition, nothing about the inner corruption of the soul, about pride, ambition, stubbornness, and the other hidden sources of evil. And sermons are no better. As for the doctrine of free will as it was preached before Luther and the other Reformers appeared, what could it do but fill people with an inflated opinion of their own virtue, puffing them up with pride and leaving no room for the grace and help of the Holy Spirit? But why keep going on about this? There's no point more fiercely debated, none where our opponents dig in their heels more stubbornly, than justification: whether we obtain it by faith or by works. They absolutely refuse to let us give Christ the honor of being called our righteousness unless their works get to share in the merit at the same time. The dispute isn't about whether believers should do good works, or whether God accepts and rewards them, but whether these works, by their own value, reconcile us to God. Do we earn eternal life by paying for it with our works? Are they payments made to God's justice that remove our guilt? Can we trust them as the foundation of our salvation? We condemn the error that tells people to rely more on their own works than on Christ as the way to make God favorable, to earn His favor, and to obtain the inheritance of eternal life. In short, as the way to become righteous in His sight. First, they congratulate themselves on the merit of their works, as if they've put God in their debt. What is pride like this but a deadly delusion? Instead of Christ, they worship themselves and dream of possessing life while they're actually drowning in the deep pit of death. Someone might say I'm exaggerating here, but no one can deny that the standard teaching of the schools and churches is this: we must earn God's favor by our works and acquire eternal life by our works. Any hope of salvation not supported by good works is reckless and presumptuous. We're reconciled to God by the satisfaction of good works, not by a free forgiveness of sins. Good works earn eternal salvation, not because they're freely counted as righteousness through Christ's merits, but according to the terms of the law. And whenever people lose God's grace, they're reconciled to Him not by a free pardon but by what they call works of satisfaction. These works are supplemented by the merits of Christ and the martyrs, as long as the sinner deserves such help. It's certain that before Luther became known to the world, everyone was captivated by these godless teachings. And even today, there's no part of our doctrine that our opponents attack with greater intensity and stubbornness.
Finally, there was another deeply destructive error that not only dominated people's thinking but was considered one of the essential doctrines of faith, which no one dared question: the idea that believers should live in constant suspense and uncertainty about whether God actually favored them. This satanic lie completely destroyed the power of faith, nullified the benefits Christ purchased for us, and undermined human salvation itself. As Paul makes clear, the only faith that deserves to be called Christian faith is the kind that fills our hearts with confidence and gives us boldness to stand before God (Rom 5:2). Without this understanding, his teaching in another passage makes no sense:
"we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15).
What does the hesitancy our opponents demand from their followers actually accomplish, except to destroy all confidence in God's promises? Paul argues that
"If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect" (Rom 4:14).
Why? Simply because the law leaves a person in doubt and prevents him from having sure and solid confidence. But our opponents, by contrast, imagine a faith that excludes and pushes away the very confidence Paul requires, throwing people back on guesswork to be tossed around like a reed shaken by the wind. It's no surprise that once they based their hope of salvation on the merit of works, they plunged into all this absurdity. It was inevitable that from such a cliff they would take such a fall. What can anyone find in his own works except reasons for doubt and, ultimately, despair? We can see how one error led to another.
Your Majesty and most distinguished Princes, I need to remind you of something I mentioned earlier: the Church's survival depends on this doctrine as much as human life depends on the soul. If this doctrine becomes corrupted in any way, the Church suffers a fatal blow. Therefore, when I demonstrate that it had been almost completely extinguished, I will have shown that the Church had been brought to the very edge of destruction. So far, I've only touched on this briefly, but I will explain it more fully in what follows.
I turn now to the elements I've compared to the body: church government and the administration of the sacraments. When doctrine is corrupted, these lose their power and usefulness, even if their outward form appears flawless. But what if they were diseased both inside and out? It's not hard to prove that this was exactly the case.
First, regarding the sacraments: human inventions were placed on the same level as the mysteries Christ instituted. Seven sacraments were accepted without distinction, even though Christ appointed only two. The other five rested purely on human authority. Yet people believed God's grace was attached to these just as much as if Christ Himself were present in them.
Moreover, the two sacraments Christ actually instituted were horribly corrupted. Baptism was so buried under unnecessary additions that you could barely trace any vestige of pure, genuine baptism. The Lord's Supper was not only corrupted by foreign practices but had its very form completely changed. What Christ commanded to be done, and in what order, is perfectly clear. But in contempt of His command, they created a theatrical performance and substituted it for the Supper.
What resemblance does the Mass bear to the true Supper of our Lord? Christ's command tells believers to share with one another in the sacred symbols of His body and blood. What you see at Mass should more properly be called "excommunion." The priest separates himself from the rest of the assembly and consumes alone what should have been brought forward and distributed among everyone. Then, as if he were some successor of Aaron, he claims to offer a sacrifice to atone for the people's sins. But where does Christ ever mention sacrifice? He tells us to take, eat, and drink. Who authorized anyone to turn taking into offering? And what does this change accomplish except to make Christ's perpetual and unbreakable command yield to human inventions? This is indeed a serious evil.
But even worse is the superstition that applies this ritual to the living and the dead as a way of obtaining grace. In this way, the power of Christ's death has been transferred to an empty theatrical show, and the dignity of an eternal priesthood has been stripped from Him and given to men. When the people are occasionally invited to communion, they're admitted only to half a share. Why? Christ offers the cup to everyone and commands all to drink from it. In opposition to this, men forbid the assembly of believers from touching the cup. Thus the elements that Christ's authority joined with an unbreakable bond are separated by human whim.
Besides, the consecration in both baptism and the Mass differs in no way from magical incantations. Through breathing, whispering, and unintelligible sounds, they think they perform mysteries. As if Christ had wanted His word mumbled over during religious ceremonies rather than spoken in a clear voice. There's no obscurity in the words the gospel uses to express the power, nature, and purpose of baptism. In the Supper, Christ doesn't mutter over the bread but addresses the apostles in clear terms when He announces the promise and adds the command, "do this in remembrance of me." Instead of this public commemoration, they whisper secret exorcisms better suited, as I've noted, to magical arts than to sacraments.
Our first complaint here is that people are entertained with showy ceremonies while nothing is said about their meaning and truth. The sacraments are useless unless the reality that the sign visibly represents is explained according to God's Word. Therefore, when people are presented with nothing but empty symbols to feed the eye, while they hear no teaching that might direct them to the proper purpose, they look no further than the external act. This produces that most destructive superstition in which people fasten on the sign instead of what it signifies, as if the sacraments alone were sufficient for salvation, without any concern for faith or repentance or even Christ Himself.
And this impious teaching prevailed everywhere, not only among the uneducated masses but in the schools as well: that the sacraments were effective by themselves, provided mortal sin didn't obstruct their operation. As if the sacraments had been given for any other purpose than to lead us by the hand to Christ! Then, in addition to this, after consecrating the bread through a twisted incantation rather than a reverent rite, they keep it in a small box and occasionally carry it about in solemn procession so it can be worshiped and prayed to instead of Christ.
Accordingly, when any danger threatens, they flee to that bread as their only protection, use it as a charm against all misfortunes, and when asking God's pardon, employ it as the best atonement. As if Christ, when He gave us His body in the sacrament, had intended it to be prostituted to every kind of absurdity. What does the promise actually say? Simply this: as often as we receive the sacrament, we become partakers of His body and blood. "Take," He says, "eat and drink; this is my body, this is my blood. Do this in remembrance of me." Don't we see that the promise is bounded on both sides by limits we must observe if we want to receive what it offers? Those who imagine that apart from the legitimate use of the sacrament they have anything but ordinary, unconsecrated bread are deceived.
Then there's a profanation common to all these religious rites: they're made the subjects of a disgraceful trade, as if they'd been instituted for no other purpose than to serve financial gain. This trafficking isn't conducted secretly or shamefully; it's carried on openly, as in a public marketplace. Everyone knows in each district how much a Mass sells for. Other rites also have their fixed prices. In short, anyone who looks can see that churches are just ordinary shops, and there's no kind of sacred rite that isn't put up for sale there.
If I were to catalog every fault in church government, I'd never finish. So I'll focus on some of the more obvious problems that can't be hidden. First, the pastoral office as Christ established it has long been abandoned. When He appointed bishops and pastors (whatever we call them), His purpose was clear: as Paul says, they should build up the church through sound teaching. By this standard, no one is truly a pastor unless he actually teaches. But today, almost everyone who carries the title of pastor has handed that work off to someone else. You'd be hard-pressed to find even one bishop in a hundred who regularly preaches. And it's no surprise: bishoprics have turned into secular political positions. Lower-ranking pastors either think they're doing their job through trivial activities that have nothing to do with Christ's command, or they follow the bishops' example and dump even these duties on others. Renting out priestly positions has become as common as renting out farmland. What more can I say? The spiritual leadership Christ established has completely vanished, replaced by a new hybrid system that, whatever people call it, resembles the original about as much as the world resembles Christ's kingdom. Someone might object that we shouldn't blame the office itself for the failures of those who neglect their duties. My response is twofold: first, the problem is so widespread that it's essentially the norm; second, even if we assumed that all the bishops and all the presbyters under them actually lived in their assigned locations and did what's currently considered their professional duty, they still wouldn't fulfill Christ's true design. They would sing or mumble in the church, parade around in theatrical robes, and perform countless ceremonies, but they would rarely, if ever, teach. Yet according to Christ's command, no one can claim the office of bishop or pastor unless he feeds his flock with the Word of the Lord.
Those who lead the Church should stand out from others and shine through the example of a holier life. But how well do today's officeholders measure up to this calling? At a time when the world's corruption has reached its peak, no group is more devoted to every kind of wickedness. I wish they could prove me wrong through their innocence. How gladly I would take it all back. But their depravity is exposed for everyone to see: their insatiable greed and theft, their unbearable pride and cruelty. The sounds of indecent parties and dancing, the frenzy of gambling, and banquets overflowing with every kind of excess are just routine events in their homes, while they boast about their luxurious indulgences as if these were distinguished virtues.
To say nothing of other matters, what about the shamelessness in that celibacy which they themselves regard as a badge of honor? I'm ashamed to reveal atrocities I would much rather keep quiet, if silence could fix them. And I won't disclose what happens in secret. The pollution that's openly visible is more than enough. How many priests, I ask you, are free from sexual immorality? Better yet, how many of their households are notorious for daily acts of lewdness? How many respectable families do they defile with their wandering lusts? For my part, I take no pleasure in exposing their vices, and that's not my purpose here. But it's important to notice the enormous gap between how today's priesthood behaves and how true ministers of Christ and His Church are supposed to live.
One of the most important aspects of church governance is the proper and orderly election and ordination of those who will lead. The Word of God provides a standard by which all such appointments should be tested, and many decrees from ancient church councils carefully and wisely address everything related to the proper method of election. Let our opponents produce even a single example of a canonical election, and I'll concede the argument. We know what kind of examination the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul (in the letters to Timothy and Titus), requires a pastor to undergo, and what the ancient laws of the church fathers demand. Today, when appointing bishops, is anything like this even considered? In fact, how few of those who are elevated to the office possess even a minimal amount of the qualities without which they can't be fit ministers of the church? We see the process the apostles followed in ordaining ministers, the process the early church later adopted, and finally, the process the ancient canons require. If I were to complain that this process is now spurned and rejected, wouldn't the complaint be justified? But what should I say when everything honorable is trampled on, and promotion is obtained through the most disgraceful and criminal proceedings? The fact is universally known. Church honors are either purchased for a set price, or seized by force, or secured through wicked actions, or acquired through base flattery. Sometimes they're even the payment for procuring sexual favors and similar services. In short, more shameless proceedings are displayed here than ever occur in the acquisition of worldly possessions.
I wish those who lead the Church, when they corrupt its government, only sinned against themselves, or at least harmed others merely through their bad example! But the worst evil of all is that they exercise a brutal tyranny, a tyranny over souls. In fact, what is the celebrated power of the Church today but a lawless, unrestrained domination over souls, subjecting them to the most miserable bondage? Christ gave the Apostles an authority similar to what God had given the Prophets, an authority precisely defined: to act as His ambassadors to humanity. Now, the unchanging rule is that whoever is entrusted with an embassy must faithfully and carefully follow his instructions. This is stated in clear terms in the Apostolic commission: "Go and teach all nations whatsoever things I have delivered unto you." Likewise "preach" (not anything you please) but the "gospel." If we ask what authority their successors were given, we have Peter's definition, which requires all who speak in the Church to speak "the oracles" of God. Today, however, those who want to be seen as the rulers of the Church claim for themselves a license to speak whatever they please, and to insist that as soon as they have spoken they must be implicitly obeyed. They will protest that this is slander, and that the only right they claim is that of confirming by their authority what the Holy Spirit has revealed. They will accordingly maintain that they don't subject the consciences of believers to their own ideas or whims, but only to the oracles of the Spirit, which, being revealed to them, they confirm and announce to others. What a clever excuse! No one doubts that in whatever the Holy Spirit delivers through their hands they are to be obeyed without hesitation. But when they add that they cannot deliver anything but the genuine oracles of the Holy Spirit, because they are under His guidance, and that all their decisions must be true, because they sit in chairs of truth, isn't this just measuring their power by their own whims? For if all their decrees, without exception, are to be received as oracles, there is no limit to their power. What tyrant ever so monstrously abused the patience of his subjects as to insist that everything he proclaimed should be received as a message from heaven? Tyrants, no doubt, will have their edicts obeyed, whatever those edicts may be. But these men demand much more. We must believe that the Holy Spirit speaks when they force on us what they have dreamed up.
We can see just how harsh and unjust the bondage is when they use this power to enslave the souls of believers. They've piled law on top of law, creating countless traps for the conscience. They haven't limited these laws to matters of external order but have applied them to the inner, spiritual life of the soul. There was no stopping point until they reached that enormous mass of regulations, which now looks like a labyrinth. In fact, some of them seem designed specifically to trouble and torture consciences, while their observance is enforced just as strictly as if they contained the whole essence of godliness. What's worse, while violations of God's commands either go unquestioned or receive light penances, anything done contrary to human decrees requires the most severe atonement.
While the church suffers under this tyrannical yoke, anyone who dares to speak against it is immediately condemned as a heretic. In short, even expressing our grief is a capital offense. To secure this unbearable domination, they use bloody edicts to prevent people from reading and understanding the Scriptures, and they threaten anyone who raises any question about their power. This excessive severity increases day by day, so that now on the subject of religion it's barely permitted to make any inquiry at all.
