but three sorts of persons only to be in its Communion the Faithful the Catechumeni and the Penitents but as for those who taught false Doctrine or practis'd a false Worship it never had any Union with them Not only the Ancients had no Communion with them but to shew how necessary and indispensable they judg'd a separation from them to be they went so far as to refuse their Communion with the Orthodox themselves when either by surprise or weakness or some other interest they had receiv'd Hereticks into their Communion altho' as to themselves they had kept their Faith in its Purity We find in the Life of Gregory Nazianzen that his Father who was also called Gregory and who was Bishop of Nazianzen before him having been deceiv'd by a fallacious Writing and having given his Communion to the Arians all the Monks of his Diocess with the greatest part of his Church separated themselves from him altho' they well knew that he had not changed his mind nor embraced Heresie And even the Orthodox of the Church of Rome refused to hold Communion with Pope Felix as Theodoret tells us altho' he intirely held the Creed of the Council of Nice because he held Communion with the Arians This I mention not absolutely to approve of that carriage but only to shew how far their aversion went heretofore which they had for holding Communion with Hereticks Those who are prepossess'd against all sorts of Separation in the Matters of Religion ought to remember that the obligation that lyes upon them to hold Communion with those with whom they are externally joyn'd is not without its bounds and measures We are joyn'd together under certain conditions which are principally the profession of a pure faith or at least such as is free from all damnable Errors a Worship freed from all that which is opposite to the essence of Piety in a word a Publick Ministry under which we may work out our own salvation While these conditions remain they make the Communion subsist but when they fail the Communion fails also and there is a just ground for a Separation provided we observe these necessary Cautions They cannot say in this case that we separate our selves from the Church nor that we forsake her Communion or that we break her Unity For the forsaken party being truly such as we suppose it ought not to be any more looked on as the Church of Jesus Christ but only as a party of the worldly who were before mingled with the Truly Faithful and who through their obstinacy in their Errors and false Worship had discover'd themselves and had themselves torn off the vail which as yet confounded them after a manner with the others The Orthodox in the first Ages did not in the least break the Unity of the Church when they would not hold Communion with the Valentinians the Marcionites the Montanists the Manichees and the other Heterodox of those times as I have noted already no more than those who with so much constancy and resolution refused to hold Communion with the Arrians We ought not therefore presently to condemn all kind of Separation and since there are such kinds of it as are necessary just and lawful as there are such as are unjust and rash it would be the extremity of folly to judge of all after the same manner without any difference or distinction The Roman Church her self which has sometimes cut off whole Nations as France and Germany from her Communion which may have been seen to have been so often divided into divers parties whereof one has excommunicated the other would not it may be freely suffer that we should treat of matters with this confusion So that disputing at present about our Separation with her we shall demand no unjust or unreasonable thing when we tell them that we ought to examine of what nature that Separation is to consider the reasons and wisely to weigh the circumstances for if our Fathers separated themselves upon light grounds and without having any sufficient cause if they were even under circumstances which ought to have bound them to have remained united with the other Party which was not for a Reformation we shall agree with all our hearts to condemn them but if on the contrary the reasons which they had were just sufficient and necessary if there was nothing in the circumstances of times places persons that could hinder them from doing that which they did it is certain that instead of condemning them we should bless them we should think our selves happy in following their footsteps and as for the reproaches and venomous accusations of the Author of the Prejudices and such like we should bear them with patience looking on them as the effect of a blind passion Let us therefore begin to make that Examination by the Causes of our Separation Every one knows what the matters that divide us are that they are not either Points of meer Discipline such as that for which Victor Bishop of Rome separated his Church from those of Asia who should keep the Feast of Easter on the fourteenth day of the Moon nor meerly Questions of the School which consist in nothing but terms remote from the knowledge of the Vulgar as that which they call trium Capitulorum which raised so many troubles in the Times of the Emperour Justinian and Pope Vigilius nor in meer personal interests such as we may see in the Schisms of Anti-Popes nor purely in personal Crimes or Accusations as in the Schism of the Donatists nor even in a general corruption of Manners altho' that was extreamly great in the time of our Fathers The Articles that separate us are points that according to us essentially disturb the Faith by which we are united to Jesus Christ points which essentially alter the Worship that we owe to God which essentially deprave the sources of our Justification and which corrupt both the external and internal means of our obtaining Grace and Glory In a word they are such Points as we believe to be wholly incompatible with salvation and which by consequence hinder us from being able to give it the Title or the Quality of a true Church of Jesus Christ to a Party which is obstinate in the profession and practice of them and which would force us to be so too I confess that we cannot say that our Controversies are all of that importance there are some undoubtedly which are of lesser weight and force which it was fitting for them to reform themselves in but which notwithstanding would not have given alone a just cause of Separation In this rank I place the Question of the Limbus of the Antient Fathers that of the Local Descent of Jesus Christ into Hell that of the distinction of Priests and Bishops to be of Divine Right that of the keeping of Lent and some others of that nature where there might have been seen Error and Superstition enough to be corrected but which would not have
respect to the Pope to the Church of Rome and to the Legat himself in particular But Cajetan without being willing to hear him speak of his justification shut up all with this That it was his pleasure that he should revoke his Errors under pain of incurring the Censures with which he had received Orders to punish him adding That if he would not recant he had nothing to do but to withdraw himself and to come no more before him Luther withdrew from the Legats House and having been advertised some days after that they endeavoured to imprison him notwithstanding the safe Conduct of the Emperour he withdrew himself from Auspurg not being ignorant of what had befell John Hus and Jerome of Prague in the Council of Constance Before his departure he wrote to Cajetan two very submissive Letters in one of which he acknowledged that he had not in treating of that business of the Indulgences preserved all that respect which he ought to have had for the name of the Pope and that howsoever he had been urged by the carriage of his Adversaries he confest that nevertheless he ought to have handled that matter with more modesty humility and respect that if he had any ways displeased him he beg'd his pardon offering to publish it himself and to use civiller Terms for the Future He offered likewise not to speak any more from thence forward of Indulgences provided he imposed silence on the Questors also or obliged them to observe the same measures in their discourses And as to the Recantation which they required of him he protested that he had done it in good earnest if his Conscience had allowed him to have done it but that there was no command nor Counsel nor Consideration of any person in the World that could make him say or do any thing against his Conscience In the second Letter observing all along the same submissive and respectful Stile he declared to him That he had withdrawn himself from Auspurg and beg'd that he would not think the worse of him if he appealed from him to the Pope and at the same Time he sent him his Act of Appeal That Appeal was founded 1. Upon this That he had not determined any thing upon the point of Indulgences but that he had only proposed some Theses to be disputed on according to the Custom of the Schools 2. That the Opinions of the Doctors as well Canonists as Divines being very different and there being nothing defined for certain in the Church upon that subject he had had right to chuse one side to chuse one side to maintain in the dispute much more when he was urg'd to it by the indiscretion of the Questors who under a pretence of those Indulgences had dishonoured the Church of Rome and the power of the Keys by their detestable covetousness and scandalous Conduct seducing the People unto new opinions and selling Justifying Grace for Money 3. That he had not only submitted his Disputation to the Judgment of the Church but even to the Judgment of every man more Learned then himself and in particular to Pope Leo. From whence he concludes that he had had no just Cause to Cite him That nevertheless he had offered to his Legat to refer himself to the judgment of the Church of Rome and of the Universities of Basil of Friburg of Lovain and of Paris which his Legat would not accept That he would not let him see wherein his Error lay but that he had only pressed him meerly to recant threatning him if he did not or if he did not go to Rome he would Excommunicate him and all who adhered to him howsoever that he had always protested that he had not any opinion but what was founded on the Scripture on the Fathers and the Canons That therefore finding himself oppressed by that whole proceeding he appeal'd from the Legat and from all that the Pope through ill Information had done against him to the Pope himself better Informed Notwithstanding he withdrew himself from Auspurg and by his retreat rendred vain and ineffectual all the Conspiracies they had contrived against his person to make him a Prisoner Cajetan having failed of his intent Wrote to Frederick Duke of Saxony against Luther accusing him as guilty of a heinous Crime in that he would not Recant and further exhorted and required that Prince either to send him to Rome or to drive him out of his Territories Luther very solidly justified himself before his Prince and made him see the oppression and most evident Tyranny that they used against him And because that the Cardinal had formally declared in his Letter to Frederick that so weighty and Pestilentious an affair could not remain a long Time in that Condition and that the Cause should be carried on at Rome That menace obliged Luther to make an Act of Appeal from the Pope and from all his proceedings against him to a Council lawfully called At the same Time almost Leo sent a Bull into Germany confirming his Indulgences and the Doctrine upon which they were grounded That Doctrine was That by the Power of the Keys given to Saint Peter and to his Successors The Bishop of Rome had a right to pardon to the Faithful all the guilt and punishments of their Actual Sins to wit the guilt by means of the Sacrament of Penance and the temporal Punishment by means of Indulgences whether in this Life or in Purgatory and that by those Indulgences he could apply to the Living and the Dead the superabundance of the merits of Jesus Christ and the Saints either by way of Absolution or by way of Suffrage so that the Living and the Dead participating of those Indulgences were delivered from the Punishment that the Divine Justice would inslict on them for their actual sins He commanded therein all under pain of Excommunication from which they could not be absolved till the point of Death to believe it also and to the end no person might alledge ignorance he gave Order to all Arch-Bishops and Bishops by vertue of their Holy Obedience to cause his Bull to be published in all their Churches giving nevertheless power to his Legat to proceed against the disobedient and to punish them as he should think fit Behold here the true History of the first Quarrel of Rome with Luther Let them judge now whether our Fathers under whose eyes all that business past could any more hope for a Reformation either from the Popes hand or his Prelats Instead of making a Holy and Christian Reflexion upon the just complaints of this man how mean and contemptible soever he might appear to them they thought of nothing but keeping up that evil which they did then in publishing their Indulgences which they knew had not any Foundation either in the Word of God or in the Practise of the Primitive Church They thought of nothing but how to protect them and indirectly to forbid those scandalous and wicked excesses of their
difference which we have with them concerning the Opinion of the Necessity of Auricular Confession for that Opinion is partly founded upon this that Absolution of the Priests is a Judiciary Act and that in that respect the Church has a true Tribunal before which the Faithful are bound to appear and partly upon the Opinion that the penances which the Priest enjoyns are true Satisfactions to the Divine Justice which they are bound to undergo 8. Lastly it is from the same source that the difference proceeds which we have with them concerning the Super-abundant satisfactions of the Saints of which they will have it that the Faithful may partake and whereof in part they compose the Treasure of the Church Behold here Eight Controversies included in the Explication of the first Act of our Justification Upon the second we differ about the Foundation upon which the right that God gives us to life eternal is established or if you will about the proper and direct cause in consideration of which God gives us that right for we establish it alone upon the merits of Jesus Christ in Vertue of that Comunion which we have with him But the Church of Rome Establishes it upon the merit of our works also for she would have it that after God has given us his Grace by which we do good works we truly inherit not only an increase of Grace but Eternal life and even an increase of Glory and she Anathematizes those who do not believe it 2. We differ also about those to whom God gives that right for we believe that God gives it only to his Elect in whom he preserves it by his Grace and by the gift of perseverance but the Church of Rome believes that he gives it also to divers Reprobates whom his Grace abandons and who finally Perish in their Sins Upon the Third Doctrine we differ concerning the Nature and the Definition of Justifying Faith for as for us we look on it as an Act of the Soul that embraces or accepts the satisfaction and merit of Jesus Christ and which applies the promises of God's mercy made to us in the Gospel and we labour as much as we can to live according to that thought But the Doctors of the Roman Church frame an Idea of that Faith of a very great coldness and negligence for they content themselves to say that it is a consent that we yield in general to all the Truths revealed in the Word of God and there are some that go so far as to say that Faith fails not to Justify us although it should not have the least regard to the particular mercy of God towards us which is a thing that we cannot understand without horrour For the rest when I shall say that the Doctrines of the Imputation of the merit of Jesus Christ and his satisfaction are known but to a very few in the Church of Rome as that also is of the Application that we make of them to our selves by the internal Act of our Souls which receives them when I shall say that these Truths so important and so necessary to the practise of Christianity are almost stifled by that great Multitude of external Exercises with which they busy the People I shall say nothing in my Judgment that the more sincere persons will not acknowledge and of which God grant they may be able hereafter to convince me of a falshood in that respect In fine the last Doctrine that fully makes up the Idea of our Justification according to the Scripture produces of it self a considerable Controversy between the Church of Rome and us For as for us we limit our selves to the good works to which our Justification Obliges us and which God has enjoyned us without going any further But the Church of Rome extends them even to those which she her self Commands for the pretends that her Laws properly and directly bind the Conscience under pain of mortal Sin and therefore it was that Leo X. condemned Luther for having wrote that the Church had no power to make Laws concerning manners or good works All these Controversies that naturally arise from the different Explications which they give of the Tenet of Justification let us sufficiently see that the Author of the Prejudices is mistaken if he thinks that we should have no more upon this matter then differences about words and M. le Blanc is too sincere and too Learned to have pretended to deny any of those things which I have mentioned although he has Judiciously remarked that men may easily Equivocate upon the different Significations of the Terms It is therefore neither a piece of Rashness nor Impertinency that our first Reformers had such a regard to the matter of Justification as being a thing of the greatest importance in Religion and it is on the contrary most Just that having seen that Doctrine of the Salvation of Christians neglected obscured and depraved that they should have Judged it necessary to set themselves upon the re-establishing of it CHAP. VII An Answer to the Objections of the twelfth and thirteenth Chapters of the Prejudices TO understand well what is in the Twelfth Chapter of the Author of the Prejudices we must in the first place take notice of the design he propounds to himself and the means he makes use of to reach it As to his design he Explains himself in the very Title of the Chapter which bears this That the Spirit of a Politician every way Humane that appears in the differences that the Calvinists have had with the Lutherans gives a right to reject them without any further Examination as a sort of men without any Conscience He explains himself yet further in the beginning of his discourse after this manner It has been demanded says he of the Calvinists with good reason how it could come to pass that if Luther Zuinglius and Calvin had received a Mission from God and were the Instruments that he made choice of for the greatest work that ever was which is the Reformation of the Errors of sixteen Centuries they should not avoid being openly divided between themselves to dismember themselves from one another to persecute one another after so outragious a manner and to Treat one another as the declared Enemies of God and his Church He explains himself also in another place where he speaks after this manner The Innocence or the Crimes of Luther equally condemn the Calvinists either for having declaimed against an innocent person or for having given unjust praises to one of the most wicked men that ever was and that monstrous conjunction which they have made in his person of holiness with the most detestable Crimes is an evident proof that they have not the least Idea of Christian Vertue nor of the Spirit of Christianity See yet further how he speaks in the same Chapter If Luther were an instrument of the Devil a wicked person a Schismatick a violent and passionate man what will become of
gone so far as to have caused a rupture of Communion So that it is not for these kinds of things that our Fathers left the Church of Rome they had more sufficient more urgent and indispensable reasons in the other controversies among which that of Justification by Meritorious Works and by Indulgences Transubstantiation the Adoration of the Eucharist the Sacrifice of the Mass Invocation of Saints and Angels religious worshipping of Images Humane Satisfactions the Lordship of the Pope and his Clergy over mens Consciences held the chiefest place These are the true Points which caused a Separation and if the others contributed any thing to it it was only by the connexion which they had with these here or because they noted a general Spirit of Superstition contrary to true Piety or in fine by reason of their number for sometimes divers both less dangerous each to a part all together make a mortal and incurable disease However it be it appears that our Fathers had besides but too just and necessary reasons of their Separation But to come to set out this matter in its full evidence it will be requisite to see what they can say in opposition to what I have said It seems to me that they can take but one of these Three sides 1. Either to deny that the Transubstantiation Adoration of the Eucharist the Sacrifice of the Mass c. which we call Errors are so in effect Or 2. To say That even when they should suppose that they were Errors they would not nevertheless take away from the Church of Rome the quality of a true Church Neither would they be incompatible with salvation and by consequence they could not be a sufficient cause of Separation 3. Or in fine to maintain that even when these Points should be a sufficient cause of Separation they could not be so at least in regard of our Fathers because our Fathers were by right subject to their ordinary Pastors dependent upon their Hierarchical Government and chiefly upon that of the Church of Rome which they pretend is the Mother and Mistress of all others and the Center of Christian Unity from whence it follows that they could never separate themselves but that on the contrary they were bound to receive all the conditions it required to be in its Communion These are the only Three things in my judgement which they can propose with any colour I will examine the last in the following Chapter let us here consider these two others The First necessarily engages the man who will make use of it to enter into an Examination of the foundation of those matters or which comes to the same things solidly to establish the Infallibility of the Church of Rome and of that Party that adheres to it which is a general Controversie that includes all the others as I have shewn in the First Part of this Work And by consequence he must renounce all that wrangling dispute which goes only upon prejudices The justice or injustice of our Separation will depend on the Foundation For how can they assure themselves that those things which we call Errors and a false Worship are on the contrary Evangelical Truths and a right and lawful Worship without going on to that Examination which shews as I have already frequently observed that all those indirect attacks which they assault us with are nothing else but vain amusings and beatings of the Air which serve only to make a noise The second thing will not less engage them in the Examination of the foundation of those matters than the First For in supposing that those things which we call Errors are such in effect they must necessarily see of what nature they are and what opposition they have to true Piety to judge aright whether they are sufficient causes for a Separation and whether our conscience cannot accommodate it self to them I confess that this is no very hard matter to be known for how small a knowledge soever they may have of Religion and the Worship of God they may very easily perceive that if Transubstantiation for example is an Error they cannot but adore the substance of Bread in the room of Jesus Christ they may easily perceive that if the worshipping of Images is forbidden by the second Commandment of the Law they draw upon themselves the jealousie of God as he himself declares there they may easily perceive that if the Sacrifice of the Mass is not in effect a propitiatory Sacrifice by which they may apply to themselves the vertue of that on the Cross they do an injury to the only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that they vainly seek the vertue of it in an Act where it is not applyed They may easily perceive that if the Lordship that the Church of Rome or its Councils usurp over mens Consciences is ill-grounded that they render unto men a kind of adoration which is only due to God alone which cannot but be an unpardonable crime in regard of him who has said Thou shalt have no other Gods before me But whether it would be an easie or a difficult matter to be known that is not the business about which we dispute at present It is sufficient to shew that the Separation of our Fathers had just sufficient necessary and indisputable causes supposing that what they said of the Errors of the Church of Rome were true and that they could not be accused either of rashness or of Schism without contesting their supposition nor that they could contest their supposition without coming to an inspection into the very things themselves Whence it follows that all that dispute which they raise against us about Forms is but a meer vain wrangling unworthy of any sound persons If that which our Fathers have laid down concerning the Errors which the Church of Rome forces men to believe to be of her Communion be not true we do not any further pretend to defend their Separation but if it be true God and men will bear them witness that it was justly done and according to the dictates of an upright conscience They will say it may be That we ought not upon such light grounds to suppose that that which our Fathers said concerning the Errors of the Church of Rome is true since they are the Points in dispute wherein the Church of Rome pretends that we are in an Error as we pretend that she is But there cannot be any thing said more frivolous for the supposition that we make is in words of good sense and right reason because we make it to force our adversaries to come to a discussion of the things themselves upon which the judgement that ought to be made of our Separation depends and to make them acknowledge that all those Accusations which they form against our Fathers that they have broken the Christian Unity that they have forsook the Church that they have made a criminal Schism are rash accusations unjust and precipitate since they cannot rightly
judge of their Action either to condemn or absolve it until first of all they have examined the Causes of their Separation and the Reasons which they have alledged which can never be done but by a discussion of the Foundation In effect Every Accusation which has no certain Foundation and which one must be compell'd to retract is precipitate and rash But that which they form against our Fathers before their having examined the foundation is of that nature It has no certain foundation for they cannot know whether their action be just or unjust and they may be forced to retract it when they shall have examined their reasons It is therefore a condemnable rashness in them who have a right to repell till they have made that examination and it is to oblige them to do it that we suppose that our Fathers had right at the Foundation CHAP. II. That our Fathers were bound to separate themselves from the Body of those who possess'd the Ministry in the Church and particularly in the See of Rome supposing that they had a right at the Foundation BUt they will say Whatsoever we should pretend we can never do otherwise than condemn the Separation of your Fathers not for not having just grounds of Separation but because the right of separating ones self does not belong to all sorts of persons and the Church of Rome being by a special priviledge the Mother and Mistress of all others we could never lawfully separate our selves from her and because it is on the contrary indispensably necessary to the salvation of men to obey and to remain in her Communion So that your Fathers being on one side subject to their ordinary Pastors they ought never to have divided themselves from their Body for what cause soever there should have been and on the other side there being no True Church and by consequence no Salvation to be had otherwise than in the Communion of the See of Rome it is a crime for any to separate themselves from it whatsoever pretence they can urge for that purpose This Objection is founded upon these two Propositions the one That we never ought to separate our selves from the Body of her ordinary Pastors and the other That we ought never to separate from the Church of Rome in particular As to the first of these Propositions I confess as I have said elsewhere that the people owe a great respect and obedience to the Pastors that administer to them the nourishment of their souls the words of eternal life according to the Precept of St. Paul Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls This obedience ought to be accompanyed with a real esteem that should make us to presume well of them which should give us a readiness to be instructed by their word and be very remote from calumnies murmurs and rash suspicions founded upon light appearances and that obedience that esteem that good opinion ought to be without doubt greater for all the Body in general than for particular men in it for there is a greater probability that a whole body should contain more light and by consequence more authority than each private man could have I say that when even Vices are generally spread over the whole body of the Pastors the people ought to labour to bear them with patience and cover them as much as they can with charity in praying to God that it would please him to cleanse his Sanctuary and to send good Labourers into his harvest and howsoever it should be while they can work out their salvation under their Ministry they ought not to separate themselves from them But we ought not also to imagine that the Duty of a people toward their ordinary Pastors should be without all bounds or that their dependance on them should have no measure That which we have said in the first Chapter touching the bonds of Church Communion ought to be extended to the Pastors and to the people their duties are mutual and there is none but Jesus Christ alone on whom they can depend without conditions To flatter the Body of the Pastors with that priviledge is to set up men upon the Throne of God to inspire them with pride vanity negligence it is to set up a Lordship in the Church that Jesus Christ has forbid and to give Pastors the boldness to do and adventure upon all things It is certain therefore that the Tye which the Faithful have to their ordinary Pastors is limited and that it ought to endure but as far as the glory of God the Fidelity that we owe to Jesus Christ and the hope of our own salvation can subsist with their Government If it fall out so that their Government cannot be any further compatible with those things in that case they ought to separate and it would be to set up the most senseless wicked and profane proposition in the world to say the contrary The Ministry of the Pastors is establish'd in the Church only as a meer external means to preserve the True Faith and Worship there and to lead men to salvation But the Light of Nature teaches us that when meer external means shall be remote from their end and that instead of guiding us to their end they turn us away from and deprive us of it that then the love which we have for the end ought to prevail over that which we may have for the means because the means are only desirable in reference to their end and the regard which we have for them is but an effect or a production of that which we have for the end So that when those who are wont to distribute to us aliments necessary to our lives give us on the contrary poysonous meat instead of aliments and when they will force us to take them we must no longer doubt that the interest of our life ought to take us off from that Tye which we might have had to those persons A Guide is a means to conduct us to the place whither we desire to go but when we know that that Guide leads us in a false way and that instead of helping us to go to that place he makes us wander from it it is no question but that we ought to separate from him and renounce his conduct The ordinary Pastors are Guides men that ought to shew us the way to Heaven if therefore instead of shewing us they make us go a quite contrary way who can doubt that we are bound to forsake them But they will say How can they be forsaken without resisting God himself who has subjected them to them Is not their Ministry a Divine Institution and is it not Jesus Christ who by the testimony of St. Paul has given some to be Apostles some Pastors and Teachers for the assembling of the Saints I answer That we must distinguish that which there is of divine in a Ministry from that which there is
hinder but that she may externally deny the faith of Jesus Christ but that she may intirely lose her love and the communion of our Saviour and the quality of the True Church and by consequence that we should not be bound to separate from her while she should be in that state and till it should please God to re-establish her See here of what force those proofs are which they produce to ground this special priviledge of the Church of Rome upon It is not hard to see that a man of good understanding who would satisfie his mind and his conscience upon so weighty a point ought not to remain there but that he ought to pass on to the other way of clearing that doubt which I have noted which is to judge of the pretension of the Church of Rome by the examination of her Doctrines and her Worship For it is there principally that the characters of truth and infallibility ought to be found and by consequence he must come to the foundation and no further amuse himself with Prejudices As to the second Way by which I have said we might clear this Question Whether it be necessary to the salvation of Christians to be joyned to the Church of Rome it consists in examining whether it be true that God has made her the Mistress of all other Churches whether there is any particular order that binds us indispensably to her For if that be so the Separation of our Fathers must be condemned but if it be not so we must judge of that Church as of all other particular Churches and say that we cannot and ought not to separate our selves from her but when we have just and lawful causes so to do There is no person who does not judge that we cannot pass over lightly a point of so great importance which ought to serve for a general and perpetual Rule to all Christians and that if the Church of Rome would so set her self beyond a state of equality above other Churches it is necessary that she should produce some very express and indisputable Order of God for it But instead of that she does nothing but reverberate the same passages which I have mentioned She boasts her self to be the See of S. Peter and under that pretence she applyes to her self all that she can find in the Scripture in favour of that Apostle and particularly the Order that Jesus Christ gave him to feed his sheep as if the Office of the Apostleship in which Jesus Christ re-established him by those words could be communicated to his Successors or as if the foundation that Jesus Christ supposed and upon which he re-established him in saying to him feed my sheep to wit that he should love him more than the rest was not a thing purely personal in S. Peter and whereof it was not in his power to transmit any part to his Successors nor by consequence to invest them with his Office which was restored to him only upon a supposition of that love or lastly as if the office of feeding Christ's sheep included an absolute and indispensable necessity for the sheep to receive their death when they should give it them under the name of their food It must be acknowledg'd that there never was a higher pretension than this of the Church of Rome for what more could she pretend to then to make Heaven it self depend on her communion and to leave no possibility of salvation to any but those who should be in her communion and under her dependance But it must also be acknowledged that there never was any thing worse established than that pretension They alledge in its favour nothing that is clear and distinct and even the consequences which they draw for it are made after a very strange manner This is in my judgement the Reason why our Adversaries when they treat of this matter do not insist much upon Scripture but fly off presently to the Fathers and the usage of the Ancient Church For by this means they hope to prolong the dispute to eternity and that notwithstanding the Church of Rome shall be alwayes in possession of that Despotical Authority which she exercises over the Churches that remain in her communion In effect the life of a man would scarce suffice to read well and throughly examine all the Volumes which have been composed on one side and on the other upon this Question of the place that the Church of Rome and its Bishops have held among the Christian Churches during the first six Centuries and of the Authority which they had then But to say the truth there is too much artifice in that procedure for that the Church of Rome should be the Mistress of all others and that no one could be saved but in her communion that does not depend upon the order of men but only on that of God and when they should find among the Antients a thousand times more complaisance for the See of Rome than they had that may very well establish an ancient possession and make clear the fact but it can never establish the right of it To establish a right of that nature a word of God an express declaration of his will is necessary for it is a right not only above nature but even above the ordinary and common favour that God gives to other Churches and which by consequence depends only upon God And so it is but a wandring from the way to go to search for the grounds of it in the Writings of Men. It is no hard matter to conceive that those Bishops which were raised to Dignities in the Metropolis of the World and engaged in the greatest affairs might mannage matters so as to ascribe to themselves those rights which no wayes belonged to them nor to imagine that their flatterers and Courtiers might not have offered more incense to them than they ought nor that those persecuted ones who had recourse to their protection might not have helped the increase of their Authority nor that the Princes and Emperors who had need of them might not have given them those priviledges which they ought not to have had that which renders to a just title all that which they alledge in their favour suspected and to no purpose at all Notwithstanding there are moreover evident matters of fact that let us clearly see that the Ancient Church did not acknowledge that Universal Episcopacy that the Bishops of Rome pretend to nor that absolute and indispensable necessity to be joyned to their See to be saved nor that their Church should be the Mistress of all the rest 1. Every one knows that the Bishops of Rome were anciently chosen by the suffrages of the people and of the Clergy of that Church without any other Churches taking part in those Elections which is a mark manifest enough that they did not mean that those Bishops should be Universal Bishops nor that they should have a more peculiar interest in their creation than
of it but they would have subordinate heads humane heads on whom they might depend by an external dependance and that was necessary for them to be by that means linked to Jesus Christ after the same manner that they would have us at this day to depend on the See of Rome Wherefore did S. Paul say to them Is Christ divided Why did he not say to them that as for Paul and Apollos they had no reason to take them for their heads but that it was far otherwise as to Peter since God had set up him and his Successors for ever to be the heads of the Universal Church Why in stead of that did he conclude after this manner That no one should glory in men for all things are yours whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come all are yours and ye are Christs and Christ is Gods Is it not to let them understand that Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church that there is only his communion that is absolutely necessary and that as for other Ministers whosoever they were they were appointed for our use as all other things to serve us in as much as they lead us to Jesus Christ If the Church under the New Testament ought to be inviolably ty'd to the See of Rome how should the Scripture have been silent in so weighty a truth which could not be ignor'd without extream danger nor contested without evident damnation Notwithstanding we do not find any other head of the Church in those Sacred Books but Jesus Christ nor any other High Priest but him We do not find in the Scripture any Universal Bishop nor Ministerial head or subordinate or any particular Church the Mistress of all others We find there indeed that Jesus Christ being ascended up on high gave some to be Apostles others to be Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers for the assembling of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ How came the Apostle to forget in that Enumeration the chief of all Offices to wit that of the Ministerial Head of the whole Church and the Universal Vicar of Jesus Christ in the Government and conduct of his flock If the Christian Church ought in that to resemble the Synagogue and to have as that a Soveraign High Priest upon earth who should be the head of that Religion and who should have his Successors as the ancient High Priest had whence comes it that the Scripture has alwayes regarded that Ancient High Priest as a Figure of Jesus Christ that it alwayes referred it to him and never to the Roman Bishops nor even to S. Peter who was then alive and who should by consequence have exercised that pretended charge which they would make to descend from him There is therefore no lawful foundation in all that pretension of Rome and her See We ought to pass the same judgement on all other Sees and other particular Churches with which it is just we should hold communion while they teach good and sound Doctrine and that we should even bear with them when they should fall into some errors provided they constrain no body to believe them but from which it is also just to separate our selves when they shall fall into errors contrary to the communion of Jesus Christ our only Saviour and when they would violently force all others to believe the same If in a long course of Ages Rome has usurped by little and little the rights that do not belong to her if she has found it very easie through the ignorance or complaisance of men in the diverse intrigues of the World to raise her Throne as high as our Fathers beheld it and as we do yet at this day If her flatterers have not failed alwayes to raise her pretensions as high as Heaven and if she has been lull'd asleep with the sound of those sweet charms that enchant her we do not believe that that ought to prejudice our separation We have no other aversion for her communion than that which our conscience gives us and if it shall please God to re-establish her in her ancient purity she would not have so great a joy to spread forth her arms to us as we should have an impatience to demand her peace of her But as long as we shall see her in that bad state wherein we are perswaded she is we cannot but bewail and pray for her and yet notwithstanding no body can blame us for preferring our own salvation to her communion CHAP. III. That the Conduct of the Court of Rome and those of her party in respect of the Protestants has given them a just cause to separate themselves from them supposing that they had had right at the foundation BEfore we leave this matter of our Separation from the Church of Rome there yet remains two Questions for us to examine the one Whether our Fathers were not too precipitate in so great an affair whether they did not act with too much haste or Whether they had sufficient motives from the conduct of those from whom they separated to forsake in the end their communion The other Whether with all that they can say that they separated themselves from the communion of the Catholick Church spread over the whole World as the Donatists did heretofore and whether they did not fall into the same crime with those ancient Schismaticks against whom Optatus and S. Augustine so strongly disputed I will treat of this second Question in the following Chapter and this here shall be design'd to the clearing of the former To effect this methinks we need but freely to set before their eyes all that I have said in the second Part touching the necessity that lay upon our Fathers to reform themselves For since it clearly results from those matters of fact which I have set down that the Popes and those of their party were so far from applying themselves seriously to a Reformation that they studied on the contrary only how to stifle the truth from the very first moment they beheld it appear and to defend their Errors and Superstitions by all manner of wayes who sees not that that inflexible resolution which had not yielded either to the first or second admonition rendred from that time the separation of our Fathers just and exempted them from all reproach For when there are Errors capable of giving ground for a separation it ought to be defer'd only upon a hope of amendment and that hope seem'd to be sufficiently destroy'd by those Historical actions which I have already set down Notwithstanding to shew them more and more how the conduct of our Fathers was very prudent in that respect and full of circumspection it will not be besides our purpose to resume here the close of their story from the unjust condemnation of Luther and his Doctrine made by Pope Leo the Tenth
shall be shaken because many in whom grace seem'd to be resplendent shall yield to the persecutors and some of the most firm among the faithful shall be troubled The Church sayes he shall not appear Ecclesia non apparebit She will not therefore have then that visible extension which the Author of the Prejudices would have to be her perpetual mark for all Ages He further acknowledges the same thing in his Epistle to Vincentius where he treats of the state of the Church under the Arians There he teaches in express terms That the Church is sometimes obscured and covered with clouds through the great number of offences that she is then only eminent in her most firm defenders while the multitude of the weak and carnal is overwhelmed with the floods of temptation That under the reign of the Arians the simple suffered themselves to be deceiv'd that others yielding through fear dissembled and in appearance consented to Arianism That indeed some of the most firm escaped the snares of those Hereticks but that they were but few in number in comparison of the rest That nevertheless some of them generously suffer'd banishment and some others lay hid here and there throughout the Earth I pray tell me what visible extension could the Orthodox communion have then which subsisted only in a small number of the firm of whom even the greatest part had suffered exile or lay hid here and there throughout all the Earth I confess that History notes that there were yet some small flocks in some places of the East and of the West who set up their Assemblies apart as at Edessa at Nazianzen at Antioch and in some Provinces of France and Germany but what was this in comparison of the Arian communion which had fill'd the Churches and held Councils as we have so often proved We must therefore seriously profess that this visible extension is a vain and deceitful mark when they would make it perpetual to the true Church as the Author of the Prejudices would make it and that no one could abuse with greater injustice the Authority of S. Augustine than he has done We must profess also that a small handful of the Faithful a little party have right to separate themselves from the whole multitude I mean from a communion spread over all the world which has on its side the Ministry the Pulpits the Councils the Schools Titles Dignities and all that retinue of temporal splendour when it has not the true Faith For the rest that which I have handled in this Chapter about the two former Propositions of the Author of the Prejudices already sufficiently lets us see the falseness of his argument For if he would take the pains to read this Chapter with never so little application he will see all these following Propositions well establish'd there 1. That in General this Author has not compris'd the true Hypothesis of S. Augustine nor the state of his dispute against the Donatists 2. That he can draw no advantage from the divers wayes in which that Father conceived the word Church 3. That the separation which that Father judg'd to be fit to be condemned and wicked under what pretence soever it should be made is wholly different from that which is between the Church of Rome and us 4. That there is not any Christian Society from which one may not lawfully separate ones self in a certain case and manner 5. That that which is disputed between the Church of Rome and us being of this number they must consider the causes and circumstances of it rightly to judge of it and not pretend to convince us of Schism without entring upon any other discussion 6. That according to the principles of S. Augustine the Church of Rome is Schismatical in respect of us supposing that she is in error because it is she that has broken Christian Unity and that we are in respect of her in a passive separation 7. That it is absurd to make that visible extension a perpetual mark of the true Church which way soever they take it 8. That this pretended mark is contrary to the experience of our Age and does not properly agree to any one of these Societies that at this day divide Christianity 9. That it is contrary to the experience of the Ages past and to the Doctrine of the Fathers 10. That it is rejected in the sense of the Author of the Prejudices by the famous Doctors of the Roman communion 11. That it has no foundation in the dispute of S. Augustine against the Donatists 12. That it is even directly opposite to the Doctrine of that Father These are the just and natural consequences that are drawn from the things which I have handled in this Chapter I will examine in the following the other Propositions of the Author of the Prejudices CHAP. V. A further Examination of the Reasoning of the Author of the Prejudices upon the subject of our Separation THe Third Proposition of the Author of the Prejudices is already sufficiently confuted by what I have said He sayes that since our Society is not visibly extended throughout all Nations therefore it cannot be the True Church But we have shewn him that we cannot at this day rationally attribute that visible extension throughout all Nations to any of the Societies that divide Christianity and by consequence that it is a chimerical mark by which we may conclude that there is no true Church in the world since there is none which is not visibly excluded from many Nations We have shewn him also that his pretended mark does not agree either with the experience of the Ages past nor with the doctrine of the Fathers nor even with that of the Doctors of the Roman Church and that instead of having any foundation in the Doctrine of S. Augustine it is evidently contrary to him So that we have nothing to do at present but to go on to the Examination of the Fourth and Fifth Proposition They bear this sense That the Calvinists urge the principle of the Donatists far higher than ever those Schismaticks did For as for them they did not say that there was any time wherein the whole Church had fallen into Apostasy and they excepted the Communion of Donatus whereas the Calvinists would have it that there have been whole Ages wherein all the Earth had generally apostatized and lost the faith and treasure of salvation That the Societies of the Berengarians the Waldenses and Albigenses c. in which he sayes that some of us include the Church could not be that Catholick Church whereof S. Augustine speaks To establish that which he layes to our Charge concerning the entire extinction of the Church he first produces the testimony of Calvin This is sayes he that which Calvin has distinctly declared in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans where after having pretended that the threatning that S. Paul uses against those who do not remain in
them do all that they please we are firm and fixed upon two Principles against which we are sure they cannot do any thing The one That if our Communion Teaches the True Doctrine if it has the True Worship and the True Rules of Christian Sanctity to a degree sufficient for Salvation and if the Causes for which we separated our selves from the Church of Rome were Just God nourishes and preserves his True Faithful Ones in our Communion whatsoever mixture there may be of Worldly Wicked and Hypocrites in it The other That if God nourishes and preserves his truly Faithful in our Communion we are the True Church of God that which has a Right to be in a Society and to which all the other Rights that follow that of a Society belong of Assemblies Ministry Sacraments Government Discipline and by Consequence we are the Church which succeeds not only de Jure but de Facto the Church of the Apostles that of the Ages following and even that which was immediately before the Reformation These two Propositions are framed in clear and distinct Terms they have neither Ambiguity nor Equivocation but I hold also that they are of a certain and indisputable Truth For there neither is nor ever was there any other True Church then that of the Truly Faithful and there never will be any other The Holy Scripture sets down no other Reason will not suffer us to acknowledge any other The Fathers never owned any other This is the constant and evident Principle of Saint Augustine as may be seen in the Fourth Chapter of the Third Part and it is also the Principle of the other Fathers as may be Justified by almost an infinite Number of passages The Antient Catholick Church says Clemens of Alexandria is but one only Church which assembles in the Vnity of one only Faith by the will of one only God and the Ministry of one only Lord all those who are before Ordained that is to say whom God has predestinated to be Just having known them before the Foundation of the World Where is the place where Jesus Christ should dwell says Origen It is the Mountain of Ephraim which signifies a fruitful Mountain but where are those fruitful Mountains among us where Jesus Christ dwels They are those on whom the fruits of the Spirit Joy Peace Patience Charity and other vertues may be found They are those fruitful Mountains which bring forth fruit to Jesus Christ and which are eminent for knowledge and hope And a little after The Grace of the Holy Spirit has gone over to the People of the Gentile and their Antient Solemnities are come to us because we have with us the True High-Priest after the Order of Melchizedec True Sacrifices are offered up amongst us that is to say the Spiritual Sacrifices and it is among us that he builds with living Stones the Temple of God which is the Church of the living God And elsewhere The Church desires to be united to Jesus Christ but note that the Church is a Society of the Saints And further elsewhere explaining those words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church The Church says he that God builds consists in all those who are perfect and are full of those words thoughts and actions that lead to blessedness and a little lower How ought we to understand those words The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it For that expression is ambiguous is it the Rock that he speaks of or if it be of the Church is it that the Rock and the Church are but one and the same thing This latter I believe to be True for the Gates of Hell prevail neither against the Rock upon which Jesus Christ has built his Church nor against the Church according to that which is said in the Proverbs That the way of the Serpent is not found upon the Rock If the Gates of Hell do prevail against any there is neither that Rock upon which Jesus Christ builds the Church nor the Church that Jesus Christ builds upon the Rock For that Rock is inaccessible to the Serpent and stronger then the Gates of Hell And as to the Church as it is the Building of Jesus Christ she can never let in the Gates of Hell against her those Gates may very well prevail against every man that is without the Church and separated from that Rock but never against the Church Jesus Christ says Saint Ambrose knows those that are his and as to those who do not belong to him he does not vouschafe even to know them And elsewhere God called his Tabernacle Bethlehem because the Church of the Righteous is his Tabernacle and there is a Mystery in it for Bethlehem is Situate upon the Sea of Galilee on the East side which signifies to us that every Soul that is worthy to be called the Temple of God or the Church may be built upon the waves of this World but can never be drowned it may be encountred but can never be overthrown because it represses and calms the wild impetuousness of sufferings It looks upon the Shipwraecks of others while it self is safe from danger always ready to receive the illumination of Jesus Christ and to rejoyce under his Rays And further elsewhere he says Expresly That as the Saints are the Members of Jesus Christ so the wicked are the Members of the Devil Saint Hierome Teaches the same thing The Church says he which is the Assembly of all the Saints is called in the Scripture the Pillar and ground of Truth because she has in Jesus Christ an eternal firmness And in the Exposition of the Song of Songs he lays down this Maxim That the Church is the Assembly of all the Saints and that she is brought in speaking in the Canticles as if all the Saints were but one person And even the Author of the Commentary on the Psalms ascribed to Saint Hierome Explaining these words of the Prophet I will drive away from the City of the Lord all the workers of Iniquity The City of the Lord says he is the Church of the Saints the Congregation of the Just I do not deny that the Fathers sometimes give a very large extent to the Church when they consider it as mingled with almost an infinite number of the wicked and the Worldly as we have frequently explained it already and it is to this Idea that they refer their comparisons of a Field of the Air and the rest which we have often mentioned But it is certain That when the Question is to be decided which of the two Parties that make up that mixed Body is the Church that they unanimously agree to give that Title to the truly Faithful and to the Righteous only and that they deprive the wicked and the worldly of it and it is for this Reason that Saint Augustine always distinguishes in that extent of the mixt Church two People
the External State of that Religion it self had in the times of our Fathers Signs of its Corruption sufficient to afford them just Motives to Examine it Page 23. Chap. IV. That such a Corruption of the Latin Church as our Fathers had conceived was no ways an Impossible thing Page 37. Chap. V. More particular Reflections upon that priviledge of Infallibility which they ascribe to the Church and of its Authority Page 45. Chap. VI. An Examination of the Proofs which they produce to Establish the Infallibility of the Church-of Rome Page 54. Chap. VII That the Authority of the Prelates of the Latin Church had not any Right to bind our Fathers to yield a blind Obedience to them or to hinder them from Examining their Doctrines Page 75. Chap. VIII A further Examination of that Authority of the Prelates and that Absolute Obedience which they pretend ought to be given them Page 85. Chap. IX An Examen of those Reasons they Alledge to Establish that Soveraign Authority of the Prelates in the Latin Church Page 109. The Second Part. Of the Justice of the REFORMATION CHap. I. That our Fathers could not expect a Reformation either from the hands of the Popes or from those of the Prelates Page 125. Chap. II. A Confirmation of the same thing from the History of that which passed in the first Quarrels of Luther with the Conrt of Rome concerning Indulgences Page 142. Chap. III. That our Fathers not being able any more to hope for a Reformation on the part of the Pope or his Prelates were indispensably bound to provide for their own Salvation and to Reform themselves Page 156. Chap. IV. That our Fathers had a Lawful and sufficient Call to Reform themselves and to labour to Reform others Page 166. Chap. V. An Answer to the Objections that are made against the Persons of the Reformers Page 177. Chap. VI. A further Justification of the first Reformers against the Objections of the Author of the Prejudices contained in his Tenth and Eleventh Chapters Page 196. Chap. VII An Answer to the Twelfth and Thirteenth Chapters of the Prejudices Page 222. Chap. VIII That our Fathers in their Design of Reforming themselves were bound to take the Holy Scriptures alone for the Rule of their Faith Page 241 Chap. IX An Examination of the Objections which the Author of the Prejudices makes against the Scripture Page 260. The Third Part. Of the Obligation and Necessity that lay-upon our Fathers to separate themselves from the Church of Rome CHap. I. That our Fathers had just sufficient and necessary Causes for their Separation supposing that they had Right at the Bottom in the Controverted Points Page 1. Chap. II. That our Fathers were bound to Separate themselves from the Body of those who possess'd the Ministry in the Church and particularly in the See of Rome supposing that they had a Right at the Foundation Page 15. Chap. III. That the Conduct of the Court of Rome and those of her Party in respect of the Protestants has given them a just cause to separate themselves from them supposing that they had Right at the Foundation Page 53. Chap. IV. An Examination of the Objection of the Author of the Prejudices taken out of the Dispute of Saint Augustine against the Schism of the Donatists Page 79. Chap. V. A further Examination of the Reasoning of the Author of the Prejudices upon the Subject of our Separation Page 113. The Fourth Part. Of the Right that our Fathers had to hold a Christian Society among themselves by Publick Assemblies and the Exercise of the Ministry CHap. 1. That our Fathers had a Right to have their Church-Assemblies separate from those of the Church of Rome on the Supposition that they were right in the Foundation Page 1. Chap. II. That the Society of the Protestants is not a new Cburch Page 28. Chap. III. That the Ministry Exercised in the Communion of the Protestants is Lawful and that the Call of their Ministers is so also Page 48. Chap. IV. An Answer to the Objections of the Author of the Prejudices about the Call of the first Reformers and the Validity of our Baptism P. 84 The End of the CONTENTS of the CHAPTERS Advertisement THere is newly Published a Book Entituled ☞ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Treatise wherein you have 1. The Divine Auhtority of the Holy Scriptures proved by undeniable Demonstrations and the Cavils of Objectors confuted 2. A Continuation of the Metaphors Allegories and Express Similitudes of the Old and New Testament gradually expounded Parallel wise with short Inferences from each 3. Sacred Phylologie viz. the Schemes and Figures in Sriipture reduced under their proper Heads with a brief Explication of the most obscure 4. A Treatise of the Types Parables and Allegories in the Old and New Testament 5. Plain and Evident Demonstrations that by the Great Whore Mystery Babylon is meant the Papal Hierarchy or present Church of Rome The whole VVork being partly Compiled and partly Translated from the VVorks of many Learned and Orthodox VVriters Ancient and Modern compleating what was intended by the Undertakers in order to explain that difficult part of the Word of God It being encouraged and recommended by divers Worthy Ministers of London as useful for all Students in Sacred Writ Sold by John Hancock at the Three Bibles over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil and Benj. Alsop at the Angel and Bible in the Poultrey over-against the Compter Cassander Consult art de Eccles Luke 22. 25 26. 1 Pet. 5. Bernard in Cant. Serm. 77. Item Serm. 33. Nicol Cusan lib. 3. de Concord Cath. c. 29. 1 Tim. 6. 10 3. Col. 5. Nicolaus de Clemangis de corrupto Statit Ecclesiae Bernard de verbis Evangel Dixit Simon c. pag. 1000. Marsil de Pad Defens pacis Part 2. cap. 20. History of the Council of Trent Book 6. In the Instructions and Missives of the most Christian King for the Council of Trent In the same Instructions and Missives Distinct. 96. Canon 7. Aug. Steuchus De fals Donat. Constantini Froissard Tom. 3. Fol. 147. Angel Politian Orat. pro Sen. ad Alexand Sextum Raynald ad Ann. 1492. ss 27. Decretal Greg. lib. 1. tit 7. Can. Quanto in Glossa Itinerar Ital. Part 2. de coron Rom. Pontif. Raynald ad Ann. 1162. Baron ad Ann. 1162. Concil Lateran Sess 7. 9. in Orat. Paulus Jovius in Philippo 3. †Renvoy signifies properly a simple dismission granted to one that being appealed or called before a superiour Judg requires to be dismissed to the prosecuting of his suit already begun before the inferiour his Ordinary Judge Platina in vit Sexto Decret tit 2. cap. 1. Sext. Decret Extravag lib. 1. De major obed cap. 1. Baron ad Ann. 1076. Platin. in vit Bonif. 8. Joan. Gerson de Eccles. potest Consid 10. Decretal Gregor lib. 3. tit 8. cap. 4. Decret part 2. Caus 25. Quest 1. Canon 6. ad Gloss Bernard Epist 42.
them and will shed abroad his blessing upon your cares as far as shall be necessary for his own glory and the good of the people in whose favour you labour and he himself will one day give you a reward for all those toilsome Labours Although you do not need to be excited to do good yet I take the confidence to hope that you will be some way encouraged in the Duties of your place by the reading of this Work which will more and more discover to you the Justice of it You will see therein the Conduct of our Fathers justified in regard of their Reformation and Separation from the Church of Rome and by consequence you will therein see not only the Right that we have but the Obligation and indispensable Necessity also wherein we are to live apart and divided from that Church and united among our selves in a Religious and Christian Society till it shall please God to make the Causes of that Division cease and joyn again that which men I would say what the Court of Rome and her Council of Trent have put asunder That Re-Vnion is a Happiness that wee will alwayes beg of God with the most ardent Prayers and which we will receive as one of his highest Favours if his hand should bestow it But it is also a thing which it is impossible for us to promise our selves while we shall not see the same desire of a good and holy Reformation which was almost general in our West in the daies of our Fathers to be again revived in the Church of Rome which yet they knew how to stifle with incredible skill An Authour of those Times who himself contributed as much as any other to clude the good effects of that desire has not failed to own it and which is more to own it to be just I do not deny saies he that many at the beginning were not urged by a motion of Piety earnestly to cry out against some manifest Abuses and I confess that we must attribute the chief cause of that Division that at present rends the Church to those who being puff'd up with a vain pride under a pretence of Ecclesiastical power contemned and haughtily and disdainfully rejected those who admonish'd them with reason and modesty And imediately after that same Author reasoning about the means to re-establish a holy peace between the two parties I do not believe adds he that we ought ever to hope for a firm peace in the Church if those who have been the cause of that dis-union do not begin by themselves that is to say unlesse those who have the Ecclesiastical Government in their hands relaxe a little of that great rigour and contribute something to the peace of the Church and unlesse in hearkning to the ardent prayers and exhortations of the greatest part of good men they apply themselves to reform those manifest abuses by the Rule of the holy Scriptures and of the Antient Church from which they have wandred After this manner a man engaged in the Communion and Interests of the Church of Rome spake even in the Time of the Councill of Trent He would indeed after that have us also whom he accuses to have gone too far in the other extream yield something on our side and that we should return as he speaks to our selves but it ought not to be thought strange that he being such a one as he was would lenify by that corrective the confession that he made before and it is enough for us that he has owned the force of the evil and taken notice of the true and only remedy God who holds the hearts of all in his hand kindle in them the love of the true Religion and give us all the grace to look to the Blood that has ransomed the Church and that first Spirit who consecrated it to one onely Jesus Christ her Lord and Husband For it is he only who can re-unite us without me sates he ye can do nothing and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad I pray that the same God who has given you the knowledge of his Gospell would make you persevere in it to the end that he would confirm his love and fear in the souls of my Lords your children who already so well answer the honour of their birth and the cares you have taken for their Education and lastly that he would more and more shed abroad his blessings over your person and over all your house This is that which I desire from the bottom of my heart and that you would do me the favour to believe that I am My LORD Your Lordships Most Humble and Most Obedient Servant CLAVDE The ATTESTATION WE whose names are underwritten certify that we have read the Answer of Monsieur Claude our most honoured Colleague to a Book Intituled The Prejudices c. in which we have found nothing contrary to the Sentiments of the Religion which we profess Signed at Paris the nine and twentieth of November 1672. DAILLE ' MESNARD The Reader is desired to take notice That the word Historical in the Running-Title was inserted without the Translators knowledge or Consent An HISTORICAL DEFENCE OF THE Reformation Against a Book Intituled Just Prejudices against the CALVINISTS THE FIRST PART Wherein it is shewn that our Ancestours were obliged to Examine by themselves the state of Religion and of the Church in their Days CHAP. I. General Considerations upon this Controversy The Division of this Treatise IT is not difficult to understand why those who were possest of the Government of the Western Church in the days of our Fathers and those who have since succeeded them in the Church of Rome have thought themselves so much concerned to oppose the Reformation It would oblige them to strip themselves of that Soveraign and and absolute Authority which they had Usurped and by which they had disposed the Consciences of men to their wills And it would force them to give an Account of that Publick management which they held in their hands and no person is ignorant that that is a thing of all others in the World most intolerable to those persons who have made a Secular Empire of the Government of the Church As those Interests have made them lay hold of all they could to defend themselves so they have raised a new Controversy touching the Right that our Fathers had to reform themselves They demand of us who our Reformers were from whence they came and what Call they had for so Great a Work They accuse them to have been Rebels and Schismaticks who lifted themselves up against the Authority of their Mother the Church and broke the sacred bond of the Christian Communion They have defamed their persons as much as ever they could and have laid to their charge the most wicked manners to the end they might render them odious In fine they have put forward all that they could believe capable of retaining the people in a blind
manifest that he did that to extort Money from the People and that those who were employed to do it had bargained for the place of the Court of Rome by Reason of which the thing came to be turned into a publick Scandal chiefly in Germany where the greater part of those Ministers sold them at a cheap rate or gamed away the power of delivering Souls out of Purgatory He adds That which rendred this Affair yet more odious was the Donation that Leo had made of a sum of the Money that should be raised by those Indulgences to his sister Magdalen and the Commission that was given for that to a certain Bishop Archimbald a man unworthy of such an Employment and who behaved himself with an extream Covetousness and Rigour Behold then two things indisputable as it seems to me the one That Luther had right at the Bottom and that the business which gave him occasion to speak and write against it was filthy and scandalous in all respects and the other is That he guided himself after a most prudent and respectful manner and that had nothing in it of any disorder Let us see now after what manner he was Treated The first thing that fell out was that neither the Pope nor the Arch-Bishop of Mayence nor the Bishop of Brandenburg vouchased to take any care to put a stop to those abuses that were committed They know that afterwards the Arch-Bishop of Mayence was himself concerned in a part of those Indulgences and that he got considerable sums by them The second thing was That Luther instantly raised against himself not only that whole swarm of Preachers and Questors but the whole Empire of the Pope that is to say all the Creatures of the Court of Rome spread abroad throughout Europe who stirred up all their Endeavours to ruin him raising against him the Princes and the People by many false imputations Ecc us Doctor of Divinity Silvester Prierias Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome and James Hockstraten Inquisitor wrote against him the last of whom exhorted the Pope to make use of fire and Sword for the Convincing of that Heretick Luther defended himself against this sort of men by Publick Answers wherein he laid open their Absurdities and their false and scandalous Assertions which they had proposed but he did yet always contain himself within the bounds of a great Respect for the Pope and for the Church of Rome holding nevertheless that they were not infallible and that the Authority of a Council lawfully assembled was above that of the Pope in which he said nothing that the Faculty of Paris and Gallican Church does not say likewise It appeared that it was their last interest that urged them to irritate Leo against him and all his Court Who else were not well contented with that which he had undertaken to put a stop to or at least to trouble the course of their exactions Howsoever it was when they set themselves to find out a way to repress those manifest Excesses of the Ministers of Indulgences and those who defended them Luther was cited by the Pope to appear in person at Rome to give an account of his writings and his Conduct in that business before the Judges that Leo had assigned to him who were Jerome Bishop of Ascoli Auditor of the Chamber and Silvester Prierias Master of the sacred Palace Leo wrote at the same time to Cajetan his Legat in Germany a Letter full of Fire and Choler against Luther whom he treated as an Heretick and Seditious person and gave him order to cause him to be seized as an Heretick and conducted safely to Rome commanding all Dukes Marquises Earls Barons and all Universities Communities and Powers under pain of Excommunication with a reserve of the Emperour only to use all their force to seize Luther and to give him up into the hands of his Legat. He wrote also to the same purpose to Frederick the Elector of Saxony Luther seeing so violent a proceeding against him proposed the Reasons that hindred him from obeying that Citation which were taken from the infirmity of his health which would not permit him to expose himself to the wearisome toils of that Journey from his povery to which did not afford him wherewithal to do it from the Tye that he had at the University of Wittenburg from whence it was not in his power to depart without the consent of his Prince but more especially from that evident oppression which he suffered in that he had the same person ordered to he his Judge to wit Sylvester Prierias who was not only of the same Order with the Preachers of Indulgences but the same person who had immediately before wrote a Dialogue against him so that it was visibly to give him up into the hands of his Adversaries and the Parties themselves The University of Wittenberg wrote to Rome in his Favour and the Prince Frederick of Saxony having most earnestly applyed himself to the Legat obtained in the end with a great deal of difficulty that the cause should be tryed in Germany and that for that business Luther should come and appear before the Legat at Auspurg Although Luther could not be further ignorant what Spirit the Court of Rome and all its Ministers were animated with as to himself yet he did not fail notwithstanding to appear before Cajetan but it was after his friends had obtained a safe Conduct for him from the Emperour Maximilian Cajetan was vext with such a prevention that broke all his measures nevertheless he received Luther honestly enough and propounded at first to him on the part of the Pope To Recant and to promise for the future that he would not fall back again into his Errors nor any more disturb the Church Luther answered That his Conscience did not accuse him of any Error that he entreated him to tell him in what he had Erred and that he was ready either to justify himself or yield himself to be instructed Cajetan then objected to him as two great and fundamental Errors That he had wrote That the Merits of Jesus Christ did not belong to the Treasure of Indulgences against the Extravagance of Clement the Sixth and that Faith that is to say a firm belief of ones Justification was necessary to those who came to the Sacrament and those who should appear before the Judgment of God for on the contrary said he it is uncertain whether those who draw near to God shall obtain his grace or not Luther defended his Propositions and the discourse falling upon the Soveraign Authority of the Pope whom Cajetan affirmed to be above a Council above the Scripture and above all that was in the Church Luther formally denyed it to him and maintained on the contrary that the Pope was beneath the Scripture and a Council The next morning Luther presented to him a justification of his Propositions in Writing in which he inserted a great many words full of
even to the opening of their mouths by force and that those to whom they offered that violence look'd upon it as the most cruel of all punishments that divers made so great a resistance to it that they could not obtain their ends and that in their rage they tore their Breasts to revenge themselves of their refusals He himself testifies that the Horror which the Orthodox had to be found in the same Assemblies with the Arians was so great that having no Churches wherein they could publickly worship God they assembled with the Novatians who had three Churches in that City because these latter were indeed Schismaticks but not Hereticks as the Arians and that if the Novatians had been willing the Catholicks would have made but one only Church with them Sozomen relates also that the Emperour Valens who was an Arian having gone to the City of Edessa and having learned there that the Orthodox that is to say those who persever'd in the faith of the Consubstantiality of the Son made all their Assemblies in a Field near the City because all the Churches were in the hands of the Arians he punished the Governour of the Province who suffered those Assemblies and commanded him to go thither the next day to hinder them with all his force from assembling themselves and to punish those who should oppose themselves that the people having heard that Order did not fail to meet there and the Governour having gone thither and finding in the way a Woman who was running thither with her little Child he asked her if she had not heard what the Emperour had commanded but that the Woman without being moved answered him that she was not ignorant of it and that it was for that very reason that she ran thither to be there with others which made such an impression upon the Spirit of the Governour that he went back to the Emperour and acquainted him with that obstinate resolution and caused him to revoke the Orders he had given I confess that there were many of the Orthodox who had not courage enough to go so far as a Separation and who contented themselves with only groaning under the Arian Tyranny in waiting for better Times But it is also certain that those who had more zeal and courage withdrew themselves from the Communion of those Hereticks and that they believed themselves bound to do it for the making sure of their salvation Therefore it was that Faustinus in his Treatise against the Arians said That if any one did not believe that the Society of the Arians could be rendered culpable under a pretence that he had the testimony of his own conscience which did not accuse him of having violated or renounced the faith there it belonged to such a one to take heed and to examine himself But as for me adds he the cause of God being concerned I judge my self bound to be more pre-cautioned and to have a greater fear than those persons have For it is written a man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject knowing that he who is such is perverted and that he sins being condemned in himself And as to the punishment of dissemblers it is written All flesh shall worship before my face saith the Lord God and the Saints shall come forth and they shall see those who have transgressed against me for the worm of the Hypocrites shall not dye and their fire shall not be quenched The Apostle forbids us also to enter into fellowship with unbelievers And elsewhere after having given a description of sins he condemns not only those who commit such things but those also who consent to those who commit them There are divers other passages in the Scripture which forbid our companying with Hereticks but I would only note these here briefly to the end that you should not think that it is out of a vain superstition that we avoid the Communion of those whom the Divine Justice has condemned Behold then two Actions that I have propounded in my judgement sufficiently justified and by consequence the right of separating our selves from the body of our ordinary Pastors when they teach Doctrines contrary to the true faith which they would constrain the faithful to profess established by an example against which I do not see any thing which they can rationally oppose or hinder it from being like to that of our Fathers For if they say that there were in that party of the Orthodox that separated themselves divers Bishops that authorized that Action besides that we may say the same thing of the Party of the Reformation in which they know that there was a very considerable number of Pious and Learned Prelates and even some who had the courage to suffer death in the defence of that cause Besides that I say it is certain that it is not the Episcopal Dignity that makes the Reformation lawful it is lawful as often as it has causes that are just sufficient and necessary at the foundation and wheresoever those causes are to be found the faithful people have as much right to separate themselves as the Bishops If the people had no right to separate themselves from the Body of their Pastors who should teach them false Doctrine it could not be by reason of the Authority which the Pastors have over the people for the Body of the Pastors has at least as much authority over particular Pastors as it has over the people so that if that reason were not sufficiently valid in regard of particular Bishops they may very well see that it would not be so in regard of the faithful people In effect a Separation founded upon the fear of dishonouring God and prejudicing ones own salvation is a common right and the Laity are not less bound to it than the Bishops since both the one and the other ought according to the precept of the Apostle to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling If they say that the Separation which fell out in time of the Arians was founded upon the Authority of the Nicene Council wherein Arius and his followers had been condemned whereas that of our Fathers is not established by the Authority of any Council since there is not one that has condemned the Doctrines and Customs of the Church of Rome I answer that this difference is yet null and void For not to mention that the Arians of whom we speak called themselves the Catholicks and took it as a great injury when they were called Arians or Followers of Arius and that their Councils had pronounced nothing directly against that of Nice their separation was founded upon the things themselves that is to say upon the necessity of acknowledging the Son of God to be consubstantial with the Father in order to the acknowledging him to be truly God and not upon the bare Authority of the Nicene Council to which they might have opposed that of the Church then in her
to come to an agreement with us that our Assemblies are Holy and Lawful even in a far greater degree then they were before To begin that Disquisition with the Condemnation of the Popes and their Council I confess that if it were the Court of Rome that out of its pure Liberality should Communicate Christianity to those only whom it should please and that none could either have or preserve it but by the continual influence of its Favour after the same manner as we have the Day by the influence of the Sun it would depend on her and her Councils to take it from us whensoever she should see good with all its Rights and Priviledges We might very well say that it would be too injurious to take it away from us that we did not deserve so hard a Treatment yet we should be deprived for that very Reason when she should have taken them from us whether it should have been with Justice or against it with or without any reason But we do not believe that either the Court of Rome or its Council or that all that party who have followed them though it should have a thousand times greater strength and Authority then it has would carry their pretensions so high as to imagine that it depends on their meer good pleasure to bestow on or to take away Christianity and its Rights I do not say from an innumerable multitude of Men as that is which makes up the Body of the Protestants but even not so much as from two or three persons who should be assembled in the Name of Jesus Christ Saint Paul has said indeed Who art thou O man that repliest against God Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it Why hast thou made me thus Has not the Potter of the Earth power out of one and the same clay to make one Vessel to honour and another to dishonour And by these words he gives us to understand the absolute Power that God has to make us whatsoever it shall seem good to him But he has Taught us nothing of the like Power concerning the Pope and his Councils he has not said Who are you that contend against Rome Nor has he ascribed to him the power to make and destroy us as it shall please him In effect There is none but God alone on whom our Christianity depends it is his Favour that has given it to us his Spirit and his word have formed it in us and his Apostle has Taught us to say with a Holy boldness That there is no Creature either in Heaven or upon the Earth that can be able to Separate us from his Love We ought then to lay aside that Soveraign and absolute Authority and to come to the causes or reasons that could have been able to move the Court of Rome and its Council to condemn the Protestants and to deprive them of their Rights for if those causes are not only vain and frivolous but unjust and contrary to the Christian Faith and Piety as we maintain them to be a Condemnation of that Nature cannot but fall back upon those who have thrown it since they themselves have broken the Christian Unity so that their ill Carriage has made them justly lose that of which they would unjustly deprive the others And because in those kinds of Contests That which one Party loses by its injustice and its obstinacy in Error is recollected and restored in the other Party which does its Duty The Condemnation of the Council of Trent being ill done as we suppose cannot but have heightned and strengthned the Rights of the Protestants As to the Reformation it is not less True that if that should be found to be indeed Conformable to the Word of God and the inviolable Laws of Christianity as we suppose that it is I mean if the Things that our Fathers rejected were indeed Errors and Superstitions contrary to the True Faith and Piety as we maintain them to be so Holy an Action would be so far from depriving our Fathers of the Right of that Christian Society that on the contrary it could not but fortify that Right and render it more lawful then it was before For before the Reformation That Society was as I may so say a Composition of good and evil of Justice and Injustice by reason of those Errors which were mixed with the true Doctrine and those Superstitions which were to be found in conjunction with that Religion whereas the Reformation having freed it of that which it had of impurity and dross has without doubt put it into a far more Holy State and much more agreeable to God How prejudiced soever they may be they can never maintain it That Error and Superstition should establish any right of Society nor deny that as they are in their own nature more worthy of the Aversion of God and men then their Approbation they render those Societies unlawful and criminal For although all the World by a Universal Consent should be united in believing a Heresy or practising an Idolatrous Worship That consent how General soever it should be would not change the natures of things Heresy would be always Heresy and Idolatry Idolatry and in that respect the Agreement of all mankind would make up a wicked and unjust Society Whence it follows That a mixt Communion is only lawful in proportion to that which it has of good and that as its Justice is lessened when its Corruptions increase so its Justice also increases when its Corruptions are lessened We ought not then to imagine that the Reformation of the Protestants has deprived them of the Right of that Christian Society but we ought to assert on the contrary That it has put them in that respect into a far more advantageous condition then they were in before There is nothing further remaining but that Separation which was but by accident as they speak the Consequence of the Reformation if the whole Latin Church had done her Duty she would have reformed her self as well as our Fathers But the Court of Rome and its Clergy would not and that Refusal has caused that breach of Communion which is fallen out between the two Parties It concerns us to inquire Whether even upon supposition that that Reformation was Just and by consequence that that Refusal of it which they made was unjust That Separation could lawfully hinder our Fathers from holding a Christian Society among themselves But this is what they cannot maintain with the least colour of Reason For if the Reformation was Just and if the Refusal which they made was unjust how can the injustice of that Party which should have forgot its duty and which would have constrained the other Party to have forgot it too deprive the other Party of those Rights that Faith Holiness The Fear of God and the Communion of Jesus Christ have naturally given it Must Injustice needs Triumph over Justice and Error over Truth Is it that the