an unmoveable Resolution to observe it would undoubtedly damn himself he would commit a Sin against his Conscience and in some sort against the Holy Ghost Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin and a Man who in doing an indifferent Action doth believe that he commits a mortal Sin doth sin mortally He acts by a Spirit of Revolt formally against the Ordinances of God or against that which he esteems to be the Law of God None therefore can nor ought to force any Party to concede any thing in such Points which they believe to be necessary but must first instruct convince and work them into a full Persuasion that they do needlesly startle at things which are not what they do believe them to be This is our second Principle which seems to us as indisputable as the former and to be built upon such solid Reason that it will be received by all Persons who are never so little disengaged from Prejudices 3. Our third Principle is this That when the Question is of any Article whether it be of Faith or of Practice which one of the Parties doth hold to be false and so false that the Belief or the Practice of that Article would essentially concern Religion and ruine the very Foundations thereof And the other Party holds it to be true but yet so as that the Practice or the Belief thereof is not according to his Opinion absolutely necessary unto the Essence of Religion In this case I say it is clear that Christian Charity and Prudence do require that the Party which holds that Article to be true but not necessary should yield and bear with the Weakness of him who looks upon it as false as intolerable and as ruinous unto the Fundamentals of Religion or as incompatible with Edification This Truth doth seem to me to carry so great an Evidence in it that I know not whether it be necessary to prove it Is it not clear by the precedent Principle that he who gives himself a Liberty in any Point which is really fundamental or which he believes to be so doth damn himself doth act against his Conscience and ruine his Salvation But on the contrary That he who takes a Liberty in any Point which he indeed doth believe to be true but doth not believe it to be of an absolute necessity doth do nothing against his Conscience In the first place he doth not betray the Truth for as we shall see in that which follows he is not to be obliged to subscribe the Rejection of that Belief as if it were false or of that Practice as if it were evil and criminal He may keep his own Opinion he may also declare that such a Belief is good though he tolerate that which is opposite thereunto and that such a Practice is innocent though he have renounced it for the benefit of Peace Secondly He doth not betray his Conscience nor Religion in suffering such a Practice to be abolished or in leaving every body free to such a Belief because he is persuaded that that Belief or that Practice are not of the Essence of Religion and that a Man may pass-well enough without them and never thereby run any hazard of his Salvation There is nothing that can be more evident than this That there are most innocent Practices yea such as are authorised by the Testimony of the whole Church which might yet notwithstanding be very well abandoned if any great Interest for the Glory of God or for the Good of the Church did depend thereupon As for Example The greatest part of the Christian Churches have in Baptism renounced Immersion or Dipping and do content themselves with the Baptism of Aspersion or Sprinkling But now if the Turks who were disposed otherwise to their Conversion should stumble hereat and say that it was of absolute necessity to plunge in the Water as many as are baptized that Jesus Christ did institute it after that manner that such was the practice of the Apostles and that it was the constant usage of the Primitive Church would not Christian Prudence be concerned now to abandon the Baptism of Sprinkling and to return again unto that of Dipping This would not be to impeach the Memory of our Fore-fathers for we should never say that the Baptism of simple Sprinkling is a Sacrilege Neither would this be the Betraying of the Truth for we should never subscribe that the Baptism of Sprinkling is insufficient It would only be a Sacrifizing unto a great Interest a Ceremony which we do not believe to be important Now let it be remembred that there can hardly be any greater Interest for the Glory of God and for the Good of the Church than the Re-union of those two Parties which do divide the Western Church If therefore there were on either Side any Articles of such a Character and Quality that the one Side did hold them to be entirely ruinous to Religion and that the other did not look upon them indeed as meerly indifferent but yet nevertheless as not necessary with an absolute necessity it is clear that that Party which regarded the Article in question as not being of exceeding great importance ought to yield in favour of the other who did look upon it as being absolutely incompatible with Religion And this is also another Principle which ought not as we conceive to be disputed 4. Our fourth Principle is this That when the Question is about Articles or Creeds whereof both Parties do agree that they are not of the utmost importance that if they be true yet they are not of the Essence of Religion and if they be false though they are believed to be true yet they do not destroy saving Faith In this case I say the ruling Party that which is the mightiest in Number in Credit and Authority ought to be tolerated by the Weaker who must accommodate themselves herein for the Benefit of Peace and to put a Cessation unto the Scandal of Schism As for Example If the Christians of both Communions could agree together that the Worshipping of Images and Praying unto Saints were not Practices ruinous to Religion and were no way prejudicial unto Piety It is clear that in those States where that Religion which invocates Saints doth bear the sway the others ought to accommodate themselves thereunto that is to say that they ought not to separate themselves from the Communion for that thing alone On the contrary in those States where the Religion which will not admit the Invocation of Saints doth rule they who are of a contrary Sentiment ought to accommodate themselves thereunto and not to seperate themselves from the publick Worship although the Saints were not there worshipped This is also a Rule of Sovereign Justice whose Equity seems unto us to be most manifestly evident the weaker Party would do nothing against his Conscience by adhering unto a Worship wherein he should see the Practice of Things which he doth not indeed believe to be either
necessary or so much as good but yet such as he should not on the other side believe to be either contrary or pernicious unto Religion it would only be a most sweet smelling Sacrifice which he would offer unto God for the Conservation of Peace And this we call another of our uncontestable Principles 5. Our fifth Principle is this that in regard of certain Articles of Belief or of Practice which the one side doth look upon as important in Religion and the other doth consider as less important these last ought to yield in favour of the former in not obliging them formally to renounce things which they should believe to be true they ought I say not to oblige them to the Abjuration or to the condemning of those Practices as pernicious or of those Beliefs as false I will explain my self by an Example The Roman Catholicks do believe that the Opinion of the Real Presence is a thing of importance the Reformed on the contrary do believe that it is a great Errour but yet they do not believe that this Errour doth ruine the Fundamentals for which cause they will tolerate it in the Protestants of the Confession of Ausbourg If therefore they should enter into a Treaty of Re-union with the Christians of the Roman Communion it would not be just to oblige them to the Abjuration of the Real Presence unless they could find means to persuade them that it was false Now this is a thing which no means can be found to do in a Treaty and which would also be no way convenient to attempt for there is no endeavouring to persuade them that the Real Presence is false but by a Dispute but in a Treaty of Re union all controversal Disputes ought to be avoided like a most dangerous Rock In the Re-union therefore none ought to be obliged to the abjuring of Articles of the falsity of which one of the two Parties cannot be so quickly persuaded The Reason of this Rule of Equity is evident for no Man ought to be persuaded to do any thing against his Conscience To abjure an Errour which a Man doth think to be a Truth is a base and fearful Cowardice for which if it be persevered in I do not believe that there is any Place for Mercy in so doing he is an Heretick for he doth still retain the Heresie inwardly and he is an Hypocrite to boot for he confesseth the Truth with his Mouth but doth renounce it with his Heart No Man ought ever to oblige any one to commit so great a Crime Moreover whosoever doth yield in this respect without obliging the other to abjure he himself doth nothing against his Conscience for in suffering another to believe as a Truth that which he doth look upon as a non-fundamental Error he doth not oblige himself to speak of that Errour as of a Truth or to make any profession thereof nay he doth reserve unto himself a Liberty of resisting that Errour as long as he shall believe it to be false Neither doth he do any thing against his Conscience in not obliging others to the abjuration of such an Opinion for not believing it to be destructive of Religion he doth not believe that they who retain it do run any hazard of their Salvation We do never sin against our Consciences in tolerating that in another which we judge to be an Error but when we do at the same time judge that Error to be Fundamental and Mortal in respect of Salvation If then we do tolerate our Neighbour in such Errors we do suffer him to destroy himself without ever opposing his ruine which is an unconscionable Proceeding One of the Communions which doth divide the West doth hold the Real Presence as an important Truth the other looks on it as a tolerable Error It is clear that whosoever doth esteem it to be a tolerable Error ought not to oblige the Party who holds it to be an important Truth unto the abjuration of that Opinion which observation doth amount to this in one Word that Men ought to bear with one another and to unite themselves by the way of Toleration in those things that are tolerable as the Theologues Thomists and Scotists do bear with one another in most considerable differences about matter of Grace without making any separate Communion 6. Our Sixth Principle is this That there is an infinite difference between tolerating an Error and making profession that we do believe it the first is an Action of Christian Wisdom and Prudence the second is a Cowardice infinitely Criminal and a base Action to which we ought never to solicite or tempt any Person Truth is a thing so venerable that respect is also due unto its very shadow for so I call those false Opinions which by the favour of prejudices have established themselves in the Minds of Men as if they were unquestionable Truths and so much respect is owing even to them that none ought to exact from any Person the renunciation of them as long as that Person doth account them to be Truths When those Errors are capital and fundamental after we have endeavoured to deliver them who are prepossessed by them if we cannot effect that we must abandon the infected and renounce all Communion but we must in no wise force them to profess the Truths which they do not believe While Errors are tolerable we may use our best Efforts to dispossess Men's Minds of them but if we are not able to bring that about we ought never to force their Mouth to a Confession of that which would be contradicted by their Hearts We must tolerate such Errors and endeavour to instruct the Persons with the Spirit of Meekness and of Gentleness This Observation is of absolute necessity in this present subject The Question is of re-uniting the Protestants to the Roman Church It must be conceived that they would be capable of tolerating many false Opinions the belief of which they were not able to profess and it would be unreasonable to tell them You do not hold that this Belief or that that Practice is mortal therefore you ought to subscribe and be conformable thereunto This is also an undisputable Principle and one that needs no proving that a Man may safely tolerate divers things which he ought not to adopt nor practice 7. Our seventh and last Principle is this That no Treaty ought to be made to the prejudice of Truth and most especially of important Truths Truth must have her Rights secured and made good unto her and it is a Right belonging to Truth to produce it self and to prove it self And therefore in a Treaty of Re-union by which there should be an agreement of Toleration in many Opinions upon the Substance and Matter whereof they could not agree each Party ought to be left to its liberty to examine those Truths about which they were not come to any particular determination and also there ought to be a free permission to examine
let it be supposed if you will have it so that we are in the wrong that it is but some phanatical Conceit some Prepossession that it is any thing which you shall be pleased to call it yet however we are under such a Conviction and it is to be believed that we should damn our selves in adoring a thing which in our Judgment is nothing but Bread in invocating any Creature with a religious Invocation or in the Adoration of Images If you should oblige us to give our selves a Freedom in such kind of things before you had fully convinced us you would render us Hypocrites Profane Idolaters and by consequence you would make us the worst Christians in the whole World If you answer to this that we ought to submit our selves to the Judgment of the Church which hath pronounced that these Worships are not unlawful you draw us off from the way of Accommodation and of Re-union to cast us back again into a State of Controversie for then we must consider what the Judgment of the Church is we must examine the Matter of Fact to wit whether the Church that is to say the true Church have really determined that the Sacrament ought to be adored the Saints invoked and Images prayed unto After that we must examine the Question of Right and consider what that Respect and Submission is which we do owe unto the Judgment of the Church To lead us this way would be to make the Re-union absolutely impossible Besides we demand nothing but what we are ready to grant If therefore there be in your Dogma's and in your Worships any thing which you do believe to be of extream importance and without which there can be no Salvation we should be unjust to demand of you to give your selves a Liberty in these things It lies upon you Sirs to mark out unto us those Dogma's and those Worships which you suppose to be of absolute necessity to the Essence of Christianity and we will see whether we can accommodate our selves thereunto that is to say whether we can tolerate them without separating from the Communion If we think them intolerable that I confess will render the Re-union impossible but I question whether there be many of those things which according to your proper Ideas are of the Essence of Christianity and which would be incompatible with the Christian Religion according to the Idea which we have of it Perhaps the Reflexions which we shall now make may give us a clear Light into this Particular In the first place The Sacrifice of the Mass cannot as we believe be that part of your Religion which you hold to be of the Essence of Christianity and of which it would not be honest for us to demand a Relaxation from you for to say nothing of this that Christians who should have no Priests to celebrate that Sacrifice would not cease according unto you to live and die good Christians for all that if they were in a place where it was impossible for them to find Sacrificers To build nothing upon that I say that Monsieur de Meaux one of the most illustrious Members of your Body hath reduced this Controversie to a small matter It is nothing but a Sacrifice of Commemoration it is a Means to apply unto us the Efficacy of the Cross I can see nothing in all this but Ceremonies and Terms which do distinguish and separate us As for Ceremonies you are too learned Sirs in Antiquity to be ignorant that they have not been the same in all Times and by consequence that they are not of the Essence of the Mystery and that so a Relaxation may very well be made in respect of them without giving any Wound unto Religion Let us celebrate the Mysteries with those Ceremonies which were in use about the Times of St. Justin Martyr of Tertullian and of St. Ireneus Would not that be sufficient for Religion Would it be defective with those alone As for the Terms you will have it to be called a Sacrifice and that we are utterly against But is there no way to fix unto the Terms some Idea and some Signification which may satisfie all the World Monsieur de Meaux hath as good as hit upon it We are contented that it should be called the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Commemoration provided it be understood that it is the application of the Propitiation of the Cross of Jesus Christ I believe that all the World will consent to this There is a third thing about which without doubt Sirs you will make much less difficulty and that is the usage of this Sacrifice We do assure our selves that you will heartily abolish private Masses and Masses without Communicants which are so constantly and so certainly contrary unto the usage of Antiquity Nay though you should judge them to be good yet we do believe that you esteem Masses with Communicants to be much more conformable unto the primitive institution of that Sacrament and so it cannot be that which you do look upon as an essential Point and upon which it would not be honest for us to demand a Relaxation of you But perhaps the adoration of the Eucharist is one of those Points wherein you could not give your selves any liberty because that that according unto you is of the Essence of Christianity and on the other side it is an Article which we are not able to pass But Sirs when you consider unto what the Controversie is at this day reduced you will not say so The Question is not now whether the Sacrament ought to be adored it is true that the Council of Trent hath so ordained True it is that the most celebrated Doctors of the Romish Persuasion do tell us that the Adoration ought to be referred to the Species but that is an Opinion which is not perhaps at this day very currant in the Gallican Church And you do interpret the Council of Trent in such a manner as that it doth not oblige you to adore the Species all the Adoration is entirely referred unto Jesus Christ We do not deny but that Jesus Christ ought to be adored in the Communion of the Eucharist All the Question therefore is about equivocal Signs which may be referred either unto Jesus Christ alone or unto the Sacrament in conjunction with Jesus Christ Now might there not be a relaxation given in the matter of Equivocal Signs without obliging People to them who believe that they should sin mortally in so doing Let it be supposed yet once again that we are in the Error in this Point But is it not an innocent Error What prejudice doth Religion suffer thereby What dishonour can there redound unto Jesus Christ by it since that in conclusion we do and we shall adore Jesus Christ Is God dishonoured because I do refuse to adore him in a Stone in which yet notwithstanding I do know that God Is If you will but give good heed to it Sirs you will find
that even according to your own Ideas this also is not any matter concerning which you cannot give a Relaxation for the benefit of Peace Of many other Points which some in your Communion would make to pass for Matters of absolute necessity we will touch but at one of them and that is adherence unto the Holy See for so you call that which we call the See of Rome But we beseech you Sirs that you will be pleased to consult your own Understanding and Judgments thereupon An Assembly of Faithful Persons situated at the other end of the World who had never heard talk of a Pope and who wanted nothing else but this might they not for all that be very good Christians still Consult the Ecclesiastical History Was that adherence to the See of Rome reputed to be always of the same necessity Had the Churches of Asia in the first Ages the same connexion and the same dependence upon the Roman See that the Churches of Europe at this day have When there was no Pope at all in the Western Church did it therefore cease to be a Church That time hath been seen wherein there was not any Pope During the space of forty years for so long did the great Schism of the West continue there were two Popes to be seen at one time and some times no less than three and all those Popes had their several intrigues to spin out that Schism and each of them to maintain himself in his particular grandeur which is as much as to say that there was not any lawful Pope during all that time for if they had been both of them true Popes the Church must have had two Heads if one of them had been the true Pope and the other a false then all the Latins which were subject and obedient to the Anti-Pope must have been damned in case that adherence unto the true Pope be necessary to Salvation But this is a thing which no Body will avouch but hold that each Party of that divided Church were in a way of Salvation and yet that could never be unless that adherence to the Holy See be not essential unto Christianity Therefore to conclude Sirs seeing that you have defined that the Pope is not infallible from whence should proceed the necessity of this adherence unto an Head which may lead Men into Error Seeing that the Council can depose Popes why can it not also remove this Burthen If the States of a Kingdom have the Power to depose a King they have also the Power to change the Form of Government they are Masters of the Laws and can change them too We could add divers other Considerations but these do seem unto us sufficient to make you comprehend that according unto your own Idea's adherence to the Holy See cannot be of the Essence of Christianity and that therefore you ought not to take it amiss that we do conjure you to give a Relaxation in that Point You will tell us undoubtedly just as we lately told you that whether it be Reason or Pre-occupation a Fanatical Conceit or solid Judgment whatsoever it be yet we do believe that the Sacrifice of the Mass the Adoration of the Eucharist an Adherence to the Holy See c. are of the Essence of Christianity and therefore according unto your Principle you have no right to sollicite us to give our selves any liberty therein It is not honest to require People to renounce things which are in their Opinion of a Sovereign Necessity Give us therefore leave Sirs to tell you that you are mistaken you say that you do judge this to be of absolute necessity perhaps you think that you do believe so and undoubtedly People of an ordinary discernment among you are of that Judgment but we are persuaded that you will plainly perceive and evidently see in your own Heart whenever you shall be pleased to consult it without Passion that the Idea of Christianity doth not formally include in it either the necessity of any other Sacrifice than that of the Cross nor of any other Adoration than that of Jesus Christ in the Heavens nor of any other adherence but unto the Supreme Head of the Church which is the Son of God There are a thousand things which we say out of Habit and Custom as if we did really believe them but whenever we come to give heed to it we find that those things are no way allyed unto the Original Idea's of our Spirits and do not at all flow from our Principles Our third Principle was this That when the Question is about a thing the Belief or the Practice whereof doth seem to be Mortal to one of the two Parties and doth not seem to be of Absolute Necessity unto the other Christian Charity and Prudence do require that the Party which doth not look upon that Doctrine or that Worship as being of Absolute Necessity should abondon it for the sake of Peace and sacrifice it unto the other Party which hath an invincible Horrour for it We do not believe that any wise Person can contest this Principle which if you will admit it will open you a Door to avoid the most part of those difficulties which put an obstacle to our Re-union Let us begin with the Invocation of Saints You know Sirs that that doth take up a great part of your Worship you do also know that it is one of the Stumbling-Stones to the Protestants and such a Stone that if it be not taken away it doth put an unsurmountable Obstacle to the Re-union for when all is done we are persuaded that we ought not in any fashion in the World to bring the Worship of the Creatures into the Divine Service If possibly we should be in the wrong and that you have all the Reason on your sides yet remember Sirs that some regard may and ought to be had unto the infirmities of our weak Brethren and all that possibly can must be retrenched in favour of them that they may not be frightned and scared away St. Paul doth say with a great deal of vehemency If Meat do make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth We are here absolutely in the case of our third Principle On the one side we do believe that the Worship of the Creatures is destructive to the fundamentals of the Christian Religion on the other side you do believe that the Worship of the Creatures is not of absolute necessity in Religion We do not know any Man among all your Doctors who saith that the Invocation of Saints is necessary unto Salvation according to all the Christians that there are of your Communion it is sufficient to invoke God alone there is found in that Being infinitely perfect all that is necessary to satisfie and fill up our Wants This Principle hath so great an Evidence that all the World is agreed in it It is only God from whom we receive those Graces which do make us
Devotion than he doth before God himself Give us leave yet once again to make Application of our Principle here and to say unto you For God's sake Sirs do not put an Obstacle to the Re-union of the Church which is the greatest of all the Works which God hath now on foot for a thing which the Christian Church can very well be without and which we believe to be absolutely insupportable Take away the Occasion of so many Abuses in taking away a Worship the Foundation whereof is in no wise of the Essence of Christianity A Relaxation ought to be made for Peace sake of unnecessary Dogma's and Worships which beget Horrour in the Parties you would draw to them This same Principle will shew you what you may also do in regard of the Retrenchment which is made of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Eucharist It seems to us to be essential we believe that we do lose the whole Sacrament in losing one part of it Now let it be supposed yet once again that there may be something of a phanatical Conceit in this But yet will not your Charity have some regard to the Infirmity of your weak Brethren in a thing wherein you acknowledge that the Glory of God is not interessed nor Religion concerned It is no Sacrilege according to you for the People to communicate under both the Species you acknowledge they did receive it so for many hundred Years together On the other side according unto us it is a Sacrilege to communicate under one Species It is clear therefore that you may accord the Favour we desire of you in that Point without any Injury done to your Religion Divine Service in a Language which the People do not understand is also one of those Articles unto which we may apply our third Principle You do acknowledge that the Apostolical Church did understand the Language wherein the Divine Service was performed you are persuaded that there is neither any Evil nor Scandal in it to pray unto God in the Church in a Language which the People do understand This therefore can be no great business for you to grant for let all your Prayers be turned into French when all is done your Religion doth abide still in its Integrity but it is such an unspeakable Torment unto us that we cannot communicate at a Worship in a Language which we do not understand There can be nothing therefore more conformable to the Rules of Charity and of Christian Prudence than a Relaxation in this Particular the Church would lose nothing at all by the bargain and the World would be a great Gainer The Liberty of Marriage for the Priests cannot concern the Fundamentals of Religion any more than the other Things aforesaid because it is only a Point of Discipline There have been in the Latine Church Priests married since the Tenth Age the Greek Church hath abundance of them that are so now and you Sirs do not hold that the Sacraments which are administred by those married Priests are unlawful you cannot therefore look upon this as a matter of the highest importance to Religion and as for our parts we cannot possibly consider it as a thing indifferent because we look on this Direction of the Discipline as a Sourse of ten thousand Disorders which we believe cannot be any other way remedied but by taking away that Yoke which imposeth a necessity of an unmarried Life upon so many People to whom God hath not given the Continency necessary for so holy an Estate You know Sirs that these are not the only things which you do not believe to be of sovereign necessity and which we believe to be very evil These Articles which we have touch'd at are only Examples to fortifie our Rule which might be extended to a great many other things Might not your Charity and Christian Wisdom induce you to make a view of all these things that so you might retrench a good part of them You should undoubtedly thereby offer a Sacrifice which would be most acceptable unto him who calleth himself the God of Peace and who doth command that Peace be maintained among the Brethren It would not be enough for you to retrench the Abuses and that which you do call so in the Invocation of Saints in the Worship of Images in Pilgrimages in the Adoration of Relicks in Fraternities c. For in these things we cannot distinguish the Use from the Abuse but do esteem the whole of it to be Abuse And though that should be an Error in us yet it would commend your Charity to bear with us in a thing the Retrenchment whereof would infer no Wrong unto Christianity Neither would it be enough for you to permit us not to invocate the Saints not to adore Images and not to take any part in the Devotions which respect the Creatures for we cannot communicate with any Church where all this should be practised It would be in our Opinion all one as if we did it our selves The publick Service is for all the whole Company we could not hinder our selves if we would never so fain from participating therein It would be our Worship as well as yours if we were re-united or if we should formally oppose our selves to it as we should be obliged so to do we must then fall back again into the Mischief of that Schism from which you would draw us To conclude Sirs What we demand here the like we are willing to grant If you have any Articles which you believe to be of a sovereign Necessity and which we hold to be almost indifferent or at least tolerable because they do not destroy the Fundamentals of Religion we are ready to tolerate them in our Brethren and to re-unite our selves though they do not abandon them It doth lie upon you Sirs to mark out which they are But we beseech you have the goodness here to remember that those ought not to he propounded as almost indifferent Dogmas and consequently such as we ought to suffer about which it is notorious we have declared that we do look upon them as altogether intolerable Our fourth Principle is That in the Articles wherein it is agreed on both sides that they are not essential there the weakest Side ought to comply with the Practice of the ruling Party And here Sirs you will find all kind of Advantage on your side You are the ruling Party in France you have in the Head of you that great Prince for whom we have so much Respect and Veneration that to satisfie him we will carry our Complaisance as far as ever it can be carried with a safe Conscience This Maxim would make you gain more things than you could lose by the Precedent for there would undoubtedly be found a great many of those Articles both of Dogmas and of Worships which although we do indeed condemn yet we do not believe them important enough to oblige us to keep our selves in a State of Separation We