Apology for the Reformed Churches, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. That there are two ſorts of Errours; the one overthrowing the foundation of faith, and obliging men to ſeparate, and the other not. That the opinions of the Church of Rome which we reject are of the firſt ſort, and thoſe of the Lutherans of the ſecond.
Object. BUt you'l ſay, Is it lawfull then to ſeparate from a Church, becauſe it preacheth publickly and generally ſome Doctrine, which is contrary to our belief? Is it poſſible that our Soveraign Lord, who would have us to beare with the ill manners and actions of men, for the good that peace & unity brings to a Community, ſhould permit us to ſeparate from them for falſe opinions? Suppoſe that Rome have added ſomewhat to thoſe things which Chriſt and his Apoſtles laid down; Yet what need had your Fathers to depart from her ſo farre? This Spirit of concord you ſpeak of, which obliged them (as you grant) to ſuffer the faults in their neighbours lives; how chance it did not make them beare with ſome in their faith?
Anſ. Becauſe there is in this reſpect an extreme difference between faults in doctrine and in life; the firſt drawing after them a conſequence farre differing from that of the latter, becauſe that the Church propounds unto us not Her life but Her doctrine, to be the rule of our faith and manners. Yet (which we Proteſtants confeſſe) all errours in doctrine do not give a man a juſt and ſufficient cauſe to make a diviſion from thoſe that hold them. For the Apoſtle commands us, to receive him that is weak in the faith, Rom. xiv. 1. and not to trouble him with diſputes, and to afford him our ſelves for an example, in bearing gently with thoſe who are not of our mind in every thing. Let us all who are perfect, ſaith he, be of the ſame mind; and if any of you think otherwiſe, God ſhall reveal even this unto him. Phil. iii. 15. 'Tis evident, that this weakneſſe in faith and this diverſitie in opinon, whereof S. Paul ſpeaketh, are errours; but ſuch as he would have us beare with. Yet ſince he elſewhere pronounceth anathema againſt thoſe, that preach any other Goſpel then that which he preached, we muſt of neceſſitie conclude, that there are two ſorts of errours in religion: the one ſuch, as a man may beare with without dividing from them who hold them; and the other ſuch, for which he is bound to avoid their communion: and this difference dependeth upon the nature of errours themſelves. For as the truths which we are to believe are not all of equall importance, ſome being eſteemed fundamentall and ſo abſolutely requiſite, that a man cannot come to the kingdome of heaven if he be ignorant of them; others being profitable, yet not ſo neceſſary but that a man may without the knowledge of them ſerve God and enjoy ſalvation: ſo it is with errours, Some are pernicious and no way conſiſtent with a true piety; others are leſſe hurtfull and do not neceſſarily draw in men to perdition. S. Paul doth clearly enough diſcover to us this diſtinction, 1 Cor. iii. 13, 15. where, after he had ſaid, That none could lay any other foundation but that which he had laid, to wit, Jeſus Chriſt, he addeth, That they who builded upon this foundation wood, hay, ſtubble, ſhould have loſſe in their work, when it comes to be tried; nevertheleſſe they ſhould be ſaved, yet ſo as by fire; that is to ſay, with difficulty, their perſon onelyonly, or that wherein their chief good conſiſted, eſcaping a burning. An evident ſigne that there be errours, which do not deprive the Authours thereof of ſalvation, much leſſe exclude ſuch from happineſſe as believe them after Them, and take them up (when they are dead or gone) meerly upon their truſt and credit. And to conclude, who doth not ſee plainly, That there be errours which utterly overthrow the foundations of Chriſtianity, ingaging us unavoidably in ſuch things as are inconſiſtent with ſalvation? and that there be others which do not ſo?
As for example, if one ſhould think that he were bound to worſhip the Sunne. (For ſeeing the Sunne is a creature, and thoſe who worſhip creatures have no portion in the kingdome of heaven) 'Tis evident that he who hath ſuch an opinion cannot attain eternal happineſſe. And 'tis ſo with all other errours which overthrow any of the firſt, neceſſary, and fundamentall articles of Chriſtian religion. But the errour of thoſe, who believed of old, That the Church ſhall continue a thouſand yeares (or ſome long time) with J. Chriſt upon earth after the reſurrection, is no way repugnant to piety towards God, or charity towards our Neighbour, nor doth it directly overthrow any of the foundations of the Gospel; Though it be in my opinion contrary to divers paſſages of S. Paul and ſcarce conſonant to the nature of Chriſts Kingdome.
A man would ſcarce believe how neceſſary it is, to mark this difference among the errours of men in matters of religion, for preventing that vain ſcrupuloſitie and importunate penſiveneſſe, which many melancholy ſpirits are troubled with, who condemne all errours alike, and thunder out one and the ſame anathema againſt what ever differs (though never ſo little) from their apprehenſions: yet for keeping them from falling on the other ſide, into the indifferencie of profane perſons, who conform to any thing, and ſwallow a camel as well as a gnat. Indeed the true pious perſon will endeavour to keep himſelf from all errour; and will purge his neighbour too, as well as himſelf, ſo farre as he is able. For any deviation from truth though it may be a light and ſmall errour, yet 'tis an errour (that is to ſay an ignorance, and contradiction to the truth) and by conſequence an evil. But a man muſt be very diligent and circumſpect in obſerving this diſtinction among errours, and acknowledge that one is much more dangerous then another, and he ſhould more or leſſe abhorre them all, according as he ſhall judge them to be more or leſſe dangerous. If they be of the firſt rank, viz. thoſe which overthrow the foundations of Chriſtianitie, he will beſtirre himſelf with all poſſible prudence and dexteritie, according to his vocation and gifts, to free his neighbour from them; and if he cannot gain upon him, he will yet be ſure to ſave and deliver his own ſoul from the communion of ſuch as hold them. This was the practiſe of the Faithfull in reference to Paulus Samoſatenſis Biſhop of Antioch, and Arius a Prieſt of Alexandria, who held that Jeſus Chriſt was a meer creature, throwing down Chriſtianitie from top to bottome by this abominable doctrine. But if the errour be of a ſecond ſort, not pernicious nor inconſiſtent with the principles of our faith, we ſhould do well (if we could handſomely) to free our brethren from it: (for it were to be wiſht that we might be entirely exempt from errour) but if we cannot get out, we muſt not therefore ſtraight ſever from them, but gently and quietly beare with what we cannot alter; yet ſo, that we prejudice not any mans ſalvation, much leſſe our own. For, as in civil ſocietie, we keep not company with ſuch perſons as we diſcover to be guilty of infidelitie or enormous vices, becauſe friendſhip or familiarity with ſuch people ſlurrieth the honour and reputation of thoſe, that make any ſhew or profeſſion of vertue; but we do with a deal of ſweetneſſe and ingenuitie, beare with the faults and frailties of ſuch as are not miſcreants at the bottome, though notwithſtanding their converſation be not altogether free from humane frailties: So are we to do in Religion, to avoid communicating with thoſe, whoſe errour overthrows the foundations of piety; but charitably to teach thoſe, who retaining the principles cannot free themſelves entirely from all perſwaſions contrary to truth.
The Ancients muſt pardon me, if I venture to take notice that they were ſometimes too ſcrupulous, and (if I may ſo ſpeak) too curious and ſtrait-laced in this particular; rejecting oftentimes innocent opinions with very tragical termes, and handling ſuch perſons as gainſayed them, with as much rigour as if they had overthrown the whole Goſpel of Chriſt. 'Tis a wonder to ſee, how ſome of them did in a manner ſport, with changing errours into hereſies, and all faults into crimes. Philaſtrius, Biſhop of Brixium (who lived in the time of S. Ambroſe) was among others very hot; for he lib. de Haereſ. cap. 4. Bibl. P P. parte 1. p. 22. cap. 39. reckoned among hereſies the opinion of thoſe, who attributed the Epiſtle to the Hebrews to Clement, or to Barnabas, and to S. Paul; and of thoſe who thought the CL. Pſalmes in the Pſalter were not all compoſed by David; and of thoſe who thought the ſtarres were faſtned to the orbs of heaven. But none were ever ſo ready to excommunicate, as thoſe very men; who keep ſuch a complaining of our quitting their communion upon too ſlight cauſes. To ſay nothing here of the lightnings and excommunications of Victor againſt Aſia, of Stephen againſt Africk, and divers other Popes, as well one againſt another, as againſt ſtrangers, for reaſons moſt an end of very ſmall concernment: Let any man reade onelyonly the laſt Councel held at Trent; he ſhall ſoon ſee how liberall they were of Anathema's. They were not there content, as thunder doth from Heaven, to ſtrike the cedars and the tops of the mountains: ſcarce was there any herb in their adverſaries fields (though never ſo low and ſmall) that ſcaped their thunderbolts. They who doubted, whether marriage was a Sacrament, or whether the Church can diſpenſe with the degrees eſtabliſhed in Leviticus, or whether a Biſhop be above a Presbyter, or whether the reaſons that moved Rome to deprive the Laity of the cup were of ſufficient validity to that purpoſe, (things as every one may ſee of none, or at leaſt very little importance to pietie) were excommunicated, anathematized, as well as they that denyed the divinitie of our Saviour, or the truth of the laſt reſurrection. And for my part I underſtand not how it agrees▪ with the mildneſſe and gentle behaviour, which the Doctrine of Chriſt doth ſtrictly recommend unto us, to have ſuch an inhumane ſeveritie as to be able to beare with nothing, to ſpare no opinion; but to make ſo high a market of the pretended thunderbolts, as to let them fly indifferently, againſt the leſſe errours as well as againſt the greateſt crimes. Well, this I am ſure of, If we would imitate Their examples, and juſtifie our proceedings by the maximes of theirs, we might end this queſtion in three words. For if he that thinks marriage is not a Sacrament is an anathema to him that holds it is, I pray, What ſhould they who believe that the Euchariſt is not bread but the Creatour of heaven and earth, be deemed by thoſe that hold the contrary? And if to think that a Presbyter was originally the ſame with a Biſhop, give the Church of Rome ſufficient cauſe to curſe my communion, how much more doth her elevating (as ſhe doth) the Pope above the Church, and above all the Kings in Chriſtendome, give me juſt cauſe to run away from her?
But 'tis now time we ſhould (by Gods aſſiſtance) clear our own innocence, of thoſe crimes which our ſide is accuſed of. We confeſſe, That Chriſtian charitie is not ſo active and hot as their zeal: Charitie often bears with what it doth not approve of, and rejects nothing, but what it cannot ſuffer, without hazarding the ſalvation of our neighbours and our own ſouls. 'Tis ſo farre from excommunicating (as the Councel of Trent doth) Chriſtians for ſmall errours, that I think it would eaſily beare with in faithfull perſons that opinion of the Greeks (for which they are ſo roughly anathematized) touching the proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt. For though I grant it is an errour to believe, that the H. Ghoſt proceeded not from the Father and Sonne, but from the Father onelyonly by the Sonne, yet if you obſerve 'tis hard (if not impoſſible) to underſtand what prejudice this errour brings to piety and holy life.
The difference that is between us and ſuch of our brethren as are called Lutherans is of the ſame nature. I confeſſe, 'tis as impoſſible for us to believe, as to conceive their Poſition, concerning the body of our Saviour being really preſent in the bread of the Euchariſt. But yet 'tis poſſible (and I think according to the laws of charity, neceſſary) to bear with that in their doctrine which we cannot believe. For this opinion, in the terms and ſenſe wherein They hold it, hath no venome in it that I ſee. It aboliſheth not the Sacrament, it deſtroyes not the ſigne whereof it conſiſteth, it adoreth it not, it neither divides nor mutilates it, it makes it not an expiatory ſacrifice for our ſinnes, it leaves it both the nature and the vertue of a Sacrament, and doth not take any thing, (formally, directly, and immediately) from Chriſt, either of his ſubſtance or his properties: onelyonly it would have even the humanity of Chriſt preſent in the Euchariſt (that we may receive the vertue of his death, and communicate of his body and bloud, (as S. Paul ſpeaks) 1 Cor. x. in ſuch a manner as they confeſſe incomprehenſible. Which hypotheſis (whiles it goes no further) engageth us not in any thing that is contrary either to piety or charity, either to the honour of God or the good of men: And ſo it may and ought to be tolerated. And this hath been continually our judgement, and ſo declared by the French churches in the nationall Synod held at Charenton in the yeare MDCXXXI. by an expreſſe act, wherein they receive ſuch as are called Lutherans into their Communion, unto their Holy Table, notwithſtanding this opinion, and ſome few others of leſſe importance, wherein They and We differ.
Oh what a gentleneſſe was this, excellently becoming Chriſtians! worthy to be imitated by all believers in the world, and conſecrated with commendation to the memory of all ſucceeding ages! a plain, illuſtrious, irrefragable teſtimony, of the innocence, of our Churches in this particular! For had we been animated with a ſpirit of preſumption, untractableneſſe and deſpight (as ſome fondly imagine) how could we thus gently bear with thoſe which are at difference with us? and in whoſe communion there are ſome who either blinded with paſſion, or deceived with calumny, have a very ill opinion of us, and do outragiouſly defame us.
This example, one would think, might ſhow any man clearly, That it is not want of charity, but ſome other very urgent cauſe, which moved us to ſeparate from the Church of Rome. For had the differences between us and them been like thoſe between us and the Lutherans, what likelyhood is there, but that we ſhould have been as ready to joyn hands with them as with theſe? why ſhould we be willing to offend our Countreymen, and bear with ſtrangers? ſeparate from thoſe that have in their hands, our honours, our goods, our lives; and inviolably keep in with ſuch as we have nothing to do with, but onelyonly as they are Chriſtians? what likelyhood is there that we ſhould not in this point have that complacence for our Princes and naturall Magiſtrates, which we have for ſuch as in reference to civil Societie concern us not? Certainly men muſt needs ſay, we are either very furious and ſenſeleſſe creatures (which cenſure I think many wiſe people will not caſt upon us) or that 'tis ſome great and weighty reaſon that made us ſeparate from the Church of Rome. And this is indeed the chief point of the queſtion. For if the doctrines whereupon we ſeparated were of the ſame nature with thoſe, that we differ with the Lutherans about; if they were tolerable, and ſuch as we could bear with, without violating our conſciences; I confeſſe that our ſeparation was, if not raſh, (as being not grounded upon a ſufficient cauſe) yet unjuſt at the leaſt: no ſeparation in any matter being juſt if it be not neceſſary. But we may truly affirm, (and confidently call heaven and earth to witneſſe) that 'tis not poſſible to accommodate our ſelves to thoſe things which the Romaniſts require of us, without forcing our thoughts, violating the peace of our conſciences, and overthrowing the foundations of Chriſtianity, which we firmly believe. For we are at conteſtation, not concerning matters that are ſmall and of little importance, but concerning the head of the Church, concerning the foundation of faith, concerning the cauſes of ſalvation, the ſervice of God, the object to which that ſervice ſhould be given, the ſtate both of our conſciences in this world, and of our ſouls in the world to come.