necessary to Salvation I will maintain to him that his proposition is impious that it manifestly tends to make Socinians and Arrians to be received into the Church and almost all Hereticks since it bannishes out of the number of the Articles of the Faith all the Tenets which those Hereticks dispute and which they do not see in the Scripture But it is not very difficult to satisfy that demand I speak of such a clearness as will convince a sincere person who does not blind himself either by passion or malice or interest or prejudice but lets his Reason and his Conscience act in good Earnest This is well near the Answer that the Author of the Prejudices would make if we asked him the same Question touching the clearness which he pretends there is in Tradition or in the infallible voice of the Church for his Justice is so great that he does never propose any difficulties of our Principle to us which are not common to the Principle of the Church of Rome and which by consequence he would not be bound to answer himself as well as we Notwithstanding I shall tell him that he grosly deceives himself if he imagins that we will only acknowledge those things for Articles of Faith which are clearly contained in the Scripture It is true that we acknowledging them only for the Articles of Faith which are necessary to the Salvation of the most simple does not hinder but that other things which are contained in the Scripture with less evidence may also be Articles of the Faith although not absolutely necessary for all that which is in the Scripture after what manner soever it be contained there is of Faith He does not less deceive himself if he imagins that although the Articles which the Socinians and Arrians and other Hereticks dispute were of the number of those which are not so clearly contained in the Scripture and the knowledge of which is not absolutely necessary to the Salvation of the simple yet that we ought to receive those Hereticks into the Church There is a great difference between simple persons who do not conceive a Fundamental Truth otherwise then under a general notion and indistinctly without going any farther and those going so far as a distinct Idea of the Truth expresly deny it and substitute a false and deceitful Idea in its place The former may be in a State of Salvation and ought to be received into the Church whereas the second sort ought to be banished as persons infected with a pernitious Error A Peasant may be made to believe in good earnest that Jesus Christ is God and that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are but one only God without going any farther because he will not understand the terms of Nature Essence Person Hypostatical Union and others that are made use of upon that subject and he will also be ignorant of the subtil and frivolous distinctions of the Hereticks Who can deny that such a man holds the Truth under a General Idea And who will not yet place a very great difference between him and a Socinian who very well knowing what these Propositions mean Jesus Christ is God by his Essence The Father Son and Holy-Ghost are Three Persons and one only Divine Nature will deny them and substitute in their places these other Propositions Jesus Christ is God only by the dignity of his Office and Glory of his Exaltation The Father the Son and the Holy-Ghost being only so by Denomination It would be a very hard case in my Judgment to exclude the former from the Church but it would be a sin to admit the latter and this shews us by the way the falshood of the reasoning of the Author of the Prejudices But we ought to resume our discourse I say therefore the same thing of the Third condition as of the two Former The things whereof we treat perswade themselves and make themseves to be perceived as true and Divine as well by the weakest as the strongest For although the weaker are not in a condition to render a Reason exactly of their perswasion as a Learned man would do yet notwithstanding we must not doubt but they are rightly perswaded A Tradesman a Peasant a Labourer know not how to explain either the rules of right reasoning or the mediums that Logick affords to discover the faults of Sophistry or false reasoning and yet nevertheless they do yet apprehend a just reasoning and reject a bad It is the same thing of a good Doctrine and a false the weaker sort may receive the one and reject the other when it shall be presented to them and they would make that discernment by the meer Judgment of their Consciences though they should not be capable of Explaining their Reasons well For there are two ways of being perswaded of a Truth and knowing a falshood the one is by a simple apprehension and the other by reflection the first comes from a meer impression of the Objects that make themselves to be discerned by their very nature and the other comes from Meditation and Study through the application of certain Rules I confess that there is more confusion in the first but that has also sometimes more force and more certainty then the Second As for that which regards the Fourth Condition which is That the Faith should be pure and free'd from every damnable Error besides that which I have said that the meer sentiment of Conscience is enough for the weaker sort to make them discern the good from the bad and by Consequence to reject the false Doctrines that shall concern their Salvation besides that I say it is certain that damnable Errors that is to say those which are incompatible with a true and saving Faith have a natural repugnancy with the Truths that are Essential to Religion wherewith the simpler sort are endowed so that those Truths alone are sufficient for the rejection of Errors without any absolute necessity that they should have a greater stock of Learning For Example The principle of the Adoration of one only God in the Souls of the weakes sort in our Communion is sufficient to make them reject a Religious worship paid to Creatures without their lying under a necessity of entring further into the Controversy which we have with the Church of Rome upon that subject The Principle of confidence in God alone is sufficient to make them reject invocation of Saints and Angels and a confidence in their merits The principle of the one only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross for the Expiation of our sins is sufficient to make them reject humane Satisfactions Purgatory and the Indulgences of the Pope The Principle of the Mediation of one only Jesus Christ is sufficient to make them reject the Intercession of Saints and Angels The Principle of the Truth of the humane nature of Jesus Christ like unto us in all things except sin is sufficient to make them reject the Real Presence
with a sensible displeasure that I mention the lives that we have led We are the causes that have swell'd this storm so high let us cast our selves into the Sea and since you have our Confession punish us after what manner you please A little before that he had said That the Troubles wherewith France was found to be agitated were the effect of a just Judgment of God and that they had drawn that judgment upon themselves by that Corruption of manners which was to be found among all Orders of men and by the subversion of all Ecclesiastical Discipline Charles the ninth also in those Memoirs that he gave to that Cardinal for the Council had expresly set down this Article That his Majesty with the most extreme regret was constrained to complain of the unclean lives of the Ecclesiasticks who brought so much Scandal and Corruption amongst the Common people beyond the scandal they took at their Ministers that to him it seemed necessary that it should be very speedily provided against Tell me I beseech you what could any justly conclude from the so licentious lives of Persons who for so long a time since had made themselves Masters of that Religion but that there was very little appearance that that Religion was preserv'd in its Antient Purity I acknowledge the ill life of the Pastour is not of its self a sufficient reason to separate from him but I affirm that when that wicked life is found to be so general in the Clergy and remains there for some Ages without amendment it gives a prejudice exceeding reasonable of some great corruption in that very Religion it self For Men of such impure manners can be but very ill Guardians of Faith and Piety 7. The Corruption of the Church of Rome in particular that is to say of that Church which calls her self the Mother and Mistress of all others and which had in possession the Government of them according to her own will confirmed our Fathers in this prejudice For by this means they saw the Evil did not confine it self only to the borders but that it was got into the very heart it self that is into that Church which as the Chief shed its influence on the others Further I think I need not prove that Corruption where every one will yield it as a thing that cannot be contested Those who have read the Histories of Luitprand of Glaber of Matthew Paris of Platina of Baronius and Onuphrius and of many others cannot deny that since the ninth Century the See of Rome has been most frequently filled with Popes whose Lives and Government have not very much edified the World Every one knows the Complaints that all the Earth had made and which it made yet in the days of our Fathers not only against the Popes but against all that they call the Court of Rome the Corruption whereof was looked on as the Cause of that in all the other Churches I shall not urge this matter further but it seems to me that our Fathers did not deserve the least blame if they could not believe that such a sort of men could have a great zeal for the glory of God and the Salvation of men or that they were so fit and likely to preserve Christianity intire amongst them nor in fine that whereas it was for so many Ages accused to be the very Center of all Vices it could be the Centre of all the Doctrines of Faith and Holiness 8. But altho' our Fathers should not have reflected on the persons of such men yet it is very certain that they found enough Characters of Irregularity in the Maxims in the pretensions and the Government of the Popes to make them justly conclude That they could not but be very ill Conservators of the purity of Religion What else could they gather from that excessive Pride so intolerable to all Christians that consisted in making their Feet to be Kissed with a submission far beyond what was yeilded to Kings in making themselves to be born on the shoulders of men and to be served by the greatest Princes or by their Ambassadors to wear three Crowns and to be Adored upon the Altar after their Election c 9. What could they say to those proud Titles which they with the greatest scandal affected to have given them as that of God in the Canon Law whereof see the words It evidently appears that the Pope who was called God by Constantine can be neither bound to any thing nor loosed by any Secular Power For it is manifest that a God cannot be judged by men To the same purpose Augustin Steuchus says That Constantine called the Pope God and that he acknowledged him to be so and he assures us that from thence it was that he made that Excellent Edict in his Favour he would say that false Donation He adored him says he as God as the successour of Christ and of Peter and rendred him all the ways that he could Divine Honours Worshipping him as the living Image of Jesus Christ So Clement the seventh Anti Pope with his Cardinals at Avignon in a Letter which they wrote to Charles the sixth which is set down by Froissard they make no scruple of calling him a God upon Earth seeing as there is say they but one only God in the Heavens there cannot and ought not of right to be more then one God on Earth After the same manner Angelus Politianus in an Oration that he made for those that were sent as Deputies from the City Sienna to Alexander the sixth ascribes Divinity to him We rejoyce among our selves says he to behold you raised above all humane things and elevated even to Divinity it self seeing nothing next unto God which is not set under you He was not the only person that treated that Pope as God for Raynaldus relates that amidst the Pomps of his Coronation one might see in divers places of the streets of Rome the Arms of the Pope with Verses and Epigrams underneath among which this Distich might be Read Caesare magna fuit nunc Roma est maxima sextus Regnat Alexander ille vir iste DEVS 10. What could our Fathers say to that Divine power that the Flatterers of the Popes attributed to them As the Glossary of the Decretals which remarks That every one said of the Pope that he had all Divine power caeleste arbitrium That by reason of that he could change the nature of things applying the essential properties of one thing to another That he could make something of nothing that a Proposition which was nothing he could make to be something That in all things that he should please to do his will might serve for a Reason That there is none that could say to him why dost thou do that That he could dispence with whatsoever was right and make injustice to become Justice by changing and altering of that which was right And in fine that he
condemn them to be burnt alive and to Cause that Sentence of their Condemnation to be executed For so that Council violated the publick Faith by a most Solemn and resplendent Action But it was not contented with that unless it did at the same time add a Decree that it expresly made on that Subject bearing this with it that all Letters of safe Conduct granted to Hereticks by any Emperors Kings or Princes ought not to hinder the Judges to whom it should appertain to take Cognisance of their Crimes whether they were Lay-men or Church-men from proceeding against them and punishing them with the greatest severity Aeneas Sylvius relates that that sentence through the force of which they were exposed to the Fire was given in Full Council Lata est says he in concessu Patrum adversus contumaces sententia CREMANDOS esse qui Doctrinam Ecclesiae respuerent prior igitur Joannes combustus est Hieronimus diu postea in vinculis habitus cum resipiscere nollet pari supplicio affectus He adds that those two men suffered that Torment with and admirable Fortitude singing of Hymns in the midst of the Flames This was in that time very astonishing to see a Council gathered in a Body wholly intent upon the causing the death of two Christians since it is certain amongst Christians that the Church has no power over the Temporal Lives of men But that Scandal was yet made greater by the way they carried it on for to come to that they made no difficulty of violating all that was the most sacred and inviolable in humane Society I would say the publick Faith given by the Authentick Authority of the Soveraign Magistrate and given with all the appearances of their own consents as one may collect from the Words of Aeneas Sylvius For he says as that Council was labouring in the affairs of Bohemia Placuit tandem Sigismundo Imperatore suadente Joannem Hieronymuus ad Synodum vocari They thought good through the Entreaties of the Emperor Sigismond that John and Jerome should be called to the Council They then made no scruple of violating that Faith to which they had consented and not only to break it by that Action and in that Practise but framed at the same time a Decree to authorise that breach of Faith and made it a lawful Rule for Posterity to go by Who can deny that our Fathers had not here a just cause to be shaken at that management of affairs which had violently born down all that wise and moderate men since have conceived and that they had not reason to joyn that to all those other things I have mentioned as a most powerful prejudice against a Religion that maintain'd it self by such strange proceedings 11. They might have added also to the rest methinks the establishment of Inquisitions and usage of Croisado's against those who were pretended to be Hereticks For it is most true that such a way of maintaining Religion by Torments and Armies raised by the Clergy as the Popes had used some ages since against the Waldenses the Albigenses the Wicklifists and the Hussites was not at all proper to make it be beloved or to instil into mens minds an extream good opinion of it There where they would introduce the Faith by force they shut up peoples hearts instead of gaining them That course is good no farther then for Temporal Monarchies or Mundane Religions where men are not much concerned whether they reign over the Spirits of men provided they reign over their Bodies But that is not at all the way that Jesus Christ uses who sets up his throne in their Consciences and who knows no other conquests but those which the sword that comes from his mouth gains 12. But besides those cruel ways which they made use of for the upholding their Religion they employed yet others as well as those which tho' they were not so severe did not fail of being as odious and of raising as strong suspitions against that Religion it self I might rank in this place those false Miracles which they invented every day to gain credit to some Doctrines and Devotions which of themselves had no foundation at all in the word of God For every own knows how much these sort of Fables were in use in the days of our Fathers and some Ages before with what care they spread them among the people in Preaching them up with Zeal and defending them with heat and in stuffing their Legends with them and other Books of that nature But every own knows likewise that the greatest part of them were so grosly invented that a very mean understanding could easily detect their falsness We might joyn with those false Miracles those stories of Visions or Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin or some other Saint to the Religious men or women which were so frequent that one can find nothing else in the Books of the Monks of those Ages We might Place here also those so often devised Tales of the returns of Souls out of Purgatory of their Apparitions their Complaints and pitiful Groans of their requests to be eased of their pains by their Masses and Foundations and of the outcries and terrible din that they made upon Mens least neglect to perform what they beg'd of them I do not now examine whether those Doctrines which gave ground to those pretended Miracles to those Visions and Apparitions were Evangelical or not it is enough for me to note that that falseness that appear'd in the greatest part of those gross Inventions which were so often publickly detected rendred that Religion justly suspected not only in respect of those Opinions and Devotions which they pretended to authorise by those frauds but also in general as to all that which came under the name of Traditions 13. Might we not say the same thing of so many forged and supposititious Books the making and use of which had been so frequent in the Ages that preceeded the Reformation not to meddle with what is reported of the Monks that they did not scruple to serve themselves by forged Deeds to enrich their Convents and gain Priviledges to them Without touching upon that there are few Persons that are ignorant of what Character the Decretal Epistles of the Antient Popes are collected under the name of one Isidore Mercator whereof the Court of Rome has made so advantagious a use for the establishing of its Authority and of the pretended donation of Constantine by which that Emperour is said to have given away the Roman Empire and all its rights to the Pope Every own knows also how they had forg'd whole Books and Treatises under the most Antient and Venerable names as the Epistle of the Blessed Virgin to Saint Ignatius the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite the Epistles of Saint Martial the Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew by the Priests of Achaia the Liturgies of Saint James Saint Peter and of Saint Mark and divers others of the same nature
could not be a certain character of the Infallibility of that Council But why do we use Arguments in a matter in which experience has sufficiently instructed us The Fifth Council assembled at Constantinople on occasion of three Books published the one of Ibas Bishop of Edessa the other of Theodorus of Mopsuesta and the other of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus was it not held in spight of all the oppositions of Pope Vigilius did not that Council condemn those Writings as Heretical against the express prohibitions that Vigilius had made by a publick Decree to Condemn them and yet notwithstanding was not that very Council in the end approved by the Successours of Vigilius and in fine received throughout all the Church for a True and Holy Oecumenical Council Those Approbations therefore are only a juggle which wholly depend on the capricious humours of the Popes on their different Interests on their good or ill humours One Pope disapproves of a Council and makes it void to advance all that he does by that the Council is remote enough from Infallibility and ought not to be held for Infallible another Pope comes and receives and approves of it and behold on a sudden that Council changes its condition and becomes Infallible Besides that did not Pope Liberius approve an Arian Council held at Sirmium in subscribing an Heretical Confession that had been drawn up and which Saint Hilary calls the Arian perfidiousness the Heresie sprung from Sirmium for which he pronounced an Anathema against Liberius For what else was that Subscription in Consequence of which Liberius embraced the Communion of the Arians but a Ratification and real Approbation of the Act of an Erroneous Council and it signifies nothing to say That Liberius was in Exile when he committed that Error for without alledging here what he himself declared to the Eastern Arian Bishops That he was in Peace and Unanimity with them and all their Provinces in good earnest and that he had received that Catholick Faith with all his heart that he had never in the least contradicted it that he had readily given his consent that he followed and held it his Exile and Concern to get away from them does not hinder but that it should be true That he did approve an Infidel Confession nor by Consequence letting us see that it might very well happen That the Popes did Authorize the Acts of wicked Councils and that it ought not to be pretended that their Approbation makes Councils Infallible nor that it has any certain ground for declaring them to be such 6. That Example of Liberius encounters also all those who ascribe that Infallibility to the Popes for behold one in whom by the Testimony of St. Hilary and St. Jerom that Priviledge had no effect But as that Opinion is not generally received in this Kingdom and we need not to fear objections from any here so it is needless to refute them I shall only say that that Dispute that is in the Church of Rome about those to whom this Infallibility belongs whether to the Pope only or a Council only or to a Council approved by the Pope or to the Pope as the Head of the Council lets us see that that pretence in general has no ground for if in truth the Latine Church had that Priviledge it would never be so uncertain as they have made it but it would have been known a little more clearly where it resided However it be it plainly appears that the Latine Church does not pretend to it as a Law of Nature for she is composed of no different blood from the rest of men nor as a right joyned to the profession of Christianity nor as a meer quality of a Church for in that case the Greek and other Churches would have the same advantage but that she pretends to it as a peculiar priviledge whereby they were distinguished from other Churches as the Greek and Armenian c. It appears that they would not set this Prerogative before us as a first Principle which is evident of it self without needing any proof for in fine it is not so clear that the Latin Church should be Infallible as it is that one and one make two and that the whole is greater than any of its parts It is then certainly but very reasonable to demand that they would give us the proofs and grounds of so important a right I mean other proofs than those that are commonly taken from the same Authority of that Church For it will not be enough to confirm that Infallibility for her only to say I am so every Church may say the same and yet not be believed They ought to produce proofs and proofs that come from Heaven since there is none besides God that can confer so great a Right and they ought to shew them to us to the end we may judge of them and weigh their Cogency and Truth That being so I affirm that our Fathers were bound to use all sorts of Rational methods to examine that Question whether the Church of Rome was Infallible or no And to look to both sides to settle themselves in a good Judgment This is that which in my opinion none will contest But from thence these things will clearly follow 1. That our Fathers had right to examine one of the Tenets of the Latin Church which is that of her Infallibility 2. That they had right to judge of it according to the Nature of those proofs which presented themselves for or against it 3. That they might lawfully reject it as false if in their examination of it it appeared to be false 4. That it is neither absurd nor rash to maintain that every one has right to examine a Tenet of the Church and to judge of it 5. That all those General Objections which they have hitherto made against that Truth are false and frivolous such as these that if one give All that Liberty of examining every one may make a Religion of his own That there is no other way to keep men in the Unity of the Faith That he who examines makes himself a Judg above the Church That it is the ready way to bring in a private Spirit and other such like things all which are refuted by that one Example in the Point of Infallibility 6. That if it is no ways absurd that every one should have right to examine a Tenet of the Church that cannot be proved otherwise than by the Scriptures it is not also absurd to say that that right of searching out the true sence of Scripture belongs to every Christian 7. That it is not absurd to say that a Believer is Master of his own Faith by depending only upon God and independant on men 8. That if every Christian has right to examine one of the chief Articles of Religion it is no ways inconvenient to say that he has right to examine all for there is not less danger nor less
Fathers an Infallibility It is without doubt the Kings pleasure that we should submit our selves to his Officers and that we should obey them but he does not mean to advance them to be Infallible nor to ordain us to obey them if they shall happen to command us these things that are directly contrary to his service and to that Fidelity which we owe to our Soveraign It is then True that all those Exhortations to hear our Pastors and to obey their words are always to be restrain'd by this clause understood as far as their words shall be conformable to that of God that they can never go beyond that and that they cannot from thence draw any Priviledge of Infallibility 4. As these Gentlemen let slip nothing that may serve for their Interests so they ordinarily make use of that passage in the 18th Chapter of St. Matthew where Jesus Christ ordains that if any one receive an injury from another he is to reprove him between himself and him alone and if that first complaint signifies nothing then he must take witnesses with him and if he neglect to hear those witnesses he is to tell it to the Church and if he neglect to hear the Church he is to be unto us as a Heathen and a Publican All that that follows in the close of that discourse of Jesus Christ shews that he speaks there neither of Faith nor Worship but of some private quarrels that we might have against our Brethren to be taken away and of the use of that Discipline For the mind of our Lord is that before we break off absolutely with our Brethren we should observe all the Rules of Charity and that we should there make use of the Church but if he would refuse to hear the Church that in that case it was allowed us to treat him no longer as a Brother but as a real stranger Who sees not that if they would draw any thing of consequence from that passage they ought to pretend that the Church is Infallible not in matters of Faith for they are not medled with there but in matters of Fact and in the Censures that it gives upon private Quarrels in which nevertheless all the World agrees that she may be deceiv'd And therefore it is that these Gentlemen are wont to alleadge these last words Tell it to the Church and if he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as the Heathens and Publicans and they alleadge them also as separated from the sequel of that Discourse because otherwise they could not but observe that they would signify nothing to them 5. In fine they produce those words of St. Paul to Timothy These things write I unto thee hoping to come unto thee shortly But if I tarry long that thou mayest know how to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of the Truth How can say they the Church be the pillar and ground of Truth if it is not Infallible in the Doctrines it proposes as of Faith and in the Worship which it Practises But what likelyhood is there that he would have established an opinion so important as that of the Infallibility of the Latin Church on such Metaphorical terms which St. Paul did not make use of upon the sight of any Infallibility which should respect no other but the Latin Church in particular and which should much rather have respected the Church of Ephesus or the other Churches of Asia where Timothy was then when the Apostle wrote to him which yet did not fail of falling into Error in Terms which may be explained in divers sences and which have been appli'd to divers particular Bishops without yet pretending to raise them up to be Infallible what colour I say is there that they can prove the Infallibility of the Church of Rome It appears in the end of that discourse of St. Paul that he never thought of making the Church Infallible for in all that Chapter he aims at nothing else then to set down the duties of Bishops and Deacons and after having markt out in particular some qualities with which they ought to be endow'd and from what Vices they ought to be more especially exempt after what manner they ought to govern themselves he adds in the close of all That he wrote all that to his disciple to the end he might know how to behave himself in the House of God which is the Church of the Living God the pillar and ground of Truth Who sees not that that Infallibility comes not in at all to the purpose in that close of the Discourse Let the Bishops says he and the Deacons take heed they be wise sober c. That they hold the Mystery of the Faith in a pure Conscience that their Wives should be honest and faithful in all things that their Children should be well educated c. And that which I say in general I apply also to thee Timothy to the end thou mayst live unblameably in the House of God in the Church of the living God Add according to the Interpretation of these Gentlemen Which Church is Infallible and cannot err and there is nothing of any natural Connexion in it On the contrary that conceit of the Infallibility of the Church according to the Principle that our Adversaries makes use of in the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints would harden them in security for let them do as they will all would go well and after whatsoever manner the Pastors govern the Church could never be corrupted nor its Truth be lost Which would seem far more proper to inspire negligence into the Bishops then to animate them to do their duty In effect if they cannot tell how to exhort men by motives of that nature They ought then to confess the Truth to wit that these words The Pillar and Ground of Truth note the end and natural design of the Church that for which she is made and to which she is called which is to sustain and bear the Truth and to make it subsist in the World and so the discourse of the Apostle appears very just and well connected Behold says he after what manner the Bishops ought to frame their course and after what sort thou oughtest to live in the Church of God in behaving thy self in it so as remembring that God has appointed it to be the pillar and ground of his Truth Live therefore in that manner that may answer that end or that natural appointment of the Church Just as if the King exhorting one of the Officers of his Parliament to do his duty should tell him That he liv'd in a body that was the Pillar and Ground of Justice and the Rights of the Crown that is to say which is naturally ordain'd for the maintaining Justice in the State and to defend the Rights of the Crown But as that speech of the Prince would not establish any priviledge of
us to surrender them but let them give us leave to use them at the least this one time to search whether it be just that we should deprive our selves of them Jesus Christ himself has forbid us to do it the Authour of those Prejudices has commanded it We ought at least to examine which of the two has reason on his side That then shall be the business of this Chapter wherein I propose to my self to shew That the Authority of those Prelats who governed the Latin Church in the time of the Reformation could not be high enough to oblige our Fathers blindly to believe all that they told them nor to hinder them from examining the Doctrines of those Prelats But as we find it frequently fall out that they disguise our Sentiments and that they may render them odious they urge them beyond their due bounds it will be meet before we go farther precisely to determine what is Treated of in that Right to the end that all equitable persons may the more easily judg of it We do not here treat of the use of the Ministry in General We acknowledge that God has appointed it in his Church and that it would be a rashness very criminal to go about to abolish it The Confession of our Faith our practice our Books and the very writings of our Adversaries sufficiently justifie us to make us believe that they will not lay any thing to our charge in that point We do not here also meddle with that order that ought to be observed in the Election and Ordination of Pastors we all agree that when the state of the Church is regulated it ought not to be permitted to any that will to thrust themselves into the Ministry nor to encroach upon their Function without being lawfully called and if there is any difference in this matter it only regards other questions and not that which we handle at present Nor do we further Treat of that respect or that obedience which every one ows to good and lawful Pastors Jesus Christ has said He that heareth you heareth me and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me and St. Paul exhorts the Faithful to submit themselves with all teachableness to their conduct Obey them that are set over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls The word then of good Pastors ought to be received with humility their Functions to be considered with veneration and their persons to be loved and honoured not only in respect of their charge but because they acquit themselves faithfully in it We do not yet further concern our selves to know whether one ought not to give that obedience to these Ministers of the Church who preach to us the Word of God although their lives are impure and scandalous and no ways correspond with their Doctrine We confess that it is not allowable for personal crimes to separate our selves from them nor from those who adhere to them whether they own those crimes or whether they deny them We ought to indeavour to reduce them to their duty and if they are incorrigible or if they have committed Actions which render them unworthy of their Function there are ordinary ways that one ought to take to deprive them if they amend the scandal is repaired and if they do not either because they will elude by Artifices the Ecclesiastical Discipline or because that depravation may become so general that there shall be no more punishment of vice then we may pray God that he would send more faithful Labourers into his Harvest nay we ought to do it but we ought always to own those for Pastors who are in that Charge and to receive the Word of God from their Mouths while they Preach it purely I go yet further and I say that we ought always in General to think well of those Pastors and not lightly to entertain suspicions of their goodness and faithfulness especially when we speak of the whole Body and the disorder that appears to be great and very visible therein that we are not absolutely to form a just prejudice against their Ministry This is what we acknowledge and our fathers acknowledged as well as we But if they will not be contented with that if they will have it yet farther that the faithful are bound blindly to receive the Doctrines of their Pastors without having any right to examine their Nature or their Quality and that it would be a crime but to set upon that examination if they would that the Authority of the Pastors after whatsoever manner we consider it whether separatly or conjunctly or altogether or in the greater number should be without any bounds or measures as to matters of Faith or Worship and the general Rules of Manners and that though they cease to believe the Divine Faith and to practise all that which they say without informing our selves any farther This is a Maxim we deny and which we maintain is contrary to the Word of God to right reason and the true interest of Christianity 1. To begin with the Word of God we may say That there never was any Maxim in the World against which it does more expresly declare it self For first it absolutely forbids Lordship in Pastors The Kings of the Gentiles said Jesus Christ in that passage before alledged exercise Lordship over them and those that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors But it shall not be so with you but he that is great among you let him be as the less and he that is chief as he that doth serve In the same sence Saint Peter bids them Feed the flock of Jesus Christ taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind neither as being Lords over Gods heritage but being examples to the Flock St. Paul Preached the same Doctrine with St. Peter We have not says he to the Corinthians Dominion over your Faith but are helpers of your joy We may observe that on purpose to hinder the introducing that Dominion into the Church under the name of Instruction as they have done in these last Ages Jesus Christ goes so far as to forbid his Disciples the name of Masters Be not ye says he called Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ but he that is greatest among you shall be your servant And therefore it is that the Scripture gives the Title of chief Shepheard to none but Jesus Christ alone When the chief shepheard shall appear says St. Peter ye shall receive a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away God has brought again from the dead the great shepheard of the sheep says St. Paul But as to other Pastors the Scripture is so farr from giving them any Character of Dominion that on the contrary they are often called Ministers or Servants Stewards of the Mysteries of God Ambassadors Messengers Interpreters to teach us that they ought not to pretend to reign over mens
Frederick what the Pope desired obliged the Emperour Charles who had been Elected in the Room of Maximilian and the Princes assembled at Wormes to cite Luther to appear before them The Emperour gave him to that effect his Letters of safe Conduct and Luther having compared and constantly maintained his Doctrine without any ways regarding either the threats or the sollicitations of the Partisans of the Court of Rome they were upon the point to imprison him notwithstanding the safe conduct of the Emperour and to treat him as they had heretofore done John Huss and Jerome of Prague in the Council of Constance But the Elector Palatine vehemently opposing himself to that breach of the publick Faith they were contented with proscribing him by a publick Edict In that Edict they treat him as a Lunatick as one possest by the Devil and as a Devil incarnate they banish him all the Territories of the Empire they forbid him Fire and Water Meat and Drink they order that his Books should be publickly burnt and threaten to all that contradict the most rigorous punishments in the world After all that who can say that our Fathers could yet with any shadow of Reason hope for a Reformation on the part of the Popes and the Prelats We may see in their Conduct not only a repugnance to a Reformation but a setled design and an unshaken resolution to defend their Errours Superstitions and Abuses of what nature soever they were and to hazard all rather then once to consent that the Church should be purged We may see that they made use of all that the most exact and refined policy could make them contrive of all the Authority that the splendour of their Dignities and the places which they held could give them amongst men and of all that force and violence that the Favour of Princes and the credulity of the people could afford them They went so far as loudly to declare themselves Lords of mens Faith They exclaimed they wrote they disputed they accused they condemned they terrified they excommunicated they had recourse to the secular power and could our Fathers without being blind look any further for a Reformation from such persons as those CHAP. III. That our Fathers not being able any more to hope for a Reformation on the part of the Pope or his Prelats were indispensably bound to provide for their own Salvation and to Reform themselves VVE come now to inquire what our Fathers were bound to do in so great a Confusion They were perswaded not only that it was possible for the Latin Church to have within it a great many Corruptions and Abuses but that it really had a very great Company of them that false worship Errors and Superstitions had broke in as an Inundation upon the Christian Religion and that those abuses growing more gross and growing every day more strong put Christianity into a manifest danger of Ruin Moreover there was not any hope of Remedy either on the part of the Pope or on the part of the Prelats For the Court of Rome with all its Associates had loudly declared against a Reformation maintaining that the Church of Rome could not Err that she was the Mistress of Mens Faith and not to believe as she believed was a Heresie worthy of the Flames and as to the Prelats they had all servile obedience to the wills of the Popes besides that Ignorance that Negligence that Love of the things of the World and those other Vices in which they were plunged How be it the business was not about matters of small Importance nor about the Questions of the School most commonly unknown to the People nor about some speculative notions which could not be of any Consequence to the Actions of true Holiness The Controversy was about divers things essential to Religion which not only fell within the knowledge of the People but which likewise consisted in matters of practice and which by Consequence being wicked as our Fathers could make no doubt that they were could not but be very contrary to the right Worship of God and mens Salvation For the debate was about a Religious Worship which they were to give not to God alone but to Creatures also to Angels to Saints to Images and to Relicks about certain and infallible Springs from whence they ought to draw their Salvation in building their confidence upon them for besides the mercy of God through the Merit and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ they joyned to that the merit of our good-works our own Satisfactions the over and above Satisfactions of the Saints and the Authority of the Bishop of Rome in dispencing of Indulgences They Treated of other works which they held that we ought to do through the Obligation of our Consciences and with assurance that they were good and those they made a part of our Sanctification for they added to those that God had commanded us those that the Popes and their Prelats commanded out of their meer Authority They Treated of ill actions from which we ought to abstain out of the motions of our Consciences and which one could not commit without sin for besides those that God had forbidden us they likewise placed in this Rank those which it should please the Church to forbid us They Treated about a certain and infallible Rule of Faith upon which the Minds and Consciences of Christians might stay and rest for they would have that principle consist in the Interpretations in the Traditions and Decisions of the Church of Rome or its Prelats The Controversy was about Jesus Christ himself for they said that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was the very Person of the Son of God and they adored it under that Quality the Question was about divers Customs introduced into the publick Ministry or generally establisht by the Customs of the People that our Fathers thought very contrary to the Spirit of the Gospel and true Piety In fine in all those and other such like things they Treated about the peace and just rights of the Conscience the glory of God the hope of Salvation and the Preservation of the Church of Jesus Christ upon Earth Let them tell us then precisely what our Fathers ought to have done Was there any thing in the World of greater concernment then those things which I have set down Or to speak better was there nothing that could any ways stagger them or hold the minds of all honest men in suspence for so much as one moment Were they bound to renounce their Conscience their God and their Salvation under a pretence that the Flatterers of the Church of Rome speak of her what the Holy Scripture says of the Godhead That if she pulls down there is no person that can build up if she shuts there is none can open if she retains the Waters all is dried up if she lots them out they shall overflow the Earth Do they believe that they ought to have precipitated themselves
own thoughts of that Negative Separation But howsoever he has carried himself in his Expressions I may say if I am not mistaken without fear of any opposition that that which he has here granted us is not one of those Concessions which are sometimes given to adversaries only to cut off the Dispute but that indeed he has spoken according to his real thoughts For when in a Controversy of this nature a man distinguishes about this general Thesis That one ought to separate from a Church which binds one to profess Error in noting that it may be said in two sences the one That one ought to separate ones self Negatively in not medling with that which would wound the Conscience and the other That one ought to separate positively that is to say that one ought to set up a Society separate from that and to establish a new Ministry That he quitted the former sence in saying only that it was very ill applied to the Catholick Church restrained himself only to the latter that he would say that it was this latter kind of Separation whereof he accused us and about which we ought to justify our selves that our Consciences could not any further hinder us then from taking part in those actions which our Principles should make us look on as Criminal that if we could not without betraying our Consciences render that Honour to Saints and Relicks which they give them we ought to content our selves with not doing it When a man I say speaks as the Author of Prejudices after this manner in the heat of a dispute which he believes to be as weighty as that there is a great likelyhood that it is not a meer condescending to his adversaries but a true and lively expression of that which he finds in himself to be very Just and Reasonable Howsoever it be without informing our selves further about a thing wherein we are little concern'd we will suppose it since he will have it so as a proposition not to be disputed That our Fathers could lawfully seperate from the Church of Rome by a Negative Separation that is to say in not to taking any part in that which would wound their Consciences But that signifies in our stile that they had right to reform themselves since we call nothing else precisely Reformation but that publick Rejection which they made of divers things which they judged to be ill and contrary to Christianity Whether they did ill to go further and to proceed to a Positive Separation that is a Question apart which does not in the least hinder that their Reformation taken only as a Negative Separation might not have been done with Justice and according to that right that Conscience gives to every man But now methinks this point being so well clear'd clears a multitude of others and we may by that concession of the Author of Prejudices very well decide some Questions In the first place They ought no further to set before us that absolute obedience to the Orders and decisions of the Church of Rome in the matters of Faith and Worship to which they would hitherto have all the Faithful indispensably obliged For if those whose Consciences shall tell them that That Church binds them to believe Errors and to practise a false worship may refuse to profess to believe those Errors and to performe that Worship who sees not that that absolute obedience is overthrown Since it will depend on the dictates of the Conscience of every one and that the Conscience of each one will give it its bounds and suspend it in respect of some certain things and actions 2. The Church of Rome can no more treat those as Disobedient and Rebellions who through the dictates of their Consciences refuse to profess to believe that which she decides and to practise that which she ordains nor persecute them as such and whatsoever she should make them suffer upon that pretence of Rebellion and Disobedience would be but an unjust persecution of which she will be bound to give an account to God and men 3. They cannot also any farther demand of us what Call our Fathers had to reform themselves that is to say to reject their Superstitions and the Errors which were to be found in the Church of Rome in their days for they needed nothing else but the motions of their Consciences to give them a Right to refuse to profess them 4. They ought also to acknowledge that the Authority of the Church how great soever it may be is it yet far less then that of the Conscience since it is not only limited but surmounted and that whensoeveer they should be in oppositian a man would have right to leave the Authority of the Church and to follow his Conscience 5. And since even an erronious Conscienes such as the Author of the Prejudices supposes ours and that of our Fathers to be could suspend Acts commanded by the Church it follows necessarily from thence that to reconcile the Church and the Conscience when they should be set in opposition we must come to the Foundation and discuss the things themselves for there is no other way to free the Conscience from Errors And how much more are we obliged to do it when the Church abuses her Authority in teaching those things which are really false or in commanding those actions which are indeed unjust and criminal All then depends on the discussion of those matters by themselves But they will say your Fathers ought to have been contented to have made use of their rights each one in particular they could have kept themselves from making any profession of believing those pretended Errors and not have taken any part in those actions which they disapproved and yet nevertheless have kept silence Wherefore did they disturb the publick peace by their Tumults Why did they divulge by their out-cries the Judgment which they made of the Tenets and Customs of their Church Did they not in that sin against that respect which they owed to their Prelats and that Charity which they owed to their Brethren To answer to this Objection I say That the keeping silence is not always equally just it has its bounds and its measures according to the weight of the things that are treated of and to the Circumstances of Times and Persons If the business had been only about some meer Questions of the School upon points of Speculation or about some unprofitable Ceremonies or some bad order in the Government or even about some popular Superstitions which should not have proceeded so far as to corrupt the saving Efficacy of the Gospel I confess our Fathers had been more obliged to have kept silence then to have encountred their Prelats and raised those troubles through the diversity of their Opinions The Love of Peace respect for Order Christian Charity bidds us to bear things of that nature well which we do not so well approve of our selves and even there to follow the
can't tell how to pass so favourable a Judgment Errors in Religion have a far different Character from those in Philosophy and in Religion it self those which always when they arrive vitiate the mind and heart are far more odious then those which do not deprave the mind and those which hinder all the saving Essicacy of the Gospel are infinitely more so how much more when they are gathered together to an exceeding great number and mutually uphold and sustain one another not unlike those black Clouds which in the most Stormy days of Winter joyn themselves one to another to make up but one general one and to deprive us of the light of the Sun Hitherto possibly they will not contest any thing But if it be reasonable enough that there should be no quarrel made about those general Propositions they ought not further to make any in this particular Question if the Actions of our Fathers were in their own nature good and just since we suppose not only that those things which they rejected and caused others to reject were Errors but also that they were Capital Errors of that last sort which I spoke of just before which one cannot look on without dread and amazement For it is upon that supposition that we defend our Fathers and if they dispute it with us they ought to quit this dispute about Forms and to enter upon a Discussion of the very Foundation it self They may alleadge that they had a long continued possession in favour of those things which our Reformers opposed since they were found establisht in the Church many Ages ago and that as in a Civil Society the Laws forbid those to be molested who are in a long and Antient possession and to be bound to produce their first Title though at the same time it should be maintained that they are Usurpers So also our Fathers ought not to be heard any further against the Sentiments and Customes which the Times had in some sort consecrated and made venerable But this Answer will be of no Use to them for not to alleadge here That the greatest part of those Opinions and Practises were new enough as has been sufficiently Justified not to say that they had been publickly disputed and by consequence That that possession whereof they speak was not peaceable Who knows not that there can be nothing prescribed in matters of Faith and Worship against the True Religion since that Religion is of God in all its parts and that there is neither any Time nor Custom nor possession that can make a true thing of a false or a Divine institution of a humane Tradition or any Vertue of a Vice In a Civil Society Laws Establish Prescriptions with very good Reason because without them the peace of the Community which is the only end that those Laws propound to themselves cannot be well preserved But in a Religious Society the principal end is the Glory of God and Salvation of the Faithful which are two things that are established on certain Perpetual and Invariable Foundations and by consequence have no respect to any long prepossessions on the contrary side how Antient soever they may have been If Religion were capable of any such Prescriptions Christianity would be bound to let Paganism alone for how long time past has Paganism been seated in the Possession of the Faith of men Saint Paul himself acknowledges it in those very places wherein he exhorts such to be Converted Turn you says he from these Vanities unto the living God who made Heaven and Earth who in Times past suffered all Nations to walk in their own ways and elsewhere God having winked at the Times of Ignorance commands now all men every where to Repent They cannot therefore bring any thing of Prescription against us and it will always remain certain that if that which our Fathers have said concerning the Corruption of the Latin Church in their days be true as we suppose it to be the Reformation was an Action good and just in it self and by Consequence in that respect they can have nothing to say against their Call to it But as it is not enough to establish a Lawful Call to suppose that what is done is good in it self and as it is further necessary that the person that does it should have right to do it it remains yet to be further inquired into whether our Fathers had power to do what they did For how many Actions are there that are just in themselves which it does not belong to all the World to do and which then become unjust and ill when every one thrusts himself in of his own Authority without being lawfully called It is not permitted for Example to all the World to punish the wicked although that punishment might be just it is not permitted to all men to change publick Customs although those changes should be good and advantageous to the Society We ought then to see what Call our Fathers had to Reform themselves and others But this Question would be easily decided if it be considered that in all Societies there are two sorts of Common Actions the one fort of those that are so Common as to belong to all the Body taken Collective as they speak in the School and not to each particular person So in a Parliament to pronounce a Sentance to absolve a man or to condemn him they are the Actions of the whole Body and not of each of those who compose it so to declare War and to make peace are the Acts of him or those who hold all the Rights of the State in their hands But there are other Actions which are so Common in a Society as to belong to each particular person or as they say to all Distributive and not to all Collective So to give ones advice in an Assembly is the Act not of the whole Body but of each particular person who composes it and to live in a Kingdom to contract Alliances to possess one's goods to labour to defend one's self against the incommodities of Life are Actions so Common as to belong to all particular Persons And so the Civilians have very well distinguished in saying that there are some Acts which respect Omnes ut singulos and that there are others which belong ad Omnes ut universos To Apply that Distinction only to our present Subject I say that in Religious Society which is the Church Faith Piety Holiness and by Consequence the Rejecting of Errors of false Worship and of Sins are those common Actions that belong to all private men The Just Lives by his Faith says the Scripture and as it would be ridiculous to demand of any man in a Civil Society what Personal Call he had to live to labour to avoid that which would be hurtful to his Life and to have a care of his own preservation so it is also an Absurdity to demand of our Fathers what call they had to believe aright in
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
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
them from the Church because they brought in a new Heresie into it But why also did the same S. Augustine with the whole Church of God hold the Donatists to be justly excommunicated against whom these things are written and why did not they receive them into their communion but only after signs of repentance and the imposition of hands Jesus Christ who propounded the Parable of the Tares did not he clearly ordain excommunication elsewhere saying that if our brother would not obey the Church correcting him we ought to reckon him as a Heathen and a Publican That which manifestly shews us that it is one thing to excommunicate and another to pluck up the Discipline of the Church excommunicates but it does not pluck up See here precisely that which S. Augustine himself said non estis ad eradicandum sed ad corrigendum From whence the truth of that which I have said appears that according to this Father there is a bad separation and that is schismatical in its own nature and another that is not so and that although it is never permitted us to make the former yet it does not follow that we may not make the latter provided we do it upon just causes and observe the rules of Prudence and Charity in it We must therefore lay it down as a certain truth that S. Augustine thought that we might sometimes break the communion of the Sacraments and Assemblies we are only concerned to know in what case he thought that that separation should be made To make this point clear I shall say in the Sixth place that when S. Augustine considered the Church in the meer mixture with the wicked that is to say in the mixture with those whose manners are vicious and criminal he taught that those who are in office in the Church may proceed to the excommunication of impenitent sinners when those sinners are few in number and when there is ground to believe that they may disturb the peace of the Church but if the crime includes a whole multitude and that the Body in general is infected then he would that the good should content themselves to preserve their own righteousness without partaking of the sins of the wicked he would that they should groan under it and pray to God but he would not that they should separate themselves When the evil sayes he has seized the greater number nothing remains for the good to do but to groan and lament And a little lower If the contagion of sin has invaded the multitude then it is necessary that Discipline should be used with mercy for the counsels of Separation are vain pernicious and sacrilegious But when he considers the Church not only as a mixture of good and wicked but also as a mixture of the truly faithful and Hereticks I maintain that he has formally acknowledg'd the justice and necessity of a separation not only in regard of some particular persons but in regard even of entire Societies provided they go not so far as that which he calls Eradication We have already noted that he would that we should according to S. Paul pronounce an Anathema against those who preach another Gospel than that which he has preached But this very thing gives the faithful a right to reject the communion of Heretical Societies and to separate themselves from their Assemblies In his Book of the True Religion he aggravates it as a very strange thing and very much deserving to be condemn'd that the Heathen Philosophers who had other sentiments concerning Divinity than the people should partake in the worship of the people In their Schools sayes he they had sentiments differing from those of the people and yet notwithstanding they had Temples common with the people The people and their Priests were not ignorant that these Philosophers had opinions contrary to theirs touching the nature of the Gods since every Philosopher was not afraid of publishing his opinions and of labouring at the same time to perswade them and others and yet nevertheless with that diversity of sentiments they did not fail to assist at the publick worship without being hindred by any body A man that speaks after this manner would not think it ill that any should separate themselves from Heretical communions But he yet further explains himself more clearly afterwards For he sayes That if the Christian Religion should do nothing else but correct that vice it would deserve infinite praises And he adds immediately after That it appears by the example of so many Heresies that have deviated from the rule of Christianity that they would not admit to the communion of the Sacraments those who taught concerning God the Father his Wisdom and his Grace otherwise than the truth would allow them and who would perswade men to receive their false Doctrine But that is not only to be found true in regard of the Manichees and of some others who have other Sacraments than we but also in regard of those who having the same Sacraments have sentiments differing from us in other things and errors which they obstinately defend for they are shut out from the Catholick communion and the participation of those same Sacraments which they have common with us From whence comes it to pass therefore you will say that S. Augustine seems sometimes to ascribe to the Orthodox the right only of a passive separation in regard of Heretical Societies that is to say that he would not that we should separate from them even then when they separate themselves For he sayes in some place that though the Traditors should have openly maintain'd in the Church that their Action was good and holy that is to say that they ought to have delivered up their Bibles to the Pagans for them to burn them and that though they should even have wrote on that subject provided they had not set up their Assemblies apart nor separated themselves yet we ought not to have abandoned for them the good wheat which signifies this to us that we ought not to separate our selves from those though their Doctrine whereof he had spoken was detestable contrary to the faith conscience and good manners In effect he speaks almost alwayes of the Heretical Societies of his time as of those who were themselves cut off from the communion of the Church and whom the Church had not rejected I answer that S. Augustine would have us suffer the communion of Hereticks in certain cases but that he would have us also in other cases to separate our selves from them While we are in no danger of partaking with their errors neither in effect nor in appearance but that we may preserve the profession of our faith pure without consenting to impiety or seeming to consent to it and that there should not be on the part of the Hereticks that obstinacy of opinion he would have us suffer their communion For it is the manifest Doctrine of this Father that in the Society of the
naturally goes before the Ministry it does not depend upon the Ministry but the Ministry on the contrary depends upon it as in the Civil Society the Magistracy depends upon the Society and not the Society upon the Magistracy In the Civil Society the first thing that must be thought on is that Nature made men afterwards we conceive that she Assembled and United them together and lastly that from that Union that could not subsist without Order Mastistracy proceeded It is the same thing in a Religious Society the first thing that Grace did was to produce Faith in the Hearts of men after having made them believe she United them and form'd a mutual Communion between them and because their Communion ought not to be without Order and without Government from thence the Ministry arose So that a Lawful Ministry is after the True Church and depending upon it It is not a Lawful Ministry that makes it to be the True Church for it is so by the Truth of its Faith and it would yet be so when it actually had not any Ministers but it is the True Church that makes the Ministry to be Lawful since it is from the Truth of a Church that the Justice of its Ministry proceeds The Argument therefore of the Author of the Prejudices involves the Dispute in a ridiculous Circle for when he would prove that we are not the True Church because we have not a Lawful Ministry we maintain on the contrary That we have a Lawful Ministry because we are the True Church And he cannot say that we are the cause of the ridiculous Circle because our way of Reasoning follows the Order of Nature and his does not follow it I omit that his first Proposition which is Where there is no Lawful Ministry there is no True Church is Equivocal For either he understands by that Lawful Ministry Ministers actually Established or else he means a Right to Establish them If the former his Proposition is false for the True Church may be without having actually any Ministers that is no ways impossible as I have already shewn And if he means the latter his Proposition is not to his purpose for it would maintain that the Society of the Protestants has a full and entire Right to set up Ministers for its Government supposing that it had the True Faith as it may appear by what I have said and as it will appear yet more clearly by the following Observation 8. I say then in the eighth place That the Body of the Church that is to say Properly and Chiefly the Society of the truly Faithful not only has the Right of the Ministry but that it is also that Body that makes a Call Lawful of persons to that Office This Truth will be confirmed by what I have already shewn without any further need of new Proofs But as the Question concerning the true Fountain whence that Call proceeds is it self alone almost all the difference that is between the Church of Rome and us about this matter and that moreover it is extreamly Important to the Subject we are upon It is necessary for us to examine it a little more carefully They cannot then take it ill that I insist a little more largely upon this Observation then I have done upon the rest To make it as clear as I can possibly I propose to Treat of three Questions The first shall be To know whether naturally a Call belongs to the Pastors only excluding the Laity or whether it belongs to the whole Body of the Church The Second Whether in case it belongs to the whole Body of the Church it can be said that the Church can of it self spoil it self of its right or whether it has lost it any way that it could be supposed to have And the Third Whether the Body of the Church may confer Calls immediately by it self or whether the Church is alwayes bound to confer them by means of its Pastors As to the first of these Questions All the Difficulty it can have comes only from the false Idea of a Call that is ordinarily formed in the Church of Rome For first They make it a Sacrament properly so called and they name it the Sacrament of Orders From whence the thought readily arises that the Body of the People cannot confer a Sacrament They Imagine next That that Sacrament impresses a certain Character which they call an Indelible Character and which they conceive of as a Physical Quality or an Absolute Accident as they speak in the School and as an Inherent Accident in the Soul of the Minister They perswade themselves further that Jesus Christ and his Apostles left that Sacrament and that Physical Quality in trust in the hands of the Bishops to be communicated by none but them With that they mix a great many Ceremonies and External Marks as Unction and the Shaving which they call the Priesty Crown They add to all that Priestly Habits the Stole the Alb the Cope the Cross the Miter the Rochet Hood Pall c. They make Mysterious Allegories upon these Ceremonies and those Ornaments they distinguish those Dignities into divers Orders they frame a Hierarchy set out by the Pompous Titles of Prelats Primates Arch-Bishops Patriarchs Cardinals c. They write great Books upon all these things and the half of their Divinity is taken up in explaining their Rights Authority Priviledges Immunities Apostolick Grants Exceptions c. What ground is here that all good men should not believe that the Church-men are at least men of another kind from all others and that they are no wayes made of the same blood of which Saint Paul says that God has made all Mankind Notwithstanding when we examine well that Call what it is to form a just Idea of it we shall find that properly it is but a Relation that results from the Agreement of three Wills to wit that of God that of the Church and that of the Person called for the consent of these three make all the Essence of that Call and the other things that may be added to it as Examination Election Ordination are Preambulatory Conditions or Signs and External Ceremonies which more respect the Manner of that Call then the Call it self In Effect in a Call we can remark but three Interests that can engage one to it that of God since he that is called ought to speak and Act in his Name that of the Church that ought to be Instructed Served and Governed and that of him who is called who ought to fulfil the Functions of his Charge and to Consecrate his Watchful Diligence Cares and Labours to it from whence it follows That that Call is sufficiently formed when God the Church and the Person called come to agree and we cannot rationally conceive any thing else in it But as to the Will of the called it does not fall into the Question for we all acknowledge that no one can be forced to receive the Office of the
there over the Good that they would make themselves Masters of those Calls and that they could neither more nor less Communicate them to the wicked and the worldly then if there were no Believers in the Church I Answer That it is true that whether those Calls come from the Pastors only or whether they proceed from the Body of the Church we could have no certainty that they should be well made as to the choice of Persons for God has not promised his Faithful Ones even when they shall be a greater number then the worldly that they shall alwayes make good Elections they may without doubt be deceived in that respect although there may be a greater Likely hood that those Elections should be more just when they should be made by a Body in which one is assured that there are allwayes True Believers then when they should be made by a more particular Body whereof one cannot have the same Assurance But not to stay upon that I say that my Argument Respects not the goodness of that Election but the Validity of the Call in it self whether it be conferred upon a good man or whether on a wicked for the Call of a wicked man ought not to cease to be good although the Choice should be illmade My meaning then is that if the Call proceed only from the Body of the Pastors without the consent of the whole Church Intervening after whatsoever manner it may be so brought about as that it may proceed from a Body of impious and Prophane Persons who should all be really Separated from the Church and who would have no part in its Interests so that it would be to make the Divine Authority that ought to accompany that Call and the Validity of the Actions of the Ministry to depend on a Body of wicked men and to make the Enemies of God the fit Depositaries of his Will which to me seems no wayes conformable to the Order of his Wisdom especially when there is another Body where we know that he alwayes preserves and upholds his Faithful But they will say yet further If your arguing took place it would take away from the Pastors all the Functions of their Ministry to give them to the Body of the Church The Pastors would have no more any Right either to Preach or to Administer the Sacraments or to Govern the Church or to censure or to suspend or to Excommunicate For it we say that that Call would not depend upon them under a pretence that we have not any Certainty that God preserves and will alwayes Preserve True Believers amongst them we must say the same that the Government of the Church Preaching the Administration of the Sacraments and the Exercise of Discipline could not be committed to them since we have not any more Certainty for those things that there should be any truly Faithful among them then we have upon the matter of that Call so that all must be overthrown if that Reason take place I answer That the Donatists heretofore fell into that Extravagance to imagine that the Preaching of the Gospel the Sacraments and the other Actual Functions of the Ministry ought to be performed by Holy Pastors to become good and valid and not by the Wicked so that being moreover Prejudiced with this thought that the whole Body of those Pastors who retained Communion with Caecilianus were fallen off from their Righteousness and become Wicked they held that there was not any more a Church in the World besides the Party of Donatus But Saint Augustine shew'd them that their Principle was false and it is worthy the noting by what Way he made them see the falsness of their Opinion for it was neither by telling them that the Body of the Pastors when they all became Wicked failed not to be the Church of Jesus Christ nor in holding that Jesus Christ having at first put the Ministry into the hands of the Pastors it must necessarily follow by that very thing that he was bound to preserve their Righteousness or at least alwayes to preserve the truly just and Faithful Persons in their Body and those who should make the Sacraments to all the rest He says nothing of all that but he had recourse to the Body of the Church and he says that the Sacraments are not the Pastors nor the Power of the Keys nor that of Binding and Loosing nor any of the Functions of their Ministry but that all that belongs to the Church that it is that that Baptises when the Pastors Baptise that it is that that binds when the Pastors bind and that looses when they loose and that it is to her that Jesus Christ has given all those Rights But what will you say he understands by that Church The Truly Faithful whatsoever they be the Wheat of God the good Seed the good Fish as they are called in a word the Just the Children of God in Exclusion of the Worldly It is from that Fountain that the Validity of the Sacraments is drawn and the other Functions of the Ministry and not from the Body of the Pastors I say then the same thing All that which the Body of the Pastors does it does in the name of the Church and by Consequence in the name of Jesus Christ for the Name of Jesus Christ is in the Name of the Church it is the Church that preaches by them that administer the Sacraments by them that governs by them that censures that suspends that absolves that Excommunicates by them they are only its Ministers and the Dispensers of its rights Whether then they be wicked whether they be Prophane or Impious that hurts their own Persons but it does not hurt their Functions because their Functions are not their own but the Churches Furthermore that Hypothesis of St. Augustine concerning the source from whence the Validity of the Action of the Ministry proceeds furnishes us with another Argument which to me seems Demonstrative not only from the Authority of that Father but from the Nature of the thing it self For it is evident that we ought to refer that Call to the same Body to which God originally gave the Power of the Keys and which is exercised by the Pastors so that the Pastors are no more but the Dispensers of its Rights As that which makes Baptism the Communion the Government and the Acts of Discipline good and valid is not because they proceed from the Pastors only but because they proceed from the Body of the Church So the same must be said that that which makes a Call good valid and lawful is because it comes from the Church that is to say from the truly Faithful But it is certain that it is properly the Body of the Faithful that has received Originally the Power of the Keys that is exercised by the Pastors and upon which the Validity of all the Actions of the Ministry depends as being done in the Name and Authority of the whole Body and by