Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 2 · Chapter 6

Historical Defense of the Reformation · Part 2 · Chapter 6

p. 196CHAP. VI.

A Further Juſtification of the firſt Reformers, againſt the Objections of the Author of the Prejudices, contained in his Tenth and Eleventh Chapters.

AS the Book of the Prejudices is nothing elſe but a confuſed heap of Objections, and unjuſt Accuſations, that the Author of that Book has piled up one upon another, without Connexion, and without Order, So I find my ſelf conſtrained, that I may not break off the Connexion of my Subject, to break off that of his Chapters. Therefore after having anſwered his third where his Invectives begin, againſt the manners and conduct of the firſt Reformers, I ſhall diſmiſs the Examination of his 4th. 5th. and 6th. Chapters, where he Treats about the Call of the Miniſters of our Communion to my Fourth Part, and where he Treats of the Right that we have to a Goſpel Miniſtry, and that which he afterwards ſays in the 7th. 8th. and 9th. Chapters concerning our pretended Schiſm, to my Third Part wherein we ſhall Treat of our Separation from the Church of Rome, and I ſhall now paſs on to the Examination of his 10th. 11th. 12th. and 13th. wherein he renews the ſame perſonal Invectives againſt the firſt Reformers. But as thoſe Chapters are compoſed of almoſt nothing elſe but frivolous matters, ſwelled up with Declamatory Exaggerations, by Injuries and Paſſion. We ſhall not think it unfit, if ſetting aſide all that in them which is to no purpoſe, or too paſſionate, we ſet down in a few Words all that that is more Eſſential in thoſe Objections, and that we Anſwer them alſo in a few Words.

1. Objection, is, That Andrew Caroloſtadius Arch-Deacon of Prejug. legit. Chap. 10. Pag. 234.Wittenburg, whom Melanchton runs down as a brutiſh Fellow, without wit, and without Learning who embraced the Fanatical Doctrine of the Anabaptiſts, was the firſt who had the boldneſs to aſſault, the Doctrine of the Real preſence, and to that effect he invented an Extravagant Explication of thoſe words, This is my Body, ſaying, that by the word, This, Jeſus Chriſt p. 197did not mean that which he held in his hand, but that he pointed to his own true Body.

Anſwer. It is not True that Caroloſtadius was the firſt that oppoſed the Doctrine of the Real preſence. Bertram, Erigenes, Rabanus, oppoſed it in the ninth Century when Paſchaſius ſpread it abroad: Berengarius oppoſed it in the Eleventh, and in the Age of the Reformation it ſelf the Bohemians called Taborites, and thoſe of the Valleys of Piemont and Province, called Waldenſes, openly rejected it. So, that although all they have ſaid of Caroloſtadius were true, yet we have not any particular intereſt in him, and we ſhall ſay in reſpect of him, that which Saint Auguſtine ſaid in reſpect of Caecilianus. Caecilianus is not my Father, for Coll. Carth. 3. cum Donat.Jeſus Chriſt has ſaid, call no man Father upon Earth, for one is your Father even God, but I call Caecelianus my Brother, my good Brother, if he be a good man, but my bad Brother if he be not good. Notwithſtanding I know not whether that pretended Anabaptiſm of Caroloſtadius is not an ill-grounded Accuſation, into which Mclancthon and Luther himſelf, who did not love Caroloſtadius, might have been ſurprized, as it frequently happens among perſons divided in their Opinions, at leaſt it is certain that Caroloſtadius defended himſelf by publick Writings, and that he proteſted that he was innocent. And as to that Explication that he gave of the word, This, in the words of Jeſus Chriſt, it is an Error from the Truth, and a falſe gloſs on the Signification of that Word, but it is an Error notwithſtanding that does not hinder, that the ground of his ſentiment concerning the Euchariſt ſhould not be true and right, and how many different interpretations are there of the ſame word, upon which they refute one another amongſt the Doctors of the Church of Rome, and who almoſt all ſay things very remote from common ſence?

2. Object. Zuinglius had already began his Reformation before Prejug. Chap. 10. pag. 238.ever he ſpoke a word of the Real Preſence, and Adoration of the Hoſt, although he notes in his Works that from that very Time he was perſwaded in his heart that Jeſus Chriſt was not really preſent in the Euchariſt. But as it is very hard to believe that during all that Time he never ſaid Maſs, that he never aſſiſted at it, and that he never adminiſtred the Sacrament, that he ſhould not all the while be diſcovered by thoſe who adored it, and that he ſhould never have done the ſame Actions that were practiſed by others, they may very well underſtand what Judgment their Miniſters uſed in their Conduct during thoſe firſt Years. For p. 198according to all their Principles they ought to have Condemned it, ſince it was as little allowable to Zuinglius to partake with that Worſhip, as it is at preſent to the Calviniſts, and ſince they pretend that it is ſo far forbidden them, that they urge the Obligation that they ſay lies upon them not to take any part in it, as the chief Reaſon of their Separation. So that Zuinglius remaining yet in Communion with thoſe who adored the Euchariſt, contributed to that adoration by his Miniſtry and joyning himſelf to their Aſſemblies, rendred himſelf guilty of all thoſe ſins which the Calvinists apprehend to be committed in remaining united to the Church. He would every day have betrayed his Conſcience, he would every day have committed a criminal Idolatry. And it is in that condition, that the Calviniſts pretend that God made uſe of him for the greateſt Work that ever was done, which was the Reformation of the Error of all their Fathers.

Anſwer, As that Accuſation is founded upon this only thing, That it is very hard to be believed, ſo alſo we ſhall here Anſwer in ſaying, That it is very hard to be believed, That Zuinglius did any thing during that Time that ſhould be repugnant to the Dictates of his Conſcience. All the Hiſtories of his Life ſhew that he was a man of ſtrict Piety, and of a ſevere Virtue, that he was not uſed to thoſe Juggles of the Hypocrite, which we may ſee practiſed by ſo many, and even by thoſe who would appear the moſt ſevere, and that moreover he never did any thing remote from the ſincerity of an honeſt man. They cannot then without equally violating the Laws of Juſtice and thoſe of Charity, ſuſpect on thoſe meer Conjectures, that he went contrary to his ſentiments on that Occaſion, and the Author of the Prejudices ought to produce the proofs of his Accuſation, or to ſuffer himſelf to be condemned for Injuſtice and Malignity. It is true that during that Time Zuinglius neither quitted his Miniſtry nor forſook thoſe who adored the Euchariſt; but who has told the Author of the Prejudices, that men ought to forſake a People that are in Error, in the ſame Time that they have hopes of diſabuſing them, and labour to reduce them into the right way? As the Reformation of a Church is not the work of a Day, none can think it ſtrange that Zuinglius did not propoſe all of a ſudden all that he had to ſay, and that he did one thing after another. It is ſufficient, that during the Time wherein he ſet himſelf to that Work, he did not in the leaſt partake in the abuſes which p. 199he had a deſign to correct, and therefore the Author of the Prejudices ought not to have accuſed him without ever laying down the proofs of his Accuſation. The Hiſtory of Zuinglius relates that he was called to the ††Chair.Church of Zurich in the beginning of the Year 1519. and that from the firſt moment wherein he was there, he ſet himſelf with all his might to the Inſtruction of his Flock, to the Reformation of thoſe groſſer Errors wherewith the Miniſtry was then infected, and to the correcting of mens manners, which ſucceeded ſo well with him by the bleſſing of God, that within leſs then four years he changed the Face of that Church, and diſpoſed it to a thorough Reformation. But among thoſe Errors that he oppoſed, he applied himſelf particularly to the Sacrifice of the Maſs, ſhewing the People out of the Scripture that there could be no other real Sacrifice, then that upon the Croſs, whence it is very eaſy to conjecture that he carefully avoided to aſſiſt in a Ceremony that he ſo openly oppoſed, and from which he himſelf withdrew his Hearers.

3. Object. Zuinglius engaged the Magiſtrates of Zurich to call a Synod, and to make themſelves Judges and Arbiters for the Ordering Hoſpin. Hiſt. Sacr. Part. Alt. Fol. 22.the State of the Religion of their Canton. There was never till then a Synod of that Nature ſpoke of, and it is an aſtoniſhing thing, that mens raſhneſs and inſolence ſhould have been able to have carried them out to ſo great an exceſs. The Council of two hundred, that is to ſay, Two hundred Burghers of a Switz Town, as learned and ready in matters of Divinity, as one may believe the Switz Burghers were, called together all the Church-men under their juriſdiction, to diſpute before them, with an Intention to Order the State of Religion with the underſtanding of the matter.

Anſwer. It were much to be wiſhed that the diſcourſe of the Author of the Prejudices were as well Ordered as that Action of the Senate of Zurich was; beſides theſe Abuſes and Superſtitions that were Ordinary, they had ſeen for ſome Time paſt a Preacher of Indulgences in that Church called Samſon, ſent by the Pope to diſtribute his Pardons. That Preacher managed his part ſo well, Hoſpin. Hiſt. Sacra, Part. Alt. Fol. 22.that there were not any Crimes how great ſoever they were, that were or ſhould be committed which he did not ſet a price upon, without making any other difficulty then about the Sum that was be paid to him; and by that means he put the whole Country into a dreadful diſorder, filling it with profligate Perſons. Zuinglius oppoſed this Seducer with all his might, and at the ſame time p. 200he laboured to give his Flock the knowledge of the true Principles of the Chriſtian Religion, and to reduce them back to one only Jeſus Chriſt, and his Scripture, in freeing them from the Errors and Superſtitions of Mens Invention. But as the Word of God was never yet without Adverſaries, the greater number of the Church-men lifted themſelves up againſt Zuinglius, and accuſed him before the people to be a Heretick, which forced the Senate it ſelf to take knowledge of thoſe Accuſations, and to call together a Synod compoſed of all the Church-men of its State, wherein every one had the liberty to propoſe what he would againſt Zuinglius, and Zuinglius that of defending himſelf. And that very thing was done by the conſent of the Biſhop of Conſtance, who ſent his Deputies thither, and among others John le Fevre his Vicar General. What was there in all that that might not come from the Juſtice and Prudence of a Senate? If the Accuſations wherewith they charged Zuinglius had been well grounded, it had been the Duty of the Magiſtrate to have enjoyned him Silence; and being falſe as they were, it was the Magiſtrates duty to uphold him. What is it that the Author of the Prejudices can blame in that Conduct? They called a Synod. We maintain it to be the Right of Kings and Soveraign Magiſtrates within the extent of their States. The Holy Story Teſtifies that Joſias intending to ſet up the pure worſhip of God in his 2 Kings 23.2 Kgs 23Kingdom, called together an Aſſembly of Prieſts, Prophets, and the Elders of the People. Can they deny that the Chriſtian Emperours did not heretofore call Councils to Order the State of Religion, and to provide againſt diſorders in the Church? Can they deny that our Kings have not often done the ſame in their Kingdome? But the Senate of Zurich would of it ſelf take Cognizance of the matters of Religion. I ſay that that very thing was its Right, for if it be the Duty of every Chriſtian, for the Intereſt of his own Salvation, to take Cognizance of thoſe things that the Church-men Teach, and not blindly to refer themſelves to their Word, as I have made it appear to be in the firſt Part, it is not leſs the Duty of Magiſtrates to do the ſame, to bind the Church-men to acquit themſelves faithfully in their Charges, and to Teach men nothing that might not be conformable to the Word of God. So that if the Miniſters of the Church go aſtray from that Word, and if they corrupt their Miniſtry by Errors and Superſtitions, it belongs to the Magiſtrate to Labour to reduce them to their Duty, by the mildeſt and juſteſt methods he can uſe. p. 201Thus the Kings of Judah uſed it heretofore as it appears from the Hiſtory of Hezechias, Joſias, and of ſome others who made uſe of that lawful Authority that God gave them for the Reforming of their Church by the Word of God. We all know that the Antient Emperors took Cognizance either by themſelves of their Commiſſioners of Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, and not only of thoſe that reſpected the Diſcipline, but of thoſe alſo which related to the Doctrine and the very Eſſence of Religion it ſelf, to that degree, that they frequently publiſhed under their Names in the Form of Edicts, Deciſions of Opinions, Condemnations of Hereſy, and the Interpretations of the Faith, which they had cauſed to be diſputed in their Preſence in Synodal Aſſemblies. We ought not therefore to imagine, that Magiſtrates ought not to interpoſe in matters of the Faith, under a pretence that they are Lay-men, for on the contrary they ought to interpoſe themſelves more in thoſe, then in thoſe of Diſcipline, becauſe the Faith reſpects every man, where Diſcipline relates to the Clergy more peculiarly. Therefore it was that Pope Nicholas the Firſt told the Emperour Michael, who was preſent in perſon in a Council where only the Fact of Ignatius Patriarch of Conſtantinople was treated of, whom that Emperour had depoſed, That he did not find that the Emperours his Predeceſſours had been preſent at Synodal Aſſemblies, unleſs they might poſſibly have been in thoſe where matters of the Faith were Treated of, which is a common Thing, relating Generally to all, and which belongs not only to the Clergy, but the Laity alſo, and univerſally to all Chriſtians. There was nothing therefore in that Action of the Magiſtrates of Zurich that was not a Right common to all Soveraign Magiſtrates within the extent of their Juriſdictions.

But they will ſay, Was it not to break off the Unity of their Church, with the reſt to go about ſo to order the State of Religion within their Canton, without the Participation of other Churches, and were they not Schiſmaticks in that very thing? I anſwer, That when a Prince or a Soveraign Magiſtrate is in a condition to call a General Council together to deliberate about the Common Faith, he would do better to take that way. But when he is not, as the Senate of Zurich evidently was not, ought he to abandon all care of the Churches of his State? They will ſee in the end of this Treatiſe, that the States of Germany ſeeing the Oppoſitions that the Popes made to the calling of a general Council, often demanded a National one of the Emperour Charles p. 200duplicate page p. 201duplicate page p. 202the Fifth. They will ſee alſo that that Emperour was ſometimes reſolved to do it, and that he Threatned the Popes to cauſe divers Colloquies or Conferences of Learned men to be held, to labour to decide thoſe Articles that were Controverted. They will ſee that our Kings for the ſame deſign, have ſometimes deliberated about aſſembling a National Council in France: And no body is ignorant of the Conference of Poiſſy under the Reign of Charles the Ninth. There was nothing therefore in the Conduct of that buſineſs that did not belong to the Right of Soveraigns, and nothing which they can charge with Schiſm in it. For when a Prince or a Senate Aſſembles a Synod, to condemn Hereſies or Reform Errors, and by that means takes Cognizance of matters of Religion, provided that in effect, that which it condemns be a Hereſy, or that which it Reforms be an Error; he is ſo far from breaking Chriſtian Unity, that on the contrary he confirms it, as much as he can, in freeing it from a falſe and wicked Unity, which is, that of Error, which cannot be other then deſtructive to the whole Body of the Church, and which cannot be too ſoon broken. So that we ought to Judge of their Action, more by the Foundation, then the Form or Manner. For the Foundation being good, its Action cannot but be approved. When a Man is Sick, with divers others, as it frequently happens in Epidemical Diſeaſes, it would be Injuſtice in him, not to provide for his own particular healing, but to ſtay for a general one; and it would be a great abſurdity to ſay that if he did do ſo, he violated the Rights of the Civil Society, for the Civil Society does not conſiſt in being a Communion of ſickneſs, but in being a Communion of Life. On the contrary it ought to be ſaid that in healing himſelf in particular, he eſtabliſhed as much as in him lay that Civil Society which he had with his diſeaſed Companions, becauſe he encouraged them by his Example to heal themſelves with him, the better to enjoy in common the advantages of Life. It is the ſame caſe here, where a Church ſees it ſelf infected with Error and Superſtition with divers other Churches, ſhe no ways violates Chriſtian Unity in labouring to reform her ſelf particularly, for the Chriſtian Unity does not conſiſt in the Communion of Errors and Abuſes, it conſiſts in the Communion of that True Faith and Piety. It eſtabliſhes therefore on the contrary that Unity, becauſe it gives others a good Example, and thereby encourages them to reform themſelves, as it has done. All that which a Prince or Soveraign Magiſtrate p. 203ought to obſerve in thoſe Seaſons, is, on one ſide to take heed that he makes a juſt diſcerning of good and evil, I would ſay, that he reforms nothing, which would not be in effect an Error, or a Superſtition, or an Abuſe, and that he does not give any wound to the True Religion under a pretence of Reformation; and on the other ſide, to offer no violence to Mens Conſciences, but to purify the Publick Miniſtry as much as he can, by the general conſent of the People that God has committed to him. But this is that, which not only the Magiſtrates of Zurich, but thoſe alſo of other places who laboured in the Reformation of their Churches religiouſly Obſerved. They conſtrained no perſon, and they rejected nothing that was not Alien to the Chriſtian Religion.

But, ſays the Author of the Prejudices, Thoſe two hundred Burghers of a Swiſſe Town were as Learned, and ready in matters of Divinity, as we may eaſily Judge Swiſſe Burghers to be. I anſwer that this is the Objection of the Phariſees: This People, ſaid the Enemies of Jeſus Chriſt, know not the Law. But Jeſus Chriſt did John 7. Luke 10. 21.John 7Luke 10:21not anſwer them amiſs, when he ſaid to them, Father I thank thee, Lord of Heaven and Earth, that thou haſt bid theſe things from the Wiſe and Prudent, and revealed them unto Babes. Let the Author of the Prejudices, if he will, be of the number of thoſe wiſe and prudent ones, we ſhall not envy him his readineſs and his Learning, and we ſhall reſt ſatisfied with this, that it has pleaſed God to place us in the ſame Rank, with thoſe mean Swiſſe Burghers, to whom, as much Babes as they were, God vouſchafed to make his Goſpel known. The true knowledge of Chriſtians does not conſiſt in having a head full of Scholaſtick Speculations, and a Memory loaded with a great many Hiſtories, and multitudes of paſſages of divers Authors, or a great many Critical Notions, nor in having well-ſtudied Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, Bonaventure, Capreolus, Aegidius Romanus, Occham, Gabriel Biel, the Canon Law, the Decretals; and all thoſe other great Names wherewith they ſtunned the People in times paſt. Our True knowledge is the Holy Scripture, Read with Humility, Charity, Faith and Piety. See here all that thoſe poor Burghers of Zurich knew, they were neither Prelats, nor Cardinals, nor Doctors of Lovain, nor of the Sorbonne, but they were good men, they feared God, they ſtudied his Word, and for the reſt of the State of their underſtandings, and the degree of their p. 204light, may appear by the Reformation which they made, for the Tree may be known by its Fruits.

4. Objection, The matter which was to have been handled in that pretended Synod cannot be more conſiderable. For they Treated therein about aboliſhing all at once the Authority of all the Councils that were held in the Church ſince the Apoſtles days, under a pretence of reducing all to the Scripture.

Anſwer, Since the True Authority of the Fathers and Councils conſiſts in their Conformity with the Divine writings, the way ſolidly to eſtabliſh them is to reduce all to the Scripture, as they did in that Synod. If the Author of the Prejudices pretends to give the Fathers and Councils and Authority quite different, from that of the Word of God, whereof they ought to be the Miniſters and Interpreters, we may anſwer him, that he affronts them under a pretence of Honouring them. For as it is the greateſt real injury that can be done to a Subject, to give him the Authority of his Prince; So it is the moſt real injury which they can do to the Fathers, to inveſt them with the Authority of God.

5. Objection, They medled with the Faith of all the other Chriſtian Churches, which the Switzers could not but condemn in embracing a new Faith.

Anſwer, The Swiſſes did not embrace a new Faith, but they renounced thoſe Errors, that it may be might have prevailed for ſome Ages, but which were new in regard of the Chriſtian Religion. They did not condemn other Churches in that which they had of good, but they condemned that evil which they had in them. A ſick perſon who has cured himſelf condemns the diſeaſes of others, but he condemns not that Life which remains in them. On the contrary he exhorts them to be healed, for fear leaſt remaining in that ſick condition they ſhould die.

6. Object. They treated about all thoſe dangerous Conſequences, which that Change of Religion would have produced, and which were eaſy to have been foreſeen.

Anſw. They Treated alſo about the Glory of God and their own Salvation: and all thoſe dangerous Conſequences which could Pag. 243.not but come from the blindneſs and paſſion of thoſe who would hold the People of God under their ſervitude, ought not to have prevailed over two ſuch great intereſts as that of the Glory of God and Mens Salvation. All theſe Objections are well near the ſame that the Pagans made againſt the Primitive Chriſtians, and p. 205it ſeems that the Author of the Prejudices has ſtudied them out of Celſus, Prophyrie, and Julian, to make uſe of them againſt us.

7. Object. Moreover they declared that they would have men make uſe of the Authority of the Scripture only, and by that raſh Pag. 244.and unheard of Prejudice, they condemned the procedure of all the foregoing Councils, wherein they were wont to produce the opinion of the Fathers to decide the controverted Queſtions.

Anſw. The Scripture is the only Rule of the Faith of Chriſtians, and there is no other but that alone whoſe Authority we ought to admit as Soveraign and deciſive of Controverſies. It is not True that all the foregoing Councils admitted of the Opinions of the Fathers and their Traditions under that Quality. The Author of the Prejudice lays it down, without Proof and Reaſon.

8. Object. The Church being in poſſeſſion of its Doctrine, they Pag. 244.ought to have forced Zuinglius to produce his Accuſations againſt that Doctrine, and to have made the proofs which he alleadged againſt it to have been examined. But in ſtead of that they ordered that he ſhould appear in that Diſputation in Quality of Defender, and that it ſhould be the others part to convince him if Error.

Anſw. If the Church of Rome would have the World believe the Doctrine that ſhe Teacheth, it is fit ſhe ſhould furniſh it with proofs, and her pretended poſſeſſion cannot aſſure it. Thoſe who propound any thing as matter of Faith are naturally bound to prove it, and it is abſurd to ſay that Poſſeſſion diſcharges that Obligation, for the Faith ought to be always founded upon proof, and it never ſtands upon meer poſſeſſion, otherwiſe the Heathens ought to have kept their Religion which was eſtabliſhed on ſo Antient a Poſſeſſion.

9. Object. All that Examination was further grounded upon this ridiculous Principle, That if there could not be found any perſon within the Territory of Zurich that could make the Errors of Zuinglius appear by the Scripture, it ought to be concluded that he had none. As if the weakneſs of thoſe who oppoſed his Doctrine could not be an effect of their Ignorance, rather then a default in the cauſe they defended.

Anſw. This Objection is no more to the purpoſe then the foregoing. What could the Senate of Zurich have done more then to have aſſembled all the Clergy of their States to have called the Biſhop of Conſtance or his Deputies thither, to have received p. 206all the World, and given all liberty of propounding their Arguments and Proofs? It belonged to them to propound them if they had any and if they had none, they ought to have acknowledged that 'till then they had abuſed the Conduct of the people, in Teaching them thoſe things which they had no proofs for. Notwithſtanding I ſee well that the Author of the Prejudices tells us how he underſtands we ſhould be bound to believe things upon this frivolous Foundation, that there may be ſome in the World able to prove them, or that it may be there might be ſome to come hereafter to do it. This is the Faith which he wiſhes that the Magiſtrates and People of Zurich would have had for the hindring their Reformation. He would have had them imagined that although they ſhould have ſeen nothing that ſhould have perſwaded the Worſhipping of Images, and that of Reliques, the Sacrifice of the Maſs, and the other points that were in Controverſy, yet that they ought not to have ceaſed from believing them with a Divine Faith, and to have devoutly practiſed them, becauſe there might have been poſſibly ſome men in the World ready enough to prove them, or that if there were none then there might have ſome aroſe afterwards to have done it. By this Principle the Jews and Heathens, may yet at this day accuſe all the Converſions of the firſt Chriſtians of Raſhneſs.

10. Object. The Calviniſts cannot deny that their pretended Reformation, was not eſtabliſhed on the Spirit of Error, and that the Pag. 248.Burger-maſters of Zurich were not perſwaded of falſhood, ſince they immediately rejected divers things which Zuinglius had maintained there with as much obſtinaecy as thoſe points of Doctrine which they have yet common with him. He laid down alſo ſome Propoſitions manifeſtly contrary to the Scripture, without taking any pains to explain them.

Anſw. When the Author of the Prejudices will take the pains to conſider well the ſence of Zuinglius and ours, he will find a perfect agreement. Zuinglius denied the Interceſſion of the Saints, we do no leſs in the ſence wherein they underſtand the word Interceſſion in the Church of Rome, to wit, that the Saints intercede for us as True Mediators. We deny not that the Saints pray in general for the Church a Prayer of Charity and Communion; Zuinglius denied it no more then we. Zuinglius denied that it was allowable to make Images for the uſe of Religion; we deny it with him. We believe that it is indifferent to make them for p. 207a Civil uſe; Zuinglius never ſaid the contrary. Zuinglius ſaid that the True way not to err was to cleave wholly to the Word of God, we ſay ſo alſo. He ſaid that Jeſus Chriſt alone was given us for the Pattern of our Life, and not the Saints; But he meant it of a firſt and perfect Pattern, and ſo he explained himſelf when he added theſe words, Capitis enim eſt nos deducere non Membrorum: It belongs to the Head to guide us, and not to the Members. There is nothing in that contrary to the Scripture.

11. Object. Zuinglius, to gain the Burgermaſters to his ſide, had Pag. 255.the art to pick out certain vulgar Reaſonings, and very well ſitted to the Ʋnderſtandings of the Switzers, he declaimed fiercely againſt the Popes, who had forbidden the Prieſts Marriage, he highly exaggerated the Rigidneſs of the Command of the Church which enjoyned Abſtinence from Meats, which he Attributed to the Popes only.

Anſw. Thoſe Vulgar Reaſonings were nevertheleſs very pertinent Reaſons, for they made them ſee that the Prelates had Uſurped a Tyrannical Domination over their Conſciences and that they Exerciſed it after the moſt Scandalous manner in the World, enjoyning a Caelibacy that filled the Church with beaſtlineſſes and impurities, and forbidding the uſe of Meats on certain days, which they abſtained not from themſelves. For the reſt, thoſe injurious Diſcourſes againſt a whole Nation which had always a great deal of Vertue and Glory, are not methinks within the Rules of Chriſtian Charity, nor even within thoſe of Civil Honeſty. If the Switzers have not naturally as florid a wit as ſome other Nations have, they have a Solid, Right, Judicious, Laborious, Conſtant, Faithful, Sincere mind, which are Qualities far more eſtimable then thoſe which uſually accompany that which they call the Heat of Imagination.

12. Object. Zuinglius anſwered to a Reaſon of the Chancell ur of Zurich, after a very Falſe and Sophiſtical manner at the Foundation, Pag. 257.but proper enough to confound the underſtandings of the Switzers. He accuſed the Chancellour of Ignorance in that he took, he ſaid, theſe words, The field us the World, for a Parable, whereas they were only an Explication of the Parable, and not the Parable it ſelf. But the Chancellour would have ſaid no more but this, That theſe Words, The ſeed is the Word of God, could not be taken according to the Letter, ſince they were the Explication of a Parable to which they had Reference, therefore Zuinglius took great heed how he anſwered, p. 208and he was forced to ſave himſelf by a trick in giving the words a change. For there is no body who ſees not that what the Chancellour ſaid was indiſputable; and that thoſe words, The ſeed is the word of God, being the Explication of a Parable, could not be taken in the Letter, but that it is as if Jeſus Chriſt had ſaid, When I ſpake of the ſeed in this Parable, I mean by that the Word of God. But theſe words, This is my Body, being no Explication of any Parable, and not being accompanied with any circumſtances that ſhould oblige us not to take them according to the Letter, there is nothing more ridicul us then to compare them with the Expreſſions that explain Parables.

Anſw. This is no great ſubtilty from a man who talks of nothing but a groſs and Suitz underſtanding. As we ought not to take litterally thoſe words which explain a Parable, ſo we ought not to take litterally thoſe words which explain a Sacrament. For in this reſpect a Sacrament is as a Viſible Parable, ſince it is a Viſible ſign, that repreſents an inviſible Grace. The Reaſon for which we ought not litterally to take thoſe words that explain a parable, is becauſe we ſee the matter Treated of there, is one thing that repreſents another, and which by conſequence cannot be that other thing Subſtantially and Really. And the whole Reaſon for which we ought not to take literally the words that explain a Sacrament is, becauſe we ſee the matter Treated of there is one thing which ſignifies another, and which by conſequence cannot be that thing Subſtantially and Really. So that theſe words, This is my Body, and thoſe, The ſeed is the Word of God, are alike, and if we ought not to take the latter litterally becauſe they are the Explication of a Parable, we ought not alſo to take the others litterally becauſe they are the Explication of a Sacrament.

Theſe are the principal Objections of the Tenth Chapter of the Book of Prejudices, excepting one which is taken from the manner wherein they formed our firſt Aſſemblies at Paris, at the beginning of the Reformation, and the Election that they made there of a Layman to the calling of the Miniſtry, for the Solution whereof I remit you to the Fourth Part, where it ſhall meet with its fit place. We are now to go on to the Eleventh Chapter.

13. Object. All the Diſcourſes, and all the Writings of the Reformers, Prejug. Ch. II. Pag. 272.ſays the Author of the Prejudices, breathed forth nothing but a poyſonous malignity, and an implacable hatred againſt the Church p. 209of Rome, and that Spirit is ſo plain to be ſeen, that it aſtoniſhes me how perſons, be they never ſo Little equitable, can endure it, and not conclude, as Reaſon would force them to do, that it is impoſſible they ſhould have done that by the Spirit of God.

Anſw. To anſwer to that Reproach, I ſhall not here make an Apology for injuries and outrages, under a pretence of zeal, as Mr. Arnaud has done in his pretended, Overthrow of the Morality of Jeſus Chriſt. For I acknowledge that zeal ought to be moderate and diſcreet. I ſhall not alſo ſay, that the Author of the Prejudices may with very good Reaſon leave that Cenſure to a Pen leſs violent and leſs paſſionate then his own, which in giving us Leſſons of Mildneſs and Charity, ſhould it ſelf fill his Pages with nothing but theſe words, Inſolent, R…ſh, Ridicul…us, Impoſtors, Calumniators, Furious, Devils, and Inſtruments of Devils. For any one may very well apply theſe words of the Goſpel according to the Tranſlation of Mons to him. Take out firſt the Beam Mat. 7. 5.Matt 7:5that is an thine own Eye, and then ſhalt thou ſ…e how to take out the mote that is in thy Brothers Eye. But I ſhall ſay, that when they find in the Writings of the firſt Reformers Expreſſions that plainly appear to be too vehement, whether in reſpect of things or perſons, equity would require it of them, that before they Judge, they ſhould conſider, whether they had not ſome particular Circumſtances that obliged them to ſpeak after that manner. But although we acknowledge that our firſt Reformers were not wholly free from faults, and that we no ways pretend to Canonize all their Words, nor all their Actions, yet if they take heed to the Circumſtances of the Times wherein they wrote, they will ſee that they ought to Judge of them far otherwiſe then the Author of the Prejudices has done, and that it is neither through malignity, nor hatred, that they ſpoke with ſo much vehemence againſt the Church of Rome, but that they were urged to it by Reaſons which they Judged moſt Weighty. Firſt of all, they thought that there was ſome neceſſity of uſing ſuch a Stile, to awaken men out of that profound ſleep wherein they appeared to have been for a long time, and to put all of them into that juſt fear which they ought to have of God's Judgments, when they were plunged into Errors like to thoſe, wherein they pretended the Church of Rome then was. And it is moſt true, that until their days, the World had lain under a great Inſenſibility. Not, that they did not know the evil, that they did not bewail it, that they did not thirſt after a remedy, and that they did not readily p. 210hear all who would proclaim it; but after all, they remained all along in the ſame State, or to ſay better, they grew worſe and worſe every day. Upon that account it was, that our firſt Reformers thought that they ought to repreſent things livelily, without extenuating words, to make the greater impreſſion upon thoſe minds that ſecurity or fearfulneſs had held bound in ſleep. 2. They were obliged to all that, by the Protection that Errors and Abuſes found in their days, among the greater part of the Prelats, and the Monks of the Church of Rome, who had Orders from Rome, as I have proved elſewhere, to lift themſelves up in all places for the defence of that which they called the Antient Religion, and who accuſed the Reformers of Hereſy and Impiety. For then it was neceſſary, to make uſe of all the force of Expreſſions that they had, to diſſipate thoſe accuſations, and to diſcover to the World the groſneſs of the Abuſes which the Court of Rome maintained. 3. They ſaw themſelves further conſtrained to it, by the ſeverity which they had to wipe of, on the part of their Adverſaries, for, as they were perſwaded of the Juſtice of their Cauſe, the moſt natural effect of the Perſecutions which they were to endure was to open their eyes more, and the more to urge their underſtanding to acknowledge that Juſtice, and to make all the World acknowledge it, not only to comfort themſelves and to encourage themſelves in their afflictions, but alſo to ſtrengthen their Brethren whom they ſaw every where in the Fetters of the Inquiſitions. Being then provoked to it by theſe Three Reaſons, the one taken from the ſtupidity wherein they ſaw the greateſt part of men, the other from the obſtinate defence that was made of Errors and Abuſes, and the Third from the Perſecutions which they had to endure; it muſt not be reckoned ſuch a wonder that they ſpoke with vehemence upon the Subject of the Roman Religion. It had been ill done to have done ſo otherwiſe. 4. They themſelves ought to acknowledge that the greater part of thoſe Abuſes were of ſuch a nature, that it had been a very hard matter not to have ſpoke of them without Indignation. As for example, that vain Devotion that they had kindled in the minds of the People for Images, Reliques, for Agnus Dei's, for Pilgrimages; that credulity which they had inſtilled into them for all ſorts of Miracles, for Apparitions of Saints, for the returns of Souls out of Purgatory, and I know not how many other things which our more inlightned. Age has ſome kind of ſhame of, but which yet made up the greateſt part then p. 211of Religion with reſpect to practiſe. How could they coldly Treat of the Abuſe of Indulgences, which had gone ſo far as not only to give pardon of ſins for Money by means of Confeſſion and Contrition, but even to pardon them in expreſs words without either, as Pope Bonif…ce the IX. did to the whole State of John Galeacius Viſcount of Milan, For ſo Corionel relates it in his Carionel la ſua. Hiſt. di Milan. p. 203.Hiſtory, where he ſays that, The Lombards not being able, by Reaſon of the War which they were engaged in, to go to Rome to gain Indulgences, Pope Boniface at the requeſt of John Galeacius, gave the ſame Indulgences to Milan that were at Rome, and would that all the Subjects of that Viſcount ſhould be abſolved from all their ſins, without any Contrition or Confeſſion. Sianche non foſſe Contrito ne Confeſſo, foſſe abſoluto di qualcunque peccato. With a charge nevertheleſs to remain Ten days at Milan, and to viſit five Churches every Day, and to offer to one of thoſe Churches, the two Thirds of that which they ſhould have diſpended if they had gone to Rome. The Pope took one Third part to himſelf, and deſigned the reſt to the building of a certain Church.

Behold here that which refers to things. As to Perſons, I confeſs there may be found lively complaints in the writings of the firſt Reformers againſt the Abuſes of the Court of Rome, againſt the ignorance and negligence of the Prelats, againſt the Scandalous lives of the Clergy, againſt the Tyrannical Government wherewith they ruled the Church. I acknowledge alſo, that when they looked upon that Great Body of the Roman Hierarchy, its Props, its Pretenſions, its Maxims, its Intereſts, its Occupations, they could not hinder themſelves from ſpeaking of it as an Empire very oppoſite to that of Jeſus Chriſt, but they ought to be ſo far from laying it to their charge, that they ſaid it out of a hatred or an implacable averſion toward the Church of Rome, as the Author of the Prejudices does, that they ought on the contrary to attribute it to a real compaſſion which they had for the People of God, to ſee them ſo ill inſtructed, ſo ill guided, ſo ill governed, and to an ardent deſire to procure a good Reformation throughout the whole Body of the Latin Church. And the greater their compaſſion was, the more difficult it was to manage that matter without giving ſome touches to perſons in whom the ſource of all that evil reſided, and eſpecially in a Time which they ſaw overſpread on all ſides with injuries and Calumnies, and expoſed in diverſe places to Rigorous Perſecutions.

p. 21214. Object. To that Reproach, the Author of the Prejudices adds another, which he begins …o expreſs in theſe words: Although Pag. 273.they ſhould have had a right to have drawn away from the boſom of the Church of Rome its Children, they had certainly no right to make uſe of Impoſtures and Frauds for that purpoſe, and if they did, it is a viſible conviction that it was the Devil that acted by them, and that their pretended Reformation was his work. He alleadges in the cloſe a paſſage of Calvin's, wherein he pretends that Calvin calumniated the Church of Rome in laying it to her charge, that Calvin. Inſtit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sſ. 10.ſhe had a far greater care of her Traditions then of the Commandments of God, and that ſhe reckoned it a leſſer ſin to be defiled with the debaucheries of the Fleſh, then not to be confeſſed or not to have faſted on Friday; to have broken all promiſes, then not to have fulfilled a Vow of Pilgrimage; and upon this the Author of the Prejudices makes his Exclamation with his uſual heat.

Anſw. I Anſwer that Calvin ſpeaks in that Paſſage not of that which the Roman Church Dogmatically taught; but of that which might be ſeen in the common Practiſe of his Time, and unleſs they ſhould deny the moſt clear Truths, they cannot deny that the Idea which the Authors themſelves of the Church of Rome give us of its deplorable State in the Age of the Reformation, does not fully confirm the Teſtimony of Calvin. That which I have ſet down upon this ſad Subject, juſtifies the too little care that the Prelats and other of the Eccleſiaſticks took to root out Vices from the midſt of their Flocks, and ſettle in their places a True Holineſs, when they had then a far greater ardour to make mens Traditions to be obſerved, and if we had need to urge this proof further, it could be done without doubt with a great deal of eaſe.

15. Object. Another kind of Calumny is, to lay to the Charge of the Church the Opinions which ſhe either rejects, or which ſhe never Pag. 276.Authoriſed as matters of Faith. Examples of this may be ſeen in every Page of the Books of their Miniſters, as when they reproach the Catholicks with ſetting up as Articles of Faith, the Corruption of the Greek and Hebrew Text, the immunity of the Clergy to be of Divine Right, the certainty of the Declarations that the Popes make of the Holineſs of particular men which they call Canonization, the efficacy of Agnus Dei's, the Infallibility of the Pope, his Temporal Power over Kings, his Pre-eminence over Councils, the Juriſdiction of the Church over the Souls in Purgatory, and many other opinions p. 213of that nature that the Church does not preſcribe to its Children, that ſhe does not inſert into the Confeſſion of Faith, which ſhe requires of thoſe that return to her, and which ſhe never defined by the Voice of her Councils.

Anſw. If the Author of the Prejudices would be ſatisfied about all the Points that he has noted in that Objection, he ought to cite thoſe paſſages of the Miniſters againſt whom he forms his complaints, and not to make as he does a Captious heap of divers things wherein he may mix the falſe and true together. Notwithſtanding I ſhall not omit to ſay by the way ſomething of my own head upon each of thoſe Articles. Upon the firſt I can eaſily believe that there have been ſome Miniſters who have reproached the Church of Rome with the having Canonized the Corruptions of the Greek and Hebrew Text, becauſe that in effect there are a great many ſuch Corruptions in the Vulgar Verſion, which the Council of Trent has Canonized, not only in declaring it Authentick, and forbidding any to reject upon any pretence whatſoever, but alſo in ſaying that they ought to be held under the penalty of an Anathema for the Canonical Books of the Bible, prout in Eccleſia Catholica legi conſueverunt, & in veteri vulgata Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 4. de Canon. Scrip. & decret. de edit.Latina editione habentur. All the Queſtion therefore may be reduced to this, to wit, whether we ought to hold under pain of Anathema ſome ill Tranſlations which are to be found in the Vulgar, for the Corruptions of the Greek and Hebrew Text, and for Bellarm. de Cler. lib. 1. c. 28.us, we believe that they cannot rationally conteſt it. As for the Immunity of the Clergy, it may be alſo that ſome Doctors of the Church of Rome, have been reproached for holding it as a matter of Faith, becauſe there are ſome among them that in effect ground it upon the Scripture, and every one knows that all that which they hold as out of the Scripture, ought to be held as a matter of Faith. But they would have ſaid nothing againſt the Truth, when they ſhould have maintained that Pope Leo X. in the Council of Lateran defined, That there was none either Divine or humane right Council. Lateran. ſub. Leon. X. Seſſ. 9. in Bull. reform.that gave the Laity any power over the perſons of the Clergy; which implies that the Clergy are excepted by Divine right from that general Rule that ſubjects all the Word to the Higher Powers: We all know that our Kings oppoſed that raſh deciſion, but in the end it was a Council that did it which had the Pope for its Head, and it belongs to the Author of the Prejudices to tell us whether he believes that that Pope and that Council erred. As to the Certainty of Canonizations, ſince there is no body in the Church of p. 214Rome that makes any ſcruple to invocate thoſe Saints which the Pope Canonizes, and that moreover they agree in that Maxim of Saint Paul, that whatſoever in the matter of Religion is not of Faith is Sin, methinks it is not ill grounded to ſay either that the Church of Rome Sins, when ſhe invocates thoſe Canonized Saints without any certainty of Faith, or that ſhe holds it as a matter of Divine Faith that the Pope cannot be deceived. The Author of the Prejudices ſhall chuſe which ſide he pleaſes, if he takes the laſt, he contradicts himſelf; if he takes the former, Saint Paul condemns him; for he condemns all thoſe who throw away the Acts of their Religion after that manner at all Adventure. If the Efficacy of Agnus Dei's has not been eſtabliſhed by the Councils, that belief may be found at leaſt heretofore ſo ſtrongly and univerſally eſtabliſhed in the Church of Rome, that it may be very well aſcribed to her without any fear of miſtaking. They tell us that Pope Ʋrban V. ſent to John Palcologus the Emperour of the Greeks an Agnus folded up in fine Paper, wherein there was written Fine Verſes which explained all its properties. Thoſe Verſes carry with them, That the Agnus was made of Balmſanus and Wax with Criſom, and that being Conſecrated by Myſtical words, Andr. fruſt. in fine lib. Epigr. in haeret.it drove away Thunder and ſcattered Storms, that it gave Women an eaſy Birth, that it prevented one from periſhing on the Seas, that it took away Sin, that it kept back the Devil, that it made a man to grow Rich, that it ſecured one againſt Fire, that it hindred one from dying a ſudden death, that it gave a man Victory over his Enemies, and that in Fine a ſmall piece of the Agnus had as much Vertue as the whole. As for that which regards the Infallibility of the Popes, their Temporal power over Kings, and their Pre-eminence over the Councils, we do not ſay that thoſe were Articles of the Faith received throughout the whole Church of Rome. There is not one of us that knows not that thoſe pretenſions were always oppoſed by the Sounder part of the French. But they cannot deny that they were not at leaſt the Pretences of Rome, and that its Extravag. Commun. lib. 1. cap. 1. De Major. & Obed. Decret. 1. Part. dist. 19. cap. 1. Ibid. cap. 2. Decretal. Gregor. lib. 3.Popes did not Determine, That it was neceſſary to the Salvation of every Creature to be ſubject to them. They cannot deny that Pope Gregory VII. did not decide in a Council, That the Church of Rome did never Err, and that it would never Err according to the Teſtimony of the Scripture, nor that the opinion of thoſe who believe that the Pope is Infallible in his deciſions of Faith, is not the more common and general one in the Church of Rome, and that thoſe who hold it ſpeak of the other only as an opinion that p. 215the Church Tolerates for the preſent, and that they look upon tit. 42. cap. 3. Baron. ad Ann. 1076. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 2. See the Doctrine Ancienedes Theologde la Faculte de Paris, par Jacques de Vernaut. And the Teſtimonies that he Relates. Concil. Trid. Seſs. 7. De Baptiſ. can. 3. & Seſs. 14. cap. 3. & Seſs. 22. cap. 8. Raynald. ad Ann. 1479. Concil. later. Seſs. 11. in Bull. abrogat. Pragmat. Sanct. Bullaleon. X. contr. Luther. apud Raynald ad Ann. 1520.it as an Errour, and ſuch a one as approaches even to Hereſie, for thoſe are the expreſs words of Bellarmine. They cannot deny that they generally hold in the Church of Rome that the Pope is by Divine right the Soveraign Monarch of the Church, whom all Chriſtians are bound to obey, the Soveraign and Univerſal Vicar of Jeſus Chriſt, his Soveraign Paſtor, to whom Jeſus Chriſt has given a fulneſs of power, which goes not far from aſcribing Infalliblity to him. They cannot deny that the Popes did not often define that the Church of Rome is the Mother and Miſtreſs of all other Churches, and that the Council of Trent has not alſo declared it in divers places. They cannot deny that the Popes did not pretend to be above the Councils, that Sixtus IV. did not condemn a certain man called Peter de Oſma, for having taught that the Pope could not diſpence with the Ordinances of the Univerſal Church, nor that Leo X. did not declare in the Council of Lateran with the approbation of the Council, That it was evident as well from the Teſtimony of Scripture, as that of the Fathers, and of other Biſhops of Rome who had gone before, and by the Holy Cannons, and by the very Confeſſion of the Councils themſelves, that the Pope alone had a right and power to call Councils together to transfer and diſſolve them, as having Authority over all Councils. They cannot deny that the ſame Leo did not condemn Luther for having appealed from him the Pope to a Council, againſt the Conſtitutions, ſays he, of Pius II. of Julius II. who ordained that thoſe who made ſuch Appeals ſhould be puniſhed with the ſame Penalties that were decided againſt Hereticks, nor that the Council of Trent did not ſubmit it ſelf to its Confirmation of the Pope, as it may appear by the laſt Act of that Council. And as to the pretences of the Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 25.Popes over the Temporalties of Kings, they cannot deny that Clement V. has not declared in one of his Clemintines, as they are called, That it ought not not to be Queſtioned, but that he had a Clementin. lib. 2. tit. 11. cap. 2.Superiority over the Empire, and that the Empire being void he ſucbeeded in the power of the Emperour, nor that Alexander VI. did not give out of his pure Liberality, ſays he, of his certain knowledge Raynald. ad Ann. 1493.and fullneſs of power, to the Kings of Caſtile and Leon all the Lands newly diſcovered in the Indies, as if they had belonged to Baron. ad Ann. 1076.him, nor that Gregory VII. did not decide in his Council of Rome, That the Pope could depoſe Emperours, and diſpence-with the Oaths Concil. Lateran. 3. Sub Innocent. 3.of Allegiance to their Subjects, nor that Innocent III. did not ordain in the Council of Lateran, That if any Temporal Prince neglected p. 216to purge his Territories of all Hereſie, the Biſhops ſhould Excommunicate him, and that if within a Year he gave no Satisfaction they ſhould make it known to the Soveraign Biſhop, to the end that he ſhould declare his Subjects abſolved from their Duty of Fealty, and that he ſhould expoſe his Land to be taken by Catholicks. They cannot alſo deny as to Practice that there are not divers Examples to be found of Popes who undertook effectually to depoſe Emperours and Kings, and to give away their Kingdomes to others. In fine, as to that which regards their Juriſdiction over Souls in Purgatory, no Body is ignorant that the Popes pretended to have Power to draw Souls out of Purgatory, at leaſt through the diſpenſation of the Treaſure of the Church, which is that, which they ſay is made up of the Super-abundant Satisfactions of Jeſus Chriſt and the Saints. It is upon that alſo that their Indulgences in reſpect of the Dead are Founded, and Leo in his Bull Bulla Leon. ubi ſupra.of Excommunication againſt Luther had wrote, That Indulgences were neither neceſſary nor uſeful to the Dead. Furthermore I cannot forbear taking notice here of the Fallacy that the Author of the Prejudices gives us, and which is common to him with a great many other perſons. He would have us Judge of that Doctrine of the Roman Church, but only by that which ſhe has decided in her Councils, or by that which is contained in an Act of the Profeſion of the Faith which ſhe makes thoſe make who embraue her Communion. This I ſay is a perfect Fallacy.

1. Becauſe we ought alſo to Judge of her by her common Practice, which being open to the Eyes of all the World, diſcovers much more clearly the true Sentiments of that Church, when the deciſions of the Councils do not, and the Act of which the people ſcarce know any.

2. Becauſe the Council of Trent it ſelf and the Act of the Profeſſion of the Faith, obliging as they do thoſe who ſubmit themſelves to it, to receive in general unwritten Traditions and thoſe things which the Church of Rome Obſerves, they engage them by conſequence to receive and practiſe all that which is commonly obſerved and practiſed in that Church, under a pretence of Tradition and obſervance, although it ſhould not be formally contained either in the deciſions of Councils, or in that Profeſſion of Faith. So that the Conſcience of a man who is in that Communion, binds him to believe, and do all that others believe and do.

p. 21716. Objection, The Third kind of Calumny is not leſs ordinary Prejug. Pag. 281.in their Miniſters, nor leſs unjuſt in it ſelf. It conſiſts in running down as blameable Errors certain Articles of the belief of the Church, which not only were no Errors, but about which they have been at laſt conſtrained to acknowledge that the difference between them and the Church conſiſts more in words then in the thing it ſelf, whether they themſelves have forſook their firſt thoughts, to take up thoſe of the Catholicks, or whether by a blind raſhneſs they had openly condemned them without underſtanding them. To prove this Corruption, the Author of the Prejudices lays down the point of Juſtification, which, he ſays, the firſt Reformers took for the chief ground of their Separation, and yet nevertheleſs he adds one of their Profeſſors of Sedan named Ludovicus le Blanc, who has made ſome Theſes of Juſtification, after having examined the Doctrine of the Catholicks, and that of the Proteſtants and their principal differences about that matter, concludes upon all the Articles that that of the Catholicks is good, and that the Proteſtants are only contrary to them in name.

Anſw. I acknowledge that in this Controverſy the Church of Rome takes the word Juſtification in one ſence, and that we take it in another, and I do not deny but that has ſometimes produced in that diſpute, ambiguities and differences or Words. This is alſo that which M. le Blanc had a deſign to clear in his Theſes of Juſtification, which the Author of the Prejudices has abuſed. But beſides that in that very thing we have two advantages over the Church of Rome, the one, that we ſpeak as the Scripture has done, and that we take the words after the manner that Jeſus Chriſt, that Saint Paul, and Saint James have taken them, when they have Treated about this Doctrine, whereas the Church of Rome gives them another ſence, and the other, that in ſo taking the words in their true Signification that Idea that we give of Juſtification is diſtinct and clear, where that of the Church of Rome is embroiled and confuſed. Beſides that, I ſay, it is certain that we have but too real differences upon that point which no ways conſiſts in words, but in the very things themſelves, and which make very weighty Controverſies. To Manifeſt this Truth, we need but to caſt our Eyes upon the four chief Doctrines that form the Idea of our Juſtification according as the Scripture has given it us. The Firſt is, That it is an Act of the Soveraign mercy of God that pardons our ſins, and which by Vertue of the Satisfaction of Jeſus Chriſt, diſcharges us from p. 218the puniſhment we have deſerved by them. The Second is, That God out of that ſame mercy in pardoning our ſins adopts us for his Children, and gives us a right to his Eternal Inheritance by the merit of Jeſus Chriſt his Son. The Third, That we apply to our ſelves the ſatisfaction and merit of Jeſus Chriſt by a lively Faith, accompanied with a ſincere Repentance, and a Holy Recourſe to the Divine Mercy, and that it is this Faith that puts us into the Communion of our Redeemer. And the Fourth, That God in pardoning and adopting us, impoſes this Condition upon us, that for the time to come we live Holily according to the Laws which he has given us, and that this very thing is a neceſſary Conſequence of that Communion which we have with Jeſus Chriſt, as well as of our Faith, our Repentance and our Recourſe to the Divine mercy. There is not any one of theſe parts of our Juſtification upon which we have nor very conſiderable differences with the Church of Rome. For in the Firſt we differ,

1. Concerning him who Pardons us; The Church of Rome would have it, not only that it ſhould be God in the Quality of a Soveraign Judge, but men alſo, that is to ſay Prieſts and Biſhops in Quality of inferiour and Subordinate Judges, and that their Abſolution is a Judiciary Act, for ſo the Council of Trent has Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 14. Can. 9.defined it to be. But we believe that there is none beſides God who can pardon our ſins under the Quality of a Soveraign Judge, and that the Pardon which we receive from the Mouth of his Miniſters, is a Miniſterial Pardon, which conſiſts in a Declaration that they make to us of Gods Pardon, as the Interpreters of his will revealed in the Goſpel.

2. We differ about the extent of that Pardon; The Church of Rome would have it, that God in pardoning the Sin retains the Puniſhment, that is to ſay, that he acquits us from eternal Puniſhment, but that reſerves to himſelf the inflicting of Temporal Puniſhments; and we on the contrary hold that he remits all ſorts of Temporal and Eternal puniſhments, and that the Afflictions which he ſends us are not the Puniſhments of his Juſtice, but the Corrections and Chaſtiſements of his Fatherly Diſcipline.

3. From whence there ariſes a Third difference, which conſiſts in this, that the Church of Rome believes that thoſe Temporal Puniſhments wherewith God viſits us, are true Satisfactions to his Juſtice for our ſins, which we deny.

p. 2194. There ariſes from thence yet another difference concerning that, which they call thoſe penal works which every one impoſes upon himſelf, or which their Confeſſors impoſe on their Penitents, for they would that theſe ſhould be alſo ſatisfactions to the Juſtice of God, which we do not believe.

5. The Church of Rome would have it, that thoſe ſatisfactory Puniſhments ſhould go beyond this Life, and it is partly upon this that they ground their Doctrine of Purgatory, which we reject.

6. It is alſo upon that very thing that the Indulgences of the Church of Rome are grounded, which cannot be taken for meer Relaxations of Canonical Puniſhments, ſince they extend moſt frequently very far beyond the life of man, and ſometimes even unto five and twenty, and Thirty thouſand Years.

7. We may ſay alſo, that it is a difference which we have with them, by which we underſtand that firſt Act of the mercy of God that Pardons our ſins, which comes from the difference which we have with them, concerning the Opinion of the Neceſſity of Auricular Confeſſion, for that Opinion is partly founded upon this, that Abſolution of the Prieſts is a Judiciary Act, and that in that reſpect the Church has a true Tribunal before which the Faithful are bound to appear, and partly upon the Opinion, that the penances which the Prieſt enjoyns are true Satisfactions to the Divine Juſtice which they are bound to undergo.

8. Laſtly it is from the ſame ſource that the difference proceeds which we have with them concerning the Super-abundant ſatisfactions of the Saints, of which they will have it that the Faithful may partake, and whereof in part they compoſe the Treaſure of the Church.

Behold here Eight Controverſies included in the Explication of the firſt Act of our Juſtification. Upon the ſecond we differ about the Foundation upon which the right that God gives us to life eternal is eſtabliſhed; or if you will, about the proper and direct cauſe in conſideration of which God gives us that right, for we eſtablish it alone upon the merits of Jeſus Chriſt in Vertue of that Comunion which we have with him. But the Church of Rome Eſtabliſhes it upon the merit of our works alſo, for ſhe would have it, that after God has given us his Grace by which we do good works, we truly inherit not only an increaſe of Grace but Eternal life, and even an increaſe of Glory, and ſhe Anathematizes thoſe who do not believe it.

p. 2202. We differ alſo about thoſe to whom God gives that right, for we believe that God gives it only to his Elect, in whom he preſerves it by his Grace, and by the gift of perſeverance; but the Church of Rome believes that he gives it alſo to divers Reprobates whom his Grace abandons, and who finally Periſh in their Sins.

Upon the Third Doctrine, we differ concerning the Nature and the Definition of Juſtifying Faith, for as for us, we look on it as an Act of the Soul that embraces or accepts the ſatisfaction and merit of Jeſus Chriſt, and which applies the promiſes of God's mercy made to us in the Goſpel, and we labour as much as we can to live according to that thought. But the Doctors of the Roman Church frame an Idea of that Faith of a very great coldneſs and negligence, for they content themſelves to ſay that it is a conſent that we yield in general to all the Truths revealed in the Word of God; and there are ſome that go ſo far as to ſay, that Faith fails not to Juſtify us, although it ſhould not have the leaſt regard to the particular mercy of God towards us, which is a thing that we cannot underſtand without horrour. For the reſt, when I ſhall ſay that the Doctrines of the Imputation of the merit of Jeſus Chriſt, and his ſatisfaction are known but to a very few in the Church of Rome, as that alſo is, of the Application that we make of them to our ſelves by the internal Act of our Souls which receives them; when I ſhall ſay that theſe Truths ſo important and ſo neceſſary to the practiſe of Chriſtianity▪ are almoſt ſtifled, by that great Multitude of external Exerciſes with which they buſy the People, I ſhall ſay nothing in my Judgment, that the more ſincere perſons will not acknowledge, and of which, God grant they may be able hereafter to convince me of a falſhood in that reſpect.

In fine, the laſt Doctrine that fully makes up the Idea of our Juſtification according to the Scripture, produces of it ſelf a conſiderable Controverſy between the Church of Rome and us. For as for us, we limit our ſelves to the good works to which our Juſtification Obliges us, and which God has enjoyned us, without going any further. But the Church of Rome extends them even to thoſe which ſhe her ſelf Commands, for the pretends that her Laws properly and directly bind the Conſcience under pain of mortal Sin; and therefore it was that Leo X. condemned Luther for having wrote that the Church had no power to make p. 221Laws concerning manners or good works. All theſe Controverſies that naturally ariſe from the different Explications which they give of the Tenet of Juſtification, let us ſufficiently ſee that the Author of the Prejudices is miſtaken, if he thinks that we ſhould have no more upon this matter then differences about words, and M. le Blanc is too ſincere and too Learned to have pretended to deny any of thoſe things which I have mentioned, although he has Judiciouſly remarked, that men may eaſily Equivocate upon the different Significations of the Terms.

It is therefore neither a piece of Raſhneſs, nor Impertinency, that our firſt Reformers had ſuch a regard to the matter of Juſtification, as being a thing of the greateſt importance in Religion, and it is on the contrary moſt Juſt, that having ſeen that Doctrine of the Salvation of Chriſtians, neglected, obſcured, and depraved, that they ſhould have Judged it neceſſary to ſet themſelves upon the re-eſtabliſhing of it.