Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 2 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
An Anſwer to the Objections, that are made againſt the Perſons of the Reformers.
WE have hitherto, methinks, ſufficiently juſtified the Action of our Fathers in the buſineſs of the Reformation. It appears, that they had but too many Reaſons to ſuſpect a great Corruption, not only in the Government of the Church, but in the Worſhip and Doctrines of it alſo, and too juſt motives to engage them to make a more particular Examination. It may not leſs appear by what we have ſaid concerning the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, and that abſolute Authority which ſhe aſcribes to her ſelf over mens Conſciences, that her pretenſions have no Foundation, and that all the Faithful have a Right to Judge of the matters of Religion by themſelves, and to diſcern what is good from what is ill. We have ſeen nevertheleſs that our Fathers were not moved ſo publickly to make uſe of their Right, but by an extream and utmoſt Neceſſity, and if they will do them Juſtice, they ought freely to acknowledge, what the Author of the Prejudices has not dared to deny, that they had a ſufficient Call, to go as far, as a Negative Separation, and openly to refuſe to believe and to Act, what their Conſciences ſhould not allow them to approve.
But as that Motion of Conſcience was not Univerſal, or common to all thoſe of their Time, and as it had encountred the intereſts of a great Body, that was in poſſeſſion of the Government of the Latin Church, they have laboured to render it odious by all ſorts of ways, and even thoſe, who were not able directly to condemn it, have not failed to ſearch out divers pretences to cry it down; and having nothing to ſay againſt their Actions, they have taken up ſomething againſt their perſons. This is that that the moſt of our Adverſaries endeavour with great Care; this is that, that their Writers of Controverſies and Miſſionaries, who are ſpread abroad on all ſides among us, and who make uſe of all ſorts of ways to gain Proſelytes, do, even now, all their days; and this is that, that the Author of the Prejudices in particular, has done.
His Argument may be well nigh reduced to this: That there is no likelyhood that God committed the care of Reforming his Church, to perſons whoſe Life and Conduct was Diſorderly and Scandalous. And the Concluſion that he pretends to draw from it is, that we ought to reject, without any further Examination, that Reformation, and to put our ſelves into the Communion of the Church of Rome.
1. It will be no difficult matter to ſhew him, that, Bleſſed be God, we have as to what concerns us, on every ſide matter of Edification, from the manners of thoſe who were firſt of all made uſe of, in ſo Holy and ſo Neceſſary a Work; and this we ſhall preſently make out. But before I come to that, I am obliged to tell him, that his way of Reaſoning, is the moſt captious and the moſt contrary to the intereſts of the true Religion that can be imagined, and that it is contrary even to the Intereſts of that Church of Rome which it would defend. I ſay in the firſt place that it is captious, For ſince our Fathers Reformed themſelves only out of the motion of their Conſciences, which dictated to them that they ought to do it for the Glory of God and their own Salvation, how can he pretend that we who have followed them out of the ſame Reaſon, can revoke an Action which we believe to be juſt and lawful, out of meerly Forreign Conſiderations, taken from the perſons of thoſe who excited us to do it, if otherwiſe it does not appear to us that the Conſciences of our Fathers, and our own were deceived, and that our Action is unjuſt in the Foundation? If the Law of the Conſcience obliges us, and gives us a right to ſeparate our ſelves, at leaſt Negatively, how can we depart from that Separation on the account of perſonal Actions, in which neither our Fathers nor our ſelves have had any part, and which have nothing of common with our Separation? Our Reformation being good and juſt, as we are perſwaded it is, is it not true, that we ought to hold our ſelves to it, whatſoever they tell us further of the Paſſions of Luther, or of the Marriage of ſome Monks? Theſe things are wholly ſeparate; For our Fathers might very well Read the Writings of Luther, and hear the Preaching of theſe Monks who ſhould diſcover to them the Abuſes of the Church of Rome, they might very well Reform themſelves in the end, out of a motion of their Conſciences ſtirred up by their Teachings, without either approving or Canonizing their other Actions. But they will ſay, to have avoided falling into that motion of Conſcience, your Fathers ought not to have heard them. And why ought they not? That ſame motion that their Teachings ſtirred up, and that produced a Reformation, ſufficiently notes that they ought. But whether they ought, or whether they ought not, they did hear them, the thing was done; and that which they heard having cauſed that Sentiment of their Conſciences which obliged them to Reform themſelves, we ſhould be impious if we ſhould quit that Reformation, without any ones ſatisfying us about that Sentiment, or ſhewing us that it is ill, and fit to be condemned. But that they can never do by thoſe perſonal Actions which have no Relation to it; elſe, they would be bound to condemn the comfort which we every day receive from the Pſalms of David, under a pretence that David had committed Adultery with Bathſheba, and to reject that Inſtruction that we gather from the Books of Solomon, under a pretence that Solomon was not ſo conſtant as he ought to have been in the Worſhip of the True God. There is then nothing elſe but a Sophiſm in all that.
2. But if that way of Reaſoning is captious, it is not leſs contrary to the intereſts of the True Religion, ſince it would have us Judge of the Reformation, by the Quality of the perſons who Preached it, and not by it ſelf or the Nature of the things it Treats of, which would Eſtabliſh a Principle whoſe Uſe could not but be very pernicious to the Church; For if we ought not to conſider its Doctrine in it ſelf, but to judge of it by the Perſons who ſhould teach it us, how could any one diſcern the Angels of Darkneſs, when they ſhould be diſguiſed into Angels of Light, and be able to know the falſe Prophets when they ſhould work ſigns and wonders even to deceive if it were poſſible the very Elect? How could any know thoſe Impoſtors and thoſe Hypocrites, who come in Sheeps cloathing but inwardly are ravening Wolves? Moreover would it be a hard matter for thoſe men who ſhould be intereſted againſt the ſound Doctrine to invent a Thouſand Calumnies againſt the perſons of the Teachers of it, and how many did they invent in the beginning againſt the Apoſtles, and the Primitive Chriſtians, whom they repreſented to the people as the moſt wicked among men? I confeſs it is a great means of Edification, that thoſe who Preach a good Doctrine confirm it by good Examples, and that on the contrary, it is Scandalous when their works do not correſpond with their words. But nevertheleſs it does not follow, that one ought to receive a Word becauſe it is ſpoken by perſons of an honeſt life, or to reject it for the contrary Reaſon; for this Maxim would make us very often reject Truths and receive Hereſies. It is then certain that we ought to examine that Word in it ſelf without any dependance on thoſe who Preach it; For Truth is not in Men, but in God alone, ſhe cannot change her Nature nor loſe her right through the Vices of its Miniſters. If our Fathers were Reformed by the Authority of Luther, or by that of Zuinglius and Calvin, they would have ſome Reaſon to draw us back to the Examination of their manners, ſince in that Caſe, they would treat of that that would either eſtabliſh or deſtroy the Right which they would have had to believe their meer words. But how many times have our Fathers and we proteſted, that we do not believe that which our Reformers ſaid, becauſe they ſaid it, but becauſe they proved it; and becauſe thoſe things appeared ſufficiently evident in themſelves. We look upon them only as perſons whom God made uſe of to teach men their Duty; they diſcovered it, our Fathers ſaw it, we ſee it alſo, and it is on the ſight of this Duty alone, and not on their Authority, that the Reformation depends. As it frequently falls out that our very Enemies make us know our Duty in reproaching us with our faults: ſuppoſe we that a Jew or ſome other Infidel ſhould have accuſed and convinced the Latins that they had corrupted their Chriſtianity, and had not preſerved the Goſpel in that State wherein Chriſt and his Apoſtles left it, is it not true, that without any regard to the perſon, the Latins would be bound to do that which our Fathers have done, and that the Quality of him who ſhould have ſo reproached them, would not have been a ſufficient excuſe before God, to hinder them from the doing of their duty. It is then very evident that we ought to Judge of thoſe matters by the matters themſelves, and not by the perſons who teach them to us, and by Conſequence, that the Principle of the Author of Prejudices is falſe and contrary to true Piety.
As to what he ſays, that there is no likelyhood that God has committed the Care of Reforming his Church, to Scandalous Perſons; I anſwer, that God has committed to all his Faithful, the Care of Reforming themſelves, and to all his Paſtors that of Exhorting their Flocks. If it falls out, that among thoſe Paſtors who have acquitted themſelves, in that reſpect, of their charges, there ſhould have been ſome few who did Actions worthy to be blamed, that ought not to create any Prejudice againſt the Word, nor put a ſtop to the motion of the Conſciences of the Faithful, any more then the defection of Saint Peter, or his exceſſive compliance with the Jews ought to have hindred the Converſion of People to Chriſtianity. The Miniſters that God makes uſe of, are men who have their faults, and faults ſometimes of the higheſt nature, as may appear from the Example of Aaron who encouraged the Iſraelites in Idolatry, and of Jonas who fled to Tarſis when he was bound to have gone and Preached to Ninive; but their faults make the word of God loſe nothing either of its Truth, or its Authority.
3. It is a very ſtrange thing that the Author of the Prejudices has not taken any heed, in laying down a very bad Argument againſt us, of furniſhing us with a very good one againſt the Church of Rome in that Eſtate, wherein it was in the days of our Fathers. For if we ought to Judge of the Doctrine by the Qualities or the Actions of thoſe who Teach it I pray conſider, what Judgment could our Fathers make of that Religion that the Court of Rome and its Prelats taught, and whether they had not all the grounds in the World to reform themſelves. If there be no likelyhood that God committed the Care of Reforming his Church to perſons who were guilty of Scandalous Actions, there is far leſs that God has given Infallibility, and a Soveraign Authority over mens Conſciences to ſuch perſons as the Popes and Prelats in the days of our Fathers were, according to the Deſcription which the unſuſpected Authors that we have quoted, give us of them, and divers others that we might here add to them if we ſo pleaſed. And that which makes theſe two Arguments differ, is, that his concludes upon a Principle which we maintain to be falſe and ill; where ours concludes upon a Principle which he himſelf admits and acknowledges to be good; ſo that in his own Judgment, we have a ſufficient Fundation whereon to Eſtabliſh the Juſtice of our Reformation.
Let us ſee, nevertheleſs, of what Nature thoſe Actions are wherewith he reproaches our firſt Reformers. I will not, ſays he, Prejugez. Chap. 3. p. 64.ſtay to examine the Accuſations wherewith they have been charged by divers Authors. I do not pretend to detain my ſelf in any but thoſe publick things that are ſo manifeſt, and ſo expoſed to the Eyes of all the World. I confeſs he has Reaſon, not to ſtay upon all that which his Paſſion has invented againſt them; for who knows not, that Calumny has no bounds eſpecially when intereſt and paſſion ſtir it up? Our Reformers are not the only perſons who have been attacked after that manner, The Jews ſaid of John the Baptiſt that he had a Devil, and of Jeſus Chriſt that he was a Blaſphemer, a Samaritan, a glutton and a Wine-bibber, a friend of Publicans and ſinners. If then they have called the Father of the Family Beelzebub, what will they not ſay of his Servants?
But what then are thoſe things that are ſo Publick, ſo manifeſt, and ſo expoſed to the Eyes of the whole World, which the Author of the Prejudices has found fit to be inſiſted upon. That new Chap. 3. p. 65.Goſpel, ſays he, was Preached only out of the mouths of thoſe Monks, who had quitted their habit and their profeſſion, ouly to contract Scandalous Marriages, or from the mouths of thoſe Priests who had violated that Vow of Virginity which the Calviniſts themſelves confeſs to have been impoſed on all Prieſts, and on all Monks in the Weſt, by divers Councils, and on all the Monks, and all the Biſhops in the Eaſt, and the first fruit of this Doctrine was the ſetting open the Cloiſters, the taking off the Vails of the Nuns, the aboliſhing of all Auſterities, and overthrowing of all manner of diſcipline in the Church. This is that that forces him to ſay, That the Reformers ſtruck mens Eyes, with a Spectacle that could not but create horrour, according to the common Idea's of Piety and Vertue, whech the Fathers give us.
The Author of the Prejudices will not take it ill, that in order to our Anſwering him, we muſt put him in mind, what he himſelf exhorts us to, To Tranſport our ſelves into another Time then Chap. 2. p. 51. & 52.that wherein we are at preſent, and to repreſent to our ſelves our Separation in its firſt riſe, and during the firſt years wherein it was made amidſt the Switzers and in France. Upon his thus placing us in that State which he deſires, we will declare to him, that, The general Depravation which reign'd amidſt the Monks and the Prieſts, is to our Eyes a Spectacle worthy of horror, according to the common Ideas of Piety and Vertue which the holy Scriptures and right Reaſon give us. We will tell him, that that which Scandalizes us, is to ſee that for a reſpect of a purely humane Order, they endured for ſo long a time a diſorder that diſhonoured the Latin Church, that drew upon it God's Judgments, and that laid open the Miniſtry of the Church to an everlaſting reproach. It is in the deteſting of thoſe Infamies and thoſe Impurities, that the true zeal of Chriſtians ought to conſiſt, and it is to the ſearching out of a ſolid remedy for them that one ought to apply the Diſcipline of the Church, and not to keep them up under a pretence of obſerving raſh Vows and a Caelibaſy that God never commanded. If the Author of the Prejudices is more Scandalized to ſee Prieſts and Monks Married, then to ſee them plunged into all the filthyneſs of Debauchery, I cannot hinder my ſelf from telling him that he makes Chriſtianity a Law of Hypocriſy, and it may be yet ſomewhat worſe; for Hypocriſy does not content it ſelf with meer Names, ſhe would have fair appearances without, of thoſe things which ſhe really rejects. Whereas for him, he rejects not only the things but their appearances alſo, ſuffering patiently the loſs of any more ſeeing either the things, or their appearances, provided we do not meddle with thoſe empty names of Caelibacy and Virginity. But true Moral Chriſtianity inſpires other Sentiments, ſhe would have us honour that Caelibacy and Virginity as gifts that come from God; but ſhe would alſo have a Contempt and horrour for thoſe ſpecious names when they ſhall be applyed to thoſe beaſtlineſſes and exceſſes which both God and Men condemn. She would have us in that Caſe inſtead of being Scandalized to ſee a falſe Caelibacy made void, and a vain ſhadow of Virginity aboliſhed, that we ſhould on the contrary be edified to ſee them got out from thoſe ſnares of ſin, and to have recourſe to a lawful Marriage that God has allowed unto all, and that he has even commanded unto thoſe who have not received the gift of Continency. It was in the View of this that our Fathers lookt upon the Marriage of thoſe Prieſts and Monks as the Aboliſhing of an unjuſt Law, contrary to the expreſs words of Saint 1 Cor. 7.Paul, if they cannot contain, let them Marry, and which moreover had produced ſuch miſcheivous effects as it was no longer poſſible for them to indure.
But, ſays the Author of Prejudices, we do not intend to ſpeak of the Intereſts of Families, of Marriage, nor of baſe and fleſhly Chap. 3. p.64.paſſions in the lives of thoſe Great Biſhops, and all thoſe great men of old, whom God oppoſed to the Hereſies that roſe up againſt his Church, as Saint Cyprian, Saint Athanaſius, Saint Baſil, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Saint Jerome, Saint Epiphanius, Saint Chryſoſtome and Saint Auguſtine. They were all of them eminent in Sanctity, in a diſingagement from Intereſts; and continency was always joyned to their Miniſtry. We may ſay of that Author, without doing him an injury, that he does not write ill, what he thinks, but that he ſcarce thinks well, that which he writes, and that which I ſhall here come to ſhew is an Example of it; for he here lays down a great Trifle under the ſhew of one of the faireſt things in the World. Saint Cyprian, Saint Athanaſius, and thoſe other Biſhops were not Marryed. I ſee it, but who told him, That they did it by vertue of a general Law that forbad Biſhops to be Married? Who told him, that divers other Biſhops, who were not leſs great then thoſe, for their Sanctity, their diſengagement from the intereſts of the World, never lived in Marriage, as Saint Spiridion, Saint Gregory the Father of Gregory Nazianzen, Saint Gregory Nyſſcne, Saint Proſper, Saint Hilary, Sydonius Apollinaris, Syneſius, Saint Eupſychus of Ceſarea and divers others? Who told him, that Prieſts were not generally Married in the Primitive Church, whether it were in the Eaſt, or in the Weſt, as may be juſtified by a Thouſand Proofs? And in fine, that they do not vainly wrangle in ſaying, that thoſe Biſhops or thoſe Prieſts were really Married before their Ordination; but that they were not during their Prelateſhip or Prieſthood, whether it were that their Wives were dead, and whether they were put away, it is good to Note what the Hiſtory of Saint Eupſychus of Ceſaria in Cappadocia relates, whom Saint Athanaſius formally called a Biſhop, ſuffered Martyrdom within a little after his Marriage, being as Athanaſ. Orat. 1. contra Arian. Sozomen. Hiſt. lib. 5. cap. 11. Hiſt. trip artit. lib. 6. cap. 14. Cyprian. Epiſt. 49.yet as it ſeemed in the days of his Nuptials, and what Saint Cyprian relates of Novatus a Prieſt, who was accuſed to have kicked his Wife who was great with Child, and to have cauſed an Abortion; which evidently concludes the uſe of Marriage during the Prelateſhip and Prieſthood. What then can the Author of the Prejudices conclude from the Example of Saint Athanaſius, and Saint Chryſoſtome, and thoſe others unmarried unleſs this, that each one was in that regard in his full liberty, and that as there were ſome that did marry, ſo there were alſo ſome that did not? Did he need for ſo little a matter to declaim Rhetorically, and to ſet down theſe great words with an Emphaſis, That our Reformers ſtruck mens Eyes with a Spectacle, that could not but Create horrour according to the general Idea's of Piety and Vertue that the Fatheri give us. I ſhall not ſay, that the Idea's of Piety and Virtue do not depend on the Fathers, but on the Goſpel and right Reaſon, and that it is by them that we ought to judge the Fathers, and not thoſe by the Fathers. I will not ſay that the Fathers of the purer Antiquity, are ſo far from giving us an horrour at the Marriage of Eccleſiaſticks, that Chryſoſtom aſſures us on the contrary, that what Saint Paul wrote to Titus concerning Chryſoſt. Hom. 2. in Ep. ad Tit. Cap. 2.a Biſhops being the Husband of one Wife, he has wrote wholly to ſtop the months of thoſe Hereticks who condemned Marriage, and to ſhew that Marriage is not only an Innocent thing but that it is ſo Honourable alſo, that according to him it may be elèvated as high as the Epiſcopal Throne. But I will only ſay, and I will ſay it with an aſſurance of its being approved by all honeſt and upright men, that the Marriage of Church-men, which of it ſelf is an honeſt and Holy State practiſed under the Old Law, practiſed in the primitive Church, and Authoriſed by the Scripture, cannot be conſidered but with the greateſt Edification when it ſhall be ſet in oppoſition to the diſorders, and filthineſſes that Caelibacy has produced, which is but a purely humane Inſtitution, without any lawful Foundation. It belongs therefore to thoſe of the Church of Rome to tell us, whether they are much edified by the lives that their Prieſts led, in the Age of the Reformation, and by that permiſſion which they gave them, for a Sum of Money, publickly to keep their Concubines. They are to tell us, whether they have no horrour for thoſe ſtrange aſſertions of their Doctors, That a Prieſt Sins leſs who through the infirmity of the fleſh Roſius Confeſſ. Cap. 56. Pighius. Coſterus & alii.falls into the Sin of Fornication, then if he ſhould marry, and that it is a leſs evil for Prieſts to burn then to Marry. As for us, we have that general precept of Saint Paul, which has its uſe as well in reſpect of Church-men, as others, if they cannot contain let them Marry, and the Doctrine of the ſame Apoſtle, Marriage 1 Cor. 7. Heb. 13.is Honourable in all, or in all things, but the Whoremongers, and Adulterers God will judge.
But the Author of the Prejudices ſays, That the Law of Celibacy, whether it were juſt or unjust, or whether it did not begin if they will have it ſo, till Pope Siricius's time, they cannot at leaſt deny, That the ſpirit of God did not carry out all the Famous Biſhops of Old, and thoſe who have been eminent for Sanctity, to imitate Saint Paul, and to follow that Counſel which he gives to renounce Marriage, to ſet themſelves wholly to pleaſe God, and that the ſame ſpirit did not from the very firſt Ages of the Church inſpire a very great number of Chriſtians of both Sexes to remain Virgins all their Lives, as Saint Juſtin witneſſes, and Origen againſt Celſus. Whence then comes it to paſs that there ſhould have nothing appeared of that inſtinct, or of thoſe motions of Gods ſpirit in the pretended Reformers, nor in the Societies which they have eſtabliſhed, any more than all thoſe other Graces which ſhone ſo Illuſtriouſly in the Saints of Antiquity.
Here is yet further, another example of that which I ſaid juſt before, that that Author does not take too much care of that which he writes. For can there be a raſher thing in the World than to offer to thruſt ones ſelf into the Counſels of God, and magiſterially to decide, what qualities the Reformers ought to have had? Continency and Virginity are the Cifts that God diſtributes to men as he pleaſes, but it is what he has given only to ſome Perſons, it no ways follows either that their Perſons were not acceptable to him, nor, that he could not make uſe of them in the greateſt works of his Providence. Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, as the Scripture calls him; was not he Married? Iſaac, Jacob, and the twelve Patriarchs who founded the Church of Iſrael, were not they? Moſes the deliverer of the Antient People, by whom God gave his Law, and by whom he had wrought ſo many Miracles, was not he? Aaron and all the High-Preiſts who ſucceeded him, were not they? All thoſe Calls and divers others whereof the Scripture ſpeaks, were methinks, moſt weighty and for the greateſt part extraordinary, and nevertheleſs we do not ſee, that God in giving them, has made any Reflection upon the Advice of the Authour of the Prejudices. Who ever gave him a right to lay down Rules with ſuch Authority of what God ought to do, and what he ſhould not have done, and by that means to raiſe himſelf ſo high as to be a Cenſor of God's Actions? He ought at leaſt to have called it to mind, that Jeſus Chriſt made no ſcruple to chuſe married men, out of whom to make his Apoſtles and Evangeliſts. The Scripture mentions the Mother-in-law of Saint Peter, that is to ſay his Wives Mother; for that word in Greek can be taken in no other ſence but that. It ſpeaks alſo of the four Daughters of Philip the Evangeliſt. The Authour of the Commentaries upon the Epiſtles of Saint Paul under the name of Saint Ambroſe, aſſures us that all the Apoſtles had Wives except Saint Paul and Saint John; and Saint Ignatius, and Saint Baſil ſay the ſame thing without any exception. Virginity is not then an inſeparable character of the Call of God, as the Authour of the Prejudices would perſwade us.
But after that firſt aſſault of the Authour of the Prejudices, which was made with all the weapons that he firſt found in his hands, he reproaches the Reformers, with the little fruit that their Preaching wrought for the Sanctification of thoſe people who followed them. Their Miniſters themſelves, ſays he, have been conſtrained by the Evidence of the Truth, to acknowledge, That all their pretended Reformation did not produce any Renovation of the ſpirit of Chriſtianity, and that it had rather increaſed then leſſened the diſorders of thoſe who embraced it; and for that he produces the complaints of ſome Miniſters as of Capito and Calvin himſelf, and of Luther againſt the Vices of their Age. I acknowledge that if they compare our Fathers manners and ours, with the Grace that God has given us in renewing his Goſpel in the midſt of us, they would find but too much reaſon to make us cover our Faces with confuſion, that we were unworthy of ſo great a Favour. I confeſs alſo that there may be many found among thoſe who at firſt embraced the Reformation, who inſtead of profiting by it, abuſed it, as the beſt things may be abuſed. But I ſay, that they ought not to inſult over that Confeſſion that we make in that regard; for beſides, that a Doctrine is not the leſs found, for not being ſo carefully obſerved as it deſerves, we can yet further ſay for our ſelves, and ſay it to the Glory of that God whom we ſerve, that he has poured forth a ſufficiently abundant meaſure of his bleſſing on our Fathers, and that if any compare their manners with thoſe of the other Party who rejected the Reformation, they will find reaſon enough to confeſs, that God was in the midſt of us. It is true indeed, that they might not ſee there thoſe Phariſaical Devotions of which the hypocrites and ſuperſtitious make a vain ſhew: They might not ſee there thoſe men who publiſh to all the world their Mortifications and their Faſts, who withdraw themſelves out of the crowd, to make themſelves to be more taken notice of, and who never enter into their ſecret retirements but with the greater eaſe to be able to mix themſelves in all that that is common in the World. But they may there behold a ſolid Piety, plain and natural, without Art and Affection, a true fear of offending God, with a free and open carriage, which never ſought to hide it ſelf by diſtinctions and illuſions; but in good earneſt to follow the dictates of Conſcience, without ſaying, to hinder them from doing their Duty, either what will become of us, or what will become of our Brethren or Siſters? Becauſe they knew that thoſe Events were in the hand of God, and that poor worldly intereſt ought never to prevail over the love of the Truth.
As to the Wars that the Author of the Prejudices imputes to the Reformation, it had been, methinks, his prudence not to have turned the Diſpute upon a Matter, on which he well knows that we have but too many things to ſay for our Juſtification. If ſome Princes of Germany took up Arms to defend themſelves againſt the aſſaults of their Enemies, they thought that the Juſtice and Law of Nations authoriſed that defence, and that being Soveraign in their States, they were bound to protect their Subjects and to preſerve that Truſt that God had put into their hands. And as for thoſe Commotions that hapned in France in the times of the Reformation, there is no perſon who is ignorant of their true Cauſes. It is true, that the Intereſt of our Religion had ſome part in them; but it had at leaſt the good fortune, to be found joyned with that of the preſerving of that great Kingdom to its juſt poſſeſſours, againſt thoſe pernitious deſigns which made but too great a noiſe afterwards; and whatſoever ſad Remembrances the Authour of the Prejudices has awakened, by his undeſerved reproaches, yet we ſhall not fail to maintain, that the blood of our Fathers was very well ſpent for ſo good a Cauſe.
Luther, ſays he, was not afraid of animating his followers to Murders, and Blood, by thoſe horrible words which are to be found in his firſt Tome of his Works of Wittingburg Edition; If we hang up Robbers on Gibbets, if we puniſh Hereticks and Thieves with the Sword, why do not we aſſault with all our Forces thoſe Cardinals and thoſe Popes, and all that ſcum of the Roman Sodom, that ceaſes not to corrupt the Church of God, why do we not embrue our hands in their Blood? It is certain, that there can ſcarce be any paſſage related after a more invenomed and baſe manner, than the Authour of the Prejudices relates that, and this will appear if they well but make theſe following Obſervations. 1. That he ſeparates thoſe words from the ſequel of the Diſcourſe to give them quite another Sence than Luther intended by them, which is, to ſpeak Properly, a kind of falſification, more dangerous then that of corrupting the words of a Sentance. 2. That he would make us imagine that thoſe words are addreſt to the followers of Luther, to animate them to Blood and Slaughter, which is a perfect Calumny. 3. That he quotes them not as ſpoken upon a ſuppoſition, but as ſpoken purely and ſimply, which is further contrary to the Truth. Behold then what the matter truly was; Sylveſter Prierias Maſter of the Sacred Palace at Rome, having wrote againſt Luther's Doctrine concerning the Pope, and in particular againſt his Appeal to a Council, had peremptorily maintained, That it was not lawful to Appeal from the Pope to a Council, becauſe the Pope was a Soveraign Judge, and liable to no Appeal, and that thoſe who ſued out ſuch Appeals were caſt out of the Church and Excommunicate. That the Pope alone was the Infallible Rule of Truth, whoſe deciſions were certain and irrefragable without a Council; where thoſe of a Council were nothing without the Pope, nor bound any perſon if they were not authoriſed by the Pope, ſo that whatſoever ſhould not receive the Doctrine of the Pope as the Infallible Rule of Faith, from whom the Holy Scripture it ſelf heretofore and now, derives all its force, he is a Heretick; and many other Propoſitions of that nature. Upon that Luther writes, that, All thoſe things were maintained only out of a hatred of a General Council, and to hinder any one from being heard who ſhould give any ſuccour to the afflicted Church. That the Popes Creatures ſeeing well that they could not hinder a Council, began to ſeek out ways to elude it, by ſaying, that the Pope was above a Council, and that without his Authority, none could either be called or held; in a word, that a Council had not any Power, but that the Pope alone was the Infallible Rule of Truth. That it ſeemed to him then, that if the Fury of thoſe men took place, there would not further remain any other Remedy but this; That the Emperour, the Kings and Princes ſhould make uſe of their Arms againſt thoſe publick Poſts, and that thoſe matters ſhould not be decided by Words, but by the Sword. In the cloſe of which, he adjoyns thoſe words which the Author of the Prejudices has related.
So that his meaning is not to Animate his Followers to Blood and Slaughter, as the Author of the Prejudices interprets it; but only to draw an abſur'd conſequence from his Adverſaries Hypotheſis, which is, That if he would alſo take away the only Remedy that was left to provide againſt the deſolations of the Church in aſſembling a Free Council, he would ſet the Emperour, the Kings and Princes in Arms againſt the Popes and the Cardinals and all the Court of Rome, and would reduce things to the utmoſt extremity. I my ſelf will not ſay, that there may not be ſomewhat too violent in thoſe kind of expreſſions; but after all, his deſign is not to animate his Followers to Blood and Slaughter; but only to let Sylveſter ſee the neceſſity of a Council, that might judge above the Pope, from that inconvenience, that otherwiſe there would remain no other courſe to the Emperour, to Kings and Princes, to re-eſtabliſh Order in the Church, then to make uſe of their compelling power. And that further appears to be the Sence, becauſe he adds immediately after, That the Authority of the Biſhop of Rome, whether it were of Divine Right, or whether it were of Human, could not be urged, but by the Precept, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, which in granting him to be a Father, puts him under the firſt Table; ſo that if he ſhould do any thing in oppoſition to them, he might be admoniſhed, and even accuſed by the leaſt of the Faithful. Which let us ſee that his meaning was no other than that which I have repreſented.
I confeſs it were to be wiſhed that Luther had obſerved more of the mean, than he did, in his manner of writing, and that, with that great and invincible Courage, joyned with that ardent zeal for the Truth, and with that unſhaken Conſtancy, that he always ſhewed, there might have been diſcernable more of ſtayedneſs and moderation. But thoſe faults which moſt frequently proceed from Temperament, do not take away mens eſteem of ſuch, when beſides them they may ſee a good foundation of Piety in them, and Vertues Heroical throughout, as they may diſcern-to have ſhone in Luther. For they cannot ceaſe extolling the zeal of Lucifer Biſhop of Cagliari, nor admiring the eminent qualities of Saint Jerom, although they do acknowledge too much ſharpneſs and paſſion in their Style. And it may be that there was even ſome particular neceſſity in the time of the Reformation to uſe vehemency of expreſſion, the more eaſily to rouſe men out of that profound ſleep wherein they had lain for ſo long a time. However it be, I had rather come to agree that Luther ought to have been more moderate in his expreſſions, and if the Authour of the Prejudices would be coutented with complaining of the ſharpneſs of his Style, he ſhould be alſo contented, for every anſwer to be entreated, that hereafter, he will not himſelf any more imitate that which he condemns in another; eſpecially, in writing againſt thoſe, who having lived in the laſt Age, cannot have given him any perſonal occaſion, to be carried away againſt them with paſſion, after the manner that he has been, in many places of his Book.
If in the Judgment that he paſſes on them, he would not hearken to Charity, he ought, at leaſt, to hearken to Juſtice, and not to have charged them with foul Accuſations, under the pretences of having miſtaken and miſunderſtood; I place in this Rank, that Chap. 2. Pag. 57. 58.which he furthers forms againſt Luther in theſe words. There never was any one, ſays he, but Luther, who durſt to boaſt in his Printed Works, that he had had a long conference with the Devil, that he had been convinced by his reaſons that private Maſſes were an abuſe, and that that was the motive that had carried him out to aboliſh them. But common Sence, adds he, has always made all others conclude, not only that he was in an exceſs of extravagance, to take the Devil for a Maſter of Truth, and to give himſelf up to be his Diſciple; but that all thoſe who had any marks that they were his Miniſters and his Instruments, and who had not any lawful Authority in the Church to make themſelves be heard, did not deſerve, that any ſhould apply themſelves to them, or that they ſhould ſo much as examine their Opinions. Behold here Luther, a Diſciple, a Miniſter and Inſtrument of the Devil, if one will believe the Author of the Prejudices.
To refute that Calumny, we need but to repreſent in a few words what that buſineſs was that he there ſpeaks of. Luther following the Style of the Monks of thoſe days, who were wont by a Figure of Rhetorick to fill their Books with their exploits againſt the Devil, relates, that being one time awakened in the midſt of a dark night, the Devil began to accuſe him for having made the people of God Idolatrize, and to have been guilty of Idolatry himſelf for the ſpace of fifteen years, wherein he had ſaid private Maſſes, and that the Reaſon of that Accuſation was, that he could not have any thing conſecrated in thoſe private Maſſes; from whence it followed that he had adored, and had made others adore meer Bread and meer Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. He adds, that that accuſation ſtruck him at his heart, and that to defend himſelf he alledged that he was a Prieſt, that he had done nothing but by the Order of his Superiors, and that he had always pronounced the words of Conſecration very exactly, with the beſt intention in the World; from whence he concluded, that he could ſee no reaſon to have the Crime of Idolatry laid to his Charge: That notwithſtanding the Tempter did not fail to reply, that thoſe excuſes would nothing avail him in that the Turks and the Prieſts of Baal obeyed alſo the Order of their Superiours, with a very good intention, and that, nevertheleſs they were truly Idolaters. Ʋpon this, he ſays, that he was ſeized with ſuch a violent agitation of Spirit, accompanied with a general ſweat over all the parts of his Body, and a confuſion wherein he found himſelf, having been made to underſtand that his defence was not Solid, ſince beſides a good intention and obedience to his Superiors, he ought to have examined further whether the Action diſputed was good in it ſelf and agreeable to God, and on that he made a Reſolution to renounce all private Maſſes.
This was the Diſcourſe of Luther there, upon all which I ſhall make no ſcruple to profeſs, that that manner of expreſſing things under the form of a Combat with the Devil, appears to me indeed, a little remote from common Uſe, and makes that return into my thoughts, that Luther himſelf has ſaid ſomewhere in his Works, Pium Lectorem oro ut iſta legat cum Judicio, & ſciat me fuiſſe aliquando Monachum. In effect he could not wholly throw off, as he would the Stile of the Convent. But I ſay, notwithſtanding, there is nothing in all that which is remote from the Duty of an honeſt man, nor which may not be intirely innocent, whether one take that Narration Literally, or as a kind of Figure and Parable. He ſays, that the Devil accuſed him in his heart, That ſignifies, that he repreſented to himſelf, in his Conſcience, the Accuſations that the Devil might one day form againſt him, before the Tribunal of God; What crime was there in all that? Is not the Devil called in Scripture, The Accuſer of the Faithful? And does not the Hiſtory of Job introduce him as appearing before the Throne of God, to render the Piety of that Holy-man ſuſpected? Luther adjoyns, that in his firſt Defences, he alleadged his Prieſthood, his Obedience to his Superiours, his good intention and exactneſs. What is there extraordinary in all that? It is not very natural that thoſe ſorts of pretences ſhould come in to the ſuccours of a burthened Conſcience? He ſays in the ſequel that theſe Defences were oppoſed by the Accuſer, as inſufficient and uncapable to hide him from the ſin of Idolatry. What is there here that may deſerve any blame? May not the Devil ſpeak Truths in Accuſing us? Does not he know how to exaggerate our ſins, and ſtrongly to oppoſe our vain Excuſes? At laſt Luther ſays, that to render thoſe inſtances of the Accuſer unſervicable for the future, he reſolved within himſelf to abandon private Maſſes, which ſerved for the ground of that Accuſation. What is there in all that, that may not be the Motion of a good Conſcience? He would ſhut the mouth of the Adverſary, and take away from him any means of accuſing him before God, as if he had been a wicked perſon and an Idolater, he would ſnatch away from him thoſe weapons that he made uſe of to combat and terrify him. Let the Author of the Prejudices turn all that as he pleaſes, he can never find it in a bad ſence. Every Chriſtian is bound to order his conduct ſo that he may be ſheltered from the Attempts of the Devil, for he is a Roaring Lion, ſaith Saint Peter, who walks daily about us, ſeeking whom 3. Pet. ch. 5.he may devour, and when to put a ſtop to the Accuſations of that Enemy, a man Examines his own Actions, with a deſign to amend them, and to forſake the evil of them, He had need be a good, Detractour and well skilled in Calumniating, that can take a pretence from that to ſay of him, That he has taken the Devil for a Maſter of Truth, and that he has given up himſelf to him to be his Diſeiple, his Miniſter and Inſtrument. Would the Author of the Prejudices take it well, that we ſhould give thoſe horrible Titles to Dominic, one of the greateſt Saints of the Church of Rome under a pretence that Antonine has Wrote of him ſomewhat like that we have ſeen of Luther? He ſays, That Antonius. Chron. 3. Parte tit. 23. Cap. 4. 6.Dominic ſaw the Devil one Night, holding in his Iron hands a Paper, which he Read to him by the Light of a Lamp, and that having asked him, what that meant which he Read, the Devil anſwered him, That it was a Catalogue of the Sins of his Brethen. Ʋpon which Dominic having commanded him to leave the Paper to him, and the Devil doing it accordingly, that Saint found therein certain things, about which, ſays Antonine, he Corrected his Religious. See here then, according to the Stile of the Author of the Prejudices, the Diſciple, the Miniſter, and the Inſtrument of the Devil; Not only becauſe it was he who taught him the diſorders of his Covent, but alſo, becauſe the Accuſations of the Devil gave him an occaſion, and a Motive to make new Orders in his Society, neither more nor leſs, then thoſe that Luther made uſe of for the Aboliſhing of private Maſſes. But as it would be no difficult matter to defend Dominic, by ſaying, that he did but make uſe of that Paper againſt the Intention of that Accuſer, and to ſhut his Mouth for the future. So alſo it is not a difficult thing to juſtify Luther by ſaying preciſely the ſame thing, ſince that was in effect againſt the intention of the Devil, that he made uſe of his Accuſation, and that he did ſo, only to confound him, and to take from him for the future, any ground of Accuſation.
I will end this Chapter, in deſiring the Authour of the Prejudices to Remember, that we have ſeen not a long time ſince, men taken up in defending themſelves, not only againſt thoſe common reports, that are ſpread abroad of them amongſt the People; but alſo, againſt thoſe publick Writings that charge them with very ſtrange Accuſations. We have heard their The ſecond Letter of Monſieur Arnaud. 2. Part Pag. 110. 111.Complaints, that they have ſeen, ſo many Mouths of Calumny opened to tear them, So many Enemies conſpiring together to deſtroy their Honour and Reputation, and thoſe Enemies vomiting up againſt them all that Hell can invent of the blackeſt and fouleſt Calumnies, and violating the Truth by a hundred infamous Lyes, even to lay to their charge Crimes againſt the State. We have heard them complain in theſe Terms. That one has broken Charity by Latin Printed Poems, where one heaps upon them all the Curſes that the moſt inflamed Choler is capable of conceiving, and where one crys down their Solitude as the Hell of the Heathen Poets, and as the reſidence of damned Souls. That beyond all that, one has yet further violated all Modeſty, and broke all the bounds that ſhould have reſtrained perſons of the moſt deplorable Conſciences before God, and loſt honour before men, if they had not wholly proſtituted themſelves to Calumny, in forging a Chimerical Aſſembly at Bourg-fontaine, and charging ſix Divines, with abominable deſigns to deſtroy the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Goſpel, all the Sacraments, and all the other Myſteries of the Chriſtian Religion, and to Eſtabliſh Deiſm upon the Ruines of Chriſtianity. Let him learn then, by that Example, not lightly to believe the Calumnies wherewith they have laboured to darken our firſt Reformers, and to ceaſe to give himſelf over to a paſſionate Spirit that ſuggeſts thoſe odious accuſations againſt perſons, whoſe lives have appeared pure and intire to a great people, who having known and followed them, can give a better Teſtimony of their Conduct, then their intereſted Enemies do. Let him Remember what Monſieur Arnaud has wrote to juſtify ſome of the Religious of our time, whom he accuſes to have been Uncommunicants, Aſacramentarians, and fooliſh Virgins, who in all matters affected an Extravagant and Schiſmatical Singularity. That there was Second Letter of Monſ. Arnaud. Firſt part. Page 105. The ſame Pag. 103.a Time in the life of Saint Tereſia her ſelf, who was the Ornament of theſe laſt Times, wherein ſhe was decried not only concerning the Faith, but concerning manners alſo. That moreover, divers, have thought her poſſeſſed with a Devil, and would have her Conjure. That after that and toward the end of her life, ſhe was Treated as one poſſeſſed with a Devil, as a Hypocrite, and Diſſembler, and one that had loſt all Honour. They publickly defamed her in the Pulpits in the Churches, and they compared her with one Magdalen de la Craix, a Woman filled with a lying Spirit, and Famous throughout all Spain for her Forgeries, and her Communication with the Devil. That they witneſſed againſt her and her Religious, things of ſo foul a nature, that they were accuſed in the Sacred Office, and charged with having committed a Thouſand Forgeries; That the Inquiſition was forced to inform againſt her and her Nuns, and that they expected every day when they ſhould be made Priſoners. That her Books were ſeized by the ſame Inquiſition to be cenſured. That her General markt out one of her Monaſteries to be a Priſon for her. That the Popes Nuntio Treated her as a turbulent Woman, and a common Whore. That he thought to have overturned from top to bottom a new Edifice of the Dechauſſez. That he uſed them with the greateſt rigour, baniſhing ſome, impriſoning others, and generally condemning them as if they had been a People of a new Sect infected with Errors, or ſuch an ill life as it was neceſſary to cut off that courſe, that they might not infect and deſtroy the whole World. This is well nigh the Treatment that they give the firſt Reformers, they have laboured to cover them with reproaches, to weaken the efficacy of their Preaching, and thoſe very perſons themſelves that ſo loudly complain, that we load them with Calumnies by ſo unjuſt a proceeding, are now a days the firſt that make uſe of it themſelves againſt us.