Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 3 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
A further Examination of the Reaſoning of the Author of the Prejudices, upon the ſubject of our Separation.
THe Third Propoſition of the Author of the Prejudices is already ſufficiently confuted by what I have ſaid. He ſayes, that ſince our Society is not viſibly extended throughout all Nations, therefore it cannot be the True Church. But we have ſhewn him, that we cannot at this day rationally attribute that viſible extenſion throughout all Nations, to any of the Societies that divide Chriſtianity, and by conſequence, that it is a chimerical mark, by which we may conclude, that there is no true Church in the world, ſince there is none which is not viſibly excluded from many Nations. We have ſhewn him alſo, that his pretended mark does not agree either with the experience of the Ages paſt, nor with the doctrine of the Fathers, nor even with that of the Doctors of the Roman Church; and that inſtead of having any foundation in the Doctrine of S. Auguſtine, it is evidently contrary to him. So that we have nothing to do at preſent, but to go on to the Examination of the Fourth and Fifth Propoſition. They bear this ſenſe, That the Calviniſts urge the principle of the Donatiſts far higher, than ever thoſe Schiſmaticks did. For as for them, they did not ſay, that there was any time wherein the whole Church had fallen into Apoſtaſy, and they excepted the Communion of Donatus; whereas the Calviniſts would have it, that there have been whole Ages, wherein all the Earth had generally apoſtatized, and loſt the faith and treaſure of ſalvation. That the Societies of the Berengarians, the Waldenſes and Albigenſes, &c. in which he ſayes, that ſome of us include the Church, could not be that Catholick Church whereof S. Auguſtine ſpeaks.
To eſtabliſh that which he layes to our Charge concerning the entire extinction of the Church, he firſt produces the teſtimony of Calvin. This is, ſayes he, that which Calvin has diſtinctly Prejug. ch. 9. p. 200, &c.declared in his Commentary on the Epiſtle to the Romans, where after having pretended, that the threatning that S. Paul uſes againſt thoſe who do not remain in the ſtate of grace, where the goodneſs of God had ſent the Goſpel, in declaring to them, that they ought to fear being cut off, as the Jews, from the Covenant of God, he addreſſes himſelf to the whole body of the Gentiles converted to Jeſus Chriſt. Ad totum Gentium corpus, adds he. And certainly, that horrible Apoſtaſy of the whole world which has fallen out ſince, manifeſtly ſhews us, that this advice of S. Paul was not unprofitable. For God having diffuſed in ſo great an extenſion of Countreys, almoſt in a moment, the waters of his Grace, ſo that Religion flouriſhed every where; within a very little while after, the truth of the Goſpel was vaniſhed, and the treaſure of ſalvation baniſhed out of the Earth. But whence could that change come, unleſs from this, that the Gentiles were fallen away from their Call, and therefore it is that he clearly profeſſes in a Letter to Melancthon, that they had ſeparated from all the world. Pluſquam enim abſurdum eſt poſtquam diſceſſionem à toto mundo facere coacti ſumus alios ab aliis deſilire. The Author of the Prejudices, yet further makes uſe of an Article of our Confeſſion of Faith to prove the ſame thing, which ſayes, That we believe, that no one ought of his own authority to thruſt himſelf into the government of the Church; but that that ought to be done by election while it is poſſible, and while God permits it. Which exception we emphatically add to it, becauſe it has failed ſometimes, and even in our time, in which the ſtate of the Church was interrupted, till God had raiſed up men after an extraordinary manner, to order the Church a new, which was in ruine and deſolation. Grounding himſelf on theſe two paſſages, he inſults over Monſieur Vigerius, the Author of the Diſcourſe in the Book of the Perpetuity of the Faith, becauſe he had declared, That none of us had ever ſaid, that it could be poſſible that the Church ſhould no longer ſubſiſt, and that he defied Monſieur Arnaud to ſhew him one only Author among us who had thought ſo. Before he had expreſſed ſuch deſires, ſayes the Author of the Prejudices, it would have been well to the purpoſe, that he had better informed himſelf about that which not only ſome Authors of his Sect have wrote, but the Maſter of all their Authors, which is Calvin, who ſayes a great deal more than that which is contained in that Book of the Perpetuity of the Faith, ſince he looks upon the Church not only as poſſible to periſh, but as having effectually done ſo for many Ages, ſo far as to ſay, that the threatning of S. Paul, which he pretends to be ſpoken to the whole body of the Gentiles, had its effect, that all the Gentiles had fell from their Call through a general Apoſtaſy, that the light of the Goſpel had vaniſhed, in reſpect of them, and that they had loſt the treaſure of ſalvation. It is upon this foundation that he builds his Propoſition, and pretends to make us paſs for worſe men than the Donatiſts.
But all this is nothing elſe but an effect of the unjuſt and violent hatred that this Author has conceiv'd againſt us, and Monſieur Vigerius had reaſon to deny that which he has denyed. As the diſpute here is only to know, what our Hypotheſis is P. 287.upon the point of the perpetual ſubſiſtence of the Church, it would be ſufficient methinks to ſtop the mouth of the Author of the Prejudices, to tell him, that he troubles himſelf to no purpoſe, that we do not believe, that intire extinction of the Church throughout all the world, which he layes to our charge, and that he has miſtaken the meaning of Calvin, and that of our Confeſſion of Faith; for there is no likelihood that he ſhould better know what we believe, than our ſelves, nor that he ſhould be a more faithful Interpreter of the ſenſe of Calvin, and that of our Confeſſion of Faith, than we our ſelves. Notwithſtanding, to make the Character of the Author of the Prejudices more and more known, and what judgement we ought to make of that which he propounds, when he ſpeaks with the greateſt confidence, it will be good to relate here the teſtimony that Monſieur the Cardinal of Richelieu, has given to the Proteſtant Churches concerning that that they believe and teach upon the ſubject of the perpetual ſubſiſtence of the Church until the end of the world. For we might ſay, that he had the Author of the Prejudices in his view, and wrote about this matter only to confute him. There is not, ſayes he, any point in controverſie between our Adverſaries Monſieur le Cardinal de Richelieu, liv. 1. c. 4.and us, about which their Confeſſions of Faith ſpeak ſo clearly, and agree ſo uniformly as this, which I may truly ſay ought not to be put into the number of the controverted points. The Confeſſion of Ausburg, which may be ſaid to be as▪ well the Rule, as the ſource and origine of all the other Confeſſions of Faith of our Adverſaries, ſayes in expreſs terms, that the Church ought perpetually to remain, one and holy. That of Saxony ſayes, that the Article of the Creed which declares the Church Holy and Catholick, was inſerted therein, only to confirm the faithful againſt the doubts that they might have of the ſtability of the Church. That of the Switzers, does not only affirm this truth, but ſets down the ſame reaſon for it that I my ſelf have made uſe of here above, ſince God, ſayes it, would from all eternity that men ſhould be ſaved, we muſt acknowledge this truth, that the Church has alwayes been for the time paſt, that ſhe ſubſiſts for the preſent, and that ſhe will do ſo till the end of the world. The Scotch holds this Article to be ſo undoubtedly true, that it compares the belief of it to that of the Myſterie of the Trinity, ſaying, That as the faithful believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghoſt, ſo they alſo conſtantly believe the perpetuity of the Church. The Flemiſh profeſſes the ſame truth, and gives the reaſon, altogether founded upon the Regality of Jeſus Chriſt, which being perpetual, ſuppoſes in all times ſome ſubjects, over whom he muſt reign. The French Confeſſion alone ſayes nothing upon this occaſion; but it is ſo far from ſaying nothing of it, through the difficulty that they found in this point, that on the contrary, the certainty which they had of it, was, in my opinion the cauſe of their ſilence. She does not therefore, it may be, ſpeak any thing, becauſe ſhe did not think ſhe could doubt of ſo evident a truth, of which her founders have ſpoke ſo clearly for her. Luther teaches it in terms ſo expreſs, that he makes perpetuity to enter into the definition of the Church, as a quality that making a part of its eſſence, is altogether inſeparable from it. He draws the duration of the Church from an Article of the Creed and the words of Jeſus Chriſt, which bind us to believe it, ſaying that it is an Article of Faith taught in the Creed, and founded upon the promiſe of Jeſus Chriſt, who ought alwayes to have a holy Chriſtian Society in this world, that ſhould ſubſiſt until the conſummation of Ages. Calvin does not ſay leſs, and his words are not leſs expreſs. We muſt, ſayes he, hold it for certain, that from the beginning of the world, there never was a time wherein the Church of God was not, and there never will be, till the conſummation of Ages, in which it ſhall not be. Ʋpon this foundation refuting Servetus, who maintained, that the Church had been baniſhed from the world for a certain time, he ſayes boldly, that to ſay, that God had not alwayes preſerved ſome Church in this world, would be to accuſe him of a lye, becauſe he has promiſed, that it ſhall endure as long as the Sun and Moon ſhall. Beza ſpeaks as the Flemiſh Confeſſion, which acknowledging that the reign of Jeſus Chriſt is perpetual, acknowledges alſo, that he ought alwayes to have ſubjects, upon whom to exerciſe that Kingly Office. Du Moulin and Meſtreſat, are not leſs ingenuous in this point, &c. Thus it is that Monſieur the Cardinal of Richelieu has juſtified us againſt the Author of the Prejudices. He could not, in my judgement, have ſpoken either more clearly or more ſtrongly.
In effect, they cannot without ignorance or calumny, aſcribe that opinion of the intire extinction of the Church throughout all the world to us. We ſay indeed, and we ſay it with an extream grief, that the Church has been for ſome Ages in ſo great an obſcurity, that we can very hardly ſee any traces of the natural beauty of Chriſtianity ſhine forth there, Ignorance, Error, Superſtition, as moſt thick Clouds have covered the face of Religion and the Government of the Church has fallen into ſo ſtrange a diſorder, that we can ſee nothing but confuſion in all parts; ſo that the Church could not but appear under a very deplorable condition under that Eclipſe. This is that which Calvin means, by that intire defection of the world, whereof he ſpeaks in the paſſage that the Author of the Prejudices has alledged, and that which is alſo repreſented in our Confeſſion of Faith, by that ruine and deſolation, whereinto we ſay the Church was fallen. But how great ſoever that ruine ſhould have been, we do not believe as the Donatiſts do, that the Church had abſolutely periſhed, or that it was intirely extinct through all the world. We do not ſo much as believe that it was reſtrained to thoſe Societies which the paſſion of their enemies has laboured to cry down under the names of Sects, calling them Berengarians, Waldenſes, Albigenſes, Petro-buſians, Henricians, Wicklefiſts, Huſſites, &c. and over whom the Author of the Prejudices has inſulted ſo fiercely after his uſual manner. Thoſe Societies were yet the moſt illuſtrious part of the Church, becauſe they were the moſt pure, the moſt enlightned and the moſt generous; but the Church did not wholly and entirely reſide in them. For, not to ſpeak of the little Children that dyed before the Age of diſcretion, and to whom we do not doubt that God was merciful, we are perſwaded that while Errors and Superſtitions might be ſeen to reign in their Pulpits, in their Books, in their Schools, and in the Councils, and that a great number were filled with them, that God preſerv'd to himſelf amidſt the people a conſiderable number of the truly faithful, who have kept their faith and their conſcience pure, by reaſon of their ſimplicity, contenting themſelves with the principles of the Chriſtian Religion, adoring one only God, their Creator and Father, putting their confidence in one only Jeſus Chriſt, dead and riſen again for them: and as to the reſt, living holily and Chriſtianly with embaraſſing themſelves either with the opinions of the School, which they did not know, or the Superſtitions wherewith they beheld Chriſtianity loaded, and which the ſole inſtinct of their conſcience could make them reject. We no wayes doubt, that even among the moſt enlightned perſons, there has been a great number who have groaned under ſo many corruptions as they ſaw the Church afflicted with, and who in waiting for better times, have kept themſelves, without bearing a part in them. But we ſay nothing upon this ſubject, but what the Fathers, and in particular S. Auguſtine, have ſaid concerning the ſtate of the Church under the domination of the Arians. For they have ſaid two moſt remarkable things. Firſt, That while the wicked and the Hereticks poſſeſſed the Pulpits, while they preached their blaſphemies there, whilſt they were Maſters of the Councils, whilſt they had the multitude and the powers of the Age on their ſide, while they perſecuted the good to the utmoſt, and while all ſeemed to ſtoop under their yoak, God preſerved in that corrupted Miniſtry, a conſiderable number of the truly faithful, who kept under the veil of their ſimplicity, their faith pure, receiving that which they preached of good to them, and not being infected with the bad. The ſecond thing that they have ſaid is, that there were thoſe there, who being more enlightned and more ſtrong in the faith than the others, oppoſed themſelves to the Hereſie of the Arians, and would not have any communion with them, ſuffering conſtantly their baniſhments, and the moſt cruel puniſhments for ſo juſt a cauſe. To juſtifie this truth, I ſhall only here ſet down that which S. Auguſtine has wrote upon this ſubject in his Epiſtle to Vincentius: but before I relate his words, we muſt note, that the Donatiſts preciſely did that which the Author of the Prejudices has done, when he has abuſed ſome hyperbolical expreſſions that Calvin made uſe of, and the words of our Confeſſion of Faith, to lay it to our charge, that we believe an entire extinction of the Church. For the Donatiſts after the ſame manner abuſed ſome paſſages of S. Hilary, in which that Saint had exaggerated the lamentable ſtate of the Church in his dayes, under the domination of the Arians; from whence they conclude, that S. Hilary had thought that the Church had entirely failed. It is therefore to refute this Objection that S. Auguſtine explains Aug. Ep. 48.himſelf after this manner. The Church, ſayes he, is ſometimes obſcured and covered as it were with clouds, by the great number of Pag. 290.ſcandals, when the wicked take the advantage of the night to ſhoot againſt thoſe who are true in heart. But even then, ſhe is eminent in her moſt firm defenders: and if it be allowed to us to make ſome diſtinction in the words that God ſpake to Abraham, Thy poſterity ſhall be as the Stars of Heaven, and as the Sand that lyes upon the Sea-ſhore. I mean, that we muſt underſtand by the Stars, ſome few perſons more firm and illuſtrious than the others; and by the Sand, the multitude of the weak and carnal, which in a time of a calm appears quiet and free; but which is ſometimes covered with the floods of tribulations and temptations. Such was the time whereof Hilary ſpeaks in his Writings, which you artificially make uſe of to elude ſo many Divine Teſtimonies which I have ſet before you, as if the Church had periſhed throughout all the world. You may as well ſay, that there were no more Churches in Galatia, when the Apoſtle ſaid, O fooliſh Galatians! who hath bewitched you, that after having begun in the Spirit, you ſhould end in the fleſh! for thus it is well nigh that you calumniate the learned Hilary, under a pretence that he cenſured the negligent and the fearful, for whom he has as it were ſo many birth-pangs till Ieſus Chriſt ſhould be formed in them. Who is there that knows not that in the time of Arianiſm, divers ſimple perſons, deceived by obſcure expreſſions, imagined, that the Arians believ'd the ſame thing with themſelves; that others yielded through fear and diſſimulation, and conſented in appearance to hereſie, not walking in integrity in the way of the truth of the Goſpel, you would ſee, you Donatiſts, that he had not pardoned thoſe perſons: for you are not ignorant of the doctrine of the Scripture upon this ſubject. Read what S. Paul has wrote concerning S. Peter: See afterwards, what S. Cyprian has thought was to be done on theſe occaſions, and you will find, that it is to very ill purpoſe to blame the mildneſs of the Church, which gathers together the members of Ieſus Chriſt, when they are diſperſed, inſtead of diſperſing them when they are gathered together. Howſoever it be, there have been yet ſome firm ones, who were ſufficiently enlightned to know the ſnares of the Hereticks. They were indeed very few in number, in compariſon of others; but yet nevertheleſs, ſome of them generouſly ſuffered baniſhment for the cauſe of the faith, and others kept themſelves concealed here and there throughout the earth. Thus it was that the Church, which increaſed in all Nations, preſerved within her ſelf the good Wheat of our Lord, and thus it is that ſhe will preſerve her ſelf unto the end, till ſhe extend her ſelf over all people, and even over the Barbarians themſelves. The Church therefore conſiſts in the good ſeed that the Son of Man has ſown, and of which it is ſaid, that it ſhould grow up, until the harveſt, amidſt the Tares. The field is the world, and the harveſt is the end of the world.
See here, after what manner S. Auguſtine declares his opinion concerning the ſtate of the Church and its ſubſiſtence under the Arians; ſince coming afterwards to ſpeak of a paſſage of S. Hilary, which they had objected to him, he ſayes, that we muſt underſtand that which he had ſaid, not in regard of the good Wheat which was yet mingled with the Tares; but only in regard of the Tares: or if his words had any relation to the good Wheat, we muſt take them as only deſigning to enflame the zeal of the fearful by ſuch anſwers. And he adds that the holy Scripture it ſelf frequently makes uſe of this way of expreſſing it ſelf in general terms, which at firſt ſeem to belong to the whole body; but which notwithſtanding regard only a part. Habent etiam ſcripturae canonicae, hunc arguendi morem, ut tanquam omnibus dicatur, & ad quoſdam verbum perveniat.
We may now ſee very clearly, that we are ſo far from being like to the Donatiſts, as the Author of the Prejudices layes it to our charge, that we tread on the contrary, in the footſteps of St. Auguſtine. For firſt of all, our Hypotheſis touching the ſubſiſtence and obſcurity of the Church, is throughout conform to his. We ſay, as he does, that God has alwayes preſerved his truly faithful in the very communion of the corrupted Church. We ſay, with him, that in the moſt violent entring in of Error and Superſtition, God has not left himſelf without witneſs, ſince he has raiſed up, not only perſons, but whole Societies, that have openly and couragiouſly maintained the truth, and withdrawn themſelves from under the Roman Domination. And as to the paſſages that the Author of the Prejudices objects to us out of Calvin and our Confeſſion of Faith, we give the ſame explication of it that S. Auguſtine gave to thoſe of S. Hilary, which the Donatiſts objected to him: That is to ſay, that that defection of all the world, and that ruine and deſolation whereinto the Church had fell, that Eclipſe of the truth and treaſure of ſalvation, are expreſſions that regard properly only the Tares that covered the Field of the Church, and not the good Seed which was mingled with thoſe Tares. Theſe expreſſions only regard the greater number of thoſe who followed thoſe Superſtitions and Errors, and not thoſe who in the midſt of that confuſion kept their Religion pure; and much leſs thoſe who had the courage to oppoſe themſelves openly to Error, and to reſiſt it even unto Perſecutions and Martyrdom.
I know that he has accuſtomed himſelf to form ſome difficulties and Objections againſt our Hypotheſis; but we have this ſatisfaction, to know, that he can make none that does not equally regard the Hypotheſis of S. Auguſtine and ours, and to which, by conſequence, the Author of the Prejudices himſelf would not be obliged to anſwer, if he would not act the Donatiſt. He confeſſes himſelf, that S. Auguſtine had acknowledged, that there might have been ſome Catholicks hid in Heretical communions; and beſides, he cannot deny, that the paſſage which I have ſet down, is expreſs upon that ſubject. 1. If therefore he demands of us, who thoſe faithful were, who before the Reformation, kept their faith pure, without infecting themſelves with the publick errors; and if he urges us to mark them out to him one after another, to tell him their names and their Genealogy, I will demand of him likewiſe, who were thoſe good ſeed of S. Auguſtine, who under the Arian Miniſtry, preſerved their faith, without being infected with Hereſie; and I will intreat him to mark them out to me by name, and to give me their hiſtory. 2. If he demands of us, how we underſtand thoſe perſons could with a good conſcience live under a Miniſtry, where they taught Tranſubſtantiation, the Adoration of the Euchariſt, the Sacrifice of the Maſs, the religious worſhipping of Images, which we believe to be fundamental errors; I will alſo demand of him, how he underſtands, that the good ſeed of S. Auguſtine could live under an Arian Miniſtry, where they taught, that the Son of God was not conſubſtantial with his Father; and that the Father was not the Father eternally; which are errors that the Author of the Prejudices himſelf judges abominable. 3. If he tells us, that our Fathers ought not therefore to have undertaken a Reformation; but that they ought to have left things in the eſtate wherein they were; ſince howſoever corrupted the Latin Church was, according to us, we could yet be ſaved in her communion: I ſhall tell him, that by the ſame reaſon, the Orthodox ought not to have taken care to have re-eſtabliſhed the purity of the faith in the Church, nor to have extirpated Arianiſm; ſince that however corrupted and infected the Church was with that Hereſie, there was yet a way to work out their ſalvation in her communion, and under her Miniſtry. 4. If he ſayes to us, that our Fathers ought not at leaſt in reforming themſelves, to have ſeparated themſelves from thoſe who were not for a Reformation; nor to have forſook their communion and aſſemblies, I will alſo ſay to him, that after this reckoning, the Orthodox in labouring to purge the Church from Arianiſm, ought not at leaſt to have ſeparated it ſelf from thoſe who would retain Arianiſm, but that they ought to have remained with them in one and the ſame communion, and in the ſame aſſemblies, which nevertheleſs they did not. 5. If he ſayes to us, that the Berengarians, the Waldenſes and Albigenſes were Schiſmaticks, ſince they had withdrawn themſelves from a communion, and a Miniſtry under which God yet preſerves the truly faithful, I will likewiſe ſay to him, that thoſe couragious men of S. Auguſtine were in this reckoning Schiſmaticks, ſince they had not leſs withdrawn themſelves from that communion and publick Miniſtry, when that Miniſtry was in the hands of the Arians, as I have ſhewn by expreſs teſtimonies. 6. If he tells us, laſtly, that ſince we acknowledge, that they could have worked out their ſalvation under the Miniſtry of the Roman Church before the Reformation, we ought to confeſs, that we may yet at this day be ſaved in it, ſince things are in the ſame eſtate now, in which they were before; I ſhall tell him, that the Arians could have raiſed the ſame objection againſt the Orthodox after their ſeparation. For the Arians did not pretend to have changed any thing in the ſtate of the Miniſtry under which S. Auguſtine acknowledged, that God had preſerved the truly faithful. So that all the Objections which he ſhall make againſt our Hypotheſis, will be common to thoſe againſt that of S. Auguſtine; and the Author of the Prejudices will himſelf be as much concerned as we to anſwer them.
But not to refer our ſelves wholly to him, let us ſee whether thoſe difficulties are of ſuch a weight, as that there is no way left rationally to ſatisfie us. It ſeems to me therefore, that as to the firſt, S. Auguſtine has ſaid, that it is great injuſtice to demand the names of thoſe particular men, who kept themſelves pure under an impure Miniſtry, ſince we do not keep a regiſter of every particular man, nor of the ſtate of their conſciences; and that it is ſufficient to know in the general, that the promiſes that Jeſus Chriſt has made, alwayes to preſerve to himſelf a Church upon Earth, are inviolable, that we muſt not therefore doubt, that there has alwayes been good ſeed in the midſt of the Arian tares. It is the ſame anſwer that we make, there needs nothing but to apply it.
To the ſecond, he has anſwered, that the ſimplicity of many among the people, who went not ſo far as to underſtand the bad ſenſe of the Arian expreſſions, ſheltred them under Hereſie; that many others of the more enlightned remained in ſilence, through the fear of perſecutions, contenting themſelves to keep their own faith pure, without partaking in the wickedneſs of the wicked, and without liſting themſelves up againſt it. In effect, it is a Maxim of Phoebadius, That it is ſufficient to an humble Phoebad. contr. Arian. Aug. paſſim.conſcience, to keep its own faith, without engaging it ſelf to refute the belief of others: and it is one of S. Auguſtine himſelf, That no body can be culpable for the ſins of another, nor by conſequence, for the Hereſies and Superſtitions that infect a Miniſtry; provided he take no part in them, and no wayes conſent to them, either in effect or appearance. But this is yet the ſame anſwer that we make: for as I have already ſaid, we do not doubt, that there was among the people a very great number of perſons whoſe light went no further than the meer knowing of the chief Articles of Chriſtianity, contained in the Creed, in the Decalogue and Lords Prayer, and who by conſequence were hid under thoſe capital Errors with which the publick Miniſtry was then loaded. We no wayes doubt, that in the midſt of that darkneſs there were not a great many enlightned perſons, who through the fear of perſecutions, remained under the ſame corrupted Miniſtry, with the others, ſeparating the good from the bad, diſcerning the Errors and Superſtitions, taking no part in them, and living as to other things, in that hope that they ſhould not be culpable for the ſins of others.
To the third, S. Auguſtine has anſwered, that it is an abſurd Objection. For it is not more abſurd to ſay, that we ought not to take care to heal a Diſeaſe, under a pretence that as great as the Diſeaſe is, life yet remains, than to ſay, that we ought not to take care to purge the Church and the Miniſtry from a Hereſie that infects it, under a pretence, that there is yet a way to be ſaved in her communion and under her Miniſtry. That we muſt, on the contrary, labour as much as poſſibly we can, to re-eſtabliſh Chriſtianity in its whole frame, leſt the evil ſhould increaſe, and be made incurable through a too great negligence, and leaſt that good which remains in the Church, ſhould be wholly corrupted by the contagion of the evil. But this is alſo the very ſame anſwer that we make. Our Fathers ought to have employed all their endeavours to reform the Latin Church, by their Exhortations, by their Books, by their Sermons, by their Example, becauſe that we ought alwayes as much as poſſibly we can, and as the time and our knowledge call us to it, to labour to ſettle Religion in a ſtate of purity, leſt in the end Errors and Superſtitions render themſelves univerſal, and the whole Church ſhould periſh through our negligence. For although Jeſus Chriſt has promiſed us, that it ſhall never periſh, yet notwithſtanding this would be to tempt God, and to render our ſelves unworthy of his grace, to neglect the means that he gives us for its preſervation, and that ſo much the more, as according to humane judgements, there was no other than that of the Reformation.
To the fourth, S. Auguſtine has anſwered, That in labouring to purge the Church from Arianiſm, it was neceſſary that they ſhould ſeparate themſelves from the communion of thoſe who obſtinately perſiſted in that Hereſie; and the fixed reſolution that they teſtified to remain in it, was a ſufficient cauſe to make them withdraw themſelves from their Aſſemblies. But we anſwer with greater advantage, that our Fathers in labouring for a Reformation, ought to have forſaken the Aſſemblies of thoſe, who not only were fixed in the opinion of having nothing reformed, and oppoſed themſelves with all their might to hinder a Reformation; but who went ſo far as to impoſe a new neceſſity on mens conſciences to believe their Opinions, and even to excommunicate all thoſe who would not believe them.
As to the fifth, S. Auguſtine, did not intend to ſay, that thoſe who had ſeparated themſelves from the Arians, when the Arians were the Maſters of the Miniſtry, were Schiſmaticks, ſince he himſelf calls them the Stars of Heaven, the Couragious and Unſhaken, firmiſſimi qui fortiter pro fide exulabant: he never meant to condemn their Aſſemblies which they made apart, to have nothing common with Hereſie, ſince it was nothing elſe but the effect of that heroical courage which he aſcribes to them, and of that ardent zeal which they had for the glory of God. In effect, S. Hilary praiſes ſome Biſhops of France, Germany and Flanders, of whom he writes that they had ſeparated themſelves from the communion of thoſe who held the Orthodox Biſhops in Exile; and in particular, he extolls thoſe among them, who having appealed to a Synod of Bithynia remained firm and conſtant in the faith, and in gathering themſelves into a communion among themſelves, they ſeparated themſelves from the communion of the others. S. Auguſtine has therefore anſwered, that they were no wayes Schiſmaticks, for two reaſons. The firſt is, becauſe the cauſes for which they refuſed communion with the Arians, and withdrew themſelves from their Miniſtry were juſt and lawful; not frivolous and capricious, as thoſe of the Donatiſts, but weighty and fundamental; ſince they diſputed about the Eternal Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, which the Arians would aboliſh. The ſecond, becauſe that although theſe couragious men of S. Auguſtine had renounced the communion of the Arians, and withdrawn themſelves from their Miniſtry, yet they did not believe notwithſtanding, that there was abſolutely no more ſalvation to be had in the Society which they had forſaken. For, beſides that receiving as they did, their Baptiſm from it, they could not doubt, that the Children who dyed before they were infected with that Hereſie, were ſaved, they did not alſo condemn the ſimple and the weak, who remained unfeignedly in that communion, without taking part in the impieties which were taught there, ſo that their ſeparation did not abſolutely reſpect that Society; but only the Hereticks that corrupted it. But this is that which we ſay concerning the Berengarians, the Waldenſes, the Albigenſes, &c. we need but only to apply the ſame anſwer to them.
Laſtly, as to that which regards the ſixth Objection, S. Auguſtine has ſaid, that there was a conſiderable difference between the time wherein the Arians made up almoſt the whole body of the Chriſtian Church, and that wherein the true Doctrine was re-eſtabliſhed in a great part of the Churches; that the firſt was a time of oppreſſion, and the other a time of liberty; that in the former time there being ſcarce any more a viſible communion on the Earth, under which the faithful might place themſelves, they could remain under a corrupted Miniſtry, from which each one in particular had a right to ſeparate the pure from the impure, in waiting till God ſhould deliver his Church out of the hands of thoſe bad Paſtors. But in the ſecond time, where the Orthodox and Arian communions were in a viſible oppoſition, and ſuch as was every where known, it was not poſſible for them to remain under the Arian Miniſtry, without having an Arian heart; or at leaſt, without falling into a deteſtable hypocriſie. For in the oppoſition of theſe two communions, this very thing that they ſhould remain in the Arian, was a manifeſt condemnation of the Orthodox; which they could not do, without being either Arians, or hypocrites. Moreover, in the former time thoſe who remained out of neceſſity under the Miniſtry of the Arians, remained there in grief, and ardently deſiring that God would procure them ſome means to get out of it, and to return to an Orthodox Miniſtry. But in the latter, God having given them the power to joyn themſelves to a pure communion, they could not remain in the Arian, without loving and being pleaſed with it, through thoſe worldly intereſts which they could never prefer before the Confeſſion of a pure faith, without being injurious to God, without wounding their own conſciences, without having a debauched and profane ſpirit; and in a word, without binding over themſelves to eternal damnation. Behold here, what S. Auguſtine has anſwered; and it is no hard matter to judge, that we muſt anſwer them thus when they make the like Objections to us. We muſt diſtinguiſh between two Times, to wit, that which went before the Reformation, and that which followed it; and by the ſame reaſons which I have alledged, we will ſhew them, that although it was poſſible in the former time for ſome to work out their own ſalvation under the corrupted Miniſtry of the Latin Church, yet it does not follow, that we may do ſo at this day, under that of the Church of Rome, ſince thoſe two communions are now found to be ſet in oppoſition.
I ſhall not urge this matter further. We may now methinks, conclude from all that which I have handled in the foregoing Chapter and in this, that if there ever was a vain and ill-grounded Objection, that which the Author of the Prejudices has made againſt us, is certainly one of that nature. His Argument is founded upon nothing elſe but falſe or ill-underſtood Propoſitions. For it is not true, that S. Auguſtine believed that there was any particular Society among all thoſe which make a profeſſion of Chriſtianity, from whoſe Aſſemblies one might not, in certain caſes, depart and withdraw ones ſelf from its communion. It is not true, that the Separation which is between the Church of Rome and us, is that which that Father has abſolutely condemned, and for which he accuſes the Donatiſts to be Schiſmaticks. It is not true, that he would accuſe them of Schiſm without examining the foundation, by a meer paſſive Separation, as that is wherein we are, from the Church of Rome. It is not true, that he has taken that viſible extenſion throughout all Nations, for a perpetual mark of the true Church. It is not true, that he would have that mark to decide the queſtion of the true Church, when the Doctrine of it is diſputed. It is not true, that we hold, that the Church before the Reformation, had periſhed throughout all the Earth. It is not true, that we reduce all to the Berengarians, Waldenſes and Albigenſes, &c. only. Laſtly, It is not true, that the Doctrine of S. Auguſtine upon this ſubject, is any way contrary to us; but it is true, that our Principles have all the conformity with his that any man can reaſonably require. This is in my judgement, that which may be clearly collected from that which I have ſaid.
As the Intereſt that we have in the clearing of this matter, does not go much farther, I would here put an end to this Chapter and this Third Part, concerning our Separation, if the intereſt of Truth and Charity did not bind me to make a reflection upon a Propoſition that the Author of the Prejudices has ſet before us, which is, that Schiſmaticks are out of a ſtate of Salvation. For I hold, that this Propoſition cannot be maintain'd after the manner that the Author of the Prejudices has propounded it, that is to ſay, abſolutely, and without any diſtinction. I am not ignorant that to eſtabliſh this rigorous ſentiment, they produce ſome paſſages of the Fathers, who have in effect ſpoke of Schiſm in extreamly vehement terms, as if they had a deſign to exclude from the communion of God, and all hopes of ſalvation, all thoſe in general who ſhould be found engaged in it. But that very thing, ought to be an example to let us ſee, that we muſt not alwayes take according to the rigour of the Letter, all that the Fathers have ſaid in the heat of their diſputes. For unleſs we ſhould be altogether unreaſonable, we muſt place a difference between three ſorts of perſons who are to be found in a Schiſmatical communion. 1. The Authors of Schiſm, who uſually are the Paſtors and Guides of the flock. 2. Underſtanding perſons, who take part in the affairs, and who very well knowing what they do, give their conſent to Schiſm, and defend the Authors of it. 3. The people, that is to ſay, the ignorant perſons who ſcarce know any thing that paſſes, or who know but very confuſedly. And for that which regards the Authors and other intelligent perſons, as it is moſt frequently, paſſion, intereſt, pride and ambition, that make them ſeparate, and that all thoſe paſſions turn them in the end, into an implacable hatred againſt their brethren, they deſerve our condemnation; for thoſe crimes are incompatible with the Spirit of Jeſus Chriſt; and it is a manifeſt demonſtration, that the world and its corruption reigns in the ſouls of thoſe who are guilty of it; we muſt therefore ſay of ſuch Schiſmaticks as theſe, that while they remain in this condition, there is no hope of ſalvation for them, becauſe that the true faith, the Covenant of God, and the communion of Jeſus Chriſt cannot ſubſiſt under the reign of thoſe brutal paſſions. But to imagine, that the whole body of a people, who are to be found engaged in a Schiſm, either through the faction of the more powerful, or a conſcience prepoſſeſs'd by a zeal without knowledge, by a Piety too ſcrupulous, ſhould be depriv'd of all hope of ſalvation; this would be without doubt to fall into a very rigid Opinion.
To make this clear by Examples, I have already mentioned elſewhere, that Victor Biſhop of Rome excommunicated the Churches of Aſia, upon the difference about the day of Eaſter, from whence there followed a Schiſm between thoſe Churches and this of Rome. I do not now enquire to which of the two parties the crime of the Separation, ought to be imputed, either to the Aſiaticks, who adhered too ſtrictly to the cuſtom of their Anceſtors and the Authority of Polycarp; or to Victor, who without Prudence and Charity, ſeparated him from divers great and flouriſhing Churches, about a matter that was left ſelf-free and indifferent in Religion. I only ſay, that this would be an horrible injuſtice, to condemn thoſe people to eternal flames, who ſhould be found to be engaged in that ridiculous quarrel, only through the capricious humours of their Biſhops. In effect, we have ſeen, that notwithſtanding this Schiſm, they did not fail both the one and the other to ſit together in the Council of Nice.
We muſt paſs the ſame judgement of a Schiſm that fell Socrat. Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. 2. cap. 34.out in the fourth Century, at Antioch, between the Meletians and the Euſtatians, both the one and the other Orthodox and ſeparated from the Arrians, but who nevertheleſs would not communicate together, becauſe that although Meletius had preached and defended the Council of Nice, and ſuffered perſecution for it, yet he had been created Biſhop by the Arians, by reaſon of which, the other Orthodox would no more communicate with thoſe of his party, which obliged them to hold their Aſſemblies apart. It was therefore a true Schiſm on one ſide and on the other; but as it proceeded only from an exceſs of zeal on the ſide of the Euſtatians, we ought not to paſs a ſentence of damnation ſo lightly againſt them.
I ſay the ſame thing of the Schiſm that fell out about the Baron. ad ann. 484.end of the Fifth Century, between Acatius Biſhop of Conſtantinople and Felix the Third Biſhop of Rome, who mutually excommunicated one another, for the intereſts of John Talaia and Peter Mongus competitors for the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Acacius defended the ſide of Peter, whom Felix accuſed to be a Heretick, and an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon; and Felix, on the contrary, upheld Talaia, whom Acacius had accuſed of Perjury, and to be unworthy of a Biſhoprick; and this Schiſm alſo laſted down to their Succeſſors, thirty and five years between the Eaſt and Weſt. But although Acacius, drawn in by intrigues to the ſide of an hypocrite, had wrong at the foundation, yet we ought not notwithſtanding to believe that all thoſe great Churches who kept communion with him, and defended his memory, after his death, were abſolutely cut off from the hope of Paradiſe.
In the Sixth Century, there was another Schiſm, whereof I have already ſpoken, which was very contentious, and embroiled, Baron. in Vigil.under the Emperour Juſtinian, Vigilius being Biſhop of Rome, and Mennas Patriarch of Conſtantinople. The ground of the quarrell, was taken from the Writings that had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon, and which afterwards were condemned as heretical by the Emperour Juſtinian, and the condemnation was ſubſcribed by Mennas and the other Patriarchs and their Biſhops, Vigilius who was of another opinion, undertook the defence of thoſe Writings, and excommunicated Mennas and the reſt who had condemned them. But ſome Months after, he took off his Excommunication, at the ſolicitation of the Empreſs Theodora, to whom he owed his Biſhoprick; and which was more, in the following year, he himſelf pronounced an Anathema againſt thoſe three Writings. But the Biſhops of Africa, Illyria and Dalmatia perſiſted to defend them; and thoſe in Africa aſſembled in Council, excommunicated Vigilius, as a diſſembler. Some time after Vigilius Victor. Tunun. in Chron.repenting himſelf of that which he had done, undertook a ſecond time the defence of thoſe Writings. Juſtinian, on the contrary, made an Edict, by which he renewed their condemnation; and Vigilius, on his ſide, excommunicated all thoſe who ſhould conſent to this Edict. In fine, the Fifth General Council aſſembled at Conſtantinople, where in ſpight of all the Decrees of the Biſhop of Rome, the three Writings were condemned, and all thoſe who ſhould approve them were excommunicated. Vigilius perſiſting in his opinion was baniſhed, and dyed ſome years after. But his Succeſſors, Pelagius and Gregory approved the Council, and ſubſcribed to what had been done there; and it was in fine, generally received by all, and reckoned for a Fifth General Council. We muſt acknowledge, that if the people were to be ſaved or damned according to the good or bad conduct of their Paſtors, Heaven and Hell would be very miſerably diſpenſed, while the time of thoſe diſorders laſted. For our adverſaries themſelves are conſtrained to confeſs, that this quarrell that made ſo great a noiſe, that produced ſo many Excommunications, ſo many Separations, ſo many acts of violence, and ſo many baniſhments, and which ended by the diſhonour of the Council of Chalcedon, was founded upon nothing but a perſonal animoſity, ſayes Baronius, or as Sirmundus ſayes, upon an indifferent Sirmond. prae…. in facund.controverſie, which concerned nothing the doctrine of the faith, on which ſide ſoever it had been decided. If we muſt therefore judge according to the relation of theſe two Authors, all that we can ſay is, that both the parties were equally Schiſmatical, who violated the peace and unity of the Church without any juſt reaſon: and who mutually excommunicated one another for nothing: and if we add that rigorous judgement againſt the Schifmatical Societies, without any exception or diſtinction, we muſt ſay, that there was then no longer a true Church upon the Earth, nor any hope of ſalvation.
But to go yet further; If all thoſe who live in the communion of Schiſmaticks, are out of the Church, in a ſtate of Damnation, I would fain have them ſatisfie me about ſome difficulties that I find in the Hiſtory of the ſame Vigilius. For Vide Baron. in Vigil.the two firſt years of his Papacy, it was he that was called, a falſe Pope, a Schiſmatick, an Uſurper of the Biſhoprick of Sylverius, whom the Hereticks had baniſhed, to ſet up this man, who had promiſed them to communicate with them. And in effect, Liberatus and Victor of Tunis relate, that after Liberat. Breviar. cap. 22.he was in poſſeſſion of the Papacy, he wrote to the Hereticks, as having the ſame faith with them; and Bellarmine declares, that at this time, Vigilius was an Anti-Pope and a Schiſmatick; Victor. Tunun. in Chron.becauſe that Sylverius the lawful Pope, was yet living, Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.and there could not be two lawful Popes at the ſame time. Baronius and Petavius ſay the ſame thing. Notwithſtanding it is true, that during theſe two years of Schiſm Vigilius was peaceably acknowledged to be the Biſhop of Rome, both by the Church of Rome and by all Chriſtendom. No Church refuſed to live in his communion, no Biſhop withdrew himſelf from him as a Schiſmatick. He performed without any oppoſition all the Functions of his Biſhoprick, he received the honours, and had the profits of it. All the Earth was then Schiſmatical with him, and by conſequence, there was no further either a Church or Salvation in the World, if it was only in the perſon of Sylverius and ſome Biſhops who had ſubſcribed to the Sentence of the Depoſition and Anathema that Sylverius being in Exile pronounced againſt Vigilius, and againſt all thoſe who ſhould adhere to him. After this Baron. ad ann. 539.I would fain have them tell me, how Vigilius could paſs from the ſtate of a Schiſmatick, to that of a true Pope. It was, ſay Baronius and Bellarmine, by the conſent of the Clergy and Baron. ad 540. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.People of Rome, who aſſembled together and choſe him lawfully after the death of Silverius. But beſides that, this new Ordination of Vigilius, and this Aſſembly of the People and Clergy, is an effect of the invention of Baronius, which is grounded upon nothing but one word of Anaſtaſius the Popes Library-keeper, who lived above three hundred years after; beſides this, I ſay, that the People of Rome and that Clergy, had not they themſelves loſt through Schiſm, the form of the true Church? how was it reſtored to them? how could they re-eſtabliſh themſelves? Who gave that right to a company of Schiſmaticks cut off from the communion, and the covenant of Jeſus Chriſt, to make a Rebell, a Schiſmatick, an excommunicated perſon, a man that by the ſentence of Sylverius could not perform any Sacerdotal Function, to make ſuch a one, I ſay, a lawful Pope?
See here already ſome inconveniencies conſiderable enough, that flow from that rigorous ſentiment; but if we would go yet further, we may find it may be others that are not leſs ſevere. For what will they ſay to the Schiſms that fell out ſo frequently in the Latin Church through the concurrence of Anti-Popes? Will they dare roundly to pronounce, all thoſe people who have lived and dyed, under the obedience of thoſe falſe Popes, and who by conſequence having been engaged in a true Schiſm, have been totally cut off from the Chriſtian Communion, and deprived of ſalvation? Let the Author of the Prejudices, who has taken ſuch pains to damn the World without any mercy, take the pains if he pleaſes to examine one matter of fact, that I will ſet before him, and which ſhould be enough, methinks, to decide this Queſtion, at leaſt in regard of him. It is this, that during the great Schiſm of two Anti-Popes, which was ended at the Council of Conſtance, there were Saints that the Church of Rome has canonized, and whom it prayes to, who lived and dyed under two contrary obediences, and who by conſequence dyed, both the one ſort and the others, in a true Schiſm. For in the year 1380. Vide Raynald. ad ann. citatos.S. Catherine of Siena dyed under the obedience of Ʋrban the Sixth, in the year 1381. S. Catharine of Swedeland, the Daughter of S. Bridget dyed under the ſame obedience. In the year 1395. S. Margaret of Piſa dyed under the obedience of Boniface the Ninth, in the year 1399. S. Dorothy of Pruſſia dyed under the obedience of the ſame Pope; and in the year 1405. S. William the Hermite of Sicily dyed under the obedience of Innocent the Seventh. On the other ſide, in the year 1382. S. Peter of Luxemburg dyed under the obedience of Clement who was the Anti-Pope of Ʋrban; and ſome time after S. Vincent of Ferrara lived, and wrought Miracles in the party of Benoiſt the Anti-Pope of Gregory the Twelfth. Behold here Saints of both ſides, and yet one or the others muſt of neceſſity have been Schiſmaticks. From whence it appears, that the Church of Rome her ſelf is concerned to oblige the Author of the Prejudices to moderate his ſtyle, and not to take as it ſeems he has done, that which the Fathers have ſaid in diſputing againſt the Schiſmaticks, in its utmoſt latitude.
But although all that I have ſaid, ſhould have no place, the holy Scripture diſtinctly decides this difficulty. For if he would but read the Hiſtory of the Ten Tribes of Iſrael, after they were ſeparated from that of Judah, at the inſtigation of Jeroboam, he will find that they were in a real Schiſm, ſince they had forſaken the Worſhip at Jeruſalem, and had built new Altars, againſt the expreſs commandment of God; and yet nevertheleſs that did not hinder God from preſerving his truly faithful and elect, even in the midſt of them. For there were thoſe ſeven thouſand who in the time of Elias had not bowed the knee to Baal, and whom S. Paul calls the remnant of the Election of Grace, were not theſe Iſraelites engaged in a bad party? Had not God his Prophets and his Altars yet among them? Lord, ſaid Elias, they have killed thy Prophets, and thrown down thy Altars. And the hundred Prophets of God that Obadiah hid in two Caves, to withdraw them from the perſecution of the Idolatreſs Jezabel: the Altar of God that Elias repaired in Carmel, to ſacrifice there by the miraculous fire that fell down from Heaven to conſume the victim, the calling of Eliſha and Micaiah; and in a word, the whole Hiſtory of thoſe ſchiſmatical Ten Tribes, does it not evidently note, that God looked on them as his true Church, in which there was yet a means to be ſaved? We muſt not therefore abuſe that which the Fathers have wrote againſt Schiſmaticks, in intending to aggravate their crime, and to draw them from it; nor muſt we take their expreſſions in the whole rigour of the letter. Their meaning is not, that all thoſe generally who are found engaged in a Schiſmatical Communion, even down to Tradeſmen and Labourers, who remain there with an upright heart, and through the prejudice of their conſciences, are out of the Church, and eternally damned; but that the Authors and Defenders of Schiſm, who run into it, through their perſonal intereſts, or out of a ſpirit of fierceneſs, pride, and an hatred incompatible with the Spirit of Jeſus Chriſt, commit a horrible crime; and that while they are in that ſtate, they remain deprived of all hopes of ſalvation. That if the Fathers have ſaid any thing more generally, and which cannot be thus reſtrained, it is juſt to underſtand it in a comparative ſenſe; that is to ſay, that ſetting that Schiſmatical party of the Church, in oppoſition to that which is not ſo, the hope of ſalvation appears evidently in this, which it does not in the other, where it is obſcured by that Schiſm.
The End of the Third Part.