is true that in his Book of Prescriptions from the 15th Chapter to the 22th he proves that we may not dispute against Hereticks by the Scripture but by the Tradition of the Churches And he returns to it again in the 37th and 38th Chapters thereof But if the new Converts which have written to us and do send us to that Book had read it with some wisdom and attention of mind they would have seen that it neither doth nor can concern us 1. The Hereticks concerning whom the question is there were no Christians they were Magicians Disciples of Simon Magus who retained the Name of Christian and no mâ—â—â— Besides Tertullian says plainly * Chap. 37. That we must 〈◊〉 them at a distance from the Scriptures because being no Christians they did not belong to them 2. These Hereticks did not acknowledg the Authority of the Scriptures they rejected them or received only some pieces of them cut off from the rest and which were wholly corrupt and falsified And when the Catholicks quoted to them the Holy Scripture they derided it as a fabulous Writing How then could any man dispute with them from a Book whose Authority they did not acknowledge there was a necessity of having recourse to another sort of proofs 2. That which was good in the time of Tertullian is not good at this time of day I do maintain that it was then very easie and very convenient to dispute against Hereticks by Tradition It was then not above an hundred years since the last of the Apostles died There was nothing more easie than to learn what had been their Doctrine by their Successors It is about a hundred and fifty years since the Reformed Church of Geneva had its existence If the Doctrin of Calvin were now under dispute nothing were more easie than to prove without Book that his Doctrine passed without alteration even to those that now teach in that Church and School But is it the same thing when there are 1200 1500 and 2000 years past By what way can we search so far and ascend so high through an infinite number of Men of whom not one hath retained the Doctrine that he did receive in the same estate in which it was delivered to him Behold a very fine Comparison 3. Add to this that Tertullian sends us to the Testimony of those Churches which were founded by the Apostles because those Churches had the Authentick Letters as he calls them that is to say the Original Writings of the Apostles so that to send the Hereticks to the Churches and to their Testimony by reason of those Authentick Letters was to sâ—â—d them to the Scripture it self 4. Besides let thes◠〈◊〉 â—nd She Converts which have been seduced by the reading of this Book read it from the 22 to the 32 Chap. and they will see that the Doctrine which Tertullian would have us search in Tradition is the same which was contained in the Writings of the Apostles and not an unwritten Word and certain Doctrines which the Apostles did commit to the Ears and the Memories of their Successors The Hereticks would not acknowledge the Authority of the sacred Volumes Go to says Tertullian to them lay by the Holy Bocks and let us lay hold of Tradition let us see what the Bishops have taught since the Apostles and I will prove that 't is precisely the same Doctrine with that which is written in our Books which you reject Read you that have suffered your selves to be abused read I say the 22 Chap. and those that follow to the 27 and you will see that the Hereticks spake exactly the same Language which your Converters do that we must not apply to nor support our selves by the Writings of the Apostles * Tertull. de Prescrip c. 25. That the Apostles indeed might know all and agree in the things which they did preach but they did not reveal all things to all that they said certain things publickly and to all but that there were other things which they said in secret and to a few and that is it which St. Paul means when he saith to Timothy O Timothy keep that good thing which was committed to thee Behold exactly the Doctrine of your Converters and that of the ancient Hereticks 'T is that which Tertullian opposes proving that the Apostles delivered nothing by Tradition but that which is written 5. Poor silly Fools which have suffered your selves to be seduced by I know not what shadows and appearances and who put your selves to judge of Antiquity without knowing any thing thereof If you knew against what Hereticks Tertullian disputed you would see that the Contrversie was not about things that were not in the Holy Scriptures These Hereticks denied that Jesus Christ was God and that he was a true Man They said that he had no true Flesh and that his Passion was nothing but a Tragedy and an appearance of a great many Phantoms they denied the Resurrection of the Flesh Was there any need to recur to Tradition to prove such things as these Doth not the Scripture contain those Truths that are opposite to these wicked Imaginations as clearly as Tradition And do you not see that Tertullian forsakes the Scriptures on this Subject only because the Enemies against which he disputed had forsaken them and had no reverence for their Authority 6. To conclude If there be any hard terms in this Book attribute them in the first place to the heat of Dispute which always carries Men too far secondly to the Genius and African manner of Tertullian's Expressions and learn that according to the same Author * Lib. Prescrip c. 15. One cannot prove any thing which respects the Faith but by those Letters and Writings which are the Rule thereof Learn by this excellent Passage of Tatian who was then the Judge of Controversies and the Source and Fountain of Instruction 't is to that he refers the manner of his becoming a Christian †Tatian Orat. in Graec. As I sought every where with care I happened on some Books of the Barbarians so the Pagans call the Books of Christians and Jews and I sound them as to time much more ancient than the Philosophy of the Greeks and much more venerable if we consider the Errors which are in the Grecian Books I gave credit to these Books because their style was simple and yet magnificent because there was nothing affected in them because the Discourses were not obscure and many things to come were predicted in them I was affected with them because of the greatness of the Promises and because they learn'd me that there was but one Moâ—â—rch in the Vniverse This Ancient knew not as yet the Divinity of Monsieur de Meaux that the first Article of Faith is I believe the Church and that we ought not to believe that the Scripture is Divine but because the Church says so And as to Tradition you which suffer your selves to be dazled by the
of the Fourth and Fifth Ages The Original of Oecumenical Councils Seven Reasons against their Infallibility drawn from their Original An Article of Controversie The true Idea of Schism All those which are called Schismaticks are not out of the Church Dear Brethren in our Lord Grace and Peace be given to you from our god and Saviour Jesus Christ IN our preceding Letter we began the History of the Novelties which appeared in Christianity during the Fourth and Fifth Ages and the first which we found there was the Original of the Monastick Life The Second thing considerable to the Original whereof we ought to give attention in the Fourth and Fifth Ages are the Councils called General or Oecumenical Not as to the Original of a thing evil in it self but as to a thing of which ill use hath been made and of which they make a snare at this day for ignorant and feeble Minds The pretended Infallibility of the Church is the great Illusion by which they endeavour to deceive the new Converts They know not where to fix this Infallibility sometimes they fix it in the Pope and sometimes in a Council But the French Church by the Authority of the King hath declared her self boldly a little while since for the Infallibility of Councils against the Infallibility of the Pope for which reason 't is expedient that you here learn in a few words the History of the Birth of General Councils that you may understand the absurdity of the Principle upon which your Converters build You must therefore know my Brethren that the French Church not knowing assuredly where to place the Infallibility of the Church distinguisheth Councils into Diocesan Provincial National Oecumenick or General Diocesan Councils are those which the Bishop assembles where he reads his Ordinances to his Curates Provincial Councils are Assemblies of the Suffragan Bishops of one and the same Metropolitan National Councils are those where the Bishops of one or more Nations are Assembled They have not been so bold as to ascribe Infallibility to any one of these Assemblies but there are Councils of an higher Order which it pleases these Gentlemen to call Oecumenical or General Councils to which they ascribe Infallibility they are say they those in which the whole Vniversal Church is assembled When we ask them where is the Institution of these Assemblies in the Holy Scripture they cannot find the least foot-steps thereof I say the least 't is true they there find Assemblies of Believers of Pastors and Elders who considered Matters that were disputed We see one among others in the 15th Chapter of the Acts Some of the Apostles Elders and Brethren which were at Jerusalem assembled to advise about means to determin the Controversie which the Pharisees had raised in the Church concerning the necessity of observing the Law of Moses But it would be ridiculous to call a very small Assembly and very private a General Council where there appeared but three Apostles of thirteen and only the Clergy which happened to be then at Jerusalem When we continue to ask these Gentlemen where we must then take the Original of Oecumenical Councils they answer us in the Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church and indeed they have reason for it The First of those Councils which bears this Name is that of Nice assembled by the Authority of Constantine in the year 325 to determine the Controversie of the Divinity of the Son against Arrius The Second was assembled by Theodosius the Elder in the year 381 to determine against Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit The Third was called together at Ephesus under the Empire of Theodosius the Younger in the year 431 against Nestorius who affirmed two Persons in Jesus Christ The Fourth was assembled in the year 451 by the Authority of the Emperour Martian against the Heresie of Eutyches who confounded the two Natures Behold four in 125 years or little more before this Men knew not what a General Council meant Now I intreat you my Brethren give attention to six or seven short Reflections which I shall make thereon that you may understand the great absurdity of affixing Infallibility to these kind of Assemblies this is at this time of the greatest importance to you You must throw to the ground this Phantome of Infallibility which serves as a support to all the Errors of Popery Now this Phantome knows not where to fix its foot and when you shall have forced it out of this last Entrenchment where your Converters have placed it you will see it vanish and disappear 1. Make reflection upon the silence of the Holy Scripture concerning it and see if there be any probability that the design of God was to establish a seat of Infallibility in certain Assemblies and that he should never speak a word thereof It must be granted that there is nothing in the World more important in Religion than this It is not enough that the Scripture hath established the Infallibility of the Church in general as they pretend for it would be in vain for God to say the Church is Infallible if we know not what this Church is where the seat of this Infallibility is placed and by what Mouth she ought to give her Oracles 'T is true they send you to Tradition for all that whereof the Scripture says nothing But this cannot be a Point for which we are to be sent to Tradition for this is the Foundation of Tradition it self Tradition is the consent of the Ancients and this consent is found in Councils All the Authority of Tradition is nothing at least before the Infallibility of Councils is established The Infallibility of Tradition is not in the testimony of single Persons of S. Austin S. Chrysostom c. for these single Persons were not infallible and as yet it has not been thought advisable to make them so 'T is therefore the Infallibility of Councils which alone can make Tradition certain Now Tradition is the second Rule of Faith equal in Authority to the Holy Scripture 't is therefore necessary at least that the Scripture hath given credential Letters to these Oecumenical Councils that their Authority and that of Tradition may be confessed and acknowledged This is not say I an Affair for which we are to be sent to Tradition as well because it is the most important Point of Christianity on which the Faith of the rest depends as because this were to send to Tradition to prove the Authority of Tradition it self which is absurd it is not absurd in the Scripture to have recourse to the Scripture it self to prove the Authority of the Scripture because it is the highest Principle and because there is nothing beyond it it must be that it prove it self But the Scripture is above Councils and Tradition and by consequence it is necessary that the Scriptures establish the Authority both of Tradition and Councils 2. I intreat you to observe that the Church continued three Hundred
well where they are as if they rejoyned themselves to the other Christians of the East provided they be endowed with a Spirit of Charity If they be so rash as to condemn the rest therein they sin but the Greeks which condemn them are not less guilty than they although they descend directly from the Catholick and Orthodox flock and the others be only a separate branch And this helps to shew you that although a Schism were criminal in its Original and headily and rashly made nevertheless it is not always necessary under pain of eternal Damnation to return from whence we came From whence I confirm the Thesis which I laid down at the beginning of this Question that the Idea which they make to you about the horror of Schism is a Dream and that tho it should be true that our separation from the Church of Rome in the beginning of the past Age were rash the People which followed it in the simplicity of their Hearts would not hazard their Salvation thereby they that made it were to account for it and at the most those which do maintain it So my Brethren you would be in safety and only we in danger But I very well perceive that this is not enough to calm the Perturbations which your Converters and your own Thoughts may give you about it For you will say supposing that our separation from the Church of Rome in the last Age were unjust and rash 't is true that we who did not make the Schism shall not suffer thereby Our Fathers when they went out of the Church of Rome carried the Church and Christianity with them and this Christianity may nourish and save us maugre the Separation Nevertheless on this supposition we do no ill yea we shall do well to re-unite our selves to the Church of Rome We shall heal a Wound which being open renders the Church deformed Peace is to be preferred before Division This is without doubt the descendants which acknowledg that their Ancestors did wrongfully separate from a certain stock do well to re-unite themselves thereto for edification although it were not absolutely necessary to their Salvation Therefore that we may come nearer to the case in which you are at present with the Church of Rome we must suppose a Separation which was made for reasons of some worth and value i. e. because of Corruption in Doctrine and Worship This is the case in which you are and on this supposition we will shew you in what follows that you cannot return to the Church of Rome March 1. 1687 The FOUTEENTH PASTORAL LETTER AN Article of Antiquity The Original of the Hierarchy and the Antichristian Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome An Article of Controversie A Continuation of the matter of Schism Although the Corruption of the Church of Rome were not extreme it would not be lawful for us to return thither Some Objections of the new Converts concerning it Dear Brethren in our Lord Grace and Peace be given to you from our God and Saviour Jesus Christ SInce we have been upon the History of the fourth and fifth Ages we have found there two great Novelties which have had very unhappy effects in the following Ages They are the Monastick Life and the Councils that are called Oecumenick Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny This Word signifies sacred Rule or Government and thereby is understood that Subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for a 1000 or 1200 years In this Subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest Seats above these lowest Orders are seen Priests subdivided into Curates Deans rural Deans c. Above the Priests are the Grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Arch-Bishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-Bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs and above all these is seen a Head which was framed insensibly and by little and little and placed there this is it which is called the Pope All this is a new Invention with respect to the Apostles and this Hierarchy was unknown before the Fourth Age. We have the Happiness at this day to have the French Church that is to say your Converters for testimonies of this Truth They do maintain That the Apostles established no precise form of Government that they contented themselves to preach the Gospel to send persons to do so and to place in every Church a Bishop to govern it They say that it is not certain that S. John the eldest of the Apostles i. e. he which lived longest did give to the Churches of Asia amongst whom he died any form of Government that it was in the Fourth Age that the Hierarchical form of Government was given to the Church that therein they followed no divine Right or Institution of the Apostles who determined nothing concerning it but the Polick Order and Form of Government found in the Roman Empire As this Empire was divided into Provinces Metropolitical Cities and Prefectures i. e. Governments so they also divided the Churches into Metropolitan Provincial and National And indeed from the time of the Apostles there was no Principality nor so much as any Primacy in the Church The Apostles by an Authority which they received immediately from Jesus Christ governed the Church without Subordination and without Division The Spirit which guided them being one and poured out on them all they were always at agreement it what concerned the Edification of the Churches but they did not leave any Successor that had the same Authority with themselves It is not true that St. Peter was their Prince it does not appear that he had any Primacy of Order above the rest 't is true he is often named first but that doth not prove that he was the first or the President of the Apostolical College We see that the other Apostles treated with him after such a manner as makes it apparent that they did not acknowledge in him any kind of Preheminence which should advance him above them We see that they sent him to Samaria it would have appertained to him to send and not be sent if he had been the Prince of the Apostles We see that after he had preached the Gospel to Cornelius and some other Pagans they made great complaints thereon We see that S. Paul rebuked him to the face and even in publick because in the presence of the Jews he warped and used some dissimulation with respect to the use of indifferent things forbidden by the Law of Moses Men do not use to deal so with their Prince The Successors of the Apostles left in all Churches Presbyters or Bishops to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments but in the beginning the Presbyter and the Bishop were not distinguished Those which S. Paul calls Bishop in one place he calls also Elders or Presbyters in the
more plainly that the Eucharist is nothing but a Sacrifice of Commemoration And if it be a simple Commemoration where is the Real Presence where is the Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead They are the same Authors which say That Jesus Christ by his Servants f In Epist ad Heb. cap. 8. vers 4. hath accomplished among men that which respects Sacrifice representing by Bread and Wine the Misteries of his Body and of his Saving Blood. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew under the name of Chrysostome sâ—â—â—h That the Christian g Homil. 19. ib. offers the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine And St. Jerome h Jer. lib. 2. Advers Jovin That Melchizedeck did not offer the Victims of Flesh and Blood but that he did dedicate the Sacrament of Jesus Christ with Bread and Wine which is a simple and pure Sacrifice And St. Austine i Lib. 16. de Civit. Dei. c. 22. lib. 17. c. 5. 17. That to eat Bread under the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians and that men offer every-where under the High-Priest Jesus Christ that which Melchizedeck brought when he blessed Abraham That is to say Bread and Wine And Isidore of Pelusium k Lib. 1. Ep. 401. That the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread. And St. Fulgentius l Ad Petrum de Fide cap. 19. That the Catholick Church does not cease to offer throughout all the Earth an Oblation of Bread and Wine And Eucherius Bishop of Lions m In Genes lib. 2. cap. 18. That Jesus Christ hath commanded Christians to offer in Sacrifice not Victims of Beasts as did Aaron but the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine I would willingly know how an Oblation of Bread and Wine can be a true Sacrifice of Humane Flesh propitiatory for the sins of Men They have not spoken otherwise even until the establishment of the Opinion of the Real Presence for venerable Bede in the eighth Age saith n In Psal 133. That the Lord hath changed the Sacrifices of the Law into the Sacrifices of Bread and Wine And Isidore of Seville in the seventh Age o Lib. de Alleg. That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ i. e. the Oblation of Bread and Wine is offered through all the World. The same Fathers have also said with one consent That the Christian hath no other true Sacrifice but that of the Cross Origen in the third Age did say p Homil. 17. in Numb That when the perfect Oblation and Lamb without spot came to take away the Sins of the World the Sacrifices which were offered to God one after another did seem superfluous seeing that by one only Sacrifice all the Worship of Demons was destroyed It had been natural to say that the Worship of the Sacrifice of the Mass was put in the place of the Worship of Devils And St. Chrysostome a Homil. 17. in Johan That Jesus Christ hath offered one only Sacrifice for Sins and that he always cleanseth us by this Sacrifice alone And elsewhere b Hom. 13. in Heb. There is no other Sacrifice one Sacrifice alone hath purified and cleansed us To speak thus is indeed to forget ones self seeing we have a daily and continual Sacrifice which is that of the Mass It would be to no purpose to quote more Authors for they all speak after the same manner An Article of Controversie A Conclusion of the Matter of Schism the extream Corruption of Popery hath forced us to a Separation IN the preceding Letter we began to make for you a Picture of Popery to convince you of the Justice and Necessity of our Reformation This Corruption of Popery may be either considered in its Guides its Head and principal Members or in its Doctrine We did consider this Corruption in its Head i. e. the Pope in its Guides i. e. the Cardinals Primates Archbishops and Bishops in its principal Members such are the Priests the Monks and the Nuns and in all this we have seen the Characters of the Conductors of Babel and the Emissaries of Antichrist These are the Mouths of Popery but what can proceed out of such Mouths 'T is easie to judge They appoint for you at this day Preachers which speak good things There have been for some time past a number of persons raised up to obtain the use of the Word of God and the Holy Scripture for the people But this is neither ancient nor general you must know the Popish Ministery by what it was not long since and by what it is in all places where 't is regnant hear those which tell you the Holy Scripture is a dangerous Book an obscure Book all full of Traps Snares and Precipieces that an infinite number of men have ruined themselves thereby that 't is from thence that Hereticks have drawn their Heresies that 't is imperfect that it contains not half the Christian Religion that to understand the true sence of this half there needs another which is called the Unwritten Word Tradition the infallible Voice of the Church And a man knows not where to find this Voice However it be they do assure you that the Scripture has no Authority without Tradition that without the Testimony of the Church we were no more obliged to believe the Gospel than Titus Livius or the Fables of Homer Moreover at this day the Jansenists great Defenders of the Holy Scriptures tell you plainly and without scruple or hesitation That by the Holy Scripture we cannot prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ and that it were a Folly more clear than the day to go about to prove the Divinity of the Holy Scriptures by the Scripture itself There is nothing that Popery doth not do to decry this sacred Book Not only 't is insufficient obscure it has no authority by itself but it is maimed imperfect many Books thereof are lost those which remain are corrupt either by the Jews or by the negligence of Transcribers we cannot know with any certainty what is intire or what is not the Translations thereof are spoiled there are none of them conformable to the Original Good God what a Prodigy is this And how great must the patience of God be to tollerate a Religion which makes it its business to annihilate to vilifie and abase those Oracles which ought to be so venerable among all Christians What Christianity is this but that in which for the space of more than a thousand years the Scripture was an unknown Book almost to all Christians and is so yet at this day in all those places where Popery domineers without contradiction Observe also the profound Ignorance in which those people live that are subject to the Popish Inquisition To find among them the Figures of Aretine or some other infamous Work is no fault but to find there a Bible in the Vulgar Language is a crime not to be forgiven for which reason
off Heads to hang and burn therefore it ought not to be imputed to her A Sovereign Magistrate contents himself to be Judg and to condemn to Death but he doth not execute he leaves that to the Hangman by consequence if he condemn the Innocent and cause them to die it ought to be imputed to the Hangman and not to him The Church doth a very fine honour to Magistrates she makes them her Hangmen she herself doth not kill but she constrains Princes to kill and burn She constrains I say by Excommunications Censures Exhortations Seductions Sollicitations and the end thereof is she would be able to say The Church dips not her hand in Blood the Church by it self never makes use of force Did the Devil ever cheat after a more impudent and frontless manner I will not say after a more fine and subtil manner for it is to lye without any hope to deceive the Snare is so broad and so ridiculous It were better without Craft to take the way that the Bishop of Meaux takes at last and to maintain that Christian Princes as such have right to punish pretended Hereticks with Death Understand you says he That Princes who are Sons of the Church never ought to make use of the Sword to abuse the Enemies thereof Do you dare to say contrary to the opinion of your Doctors which have maintaind by so many Writings that the Republick of Geneva had power and right to condemn Servetus to the Fire for having denied the Divinity of the Son of God It must be avowed that these Gentlemen are admirable in their confidence Do you dare to say Yes we dare to say it since we say it with most part of the Ancients and with the wisest and most understanding of the Moderns We dare say that the Doctrine which the B. of Meaux maintains here is bloody and cruel and that the Church ought to leave it in share to him who was a Liar and Murderer from the beginning Servetus was burnt at Geneva therefore it is lawful to burn Hugonots and the Calvinists God forgive these unhappy men which have the Cruelty to compare us with Servetus This man was not only an Enemy of the Divinity of Jesus Christ but he was an Enemy of all Divinity he was impious he was a Blasphemer And although he made profession of believing one God the irreverent manner wherewith he speaks of Holy Mysteries makes it plain enough that he had renounced all Religion as well as all Shame It ought to be permitted us to quit our hands of such men They object unto us the Sentiment of our Doctors I answer Our Doctors never did believe that we ought to persecute and burn men that confess God and Jesus Christ according to the three Creeds They never put Papists to Death for the sake of their Religion But although some of our first Writers should have gone too far in speaking concerning the punishment of Hereticks it ought to be known that our Authors are not our Teachers we have but one only Teacher and that is Jesus Christ speaking by his Prophets and Apostles We swear to no mans words but to those of God. And without serving my self of the Examples and Authority of your Doctors tell me in what place of Scripture Hereticks and Schismaticks are excepted from the number of those Malefactors against whom S. Paul hath said that God hath armed Kings and Princes It appertains not to us to shew you that Hereticks are not of the number of those against which God hath put a Sword in the hands of Princes 'T is for you Gentlemen Persecutors to prove to us that they are comprehended there For we have sense reason piety and humanity on our side and besides we have the consent of sound Antiquity for more than four hundred years How could the Church be able to put the Sword in the hand of Magistrates for the punishment of her Enemies in a time when the most scrupulous Christians found it difficult to consent to the Death of those Criminals that disturbed the publick peace and that of particular persons and did maintain that Christians without exception never ought to dip their hands in Blood. In what Dictionary hath Monsieur de Meaux found that evil thinkers and evil doers are the same thing Princes have right to punish evil doers with Death therefore they have also right to punish evil thinkers with Death They have right to punish those whose Crimes are apparent to the publick ruine therefore they have right to burn men whose Crime is in the Conscience the Empire whereof appertains only to God. If the Church have right to call in the Secular Power for the punishment of Hereticks why did S. Paul say simply A man that is an Heretick reject after the first and second admonition Why did he not say Deliver him to the secular Power that he may be burnt Did he not know that in a few Ages Princes would become Christians and have the Sword in their hands Did he only give Precepts for the present time and state Hath this Cruelty of Massacring honest well-meaning but mistaken Persons any affinity with the Precepts of Jesus Christ which commands us to serve our selves with Sweetness Humanity Prayers Exhortations and reasons for the reduction of them It is then permitted to Massacre the Jews for there are none greater Enemies to the Church than they are Is that the Spirit of the Gospel which promises a return and conversion to that Nation How shall they return if they be destroyed Will men never be ashamed of this Antichristian Barbarity Will they never know that it is the Beast in the Revelations who makes himself drunk with the Blood of Saints devours their Flesh makes War upon them and overcomes them and is therefore called Beast Lion Bear and Leopard For he must have renounced reason and humanity and be transformed into a Savage Beast that behaves himself towards Christians as the Church of Rome behaves it self towards us Monsieur de Meaux affirms that what they do against us at this day is nothing but a lawful exercise of the Power that Princes enjoy by Authority from God for the punishment of Offenders And I will prove to him in three words that it is false 1. Princes in the use of the Sword against Malefactors design their ruin that publick Societies be no more troubled with them 'T was the end that was heretofore proposed in Persecutions for Religion 'T was the end that Charles the Ninth pretended to have in the Massacre of S. Bartholomew 'T is the end of the Inquisitors who burn all those that are suspected of Heresie It hath been the end of all Persecutors in past Ages But this is not their end at this day they intend not the Destruction of the pretended Hereticks but their Conversion Therefore although it should be true that Hereticks are not eccepted out of the number of those Malefactors against whom God hath armed Princes this will
with a Spirit of Giddiness To conclude their own Authors have been quoted to them who in these last times on the subject of some Disputes about Grace have spoken against each other a thousand and a thousand heinous Calumnies Therefore if eagerness and transport against Brethren be always a mark of Reprobation 't is unavoidably that St. Epiphanius Jerome Cyril Chrysostome as well as all the Hero's of Popery be esteemed Reprobates This is enough to make it evident that instead of drawing prejudices against Doctrine from the faults of those who teach it we ought to admire the profound Wisdom of God who serves himself of weak Instruments to execute great things who leaves in men the faults of their temper and nevertheless fails not to use them profitably in his great Work of building up Jerusalem to the end that all the glory may be of God and not of us and that we may have reason to say We have this Treasure in earthen Vessels To conclude the last Accusation is founded on the difference of sentiments in which the Authors of our Separation were found with respect to some points I consider writes the Lady of whom we have spoken I consider says she three men which appeared almost in the same time who attempting to reform the Church in the mean while could not agree among themselves in the most essential points If a person had a mind well formed and fashioned as it ought to be instead of being scandalized at this that the Reformers were at a difference about some Articles he would be edified by this that they were at an agreement in so many I am troubled at this that they were not at an agreement in all but I much more admire this that without consultation as it appears by their Controversies with each other they agreed in so many points and I look on it as an evident proof that God guided them in this great Work. For 't is certain that if they had been inspired by a spirit purely Humane as all the Patrons of Heresies have been they would have agreed in nothing but in the general design of troubling the Peace of the Church Let a man read the History of Heresies and Hereticks and he will see that they made Sects and Parties that differed in every thing the Gnosticks the Manichees the Arrians the Entychians the Nestorians and a hundred others They might agree in certain points as the Gnosticks and the Manichees might agree in the Heresie of two Principles but it was with such enormous differences that it was visible they could not be guided by one and the same Spirit But I intreat you by what accident did the Authors of our Separation agree to condemn in Popery the Sacrifice of the Mass the taking away of the Cup Transubstantiation the Adoration of the Eucharist the Procession of the Sacrament private Masses Purgatory Indulgencies Humane Satisfactions the Adoration of Images the Invocation of Saints the Worship of Reliques Monastick Vows the Pope and Antichristian Tyranny a barbarous Language in the Worship of God Prayers for the Dead false Sacraments the abuse of Ecclesiastical Power the Merit of Works Works of Supererrogation Pilgrimages Idolatrous Devotions to the Blessed Virgin Legends Institution of divers Orders of Monks Miracles the Infallibility of the Church the supreme Authority of the Pope or Councils over Consciences Traditions the pretended imperfection obscurity and insufficiency of the Holy Scripture and the prohibition to read it This is the object to which we ought to give attention that we may admire and say it must be that all this be false wicked vicious and of such corruption as is plain and obvious since men that were at no agreement or correspondence among themselves yea who divided and oftentimes evil intreated each other should agree and be at good accord therein Indeed 't is a thing which we can never admire enough that men who were no Prophets nor inspired persons nor led by an infallible Spirit should condemn in Popery not that which continues of Christianity there viz. the Fundamental Doctrines contained in the Creed but precisely and only all the pernicious Additions yea and that one and the same Additions Wherefore did not one of them take one part of Popery and reject another Why without any correspondence did they treat as Abominations all these pieces patched on to Christianity Why did they agree that we ought to receive only the Word of God for the Rule of our Faith Why and how did they agree so admirably in the Interpretation of this Word of God If a man does not acknowledge something Divine therein he must be smitten with a spirit of Astonishment But they are not at an agreement about the manner how the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ Behold a thing very amazing that among a hundred and a hundred points in which they are agreed there should be one in which they could not come to an accord Moreover Popery cannot reasonably draw any advantage from this dissention for if they be not at an agreement among themselves they agree to condemn the Opinion of the Roman Church therein The Lutherans have nothing in this point in common with the Papists 't is a thing which we shall make plain to you one day This is therefore but one point against a hundred Is this worthy of consideration and thereof to make a Stumbling-block and a Scandal But however it be some will say how little considerable soever it may appear 't is the Foundation of a Schism the Lutherans and the Reformed make two different Communions On this subject and in general of all the Faults which are observed in the Authors of the Separation such as passion excess of heat quarrels divisions controversies too too warmly managed injuries and calumnies and to conclude the Schism which their Successours live in among themselves 'T is fit to admire the providence of God and to bring hither the excellent Reflections of Mr. Paschal saying with him A man will never understand any thing in the Works of God if he do not lay down this as a Principle That He does illuminate some and blind others Hear the Comment on this Maxim given by himself * Thoughts of Mr. Paschal cap. 17. God hath been willing to Redeem Men and to open the Door of Salvation to those that search it but Men make themselves so unworthy that it 's just that He refuse to some because of their Hardness and Impenitency that which He grants to others by a Mercy that is not due unto them If He had pleased to surmount the Obstinacy of the most hardned He could have done it by discovering himself so manifestly unto them that they should not have doubted of the truth of his Existence and so will appear at the last day even with such a lusture and brightness that the most blind shall see him It was not his pleasure to appear after this manner in estates of