Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 3 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
That our Fathers were bound to ſeparate themſelves from the Body of thoſe who poſſeſs'd the Miniſtry in the Church, and particularly in the See of Rome, ſuppoſing that they had a right at the Foundation.
BUt they will ſay, Whatſoever we ſhould pretend, we can never do otherwiſe than condemn the Separation of your Fathers, not for not having juſt grounds of Separation; but becauſe the right of ſeparating ones ſelf, does not belong to all ſorts of perſons, and the Church of Rome being, by a ſpecial priviledge, the Mother and Miſtreſs of all others, we could never lawfully ſeparate our ſelves from her; and becauſe it is on the contrary indiſpenſably neceſſary to the ſalvation of men to obey, and to remain in her Communion. So that your Fathers being, on one ſide, ſubject to their ordinary Paſtors, they ought never to have divided themſelves from their Body, for what cauſe ſoever there ſhould have been; and on the other ſide, there being no True Church, and by conſequence, no Salvation to be had, otherwiſe than in the Communion of the See of Rome, it is a crime for any to ſeparate themſelves from it, whatſoever pretence they can urge for that purpoſe.
This Objection is founded upon theſe two Propoſitions: the one, That we never ought to ſeparate our ſelves from the Body of her ordinary Paſtors; and the other, That we ought never to ſeparate from the Church of Rome in particular.
As to the firſt of theſe Propoſitions, I confeſs as I have ſaid elſewhere, that the people owe a great reſpect and obedience to the Paſtors that adminiſter to them the nouriſhment of their ſouls, the words of eternal life; according to the Precept of St. Paul, Obey them that have the rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves, for they watch for your ſouls. This obedience ought to be Heb: 13.accompanyed with a real eſteem, that ſhould make us to preſume well of them, which ſhould give us a readineſs to be inſtructed by their word, and be very remote from calumnies, murmurs and raſh ſuſpicions founded upon light appearances; and that obedience, that eſteem, that good opinion ought to be without doubt greater for all the Body in general, than for particular men in it; for there is a greater probability, that a whole body ſhould contain more light, and by conſequence more authority, than each private man could have. I ſay, that when even Vices are generally ſpread over the whole body of the Paſtors, the people ought to labour to bear them with patience, and cover them, as much as they can, with charity, in praying to God, that it would pleaſe him to cleanſe his Sanctuary, and to ſend good Labourers into his harveſt: and howſoever it ſhould be, while they can work out their ſalvation under their Miniſtry, they ought not to ſeparate themſelves from them.
But we ought not alſo to imagine, that the Duty of a people toward their ordinary Paſtors, ſhould be without all bounds, or that their dependance on them, ſhould have no meaſure. That which we have ſaid in the firſt Chapter touching the bonds of Church Communion, ought to be extended to the Paſtors and to the people, their duties are mutual, and there is none but Jeſus Chriſt alone, on whom they can depend without conditions. To flatter the Body of the Paſtors with that priviledge, is to ſet up men upon the Throne of God; to inſpire them with pride, vanity, negligence, it is to ſet up a Lordſhip in the Church, that Jeſus Chriſt has forbid, and to give Paſtors the boldneſs to do and adventure upon all things. It is certain therefore, that the Tye which the Faithful have to their ordinary Paſtors, is limited; and that it ought to endure, but as far as the glory of God, the Fidelity that we owe to Jeſus Chriſt, and the hope of our own ſalvation can ſubſiſt with their Government. If it fall out ſo, that their Government cannot be any further compatible with thoſe things, in that caſe, they ought to ſeparate; and it would be to ſet up the moſt ſenſeleſs, wicked and profane propoſition in the world, to ſay the contrary.
The Miniſtry of the Paſtors is eſtabliſh'd in the Church only as a meer external means, to preſerve the True Faith and Worſhip there, and to lead men to ſalvation. But the Light of Nature teaches us, that when meer external means ſhall be remote from their end, and that inſtead of guiding us to their end, they turn us away from, and deprive us of it; that then the love which we have for the end, ought to prevail over that which we may have for the means; becauſe the means are only deſirable, in reference to their end; and the regard which we have for them, is but an effect, or a production of that which we have for the end. So that when thoſe who are wont to diſtribute to us aliments neceſſary to our lives, give us on the contrary, poyſonous meat inſtead of aliments, and when they will force us to take them, we muſt no longer doubt, that the intereſt of our life ought to take us off from that Tye which we might have had to thoſe perſons. A Guide is a means to conduct us to the place whither we deſire to go; but when we know, that that Guide leads us in a falſe way, and that inſtead of helping us to go to that place, he makes us wander from it, it is no queſtion, but that we ought to ſeparate from him, and renounce his conduct. The ordinary Paſtors are Guides, men that ought to ſhew us the way to Heaven; if therefore inſtead of ſhewing us, they make us go a quite contrary way, who can doubt that we are bound to forſake them?
But they will ſay, How can they be forſaken, without reſiſting God himſelf, who has ſubjected them to them? Is not their Miniſtry a Divine Inſtitution, and is it not Jeſus Chriſt, who by the teſtimony of St. Paul, has given ſome to be Apoſtles, Eph. 4.ſome Paſtors and Teachers, for the aſſembling of the Saints? I anſwer, That we muſt diſtinguiſh that which there is of divine in a Miniſtry, from that which there is of humane in it. That there ſhould be Miniſters in the Church, is Gods Inſtitution; but that the Miniſtry ſhould be committed to ſuch or ſuch perſons, excepting the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, who were the firſt Paſtors of it, that is in the diſpoſal of men. The Order of the Miniſtry therefore is inviolable, becauſe it comes from God: it is not permitted to any Creature to aboliſh it. But it is not the ſame cf perſons raiſed to the Office of the Miniſtry; for as it is by the means of men that they receive their Call, it frequently happens, that their Call is corrupted by the Vices of thoſe who give, and of thoſe who receive it, in that reſpect it is corruptible. Intrigues, Ambition, Covetouſneſs, and a Spirit of Pride and Dominion, Error, Superſtition, Ignorance, Negligence often mingle themſelves with it, and ſully the holineſs of the Miniſtry. When that corruption is only in ſome private men, the ordinary wayes of Diſcipline may be uſed againſt them; they may cut them off, depoſe, excommunicate them according to the exigency of the caſe. But when it ſpreads over all the body in ſuch a manner, and to that degree, that the ſafety of the Faithful can no longer ſubſiſt under the conduct of thoſe perſons; and that there is no hope among them of any amendment, then the only remedy that remains, is to ſeparate from them: and it would be ſo far from either violating the order of God, or oppoſing the Miniſtry that he had ſet up, that it would be on the contrary to deliver it, as much as in us lay, out of the hands of thoſe who have invaded it; and to draw it out of that oppreſſion to which they have reduced it. This Separation therefore only regards thoſe perſons who were unlawfully called to the Miniſtry, and who abuſed it againſt God and his Church, and not that which it has of Divine, but that which it has in it of Humane and Corruptible; or to ſay better, that which it had actually corrupted in that Call.
The Choice of perſons, and their Elevation to Eccleſiaſtical Functions, being a Humane thing, and by conſequence expoſed to all the accidents of mens weakneſs and corruption, we cannot imagine, without doing an injury to the Wiſdom of God, that he would have ſo ſtrictly and ſo ſeverely ty'd his faithful to them, that they ſhould not have had any power to ſeparate in any caſe. For if it were ſo, it might happen, that the Truth might be forced to yield to Hereſie, and Piety to Impiety; it might happen, that the Children of God might be under the conduct of his declared enemies, without their being able to withdraw themſelves; it might happen, that the faithful might be engaged in an evident danger, or even in a neceſſity of loſing the purity of their faith, through the contagion of their Guides, and have no means to draw themſelves out of it; all which is incompatible with the Divine Wiſdom and Goodneſs.
But is it not a very amazing thing, to ſee a people ſeparate from the Body of thoſe who poſſeſs the Offices of the Church? It is without doubt; and God will not alſo permit his Children to be often reduced to ſo great a neceſſity: Notwithſtanding he permits it ſometimes, to afflict his people, and to chaſtiſe them for the contempt they have had of his Word and his Favours. He permits it, to ſhew, that the ſubſiſtence of his Church and the ſalvation of his faithful does not abſolutely depend upon humane means, ſince thoſe means may be perverted, and fall out contrary to their appointment. He permits it in fine, by thoſe ſad examples, to keep the Paſtors in humility, and in a care to acquit themſelves faithfully of their Charges, and to hinder the people from neglecting to inſtruct themſelves in the Myſteries of the Goſpel, and that they ſhould not rely with too much confidence upon their Paſtors. But when God reduces the Faithful to that extraordinary neceſſity, beſides that the ſcandal of a Separation, and the other inconveniences that follow, cannot of right, but be imputed to the Paſtors who have degenerated from their Call, and abandoned the ſaving Truth which was committed to them, and the due care of their Flocks, to become oppreſſors of them. Beſides that, I ſay, it is evident, that that ſcandal and thoſe inconveniences, whatſoever they are, would never balance theſe two weighty intereſts, to wit, that of working out ones ſalvation, and that of preſerving the Goſpel, which are ſo great, that nothing in the world can over-rule them. On the contrary ſide, the higher the place of thoſe is elevated, who beſtow thoſe Eccleſiaſtical Charges, and the more general the Corruption of thoſe is who hold them, the ſtronger and more indiſpenſable obligation lyes on the Faithful, to ſeparate themſelves from them: for then the evil is in publick channels, and death runs in the ſame places from whence they ſhould receive their life. Juſt ſo as when the Air of a Town is infected, the neceſſity of withdrawing from it ſuddenly, is ſo much the greater, becauſe the Air is of a more ordinary uſe, than any thing elſe.
They who would not have us in any caſe have a right to ſeparate our ſelves from the Body of thoſe who poſſeſs the Miniſtry, have never conſidered well of what nature that Communion is, which the Faithful have with Jeſus Chriſt, and of what nature that is, which they have with their Paſtors. For if the people had a mediate Communion with Jeſus Chriſt, and an immediate one with their Paſtors; that is to ſay, if they were only united to Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they are ſo to their Paſtors, and becauſe the Paſtors are ſo to Jeſus Chriſt, as the hand is united to the head, only becauſe that is ſo to the arm, and becauſe the arm is ſo to the head, they would poſſibly have ſome reaſon to ſay, that there could be no caſe, wherein the people ought to ſeparate themſelves from their Paſtors, becauſe they could maintain, that the Paſtors were a neceſſary medium for the people to be joyned to Jeſus Chriſt, as the arm is a neceſſary medium for the hand to be joyned to the head. But it is quite otherwiſe. For the Faithful are united to Jeſus Chriſt immediately, and with their Paſtors mediately; that is to ſay, they are united to their Paſtors, only becauſe they are united to Jeſus Chriſt, and becauſe Jeſus Chriſt is united to the Paſtors; ſo far▪ are the Paſtors from being a neceſſary medium to the faithful to their being joyned to Jeſus Chriſt, that on the contrary, Jeſus Chriſt is a neceſſary medium for them to be joyned to their Paſtors. Both People and Paſtors are united immediately with Jeſus Chriſt, and by Jeſus Chriſt we are united together; for Jeſus Chriſt is the center and bond of our mutual Communion: Therefore the Apoſtle ſharply cenſures the Corinthians for this, that they were divided among themſelves, one ſaying, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, and another I am of Cephas, and another, I am of Chriſt, is Chriſt, ſayes he, divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Which implyes this, that we are all immediately united to Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe it is 1 Cor. 1.he only who dyed for us, and in his name alone that we are baptized: and to pretend that the faithful are joyned to Jeſus Chriſt by his Miniſters, is to divide him into as many Parties, or into as many Sects, as there are Miniſters. But it manifeſtly follows from thence, that the faithful ought to be no further united with their Paſtors, than as it ſhall appear to them that their Paſtors are to Jeſus Chriſt; and that they ought to ſeparate from them, when it ſhall appear to them, that they themſelves are ſeparated from him, and that they would ſeparate the Flocks which they had committed to them. This is what the light of common ſenſe dictates without further reaſoning; for to what good would the Communion of thoſe pretended Paſtors tend, howſoever inveſted they ſhould be in Titles and Dignities, without that of Jeſus Chriſt?
That which I have ſaid of their Communion with them, I muſt alſo ſay of their dependence on them. That which the Faithful have upon Jeſus Chriſt is immediate and abſolute, and that which they have on their Paſtors, is mediate and conditional: our Souls and our Conſciences do not belong to them to diſpoſe of at their will and pleaſure. In this reſpect we belong to Jeſus Chriſt alone, who has purchaſed us at the price of his blood, and who governs us by his Spirit and his Word. The Paſtors are only Miniſters, Interpreters, or the Heralds who make us to underſtand his Voice, and all the dependence which we have on them is founded upon that, which both they and we have upon Jeſus Chriſt our Soveraign Lord, of which it is both the cauſe, and the rule and meaſure. We ought therefore to be ſubject to them, while they ſhall act as his Miniſters, and his Interpreters, while their Actions and their Government bear the characters of his Authority. But as thoſe Miniſters are men who may abuſe their Offices, and act againſt their head, if it happen that the characters of the Divine Authority which ſubjects us to them, do not appear in their word, if there appear a contrary character there, if inſtead of leading us to Jeſus Chriſt, they turn us from him, if they would govern as Lords, and not as Miniſters, if they attribute that abſolute obedience to themſelves which we own to none beſides our Saviour. In a word, if to depend on them we muſt violate the dependence which we have on Jeſus Chriſt, can they then ſay that we cannot, and that we ought not to ſeparate from them, and to renounce an unjuſt Government?
If they would decide this Queſtion by the Scripture, St. Paul tells us, That if he himſelf or an Angel from Heaven ſhould preach to Gal. 1.us another Goſpel than that which he has preached, he ſhould be accurſed. He ſayes, that upon the occaſion of ſome falſe Teachers that troubled the Churches of Galatia, and ſpeaking only of them, one would think that he ought to have been contented to have let his Anathema fall upon thoſe particular Teachers that might err, and who had not ſo great an Authority, but that one might very well ſeparate himſelf from them, when they ſhould happen to prevaricate. But to take away all pretence of diſtinction and wrangling diſputes, he makes a moſt expreſs choice of two of the greateſt Authorities that were among creatures, of an Angel and an Apoſtle, the only two created Authorities to which God has communicated the favour of Infallibility, and he has enjoyn'd us to anathematize them, if it ſhould happen that they ſhould preach another Goſpel, than that of Jeſus Chriſt: we know very well, that the Angels of Heaven are uncapable of ever committing that ſin; we know very well, that he himſelf would never have committed it; and yet notwithſtanding, he turns his diſcourſe upon himſelf and upon the Angels; and is not this to give us to underſtand, that there is no created Authority either in the Heaven, or upon the Earth, upon which we ought abſolutely to depend, and from which we ought not to ſeparate, in caſe it ſhould turn us from Jeſus Chriſt? Let them tell us whether the dependance that the people owe to the body of their ordinary Paſtors, that is to ſay, of thoſe who poſſeſs the Offices of the Church, who may have been very ill choſen, who may have intruded themſelves by very bad wayes, who may be carried out therein to all the paſſions and diſorders of humane nature: whether, I ſay, the dependence which they owe to them, be ſtronger and more inviolable, than that which they ought to have for an Apoſtle, and ſuch an Apoſtle as St. Paul; and even for an Angel from Heaven, if he ſhould become a Preacher? This latter dependence notwithſtanding, is not abſolute, it may be lawfully broken upon a certain caſe: who will take the boldneſs to ſay, after that, that it cannot and ought not to be done in a like caſe?
But if to the Scripture we would add experience, that would teach us, that there have been ſometimes thoſe ſeaſons, in which good men have been forced to ſeparate themſelves from the Body of their Paſtors: for not to ſpeak of the ſeven thouſand which in Elias's time preſerved their purity againſt the Idolatry whereinto the Church of Iſrael had fallen, who according to all that appears, lived ſeparated from the Body of their Idolatrous Paſtors, at leaſt in a negative Separation, we need but to turn our eyes to the Example of the Orthodox in the time of the Arians. For there are two actions evident in that Hiſtory, one, that Arianiſm had invaded the body of the Ordinary Paſtors; and the other, that thoſe among the Orthodox who were of any zeal and courage, ſeparated themſelves from that infected body, and would not own them for True Paſtors, while they ſhould remain in Hereſie. The firſt of theſe Actions is juſtified by almoſt an infinite number of proofs taken out either from Hiſtory, or the Teſtimony of the Ancients. For before the death of Conſtantine, the Arians who had been condemned in the Council of Nice, fell upon the perſon of St. Athanaſius, and ſome time after they baniſh'd him as far as Treves. This was their firſt Victory; but they did not ſtop there: they got over to their ſide, the Spirit of Conſtance after the death of Conſtantine, who remaining ſole Emperour, employed all his Authority, and the Arians all their artifices to eſtabliſh Arianiſm every where. The greateſt part of the Biſhops fell either under their violence, or ſeduction. Divers Councils were aſſembled, and many forms of faith laid down there, which all tended to ſet up the Dogm of Arius, ſome more openly and others more covertly. Thoſe among the Biſhops who made any oppoſition, were cruelly perſecuted, depoſed from their places, ſent into exile, and treated as Hereticks, or the enemies of the Churches peace. Therefore it was, that Conſtance reproached Liberius, that he was alone, and that he oppoſed himſelf to all the world, in the defence of Athanaſius. When ſo great a part of the Dialog. inter Conſtant. & Liber. apud Baron. ad an. 355.world, ſaid he to him, reſides in thy perſon, that thou alone ſhouldſt take the part of a wicked man, and dare to break the peace of the whole world. I would be alone, anſwered Liberius, the cauſe of the faith is nevertheleſs weakned. For heretofore there were but three found who reſiſted the Command of a King. Liberius himſelf was baniſhed, from which he was not freed till after he ſubſcribed to Arianiſm. And as the Weſt was then leſs infected with this Hereſie than the Eaſt, the Emperour cauſed a Council to aſſemble at Ariminum, in which, after ſpecious beginnings, the end was very unhappy. For the Biſhops renounced therein the Orthodox Doctrine, which made the Son of God of one and the ſame Eſſence with his Father: To this effect, they rejected the word conſubſtantial, which the Council of Nice had inſerted into its Creed, as a word that was ſcandalous, ſacrilegious and unworthy of God; which was no where to be found in the Scripture, and they baniſhed it from the Church. This appears by the Letter of that Synod it ſelf to the Emperour Conſtance, ſet down by S. Hilary, in which they gave the Emperour thanks, that he had ſhewn Apud Hilar. in fragment.them what they ought to do, to wit, to decree, that no body ſhould ſpeak any more either of ſubſtance or of conſubſtantial, which are names unknown to the Church of God; and that they rejoyced, becauſe they had acknowledged the very ſame thing that they had held before. They add, That the Truth, which cannot be overcome, has obtained the victory, ſo that that name unworthy of God which was not to be found wrote in the Sacred Laws, ſhould not be for the future mentioned by any perſon; and they declare, That they intirely hold the ſame Doctrine with the Oriental Churches, and that they have rendred unto them and him a full obedience. It was that reaſon for which Auxentius Biſhop of Millan, Apud Hilar. Poſt. Epiſt. adverſ. Arian.an Arian, ſaid in his Letter to Valentinian and Valens Emperours, That he ought not to endure, that the Ʋnity of ſix hundred Biſhops ſhould be broken by a ſmall number of contentious perſons. So that Vincentius Vincent. Lirinenſ. Commonit. 1. chap. 6.Lirinenſis makes no ſcruple to acknowledge, That the poyſon of Arianiſm had infected, not ſome ſmall parts only, but almoſt all the world: and it was to that ſenſe, that Phaebadius a French Biſhop, Phaebad. lib. contr Arian. p. 219.who lived in thoſe times, ſaid, That the ſubtilty and fraud of the Devil had almoſt wholly poſſeſſed mens minds, that it perſwaded them to believe Hereſie as the right Faith, and condemned the true Faith as an Hereſie. And a little lower, having an eye to what had been done at the Council of Ariminum, The Biſhops, ſaith he, made an Edict, that no one ſhould mention one only ſubſtance, that is to ſay, that no one ſhould preach in the Church, that the Father and the Son were but one only vertue.
I might add to theſe teſtimonies that of Gregory Nazianzen in the Oration that he made in the praiſe of S. Athanaſius: There, after having deſcribed the furies of George Patriarch of Alexandria and an Arian, and the impieties of the Council of Seleucia, he adds, We may ſee one ſort unjuſtly baniſhed from their Sees, and other put Greg. Naz. Orat. 21.into their places, after their having ſubſcribed to the impiety, which was required of them as a neceſſary condition. Plotting never ceaſed on one ſide, nor the Calumniator on the other. This is that which has made many among us fall into the ſnare, who were elſe invincible; for although their error did not go ſo far, as to ſeduce their minds, yet they ſubſcrib'd notwithſtanding; and by that means conſpired with the moſt wicked men, and if they were not partakers in their flames, they were at leaſt blackned with their ſmoak. This is that which has made me often pour forth rivers of tears, beholding wickedneſs ſpread abroad ſo wide and ſo much every where, and that thoſe themſelves that ought to have been the defenders of the Word there, have become the perſecutors of the Orthodox Doctrine. For it is certain, that the Paſtors have been carried away after an inſenſible manner, and to ſpeak with the Scripture, divers Paſtors have left my Vineyard deſolate; they have abuſed and loaded that deſirable portion with ſhame; that is to ſay, the Church of God, which the ſweat and blood of ſo many Martyrs before and ſince the coming of jeſus Chriſt, had beſprinkled, and which was conſecrated, by the ſufferings of God himſelf, who dyed for our ſalvation. If you except ſome few, who have either been deſpiſed, by reaſon of the obſcurity of their names, or who have reſiſted by their vertue (for it is very requiſite, that there ſhould yet have ſome remained to be, as it were, a ſeed and a root to Iſrael, to make it flouriſh and revive again) all were ſwayed by the Times. There was only this difference among them, that ſome were fallen deeper into the ſnare, and others more ſlowly; that ſome were the chief in wickedneſs, and others held the ſecond place. Cardinal Baronius could not avoid making this reflection in ſetting Baron. ad ann. 359.down this paſſage: So it was that Gregory deplored the ruine of the whole Eaſtern Church. But if we would add the ruine that befell the Weſtern Church, which I have juſt before deſcribed, we ſhall eaſily judge, that there has not been any time ſince, wherein the whole Chriſtian World has been more diſturbed, than it was then, ſince almoſt all the Preachers of the Churches were fallen into the precipice, and that the face of the Catholick Church was never ſo dreadful.
But the ſecond Action which we have propounded, is not leſs certain than the former; to wit, that thoſe among the Orthodox who had any zeal or courage, ſeparated themſelves from the Body of their ordinary Paſtors, and would not own them for their Paſtors, while they remained in Hereſie. In effect, that was the chief cauſe for which they ſuffered ſo many murders and baniſhments, the Arians no wayes tolerating thoſe who refuſed their Communion. The perpetual Accuſation wherewith they charged them, was, That they were the Schiſmaticks who had violated the Peace and Unity of the Church. This is that which Auxentius reproached S. Hilary with, and Euſebius of Verceille in the Letter which I have before cited. They are, ſaid he, men condemned and depoſed, who think of nothing but making of Schiſms whereſoever they come; for ſo it was, that that falſe Biſhop called the juſt Separation to which S. Hilary exhorted the faithful, by his Writings, as we have ſeen in the preceding Chapter.
Socrates the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian, relates upon this ſubject, Socrat. hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 1▪ cap. 30.that the cruelty of the Arians proceeded to that height, that they forced by all ſorts of unjuſt wayes, men and women to receive the Sacrament at their hands, even to the opening of their mouths by force; and that thoſe, to whom they offered that violence, look'd upon it as the moſt cruel of all puniſhments, that divers made ſo great a reſiſtance to it, that they could not obtain their ends, and that in their rage, they tore their Breaſts to revenge themſelves of their refuſals. He himſelf teſtifies that the Horror Ibid.which the Orthodox had to be found in the ſame Aſſemblies with the Arians was ſo great, that having no Churches wherein they could publickly worſhip God, they aſſembled with the Novatians who had three Churches in that City; becauſe theſe latter were indeed Schiſmaticks, but not Hereticks as the Arians; and that if the Novatians had been willing, the Catholicks would have made but one only Church with them. Sozomen relates alſo, Sozominus hiſt▪ Eccleſ. lib. 6. cap. 18.that the Emperour Valens, who was an Arian, having gone to the City of Edeſſa, and having learned there, that the Orthodox, that is to ſay, thoſe who perſever'd in the faith of the Conſubſtantiality of the Son, made all their Aſſemblies in a Field near the City, becauſe all the Churches were in the hands of the Arians; he puniſhed the Governour of the Province, who ſuffered thoſe Aſſemblies, and commanded him to go thither the next day to hinder them with all his force from aſſembling themſelves, and to puniſh thoſe who ſhould oppoſe themſelves; that the people having heard that Order, did not fail to meet there; and the Governour having gone thither, and finding in the way a Woman who was running thither with her little Child, he asked her if ſhe had not heard what the Emperour had commanded? but that the Woman without being moved, anſwered him, that ſhe was not ignorant of it; and that it was for that very reaſon that ſhe ran thither, to be there with others; which made ſuch an impreſſion upon the Spirit of the Governour, that he went back to the Emperour, and acquainted him with that obſtinate reſolution, and cauſed him to revoke the Orders he had given. I confeſs, that there were many of the Orthodox, who had not courage enough to go ſo far as a Separation, and who contented themſelves with only groaning under the Arian Tyranny, in waiting for better Times. But it is alſo certain, that thoſe who had more zeal and courage withdrew themſelves from the Communion of thoſe Hereticks, and that they believed themſelves bound to do it for the making ſure of their ſalvation. Therefore it was that Fauſtinus in his Treatiſe againſt the Arians, ſaid, That if any one did not believe that the Society of the Arians could be rendered culpable, under a pretence that he had the teſtimony of his own conſcience, which did not accuſe him of having violated or renounced the faith there, it belonged to ſuch a one to take heed, and to examine himſelf. But as for me, adds he, the cauſe of God being concerned, I judge my ſelf bound to be more pre-cautioned, and to have a greater fear than thoſe perſons have. For it is written, a man that is an Heretick after the firſt and ſecond admonition, reject; knowing that he who is ſuch, is perverted; and that he ſins, being condemned in himſelf. And as to the puniſhment of diſſemblers, it is written, All fleſh ſhall worſhip before my face, ſaith the Lord God, and the Saints ſhall come forth, and they ſhall ſee thoſe who have tranſgreſſed againſt me; for Iſa 66. 23,24.the worm of the Hypocrites ſhall not dye, and their fire ſhall not be quenched. The Apoſtle forbids us alſo to enter into fellowſhip with unbelievers. And elſewhere, after having given a deſcription of ſins, he condemns not only thoſe who commit ſuch things; but thoſe alſo who conſent to thoſe who commit them. There are divers other paſſages in the Scripture, which forbid our companying with Hereticks; but I would only note theſe here briefly, to the end that you ſhould not think, that it is out of a vain ſuperſtition, that we avoid the Communion of thoſe whom the Divine Juſtice has condemned.
Behold then two Actions that I have propounded, in my judgement ſufficiently juſtified; and by conſequence, the right of ſeparating our ſelves from the body of our ordinary Paſtors, when they teach Doctrines contrary to the true faith, which they would conſtrain the faithful to profeſs, eſtabliſhed by an example, againſt which I do not ſee any thing which they can rationally oppoſe, or hinder it from being like to that of our Fathers. For if they ſay, that there were in that party of the Orthodox that ſeparated themſelves, divers Biſhops that authorized that Action; beſides that, we may ſay the ſame thing of the Party of the Reformation, in which they know that there was a very conſiderable number of Pious and Learned Prelates; and even ſome, who had the courage to ſuffer death in the defence of that cauſe. Beſides that, I ſay, it is certain, that it is not the Epiſcopal Dignity that makes the Reformation lawful, it is lawful as often as it has cauſes that are juſt, ſufficient and neceſſary at the foundation; and whereſoever thoſe cauſes are to be found, the faithful people have as much right to ſeparate themſelves as the Biſhops. If the people had no right to ſeparate themſelves from the Body of their Paſtors, who ſhould teach them falſe Doctrine, it could not be, by reaſon of the Authority which the Paſtors have over the people, for the Body of the Paſtors has at leaſt as much authority over particular Paſtors, as it has over the people; ſo that if that reaſon were not ſufficiently valid in regard of particular Biſhops, they may very well ſee, that it would not be ſo in regard of the faithful people. In effect a Separation founded upon the fear of diſhonouring God, and prejudicing ones own ſalvation, is a common right; and the Laity are not leſs bound to it than the Biſhops, ſince both the one and the other, ought, according to the precept of the Apoſtle, to work out their own ſalvation with fear and trembling. If they ſay, that the Separation which fell out in time of the Arians was founded upon the Authority of the Nicene Council, wherein Arius and his followers had been condemned; whereas that of our Fathers is not eſtabliſhed by the Authority of any Council, ſince there is not one that has condemned the Doctrines and Cuſtoms of the Church of Rome: I anſwer, that this difference is yet null and void. For not to mention, that the Arians of whom we ſpeak, called themſelves the Catholicks, and took it as a great injury when they were called Arians, or Followers of Arius, and that their Councils had pronounced nothing directly againſt that of Nice, their ſeparation was founded upon the things themſelves, that is to ſay, upon the neceſſity of acknowledging the Son of God to be conſubſtantial with the Father, in order to the acknowledging him to be truly God, and not upon the bare Authority of the Nicene Council, to which they might have oppoſed that of the Church then in her Councils of Ariminum, and of Conſtantinople, which included all the Eaſt and all the Weſt; and if they had had no more but that, they ought not to have ſeparated from the body of their actually governing Paſtors, that they might have cleaved to a Synod which was paſt and gone. It was therefore the importance of the Truth that was conteſted, and that of the Error that was oppoſite to it, which made the Separation, and not the meer Authority of the Nicene Fathers; and therefore it is that S. Auguſtine diſputing againſt Maximinus an Arian, would that they ſhould ſet aſide as well the Council of Nice, as that of Ariminum; and that they ſhould only contend about the things themſelves. Not but that ſometimes the Orthodox did ſet before them the Council of Nice, according to the manner of diſputes, where one will neglect no advantage, for its being ever ſo ſmall; but it was as a little help, and not as the eſſential reaſon of their Separation, which was alwayes taken from the thing it ſelf, and from the teſtimonies of the Scripture; ſo that that difference is very frivolous. If they ſay laſtly, that the point that was controverted then, was one of a far greater importance, than thoſe upon which our Fathers ſeparated themſelves: I anſwer, that indeed the Article of the Conſubſtantiality of the Son, is one of the chief and moſt fundamental Articles of the Chriſtian Religion; but that does not hinder, that thoſe that are controverted between the Church of Rome and us, ſhould not alſo be of the greateſt importance to ſalvation, and ſufficient to cauſe a ſeparation. And when they would make the juſtice or injuſtice of ours to depend on that, they muſt quit all that vain diſpute of prejudices, and go on to the diſcuſſion of the foundation it ſelf.
The Author of the Prejudices muſt not take it ill, that in endeavouring to decide the Queſtion concerning the right of the Separation of our Fathers, I make uſe here of his own proper teſtimony. For it is a matter ſurpriſing enough, that writing in his Eighth and Ninth Chapters, in which he would, he ſayes, convince us of Schiſm, without entring upon a diſcuſſion either of our Doctrine Chap. 8. p. 162.or our Miſſion: that he ſhould not have remembred what he himſelf had juſt before ſaid in the Seventh. Firſt of all, he there propoſes this difficulty as on our ſide. If the viſible Church were really fallen into Error, as we ſuppoſe that it is poſſible for it to do, if it drive away the truly faithful from its boſome, if it perſecute Chap. 7. p. 153.them, muſt thoſe truly faithful needs be deprived of all external worſhip in Religion, muſt they needs cleave to the Church to periſh with them, ſince we ſuppoſe that it reſides in them alone? Is it not againſt the Divine Providence, that the true worſhippers of God, the true heirs of Heaven, cannot form a Church in the World, and that God has not left any means to provide againſt ſo ſtrange an inconvenience? He anſwers plainly, That indeed, that inconvenience is exceeding great; but that it is not neceſſary that God ſhould have provided againſt it by remedies; becauſe he has reſolved to hinder it from ever falling out, in alwayes preſerving the True Miniſtry in his Church. So that it can never be in a neceſſity of being re-eſtabliſhed; and that very thing is a certain mark, that that inconvenience can never happen, in that God has not provided any remedy for it. He ſayes, that ſo it is that our Miniſters ought to conclude, and not to conclude as they do, in ſuppoſing that the viſible Church may fall into ruine, that there is a neceſſity of having recourſe to the eſtabliſhment of a new Miniſtry. Since immediately after, he adds, But if the adhaeſion which they have to their ſentiments, hinders them from coming to agree to this conſequence, they ought rather to conclude, that thoſe pretended truly faithful muſt remain in that ſtate, without Paſtors, and without any external worſhip; and that they ſhould rather expect, that God ſhould raiſe up ſome extraordinarily, and with viſible marks of their miſſion, than to uſurp to themſelves a right of creating Miniſters and Paſtors, and giving them power to govern the Churches, and adminiſter the Sacraments.
We have already ſhewn him, and we ſhall yet further ſhew him in the end, that it is not without reaſon, that we ſuppoſe, that the Miniſtry may be corrupted in the Church. We ſhall ſhew him alſo, that the conſequence which we draw from it concerning the re-eſtabliſhing of the Miniſtry, is juſt and right; and that a faithful people have a right in that caſe to create their Miniſters and their Paſtors, and to give them power to govern their Churches, and to adminiſter the Sacraments. But as we are only diſputing at preſent, about knowing whether we may ſeparate our ſelves from the body of the ordinary Paſtors, when they are fallen into errors incompatible with our ſalvation, and when they will force the people to profeſs the ſame Errors; it ſhall ſuffice at preſent, to take notice, that the Author of the Prejudices comes to agree, that when perſons are perſwaded, that the body of thoſe who poſſeſs the Miniſtry in the Church is fallen into Error, and when it drives away from its boſome, and perſecutes thoſe who maintain the Truth, they may remain ſeparated, without acknowledging that Body for their Paſtors, and without aſſiſting in their external worſhip; provided that they do not make other Miniſters. But who ſees not, that this is preciſely to acknowledge the right of that Separation, about which the queſtion at preſent is? Who ſees not, that it is, at leaſt in that reſpect, a diſcharging our Fathers from the Accuſation of Schiſm, and to declare them further innocent of that crime, which he would deſign to lay to their charge at laſt? Our Fathers did not collect that conſequence of the Author of the Prejudices, they did not conclude, that the Miniſtry muſt be incorruptible in the Church, in that which it had of humane in it. This is not a place to diſpute, whether they adhered too much to their own opinions; where becauſe that in effect they judg'd well, that manner of reaſoning is pernicious. Howſoever it were, they have concluded quite otherwiſe, they were perſwaded, that the body of thoſe who poſſeſſed the Ordinary Miniſtry in the Latin Church, were fallen not only into an Error, but into many, and into ſuch as were contrary to mens ſalvation, that it was guilty of opinionativeneſs in maintaining them, that it did impoſe a neceſſity upon all to profeſs them, that it drove away from its boſome thoſe who refuſed that obedience. It was upon this that they ſeparated themſelves from them, not acknowledging them any more for their Paſtors, and aſſiſting no further in their external worſhip. Thus far the Author of the Prejudices does not condemn them, he would only that they ſhould have remained throughout without Paſtors, and without external worſhip. We ſhall ſee in its place, whether there is reaſon for that or no; it is ſufficient, that he conſents, that they ſhould not any more have had thoſe for their Paſtors, which were ſo before, and that they ſhould have withdrawn themſelves from their communion and external worſhip; we demand no more at preſent.
We ought now to paſs on to the ſecond Propoſition, upon which the Objection is grounded that I have propounded in the beginning of this Chapter, and to examine, whether the Priviledge of the Church of Rome is ſuch, that one ought not upon any pretence whatſoever, to ſeparate ones ſelf from her communion. All the world knows, that this is the pretenſion of that Church; and that it is for that, that ſhe makes her ſelf, the Mother, and the Miſtreſs of all others, and that ſhe has alſo made it to be defined in her Council of Trent. It is upon that account, that one of her Popes, Boniface the Eighth, formerly determined, That it was neceſſary to the Salvation of every creature, to be ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome. But clearly to decide ſo weighty a Queſtion, there ſeems to me to be only theſe two wayes: The firſt is, to enquire, whether that Church can, or cannot fall into Error, and ceaſe to be the True Church of Jeſus Chriſt; for if it be true, that ſhe can never fall into Errors, nor loſe the quality of a true Church, we muſt conclude, that we ought alwayes to remain in her Communion. But if on the contrary, ſhe may erre, and ceaſe to be a true Church, we muſt alſo conclude, that we may and ought to ſeparate our ſelves, when there ſhall be a juſt occaſion there. The ſecond way is, that, laying aſide the Queſtion, Whether ſhe may err or not, we examine, whether it be true, that God has made her the Miſtreſs of all other Churches as ſhe pretends, whether he has eſtabliſhed her to be the perpetual and inviolable Center of the Chriſtian Unity, with a command to all the faithful not to fly off from her. For if it be an Order that God has made, we cannot reſiſt it, without deſtroying our ſelves; but if it be only an ill-grounded pretenſion of that Church, her communion is neither more neceſſary, nor more inviolable, than that of other particular Churches.
But as to the firſt of theſe wayes, I have already ſhewn, that it engages thoſe who will follow it in the examination of the foundation; and in effect, the proofs that they ſet before us to eſtabliſh the Infallibility of the Roman See, are neither ſo clear, nor ſo concluding, that it ſhould not be neceſſary to ſee, whether the Doctrines that the Church of Rome teaches, anſwer that pretenſion which ſhe makes to be infallible, and unable to fall away; or to ſay better, thoſe proofs are ſo weak, and ſo trivial, that they themſelves bind us to have recourſe to the examination of the Doctrines of that Church, to judge of her pretenſion by them. Theſe two Arguments are equally good as to their form. The Church of Rome cannot err in the Faith; therefore the things which ſhe teaches us of Faith, are true. And the things which the Church of Rome teaches us are not true; therefore the Church of Rome may err. I do not here examine the queſtion, which of theſe two wayes of reaſoning is the more natural. I yield if they will, that they ſhould chuſe the firſt; but when they ſhall have choſe it, good ſenſe would alſo require, that if the things which they ſhall ſet before us, to prove this Propoſition, The Church of Rome cannot err in the faith, do no wayes ſatisfie the mind, if inſtead of aſſuring us, they plunge us into the greateſt uncertainties, we muſt paſs over to the other way; and by conſequence we muſt enter into the examination of the foundation. But to judge of what nature thoſe proofs are which they give for the infallibility of the Church of Rome, we need but a naked view of them. For they are not the expreſs declarations of the will of God, although it ſhould be very neceſſary that they ſhould have ſuch a one for the eſtabliſhment of ſo great and peculiar a priviledge, the knowledge of which, is ſo very important to all Chriſtians. They are not evident conſequences drawn from ſome paſſages of Scripture, or ſome actions of the Apoſtles: they are neither clear and convincing reaſonings, nor even ſtrong preſumptions, and ſuch as have much likelihood. They are ſtrained conſequences, which they draw as they are able, from two or three paſſages of the Scripture, and which a man that ſhould have never heard them ſpeak of that Infallibility, with all his circumſpection would not have gathered.
They produce the Teſtimony that St. Paul gives to the Church of Rome in his dayes, That her faith was ſpoken of through all the Rom. 1.world; and they conſider not, that he gives the ſame teſtimony to the Theſſalonians, in far higher terms, than to the Romans; for he tells them, That they were an example to the faithful, and that 1 Theſſ. 1.the word of the Lord ſounded from them, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place alſo. Although they do not conclude the infallibility of the Church of Theſſalonica from thence. They do not ſee that he renders well near the ſame teſtimony to the Philippians, in adding a clauſe that ſeems much more expreſs; to wit, That he is aſſured of this very thing, that he which had begun Phil. 1.a good work in them, would perform it until the day of Jeſus Chriſt. Although they cannot notwithſtanding conclude infallibility from thence in the behalf of the Church of Philippi. In effect, theſe teſtimonies only regard the perſons, who at that time compoſed thoſe Churches, and not thoſe who ſhould come after them; and do not found any priviledge on them.
They produce the paſſages of the Goſpel, that relate to S. Peter, as this, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, Matth. 16.and the Gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it: and this, I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatſoever thou ſhalt Luke 22.bind on Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven, &c. and this, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; when therefore thou art converted, John 21.ſtrengthen thy brethren: and this, Feed my ſheep. But to perceive the weakneſs of the conſequence which they draw from theſe paſſages, we need but to ſee that which is between two things, of which it is neceſſary that we ſhould be aſſured, before we can conclude any thing. Firſt of all, we muſt be aſſured, that S. Peter was at Rome, that he preached and fixed his See there; for theſe actions are not ſo evident as they imagine; they are inveloped with divers difficulties that appear unconquerable, and accompanied with many circumſtances that have no appearance of truth, and which make at leaſt that whole Hiſtory to be doubted. I confeſs, that the Ancients did believe ſo; but they have ſometimes readily admitted Fables for truths; and after all, theſe are matters of fact whereof we have not any Divine Revelation, about which, according to the very principle of our Adverſaries, all the whole Church may be deceived; and which by conſequence are not of faith, nor can ſerve as a foundation for an Article ſo much concerning the faith as this is. That the Church of Rome cannot err, and that it is alwayes neceſſary to ſalvation to be in her communion. Secondly, We muſt be aſſured that the Biſhops of Rome are the True and ordinary Succeſſors of S. Peter in the Government of every Chriſtian Church. For why ſhould not they be his Succeſſors in the Government of the particular Church of Rome, as well as the Biſhops of Antioch in the particular Government of that of Antioch? When the Apoſtles preached in thoſe places, where they gathered Churches and ſetled Paſtors, they did not intend that thoſe Paſtors after them ſhould receive all the rights of their Apoſtleſhip, nor that they ſhould be Univerſal Biſhops. They ſay, that there muſt have been one, and that that could have been in no other Church, but that where S. Peter dy'd: But all this is ſaid without any ground. The Church is a Kingdom that acknowledges none beſides Jeſus Chriſt for its Monarch; he is our only Lord, and our Soveraign Teacher; and after that the Apoſtles had formed Churches, and that the Chriſtian Religion had been laid down in the Books of the New Teſtament, the Paſtors had in thoſe Divine Books, the exact Rule of their Preaching and their Government. Thoſe who have applyed themſelves only to that, have alwayes well governed their Flocks, without ſtanding in need of that pretended Univerſal Epiſcopacy, which is a Chimerical Office, more proper to ruine Religion, than to preſerve it. In the Third place, we muſt be aſſured, that S. Peter himſelf had received in thoſe paſſages ſome peculiar dignity, that had raiſed him above the other Apoſtles, and ſome rights which were not common to all of them. But this is what they cannot conclude from thoſe forecited paſſages: for granting that Jeſus Chriſt has built his Church upon S. Peter, has he not alſo built it upon the other Apoſtles? is it not elſewhere written, That we are built upon the foundations of Eph. 2.the Apoſtles and Prophets, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief cornerſtone? Is it not written, That the New Jeruſalem has twelve foundations, Rev. 21. 14.wherein the names of the twelve Apoſtles of the Lamb are written? If Jeſus Chriſt has prayed for the perſeverance of the faith of S. Peter, has he not made the ſame Prayer for all the other, Keep them, ſayes he, in thine own name, that they may be one, as we are? John 17. 11.If he ſaid to him, Strengthen thy Brethren, is it not a common duty, not only to the Apoſtles, but to all the Faithful? Let us conſider one another, ſayes S. Paul, to provoke unto love, and to good works. If Heb. 10. 24.he ſaid to him, Feed my ſheep, did he not ſay to all in common, Go, and teach all Nations? If he ſaid to him, I will give unto thee Matth. 28 19.the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven; has he not ſaid to all of them, I Luke 22. 29.appcint unto you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me? Whatſoever ye ſhall bind on Earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven, and Matth. 18. 18.whatſoever ye ſhall looſe on Earth, ſhall be looſed in Heaven. In the Fourth place, we muſt be aſſured, that when there ſhould be in all thoſe paſſages ſome peculiar priviledge for S. Peter excluſive from the reſt of the Apoſtles, that it is a thing that could be tranſmitted down to his Succeſſors, and not ſome perſonal priviledge that reſided in him alone, and muſt have dyed with him. For can we not ſay, that the twelve Apoſtles, being the twelve foundations of the Church, the priviledge of S. Peter is to be firſt in order, becauſe he was the firſt who laboured in the converſion of the Jews at the day of Pentecoſt, and in that of the Gentiles in the Sermon that he made to Cornelius? May we not ſay, that Jeſus Chriſt has particularly prayed for his perſeverance in the faith, becauſe that he alone had been winnowed by the Temptation that hapned to him in the Court of the High Prieſt? That he ſaid to him alone, When thou art converted, ſtrengthen thy brethren, becauſe that he alone had given a ſad experience of humane weakneſs? That he ſaid to him thrice, Feed my ſheep or my lambs, becauſe that he only having thrice denyed his Maſter by words full of horror and ingratitude, our Lord would for his conſolation and re-eſtabliſhment, thrice pronounce words full of love and goodneſs? In fine, when thoſe Texts ſhould contain a peculiar priviledge, that might be communicated to the Succeſſors of S. Peter, we muſt be aſſured, that that priviledge muſt be the perpetual infallibility of the Church of Rome, and a certainty of never falling away from the quality of a True Church. And this is that which they know not how to conclude from thoſe paſſages. for in reſpect of the firſt, The Church may have been built upon S. Peter and upon his firſt Succeſſors and remain firm and unſhaken upon thoſe foundations, that is to ſay, upon their Doctrine and Example, although in the courſe of ſome Ages the Biſhops of Rome have degenerated, and changed the faith of their Predeceſſors, and the words of Jeſus Chriſt extended even to the Succeſſors of S. Peter would not be leſs true, when they ſhould not extend themſelves unto all thoſe who bear that name. S. Paul has called the Churches of Aſia, in the midſt of which, Timothy his Diſciple was, when he wrote his firſt Epiſtle to him; he has I ſay, called them the pillar and ground of Truth. For 1 Tim. 5.although thoſe Titles belong in general to every Church, it is notwithſtanding certain, that they regard more directly and more particularly that part of the Univerſal Church, I would ſay the Churches of Aſia, where Timothy reſided when S. Paul wrote to him. But the word of this Apoſtle does not fail to be true, although in the courſe of many Ages thoſe Churches have degenerated from their firſt purity, and though the Succeſſors of Timothy loſt it very quickly after. And as to the Prayer that Jeſus Chriſt made to God, that the faith of S. Peter might not fail, when they would extend it down to his Succeſſors, they cannot conclude a greater Infallibility for them, than that of S. Peter himſelf, who preſerving his faith concealed at the bottom of his heart, outwardly denyed his Maſter three times; and who, according to the opinion of our Adverſaries, loſt entirely his love, and had fallen from a ſtate of Grace, being no more either in the Communion of God, nor in that of the Myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Let the Church of Rome therefore call her ſelf infallible as much as ſhe pleaſes, in vertue of the Prayer of Jeſus Chriſt, that Infallibility will not hinder, but that ſhe may externally deny the faith of Jeſus Chriſt, but that ſhe may intirely loſe her love, and the communion of our Saviour, and the quality of the True Church, and by conſequence, that we ſhould not be bound to ſeparate from her, while ſhe ſhould be in that ſtate, and till it ſhould pleaſe God to re-eſtabliſh her.
See here of what force thoſe proofs are which they produce to ground this ſpecial priviledge of the Church of Rome upon. It is not hard to ſee, that a man of good underſtanding, who would ſatisfie his mind and his conſcience upon ſo weighty a point, ought not to remain there; but that he ought to paſs on to the other way of clearing that doubt which I have noted, which is, to judge of the pretenſion of the Church of Rome, by the examination of her Doctrines and her Worſhip. For it is there principally that the characters of truth and infallibility ought to be found, and by conſequence he muſt come to the foundation, and no further amuſe himſelf with Prejudices.
As to the ſecond Way, by which I have ſaid we might clear this Queſtion, Whether it be neceſſary to the ſalvation of Chriſtians, to be joyned to the Church of Rome? it conſiſts in examining, whether it be true, that God has made her the Miſtreſs of all other Churches? whether there is any particular order that binds us indiſpenſably to her? For if that be ſo, the Separation of our Fathers muſt be condemned; but if it be not ſo, we muſt judge of that Church as of all other particular Churches, and ſay, that we cannot and ought not to ſeparate our ſelves from her, but when we have juſt and lawful cauſes ſo to do. There is no perſon who does not judge, that we cannot paſs over lightly a point of ſo great importance, which ought to ſerve for a general and perpetual Rule to all Chriſtians; and that if the Church of Rome would ſo ſet her ſelf beyond a ſtate of equality above other Churches, it is neceſſary that ſhe ſhould produce ſome very expreſs and indiſputable Order of God for it. But inſtead of that, ſhe does nothing but reverberate the ſame paſſages which I have mentioned. She boaſts her ſelf to be the See of S. Peter; and under that pretence, ſhe applyes to her ſelf all that ſhe can find in the Scripture in favour of that Apoſtle; and particularly the Order that Jeſus Chriſt gave him to feed his ſheep, as if the Office of the Apoſtleſhip, in which Jeſus Chriſt re-eſtabliſhed him by thoſe words, could be communicated to his Succeſſors; or as if the foundation that Jeſus Chriſt ſuppoſed, and upon which he re-eſtabliſhed him, in ſaying to him feed my ſheep, to wit, that he ſhould love him more than the reſt, was not a thing purely perſonal in S. Peter, and whereof it was not in his power to tranſmit any part to his Succeſſors, nor by conſequence, to inveſt them with his Office, which was reſtored to him only upon a ſuppoſition of that love; or laſtly, as if the office of feeding Chriſt's ſheep, included an abſolute and indiſpenſable neceſſity for the ſheep to receive their death, when they ſhould give it them under the name of their food.
It muſt be acknowledg'd, that there never was a higher pretenſion than this of the Church of Rome: for what more could ſhe pretend to, then to make Heaven it ſelf depend on her communion, and to leave no poſſibility of ſalvation to any but thoſe who ſhould be in her communion, and under her dependance! But it muſt alſo be acknowledged, that there never was any thing worſe eſtabliſhed than that pretenſion. They alledge in its favour, nothing that is clear and diſtinct; and even the conſequences which they draw for it, are made after a very ſtrange manner. This is, in my judgement, the Reaſon why our Adverſaries when they treat of this matter do not inſiſt much upon Scripture, but fly off preſently to the Fathers, and the uſage of the Ancient Church: For by this means, they hope to prolong the diſpute to eternity, and that notwithſtanding, the Church of Rome ſhall be alwayes in poſſeſſion of that Deſpotical Authority which ſhe exerciſes over the Churches that remain in her communion. In effect, the life of a man would ſcarce ſuffice to read well and throughly examine all the Volumes which have been compoſed on one ſide and on the other upon this Queſtion of the place that the Church of Rome and its Biſhops have held among the Chriſtian Churches during the firſt ſix Centuries, and of the Authority which they had then. But to ſay the truth, there is too much artifice in that procedure; for that the Church of Rome ſhould be the Miſtreſs of all others, and that no one could be ſaved but in her communion, that does not depend upon the order of men, but only on that of God: and when they ſhould find among the Antients a thouſand times more complaiſance for the See of Rome than they had, that may very well eſtabliſh an ancient poſſeſſion, and make clear the fact; but it can never eſtabliſh the right of it. To eſtabliſh a right of that nature, a word of God, an expreſs declaration of his will is neceſſary; for it is a right not only above nature, but even above the ordinary and common favour that God gives to other Churches, and which by conſequence depends only upon God. And ſo it is but a wandring from the way, to go to ſearch for the grounds of it in the Writings of Men. It is no hard matter to conceive, that thoſe Biſhops which were raiſed to Dignities in the Metropolis of the World, and engaged in the greateſt affairs, might mannage matters ſo, as to aſcribe to themſelves thoſe rights which no wayes belonged to them, nor to imagine that their flatterers and Courtiers might not have offered more incenſe to them than they ought, nor that thoſe perſecuted ones who had recourſe to their protection, might not have helped the increaſe of their Authority, nor that the Princes and Emperors who had need of them, might not have given them thoſe priviledges which they ought not to have had, that which renders to a juſt title, all that which they alledge in their favour ſuſpected and to no purpoſe at all.
Notwithſtanding there are moreover, evident matters of fact, that let us clearly ſee, that the Ancient Church did not acknowledge that Univerſal Epiſcopacy, that the Biſhops of Rome pretend to, nor that abſolute and indiſpenſable neceſſity to be joyned to their See to be ſaved, nor that their Church ſhould be the Miſtreſs of all the reſt. 1. Every one knows, that the Biſhops of Rome were anciently choſen by the ſuffrages of the people and of the Clergy of that Church, without any other Churches taking part in thoſe Elections, which is a mark manifeſt enough, that they did not mean, that thoſe Biſhops ſhould be Univerſal Biſhops, nor that they ſhould have a more peculiar intereſt in their creation, than in that of other Biſhops. Since the Popes were raiſed to that high Dignity wherein we behold them at this day, each Nation has thought, that it ought in ſome manner to participate in their Nomination, becauſe the buſineſs was about one common intereſt, they would have the Protectors of their Intereſts in the Colledge of Cardinals, and Princes themſelves have interpos'd; but they can ſee nothing like that in the Primitive Church. Rome alone made her Biſhops without the participation of other Churches. 2. Victor Biſhop of Rome having excommunicated the Churches of Aſia, who celebrated the Feaſt of Eaſter after the manner of the Jews, S. Irenaeus with the Biſhops of France oppoſed themſelves to that Excommunication, and wrote as well to Victor as to the other Biſhops, and in effect thoſe Euſeb. lib. 5. cap. 24.Churches of Aſia did not ceaſe to remain in the Communion of the Catholick Church, notwithſtanding that action of Victor, as it appears from the Teſtimony of Socrates, who formally ſayes, Socrat. hiſt. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 5.that thoſe who contended about the buſineſs of Eaſter, did not nevertheleſs refuſe communion with one another. So that their Biſhops were called and received in the Council of Nice, without any difficulty; for Euſebius notes expreſly, among thoſe who Euſeb. de vita Conſt. lib. 1. cap. 7. & lib. 3. cap. 13.were called by Conſtantine, the Syrians, the Cilicians, and the Meſopotamians, who were Quartodecumani, he ſayes, that Conſtantine would conferr pleaſantly and familiarly with the Biſhops, about matters that were in queſtion; and that he would bring them all by that means to the ſame opinion, even about the matter of Eaſter: and S. Athanaſius teſtifies, that it was to accord that difference, Athan. Epiſt. de Synod. Arim. & Sel.that all the World was aſſembled at the Council of Nice, and that the Syrians came to the ſame opinion with the reſt, and that they earneſtly contended againſt the Hereſie of Arius, which ſhews us, that they aſſiſted at the Council, without any notice being taken of Victor's Excommunication. From whence it is no very hard matter to conclude, what Aeneas Sylvius Cardinal Epiſt. lib. 1. Epiſt. 288.of Sienna, and afterwards Pope, has acknowledged in one of his Letters, That before the Council of Nice every one lived according to his own wayes, and that men had but a very ſmall regard to the Church of Rome. 3. In the ſixth Century, a great trouble being raiſed in the Church, upon the occaſion of three Writings; the one of Theodoret Biſhop of Cyrus, the other of Ibas Biſhop of Edeſſa, and the third of Theodoret of Mopſueſta, which had been read and approved in the Council of Chalcedon, but whom the moſt judged to be Heretical, Pope Vigilius openly took up the deſence of thoſe three Writings, and vigorouſly oppos'd himſelf to the condemnation that the Emperour Juſtinian and the Eaſtern Patriarchs had made of them. But, in the end, being drawn to Conſtantinople, he changed his opinion, and conſented to that condemnation, whither he was carried out to it by the complaiſance which he had for the Emperour, who had a great affection for that buſineſs, or whether out of ſome other principle. Howſoever it were, that action appear'd ſo criminal in the eyes of a great number of Orthodox Biſhops, that they ſeparated themſelves and their Churches from the Communion of Vigilius and his Party, and even the Church of Africa aſſembled in Council, as Victor of Tunis an African Biſhop witneſſes, who lived in thoſe Victor. Tunun. in Chron.times, Synodically excommunicated that Pope, leaving him notwithſtanding means to re-eſtabliſh himſelf by repentance. Theſe Actions prove in my judgement, very ſufficiently, that the faithful then did not look upon the Church of Rome as the Miſtreſs of all others, nor on the communion or dependance on its See, as a thing abſolutely neceſſary to the ſalvation of Chriſtians.
There can nothing be ſaid in effect more oppoſite to the Spirit of the Chriſtian Religion, than that Imagination. God had heretofore fixed his Communion with that of the Iſraelites, and eſtabliſhed in Jeruſalem and in its High Prieſts, the center of Eccleſiaſtical Unity. But when Jeſus Chriſt brought his Goſpel into the world, he changed that order, not by tranſporting the rights of Jeruſalem to Rome, nor thoſe of the High Prieſts to the Popes; but by aboliſhing wholly that neceſſity of Communion to a certain place, and that particular dependance on a certain See. This is what S. Paul clearly enough teaches in his third Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians. In the new man, ſayes he, there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither Circumciſion nor Ʋncircumciſion, neither Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free, but Jeſus Chriſt is all, and in all. He had had no reaſon to expreſs himſelf after that manner, if that new man whereof he ſpoke, had neceſſarily been a Roman, and depending on the Communion of the Biſhop of Rome. So alſo the ſame Apoſtle ſetting that Evangelical Church that Jeſus Chriſt had aſſembled in oppoſition to the ancient and earthly Jeruſalem, makes not that oppoſition to conſiſt in this, that the one is Jeruſalem, and the other Rome; the one the head City of Judaea, and the other, that of the Empire; but he makes it to conſiſt in this, that one is earthly, and the other heavenly; the one below, and the other on high; the one ty'd to a certain place, from whence it cannot go; and the other independent on all manner of particular places in the world, and having no neceſſary dependence on any but Heaven. For it is to this purpoſe that he calls, the Jeruſalem that is above, the heavenly Jeruſalem, the City of the living God, the Church of the firſt-born, whoſe names are written in heaven. It is in Gal. 4. Heb. 12.the view of that, that Jeſus Chriſt ſaid to the Samaritan Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye ſhall neither in this mountain, nor John 4. 1. 21, 23.yet at Jeruſalem worſhip the Father: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worſhippers ſhall worſhip the Father in ſpirit and in truth. The Samaritans would eſtabliſh the center of Religion on the Mountain where Jacob and the twelve Patriarchs had built an Altar to God; the Jews, on the contrary eſtabliſhed it in the City of Jeruſalem. To all that Jeſus Chriſt oppoſes not the Capital City, as the new Mountain which he had choſen; nor Rome as another Jeruſalem, but the Spirit and the Truth; that is to ſay, Faith and Piety alone, abſtracted from all thoſe relations to particular places, and independent on all Cities and Mountains.
The ſame thing is juſtified by the cenſure that S. Paul paſſed on the Corinthians, in that one ſaid, I am of Paul, another I am of Apollos, and another I am of Cephas, that is to ſay, of Peter. For we ought not to imagine, that thoſe men meant, that they were ſo of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Peter, as to be no more of 1 Cor. 1.Jeſus Chriſt; or that they would take Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas for heads equal to Jeſus Chriſt. They were Chriſtians, and they were not ignorant of the difference they were to make between Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles. No, without doubt, they were not ignorant of it, but they would have ſubordinate heads, humane heads, on whom they might depend by an external dependance, and that was neceſſary for them to be, by that means linked to Jeſus Chriſt, after the ſame manner that they would have us at this day to depend on the See of Rome. Wherefore did S. Paul ſay to them; Is Chriſt divided? Why did he not ſay to them, that as for Paul and Apollos, they had no reaſon to take them for their heads, but that it was far otherwiſe as to Peter, ſince God had ſet up him and his Succeſſors for ever to be the heads of the Univerſal Church? Why in ſtead of that, did he conclude after this manner, That no one ſhould glory in men: for 1 Cor. 3. v. 21, 22, 23.all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world; or life or death; or things preſent; or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Chriſts, and Chriſt is Gods? Is it not to let them underſtand, that Jeſus Chriſt is the only head of the Church, that there is only his communion that is abſolutely neceſſary; and that as for other Miniſters, whoſoever they were, they were appointed for our uſe, as all other things, to ſerve us, in as much as they lead us to Jeſus Chriſt?
If the Church under the New Teſtament, ought to be inviolably ty'd to the See of Rome, how ſhould the Scripture have been ſilent in ſo weighty a truth, which could not be ignor'd without extream danger, nor conteſted without evident damnation? Notwithſtanding, we do not find any other head of the Church in thoſe Sacred Books but Jeſus Chriſt, nor any other High Prieſt but him. We do not find in the Scripture any Univerſal Biſhop, nor Miniſterial head, or ſubordinate, or any particular Church the Miſtreſs of all others. We find there indeed that Jeſus Chriſt being aſcended up on high, gave ſome to be Apoſtles, others to be Prophets, ſome Evangeliſts, ſome Paſtors Epheſ. 4.and Teachers, for the aſſembling of the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtry, for the edifying of the body of Chriſt. How came the Apoſtle to forget in that Enumeration, the chief of all Offices, to wit, that of the Miniſterial Head of the whole Church, and the Univerſal Vicar of Jeſus Chriſt, in the Government and conduct of his flock? If the Chriſtian Church ought in that to reſemble the Synagogue, and to have as that, a Soveraign High Prieſt upon earth, who ſhould be the head of that Religion, and who ſhould have his Succeſſors as the ancient High Prieſt had: whence comes it, that the Scripture has alwayes regarded that Ancient High Prieſt as a Figure of Jeſus Chriſt, that it alwayes referred it to him, and never to the Roman Biſhops, nor even to S. Peter who was then alive, and who ſhould by conſequence have exerciſed that pretended charge which they would make to deſcend from him?
There is therefore no lawful foundation in all that pretenſion of Rome and her See. We ought to paſs the ſame judgement on all other Sees and other particular Churches, with which it is juſt we ſhould hold communion, while they teach good and ſound Doctrine, and that we ſhould even bear with them, when they ſhould fall into ſome errors, provided they conſtrain no body to believe them: but from which it is alſo juſt to ſeparate our ſelves, when they ſhall fall into errors contrary to the communion of Jeſus Chriſt our only Saviour, and when they would violently force all others to believe the ſame. If in a long courſe of Ages, Rome has uſurped by little and little the rights that do not belong to her, if ſhe has found it very eaſie, through the ignorance, or complaiſance of men, in the diverſe intrigues of the World, to raiſe her Throne as high as our Fathers beheld it, and as we do yet at this day: If her flatterers have not failed alwayes to raiſe her pretenſions as high as Heaven, and if ſhe has been lull'd aſleep with the ſound of thoſe ſweet charms that enchant her, we do not believe, that that ought to prejudice our ſeparation. We have no other averſion for her communion, than that which our conſcience gives us; and if it ſhall pleaſe God to re-eſtabliſh her in her ancient purity, ſhe would not have ſo great a joy to ſpread forth her arms to us, as we ſhould have an impatience to demand her peace of her. But as long as we ſhall ſee her in that bad ſtate wherein we are perſwaded ſhe is, we cannot but bewail and pray for her, and yet notwithſtanding no body can blame us, for preferring our own ſalvation to her communion.