Chapter XLIV. The Method of Entering upon Peace

§1

Good peace, O sincere peace, the end of my disputation and the happiness of the Church, where shall I seek you? Paul, the vessel of election, commands me at Romans 14:19 to pursue the things that are of peace. Peter, the rock of the Church, commands me at 1 Peter 3:11 to seek peace and pursue it. And God himself is not the author of dissension, but of peace. But whom shall I address concerning peace? Or rather, whom have all Catholics long been addressing together with me? Not the Theologians of the opposing party; for they, ἄσπονδοι, have declared eternal war against us without a treaty. What shall we do with them? What shall we expect from them? Recently one man from their company, Joseph Hall, began a polemical work and called its first part Rome Irreconcilable. There he says that it is necessary for them and Rome to disagree, §21, and in §22: “God will sooner create a new Rome than reform the old.” Nevertheless, if we are rejected by the Theologians, we are not embittered against peace by their curses; we shall flee for refuge to the moderation of statesmen and the equity of princes. Perhaps those who now wage war after having been led into it by a cunning stratagem will grant peace more readily.

§2

Now, therefore, I address you, O Kings and Princes, who foster any religion different from the Roman, Catholic, and ancient religion. As a suppliant I call upon you as arbiters, patrons, and advocates of peace. What I ask is great, I confess, and difficult, which I lament. But it is lawful for great things to be sought from magnates, and the power of the giver makes easy those things which by nature are difficult.

I have a reason to hope for peace, and you have a reason to grant it: the frailty of human judgment, which vehemently seeks certain things and swiftly abandons the same. What it held fixed and ratified when the day departed, it condemns and impales when the day returns. This indulgence, therefore, must be granted to infirmity; and where there was no perseverance in innocence, let there be repentance. Let it be permitted to return to the point at which what was rashly denied may be conceded and what was incautiously admitted may be renounced.

The examples are at hand and are in the acts of your archives: within a hundred years peace has been attempted a hundred times, both between us and your people and among the various divisions of your parties. For what region, what city, holds that faith which it first received after departing from our Church? Some began with Zwingli and went over to Luther; very many, after manifold changes within Lutheranism, departed to Calvin.

§3

Behold, moreover, while I am writing these very things in the year 1618, on the Kalends of November, a new peace and a new Synod are under discussion between the Gomarists and the Arminians—that is, between the bitterest enemies whom Europe contains. The Arminians protest that the Gomarists are Manichaeans and Borborites, and that they worship the very Demon himself in place of God. The Gomarists, now stronger in military force, run forward on the same line against the Arminians. They say that the latter are worse than Turks, Jews, all heretics, and even the Jesuits themselves; and yet they do not despair of peace, although they will never attain it, however they may devise truces and syncretisms, because both parties lack the support of peace—that is, the foundation of truth. Nor does God ever permit an agreement of errors without allowing more dissensions to flow from the nature of that agreement.

If, therefore, peace is hoped for and attempted amid such hostile wrath, inveterate hatreds, and recent wounds, why not also between us and those who are vehement in their opinion but nevertheless unstable? The good and merciful God has compassion upon those who err; perhaps he will grant that those regions which have been changed three, four, five, and six times to another religion may at last be changed to the true one. Those whom the windings of the roads within the labyrinth have long wearied may sometime find the true exit.

§4

Unhappy indeed is an error which is driven on by another error, as wave by wave, and is never dashed to pieces by the truth. The Augsburg Confession was changed twelve times, as is stated in the Colloquy of Herzberg, fols. 91–92. At the assembly of Naumburg an uncorrupted copy was sought in vain. At the assembly of Altenburg the Theologians of Jena called it a buskin. I omit the rest. If your Theologians have erred and have been divided into so many sects, they can err even now; they can take up again what they have condemned and return to the Catholic faith. This will easily occur if you, O Princes, are willing to tread in the footsteps of your fathers; for we see the opinions of peoples turned at the nod of princes, while all accommodate themselves to the ruling power—a word which the unhappiness of the times has now made proper to the business of religion.

§5

The difficulties of the cause, however, are innumerable, and they render peace difficult, though not impossible. For, first, it is the character of error that it cannot stand for long, and yet those who err do not therefore return to the truth first, but are scattered. Thus the Arians and Macedonians departed into various sects, until Mohammedanism was compounded from them all; and it too has parties among so barbarous a people. We see it occur thus in Europe: all disagree, all wish to be Christians, but what fraction is sound? The cause is that those who have abandoned the truth are struck with blindness. If the blind begin to walk, the farther they proceed, the greater the divergences they make.

There is more than one cause why your teachers fall into new errors, but the chief cause is that they do not believe to be true the things which they hawk to you as oracles of the Holy Spirit. Mathesius, in Sermon 12 on the life of Luther, fol. 147, relates that Anthony Musa told him that, when he said that he had sorrowfully complained to Luther because he himself could not believe the things which he preached to others, Luther replied: “Blessed, then, be God, since the same thing happens to others as happens to me; for until now I believed that it happened to me alone.” Because, therefore, they do not believe what they wish others to believe, they presently choose something else which appears more probable; they reach the truth itself with difficulty. For they do not reject at once all the things which they wish to appear to have believed, lest they appear defeated; and they delight in the praise of novelty. Hence there are so many new sects in Belgium and in the North. Nevertheless, this is a good within the evil: being cut into small pieces, they look back upon themselves and embrace the truth more readily.

§6

Next, I see those who contend far more bitterly with one another than with us contriving peace. What today is more common and better known than the syncretism of your preachers? Do you believe that they disagree among themselves? Hear the Dean and Theologians of Tübingen sounding a terrible trumpet in the year 1588. Second, they say that the errors of the Zwinglians and Calvinists, as they call them, are far more horrible than Papist idolatry. Third, they say that the Zwinglians and Calvinists, abusing the doctrine and profession of the Gospel, inflict more harm than the Papists. Therefore:

1. Following the example of Paul, one must fight against them;
2. following the example of Luther, who wished that Zwingli had remained a Papist;
3. after their defection from the Papists, they inflicted more harm than they could have inflicted if they had remained with them;
4. the Calvinists abuse the humanity of the Lutherans and vaunt brotherhood;
5. the Calvinists introduce new errors intolerable to the Church—and they enumerate them.

Thus they dispute at Heidelberg concerning syncretism. Although they say these things and said them in 1588, nevertheless in the meantime a great part of the Lutherans migrated to Calvinism, even your ministers themselves, for whom the will of princes was sufficient for abjuring their faith. Someone will say that these things are said by the Lutherans of Tübingen but denied by the Calvinists of Heidelberg. The Lutherans say them rightly; the Calvinists deny them wrongly. For although at the beginning they say that they disagree with the Lutherans only in one article, and not in that whole article, nevertheless at the end they retract this: “What things could we, in turn, cast against these men”—the Tübingen theologians—“in this place, and how MONSTROUS and UNWORTHY of Theologians?” Thus say the Heidelberg theologians.

Peace, therefore, can prudently be hoped for from the mercy of GOD; but the method and the beginning must be treated. The true and customary method is indeed that which I proposed in the book On the Peace of Germany: that we should stand by the judgment of the ancient Councils when they interpret the Scriptures. But since, amid so great a variety of dissenters, no council can be given which all embrace, many things must necessarily precede, and methods must be entered upon which all ought to approve by right judgment.

§7

The first method of concord is that the state of the question and controversy be correctly formulated—a state which a great part of the disputants and your Stentors in the pulpits corrupt. For the question is not whether the pure and unadulterated word of God must be taught; whether definition must be made from it; whether the word of God must be rejected. Accordingly, Bucer, in his book On Concord, calumniously judges that this must be conceded among the first things: “that the true word of God be freely preached everywhere”; for we granted this long ago.

This, therefore, is the controversy: when the word of God, which we all call sacrosanct, has been placed in the midst, which party possesses its true and genuine understanding? Nor is this the question only between us and them, but among their petty sects: whether the Lutherans or the Calvinists truly interpret the word of God, and whether the Arminians or the Gomarists do so.

The first advantage of this consideration is that those who are to make peace agree at least in certain matters and possess common principles. Nor is it an obstacle that they acknowledge for the most part the written word alone, whereas we acknowledge the written and handed-down word, or ἄγραφον [unwritten]. For this very matter will be disputed from the written word: whether the existence of traditions is repugnant to it; whether it is a tradition that those books which the Church venerates as the word of God are canonical. For Luther himself confesses that infant baptism cannot be proved evidently from Scripture. Ochino argued thus: “Whatever is not evident in Scripture must not be believed; the condemnation of polygamy is not evident in Scripture; therefore:” And thus, from that principle concerning the written word alone, he introduced polygamy.

Nor do I demand anything inequitable when I pronounce and insist that this state of the question must be proposed. All the hundreds of those who err repeat with one voice: “Scripture, the word of God, the pure and unadulterated word of God.” And yet they dispute about its meaning. I am not ignorant that very many disputations are useless, as Tertullian observed long ago; but I judge that all can be brought back to some equity and concord if we all dispute about the meaning of Scripture and that one aim alone is proposed.

You, O Prince, believe Scripture. I too believe it; indeed, I am prepared to die for one iota or stroke. There is agreement, therefore, in this matter. But from this beginning you subsequently believe one thing and I another, because Scripture says one thing according to my meaning, another according to yours, and perhaps another in the opinion of those whom you believe. Hence, therefore, arises another question: whether you and your people, or I, possess the true meaning. We must therefore join battle more closely.

§8

The second method of concord is that we should all together beseech almighty God that, since the controversy concerns the meaning, God may deign to aid us with his own light, so that we may draw out the truth and be confirmed in the truth. Next, let us debate the true meaning from the idioms of Scripture, analogy, comparison with other passages, evident deduction, and the usage of the ancient Church, the Councils, and the Fathers.

That method of comparison possesses many advantages if it is conducted among humane men and with modesty. First, no one will make us hateful among those who do not know us, as though we were despisers of Scripture. Second, when the paint has been stripped away, the disease of those who oppose Scriptures to everything, both against us and mutually against themselves, will immediately appear. Third, there will be fewer contentions, since all will be occupied in investigating Scripture, not in mutual combat, in which they blaze up at a light touch—indeed, like sufferers from gout, they cry out at the suspicion of a touch. Fourth, since ministers are of two kinds—some clamorous and eristic, who refer everything to their preconceived opinion, and others more peaceable and more learned—the commentaries of the latter afford a great opportunity and means for blunting the insolence of the Stentors. Fifth, the ministers will not be compelled to act intemperately and angrily because they are interpreting Scripture; for in eristic disputation, unless they wash themselves in all their bile, their cause seems to have fallen, and a patient disputant is regarded as a betrayer. Sixth, although someone is not evidently defeated, he will nevertheless observe that Scripture does not support him; he will also fear the array of many great men on the other side. Nor will he be able to condemn me when he has not defeated me from his own principle.

I shall demonstrate an example. In Proverbs 16 it is said: “God made all things for his own sake, the impious man also for the evil day.” The Gomarists in Belgium, and the rigid men who follow them, interpret this passage so as to say that God creates the impious in order that his own justice may shine forth in their punishment. See Piscator’s theses 6, 7, and 9, and his disputation against Vorstius. The theses read thus:

1. Sins occur with God procuring them, and they occur with the same God willing them—indeed, willing them altogether thus. §17; likewise §§6 and 64, and throughout.
2. God wills that iniquity be done, although he does not delight in it, just as a sick man wills to drink a bitter draught although he does not delight in it. And thus that saying of Psalm 5, “You are not a God who delights in iniquity,” and so forth, must be understood. §95.
3. God willed that Judas betray Christ and that the Jews kill him, although he had prohibited this to them. §§10, 16, and 24.
4. That which is unjust—that is, contrary to his precept—is in conformity with the will of God; for example, that homicide by the Jews and the betrayal by Judas, and so forth. In the same place, especially §§16 and 24.
5. All things occur from the decree of God, even sins themselves, and indeed from an absolute and special decree. §§56, 58, and 130.
6. Because God wills to make known his justice and mercy, for that reason he also wills that sins occur. §61.
7. Because God procures that manifestation of his justice and mercy, for that reason he also procures the sins themselves. §64.
8. God procured that Absalom should violate his father’s wives and that Shimei should curse his king, and so forth. In the same place, as also §17.
9. God destined all men for sins, and did so for this reason: that he might save some by mercy, and punish and destroy others by justice. §89.
10. Because God decreed to permit sins, it is therefore necessary that they occur, because otherwise he would have decreed in vain to permit them. §131.
11. The unbelief of the Jews—and similarly of all unbelievers—depends upon God’s predestination. And the Apostle expressly teaches this in Romans 9. §133.

These things are according to the mind of Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, Gomarus, and others. I interpret the passage otherwise, more truly and better. God created the impious, not by implanting impiety in them, but he created men whom he foresaw would be impious; and he will use their impiety—which he did not make, but foreknew—to manifest his justice. He created the man who was to go into the evil day; he did not ordain him to punishment except from foreseen impenitence.

I prove my interpretation thus. 1. The Hebrew words do not indicate that God ordained the impious man for the evil day, or that he made the man impious; and that text alone is authentic for you: גם רשע ליום רעה, “also evil for an evil day,” or, as others render it, “and the evil or impious man will fall or perish in the evil day.” For since the article הא is not joined to the word רשע, it can be expressed in the nominative case just as well as in the accusative. Next, the Seventy interpreters explain it thus: οἱ δὲ ἀσεβεῖς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κακῇ ὀλοῦνται. “But the impious will perish in the evil day.” Those words, therefore, do not signify an absolute ordination by God and a decree of condemning without fault.

2. Unless we follow this interpretation, we shall make God unjust; for he cannot destine someone to punishment without foreseen fault, just as he cannot condemn without committed fault. This, therefore, is an exercise of cruelty, not of justice.

3. God is infinitely good; therefore he infinitely abhors the infliction of unjust punishment, and consequently also the destination to punishment.

4. It is much more cruel even to procure sins. For then God would be the Tiberian God which the Hollanders have described for us.

5. The Fathers interpreted the passage thus with me. Augustine, Letter 106 to Paulinus: “Although he did not make sins, nevertheless who but God created the natures themselves—which in themselves are undoubtedly good—in which, nevertheless, from the choice of the will the vices of sins were to exist, and in many such vices for which eternal punishment was to be rendered?”

And in book 2 Against the Calumnies of the Pelagians, chapter 3: “God is indeed the creator of all men, but no one was created by him in order that he might perish, because the cause of being born is one thing, the cause of perishing another. For that a man is born is the benefit of the Creator; but that he perishes is the desert of the transgressor.” The ancient Fathers agree in the same judgment, as does that whole Church which existed in the age of Augustine and thereafter.

6. Thus also interpret all the Arminians, those who think more mildly in Germany and France, and even those in Britain who interpret against Calvin and altogether condemn Calvin’s error in this interpretation. The Lutherans do so much more severely: they judge that interpretation so impious and deadly that in whole volumes they prove that the GOD of the Calvinists is the very evil demon.

If in this manner we search the Scriptures from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse and dispute about their true meaning, it will appear most clearly that no iota and no stroke of the divine word is denied, mutilated, or perverted by us.

No one can deny us this opportunity, provided only that he is a lover of truth. From it, moreover, it will be brought about that what previously appeared to be contrary to the law is found to be according to the law and the mind of the legislator.

§9

The third method of concord is that princes should hear our doctrine from us or from our books, not from their ministers, who are our enemies. For before God, the judge of all and avenger of calumnies, and before the whole world, we protest with our whole heart that very many and very grave dogmas are falsely imputed to us. Others have proved this, and most recently Maximilian Sandaeus in his Antithesis against Pareus, and Andreas Fornerus in his work Against the Jubilants. Why do they fasten upon us errors which we anathematize? Do they desire us to err, or to deceive their own people?

This method of concord is both necessary and efficacious. It is necessary because in councils, colloquies, and judgments concerning religion, one stands by the profession of the man with whom the controversy is conducted. Therefore what I believe must be attacked, not what an adversary imputes to me through ignorance or calumny. For example, they say that we deny that Jesus Christ is the sole Redeemer. With every asseveration, even by oath, we attest that Jesus Christ alone redeemed us. That calumny, therefore, must be put to rest so that the truth may be heard.

This method, moreover, is most efficacious because the greatest part of the controversies will fall away; indeed, the material of infamous sermons will vanish. For if they speak only truths about our doctrine, they will be unable to create hatred against us. We therefore stand before your tribunals, Most Illustrious Princes, and ask you to furnish patronage to the truth, as belongs to great fortune and to the office of a prince. What we request is not burdensome, but most equitable: namely, that in return for so many accusations and calumnies by which we have been and are daily brought into ill repute before your ears, you grant us one hearing—not vengeance, not retaliation. If you love peace, if you hold Christian charity, if you are guided by the laws of nature, hear what we believe and what we condemn. Hear it, however, from us, not from our enemies.

It is the office of a judge to investigate diligently: l. cum ii, § si praetor, de trans. in π. Next, he must not be moved rashly by rumors, nor judge undeserving men marked by hostile reputation, but inquire by a complete investigation. Why do they accuse us where our defense is not heard? Your ministers utter abuse; they do not accuse. For it is one thing to utter abuse, another to accuse. Cicero, For Marcus Caelius: “An accusation requires a crime: it must define the matter, designate the man, prove it by argument, and confirm it by a witness.” If we are reviled, we shall bless in return; if we are accused, let our defense be heard. For we are oppressed by a most violent calumny: they maliciously and mendaciously defame us with errors which we are prepared to flee even by death.

§10

The fourth method of concord is that there be a limit to calumnies concerning morals. It is an ancient artifice of Satan to defame the best men so that, since some men are openly evil and others feignedly good, if he also renders those who truly and sincerely cultivate virtue suspect of crimes, no one may be believed to be good, and therefore even to be capable of being good—although, otherwise, this is the greatest consolation of evil men: to carp at the good. Cato pleaded his cause forty-four times and was always acquitted. Pliny, book 7, chapter 28.

Never have so many and such foul kinds of calumnies been heard as in our age concerning Bellarmine, the Pontiff, and our Society. If they are true, grant a trial. With an escort we shall go to Heidelberg, The Hague, or London; let the accuser appear and prove the crime; we ourselves shall surrender ourselves to punishment. That method is necessary and efficacious for concord. For our enemies attempt to defame us so that we will not be heard; for if we are heard, we have conquered. Where is Christian gentleness? Where is justice? Shall I be brought into ill repute not only as an Antichristian on account of religion but also as an adulterer, thief, seditionist, and regicide, and yet, when I offer myself for judgment, not be heard? If you wish to kill me, condemn me after I have been heard, so that you may appear to have expended my blood for the state, not for calumny. You see what natural justice demands.

Your ministers defame not only the doctrine of Catholic doctors but also their life, and beyond the ordinary manner and conspicuously so in the case of the Society. There is no crime of which they do not make us guilty, no punishment which they judge excessive, no hatred of the whole world which is equal to our malice. Now I call God and men to witness: summon us into court, prove the crime; let us be permitted to die as men condemned, if not by law, at least by rite and process. Amid so many men who speak abuse and insults, we seek an accuser. We shall follow his forum; there will be none in which there is not some protection for innocence.

There are Kings and Princes acquainted with our affairs; there are prelates, magnates, nobles, Senators, citizens, craftsmen, servants, so many myriads of young students and men—among them Lutherans and Calvinists, and even Apostates from religion. If our crimes are unknown to them all, although our colleges are open to them, whence are they known to you? If they are known to them, behold: produce the witnesses, join issue, convict us.

It once came into my mind to persuade our Father General that, since so many calumnies against us arise daily, he should arrange for all the diplomas of Emperors, Kings, Princes, Prelates, states, cities, and courts which bear testimony to our innocence to be published—and he would certainly act prudently. For what brow will be so brazen, what face so hard, that if it should see a thousand testimonies of Monarchs, Princes, states, and other magnates on behalf of our innocence—and indeed of those who know us intimately and who have inquired into our affairs and life—it would still dare to calumniate? But let him to whom that duty belongs determine those matters.

Now I wish to be accused. I shall plead my cause from chains, provided that I am admitted to the chains from which I may plead my cause. Peace cannot be made otherwise, unless disgrace is removed from the innocent. For because they know that reputation is more excellent than life, and lest they be compelled to fight and debate, they wish us to be buried by infamy.

You, Most Illustrious Princes, will grant this the more readily because you are either Lutherans or follow the doctrine which they call Reformed—and, if the latter, either that first reformed doctrine or the one most recently adulterated. If you are Lutherans, you ought, if you believe your own people, to judge all Calvinist ministers the worst of calumniators. If you are Reformed, the same judgment must be made concerning the Lutherans. If, therefore, this is the complaint of all your people, admit mine also.

§11

The sixth method of concord is that the impediments peculiar to you be removed. I call those impediments peculiar which inhere in your parties and yet can easily be removed.

§12

The first impediment is the ἀντίληψις [preconception] and preoccupation of prejudgments, which shudders at everything alien. But this can be removed by the variety and altercations of the dissenters, and next by the changes of religions. Your ancestors were all most certain, but nevertheless they changed. After Zwingli was killed, your ministers themselves came into Germany; when the Protestants were defeated, the Lutherans fled into Switzerland and, having become Calvinists, declared that their own Lutherans had deservedly been defeated. Even now, as each prince goes over to a different religion, he draws and draws back a crowd of ministers; and do you believe them to be worshipers of God rather than flatterers of your power? What confidence, therefore, can there be in a cause abandoned so many times, a cause whose defenders stood on the other side?

§13

The second impediment was removed long ago: namely, scandals given and received on both sides. For many years ago Bucer, in his book On Christian Concord, enumerated the impediments to his Gospel: the impious life of the Evangelicals. If, therefore, the impiety of the Evangelicals ought to deter us from their fellowship and association, there is no reason why our sins should greatly keep them from the ancient faith, especially since inventions of new heresies are added to malice of morals. “Added to all these things,” says Bucer, page 65, “is the not inconsiderable number of those who withdrew from Papist ceremonies and boast of the Evangelical reformation, and under that pretext and boast began—and today continue to begin—many evil and poisonous heresies and sects, seditions and tumults.”

§14

The third impediment to our coming over to you is that we would become unlike the whole remaining Christian world, and, after abandoning the universal Church, would become like one hidden little part of a single corner. Augustine would then cast against us what he cast against the Donatists, who boasted that the Church had remained in their part alone. But you, O Princes, if you hear your own men, hold a solitary faith. For who holds a Lutheran faith in common with his neighbors? Who maintains the rigid faith together with a portion of the Genevans? All your people create little parts, because they do not hold peace with a part and because they wage wars against the whole. This, therefore, ought to be an incitement to you to join yourselves to the whole body from which you have been torn away.

§15

The fourth impediment enumerated by Bucer is the fear of Catholic prelates lest they fall from their dignities. He judges this to be most grave. But he himself turns this back upon you, O Princes, for you possess more prelacies, and therefore you can fear as much as the Catholics. Yet this impediment too delays no one any longer. Our Prelates are prepared to bargain not only their dignities but even their blood for the faith.

Next, what great evil will befall those who defect from the faith of their fathers? If many and powerful men do it, they will not only retain their wealth but even make it hereditary, for a wife will be added. Nor is it secret what Luther advised Albert of Brandenburg, Archbishop-Elector of Mainz. You will leave their property also to our Canons and parish priests if they come over to you. This impediment, therefore, must be removed from your ministers; you would see hundreds of them migrate to the Catholics in a short time if we possessed the means from which to nourish them with their families.

The fifth impediment is lack of concern for salvation. It is a great impediment, and one by which occupied men excuse themselves. For because nothing better has yet appeared, they remain upon the course which they once undertook—not from knowledge of the good in which they are, but from ignorance of better things.

Nevertheless, there are many things which can move your ministers so that at last they too may undertake concern for their salvation and treat of it with us. First, they have perceived that they possess no foundation upon which to stand. For they cannot rest upon Scripture unless they are most learned in Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Greek; the rest lack an authentic Scripture, as I taught above when I treated of Scripture.

Second, they defend an antiquity which is doubtful. No one follows Luther, no one Calvin, no one anyone else in full; each man is a master to himself. On this account, since it is necessary that they struggle with doubt and suffer torments and lacerations of conscience, they are driven daily toward the truth by great torment. Every fluctuation warns voyagers of danger. And how are the ministers certain, when Luther himself doubted? In the Colloquy of Eisleben, fol. 96, §3: “I often think thus with myself: I almost do not know where I stand and whether I teach the truth or not.”

Third, there are two things which especially afflict them and, as though with their necks twisted backward, drag them to the ancient religion; for, placed between the sacrificial knife and the stone, they cannot escape except by the most extraordinary aid. For at every hour they expect a command to change religion. If they vehemently inculcate as Orthodox what the prince now believes, it must soon afterward be changed with greater infamy. If they inculcate it languidly, they will be accused of betrayal. Hence confident speech, and thence despair of permanence—two utterly conflicting evils—devastate the soul, so that for this reason alone they ought to wish to return to the ancient religion, which has remained most constant for one thousand six hundred years.

Finally, unless a determination concerning the true religion is made by mature counsel, great zeal, and genuine sincerity, and a beginning of meeting and hearing is made, perfidy will gradually end in Turkism. The Arians, Samosatenians, and Ostorodians or Socinians are gaining strength; they deny the merit and divinity of Christ and teach other things which will reconcile them with the Mohammedans more easily than with us. This thought will easily shake out whatever lack of concern, sloth, and negligence inheres in doubtful minds.

Since, therefore, we cannot abandon the Church, go outside, and come over to you, we seek and beseech you with whatever exhortations we can that you instead return to Mother Church and to our brotherhood. But if we do not obtain this, grant at least that you hear our cause and either approve it or understand what ought to be approved.

We venerate Christ alone as true God and Son of God, and his Father and the Holy Spirit. We hold the αὐτοπιστίαν [self-authenticity] and authority of Scripture; concerning its meaning we dispute with your people. We teach nothing that is not orthodox. We cannot be condemned unheard. We implore the noble office of the judge; we are prepared to plead our cause under any condition. We both can and will render an account of all things, provided only that the tongue of your ministers—which is our daily furnace—does not occupy minds with prejudice which would otherwise judge justly. We call God and men to witness these things: prepared to prove our cause if we are heard; prepared to die undefended but innocent if we are neglected.