"In that case, Holy Father, I should find means to separate myself from them altogether. Your Holiness would not withhold from me your permission to secularize,[59] as many others have done."
"And if that should not be sufficient?"
"God will provide for the rest."
I now began to be persuaded that my getting rid of my employments of Rome, of quitting the city, and even of abandoning the monks, would not be sufficient. Father Parchetti had foretold it all; the pope too seemed to be fully aware of my discontent, and to have a pretty good idea of what was to follow. Nevertheless, I had not yet learned to go boldly forward; I advanced in my onward path step by step, and passed through many states of sorrow and temptation. For example, though I already abhorred popery, I still continued to visit the pope, and even felt a veneration towards his person, which no doubt was the result of habit and early education. I detested the cardinals as a body, yet I was on friendly terms with several of them: there was no great harm in that. But with respect to the mass, although I was thoroughly persuaded of its imposture, and of the two great heresies in its doctrine, I still continued to perform it; certainly without devotion, yet with a show of earnestness: I very seldom celebrated it, but had not the courage to abandon it altogether. I became anxious and worn out, and felt a strong necessity to throw myself into the arms of a better faith, since my present one, so far from satisfying me, every day rendered me more and more wretched.
The importance I attached to this departure from Rome is worthy of remark. I seemed to be leaving it never more to return. On every former occasion of absence I had never thought it necessary to make parting visits to my friends; but now I sought out all my acquaintance to bid them farewell. Many days were consumed in parting and complimentary visits, which I had never before been accustomed to make. One day I was dining with Monsignore Cioja, the governor of St. Spirito, and two of that order of canons (which, I believe, is now abolished) were there. The discourse turned on Germany and England. One of these canons was a man of learning; not so the other: both of them, however, joined in the conversation.
"Do you not think Luther was in the wrong," said one of them to me, "in making himself the head of a church? And in England, what a farce it is to see the king placed at the head of religion!"
"You do not understand what you are talking about," replied I; "Luther never made himself the head of the Church; neither are the kings of England at the head of religion. Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans acknowledge no other head than Jesus Christ. He, as St. Paul asserts, is the sole Head of the Church. And for this reason, my dear canon, that a Church does not mean a body of priests or bishops, but a people and congregation of believers. It is very well that the bishops should have authority over the priests, and among all the bishops one must be the chief: in the Latin Church, the first, the head of the other bishops, is the patriarch of Rome; in the Greek Church it is the patriarch of Constantinople; in the Anglican Church there are two primates, who for the government of the Church, as regards worship, depend altogether on the king and the parliament. What do you consider objectionable in this?"
"That the king and the parliament," replied the other canon, "can understand nothing at all about ecclesiastical matters, as the bishops do; that the king of England and the parliament have never been addressed in the character or person of Peter, in the words, 'Feed my sheep;' that the king and the parliament have no apostolic succession—they do not belong to the hierarchy—consequently are not invested with any spiritual authority whatever."
"Allow me," I rejoined, "to make a few comments on your observations. You say, the kings of England and the parliament do not understand ecclesiastical matters. You imagine that the Protestant sovereigns are as uninformed in Church affairs, as the rulers of Roman Catholic countries, who require to consult their theologians on such points, (and these now-a-days are invariably Jesuits.) The sovereigns of England, of Prussia, of Hanover, of Wittemburgh, and other Protestant dominions in Germany, understand quite as much about religion as the pope and his cardinals.[60] The first study of Protestants, is the study of their Bible, in which they are all well read. In the British parliament there are men learned in every department of science; there are even bishops and their primates: in cases of difficulty it resolves itself into a council, in which religious questions, like others, are rationally argued, and brought to a settlement. No one among them pretends to infallibility; if the question before them is not made sufficiently clear in a first sitting, it is argued in a second, or in a third, until they are agreed upon it. There are no oracles in England or in Germany; these are for the benefit of Rome only: there are only believers; who, however are possessed of true Christian knowledge, and are under the guidance of the Lord. Now, it was to the believers that the words of Christ were spoken: 'Feed my sheep.' 'Peter' is not intended to denominate the person (his true name indeed was Simon), but it is an appellative; as when, for instance, I call you 'canon.' By Peter is to be understood every one who is a man of firmness and stability; in short, a believer. And for this reason it is that St. Augustine, alluding to these words of Christ to Peter, says more than once, 'What was addressed to Peter was addressed to all;' that is to say, to all believers. Quod dictum est Petro, dictum est omnibus. Therefore to you and to me, who are neither the Apostle Peter, nor his privileged successors; to us two, who are not even bishops, but simply believers, are the words of Christ spoken: 'Feed my sheep.' Do you see any difficulty now in this matter? If the sovereigns of England and the members of the parliament are in the true faith, have they not also the office of feeding the people committed to their charge?
"Can you define to me what is the nature of this apostolic succession, which is so much talked of in Rome? Is it a peculiar right of heirship which the apostles bequeathed you? And what, I ask, would be the nature of the bequest? The apostles were rich in faith, and consequently were full of the Holy Spirit and celestial gifts. As they had faith, they also possessed an understanding of the holy Word, and they had that Spirit which rendered their teaching infallible. Being full of faith they accomplished prodigies. But can you really believe that faith is transmitted by succession, and granted as a privilege to a particular class of men? According to your view, then, who would be the true successors of the apostles? The pope and his bishops? But are they grounded in faith, as the apostles were? If so, then truly are they their successors. But if, on the other hand, they are wanting in this faith, to which of the Apostles would they succeed? To that only one who was without faith; to Judas Iscariot.