Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 2 · Chapter 7

Historical Defense of the Reformation · Part 2 · Chapter 7

p. 222CHAP. VII.

An Anſwer to the Objections of the twelfth and thirteenth Chapters, of the Prejudices.

TO underſtand well what is in the Twelfth Chapter of the Author of the Prejudices, we muſt in the firſt place take notice of the deſign he propounds to himſelf, and the means he makes uſe of to reach it. As to his deſign, he Explains himſelf in the very Title of the Chapter, which bears this, That the Spirit of a Politician, every way Humane, that appears in the differences that the Calviniſts Prejug. Chap. 12.have had with the Lutherans, gives a right to reject them, without any further Examination, as a ſort of men without any Conſcience. He explains himſelf yet further in the beginning of his diſcourſe after this manner. It has been demanded, ſays he, of the Calviniſts with good reaſon, how it could come to paſs, that if Luther, Zuinglius and Calvin, had received a Miſſion from God, and were the Inſtruments that he made choice of for the greateſt work that ever was, which is the Reformation of the Errors of ſixteen Centuries, they ſhould not avoid being openly divided between themſelves, to diſmember themſelves from one another, to perſecute one another, after ſo outragious a manner, and to Treat one another, as the declared Enemies of God and his Church. He explains himſelf alſo in another place, where he ſpeaks after this manner. The Innocence or the Crimes of Luther equally condemn the Calviniſts, either for having declaimed againſt an innocent perſon, or for having given unjuſt praiſes to one of the moſt wicked men that ever was, and that monſtrous conjunction which they have made in his perſon, of holineſs, with the moſt deteſtable Crimes, is an evident proof, that they have not the leaſt Idea of Chriſtian Vertue, nor of the Spirit of Chriſtianity. See yet further how he ſpeaks in the ſame Chapter, If Luther were an inſtrument of the Devil, a wicked perſon, a Schiſmatick, a violent and paſſionate man, what will become of the Reformation that he has eſtabliſhed, and which ſerves as a Foundation to that of the Calvinists. In fine he explains himſelf in the 321 Page, where he ſays, That our behaviour in reſpect of the Lutherans is enough to give a ground to conclude that the Heads of the party of the p. 223Calviniſts have been ſuch as have guided themſelves more by Policy then Conſcience; which being, adds he, moſt contrary to the Spirit of God, and remote from that which ought to be found in thoſe new Prophets which he would extraordinarily raiſe up, for the reforming of his Church, it is not poſſible for us to take them for men of that kind, and we have a moſt just ground to refuſe to hearken to them. It reſults from thence that the Author of the Prejudices had a deſign to conclude,

1. That they ought to reject us without Examining any thing that we ſay, and without ſo much as hearing us.

2. That we are a ſort of men without any Conſcience, who have no Idea of Chriſtian Vertue, nor of the Spirit of Chriſtianity, and who guide our ſelves by Worldly Policy.

3. That we overthrow the Reformation of Luther, which ſerves nevertheleſs for the Foundation of our own.

4. That our Firſt Reformers had none of their Miſſion from God, and that they were not the Inſtruments which he made choice of to Reform the Errors of the Church of Rome. To eſtabliſh theſe propoſitions he heightens on one ſide the differences that were between Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, and all that the heat of Diſputation made them ſay on one ſide and on the other, and in the end he ſets down the eſteem that we have always had of Luther notwithſtanding thoſe Diviſions, and the Condeſcenſion that we have for him and thoſe of his Party, in opoſition to the hatred that we have always, ſays he, Teſtified againſt the Church of Rome.

All that unjuſt Reaſoning is founded upon divers falſe Propoſitions that the Author of the Prejudices has ſuppoſed as evident and beyond all doubt, and of which notwithſtanding he has captiouſly ſuppreſſed one part, to give the more Colour to his Invective.

1. His Reaſoning is founded upon 'this Propoſition, That we hold our Firſt Reformers to be new Prophets, or as he ſpeaks, to be the Apoſtles of a new Goſpel. But this is a falſe and calumnious Suppoſition, for we hold on the contrary, that our Reformers Preached nothing new, they were not under the Quality either of new Prophets, or Apoſtles of a new Goſpel; they did not boaſt that they brought a new Revelation into the World, but they only oppoſed humane Errors that had no Foundation in the old Revelation, and in that reſpect I have ſhewn that they had a more then ſufficient Call in the Right that is Common to all p. 224Chriſtians and in the Miniſtry which they themſelves exerciſed in the Latin Church, without any neceſſity that there ſhould be any Extraordinary and immediate Miſſion of God for that, and I have explained in what ſence it muſt be underſtood that there was ſomething of Extraordinary in their Call.

2. That Reaſoning ſuppoſes, That we ought not to hear any Reformers 'till firſt we have examined the Quality of their perſons, and if the Quality of their perſons do not ſatisfy us, we ought to reject their words, and to remain in the State we were in before. But there is nothing more pernitious then this Principle, to which I oppoſe a contrary Principle, which is, That we ought to judge of that which our Reformers ſaid by the word of God, and by the proper Characters of Truth or Falſhood which are in the things themſelves, after a manner abſtracted from the Judgment that we may make of thoſe perſons, and that it is a way to Error to Judge by the Qualities of the perſons. This is that which I have made appear elſewhere, and ſhall not omit to eſtabliſh it yet further in this place, for the greater clearing of this Truth. I ſay then that when it falls out that thoſe who Preach have perſonal Qualities that do not ſatisfy us, it is indeed a Reaſon that Obliges us to take the greater heed to their Doctrine. But thoſe matters being at the bottom, as they are, true or falſe in themſelves, without the perſons that propound them changing their natures, they ought to be chiefly conſidered in themſelves, if we would aſſure our ſelves in a good Conſcience that we are in the way of Truth; for we cannot have that aſſurance if we Judge only by the perſons, ſince the Faith is immediatly founded upon the word of God, and not upon that of men, whoſoever they be. Moreover, every one knows that a Judgment concerning perſons, is oftentime far harder and more ſubject to Error then that of the things themſelves, whether it be becauſe ordinarily it depends upon a great number of particular circumſtances, which one cannot exactly know, and which yet one ought to know before a man can be able to Judge, or whether it be alſo becauſe it is open to the Illuſions of Hypocriſy, which hides real vices under the appearances of Vertue, and to thoſe of Calumny, which turns the beſt actions into a bad meaning, that ſuppreſſes the good and heightens the bad. Beſides that it is certain that the Judgment which is made of perſons ought partly to depend on that of things, ſo far is it from that, that what is made of things ſhould depend on that of perſons. For on the one ſide how many Founders p. 225of Hereſy have there been whoſe life has appeared to have been very exemplary, and who were notwithſtanding ravenous Wolves? how many Phariſees who have boaſted of their righteouſneſs, while their Doctrine was a Leaven, whereof great heed was to be taken? There have been ſome who have even gone ſo far as to have wrought Miracles, and Jeſus Chriſt has foretold, that falſe Chriſts, and falſe Prophets ſhall ariſe, who ſhall work great Signs and Wonders, capable of ſeducing the very Elect, if it were poſſible. And on the other ſide do not ſufficiently underſtand the ways of Divine Providence, to be able to conclude without raſhneſs, that it never makes uſe of perſons guilty of many crimes either for the Propagation of its Truth, or the Reformation of Errors. Saint Paul ſays, that God puts his Treaſure into Earthen 2. Cor. 4. 7.2 Cor 4:7Veſſels, that the Excellency of his power may be of God and not of man. The ſame Apoſtle Teaches us that divers in his Time Preached Jeſus Chriſt out of a Spirit of Envy and Contention. God heretofore made uſe of Salomon, not only for the building and preſervation of his Temple, but alſo to give the Church one part of the Canon of its Scriptures, which is much more then the Temple, and yet notwithſtanding that Prince gave himſelf over to the love of Women, and fell into Idolatry; and laſtly, Jeſus Chriſt made uſe of a Judas at firſt, that ſold him into his Enemies Hands.

But to decide this Queſtion by Examples drawn out of the Scripture, we find in the Hiſtory of the Church of Iſrael, that 2. Kings 1▪2 Kgs 1Jehis King of the Ten Tribes Reformed that Church, that he took away the Worſhip of the Falſe gods which Ahab had introduced, that he demoliſhed the Temple of Baal, and broke down his Images; ſee here without doubt a good Reformation. Notwithſtanding it is ſaid that he did not depart from the ſins of Jeroboam, but that he retained the worſhipping of the Golden-Calves that were at Dan and Bethel. It is alſo related that he accompliſht that Reformation in a very odious manner, and very unworthy of a Prince that made profeſſion of the fear of God. For having aſſembled all his People, he told them that he would ſerve Baal much more then Ahab had done, he commanded that all his Prophets and Prieſts ſhould meet together, and all the worſhippers of that falſe God to Celebrate a Solemn Feaſt for him. He himſelf pointed out the day of the Feaſt, and cauſed a Publication of it to be made. But when the Aſſembly was come into the Houſe of Baal, and all thoſe poor People who p. 226truſted in his word, when they thought of nothing but their Devotions, he put them all to Death without letting any one eſcape. Suppoſe we, that we ought to Judge of a Reformation by the perſons that make it, what may not be ſaid againſt this here? Jehu made uſe of Hypocriſy and Treachery, he broke the publick Faith and his own, in the moſt Scandalous manner in the World, and the moſt contrary to the ſincerity of an honeſt man. Beſides that, he yet remained in the Superſtitions of Jeroboam, and made the Iſraelites remain in them too. If we would believe the Author of the Prejudices, the Reformation that he made would be rather the work of the Devil, then that of the Spirit of God. Jehu would not have been Extraordinarily choſen by God to reform his Church and purge it from Idolatry. But this is not the Sentiment of the Scripture, it does not without doubt approve of the Treachery and Hypocriſy of Jehu, it condemns the Golden Calves that he kept up, but it does not omit the praiſing of that Reformation in that good which it had, and to ſay that it was well pleaſing to God. And it is True that Jehu was extraordinarily called to that, as it appears by the Anointing that the Prophet Eliſha gave him by one of his Diſciples.

We find in that ſame Scripture, the Hiſtory of divers other Reformations which were made in the Church of Judah, but we find alſo that they were almoſt wholly different among themſelves. Some went ſo far as the aboliſhing the uſage of the high places and the Groves, which were Heatheniſh Superſtitions, and the incenſe that was offered to the Serpent of Aaron, which was a kind of Idolatry; others yet retained all theſe things. Some even of thoſe who made theſe Reformations committed Actions very unpleaſing to God, which the Scripture Reflects on. It ſays of Aſa, who was one of thoſe Reformers, that being ſick of 2 Cron. 16.the diſeaſe whereof he died, he ſought not to God, but to the Phyſitians, 2 Cron. 20.It ſays of Jehoſhaphat, who was another, that he aided a wicked King, and that he loved thoſe whom God hated, becauſe he joyned himſelf with wicked Ahab. It ſays of Joaſh, who was yet 2 Cron. 24.another, that he fell in with the people into the Exerciſe of Idolatry and the uſe of the Groves, and that he cruelly killed a Prophet, becauſe he oppoſed thoſe Superſtitions. If you Judge of thoſe Reformations by their perſons, according to the Principle of the Author of the Prejudices, you muſt ſay not only that thoſe Reformers ought not to be heard, but that the Spirit of God p. 227was not there. For you ſee their Diſſentings, ſince ſome went further then the others, and that ſome condemn'd what the others retained; you ſee their perſonal Actions that you cannot excuſe, ſince the Scripture it ſelf condemns them. But if you Judge according to the Scripture, which is more worthy to be followed then the Author of the Prejudices, you will give to thoſe Reformations the Praiſes which they merit in themſelves, you will approve of the more perfect ones, you will diſtinguiſh in the imperfect the good from the bad, without having reſpect to the Perſons; and when at laſt you would Judge of the Perſons, you would do it as Juſtice and Charity would Ordain you to do.

If the Principle of the Author of the Prejudices were reaſonable in regard of the Reformers of the Latin Church, it is certain that it would be ſo further in regard of the Propagators of the Chriſtian Religion and of its Ordinary Teachers. I would ſay, that if thoſe of the Church of Rome had reaſon not to hear the Reformers becauſe they had differences among themſelves, becauſe they ſpoke injurious words of one another in the heat of their diſputes, becauſe they can take notice of ſome Vices in them, or a Conduct that may be ſuſpected to have had too much Worldly Policy, it follows from thence, by a far greater reaſon, that the Heathens ought not to have heard the Chriſtians as often as they ſhould have ſeen the ſame things to have appeared among them. But when was it that they might not have ſeen them appear? The Age of the Apoſtles, which we may juſtly call the Age of innocence, and of the peace of the Church, in compariſon of others, was that exempted from Diviſions and Vices? Thoſe who have read the Epiſtles of Saint Paul cannot be ignorant, that there were divers among the firſt Preachers of Chriſtianity, who would yet have retained Moſes with Jeſus Chriſt, and the Law with Grace, that there were divers who oppoſed themſelves to Saint Paul about divers points of his Doctrine, and who laboured to blaſt the honour of his Miniſtry, that there were ſome who in Preaching the Goſpel, diſcovered themſelves to be too much Tranſported with humane Paſſions, that there were even ſome who went ſo far as to deny the Doctrine of the Reſurrection. Saint Paul does not ſpare them, and the Juſt Complaints that he frequently makes of them, ſufficiently note that they had not on their parts all the reſpect for him which they ought to have had. Notwithſtanding whatſoever complaints he made of them, howſoever p. 228vehement he was in his diſputes, yet we do not ſee that he Excommunicated them, nor that he delivered them over to Satan as he did the inceſtuous perſon of Corinth. He defends his Apoſtleſhip, he calls them deceitful workers, Miniſters of Satan Transformed into the Miniſters of Righteouſneſs, but he fails not yet in 2 Cor. 11. 13, 15.2 Cor 11:132 Cor 11:15the ſame Chapter to give them the Title of Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt. Are they Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt? I ſpeak as a Fool, I Verſ. 23.am more. Would the Author of the Prejudices have thought it well done if the Heathens of that Time had followed his Maxim, and if without ever Examining the Chriſtian Religion in it ſelf, they ſhould have preſently prejudged, upon the Diviſions which they beheld, and upon the Moderation that Saint Paul yet kept towards thoſe perſons, whom elſewhere he Treated roughly enough, that the Spirit of God did not accompany the Chriſtians, and that their Doctrine could not proceed from Heaven?

Will they ſay that thoſe Infidels ought to have carried themſelves after that manner in the time of Conſtantine, when the Biſhops that compoſed the Council of Nice appeared ſo eager, Socrat. Hiſt. Eccles. lib. 1. Cap. 5.and ſo divided among themſelves, that they preſented the Emperour with Books of Accuſations one againſt another, managing a bloody War while they ſaw themſelves united together in the ſame Aſſembly? Will they ſay that they had Reaſon to be prejudiced againſt Chriſtanity, then when they ſaw the quarrels that Vide Baronium.rent the Church upon the Subject of the Conſubſtantiality of the Son of God, or then when they ſaw thoſe which fell out about the word of Hypoſtaſis between the Orthodox themſelves who accuſed one another to be Hereticks, or then when the Eaſt and Weſt were divided about the concurrence of Meletius and Paulinus for the Biſhoprick of Antioch, or when the Two great and Illuſtrious Reformers of the Church, in the Time of the Arrians Euſebius of Verceil, and Lucifer of Cagliari, were divided upon the Subject of the Arrian Biſhops who returned to the Orthodox Faith, or when the Catholicks and the Donatiſts mutually perſecuted one another, and that in the very Flames of thoſe Perſecutions, the Catholicks did not ceaſe to call the Donatiſts always their Brethren, although they oftentimes called them alſo Hereticks, Schiſmaticks, Phariſees, &c. And though they loaded them with injuries, and though the Donatiſts on their part Treated the Catholicks with all the indignities imaginable, even to the outragiouſly rejecting of the name of Brethren, which they gave them.

p. 229Thoſe who are well verſed in Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, will yield that we might urge thoſe Examples a great deal further if we would but take the pains to do it, for there have been very few Ages wherein Chriſtians have not been divided between themſelves, and that frequently upon grounds trivial enough, and wherein there may not have been found in their Conduct that very thing which the Author of the Prejudices believes to be incompatible with the Spirit of God, that is to ſay, the heats of Diſpute on the one ſide, and on the other ſome ††Radourciſſemens.Meaſures of that which he calls Humane Policy. I ſhall not here mention the diſorders which hapned about the buſineſs of Nestorius and his Hereſy, nor thoſe which followed quickly after on the occaſion of the Eutychians and Monothelites. I ſhall omit the Schiſm of the Greeks and Latins, and the re-unions which they made up ſometimes among themſelves out of a Humane Policy. I ſhall ſay nothing of the confuſions wherewith the Latin Church was agitated in thoſe Times, which Baronius calls unhappy, and wherein he ſays Baron. ad Ann. 908.the Popes made void the Acts of one another. Infeliciſſimo tempora cum alter alterius res gestas intruſus quiſque Pontifex aboleret. In effect, Formoſus having accepted of the Papacy againſt the Oath that John VIII. had made him take in depoſing him, that he would never think of being Biſhop, Stephen VII. his Succeſſour made him to be condemned in open Council, and all the Ordinations that he had made, to be void; and having at laſt cauſed his Body to be taken out of his Grave, he made the three Fingers wherewith they give their bleſſing to be cut of and thrown into the River Tiber: but John IX. Succeſſour to Stephen, Aſſembled another Council at Ravenna, wherein he not only made all that Stephen and his Council had done againſt Formoſus to be void, but he even made all his Acts to be Canonically burned, re-eſtabliſhing the memory of Formoſus, and the Ordinances that he had made. Some Time after, Sergius a great Enemy of Formoſus, came to the Papacy, and he annulled in his turn the Acts of the Council of Ravenna, and made void all the Ordinances of Formoſus. Notwithſtanding the Church of Rome reckons all thoſe men among her Popes, and acknowledges them all to have been lawful ones: And which is further remarkable, John IX. in the ſame Act wherein he makes void the Council of Stephen, and wherein he condemns it to the Flames, he does not fail to call Stephen his Predeceſſor of Holy Memory, Piae recordationis predaeceſſorem. Upon which Baronius exhorts his Readers to Conſider, that although p. 230Baron. ad Ann. 904.the Popes have had Predeceſſors very worthy of blame, yet they have been wont notwithſtanding to have a great deal of reſpect for them. So that, ſays he, although Stephen had been a Deteſtable Pope, who had invaded the Sea, and who during his Papacy had committed all ſorts of Execrable crimes, yet John nevertheleſs calls him his Predeceſſor of Holy Memory; which may appear at leſt as ſtrange as the Moderation of Zuinglius and Calvin in reſpect of Luther.

I might add to all that, another Example drawn from the Conduct of the Church of Rome, upon the occaſion of her latter Schiſms. Every one knows the Diviſions of the Fourteenth Century, which divided all the Weſt about the concurrence of two Anti-Popes. Both Parties were extreamly Animated, they look'd upon one another as Excommunicated as Anti-Chriſts, the Enemies of God and his Church, they mutually Anathematiſed one another, they took up Arms one againſt another, and made a bloody War, Vrban VI. on his ſide, in a Bull that began, The Vine of the Lord of Sabaoth, that is to ſay, the holy Church of Rome, Raynald. ad Ann. 1378.has a great evil in her Womb, and ſends forth grievous Sighs, &c. Treats his Anti-Pope and his cardinals as a child of iniquity and Son of Perdition, Vipers, wicked Wretches animated with the Spirit of the Devil, Schiſmaticks, Apoſtates, Conſpirators, Blaſphemers, &c. He depoſed, and ſpoiled them of all their Honours, Dignities, Prelacies, Offices and Benefits, he confiſcated their goods, and declared their perſons to be infamous and deteſtable; he Excommunicated all thoſe who believed, who received them, their Defenders and Favourers, and even thoſe who ſhould give them Eccleſiaſtical burial, if they did not pull them out of the Grave again with their own hands: he forbad all faithful People of what Quality ſoever, even Kings themſelves, Queens, Emperours, to receive them into their Lands, to give or to ſend them either Bread, or Wine, or Meat, or Wood, or Money, or Merchandiſe.

He Excommunicated particularly all thoſe who ſhould hold his competitor for Pope, or who ſhould call him Pope, or who ſhould receive any Favours, Indulgences, Dignities or Prelacies from him. And as if all that had not been enough, he ordained a Holy Croiſado againſt thoſe Shiſmaticks and thoſe condemned Perſons, to purſue and root them out, under the ſame Priviledges which are given to thoſe who take up Arms for the Conqueſt of the Holy Land.

p. 231He abſolved alſo the ſubjects of thoſe Princes who ſhould acknowledge his Anti-Pope, of their Oath of Allegiance, and he Excommunicated thoſe ſubjects themſelves if they ſhould yield any obedience to their Soveraigns. On the other ſide, Clement VII. who kept his ſeat at Avignon, was not wanting to proceed againſt Ʋrban and his Followers, and to Treat him and his Party with the ſame heat that Ʋrban had ſhew'd againſt him. See here differences which were methinks ſufficiently heightned. Notwithſtanding whatſoever Animoſity there was there between thoſe two parties, whatſoever Wars they made one againſt another, whatſoever Anathema's they mutually thundred out, the Church of Rome has not failed to own and Canonize for Saints, thoſe perſon who lived and died in thoſe two contrary Obediences, and who even died in the hotteſt Quarrels of thoſe two Anti-Popes. For ſhe has Canonized on the one ſide Saint Catherine of Siena, who took part with Ʋrban, and who Treated his competitor as Anti-Chriſt, and a member of the Devil, and his Cardinals as Devils incarnate; and on the other ſide, ſhe has Canonized Peter of Raynald. in Ʋrban. 6.Luxemburg, who died the Cardinal of Clement VII. and who had received that Dignity from his hands, againſt the expreſs prohibition of Ʋrban VI. under pain of Excommunication; ſo that here are two Saints on the one and the other ſide lawfully Excommunicated.

Mr. Daille in his Anſwer to the Monſieurs Adam and Cottiby, intending Reponſ. a Meſs. Adam. & Cott. Part 2. Chap. 14.to retort this ſame Objection, that the Author of the Prejudices gives us, has ſet before us the Example of Saint Jerome, and Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who were cruelly and paſſionately carried out againſt Saint John Chryſoſtom, ſo far as to compare his fall, to the fall of Babylon, and to call him Traytor, Judas, Jechonias, he has alſo alledged the Example of Stephen Biſhop of Rome, who in the Quarrel that he had with Saint Cyprian, calls him a falſe Chriſt, a falſe Apoſtle, and deceitful worker. But the Author Prejug Ch. 12. Pag. 311.of the Prejudices does not think that theſe Examples are to the purpoſe. He ſays, That the Difference between Saint Chryſoſtome, and Saint Jerome, and Saint Cyril, reſpected only perſonal Actions, in which none ever denied but that it might happen to the Saints themſelves to be ſurprized in reſpect of one another. But this is only a ſhift, for if we may underſtand that it has hapned to the Saints to be violently carried out againſt another Saint after the fierceſt manner in the World, upon perſonal differences which have no other Foundations then a Surpriſe, I ſee not why we may p. 232not alſo underſtand, that it may happen to good men to be violently carried out againſt one another, about the points of Religion, which afford a more juſt pretence of Animoſity, when each thinks he has the Truth of his ſide. Before I let go this Example, I cannot forbear noting, by the by, that it is but very ill to the purpoſe that the Author of the Prejudices cenſures M. Daille for having ſaid that Theophilus of Alexandria and Epiphanius had condemned, Excommunicated, and depoſed Chryſoſtom from his Biſhoprick, for it is evident to thoſe who are not ignorant of Hiſtory, that Theophilus condemned and depoſed him, and that Epiphanius being gone to Conſtantinople before that ſame condemnation, refuſed to hold Communion with Chryſoſtom, which is preciſely that which M. Daille would have ſaid. But the Author of the Prejudices does not Anſwer me better upon the Quarrel of Saint Cyprian and Stephen; Their difference, ſays he, was only upon a point which had not then been decided by the Church. This Evaſion Pag. 312.is very pittiful. The more trivial the occaſion is about which one is violent, that paſſion is both the more blameable, and the prejudice againſt the perſons who are ſo carried away with it is the better grounded. To Anſwer after that manner aggravates the paſſion of Stephen, in ſtead of excuſing it. Stephen, adds he, who had more reaſon at the bottom, was carried out by the ardour of his Zealonly to ſome threats of Excommunication. Or if you will, to an Excommunication which having had no ground would have produced no real diviſion, and would not have hindred but that Saint Cyprian ſhould still have been honoured by the Church of Rome, and Saint Stephen by that of Africa. It is not certain that Stephen had more reaſon at the bottom then Saint Cyprian, on the contrary there were in their days as many Hereticks at leaſt, whoſe Baptiſm ought to have been rejected, as there was whoſe ought to have been admitted. And as for the reſt, whether Stephen had in effect Excommunicated Saint Cyprian, or whether he had meerly threatned it, what is that to our Queſtion? If he contented himſelf with a meer Threatning of it, he remained in Communion with a man whom he called a falſe Chriſt, a. falſe Apoſtle, a. deceitful Worker, and with a man whom on his part he accuſed of Stupidity, of Pride, of Obſtinacy, of Preſumption, of Folly, of blindneſs of Mind, and of Wickedneſs. He abode in Communion with Firmilianus who had the ſame intereſts with Saint Cyprian, and who alſo accuſed Stephen of Inhumanity, Boldneſs, of Inſolence, of Schiſm, and manifeſt Folly, who compared him to Judas, and ſaid of him p. 233that he took part with Hereticks. If he actually Excommunicated them, it further notes the exceſs of his Paſſion, which could not in effect have been Judged to have been leſs then a Paſſion and a violent heat, ſince according to the Author of the Prejudices himſelf, it would have had no ground, and would not have hindred but that Saint Cyprian ſhould have been always honoured by the Church of Rome.

Since the Author of the Prejudices was in the way to refute the Anſwer of M. Daille, it had poſſibly more conduced to the publick Edification, if in ſtead of ſhallowly inſiſting on thoſe remote Examples, he had applied himſelf to that wherein M. Daille adjoyns, the fierce injuries, wherewith the Divines of the Roman Church may be every day ſeen to rend one another, although they then remain and though they yet live in one and the ſame Communion. They acknowledge one another for Brethren, they aſſiſt at the ſame Altars, they call upon the ſame Saints, and yet nevertheleſs, as M. Daille relates, they write one againſt another after the moſt paſſionate and violent manner in the World. One ſort of them ſay of their Adverſaries, That they were infected with Hereſies, and were Enemies of the Apoſtolick See, and that their Opinion was full of Hereſie and Perfidiouſneſs; That it was Preſumptious, Injurious to the State of the Religious, and that it ſavoured of Calviniſm, and to ſpeak Plainly, that it was Erroneous in the Faith, that it openly ſtifled the word of God and the Authority of the Fathers, that it was blaſphemous againſt Jeſus Chriſt and all the Saints, plainly and evidently Heretical, and contrary to the Council of Trent. The others ſay on the contrary That the Propoſitions which they have laid down were falſe, raſh, preſumptious, pernitious to all faithful People, that they were Erroneous, and injurious to the Biſhops, tending to overthrow or diſturb the Hierarchy, and that ſome were even contrary to the word of God and the Authority of the Councils. They add that a certain Book of their Adverſaries was full of Propoſitions that were Dangerous, Seditious, Impious, Schiſmatical, Blaſphemous, with ſome openly Heretical. See here what M. Daille has ſet down immediatly after the Examples of Cyril, Saint Jerome, Stephen, and Saint Cyprian, in which it had been well if the Author of the Prejudices would have ſatiſfied us, for he cannot be ignorant that we could urge this matter a great deal further then M. Daille has done, and that he who would make up a Collection of all the Injuries that theſe Gentlemen ſay of one another, would make a very ſtrange Vocabulary. p. 234But he has Judged that he ought to paſs over this Article in ſilence, and that it was more fit for his purpoſe to anſwer only upon Saint Cyril, Saint Jerome, Stephen and Saint Cyprian.

Howſoever it be, it ſeems to be clear to me by what I have ſaid, a very ill prejudice in matters of Religion, to make the Judgment that we ought to make of a Doctrine to depend upon that that we may make of the Perſons, inſtead of Judging it by the Doctrine it ſelf and by the word of God; and the Author of the Prejudices may ſuffer us, if he pleaſes, to ſay to him on the Part of our firſt Reformers, what Saint Auguſtin ſaid on the Part of the Orthodox to Creſconius. Since you are not the Judge of the Aug. contr. Creſcon. lib. 1. chap. 7.inward motions of our heart, ſet your ſelves only to know whether we fight for, or againſt the Truth. For if we Teach the Truth, if we refute Error, when our intentions ſhould not be good, and if we ſhould ſeek either for ſecular advantages, or vain-glory, thoſe who have a love for the Truth will not avoid joyning with us, ſince it would be the Truth that would be always declared, after what manner ſoever it were ſo.

But beſides thoſe two Remarks which I have made, I muſt further take notice in the Third place, that the Reaſoning of the Author of the Prejudices, is founded upon another ſuppoſition which is not leſs unjuſt, nor leſs raſh then thoſe other Two which I have examined. For it is founded upon this Principle, That we ought to Judge of Perſons meerly by that ill which appears in them; whereas in order to the making an equitable Judgment, we ought at leaſt to conſider the good with the ill, and after having made an exact diſcernment of the one and the other, to approve of that good that may be ſeen, and to blame that bad that may be found there. It was after this manner that Zuinglius and Calvin paſſed their Judgments on Luther, and that we Judge him alſo; we diſcover a great many Excellent things in him, an Heroical Courage, a great Love for the Truth, an ardent Zeal for the Glory of God, a great Truſt in his Providence, Extraordinary Learning in a dark Age, a profound reſpect of the Holy Scripture, an indefatigable Spirit, and a great many other high Qualities. We ſee that he was in his Time one of the firſt who had their Eyes opened to conſider the Errors and Abuſes that were then currant in the Latin Church, that he earneſtly applyed himſelf to it, that his Example excited divers others to do the ſame, that he endured upon that Account very great Perſecutions, under all which his heart never failed, and that by his Cares and Learned Labours he p. 235recovered divers people out of the Superſtition wherein they were buried. Under this proſpect we cannot but give him the Juſt praiſe which we believe he merits; and becauſe we know that God is the Author of every perfect gift, as Saint James ſays, we attribute all the good that we ſee in Luther to his Grace and his Holy Spirit, and all the happy Succeſſes of his Preaching to the Divine Benediction, looking upon him as a ſervant of God, and an inſtrument which he made uſe of, for the work of the Reformation. But becauſe there is no perſon in the World who has not his Exceſſes and his Faults, amidſt that which Luther had of praiſe worthy, we ſee alſo a great many things which we know not how to approve. We believe that he had not light enough about the matter of the Euchariſt, we find that he was very much prepoſſeſſed about the Real preſence, we acknowledge that his ſtile was too impetuous and too violent, and we make no ſcruple to ſay that he has not well enough diſtinguiſhed his differing opinions ſo as to be able to ſupport them without breaking the bond of Communion with thoſe who could not tolerate them, which makes him fall into a great piece of injuſtice in reſpect of us. Thus far, methinks, we may go without impugning Chriſtian Charity, if any one among us have puſhed his Judgment further, and would needs have Penetrated into the heart of Luther, to impute his Actions to the Principles of Jealouſy, of Pride, and Hatred, as the Author of the Prejudices ſays that Hoſpinian has done, it is what we do not approve of. For there is nothing in the World wherein we are more eaſily deceived then in the Judgments which we paſs upon the internal Principles of any ones Actions. We may ſay, this Action is good, this Action is not good; but when one Action may proceed from divers differing Principles, we ought to Judge with Charity; or if there be no place for a Judgment of Charity, the ſureſt way is not to Judge at all, but to leave it to the knowledge of God.

If the Author of the Prejudices had followed this Rule, he had never attributed, as he has done, our carriage towards Luther and the Lutherans, to a piece of Human Policy: he had ſaid on the contrary, that it was the effect of a Juſt Diſcernment, which we could not tell how to hinder our ſelves from making without being culpable. We blame in Luther and in the Lutherans, what we Judge to be blamable there, we commend that therein which we Judge to be commendable; we bear with that which we believe to be tolerable without approving it, and if there be any exceſs p. 236either in that Praiſe, or Blame, or Toleration, we are ready to amend it, when they ſhall make us to perceive it. Notwithſtanding we chuſe rather to incline towards the ſide of Charity, then towards that of Rigor, and we would be much rather in a ſtate, wherein by the Mediation of the grace of God, all ſharpneſs, animoſity, harſh expreſſions, accuſations, complaints might be for ever baniſhed, then that we ſhould baniſh our Praiſes and Toleration. We will always preſerve towards the Church of Rome, the ſame Charity and the ſame Juſtice, as much as it ſhall be poſſible for us to do; but in Obſerving that equality, we are grieved to ſee that we cannot but make very differing Judgments of her, and of thoſe of the Confeſſion of Auſburg, and which produce contrary effects in us. Theſe latter are in difference with us only about the point of the Real preſence, and about ſome Queſtions of the Schools which we cannot yet impute to their whole Body; and as for the reſt, they reject with us the Invocation of Saints, Religious Worſhip of Images, humane Satisfactions, Indulgences, Purgatory, worſhip of Reliques, the publick Service in an unknown Tongue, the merit of good Works, Tranſubſtantiation, the ſacrifice of the Maſs, the Monarchy of the Pope, the opinion of the Infallibility of the Church, and the principle of blind obedience to the deciſions of Councils. They acknowledge the Scriptures to be the only Rule of Faith, they carefully practiſe the Reading of them, they own their ſufficiency, they believe their Authority independant from that of the Church, in regard of men. They diſtinctly explain the Doctrine of Juſtification, and that of the uſe of the Law, and its diſtinction from the Goſpel, they do not conceive amiſs of the nature of Faith, and that of good works, and as for popular ſuperſtitions, we can ſcarce ſee any reign among them. Would to God the Church of Rome were in that condition, and that we could purchaſe it at the price of our Blood and our Lives. But alas! We are very far from ſeeing any likely-hood of ſucceſs to that wiſh; all thoſe points that I have ſet down, are ſo many differences which we have with her; and in our Judgments, there are ſo many Errors, and ſo many abuſes in her; and we are ſo far from any reaſonable hope of their Correction, that we ſee on the contrary that they ſtrengthen themſelves in them every day, and that they diſcover every day more and more ſigns of their averſion for, or contempt of a Reformation. Who therefore can think it ſtrange that upon the buſineſs of Religion we place a great difdifference p. 237between thoſe of the Roman Church, and thoſe who are called Lutherans, the one appears to us as a Body ſpread all over with a great many boils, which all together put a ſtop to the Functions of Life, and the others, as a Body that has only one or two which do not hinder its Life, or its Action. In a word, we do not believe that thoſe who have imbibed the Tenets of the Roman Church, where we differ from them, and who practice them, are in the way of Salvation, as well by reaſon of the Quality of the greateſt part of thoſe Tenets, as by reaſon of their number. But as to the Errors which remain yet among the Lutherans we do not paſs the ſame Judgment, either as to their Quality or their number. I ſay as to their Quality, and the reaſon that we alledge is is very ſolid, whatſoever endeavors they have uſed to elude it, for although the opinion of the Lutherans about the Real preſence be erroneous, though we are ſo far from approving of it, that we oppoſe it as much as poſſibly we can, yet while they ſhall make a profeſſion, as they do, to diſtinguiſh in the Sacrament the ſubſtance of bread from that of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, we cannot ſay that their Error compels them actually to adore the meer creature of Bread, for the ſame Body of Jeſus Chriſt that is hypoſtatically united with the word. We can very well ſay that they deceive themſelves in imagining that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is in a place where it is not, but we cannot tell them that they take another ſubject for the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which really and in effect is not ſo. They do not therefore deceive themſelves in regard of the Object of their Adoration, for they do not take the one for the other; I would ſay they do not take the ſubſtance of Bread for the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but they deceive themſelves in regard of the place wherein they conceive the Body of Jeſus Chriſt to be, for they conceive it to be in the Bread, and it is not there. But this Error about the place, how groſs ſoever it be, does not, notwithſtanding, include Idolatry, for as I have ſaid, they do not take one ſubject for another, the ſubſtance of Bread for the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. But it is otherwiſe in the Church of Rome, for if ſhe deceives her ſelf, ſhe does it not only as to the place wherein ſhe conceives the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, but alſo as to the ſubject that ſhe takes for the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſince it is in effect but the ſubſtance of Bread. There is actually and really in the Sacrament but one only ſubſtance, the Church of Rome does not diſtinguiſh it from the Object of her Adoration, on the contrary ſhe delieves it to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and p. 238ſhe Adores it under that Quality, if ſhe deceives her ſelf, it is manifeſt that in believing ſhe adores the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſhe adores that which is actually the ſubſtance of Bread. It is to no purpoſe therefore that the Author of the Prejudices ſays, That it is falſe that the Catholicks adore the Sacrament in taking that word for an external Vail. That makes nothing to the Queſtion. Whether they adore or do not adore the accidents of Bread, that is to ſay its figure, colour, roundneſs, is a thing by it ſelf, whereof we do not now diſpute, we ſpeak now of the ſubſtance which the Prieſt holds in his hands. But it is yet nothing to the purpoſe what he further adds, That although the Bread ſhould remain there, as the Lutherans hold, yet we could not accuſe the Catholicks of adoring it, their adoration terminates upon Jeſus Chriſt alone, whom they believe to lie hid under thoſe ſenſible ſpecies. This is an Ordinary Fallacy of their Miſſionaries, fit only to deceive Children. I diſtinguiſh, We cannot accuſe thoſe of the Church of Rome of believing that they adore the Bread, or of being willing to adore it, or of having an intention to adore the Bread; I grant it, for they believe that it is no longer Bread, they believe that the ſubſtance of Bread is changed into that of Jeſus Chriſt, ſo that they can never be accuſed of believing that they adore, or that they are willing to adore, or that they have an intention to adore the Bread. They defend themſelves in that whereof no Body accuſes them. But if the bread remain in effect no Bread, I deny that we cannot accuſe them of adoring, that which is actually and in the Truth of the thing, Bread, in believing that it is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and a man muſt be of a very bad faith not to ſee it. For if I ſhould imagine, for example, that a Tree, that a Rock, that a flower was a God hid under the form of a Tree, a Rock, a Flower, and if I ſhould adore it under that Quality of a God which my imagination gave it, it would be paſt all doubt that I ſhould adore a Tree, a Rock, a Flower, in believing my ſelf to adore God.

But beſides that we are, in regard of the Lutherans, in very different Terms from thoſe, wherein the Church of Rome would have us that we ſhould be with her: For in reſpect of the Lutherans the buſineſs is only about a meer Toleration, which we give to thoſe among them who deſire it, with a Spirit of Charity, waiting till it ſhall pleaſe God to diſſipate their Error. But the Church of Rome that calls it ſelf infallible, would have us not only to have a meer Toleration for her, but that we ſhould make a p. 239profeſſion of believing all that ſhe believes; for when ſhe ſeparated her ſelf from us, ſhe Anathematiſed all thoſe who did not believe all that ſhe had decided in her Council of Trent. The Matters therefore are not equal between the Roman and the Lutheran Communion in reſpect of us. To put them into an Equality it is neceſſary that the Roman Church ſhould openly put her ſelf into the ſtate wherein the Lutherans are, that ſhe renounce the Invocation of Saints, Religious worſhip of Images, humane Satisfactions, Indulgences, Purgatory, the worſhipping of Relliques, the publick Service in an unknown Tongue, the merit of good Works, Tranſubſtantiation, Adoration of the Sacrament, the Sacrifice of the Meſs, the Papal Monarchy, the pretenſion of Infallibility, the blind Obedience that ſhe would have us give to her deciſions. It is neceſſary, that ſhe ſhould acknowledge the Scriptures to be the only rule of faith and manners, that ſhe ſhould carefully recommend the Reading of them to the People, that ſhe ſhould confeſs their ſufficiency without the help of tradition, that ſhe ſhould believe the Authority of that Scripture, independent (even in reſpect of us) on that of the Church, that ſhe ſhould diſtinctly lay down the Doctrine of Juſtification, and that of the diſtinction of the Law and the Goſpel, that ſhe ſhould form a Juſt Idea of the Faith, and of good works, and that ſhe ſhould take care to aboliſh all the popular Superſtitions which we behold among them. When ſhe ſhall have done all that, with ſome other things which the Lutherans have done alſo, although ſhe do retain the point of the Real preſence after the ſame manner that they do, we ſhall not fail to offer her the ſame Toleration which we yield to the Lutherans, and the ſame conditions which we give to them; which is, that we ſhould not engage our ſelves to believe that preſence, that we ſhould always proteſt againſt it as an Error, and that they ſhall do nothing to force us to embrace it. When the Church of Rome ſhall be in that condition which I have ſet down, if we do not make her theſe offers, if we do not even make them with all the ardour imaginable, we will be very well contented in that Caſe, that they ſhould accuſe us of humane Policy, and that they ſhould tell us that we are a ſort of men without any Conſcience, Juſtice, and Charity. But 'till then we will take God and men to witneſs, that there is not the leaſt equity in thoſe invectives, and that it is to oppreſs our innocency, to aſcribe that, as the Author of the Prejudices has done, to an intereſted Policy, or a capricious humour, which is but too well founded upon the things themſelves.

p. 240See here what I had to ſay upon the Twelfth Chapter of the Author of the Prejudices. It may now be Judged of what force his Accuſations are. We ſhould after that paſs on to his Thirteenth Chapter. But as that Chapter is but a ſending us to a Book of Monſieur Arnaud's, Intituled, The Overthrow of the Morals of Jeſus Chriſt by the Calviniſts, I ſhall alſo content my ſelf with referring my Readers to the Anſwer which I hope to make him. It ſhall ſuffice for the preſent to ſay, That the Doctrine of the Saints Perſeverance, as the Synod of Dort has laid it down, is a Doctrine of the Scripture, and that all the pretended Conſequences which Monſieur Arnaud would draw from it, are of the ſame nature of thoſe which profane Perſons draw from all the Doctrines of Religion, when they would abuſe them to their Ruin.