VARIATIONS

I

S18H0P OF MEAUS,

IN TWO VOLUMES,

NEW-YORK :

PREFACE,

t. — Ji general idea of the Protestant Religion, and the variations of it. The discovery of them useful to true doctrine and the peace of the human nwnd, — The Authors to whom reference is made in this History,

If Protestants knew thoroughly how their religion was formed; with how many variations and with what inconstancy their confessions of faith were drawn up; how they first separated themselves from us, and afterwards from one another; by how many subtleties, evasions, and equivocations, they labored to repair their divisions, and to re-unite the scattered members of their disjointed reformation; this reformation of which they boast would afford them but little satisfaction, or rather, to speak my mind more freely, it would excite in them only feelings of contempt. It is the history of these variations, these subtleties, these equivocations, and these artifices, which I design to write; but in order to render this detail more useful to them, some principles must be laid down which they cannot contravene, and which the current of a narration would not permit me to deduce, when once engaged in it.

2. — Variations in faith a certain proof of falsehood, — Those of the Jlrians, —

Steadiness of the Catholic Church,

When in expositions of faith, variations were seen among Christians, they were ever considered as a mark of falsehood and inconsistency, if I may so speak, in the doctrine propounded. Faith speaks with simplicity; the Holy Ghost sheds pure light; and the truth which he teaches has a language always uniform. Whoever is but the least conversant in the history of the Church, must know she opposed to each heresy appropriate and precise expositions which she never altered; and if we attend to the expressions by which she condemned heretics, it will appear that they always proceed by the shortest and most direct route to attack the error in its source. She acts thus, because all that varies, all that is overlaid with doubtful or studiously ambiguous terms, has always appeared sus- picious, and not only fraudulent, but even absolutely false, be-

But when treating of those who, in these latter ages, have called themselves Reformed, it is not my design to speak of the Socinians, nor the different societies of Anabaptists, nor of the other different sects which have sprung up in England and elsewhere, in the bosom of the new reformation; but of those two bodies only, one of which is composed of Lutherans, namely, those who have for their rule the Confession of Augsj burg; the other, who follow the sentiments of Zwinglius and \ Calvin. The former, in. the institution of tlie Eucharist, defend the literal sense; the latter, the figurative. By this char- acter chiefly shall I distinguish one from the other; though many other very weighty and very important differences exist between them, as will appear by what follows.

The Lutherans will tell us here, that they are very little,^cohc&med in the variations and conduct of Zwinglians. and v. the inconstancy of Lutherans affects them as little: but both. one and the other are mistaken, since the Lutherans can see -in the Calvinists the consequences of those commotions which - they excited; and^ on the contrary, the Calvinists ought to ^ remark in the Lutherans the disorder and uncertainty of tiiiat v^ original which they have followed. But the Calvinists in particular, cannot deny, that they have always looked upon Luther to speak of Calvin, who offen mentioned Luther with respect, as the head of the reformation, we shall see, in the sequel of / this history, that all the Calvinists, (by this name I call the seci ond party of Protestants,) the Germans, English, Hungarians, Poles, Dutch, ajid all others in general, who assembled at /Frankfort,* through ie influence of Queen EUzabeth, iedl these having acknowledged " those of the Confession of Augsburg," / namely, the Lutherans, *' as the first that gave a new birth to ^ the church," acknowledge also the Confession of Augsburg as common to the whole party, " which they did not pretend to contradict) but to ' understand correctly;' " and this in one article only, that of the Supper; for this reason also naming amongst their fathers, not only Zwinglius, Bucer, and Calvin, but Luther and Melsuicthon, and placing Luther at the head of all the reformers.

Afler that, let them say that the variations of Luther and the Lutherans affect fhem not; we will tell them, on -tiie contraij, that, according to their own principles, and their own declarations, to show the variations -and inconsistencies of Luther and the Lutherans, is to point out the spirit of* giddiness in the source of the reformation, and the head. where it had been £u*st conceived.

A long time since, a Collection of Confessions of Faith has been printed at Geneva,* in which with that of the defenders of the figurative sense, namely, that of France and the Swiss, are also those of the defenders of the literal sense, ncunely, that of Augsburg and some others^ Wh^Lt is still more remarkable is this, that though the confessions there collected be so different, and in many socles of faith condemn one another, in the preface to this collection, they are, notwithstanding, proposed ** as one entire body of sacred divinity, and as authentic records, which men ought to have recourse to in order to know the ancient and primitive faith." They are dedicated to the kings of England, Scotland, Denmark, and Sweden, and those princes and republics by whom they are followed. That those kingd and states should be separated froih each other in communion, ias well as. in faith, is a matter of no consequence Those of Geneva address them, notwithstanding, as true believers, " enlightened in these latter times by the special grace of God, with the true light of the Gospel," and then. present them with all these confessions of faith, as *< an external monument of the extraordinary piety of their ancestors."

containing nothing contrary tofuhdamental points.

It is because these doctrines are equally adopted by the Calvinists, either as absolutely true, or at least as having nothing in them contrary to the foundation of faith; hence it fol- lows, that when we shall see in this history the doctrine of the confessions of faith not only of France and Switzerland, and the other defenders of the figurative sense, but of AUgsburg and others set forth by the Lutherans, this doctrine must not be considered, as foreign to Calvinism, but as a doctrine which the Calvinists have approved exprei^sly as true, or lefl uncensured in the most. authentic acts Ihat have passed among them

I shall say less of the Lutherans, who instead of being moved by the authority of those who defend the figurative sense,. have nothing but a contempt and aversion for their sentiments. Their own inconstancy ought, to confound them. When* we should but read.the titles of their Confessions of

* Syntagma Coii£ Fidel Geo. 1654.

Faith, in this Geneva collection, and in the other books of the same kind, where they are collected together into a body, we would be astonished at their multitude. The first that appears, is that of Augsburg, whence the Lutherans derive their name. ( fit will be seen as presented to Charles V, in 1530, and after,; that to have been touched and retouched several times. Melanchton who had penned it, entirely altered the sense of it in the apology which he wrote afterwards. This apology was subscribed to by the whole party. Thus it was changed in coming forth from fiie hands of its very author. From that time they never ceased reforming and explaining it in different ways; so difficult these reformers found it to satisfy themselves, and so little accustomed to teach precisely what was to be believed. But, as if one confession of faith alone were not sufficient on the same subject, Luther judged it necessary for him to deliver ^' his sentiments after another manner; and in 1637, he drew up I the articles of Smalcald, in order to have them presented to the '^ council which Paul III had called at Mantua. These articles / were signed by the whole party, and are inserted in what the ( Lutherans call the Book of Concord.*

This explication did not fully satisfy. It was necessary to / draw up the confession called Saxonic, which was presented to \ tbe Council of Trent in 1551, and that of Wirtemberg, which

in 1552 was also presented to the same council. / To these are to be added the explications of the church of Wirtemberg, the birthplace of the Reformation, and the rest of them, which shall in order take their place in this history; particularly those of the Book of Concord, in the " Abridgment of Articles," and also in the same book, the " Explications Repeated." All these are so many several confessions of churches, impugned by others in points the most important; and yet these churches would wish to appear as forming one body, because, through policy, they disstoble their dissensions on ubiquity and other matters.

14. — Tht Confessions of Faith of the Figurative- Sense Defenders, and the

second party of Protestants,

Nor was the other party of Protestants less fruitful in confessions of faith. At the same time that the Confession of Augsburg was presented to Charles V, those who dissented irom it presented to him their own, published in the name of four cities of the empire, the first of which was Strasburg.

This so little pleased the defenders of the figurative sense, that every one would make his own; we shall see four or five after the fancy of the Swiss. But if the Zwinglian ministers

had their way of thinking, others were no less singular in theirs: this diversity gave rise to the confession of France and sions of faith in. the name of the Church of England; as i many in the name of the Kirk of Scotland. Frederick III, £lec-^ tor • Palatine, would make his own separately and apart; this, with the- others, took its place in the, collection of Geneva. The Dutch would adhere to none of those already made; we ^ have, therefore, a Dutch confession of faith approved by the Synod of Dort. But why should not the Calvinists of Poland have theirs i Indeed, though they had subscribed the last another at the Synod of Czenger. Not satisfied with this^y assembled at Sendomir, with the Lutherans and Yaudois, they agree to a new way of expounding the article on the Eucharist, — ^yet so that none of them departed from their former sen- timents.

To omit the confession of faith framed by the Bohemians who wished to please both parties of the new reformation — I speak not of the treaties of concord which were made between the churches with so many variations and so many equivocations, they will appear in their proper place, with the decisions of national synods, and the other confessions of faith made in different circumstances. Great God! Is it possible, that upon the same matters and the same questions, so many multiplied acts, so many decisions, and difierent confessions of faith are necessary? And yet I cannot boast that I know all, and I know that I cannot find all. The Catholic Church never had occasion to oppose the same heresy a second time; but the churches of the new reformation, which has produced such a number, strange to say, and yet true, are not yet content! And we shall see in this history &at the Calvinists have new confessions, which have suppressed or reformed all the others.

These variations fill us with astonishment. They will appear worse when we learn the detail and the manner in which these acts, so authentic, were drawn up. We are amused — I. speak it without exaggeration — >vith the name of a confession of faith — and nothing has been less serious in the new refor* mation than that which is most serious in all religion.

pretexts by which they endeavor to excuse them.

This prodigious multitude of confessions of.faith has alarmed

those who made them : we shall see the weak reasons by which

they endeavor to excuse them; but I cannot avoid mentioning those which have been set forth in the preface of the collection of Geneva,* because they are general, and bear equally upon all the churches* which call themselves reformed.

The first reason assigned to establish the necessity of multiplying these confessions is, that as many articles of faith were attacked, it became necessary to oppose many confessions to this great number of errors. I agree to the justice of this reasoning and at the same time, by a contrary reason, I demonstrate the absurdity of all these confessions of faith of the Protestants, since all, as it appears by reading the titles, only regard articles precisely the same; so that we can address them with St. Ath^asius,| " Why a new council — ^new confessions — ^a new creed? What new question has been raised?"

Another excuse alleged is, that the whole world ought (as the apostle says,) to render an account of their faith, so that the churches spread in different places, have a right to declare their belief by a public testimony; as if all the churches in the world, however separated they may be, cannot agree in the same testimony, when they have the same belief; as, in fact, from the origin of Christianity we have witnessed a like consent in the churches. Who will show me that the churches of the east have had in primitive times a confession different from that of the west? Has not the symbol of Nice served equally as a testimony against all the Arians — the definition of Chaleedon against all the Eutychians — ^the eight chapters of Car- thage against all the Pelagians? and so of the rest.

But, say the Protestants, was there one of the reformed churches which could make a law for all the rest? No, certainly; all these new churches, under the pretext of shaking off domination have deprived themselves of order, and are unable to preserve the principle of unity. But, in fine, if the ^truth governs all, as they boast, to unite them in one confession of faith, nothing more is necessary than that all should enter into the sentiment of him to whom God had given the grace first to explain the truth.

In fine, we read in the preface of Geneva, that if the reformation had produced but one confession of faith, this consent might have been taken for a studied combination; whereas, a concordance between so many churches, and confessions of faith, without agreement, is the work of the Holy Ghost. This agreement would indeed be surprising; but, unfortunately, it is not found in these confessions of faith; and from this history it will appear, that in a matter so serious there never was such inconstancy.

. sole and uniform Confession of Faith.

This great evil was deeply felt in the reformation, and the attempt to remedy it proved fruitless* All the second parly of Protestants held a general assembly to draw up a common confession of faith; but we see by the acts, that having no principle of imity, an agreement was impossible.*

The Lutherans, who appeared more united in the confession of Augsburg, were not less embarrassed with different editions, and could find therein no better remedy, f

18. — How much these varieties degenerate from the ancient simplicity of

Christianity, ^

We shall be tired, no doubt, of witnessing these variations, and so many false subtleties of the new reformation; so many cavils on words; so many different agreements; so many equivocations and forced explanations, on which these have been founded. Is this, it will be oflen said, the Christian religion, which the Pagans have formerly admired as so simple, so pure, so precise in its dogmas? Is this the Christian religion, perfect and simple? No, certainly it is not.^ Ammian Marcellin was right when he said, that Constantius, by all his councils and all his symbols, had strayed from this admirable simplicity, and that he had weakened the whole vigor of the faith, by the perpetual fear which he entertained lest he should be deceived in his sentiments. |

Protestants call the Reformers.

While it is my intention to represent in this work the confessions of faith and the other public acts, where the variations appeared not only of individuals, but of entire churches of the new reformation, at the same time I cannot avoid speaking of the chiefs of the party who have drawn up these confessions, or have made those changes. Thus Luther, Melancthon, Carlostad, Zuinglius, Bucer, Ecolampadius, Calvin, and the others, will appear often in their places; but I shall not say anything which is not taken from their own writing, or authors above suspicion, so that there will not be in all this narrative any fact that is not certain and useful in elucidating the variations whose history I write.

With regard to the public acts of Protestants, besides their confessions of faith and their catechisms, which are in the hands of the whole world, I have found some others in the col-

S PREFACE.

lection of Geneva; others in the book called the *♦ Concord," printed by the Lutherans in 1654 ; others in the result of the national synod of the pretended reformers, which I have seen in an authentic form in the king's library; others in the Sacramentarian History, printed at Zurich in 1602, by Hospinian, .a Zuinglian author; or, in fine, in other Protestant authors; in a word, I shall say nothing which is not authentic, and incontestable. As to the rest, to speak plainly, it is well known of what persuasion I am; for certainly I am a Catholic, as submissive as any other to the decisions of the church, and so disposed, that no one fears more to prefer his own private opinion to the univer^d judgment. After that, to pretend to be neutral or indifferent to 3ie cause whose history I write, or to dissemble what I am, would be to offer a gross illusion to the reader; but with this sincere avowal, I maintain that Protestants cannot deny that I am entitled to belief, and that they will never read a history more indubitable than this; since in all that I have to say against their churches and their authors, I will mention nothing which is not clearly proved by their own witnesses.

21. — Some objections that may be made against this work. I have not spared pains to transcribe them. The reader will perhaps complain that I have not spared his. Others will . probably condemn my dwelling upon things which may appear trivial to them ; but besides that fliose, who- are accustomed to treat on matters of religion, well know, in .a subject of such is essential ; we ought to consider not what things are in themselves, but what Siey have been, and what they are in the minds of those with whom we have to deal ; arid, after all, it will be easily seen that this history is entirely of a. description quite peculiar ; that it ought to come forth to the world with all its proofs, and armed as it were on all sides ; and in order to render it more convincing and useftil, it was necessary to make it less amusing.

82. — Some things which it was necessary to trace farther back; as the histovy

Though my plan may appear to confine me to the history of Protestants, in' certain places I judged it necessary to ascend to matters of a more distant date ; at that period especially, necessary to know the origin and sentiments of these sects, to (joint out their extraction, and to distinguish them from those with whom some have wished to confound them ; to detect the Manicheism of Peter of Bruis, and tbe Albigenses, and show

PREFAGf:. IS

how the Yaudois emanated from them; to give an accoimt of took their birth; in a wordj to reveal the shame of all these sectaries to those who glory in such predecessors.

23. — Why the order of Hme is followed without distinctioh (^the'subjecf matter^

As to the arrangement of this work, the disputes, and decisr \ ions will, without 5ie distinction of matter, be seen to proceed ' in it in the same order in which they happened. By this means, j it is certain that the variations of Protestants, and the state of their churches, will be more clearly marked. By thus taking in at one view the circumstances of time ^d place, we shall obtain a clearer view of what may serve for the conviction or defence of the parties concerned.

24. — T*he whole dispute regarding the Church put together,^— The p'esefii state

There is but one controversy, the history of which I give separately; it is that which regards the church. This is a matter of such importance, that by its decision alone all disputes might be terminated, were it not as much obscured in the writings of Protestants, as it is clear and intelligible in itself. To restore it to its native plainness and simplicity, I have collected, in the last book, ail I had to mention on this subject; that the reader, having once seen the difficulty to the bottom, may perceive what obliged these nip w churches to change into so many shapes in succession,-^what in the end is but one and the same. For, in a word, the whole matter at issue is to show where the church was before the reformation. Naturally and i. accordingly to the commonly received opinions of all Christians, it ought to be acknowledged as visible; and in their first confessions of faith, namely those of Augsburg and Strasburg, the first of each party,, they went thus fatr. By this they obliged themselves to show, as agreeing with them in one and the same belief, not private individuals scattered up and down, some on one point and some on another, biit bodies of a church, namely, bodies composed of pastors and people. For a long time tiiey amused men in sayings that the church indeed was not always in a state of splendor, but in all times there was, at least, some little assembly where truth made itself heard; at last they having well perceived they could not point: out anyone, either little or great, obscure or illustrious, which was of the Protestant belief, the siibterfuge of an invisible church. very opportunely occurred to them, and the dispute long turned upon this question. In our days they have more clearly perceived, that a church reduced to an invisible state was achimenkf irrecoocilable with die plan of scripture^ and common notions of Christians, and this bad position is now abandoned. The Protestants have been obliged to seek for their succession in the church of Rome. Two celebrated ministers of France vied with each other which should best cover the inconsistencies of this system, to use an expression then in

/ fashion. It is well known, that those two ministers are M.

! Claude and Jurieu. These men were gifted with wit and learning, subtlety and address, and every qualification necessary to make a good defence. None put on a better counte- nance than they, nor classed their adversaries, with a more haughty and disdamful air, with weak people and missionaries for whom they entertained so great contempt; the difficulty, however, which they would make appear so light, proved at last so great, that it raised a division in the party. At length they were obliged to acknowledge publicly, that in the Church of Rome, as in other churches, eternal salvation with the essential succession of true Christianity were found — a secret which the policy of the party had so long kept concealed. They have given us great advantages besides; they were driven into such visible excesses; they have so far forgotten both the ancient maxims of the reformation, and their own confessions of faith, that I could not but relate this change in full. Having applied myself with great care to trace out exactly the plan of these two ministers, and show plainly the state in which they have placed the question, I must acknowledge sincerely, that I have found in their writings, with the most dexterous shifts, as much erudition and as much subtlety as ever I have observed in all the Lutheran or Calvinistic authors with whom I am acquainted. If among Protestants it should be judged advisable, under the pretext of the absurdities into which they have been forced, to contradict and recall what they have granted, and again take shelter in the invisible church, or other retreats equally abandoned, this would be like the disorder of a defeated army, who, dismayed at their overthrow, should seek to re-enter those forts which they had been unable to maintain, at the peril of being soon forced out a second time: or like the restlessness of a sick person, who, after much turning to-and-fro in bed in search of a more easy place, comes back to that he had just left, where he soon finds himself as uncomfortable as before.

25. — What complaints Protestants nuty make, and how frivolous.

I have but one thing to fear: it is, if I may be allowed to speak it, lest I should lay too open to our brethren the weak* n^S of their reformation. Some there are, who, seeing dieir religion so manifestly iti the wrong, rather than be pacified.

f

will be exasperated against us, though alas! I aim far from imputing to tiiem the misfortunes of their birth, and I pity, much more than I blame them. But they will not fail to rise up against us. What recriminations will be prepared against the church, and what reproaches against myself, probably, on the nature of this work? How many of our adversaries, though without reason, wijl tell me, that departing from my own character and maxims, and conveiting disputes of religion into per- sonal and particular accusations, I have abandoned that moderation, which they themselves have praised? But certainly they will merit the blame, — ^if this history renders the reformation odious, honest minds will clearly see, that #t is not I, but the thing itself that speaks. In a discourse in which with regard to matters of faith, I propose to show the most authentic acts of the Protestant religion, nothing less than personal facts cwi be the question in hand; and if these be found in their authors, whom they represent as men sent in an extraordinary manner to revive Christianity in the sixteenth century, a conduct directly opposed to such a design; if through the whole party they have formed, characters quite contrary to a reviving of Christianity be seen; in this part of the history, Protestants will learn not to dishonor God and his providence, by attributing to him a special choice which would be evidently bad.

We miist bear with recriminations, together with all those inventions and calumnies with which our adversaries are accustomed to load us. I require of them but two conditions, which tfaey must allow to be just. The first is, not to think of accusing us of viu^ations in matters of faith, until afler they have cleared themselves; for they cannot deny, that this course would not be cm answer to this history, but would tend to bewilder and delude the reader; secondly, not to oppose reason- ings or conjectures to certain facts; but certain facts to certain facts, and authentic decisions of faith to authentic decisions of faith.

And if by such proofs they show us the least inconsistency, or the least variation, in the dogmas of the Catholic Church, from her first origin down to us, that is from the foundation of Christianity, I will readily own to them that they are right, and I myself \nll suppress my whole history.

27. — This History very conducive to the knowledge qf Truth,

It is not, however, my design to make a jejune and insipid recital of Protestant variations. I shall disclose their causes; I shall show that no change happened among them, which does not argue an inconsistency in their doctrine, and is not the

necessary result of it Their yarii^tions, like those of the Arians, will discov.er what they would have excused, what supplied, what disguised m their belief. Their disputes, their contradictions, and their equivocations, will bear Mritness to Catholic truth, which, from time to time, must also be represented such as it is in itself, in order to make it appear by how many ways its enemies have been forced at length to draw near to it again. Thus, in the very midst of so many disputes, die dark and inevitable confusions of the new reformation, Catholic truth, like a beautiful sun piercing through opaque clouds, will everywhere display its lustre; and this treatise, should the execution equal the desire with which God has inspired me, will be the more convincing demonstration of the justice of our cause, as it will proceed from principles and facts allowed for certain by all.

In short, the contests and agreements of Protestants will point out to us in what, on one side or the other, they have placed the fundamentals of religion, and the point at issue: what they must aver, what, at least, they must support in conformity with their own principles. The Confession of Augsburg alone, with its apolo^, will decide more in our favor than one thinks, and, I presume, what is most. essential, we shall convince the Calvinist, complaisant to some, inexorable to others, that what appears odious in the Catholic, and not so in the Lutheran, at bottom is not essentially different; when it will appear, that what is aggravated against one, is extenuated and tolerated in the other; this will prove sufficiently, that such conduct proceeds not from principle, but aversion, which has ever been the tnie spirit of schism. This trial to which the Calvinist subjects himself, will reach much further than he is aware. The Lutheran will also find disputes greatly lessened by the truths he already acknowledges, and this work, which at first might seem contentious, will tend more to promote peace fhan strife.

29. — How. Catholics ought to be affected by this History.

As to the Catholic, he will everywhere praise the Almighty, for the continual protection he affords his church, in order to maintain her simplicity, and inflexible uprightness, amidst the subtleties with which men strive to bewilder ^e truths of the Gospel.

The perverseness of heretics v^rill be a great and instructive spectacle to the humble of heart. They will learn to despise that knowledge which puffs up, and that eloquence which da.zzles; and the talents which the world admires will appear to

them of little value, when they see such vain curiosities, such caprices in learned men, such dissimulation, such artifices in the most polite writers; so much vanity and ostentation, such dangerous illusions amongst those called men of mt; and finally, so much arrogance and passion, and consequently so many and eo manifest errors in men that appear great, because they are followed by the crowd. They will deplore the errors of the human mind, and be convinced that the only remedy for Heretic. The property of the heretic, that is, of one who has a particular opinion, is, to be wedded to his own conceits: the property of the Catholic, that is, universal, is, to prefer the is the grace for which we shall petition in behalf of those that err. We shall, however, be tilled with a salutary and holy awe, when we contemplate the dangerous and slippery temptations with which God tries his church, and the judgments which he exercises on her; nor shall we cease to pour forth prayers to obtain for her, pastors equally enlightened and exemplary, since it is through want of them that the flock, which has been redeemed at so great a price, baa been so miserably ravaged.

THE HISTORY

OF THE

BOOK I.

[From the year 1517 to the year 1520.] *

Brief summary: — ^The begimiing of Luther's disputes. — ^His a^tations. — His submissions to the Church and Pope. — ^The foundations of his Reformation laid in imputed justice; his unneard of propositions; his condem- nation. — ^His passion, furious threats, vain prophecies, and the miracles of which he boasts. — The Papacy to be overthrown all of a sudden, without violence. — ^He promises he will not permit men to rise in arms for the maintenance oi his gospel.

A REFORMATION of ecclesiastical discipline had been desired several ages since, " Who will grant me," says St. Bernard, "before I die, to see the church of God such as she had been in the primitive times?"* If this holy man had any thing to regret at liis death, it was, that he had not witnessed so happy a change. During his whole life he bewailed the evils of the church: he never ceased to admonish the people, the clergy,- the bishops, and the Popes themselves of them. Nor did he conceal his sentiments on this subject from his own religious, who partook of his affliction in their solitude, and extolled the Divine goodness in having drawn them to it so much the more gratefully, as the world was more universally corrupted, f Disorders had still increased since that time. The Roman church, the mother of churches, which for nine whole ages. had, by setting the example of an exact observance of ecclesiastical discipline, maintained it throughout the Universe to her utmost power, was not exempt from evil; and from the time of the council of Vienna, a great prelate, commissioned by the Pope to prepare matters there to be discussed, laid it down as a groundwork to this holy assembly, . " to reform the church in the head and members. 'V The great schism which happened

* Bern. Epist 257, ad Eugen. Papam. nunc 238. N. 6. t Guil. Durand. Episc Mimat Speculator dictus, Tract de Modo Gen. Cone, celeb, tit 1. part 3 cjusd. part Tit 33, &c

soon after made this s&ying common, not only with particular doctors, Gerson, or Peter D' Aily, and other great m^n of the time, but cdso with the councils; and nothing was more frequently repeated in those of Pisa and Constance. What hap- pened in the council of Basil, where a reformation was unfortunatiely eluded, and the church reinvolved in new divisions, is well known. The disorders of the clergy, chiefly those of Germany, were represented in this manner to Eugenius IV, by Cardinal Julian. " These disorders,*' said he, ** excite the hatred of the people against the whole ecclesiastical order, and should they not be corrected, it is to be feared lest the laity, like the Hussites, should rise against the elergy, as they ioudly threaten us."* If the clergy of Germany were not quickly reformed, he predicted, that afler the here&fy of Bohemia, and when it would be extinct, another still more dangerous would soon succeed; for it will be said, proceeded he, ^that the clergyj" are incorrigible, and will apply no remedy to thieir disorders. When, they shall no longer have any hopes of our amendment," continued this great Cardinal, "then will they fall upon us. The minds of men are pregnant with expectation of what measures will be adopted, and are ready for the birth of something tragic. The rancor they have imbibed against us hecomes manifest; they will soon think it an agreeable sacrifice to God to abuse and rob ecclesiastics, as abandoned to extreme disorders, and hateful to God and man. The little respect now remaining for the ecclesiastical orders will soon be extinguished. Men will cast the blame of these abuses on the court of Rome, which will be considered the cause of them, because it had neglected to apply the necessary remedy." He afterwards spoke more emphatically: "I see," said he, J "the axe is at the root: the tree begins to bend^ and instead of propping it whilst in our power, we accelerate itg fall." He foresees a speedy desolation in the German clergy. The desire of depriving them of their temporal goods would fprm the first spring of motion. " Bodies and souls," said he, "will perish together. God hides from us the prospect of our dangers, as he is accustomed to do with those whom he destines for punishment: we. run into the fire which we see lighted before us." '

Thus, in the fifteenth century, did this Cardinal, the greatest man of his time, lament the abuses of those days, smd foresee their alarming consequences. He seems to have foretold those evils in which Luther was about to involve all Christendom, beginning with Germany. Nor was. he mistaken, when he

f Eptst 1. Julian Caid, ad Eug. iv. inter Op. JKtl Siiv. p. 66. f Ibid. | Ibid.

supposed that a refonnation which was despised, and a hatred redoubled against the clergy, would speedily bring forth a sect more terrible to the church than that of the Bohemians. Under the banner of Luther appeared this sect, and in assuming to themselves die title of Reformed, they boasted they had realized the wishes of Christendom, because a reformation had been long desired by the Catholic world, people^ doctors, and prelates. In order to justify this pretended reformation, whatever had been said by the writers of the church against the disorders of the clergy and people, was collected with great industry.

But herels a manifest deceit in the passageis cited; not one of these doctors even for once thought of changing the faith of the chiurch, or of correcting her worship, which chiefly consisted in the sacrifice of the altar, or of subverting ihe authority of her prelates, and chiefly that of the Pope, which was the great end of this new reformation as founded by Luther.

3. — The testimony qf St, Bernard, Our reformers cite to us St. Bernard, who enumerating the grievances of the church, all those she sustained at the beginning during the persecutions, and those she suffei-ed from heresies in their progress, and those she was exposed to in latter days, through the corruption of morals, allows the latter to be far more frightful,* because they corrupt the very vitals, and spread infection through all the members of the church : whence, concludes this great man, the church may truly say with Isaiah, ^*her bitterest and most painful bitterness is in peace ;"'\ " when left in peace by infidels, and unmolested by heretics, she is most dangerously assaulted by the depraved morals of her own children." Even this were sufficient to show that he did not deplore, as the reformers did, the errors into which the church had fallen, since, on the contrary, he represented it as safe on that side ; but such evils only as proceeded from relaxed discipline : accordingly, when, instead of discipline, the dogmas of the church were attacked by turbulent and restless men, — such as Peter of Bruis, as Henry, as Arnauld of Bresse, — ^this great man would not suffer one of them to be weakened, but fought invincibly for the faith of the church, and the authority of the prelates. ;|;

It was so with the other Catholic doctors, who in the succeeding ages lamented abuses, and demanded a reformation of them. Gerson was the most celebrated of these, and none proposed with more energy a refonnation of the church in her

* Bern. Serm. 33. in Cant N. 10. f Isaiae zzzviii. 17.

I Bern. Sena, 66, 86 in Cant

head and members. In a sennon, which he made after the council of Pisa, before Alexander the Fiflh, he introduces the church demanding of the Pope a l-eformatidn and re-establishment of the kingdom of Israel: but to show he complained of/ no error that could be observed in the doctrine of the church, he addresses the Pope in these words: " Why," says he, *' do you not send to the Indians,* whose faith may have been easily corrupted, as they are not united to thie church of Rome, whence certainty of faith must be derived 1" His master, Cardinal Peter D'Aily, sighed also for a reformation, but he fixed its foundation on a principle entirely different from that on which Luther would establish it, since ^e latter wrote to Melancthon, ^^ that sound doctrine could not subsist, whilst the authority of the Pope existed;" and, on the contrary, the Cardinal thought ** that the members, of the church being separated from their head, during the schism, and there being no administrator, and apostolic director, namely, no Pope, that all the church acknowledged no hope could be entertained of effecting a reforma- tion. "I Thus one made the reformation to consist in the subversion of the papacy, and the other in the perfect re-establishment of that sacred authority, which was instituted by Jesus Christ to preserve unity amongst h}s members, and retain all in their respective duties.

5. — Two ways of desiring the reformation of the Church, There were then two different sorts of persons, who called for the reformation ; one, the truly peaceable and true children of the church, without bitterness be wsiiled her giievances, and, with respect, proposed a reformation of them, and in humility bore with a delay* Far from desiring to effect this object by schism, they, on the contrary, looked on schism as the greatest of all evils. In the midst of these abuses, they admired the providence of God, who, according to his promises, knew how to preserve the faith of the church. And, though they could not accomplish a reformation of morals, free from all bitterness . the strong ones of the church, whose faith no temptation could shake, nor induce to deviate from unity. Besides these, there were proud spirits, who, struck with the disorders they saw prevailing in the church, especicdly in her ministers, did not believe the promises of her eternal duration could subsist in the midst of such abuses ; whereas, the Son of God had taught to respect the chair of Moses, notwitstanding the evil actions of the Scribes and Pharisees who sat therein. f These became proud, and

* Qers. Senn. de Ascens, Dom, ad Alex. V, vol ii, p. 131. t Ibid 137. I Matth. zziii, 2, 3.

thereby weak, yielding to the temptation which inclines to hate the chair itself, iii hatred to those who sat upon it; and, as if the wickedness of man could make void the woric of God, the aversion they had conceived against the teachers, made them both hate the doctrines they taught, and the authority they had received from God to teach.

Such were the Vaudois and Albigenses; such were John Wickiiffe and John Huss. The ordinary bait by which they induced weak souls into their nets, was the hatred with which they inspired them against the pastors of the church. Influenced by this spirit of bitterness, they sighed for a rupture. It is not therefore surprising that, in the time of Luther, when invectives then had ever been seen in Christendom.

Martin Luther, an Augustinian Friar, by profession Doctor and Professor of Divinity in the University of Wittenberg, first excited these commotions. The two parties which called themselves reformed, have equally acknowledged him to be the author of this new reformation. Not only his followers, the Lutherans, vied with each other in extolling him, but even Calvin, often admires his virtues, his magnanimity, his constancy, and the incomparable industry with which he opposed the Pope. He is the trumpet, or rather he is the thunder, he is the lightning that awaked the World from their lethargy: it was not Luther that spoke, but God that thundered from his mouth.*

True it is, he had a strength of genius, a vehemence in his discourses, a lively and impetuous eloquence, which captivated the people and bore all before him, an extraordinary boldness when supported and applauded, with an air of authority which made his disciples tremble, insomuch that neither in little things, nor in great, dared they venture to contradict him. ,^,,y Here I should relate the beginnings of the quarrel in Ifiis' ^^^^^ were they not known by all mankind. For who I'll 9* ^^ ignorant of tiie publication of the Indulgences of Leo X, and the jealousy of the Augustinian Friars against the Dominicans, who, on this occasion, were preferred to themt Who does not know that Luther, an Augustinian Doctor, being selected to maintain the credit of his order, first attacked the abuses many made of indulgences, and the extravagances that were uttered from the pulpit on that subject 1 But he had too much fire to keep himself within these Umits: from the abuses

Pigh. Ibid, fol 137— 141, &<!.

of the thing, he came to the thing itself. He went on step by step, and though always diminishing indulgences and reducing them almost to nothing by his mode of explaining them, however, he seemed to agree with his adversaries in the essential part; for when he began to write his propositions, one of them was couched in the following terms: " Whpever denies the truth of the indulgences of the Pope, let him be accursed."*

7. — The groundwork of Luther's Reformation. — What imputed Justice, and

Just\fication by Faith mean.

Meanwhile, one subject led him on to another. As that of justification, and of the efficacy of the sacraments bordered nearly upon indulgences, Luther fell on these two articles; arid this dispute soon became the most important.

Justification is that grace which, remitting to us our sins, at the same time renders us agreeable to God. Till then, it had been believed that what wrought this effect proceeded indeed from God, but yet necessarily existed in man; and that to be justified, — ^namely, for a sinner to be made just, — it was necessary he should have this justice in him; as to b^ learned and virtuous, one must have in him learning and virtue. But Luther had not followed so simple an idea. He would have it, that what justifies us and renders us agreeable to God was nothing in us: but we were justified because God imputed to us the justice of Jesus Christ, as if it were our own, and because by faith we could indeed appropriate it to ourselves.

6,—Luther*8 special Faithf and the certainty of Justification,

But the mystery of this justifiring faith had something in it that was very singular. It did not consist in believing in general in a Saviour, his mysteries and his promises; but in believing most assuredly, each one in his heart, that all our sins are forgiven us. "We are justified," said Luther without ceasing, '• from the time we with certainty believe ourselves so." The certainty which he required was not that moral certaumty alone, which, grounded on reasonable motives, excludes trouble and perturbation; but an absolute and infalhble certainty, by which the sinner is to believe himself justified with the same faith as he believes Christ came into the world.

Without this certainty there was no justification for the faithful; for they were told that they could neither call on God nor trust in him alone, whilst they had the least doubt, not merely of the Divine Goodness in general, but of that particular goodness by which God imputes to each of us the justice of Jesas Christ; and this is what he called special faith.

ttssur$d i)f his Repentance.

Here a iiew difficulty arose, whether, in order to.be assured of his. justification, it. was necessary, at the same time, that man should be satisfied with the sincerity of his.repentance. This immediately occurred to every one; and, since God promised to justify the penitent only, if wo are assured of our justification, it seems necessary that we should be certain of the sin- cerity of our repentance. But Luther abhorred fliis last certainty; and so far from being assured of the sincerity of repent- ance, " one was not even assured," said he, " by reason of the most hidden vice of vain-glory or self-love, that he did not commit many mortal sins in his very best actions."*

Luther went still much further; for l^e had invented this distinction between the works of God and those of men, " that the works of men, however beautiful in appearance, might seemingly be good, yet were they grievous sins; on the other hand, the works of God, however deformed in appearance, might seemingly be bad, yet lyere they of an eternal merit, "f Deceived by his antithesis and by this play of words, Luther imagined that he had discovered the true difference between the works of man and those of God; not reflecting that the good works of men are also the works of God, who, by his grace, produces them in us,^ which, according. to Luther himself, should give. them an eternal merit; but this is what he was resolved to avoid,— on the contrary concluding, " That all the works of the just would be mortal sins were they not fearful of their being so; nor could there be any avoiding presumption, or having a true hope, if, in every action they perfoiroed, they did not fear damnation. "J

Repentance, doubtless, Js not compatible with mortal sins actually committed ; for to be truly repentant of some grievous sins, and not of all, or to be sorry for them, whilst one commits them, is impossible If, therefore, we are never certain, that in every good work we fall not into divers grievous sins — ^if, on the contrary, we ought to fear our constancy falling into such, we can qever be assured of being truly penitent ; and could we be assured of this, we need not, as Luther prescribes, fear danmation, unless we at the same time believe that God, contrary to if, on account of his own want of disposition, of which he was not assured, a sinner should happen to call in doubt his justification, Lutber told him he was not assured of his good dispo- sition, nor did he know, for example, whether he were truly

♦ Luther, T. i. Prop. 1518. Prop. 48.

1 Prop. Heidls. 1518. Prop. 3, 4, 7, 1 1, J IWd.

I.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. S5

penitent, truly contrite, truly afflicted for his sins; yet he was not the less assured of his entire justification, because it depended not on any good disposition on his part On this account thou art absolved, and thou art so, whatever be thy contrition."* This is equivalent to saying, whether you be penitent or not, you need not concern yourself. AU consists, said he continually, "in believing, without hesitation, that you are absolved;" whence he concluded, whether the priest baptized or gave you absolution in earnest or in jest, is a matter of no consequence;\ because in the sacraments there was only one thing to fear, niunely, the not believing strongly enough that all your crimes were forgiven you, when you had once wrought on yourself to b(^liev so.

10. — The Inconsistency of this Doctrine,

The Catholics perceived that this doctrine labored under a most grievous difficulty, because the believer, being obliged to hold himself assured of his justification, and not of his repentance, consequently ought to believe he might be justified in the sight of God, though he were not truly penitent, which opened the way to impenitence.

True it is, however, (for nothing ought to be concealed,) that Luther did not exclude from justification a sincere repentance, namely, the horror of sin, and the will to do good, and, in short, the conversion of the heart, and judged it as absurd, as we do, to be justified without contrition or repentance. Between him and Catholics, on this head, there appeared no difference, unless that the Catholics called these acts the dispositions of the sinner to justification, and Luther judged he styled them more justly, the necessary conditions. But this subde distinction, at bottom, did not extricate him from the difficulty: for these acts are essential for the remission of sin, name them as you will, either condition, or disposition, or necessary prepara^ tion; so that the question still returned. How Luther could say the sinner ought to believe most assuredly that he was absolved, bo his contrition what it may, that is, be his repentance what it may; as if the being penitent, or not, were a thing quite indifferent to the remission of sins.

Repentance,

Here, then, was the great difficulty in the new dogma, or, in modem phrase, the new system of Luther. How was it possible to have assurance of the entire remission of sin, when not assured, nay, it was impossible one should be certain of true

* Sena, de Indulg. v. L p. 53. f Prop. 1518. Ibid. Serin, de Indalg.

repentance, and true conversion? But it was enough, said Luther, one was assured of faith. A new difficulty, to be assured of faith, and not of repentance; which faith, according to Luther, always produces. " But," answers he, " the faithful can say, * I believe,'* and thereby his faith becomes sensible to him;" as if the same person might not in like manner say, " I repent," and so become alike assured of his repentance. ^ If, lastly, it be replied that the doubt will still remain, whether he repent or not as he ought to do, I say the same of faith; and the sum of the whole is this, — that the sinner must rest assured of his justification, without the possibility of an assurance that he hath fulfilled as he ought that necessary condition of obtaining it, which God required at his hands."

Here there was a new lab3rrinth. Although faith did not, in the opinion of Luther, dispose to justification, (for he ever had an aversion to these dispositions,) it was, however, the necessary condition, and the only means of appropriating to us Jesus Christ and his justice. If, therefore, after all the efforts that a sinner makes, in order to persuade himself fully that his sins are forgiven him through his faith, this question should arise within. Who will tell me, weak and imperfect as I am, whether or not I have that true faith which changes the heart? This is a temptation, according to Lutlier. We must believe, that by faith all our sins are forgiven us, without troubling ourselves whether this faith be such as God requires; nay, without so much as thinking. of it. For this thought alone would be making the grace of justification depend on a thing which may be in us; which the gratuitousness, as I may say, of justification, according to him, would not suffer.

12. — The Security which Luther blames. With this certainty of the remission of sin, advanced by Luther, he however declared there was a certain state dangerous to the soul, which he called security. " Let the fai^ful take care," says he, " that they come not to a security ;" and immediately afler, " There is a detestable arrogance and security in those who flatter themselves, and are not truly afflicted for their sins, which are still deeply rooted in their minds."f If to these two theses of Luther, we join that in which he said, as has been seen already, that, on account of self-love, one could never be assured he did not eommit many mortal sins in his very best actions, insomuch that he ought always to fear damnation,;]; it might seem that this Doctor, at bottom, agreed with Catholics, and that this certainty, which he lays down, was not to be taken, as it has been by me, in the most rigoroua

* Ass. artic. damnat v. ii. ad Prop. 14.

1 6 Disp. 1638, Prop. 44^ 46. 1. T. J Prop. 1618, 48, v.L

sense. But in that we should be deceived; Luther literally maintains these two propositions, which appear so contrary — ** Man is never assured that he grieves for his sins as he ought to do; and he must rest assured that he has gained the forgiveness of them." Whence follow those two propositions, which seem not less opposite: certainty is to be admitted, security ia to be feared. But what is, then, this certainty, if it be not security? This was the inexplicable knot of the doctrine of Luther, which never could be unravelled.

For my part, all I could ever find in his works tending to unfold this mystery, is the distinction he makes between sins committed with knowledge, and those committed *' without knowledge and against conscience^ — lapsus contra conscientiam,^'* It seems, therefore, that Luther would have said, a Christian cannot be assured of his being exempt from sins of the* first kind, but may be so with regard to the second; and if in the committing *these he held himself assured of the remission of his sins, he fell into that pernicious security condemned by Luther; whereas, avoiding them, he may have a full assurance that all the 'rest, even the most hidden, are forgiven him; which is sufficient for that certainty which Luther would establish.

But still the difficulty returned; for, according to Luther, it remained indubitable that it is never known by man whether this vice of self-love, so hidden, does not infect the best of all his actions: on the contrary, in order to avoid presumption, he must look upon it as unquestionable that they are mortally infected with it: ** that he flatters himself;" and that when he believes himself " truly grieved for his offences," it does not follow that he really is as much- so as is necessary for the remission of them. If this be so, whatever he may think he feels within himself, he never knows whether sin reigns not in His heart, the more dangerously the more hidden it is. We must, therefore, be brought to believe we may be reconciled to God, whilst sin predominates in us, or there never will be any such thing as certainty.

15. — The Contradiction of the Doctrine of Luther.

Thus all we are told of the certainty man may have with respect to sin committed against conscience, is nothing to the purpose. Luther should have gone farther and acknowledged that this sin which hides itself, this secret pride, this self-love, which lurks in so many shapes, and even assumes the form of virtue*

* Luth. Themat v. i. p. 490. Coii£ Aug. cap. de boo. op. Synt Gkn. 3. p&rt p. 21.

may be, perhaps, the grand obstacle to our conversion, and the inevitable subject of that continual fear which, after St. Paul, is taught by Catholics. The same Catholics observed, that the answers on this subject were manifestly contradictory. Luther had advanced this proposition: ^' No man should answer the osition seems very strange, he cites these passages to support it: ** I am not conscious to myself of any thing, and yet I am not on that account justified."^ David says, " Who knoweth his sins V^X St. Paul says, '* He that commendeth himself is not approved, but he whom God commendeth."§ From these texts Luther concluded that no sinner is so qualified as to answer the priest, *^ I am truly penitent;" and understanding it rigorously, and for an entire certainty, he was right. According to him, therefore, man was not absolutely assured he was penitent. According to him, however, he was absolutely certain his sins were forgiven him; he was absolfitely certain, therefore, that forgiveness is independent of repentance. Catholics labored in vain to understand these novelties: here is a prodigy, said they, in doctrine and morals, nor can the church bear this scandal.!

** But," said Luther, *^ we are assured of our faith, and faith is inseparable from contrition." To which was replied, ^* Allow, therefore, the faithful to answer for their contrition equally with their faith, or prohibiting one, prohibit the other." " But," proceeded he, ^* St. Paul has said, ^ Examine yourselves whether you be in the faith; prove yourselves. 'IT Therefore we ft^el faith," concluded Lutiier : " Therefore we feel it not," concluded his adversaries. If it be a matter of proof, if a subject of examination, it is not a thing we know from feeling, nor, as they say, from conscience. That which is called faith, continued they, may be, perhaps, nothing more than an illusory image of it, and a weak repetition of what has been read in books, or heard from the mouths of others. In order to be certain we have that lively faith which works the true conversion of the heart, we ought to be sure that sin no longer reigns in us ; which Luther neither can nor will guarantee to us, wlulst he guarantees what depends thereon, namely, the forgiveness of sins. Here is the contradiction, and the inevitable weakness of his doctrine.

Nor let this text of St. Paul be alleged: What man knoweth

the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him?"* True it is, no other creature, neither man nor angel, sees any thing in us but what we see: but it follows not from that we ourselves do always see it; otherwise, how could David have said what Luther objected — ^^ Who knoweth his sins?" These sins, are they not in us? And since it is certain we do not always know them, man will be always a mystery to himself, and his own mind an eternal and impenetrable subject of doubt It is, therefore, manifest folly to seek for a certainty of the forgiveness of our sin, if we be not certain that we have entirely withdrawn our hearts from it.

At the beginning of the dispute Luther spoke much better; for here are his first theses on Indulgences, in 1617, and at the first rise of the discussion: *' None is assured of the truth of his confession, much less of the fulness of his pardon."*)* At that time, on account of the inseparable union of repentance and forgiveness, he acknowledged that the uncertainty of the one implied that of the other. He afterwards changed, but from good to bad; still retaining the uncertainty of contrition, he took away the uncertainty of forgiveness, and no longer allowed forgiveness to be dependant on repentance. Thus Luther reformed himself; such was his progress, as his anger against the church increased, and as he sunk deeper into schism. In every thing he made it his study to take the reverse of the sentiments of the church. Far from. endeavoring, as we do, to inspire siimers with a fear of the judgments of God, to excite repentance in them, Luther went to such excess as to say, " That contrition, which looked back, in the bitterness of heart, on years past, weighing the grievousness of sins, their deformity, their multitude, beatitude lost, and damnation incurred, served only to make men greater hypocrites;"]; as if it were hypocrisy in the sinner to rouse himself from insensibility. But, perhaps, he meant no more than that these sentiments of fear were not sufficient, unless they are united with faith and the love of God. I acknowledge he afterwards explained himself thus,§ but in contradiction to his own principles; for, on the contrary, he required, (and this, as we shall hereafter see, is one of the fundamentals of his doctrine) that forgiveness of sin should precede love; and to establish this, abused the parable of the two debtors in the Gospel, of whom our Saviour said, " He to whom is forgiven the greatest debt loveth most."|| From this Luther and his disciples concluded, one did not love till after the debt, namely, the sin, was remitted to him. Such

3*

J

was the great indulgence preached by Luther, and opposed by him to those that were published by the Dominicans, and granted by Leo X. No occasion for exciting fear, no necessity for love; to be completely justified from all kind of sins, man required no more than to believe without hesitation that they were all forgiven him, and in a moment the affair was settled.

19. — Luther* s strange doctrine eoneeming the war against the Turks. Amongst the extraordinary things which he every day advanced, there was one that astonished the whole Christian world. Whilst Germany, threatened with the formidable arms of the Turk, was all in motion to oppose him, Luther established this principle — *^ That it was necessary, not only to will what God requires us to will, but all absolutely that God himself wills." Whence he concluded, ^^ that to fight against the Turk, was to resist the will of God, who designed to visit us."^

In 'he midst of so many bold propositions, nothing in the exterior was more humble than he — a man timid and retired. He said,! " ^y force he had been drawn into the world, and rather by chance man design, thrown into those troubles." His style had nothing uniform, was even unpolished in some places, and this on purpose. So far from promising immortality to his name and writings, he had never so much as sought it. Nay, he waited the decision of the Church respectfully, so far as to • declare expressly, " should he not abide by her judgment, he consented to be treated as a heretic." In a word, all he said breathed his submission, not only to the council, but to the holy see, and the Pope himself, who, moved by the clamor which the novelty of the doctrine had excited over all the church, had taken cognizance of the cause; and thus it was, that Luther appeared most respectful. " I am not so rash," said he, J " as to prefer my private opinion to that of all other men." As to the Pope, this is what he wrote to him in 1518, on Trinity Sunday: " Whether you give life or death, call me this or that way, approve or reprove as best seems fitting, I will hearken to your voice, as to that of Christ himiself."§ For three entire years, all his discourses were filled with similar protestations: nay more, he referred himself to the decision of the universities of Basil, Fribourg, and Louvain. Awhile afler, he joined to them that of Paris; nor was there a tribunal in the church which he would not acknowledge.

21. — The reasons on which he grounded his submission. What he uttered concerning (he authority of the holy see had

oper. ibid. 2. J Cont Prieri. t i. C 177. § Protest Luth. t L £ 195.

the appearance of sincerity; for the reasons which he assigned for his attachment to this great see were, indeed, the most capable of affecting a Christian heart. In a book which he wrote against Sylvester Prierius, a Dominican, he begins with citing these words of Jesus Christ, " Thou art Peter," and these " Feed my sheep." The whole world, says he, confesses, that from these texts proceeds the authority of the Pope. In the same place, after saying that the faith of the whole world ought to be regulated by that which the church of Rome professes, he thus proceeds: " I give thanks to Jesus Christ, for preserving on earth this only church by a great miracle, and which alone may demonstrate that our faith is true, insomuch as never, by any one decree, hath she departed from the true faith." Even after the ardor of dispute had shaken a Uttle these good principles, '* the consent of all the faithful retained him in a reverence for the authority of the Pope." " Is it possible," said he, " for Jesus Christ not to be witii this great number of Christians?"* Thus he condemned the Bohemians, who separated from our communion, and protested it should never be his fate to fall into a like schism.

22. — His sallies of passion^ far which he begs pardcn.

However, there was something haughty and violent perceptible in all his writings. But though he attributed his passion to the violence of his adversaries, whose excesses, in that way, were not inconsiderable, yet he asked pardon for it. " I acknowledge" (thus he wrote to Cardinal Cajetan, legate then in Germcuiy) ** I have been transported indiscreetly, and have been wanting in due respect to the Pope. I am sorry for it. Though urged to it, I should not have answered the fool that wrote against me, according to his folly. Be so good," continued he, '* as to represent the matter to the holy father; I desire no more than to hear the voice of the church, and to obey it."

23. — ^ new protestation of submission to the Pope, — He offers Leo X, and

Charles F, to be silent for the future,

Afler his citation to Rome, and whilst appealing from the Pope ill-informed to the Pope well-informed, he did not cease to say, '* that the appeal, inasmuch as it regarded him, did not seem necessary to him," he always abiding submissive to the judgment of the Pope, yet excused his going to Rome on account of the expense. I And moreover, said he, this citation beforo the Pope was needless to a man who waited for nothing but the decree of the Pope, in order to comply with it. J

In the course of this proceeding, on Sunday, the 28th of November, he appealed from the Pope to the council ; but in his

act he persisted in always sajring, " that he neither presumed to douht the supremacy, or authority of the holy see, nor yet to say any thing contrary to the power of the Pope well-advised and well-informed." And, indeed, on the third of March, 1519, he wrote again to Leo X, that '* he did not design in anywise to interfere with his authority, or that of the church of Rome."* And, provided a similar injunction were laid on his adversaries, he bound himself, as he had all along done, to an eternal silence; for he could not bear a partial judgment; and, if we may be- Ueve him, he would have remained satisfied with the Pope, had he but imposed on both parties an equal silence. So little was this reformation, so much boasted of since, deemed by him necessary to the welfare of the church. As for retractation, he would never hear it mentioned, however sufficient matter there was for it, as observed above. And yet, so far from exaggerating, I do not tell the whole. But, said he, *' being once en- gaged, his Christian reputation would not suffer him to abscond in a comer," or to retreat. This was his excuse after the rupture commenced; but, during the contest, he assigned one, the more probable as it was more submissive. " For, after all," said he, '^ I see not what use would be my retractation, since it is not what I have said, but what the church will say to me, whom I shall not pretend to answer as an adversary, but to hear as a disciple."*}*

In the beginning of the year 1620, he spoke somewhat higher; I be, having Jesus Christ for my lord and master, they shall not go unanswered: as for recanting what I have said, let no man look for it. Tour holiness, with one word, may terminate all these contests, by bringing the cause to your own tribunal, and imposing silence on both parties." J This is what he wrote to Leo X, dedicating to him, at the same time, the Book of Christian Liberty, full of new paradoxes, the dreadful effects of which we shall soon witness. The same year, afler the universities of Lou vain and Cologne had censured this, and the other books of Luther, he complained thus: " Wherein hath Leo, our holy father, offended these universities, that they should snatch out of his hands a book dedicated to his name, and laid at his feet, there to await his sentence?" In short, he wrote to Charles V, " that he would be an humble and obedient son of the Catholic Church, even unto death; and promised to hold his peace, if his enemies would but let him."§ He called the

whole universe, and the two greatest powers thereof to witness, that these disputed might he terminated; and to this he bound himself in the most solemn manner.

24. — He is condemned by Leo Xf and flies into horrible excesses. But this affair had made too great a noise to be dissembled. The sentence issued from Rome ; Leo X published his Bull of condemnation, dated June 18, 1520 ; and, at the same time, Luther forgot all his submissions, as if they had been empty compliments. From that time he became furious ; clouds of libels were scattered against the Bull : first, appeared his notes and comments oh it, filled with contempt ; a second pamphlet bore this title, " Against the execrable Bull of Antichrist," which he concluded with these words, " In the same manner that they excommunicate me, I excommunicate them again."* Thus did this new Pope pass sentence. He put out a third in " defence of the articles condemned by the Bull."! Far from retracting any of his errors, or in the least moderating his excesses, he went beyond them, and confirmed every thi^g, even to this proposition, namely, "Every Christian woman or child, in the absence of the priest, may absolve, in virtue of these words of Jesus Christ, — All that ye shall unbind, shall be unbound ;" even to that wherein he said, that to fight against the Turk was to resist God. Instead of correcting so scandalous a proposition, he maintained it anew, and assuming the tone of a prophet, spoke thus : " If the Pope be not brought to an account, Christendom is ruined ; he that can, let him flee to the mountains ; or let this Roman homicide be slain. Jesus Christ shall destroy him by his glorious coming ; it shall be he and no other. "J Thus, borrowing the words of the prophet Isaiah, " Oh Lord," cried out this new prophet, " who believeth in thy word ]" And concluded, in delivering to men this commandment, as an oracle sent from heaven: "Forbear ye to make war against the Turk, until the name of the Pope be taken from beneath the heavens ; I have said it."

25. — His fury against the Pope and those Princes who supported him. This was plainly declaring to them, that henceforward the Pope was to be held as their cotnmon enemy, against whom all were to unite. But Luther spoke much plainer aflerwards ; when disappointed that these prophecies did not proceed fast enough, he endeavored to accelerate their accomplishment by these words ; " The Pope is a wolf, possessed by an evil spirit ; from every village and every borough men must assemble against him ; neither the sentence of the judge, nor the authority of a council must be waited for ; no matter if Elings and

'CT. 188, 91. t Assert art. per Bull damnat | Ibid. t. ii. Prop. 33.

Cssars make war in his behalf; he that rises iii arms wider a thief, does it to his own cost. Kings and 'Caesars bear not themselves guiltless, by saying they are the defenders of the church, because they ought to know what is the church."* In short, whoever had believed him, must have set all on fire, and reduced to one heap of ashes, both Pope and princes that supported him; and what is still more strange, as many propositions as we have seen were as many theses of divinity, which Luther undertook to maintain. Nor was this an orator whom the warmth of the harangue might have betrayed into indeliberate conclusions; but a doctor, that dogmatized in cold blood, and erected all his phrenzies into theses.

Although he did not, as yet, exclaim quite so high in that libel which he published against the Bull, yet the commencement of that intemperance might have been discovered in it; and it was the same passion which made him say, on the subject of the citation on which he did not appear, '^ I defer my appearing there, till I am followed by five thousand horse, and twenty thousand foot; then will I make myself be believed. "f All was of this character: and through his whole discourse appeared mockery and violence; the two marks of exasperated pride.

He was reproved in the Bull for maintaining some of the propositions of John Huss; instead of excusing himself, as he would have done heretofore, ^* It is true," said he to the Pope, '* all that you condemn in John Huss I approve; all t)iat you approve I condemn. Here is the recantation you enjoin me; do you require more?"J

The most burning fevers cause not more frantic ravings. This was called by the party the height of courage; and Luther, in the notes he made on the Bull, told the Pope under the name of another, <^ We know full well that Luther will not bate you an inch, because so great a courage cannot relinquish the defence of the truth he has once undertsd(en."§ When, through hatred that the Pope had caused his works to be burned at Rome, Luther, in his turn, caused the Decretals to be burnt at Wittenberg; the acts recording this exploit, ordered by him to be registered, said, " That he had held forth with a surprising beautifulness of diction, and a happy elegance, in his mother tongue. ''11 With this charm he ravished and led away mankind. But, above all, he forgot not to mention it was not enough to have burnt those Decretals, and it had been much more to the purpose, if the like had been done to the Pope himself; "that is to say," added he, moderating a Uttle his expression, " to the Pcqpal chair."

* Disp. 1540, Prop. 59, et seq. 1. 1 £ 407. f Adv. execr. Antchr. Bull, t ii.f. 91.

26. — How Luther came at hut to reject the authority of the Church, When I consider so much passion afler so much humility, I am at a loss whence this apparent humility could proceed in a man of such temper. Was it from artifice and dissimulation ? Rather, was it not that pride, unacquainted with itself in its beginnings, and fearful at first, hides behind its contrary, till an occasion presents of appearing to advantage ?

Afler the rupture was opened, Luther himself confesses '^that in the beginning he was like one in despair, nor could man comprehend from what weakness God had raised him to such courage; nor how, from such trembling, he came to so great strength."*

Whether God or the occasion made this change, I shall leave to the judgment of the reader, and, for my part, am content with the fact which Luther owns during this alarm: in one sense, it is very true that his humility was not feigned. What might cause one, however, to suspect artifice in his discourses, is, that occasionally he forgot himself so far as to say, *^ that he never would change his doctrine; and though he had referred his whole dispute to the determination of the supreme bishop, h was because respect ought to be observed towards him who bore so great a charge."']' But whoever shall reflect on the interior conflicts of a man, whom pride on one side, and the remains of faith on the other, never ceased to distract interiorly, will not consider it at all impossible that such different sentiments should appear alternately in his writings. Be that as it may, it is certain the authority of the Church restrained him for a long time, nor can we read without indignation, as well as pity, what he writes regarding it. " Afler," says he, "I had gotten the better of all the arguments which were opposed to me, one remained still which, with extreme difficulty and great anguish, I could scarce conquer even with the assistance of Jesus Christ; namely, that we ought to hear the church." J Grace, I may say, with reluctance abandoned this unhappy mistook Jesus Christ's abandonment of him, for the immediate assistance of his hand. Who would have thought, that refusing presumptuously to hear the church, contrary to the express command of Christ, should be attributed to tlie gi'ace of Christ? Afler this fatal victory, which cost Luther so dear, he cries out like one set free from irksome bondage, " Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from us;"§ for he made use of these words in answering the Bull; and in his last struggle to shake off church authority, not reflecting that this inauspicious canticle is what David put into the mouth of rebels, whose conspiracies were against the Lord, and against his that, exempt from all constraint, he may henceforward speak and decide, as he wishes, in all things. ^ His despised submissions rankle in his breast; — ^he keeps no temper; — ^his sallies, that should scandalize his disciples, encourage them.; they catch, by hearing, the contagious phrenzy; so rapid a motion reaches soon to a great distance; and numbers look on Luther as sent by God for the reformation of mankind.

27. — Luther^s Letter to the Bishnps. — His pretended extraordinary mission,

so styled," said he, he assumed the title of Ecclesiastes or Preacher of Wittenberg, which none had ever given him; nor does he pretend any thing else, but that he gave it to himself; '' that so many Bulls, and so many e^Kcommunications, so many condemnations from the pope and emperor, had stript him of all his former titles, and defaced the character of the beast in him; yet he could not remain without a title, and had therefore given himself this, as a token of the ministry to which God had called him, and which he had received not from man, nor by man, but by the gifl of God, and by the revelation of Jesus Christ."* Here we have his vocation as immediate, and as extraordinary, as that of St. Paul. On this foundation, at the beginning, and throughout the entire body of the letter, he qualifies himself " Martin Luther, by the grace of God, Ecclesiastes of Wittenberg;"•{• and declares to the.bishops, " lest they should pretend ignorance, that this is his own title which he bestows on himself, with an egregious contempt of them and Satan; and that he might, with as good a claim, have called himself evangelist by the grace of God r for Jesus Christ most Certainly named him so, and considered him as Ecclesiastes."

By virtue of this celestial mission he did every thing in the church; he preached, he visited, abrogated some cerenionies, left others remaining, instituted and deposed. He that never was more than a priest, dared to make, I do not say other priests, which itself would be an attempt unheard of in the entire Church since the origin of Christianity; but what is much more unheard of, even a bishop. It was deemed expedient by the party to invade the bishopric of Nuremburg. Luther went to this city, and by a new consecration ordained Nicholas Amsdorf bishop of it, whom he had already made minister and pastor of Magdeburg. He did not, therefore, make him bishop, in the sense

'*' £p. ad fklso nominat ordin. Episcoporum, t iL £ 305. f Ibid. 14. 220.

he sometimes calls by that name all pastors, but he made him

bishop, with all the prerogatives amiexed to this sacred name,

and gave him that superior character which himself had not ;

but all was comprised in his extraordinary vocation ; and an

evangelist, sent immediately from God like another Paul, could

do all he pleased in the church.

mission and miracles.

Such attempts as these, I know very well, are esteemed nothing in the new reformation.' These vocations and missions, so much respected in all ages, are nothing more, after all, than formalities to these new doctors, who require only what they call essentials; but these formalities established by God, preserve what is essential. They are formalities, if they please, but in the same sense the sacraments are so— divine formalities, which are the seals of the promise, and the instruments of grace. Vocation, mission, succession, lawful ordination, are alike with them to be called formalities. By these sacred formalities God s^s the promise he made to his church of preserving her for ever. *^ Go, teach and baptize; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world:''* with you, teaching and baptizing; not with you here present only, and whom I have im- mediately chosen, but with you in the persons of those who shall be for ever substituted in your place by my appointment. TVTioever despises tliese formalities of legitimate and ordinary missions, may, with the same reason, despise the sacraments, and confound the whole order of the church. And without entering further into this subject, Luther, who said he was sent with an extraordinary title immediately from God as an evangelist and apostle, was not ignorant himself that that extraordi- nary vocation ought to be confirmed by miracles. Therefore, when Muncer, with his Anabaptists, assumed the title and function of a pastor, Luther would not suffer the question to turn on what he might call essential, or admit he should prove his doctrine from the Scriptures; but ordered he should be asked, " Who had given him commission to teach 1" " Should he answer — God; let him prove it," says Luther, " by a manifest miracle; for when God intends to alter any thing in the ordinary form of mission, it is by such signs that he declares himself, ""j*

Luther had been educated in good principles, and could not avoid sometimes returning to them. Witness the treatise which he wrote of the authority of magistrates, in 1534. This date is remarkable, forasmuch as four years after the Augsburg Confession, and fifteen after the rupture, it cannot be said that the Lutheran doctrine had not at that time taken its form; and

yet Luther there declared again, " That he had much rather a Lutheran should leave the parish, than preach there against his pastor's consent; that the magistrate ought not to suffer either private assemblies, or any to preach without lawful vocation; if they had suppressed die Anabaptists when they began to spread their doctrine without vocation, the many evils which desolated Germany would have been prevented; that no man truly pious should undertake any thing without vocation, which ought to be observed so religiously, that even a gospeller (for so he calls his own disciples) might not preach in the parish of a papist or a heretic, without the consent of him who was pastor of it;" " which he spoke," proceeds he, " in warning to the magistrates, that they might shun those prattlers, who brought not good and sure testimonials of their vocation, either from God or men; without this, though they preached the pure gospel, or were angels dropt from heaven, yet they ought not to be admitted." This is to say, sound doctrine is not sufficient: but, besides this, one of two things is requisite, either miracl^ to testify God's extraordinary vocation, or the authority of tho^ pastors who were already qualified to confer the ordinary vocation in due form.

When Luther wrote this, he was well aware it might be toked, whence he himself had received his authority? and therefore answered, " He was a doctor and a preacher who had not intruded himself, nor ought he to cease to preach, ailer it had been forced upon him, neither could he dispense with himself in teaching his own church; but for other churches, he did no more than communicate his writings to them, which was but what charity required."

But when he spoke with this assurance of his church, the question was, who had given him a charge of it; and how that vocation which he had received with dependance, on a sudden became independent of the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy? However that be, Luther, for this time, was willing his vocation should be ordinary; at other times, when he was more sensible of the impossibility of maintaining it, he styled himself, as above, God's immediate envoy, and boasted he was deprived of all these titles which had been conferred on him by the church of Rome, that he might enjoy so celestial a vocation. Then, as for miracles, he was at no loss: he would have the great success of his preaching considered miraculous; and, at his renouncing the monastic life, he wrote to his father, who seemed a little shocked at this change, that God had withdrawn him from that state by visible miracles. *' Satan," says he, " seems to have foreseen from my infency all that one day he was to

suffer from me. Is it possible, that I, of all mortals, should be the only one he attacks at this time 1 Formerly, you were desirous of taking me from the monastery; God hath taken me thence without you. I send you a book wherein you will see, by how many miracles and extraordinary instances of his power he hath absolved me from monastic vows."* These wonders and prodigies were not only the boldness, but also the unlooked for success of his undertaking. It was this he gave for miraculous, and his disciples were persuaded of it.

conceived the courage to attack the Pope, and stood intrepid amidst so many enemies. The people took him for a hero, a man from heaven, when they, heard him defy threats' and dangers, and say, "though he absconded for awhile, the devil knew full well " (a fine witness) " it proceeded not from fear; — that when he appeared at Worms before the emperor, nothing was capable of terrifying him; and though he had been assured of meeting there as many devils ready to seize him as were tiles on the house-tops, he would have dared them all with tho like resolution."! These were his ordinary expressions. He had always in his mouth the devil and the pope, as enemies he was about to crush; and his disciples discovered in these words a divine ardor, a celestial instinct, and the enthusiasm of a heart influenced with the glory of the gospel.

When some of his party undertook, as we shall see, during his absence, and without consulting him, to destroy images at Wittenberg, — " I am quite unlike these new prophets," said he, " who think they do something marvellous and worthy of the Holy Ghost, when they pull down statues and pictures. For my part, I have not lent my hand to the overthrowing of the least single stone; I have set fire to no monastery, yet, by my done more injury to the Pope, than any King could have done with all the power of hi kingdom." J These were the miracles of Luther. His disciples admired the force of this plunderer of monasteries, never reflecting that this formidable strength might be the same with that of the angel whom St. John calls

31. — Luther acts the Prophet : promises to destroy the Pope immediatehf without

suffering the taking of arfns.

Luther assumed the tone of a prophet against those who

* De Vot Monas. ad Johannem Lut. Parent suum. t it 263. t £p. ad Frid. Sax. Ducem. apud Chyt 1. x. p. 247. 1 Frider. Due Elect &c., t vil p. 507— -5Q9. ^ Apoc. uu U.

opposed his doctrine. Afler admonishing them to submit to it, he threatened at last to pray against them. ** My prayers," said he, *' will not be Salmoneus's thunder, no empty rumbling in the air. Luther's voice is not to be stopt so, and I wish your highness find it not to your cost."* Thus he wrote to the Prince of the House of Saxony. ** My prayer," continued he, ** is an impregnable bulwark, more powerful than the devil himself. Had it not been for that, long ago, Luther would not be so much as spoken of; and men will not stand astonished at so great a miracle!" When he threatened any with the divine judgments, he would not have it beheved he did it upon general views. You would have said that he read it in the book of fate. Nay, he spoke with such certainty of the approaching downfall of Ihe Papacy, that his followers no longer doubted of it. Upon his assertion, it was deemed certain that two antichrists, the Pope and the Turk, were clearly pointed out in Scripture. The Turk was just falling, and the attempts he was then making in Hungary were to be the last act of this tragedy. As for the Papacy, it was just expiring, and the most he could allow was two years' reprieve: but above ail, let them beware of employing arms in this work. Thus he spoke, whilst yet but weak; and prohibited all other weapons than the word, in the cause of his gospel. The Papal reign was to expire on a sudden by the breath of Jesus Christ; — namely, by the preaching of Luther. Daniel was express on the point; St. Paul left no doubt; and Luther, their interpreter, would have it so. Such prophecies are still in fashion. The failure of Luther prevents not our ministers from venturing at the like event now; they know the infatuation of the vulgar, ever destined to be charmed with some spell. These prophecies of Luther stand in his works upon record to this day, an eternal evidence against those who so lightly gave them credit. *[ Sleidan, his historian, relates them with a serious air. He lavishes all the elegance of his fine style, all the purity of his polished language, to represent to us a picture which Luther had dispersed throughout Germany,;]; the most foul, the most base, the most disgraceful that ever was. Yet, if we believe Sleidan, it was a prophetic piece; nay, the accomplishment of many of Luther's prophecies had been seen already, and the remainder of them was still in the hands of God. Luther was not looked on as a prophet by the people alone. The learned of the party would have hun esteemed such. Philip Melancthon, who, from the beginning of the disputes, had entered himself on the list of his disciples, and was the most able

* Ep. ad G^rge Due. Sax. t il £ 491. f Assert art Damnat t r. £ 3. ad Prop. 3. ad Prop. 33. Ad. lib. Amb. Cathar. ib. £ 161. Cont Reg. Aug.ib* 331, 33, et seq. | Sleid. L iv. 70. ziv. 825. zri. 261, &c

as well as the most zealous of them all, conceived at first a firm persuasion that there was something in this man extraordinary and prophetic; and, notwithstanding all the weaknesses he discovered in his master, he was a long time before he could relin- quish the conviction; and, speaking of Luther, he wrote to Erasmus, '' you know we ought to prove and not to despise prophecies."*

This their new prophet, however, fell into unheard-of extravagances. He was always in extremes. Because the prophet made terrible invectives by God's commandment, he becomes the most profuse of abusive lemguage, and the most violent of men. Because St. Paul, for man's good, had extolled the gifls of God in his own ministry with that confidence which proceeded from manifest truth, confirmed by divine miracles from above, Luther spoke of himself in such a manner, as made all his friends blush for him. They, however, grew accustomed to it, and called it magnanimity, admired the holy ostentation, the holy vauntings, the holy boasts of Luther; and Calvin himself, though prejudiced against him, styled them so. I Elated with his learning, superficial in reality, but great for the time, and too great for his salvation and the peace of the church, he set himself above all mankind, not his contemporaries only, but the most illustrious of past ages.

In the question of free-will, Erasmus objected to him the consent of the Fathers, and all antiquity. ** You do very well," said Luther; '' boast to us of ancient Fathers, and rely on what they say, when you have seen that all of them togeflier have neglected St. Paul; and buried in a carnal sense, have kept themselves, as on set purpose, at a distance from this morning star, or rather from this sun." And again: ** What wonder that God hath lefl all the nations of the earth, and all the churches, to go afler their own ways?" What a consequence! If God abandoned the gentile world to the blindness of their hearts, does it follow that churches, delivered from it with such care, must be abandoned like them? Yet this is what Luther says in his book of ** Man's Will Enslaved." And what deserves still more to be observed here, is, that in what he there maintains, not only against all the Fathers, and all the churches, but against all mankind, and their unanimous consent, — namely, tliat tliere is no such thing as free-will, he is abandoned, as will be seen, by all his disciples, and that even in the Confession of Augsburg; which shows to what excess his rashness was carried, since he treated with such outrageous contempt all churches and Fathers, in a point where he was so manifestly in error.

4*

The praises which these holy doctors have, with one voice, bestowed on chastity, rather disgust than move him. St. Jerome is not to be endured for recommending it. He pronounces that all the holy Fathers, together with him, would have done much better, if they had married. In other matters he is not less extravagant. In a word, Fathersi Popes, councils, general and particular, in every thing, and every where, are esteemed nothing by him, unless they concur in his sentiments. He dis- poses of them in a moment, by quoting Scripture, interpreted in his own way, as if, before his time, men had been ignorant of Scripture; or the Fathers, who so religiously kept and studied it, sought not, but neglected, its true sense.

33. — His buffoonery and extrmaganees* To such a degree of extravagance did Luther now arrive from that excessive modesty he professed at first, he passed to this extreme. What shall I say of his buffooneries, no less scandalous than degrading, with which he stuffed his writings 1 Let but one of his most partial disciples take the trouble to read that one discourse be composed against the Papacy, in the time of Paul III, certain I am he would blush for Luther. He will there find throughout the whole, I do not say so much fury and transport, but such wretched puns, such low jests, and such filthiness, and that of the lowest kind, as is not heard but from the mouths of the most despicable of mankind. " The Pope," says he, " is so full of devils, that he spits and blows them from his nose." Let us not finish what Luther was not ashamed to repeat thirty times. Is this the language of a reformer ? But the Pope was in question ; at that name alone he fell into all his fury, and he was no longer master of himself. But may I venture to relate what follows in this foolish invective? It must be done, though abhorrent to my feelings, that it may appear, for once, into what paroxysms of fury the chief of tins new reformation fell. I will, then, force myself to transcribe these words, addressed by him to the Pope : — *^ My little Paul, my little Pope, my little ass, walk gently ; 'tis freezing ; thou wilt break a leg; thou wilt befoul thyself; and they will cry out, Oh the devil ! how the little ass of a Pope has befouled himself!"* Pardon me. Catholic readers, for repeating these irreverences. Pardon me, too, ye Lutherans, and reap at least the advantage of your own confusion. But after these foul ideas, it is time to see the beautiful parts. They consist in thus playing on words ; ccelestissimus, scelestissimus ; Sanctissimus, satantissimus ; and it is what you find in every line. But what will you say of this fine figure 1 " An ass knows that he is an OSS, a stone knows that it is a stone : but these little asses

* Papapismus.

of Popes do not know that they are asses."* And lest the same should be returned upon him he obviates the objection: " And," says he, " the Pope cannot take me for an ass; for he knows very well that, through God's goodness, and by his particular grace, I am more learned in Scripture than he and all his asses put together. "| To proceed; here the style begins to rise: " Were I a sovereign of the empire, [where will this fine beginning lead him?] I would make but one bundle of both pope and cardinals, aini place them altogether in the little ditch of the Tuscan sea; ikas bath would cure them, I pass my word for it, and give Jesus Christ for security. "J Is not the sacred name of Jesus Christ brought in here much to the purpose 1 Enough is said; let us be silent, and tremble under the dreadful judgments of God, who, in punishment of our pride, has permitted that such gross intemperance of passion should have so powerfully swayed to seduction and error.

34— Sfdi^ton and violence, I say nothing of seditions and plunderings, the first fruits of the preachings of this new evangelist. These served but to foment his vanity. The gospel, said he, and his disciples after him, has always caused disturbances, and blood is necessary for its establishment. § Calvin defends himself the same way. Jesus Christ, all of them cried out, came to send a sword into the midst of the world.]] Blind ! not to perceive, or unwilling to learn, what sword was sent by Jesus Christ, and what blood was shed on his account. True it is, the wolves, in the midst of whom Christ sent his disciples, were to spill the blood of his innocent sheep ; but did he say the sheep should cease to be sheep— should form seditious confederacies, and, in their turn, spill the blood of the wolves 1 The sword of persecutors was drawn against his faithful ; but did they draw the sword, — I do not say to assault their persecutors, — but to defend themselves against their onsets 1 In a word, seditions were raised against the disciples of Jesus Christ ; but the disciples of Jesus Christ, during three hundred years of an unmerciful persecution, never so much as raised one. The gospel rendered them modest, peaceable, submissive to the lawful powers, even though these powers were hostile to the faith ; and filled them with true zeal — not that bitter zeal which opposes sourness to sourness, arms to arms, violence to violence. Supposing, then, if they please, Catholics to be unjust in persecuting ; fiiose who gave themselves out for reformers, on the model of the church apostolic, ought to have begun their reformation with an invincible patience : but, on the contrary, said Erasmus, who witnessed

* Papapismus. f Adv. Pppism. p. 474. ^ Ibid.

§ De Serv. Art £ 431, &c H Matt. x. 34-47.

the biiih of their beginning, '' I behold them coming out from their sermons, with fierce looks and threatening countenances, like men that just came from hearing bloody invectives and people always ready to rise in arms, and equally as good at fighting as disputing."* Perhaps the ministers may grant us, that the 'Jewish and the idol priests gave room for as bitter satires as those of the church of Rome, however hideous they may represent them to have been. When did it ever happen that St. Paul's new converts, on their return from hearing his sermons, fell to pillaging the houses of these sacrilegious priests, as the auditors of Luther and his disciples have been known to do so frequently at their separation, promiscuously flying to the plunder of all ecclesiastics, without distinction of good or bad? What do I say of idol priests 1 The very idols themselves were spared, in some measure, by the Christians. When did it happen at Ephesus or Corinth, when they absconded, after St. Paul's or the apostles' preaching, that they overthrew so much as one of them? On the contrary, the town-secretary of Ephesus bears witness to his fellow-^citizens, that St. Paul and his companions '' did not blaspheme against their goddess;"| namely, that they spoke against false deities, without raising disturbances, or breaking the public peace. Yet I cannot but believe the idols of Jupiter and Yenus were full as odious as the images of Jesus Christ, of his blessed mother* and his saints, which our reformers trampled under foot.

BOOK II.

[From the year U20 to 1529.}

A brief Summary. — ^Luther's variations on Transubstantiation. — Cariostadius be^na the Sacramentarian contest — ^The circumstances of this rup- ture. — The Boors revolt; the part Luther acts. — His Marriape, of which himself and his friends are ashamed. — The extremes into which he runs on Free -Will, and against Henry VIII, king of England. — Zuin^lius and, Lutheran doctrine. — The Lutherans take up arms, contrary to ail their promises. — ^Melancthon is afflicted at it — They unite themselves under the name of Protestants. — Fruitless pr<yect8 of agreement between Luther and the Zuinglians.— Conference of Marpurg.

Eucharist, and his great desire of destroying the reality.

The first treatise, in which Luther fully discovered himself, was that which he composed in 1620, of tiie captivity of Babylon. In it he loudly exclaimed against the church of Rome,

which had but just condemned him; and amongst the dogmas, whose foundations he aimed to destroy, one of the first was transubstantiation. He would most willingly have undermined the real presence, had he been able; and every one knows what he himself declares in his letter to those of Strasburg, where he writes, that ** it would have been a great pleasure to him, had some good means been afforded him of denying it, because nothing could have been more agreeable to the design he had in hand of prejudicing the Papacy."* But God sets hidden boundaries to the most violent minds, and permits not innovators to afflict his church equally with their desires. Luther was irrecoverably struck with the force and simplicity of these words — " This is my body, this is my blood: this body given for you, this blood of the New Testament, this blood shed for you, and for the remission of your sins;"! for thus ought these words of our Lord to be translated, in order to give them their full force. The church had believed without difficulty, that Jesus Christ, to consummate his sacrifice and the figures of the old law, had given us his proper flesh sacrificed for us. She judged the same of the blood shed for our sins. Accustomed from her infancy to mysteries incomprehensible, and to ineffable tokens of the divine love, the impenetrable miracles included in the literal sense had not shocked her faith; nor could Luther ever persuade himself, either that Jesus Christ would have obscured, on set purpose, the institution of his sacrament, or that simple words were susceptible of such violent figures, or could possibly have any other sense than that which naturally entered into the minds of all Christians in the east and the west; insomuch, that they never could be diverted from it, either by the sublimity of the mystery, or the subtleties of Berengarius and Wicklifle.

He was determined, however, to mix with it Something of his own. All those who, to his time, had well or ill explained the words of Jesus Christ, had acknowledged they wrought some sort of change in the sacred gifls. Those that would have the body there in a figure only, said that our Saviour's words wrought a change which was purely mystical, so that the consecrated bread became the sign of the body. Those that maintained the literal sense, with a real presence, by an opposite reason, admitted accordingly an effectual change. ^For which reason, the reality, together with the change of substance, had naturally insinuated itself into the minds of men; and all Christian churches, in spite of whatever sense could oppose, had come into a belief so just and so simple. Luther, however, would not be directed * Ep. ad Argenttn. t vii. C 501. f Matt zzvi. 38. Luke xxii 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 34.

by such a rule. " I believe," says he, " with Wickliffe, that the bread remains; and with the Sophists, (so he called our divines,) I believe the body is there."* He explained his doc- trine in several ways, which, for the most part, were very gross. One time he said the body was with the bread, as fire is with red-hot iron. At other times he added these expressions, ^ that the body was in the bread, and under the bread, as wine is in and under the vessel;" — ^from this the celebrated propositions in^ 8uby cum; importing that the body is in the bread, under the bread, and with the bread. But Luther was very sensible that these words, *' This is my body," required something more than placing the body in this, or with this, or under this; and to explain, ^* This is," he thought himself obliged to say that these words — " This is my body," imported, — ^this bread is substantially and properly my body; a thing unheard of, and embar- rassed with insuperable difficulties.

However, in order to surmount them, some of Luther's disciples maintained, that the bread was made the body of our Lord, and the wine his precious blood, as the Divine Word was made man: so that, in the £ucharist, a true impanation was made, as in the Virgin's womb a true incarnation. This opinion, which had appeared at the time of Berengarius, was renewed by Osiander, one of the principal Lutherans; — a thing unintelligible to man. Every person saw, that for bread to be the body of our Lord, and wine his blood, as the Divine Word is man, by that kind of union which divines call personal or hypostatic, how necessary it was that, as man is the person, the body should also be the person, and the blood likewise; which destroys the very principles of reasoning and of language. The human body is part of the person, but not itself the person, nor the whole, nor, as they speak in schools, the suppositum. The blood is still less so; and this is in no respect the case when personal union can find admittance. Every one is not learned enough rightly to employ the term hypostatic union: but when it is once explained, every person must perceive to what it can be apphed. So Osiander was lefl to defend alone his impanation and invination, and to say as much as he pleased. This bread is God; for he went to that excess, f But so strange an opinion required not refutation: it fell of itself by its own absurdity; nor was it approved by Luther.

could conceive how bread, remaining bread, could be at the

same time the true body of our Lord, as he asserted, without admitting, between both, this hypostatic union rejected by him. But he was resolute in rejecting it; and yet united both substances, even so far as to say one was the other.

At first, however, he spoke but doubtfully of the change of

substance ; and though he preferred the opinion which retains

the bread, to that which changes it into the body, the matter

seemed but trivial to him. " I permit," says he, " both one and

the other opinion; the scruple is the only thing I take away."*

Such was the decision of this new pope ; transubstantiation and

consubstantiation were alike indifferent to him. In another

place, having*been upbraided with making the bread remain in

the Eucharist, he owns as much : but, adds he, '* I do not condemn the contrary opinion ; I only say it is not an article of

faith. "t But in ^e answer he made to Henry YIII, King of

England, who refuted his Captivity, he soon advanced much

further. *' I had taught," says he, *' it was a matter of no importance whether, in the sacrament, bread remained or not; but

now I transubstantiate my opinion ; I say it is an impiety and

a blasphemy to hold tliat the bread is transubstantiated ;" and

he carries his condemnation to an anathema.;]; The motive

which he alleges for this change is remarkable. This is what

he writes in lus book to the Yaudois : " True it is, I believe it

an error to say the bread does not remain, although this error

hath hitherto appeared to me of light importance ; but now that

we are too much pressed to admit this error without the authority of Scripture, to spite the Papists, I am determined to believe

that the bread and wine remain." This is what drew on Catholics the anathema of Luther. Such were his sentiments in

1523. We shall see whether he will persist hereafter in them ;

but it may not be amiss to observe, even in this place, that a

letter is produced by Hospinian, in which Melancthon accuses

his master of allowing transubstantiation to certsun churches in

Italy, to whom he had written on that subject. The date of

this letter is in 1534, twelve years after he had answered the

King of England.

5. — Strange flights of passion in the books agmn^ Henry VIII, King of England.

Now his transports of passion against this prince were so violent, that the Lutherans themselves were ashamed of them. There was nothing but atrocious contumelies, and outrageously giving him the lie in every page — ^** He was a fool, an idiot, the most brutal of all swine and asses. "§ Sometimes he addresses him in this terrible manner: ^^ Beginnest thou to blush, Henry? — ^no longer king, but sacrilegious wretch!" His beloved dis-

* De Cap. Babyl t ii. f. 66. f Resp. ad art extract ibid. 17S.

t Contra Reg. Aug. T. 11. § Cont Reg. Aug. 333.

ciple, Melancthon, durst not reprove, and Jcnew not how to excuse him. Some even of his own disciples were scandalized at. the outrageous contempt with which he treated all that the universe had esteemed most grand, and at his capricious manner of deciding in controversies in faith. To define. one way, and then all on a sudden, the very opposite, merely in despite of the Papists, was too visibly abusing the authority which was given not disapprove whatever he said.

6. — A Letter of Eraamua to Melanctkon concerning Luther^s tnmsporti, Erasmus, astonished at the extravagance of passion which he had endeavored in vain to moderate by his advice, in a letter to his friend Melancthon explains the causes of it : — ^'^ What shocks me most in Luther is," says he, ** that whatever he takes in hand to maintain, he carries to extremity and excess. Warned of his excesses, so far from moderating them, he runs on more headstrong ; and seems to have no other design than to proceed to still greater intemperance. By his writings," adds he, '*I know the man's temper as much as if I had lived with him — ^a fiery and impetuous spirit. You see an Achilles, whose warmth is invincible, through the whole tenor of them. You are no stranger to the artifices of the Enemy of mankind. Ad4 to this, so great success, so declared an approbation, so universal applause of his audience, — against such allurements a modest mind would scarce stand uncorrupt."* Although Erasmus never left the communion of the church, yet he maintained amid these disputes of religion a particular character, which makes Protest- ants give him credit for those facts of which he was witness. But it is on other grounds most certain, that Luther, elated with the victory which he thought he had already gained over the power of Rome, no longer kept himself within bounds.

7. — Division amongst the pretended Gospellers, — Carhstadhts attacks Luther

and the reality.

Strange! that he and his party should have looked upon the prodigious number of their followers, as they all did, for a mark of divine favor, without reflecting that St. Paul had foretold of heretics and seducers, that '^ their speech spreadeth like a cancer,"*!* that ".they grow worse and worse, erring and driving into error. "I But the same St. Paul says also, that their progress is limited, " they shall proceed no farther."§ The unhappy conquests of Luther were checked by the division which broke out among these new reformers. It has been long since said, that the disciples of innovators believe they have a right to in-

' Erasm. lib. vi Epist 3, ad Lother, lib. xiv. Ep. 1, &c— Id. lib. xix. Ep. 3, ad

novate after the -example of their masters;* the leaders of rebels meet with rebels as rash as themselves. But without more reflections, to speak the simple fact, Ccu'lostadius, whom Luther had so much commended,f however unworthy he may have been, and whom he called his venerable preceptor in Jesus Christ, found himself able to oppose him. Luther had attacked the change of substance in the Eucharist, — Carlostadius attacked the reality, whidi Luther had not dared to undertake.

humanity, and rather a. Jew than a Christian. This is what Melancthon, a man moderate and naturally sincere, says of him. But without citing the Lutherans in particular, his friends as well as enemies are agreed he was the most restless and im* pertinent of men. No more proof of his ignorance is necessary than the exposition he gave of the Eucharistic institution, where he mfdntained that, by these words, " This is my body," Jesus Christ, without any regard to what he gave, meant no his disciples; — so ridiculous a conceit, that one has a difficulty to believe it ever entered into the mind of man. jl

8. — Origin of the contests between Luther <md Carlostadius. — Luthei's pride. Before he had given this monstrous interpretation, two great contests had already happened between him and Luther. For in 1521, whilst Luther lay concealed for fear of Charles Y, who had put him under the ban of the empire, Carlostadius had thrown down images, taken away the elevation of the blessed sacrament, and even low masses, and set up communion Under both kinds in the church of Wittenberg, where Lutheranism began. Luther did not so much disapprove of those changes, but rather judged them as done in an improper time, and in themselves unnecessary. But what provoked him the most, as he shows plainly in the letter he wrote on the subject, was, tiiat Carlostadius had despised his authority ,§ and would have set himself up for a new doctor. Remarkable are the sermons he made on this occasion ; for, without naming Carlostadius, he reproached the authors of tliese enterprises, that &ey had acted without mission, as if his own had been m<Mre valid. *' Easily," said he, ** could I defend them before the Pope, but I know not how to justify them before the devil, when this evil spirit shall, at the hour of death, oppose against them these words of Scripture, * Every plant that my father hath not planted shall be rooted up ;' and again, * They did run, and it was not I that sent them.'

he Uweatene to retreat end re-establish the mass, — His extravagances in boast-' ing of his power.

Thus spoke Luther whilst he yet lay concealed. But coming forth from his ]Patmos (for so he called the place of his be employed in the reforming of abuses, but the word alone. •* It was tiie word," said he, " whilst I slept quietly, and drank my beer with my dear Melancthon and Amsdorf, that gave the Papacy such a shock as never was given by prince or emperor. Had I been inclined," he proceeds, ** to have done things in a tumultuary way, all Germany should have swam in blood; and when at Worms, I could have put things into such a state that the emperor himself had not been safe in it."* Thig is what history had not informed us of. But people once prejudiced believed every thing; and so sensible was Luther of his being master, that he had courage to tell them in full audience, " moreover, if you pretend to continue doing things by these common deliberations, I will unsay, without hesitation, all that I have written or taught. I will make my recantation, and leave you. Remember, I have said it; and, afler all, what hurt will the popish mass do you?" One thinks himself in a dream when there be no mistake, and say in astonishment, — ^What is this new gospel? Could such a one as this pass for a reformer? Will men never open their eyes? Is it, therefore, so difficult a thing for man to confess his error \

two kinds,

Carlostadius, on his side, did not remain quiet, but, provoked at being so wannly treated, labored to combat the real presence, as much to attack Luther as froih any other motive. Luther also, though he had thoughts of la3ring aside the elevation of the host, yet retained it out of spite to Carlostadius, as he himself declares, ^' and lest," proceeds he, ** it might seem we had learned something from the devil, "f

He spoke not more moderately of conununion under both kinds, which the same Carlostadius had introduced by his private authority. Luther, at that time, held it for a thing quite indifferent. In the letter he wrote on the reformation of Carlostadius, he reproaches him ^* with having placed Christianity in things of no account,-^<^ommunicating under both kinds, taking the sacrament into the hand, abolishing confession, and

burning images."* And again, in 1523, he says in the formulary of the mass, '* If a council did ordain or permit both kinds, in spite of the council we would take but one, or take neither one nor the other, and would curse those who should take both, in virtue of this ordinance."! Behold what was called Christian liberty in the new reformation! Such was the modesty and humility of these new Christians!

1. — How the war was dedared between Lvther and Carlostadiiu, Carlostadius being driven from Wittenberg, was obliged to retire to Orlemond, a town of Thuringia, subject to the Elector of Saxony. At this time all Germany was in a flame. The boors, revolting against their lords, had taken up arms, and implored the aid of Luther. Besides their following his doctrine, it was supposed that his book of Christian liberty had not a little contributed to inspire them with rebellion, by that bold manner with which he spoke against laws and legislators. ;{| For, though he defended himself by saying, that he meant not to speak of magistrates, or of civil laws, it was, however, true that he made no distinction between secular and spiritual powers ; and to pronounce in general, as he did, that a Christian was not subject to any man, was, till the interpretation canie, nourishing the spirit of insubordination in the people, and giving dangerous views to their leaders. Add to this, that to despise the powers supported by the majesty of religion, is to leave others destitute of support The Anabaptists, another shoot of the doctrine of Luther, who were formed by pushing his maxims to their greatest extent, mixed in the tumult of the boors, and began to turn their sacrilegious inspirations to manifest rebellion. Carlostadius was infected with these novelties, at least Luther accuses him of it ; and true it is, he held a great intimacy with the Anabaptists, murmuring continually with them, as well against the Elector as against Luther, whom he called a flatterer of the Pope, chiefly on account of what little he had preserved of the mass and real presence :§ for the contest was, who should most condemn the church of Rome, and depart farthest from its doctrine. These disputes having raised great commotions at Orlemond, Luther was sent there by the prince to appease the tumult. In his way he preached at Jena, in the presence of Carlostadius, whom he failed not to charge with seditiop. From this began the rupture ; the memorable account of which I shall relate exactly as it is found in the works of Luther, as it is acknowledged by the Lutherans, and as Protestant historians have delivered it.|| The sermon

Luth. T. 1 1. Jen. 447, Calixt Judic. N. 49. Ho8p.2. Part, ad an. 1584. £ 33.

of Luther being over, Carlostadius 'went and visited him at the Black Bear, where he lodged, a place fkmous in this history for giving birth to the Sacramentarian war between the new-reformed. There, amongst other discourses, Carlostadius having excused himself in the best manner he was able as to sedition, he declares to Luther he could not bear his opinion of the real presence. Luther, with a disdainful air, defies him to write against him, promising him, at the same time, a florin of gold if he would undertake it. The money is produced. Carlostadius puts it into his pocket. They shake hands mutually, promising each other fair play. Luther drinks to the health of Carlostadius, and to the success of the fine work he was about to publish. Carlostadius pledges him in a bumper; and thus was the war declared, German-Uke, the twenty-second of August, 1524. The parting of the champions was as remarkable. " May I see thee broken on a wheel!" says one; " Mayest thou break thy neck before thou leavest town!" says the oflier.* The entry of Luther had not been less extraordinary; for upon his arrival at Orlemond, Carlostadius had ordered it so, " that he was received with great vollies of stones, and almost smothered with dirt." Such is the new gospel. Such the acts of the new apostles!

that Luther had in these revolts.

Soon after occurred more bloody battles, but, perhaps, not more dangerous. The revolted peasants had met together to the number of forty thousand. The anabaptists rose in arms with unheard-of fury. Luther, called upon by the peasants to pronounce upon the claims they had against their lords, acted a very strange part. On one hand, he wrote to the peasants, that God had forbid sedition. On the other hand, he wrote to the lords, that they exercised such a tyranny " as the people could not, would not, ought not to endure."! By these last words, he rendered back to sedition those arms which he seemed to have taken from it. A third letter, written in common to both sides, laid the fault on both, and denounced. the dreadful judgments of God against them, should they not dispose matters amicably. Here his weakness was blamed. Soon after, occasion was given of reproacliing him with intolerable cruelty. He published a ' fourth letter, exciting the princes, powerfully armed, " to exterminate, without pity, those miserable wretches who had not followed his advice, and to spare those only who i^ould voluntarily lay down their arms;" as if a seduced and iftoquished populace were not a fit object of compassion, but

* Epiflt Luth. ad Aiipnt. t vii £ 50S. f Sleid. tib. v. Ibid, 75.

ought to be treated with as much rigor as the heads that misled them. But Luther would have it so; and when he saw so cruel a sentiment was condemned, incapable of owning himself ever in the wrong, he made a book expressly to prove that truly *< no mercy at all ought to be showed rebels, nor were even those to be forgiven, whom the multitude had drawn by force into any seditious action."* Then were seen those famous battles which cost Germany so much blood. Such was its state when the Sacramentarian dispute added new fuel to the flames. 13. — The Marriage of Luther, xohieh had been preceded by thai rf Carhstadku. Carlostadius, who began it, had already introduced a novelty singularly scandalous; for he was the first priest of any reputation that took a wife; and this example was attended with sur- prising effects in the sacerdotal order, and in the monasteries. Carlostadius was not as yet at variance with Luther. The marriage of this old priest was laughed at, even among the party; but Luther, who earnestly desired to do the same, uttered not a word. He was fallen in love with a nun of quahty, and singular beauty, whom he had taken out of her convent. It was a maxim of the new reformation, that vows were a Jewish practice, and none of them less obligatory than that of chastity. The Elector Frederick suffered Luther to speak after this manner^ but could not bear that he should reduce these opinions to practice. He Ifed nothing but contempt for those priests and religious who married, contrary to the canons, and that discipline which had been revered for so many ages. Therefore, not to lose his credit with that prince, Luther was obliged to have patience during the prince's life; but he was no sooner dead than Luther married his nun. This marriage happened in 1626, that is, in the height of the civil wars of Germany; at which time the Sacramentarian disputes were inflamed to the utmost violence. Luther was then forty-five years old; and this man, who, under the shelter of religious discipline, had passed his whole youth blameless in continency, in so advanced an age, and whilst he was hailed throughout the universe as the restorer of the Gospel, blushed not to abandon so perfect a state of life, and look behind him. Sleidan passes lightly over this fact " Luther," says he, " married a nun, and thereby gave room for fresh accusations from his adversaries, who called him madman, and slave of Satan;"t but he does not disclose the whole secret; nor were they only Luther's adversaries who blamed his marriage; he himself was ashamed of it; his disciples, the most devoted to him, were surprised at it; and all this we learn fi-om a curious letter of Melancthon to his intimate friend, the learned

Camerarius.

6*

14.—^ remarkable Letter of Mlehncthon to Camerarius on Luther^e marriage.

It is written all in Greek, for so they corresponded on secret matters. He informs him, that '^ Luther, when least expected, had taken Boren to wife, (this was the nun's name,) without the least intimation of it to his friends: hut that, one evening, having invited Pomeranus the minister to supper, together with a painter and a lawyer, he had the usual ceremonies performed; that it was astonishing to see that at so miserable a tim^, when good men had so much to suffer, he could not command himself so as to compassionate, at least, their misfortunes; but on the contrary, seemed so regardless of the miseries that threatened them, as to suffer his reputation to be weakened, even at a time when Germany stood most in need of his prudence and authority." Then he relates to his friend the causes of this marriage: ^^ Uiat he very well knows Luther was no enemy to human nature, and in this marriage; therefore, he ought not to wonder that Luther's magnanimity should thus be mollified; that this manner of life is low and common, but holy: and afler all, the scripture allows inarriage as honorable; in the main, there is no crime in it; and if more than this be laid to Luther's charge, it is a manifest calumny." This he says on account of a rumor which had spread of the nun's being with child, and ready to lie in when Luther married her, which proved false. Melancthon was there>- fore in the right to justify his master on this head. He adds, '^ that all that can be blamed in this action of his, is the unseasonable time in which he did so unexpected a thing, and the pleasure he thereby gave his enemies, who only seek to accuse him. In conclusion, he beholds him full of trouble and vexation for this change, and does what he can to comfort him."

It is plain enough how much Luther was ashamed of and concerned at his marriage, and how greatly Melancthon was struck, notwithstanding all the respect he had for him. What he adds in the conclusion, intimates Ukewise, how much he believed Camerarius would be affected, since he says he was de- sirous of preventing him, ^^ lest through his zeal for the continuation of Luther's glory, always untarnished and reproachless, he should give himself over to too much trouble and dejection at this surprising news."

They had at first regarded Luther as a man superior to all ordinary weaknesses. That which he evinced by this scandalous marriage dejected them. But Melancthon comforts his friend and himself as well as he is able, by reason that " there may, perhaps, be something in it that is hidd^ and divine; that he has certain marks of Luther's piety; and some humiliations befalling them may turn to good, there being so much danger

in elevated stations, not only for the ministers of holy things, but for all mankind in general; and after all, the greatest saints of antiquity had their failings; and, lastly, that we ought to embrace the word of God for its own sake, not for the' merits of those who preach it, there being nothing more unjust than to blame the doctrine for the faults into which its teachers fall."

Doubtless, the maxim is good; but they ought not to have laid much stress on personal defects — ^not built so much on Luther, whom, however presumptuous, they experienced to be so weak; nor, lastly, have boasted to us so much of their reformation, as tiie marvellous work of God*s hand, seeing the chief instrument of this wondrous work was a man, not only so vulgar, but swayed by such violent passions.

It may easily be judged from the conjuncture of affairs, that the unseasonableness of time at which Melancthon is so much disturbed, and that unfortunate diminution of Luther's glory, which he is troubled should happen then when most required, regarded it is true, those horrible disasters, by which Luther foreboded the ruin of Germany; but more especially bore a relation to the Sacramentarian dispute, which Melancthon well knew would weaken the authority of his master. And, indeed, Luther >vas not believed innocent of the disturbances of Germany, as they originated with those who followed his gospel, and appeared animated by his writings; besides, we have seen that, at the commencement, he had as much encouraged as restrained these rebel peasants. The Sacramentarian contest also was esteemed the effect of his doctrine. Catholics reproached him that, by exciting so great a contempt for church authority, and shaking this foundation, he brought every thing into question. " See,'' said they, " what it is to place the authority of deciding in the hands of every private person; to have given the scripture for so plain and easy, that, to understand it, no more is necessary than to read it, without consulting church or antiquity." All these things grievously troubled Melancthon; he, that was naturally a man of discernment, saw a division rising in the midst of the reformation, which not only rendered it odious, but enkindled in it an endless war.

Other things happened at the same time, which gave him great anxiety. The dispute about free-will had grown warm between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus was held in great esteem throughout all Europe, though he had many enemies on all sides. At the beginning of these troubles, Luther used all his efforts to gain him, and ^vrote to him in such respectful

terms as approximated even to meanness.* At first Erasmus favored him, yet not to such an extent as to leave the church. When he saw the schism manifestly declared, he abandoned him entirely, and wrote against him with great temper. .But Luther, instead of imitating him, published so acrimonious a reply, as induced Melancthon to say, ^ I wash to God Luther had been silent. I had hopes that old age would have rendered him more mild; and I see that, pushed on by his adversaries, and the disputes into which he is obliged to enter,! he daily grows more violent." As if a man, who called himself the reformer of the world, ought so soon to forget his character as not to remain master of himself, whatever might be the provocation! '* That torments me strangely, (said Melancthon;) and if God lend not his helping hand, these disputes will be attended with an unfortunate event."!]; Erasmus, finding himself treated so rudely by one to whom he had been so mild, said, pleasantly enough, **I thought marriage would have tamed him;" and deplored his ftite in seeing himself, notwithstanding his meek temper, " condemned, old as he was, to fight against a isavage beast, a furious wild boar."

17. — The blasphemies and audaciousness of Luther in his treatise on Mmi^s

Wm Endaned.

The outrageous language of Luther did not constitute his greatest excess in those books he wrote against Erasmus. The doctrine itself was horrible; for he not only concluded that freewill was totally extinguished in mankind since their fall^a common error in the new reformation — " but, moreover, that it is impossible any other should be free but God; that his presence and divine providence are the cause of all things falling out by the unchangeable, eternal, and inevitable will of God, who diunder-strikes and breaks to pieces all free-will: that the name of free-will is a name which appertains to God alone, incompatible either with man, with angel, or any other creature."§

From these principles he was obliged to make God the author of crimes; nor did he conceal Uie things saying in express terms, that '^ free-will is a vain title; that God works the evil in us, as well as the good; that the great perfection of faith consists in believing God to be just, although, necessarily, by his will, he renders us worthy of damnation, so as to seem to take pleasure in the torments of the wretched." || And again: ** God pleases you when he crowns the unworthy; he ought not to displease you when he condemns the innocent:"ir he adds for conclusion, ** that he said these things not by way of exam-

* Ep. Luth. ad Erasm. inter. Ej:a8m.^p. lib. vi 3.

iaation, but by way of deciding; that he meant not to subject them to the decision of any person; but advises the whole world to submit to them."

It is not surprising that such excesses troubled the modest mind of Melancthon; not that he himself, at the commencement, had not approved these prodigies of doctrine, having him- self said with Luther, ^* that God's foreknowledge renders freewill absolutely impossible; and that God was not less the cause of the treason of Judas, than of the conversion of St. Paul." But besides that he had been drawn into these opinions, rather by the authority of Luther than his own choice, nothing was more opposed to his character than such opinions, established in so violent a manner, and he knew not where he was, when he witnessed the transports of his master.

nuektiess.

He saw them redoubled at the same time against the King of England. Luther, who had conceived a somewhat good opinion of this prince, because of his mistress Anne Bolejni, who was favorable enough to Lutheranism, had so far relented as to make excuses to him for his violence at first.* The king's answer was not such as he expected. Henry YIII reproached him with the levity of his temper, the errors of his doctrine, his scandalous and shameful marriage. Then Luther, who never hum- bled himself except to induce others to crouch to him, and never failed to attack those who did not do so inmiediately, answered the king, '* That he was sorry for having treated him so mildly; that he did it at the request of his friends, in hopes such sweetness might be serviceable to this prince; with the same view he had formerly written to the Legate Cajetan, to George Duke of Saxony, and to Erasmus, but he found it succeeded badly; for which reason he should not be guilty of the like fault for &e

future."!

Amidst all these excesses, he even boasted of his extreme

meekness.. '* For, rel3ring on the ever firm support of his learning, he yielded not in pride either to emperor, or king, or prince, or Satan, or the whole universe; but if the king woi2d lay aside his majesty, to treat more freely with him, he should find that he would conduct himself humbly and meekly to the most inferior persons; a true sheep in simplicity, that could believe no evil of any one. "J

Ztdnglius was: his doctrine on the sahation (^heathens.

What could Melancthon think, in his own temper the most

peaceable of men, when he saw the outrageous pen of Luther raise up so many enemies abroad, whilst the Sacramentarian contest created him so many formidable ones at home?

And indeed, at this time, the best pens of the party were directed against him. Carlostadius had found such defenders as placed him above the reach of contempt. £agerly attacked by Luther, and driven from Saxony, he had retired to Switzerland, where Zuinglius and (Ecolampadius took up his defence. Zuinglius, minister of Zurich, had begun to disturb the church, on account of indulgences, as well as Luther, but some years afler him. He was a daring man, whose fire surpassed his learning; — ^in language, clear and intelligible; nor excelled 'by any of the pretended reformers, in a precise, uniform, and coherent way of expressing his thoughts; nor, indeed, did any carry them to a greater length, or with more presumption.

As the character of his genius will be better known by his own sentiments than my words, I shall produce a part of the most finished piece of his whole works: it is the ** Confession of Faith," which, a little before his death, he sent to Francis I. There, explaining the article of life everlasting, he says to this prince, ** that he must hope to see the assembly of all men that Adams — ^the redeemed and the Redeemer. You will there see an Abel, an £noch, a Noah, an Abraham, an Isaac, a Jacob, a Juda, a Moses, a Joshua, a Gideon, a Samuel, a Phineas, an Elias, an Eliseus, an Isaiah, with the Virgin Mother of God, whom he announced; a David, an Ezekiahs, a Josiah, a John Baptist, a St. Peter, a St. Paul. You will there see Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the all your ancestors who have departed this world in the faith. In a word, not one good man, one holy spirit, one faithful soul, whom you will not there behold with God. What more beautiful, what more glorious, more agreeable, can be imagined, than such a sight T'^ What man had ever dreamed of thus placing Jesus Christ confusedly with the saints 1 And in the train of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and our Saviour himself, even Numa, the father of Roman idolatry, even Cato, who killed himself like a maniac, and not only so many worshippers of false divinities, but even the gods, the heroes whom they worshipped 1 I cannot conceive why he did not rank amongst them Apollo, or Bacchus, and Jupiter himself; and if such crimes prevented him as poets lay to their charge, were those of Hercules less infamous 1 This is what heaven is composed of, accord-

1* Christ FIdei dam expos. 1536. p. 27.

ing to this head of the second party of the Reformation: this is what he wrote in a confession of faith, dedicated by him to the greatest King in Christendom; and what Bullinger, his succes sor, has given us as ^^ the masterpiece and last song of this melodious swan.'^* And is it not astonishing that such as these could pass for men sent in an extraordinary manner by God for the reformation of his church.

Luther did not spare him on this head, but declared openly '* that he despaired of his salvation; because, not satisfied with continuing to impugn the sacrament, he had become a heathen by placing impious heathens, even Scipio the Epicurean, even Numa, the devil's instrument in founding idolatry among the Romans, in the number of blessed souls. For what does baptism avail us — what the other sacraments, the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ himself, if the impious, the idolaters, and the Epicureans, are saints and in bliss? And what is this else than teaching, that every man may be saved in his own faith and religion ]"f

To answer him was no easy task. Nor did they answer him at Zurich in any other way tiiian by a wretched recrimination, accusing him also of placing amongst the faithful, Nebuchadnezzar, Naaman the Syrian, Abimelech, and many others, who, bom out of the Covenant and race of Abraham, were however saved, as Luther says, " by a fortuitous mercy of God. "J But not to defend this *' fortuitous mercy of God,'' which in reality is something strange, it is one thing to have said with Luther, who knew God; another thing, to place with Zuinglius in the number of blessed souls, such as worshipped false divinities; and if the Zuinglians were right in condemning the excesses and violence of Luther, there was much more reason to con demn this prodigious extravagance of Zuinglius. For, in short, this was not one of those mistakes into which a man may be betrayed in the heat of discourse: he was writing a confession of faith, and intended to make a simple and brief exposition of the Apostles' Creed; a work that, above all others, required a mature consideration, exact doctrine, and a settled head. It was in the same strain he had before spoken of Seneca ** as of a most holy man, in whose heart God had written the faith with his own hand,"§ because he had said in his letter to Lucihus ** that nothing was hidden from God." Thus we have all the platonic, peripatetic, stoic philosophers enrolled amongst the saints, and full of faith* because St. Paul acknowledges they

* Praef. Bullixi^ t Puv. Conf. Lnth. Hoep. p. 8. 187.

I Luth. Hom. in Qen. c iv. 20. § Oper. ii 6, Declar. de rec Orig.

had understood the invisible things of God by the visible works of his power;* and what furnishes this Apostle with reasons to condemn them in his Epistle to the Romans, has justified and sanctified them, in the opinion of Zuinglius.

To teach such extravagances as these, a man must have no notion of Christian justice, or of the corruption of our nature. And, indeed, Zuinglius was quite a stranger to original sin. In that confession of faith, which he sent to Francis I, and in four or five treatises which he made expressly to prove the baptism of the httle children against anabaptists, uid explain the effect of baptism in this infant age, he does not so much as speak of its cancelhng original sin, which, however, is allowed by all Christians to be the chief fruit of their baptism. He had done the same in all his other works; and when this omission of an effect so considerable was objected to him, he shows that he did so designedly, because, in his opinion, no sin is taken away by baptism* He carries still farther his rashness, when he says, '^ It is no sin, but a misfortune, a vice, a distemper; that nothing is weaker or more distant from the Scripture sense, than to say, original sin is not only a distemper, but also a crime. "f In conformity to these principles, he decides that men indeed are bom ** prone to sin from their self-love,^' but not sinners, except improperly, by taking the penalty of sin for sin itself: and this him, the whole evil of our origin. In the sequel of his discourse, it is true, he acknowledges Siat all men would perish, were it not for the grace of the Mediator, because this proneness to sin would not fail in time to, produce it, were it not stopped; and it is in this sense he acknowledges that all men are damned by the '^ force of original sin;" a force which consists not, as we have just now seen, in making men truly sinners, as all Christian churches have decided against Pelagius, but in making them only ** prone to sin," through the weakness of their senses and self-love, which the Pelagians and heathens themselves would not have denied.

The decision of Zuinglius, on the remedy of this evil, is not less strange; for he maintains that it is taken away from all men whatever, by the grace of Jesus Christ, independently of baptism: insomuch that original sin damns no man, not even the children of the heathens. As to those, though he dares not fix their salvation in the same degree of certainty with that of Christians and their children, he says, however, that, like tii^ rest, of innocence, alleging this text of St. Paul — ^^ where no law is, *Roin.ll9. t Dedar. de Pec Orig.

there is no transgression."* " Now," proceeds this new doctor, *' it is certain that children are weak, without experience, and ignorant of the law, and are not less without law than St. Paul, when he said, * I lived without the law heretofore.'! Therefore, as there is no law for them, neither is there any transgression of the law, and, hy consequence, no damnation. St. Paul says, that he lived without the law once, but there is no age in which man is more in this state than his infancy; consequently, it must be said,' wi& the same St. Paul, that without the law sin was dead in them.";]; Just so disputed the Pelagians against the church. And although, as above stated,- Zuinglius here speaks with greater assurance of the children of Christians than,of others, he, however, in reality speaks of all children whatever, without exception. It is plain to what point his proof is directed; and, certainly, since the time of Julian there never was a more complete Pelagian than Zuinglius.

Nay, the Pelagians acknowledged, that baptism could at least give grace, and remit the sins of the adult. Zuinglius more rash Qian &ey, ceases not to repeat what has been already told of him, ^* that baptism takes away no sin, and gives no grace." ** It is the blood of Jesus Christ," says he, " &at remits sins, therefore, it is not baptism." Here an instance may be seen of that perverted zeal the reformation had for the glory of Jesus Christ. It is more clear than day, that to attribute the remission of sins to baptism, which is the means of taking them away established by Jesus Christ, does no more injury to Jesus Christ, than you offer to a painter, by attributing the fine coloring and the beautiful touches of his picture to the pencil he makes use of. But the reformation carries its vain reasonings to such excess, as to imagine it gives glory to Jesus Christ, to destroy the efficacy of these instruments winch he employs. And to continue so gross an illusion to the utmost extremity, when a hundred passages from the Scriptures were objected to Zuinglius, where it is said, that baptism saves us, that it remits our sins; he thinks he has fully satisfied by answering, that baptism is here taken for the blood of Jesus Christ, of which it is the sign.

for antiquity f the source of his error.

Such licentious explications make every thing one wishes to be found in Scripture. It is not surprising that Zuinglius ther^ finds that the Eucharist is not the body, but the sign of the body, though Christ has said, *^ This is my body;" since he is able to find that baptism does not indeed give the remission of sins, but figures it to us as already given; though the Scripture has

said a hundred thnes, not that it figures, but gives it to us. It is no matter of surprise that the same author, to destroy the reality which incommoded him, eludes the force of these words, ** This is my body;" since to destroy original sin, which shocked him, he was able to evade these words; '' all have sinned in one man,"' and again, ** by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners/'* But still more strange is the confidence of this author in supporting his new interpretations against original says he, *^The ancients teach another doctrine concerning original sin: but in reading them it is easily perceived how obscure and embarrassed, not to say entirely human, rather than divine, is all they say on that head. For my part, this long time I have not leisure to consult them." In 1526 he composed this treatise; and for many years before, he had no leisure to consult the ancients, nor go back to the fountain*bead. Mean* while he reformed the church. Why not, will our Reformers say 1 -And what had he to do with the ancients, since he possessed the Scriptures? but on the contrary, here is an instance how little safety there is in searching the Scriptures, when one pretends to understand them,, without having recourse to antiquity. By understanding the Scriptures in such a manner^ Zuinglius discovered there was no original sin, that is to say, there was no redemption; and the scandal of the cross was made void; and pushed his notions to such a length, as to place amongst the saints those, who, indeed, whatever he might say, had no part with Jesus Christ. Thus is the church reformed, when men undertd^e its reformation without concerning themselves about what was the sense of past ages; and, according to this new method, it is easy to arrive at a reformation like that of the Socinians.

Such were the heads of the new reformation. Men of talent, it is true, and not deficient in literature, but bold, rash in their decisions, and puffed up with their vain learning > men who delighted in extraordinary and particular opinions, and therefore aimed, not only to raise themselves above those of their own age, but also above the most holy of ages past. CEcolampadius, the other defender of the figurative sense amongst the Swiss, was both more moderate, and more learned; and if Zuinglius appeared by his Vehemence another Luther, OS colampadius more Tesembled Melancthon, whose particular friend he was also. In a letter, which, when a youth, he wrote to Erasmus, you observe

II.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 6S

crucifix, before which he had been accustomed to pray, he wrote such tender things to Erasmus on the ineffable sweetness of Jesus Christ, whom this pious image represented so lively to his imagination, that there is no reading it without being affected. The reformation which came to trouble these devotions, and account them idolatry, began at that time; for it was in 1517 that he wrote this letter. He entered into religion in the furst heat of these disturbances, with much courage and reflection; at an age, as Erasmus observes, too advanced for any imputation of youthful precipitancy.* We also learn from the letters of Erasmus, that he was greatly enamoured with the course of life he had undertaken, and relished God in peace of mind, and tiierein lived quite remote from the novelties that were then spreading. However, (such is human weakness, so great the contagion of novelty,) he left his monastery, preached the new reformation at Basil, where he was pastor, and tired of celibacy, like the rest of the reformers, married a young girl, with whose beauty he was enamoured. " This is the way," said Erasmus, " they choose to mortify themselves;"*{* he could not but admire these new apostles, who were sure to abandon the solemn profession of celibacy to take wives; whereas, the true apostles of our Saviour, according to the tradition of all the fathers, in order to attend to God and the Gospel only, lefl their wives to embrace celibacy. '* It seems," said he, *^ as if the reformation aimed at nothing more than to strip a few monks of their habits, and to marry a parcel of priests; and this great tragedy terminates at last in a conclusion that is entirely comical, since, just like comedies, all ends in marriage.";]; The same Erasmus complains, in other pl^ces,§ that afler his friend (Ecolampadius had abandoned his tender devotion, together with the church and monastery, in order to embrace this impious and contemptible reformation, he was no longer the same man; instead of candor, which this minister professed whilst he acted of himself, nothing but artifice and dissimulation could be found in himt after he had once entered into the spirit of the party,

85. — Tluprofpress of the Saeramentarian doctrine, Afler the Sacramentarian dispute had been raised in the manner we have seen, Carlostadius scattered abroad little tracts against the real presence ; and, although on all hands they were allowed to be replete with ignorance, || yet they were relished by the people already charmed with novelty. Zuinglius and (Ecolampadius wrote in defence of this new doctrine : the first with much wit and vehemence ; the other with much learning,

* Emsra. Lib. xiii. Ep. 12, 14. Lib. xiii. 27. f Lib. xix. Ep. 41.

I Ep. Eiasm. Lib. xtx. § Lib. zviii. Ep. 23, 19, 1 13, 31, 47. Col 9057, &c.

II Ibid. Lib. six. Ep. 113, 31, 59. p. 2106.

and so sweet an eloquence, that, '* were it possible,'' says Erasmus, ^* and would God have permitted it, it were capable of se* ducing even the elect"* God put them to this trial; but his promises and truth upheld the simplicity of the faith of the church against human reasoning. A Uttle after Carlostadius was reconciled with Luther, and appeased him by sa3dng that what he had taught upon the Eucharist, was rather by the way of proposing and examining, than deciding.'!* This man's life was one uninterrupted scene of feuds; and the Swiss, who received him a second time, were never able to calm his turbulent temper.

His doctrine spread more and more, but on more plausible interpretations of our Saviour's words than what he had formerly given. Zuinglius said, ^* the good man said well enough, there was some hidden sense in these divine words, but could never find out what it was." He and CEcolampadius, with somewhat different expressions, agreed on the whole, that these words, " This is my body," were figurative: " Is," said Zuingulius, " is as much as to say, signifies;" " body," said CEcol- ampadius, *' is the sign of the body." Their leaders, Bucer and Capito, became zealous defenders of the figurative sense. The reformation divided itself; and those who embraced this new party were called Sacramentarians. They were also Carlostadius, or because his authority prevailed in the minds of the people, who were led away by his vehemence.

the senses.

We must not be surprised that an opinion so favorable to human sense became so fashionable. Zuinglius said positively, there was no miracle in the Eucharist, or any thing incomprehensible; that the bread broken represented to us the body im- molated; and the wine, the blood shed: that Jesus Christ, at the institution of these sacred signs, had given them the name of the thing itself: that it was not, however, a simple spectacle, nor signs wholly naked, for as much as the remembrance of, and faith in, the body immolated and the blood shed, supported our souls; that the Holy Ghost meanwhile sealed in our hearts the remission of sins; and therein consisted the whole mystery. Human reason and %ense had nothing to suffer from this eiqplicatioii.;]; The Scripture was all the difficulty: but when one side opposed ^^ This is my body," the other answered, ^^ I am the vine; I am the door; the rock was Christ." True it is, these examples came not to the point. It was not in pro-

I Zaing. Confl Fid ad Franc et Epist. ad car. 5.

posing a parable, or explaining an allegory, that Jesus Christ said, *^ This is my body; this is my blood." These words, entirely detached from the context, carried their full meaning in themselves, — ^a new institution was in hand, — which ought to be made in simple terms, and yet no place in Scripture had been found, where the sign of the institution received the name of the thing itself the moment it was instituted, and without any previous preparation.

This argument tormented Zuinglius; he sought day and night for a solution. In the meantime, however, mass was abolished, in opposition to all the exertions of the town-secretary, who disputed powerfully for the Catholic doctrine and the real presence. Twelve days after, Zuinglius had this dream, with which he and his disciples have been so much upbraided, tn it he tells ns, that imagining he was disputing against the town-secretary, who pressed him closely, on a sudden, he saw a phantom, white or black, appear before &m,* who spoke these words: ** Coward why answerest thou not what is written in £xodus,>— ^ The' Lamb is the passover,';]; — ^intimating it was the sign?" This is the celebrated passage so often repeated in the writings of the Sacramentarians, in which they thought to have found the name of the thing given to the sign, and in the very institution of the not who suggested this thought, whether he was white or black, he meant only, that it was an unknown person, and true it is, the Latin terms will bear this explication. But, besides that ooncealing himself, so as not to discover what he was, is the natural character of an evil spirit, Zuinglius was also manifestly in error: — these words, *' The Lamb is the passover," by no means signify it was the figure of the passover. It is a common Hebraism, where the word sacrifice is understood; so sin merely is the sacrifice for sin; and barely passover is the sacrifice of the passover; which the Scripture itself explains a little farther on, where it says at full length, not that the Lamb is the passover, but the sacrifice of the passover. This most certainly was the sense of that place in Exodus. Other examples were ailerwards produced, as we shall see in due time; but this was the first. There was nothing in it, as we see, that should much comfort the mind of Zuinglius, or that showed him the sign at the very institution received the name of the thing. He awoke, however, at this new explication of his unknown friend, read

* Hosp. il p. 25, 26. Exod. zu. 1 1. f Exod. xii. 1 1.

6*

the place of Exodus, and went to preaeh what be had discovered

in his dream. Men were too well prepared not to believe him;

the mists which still remained on their minds were dissipated.

It provoked Luther to see, not only individuals, but whole churches of the new reformation, now rise up against him. But he abated nothing of his accustomed pride. We may judge from these words, — "I have the Pope in front; I have the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists in my rear; but I will march out alone against them all; I will defy them to battle; I will trample them under my feet.*' And a little after, — " I will say it without vanity, that for these thousand years the Scripture has never been so thoroughly purged, nor so well explained, nor better understood, than at this time it is by me.'** He wrotq these words in 1525, a little after the contest had commenced. In the same year he composed his book ** against the heavenly prophets;" thereby ridiculing Carlostadius, whom he accused of favoring the visions of the Anabaptists. This book consisted of two parts. In the first he maintained the impropriety of breaking down images; that in the law of Moses nothing was prohibited as the object of adoration, but the images of God; that the images of crosses and of saints were not comprehended in this prohibition; that none under the gospel were obliged to destroy images by force, because tiiat was contrary to gospelliberty; and those who destroyed them were doctors of the law, and not of the gospel. By this reasoning he justified us from all those accusations of idolatry, with which we were unreasonably chaiged on this head. In the second part he attacked the Sacramentarians. But CEcolampadius he treated with moderation at the commencement; yet he attacked Zuinglius with vio- lence. This doctor had written, that before the name of Luther was known, he had preached the gospel, — ^that is, the reformation in Switzerland— ever since the year 1516 ; and the Swiss gave him the glory of this beginning, which Luther arrogated to himself. t Offended at these words he wrote to those of Strasburg, " Uiat he durst assume to himself the glory of first preach- ing Jesus Christ, but that Zuinglius wished to deprive hi^n of that glory. How is it possible," proceeds he, " to be silent, whilst these men disturb our churches and impugn our authority? If they are unwilling to suffer their own to be weakened; for the same reason they ought not to weaken ours." In conclusion, he declares, ** there is no medium, either he or they must be the ministers of Satan." J

* Ad Maled. Reg. Ang. t ii. 498. f Zuing. in explan. artic. IS Ges. in

39. — The words of a celebrated Lutheran on the jealousy of Luther agtdntt

Zuinglwu.

An ingenious Lutheran, and the most celebrated of those that have written in our days, here makes this reflection: — " Those who despise all things, and expose not only their fortunes, but their lives, often are not able to raise themselves above glory, so flattering are its charms, so great is human weakness. On the contrary, the higher a man's courage is elevated the more does he covet praises — the more concerned to see those bestowed on others, which he believes due to himself.* It should not be, therefore, a matter of surprise, if a man of Luther's magnanimity wrote those things to those of Strasburg." 30. — Luther's strong arguments for the real presence; and how he boasts of them.

In the midst of these strange transports, Luther, by powerful arguments, confirmed the faith of the real presence. Both the Scripture, and ancient tradition, supported him in this cause. He demonstrated, tliat to convert so simple, so precise words of our Saviour to a figurative sense, under pretext that there were figurative expressions in other places of the Scripture, was to open a way by which the whole Scripture, and all the mysteries of our religion, would be turned to figures; that the same submission was, therefore, required here, with which we receive the other mysteries, without attending to human reasoning, or the laws of nature, but to Jesus Christ and his words only; that our Saviour spoke not, in the institution, either of &ith or the Holy Spirit, but said, " This is my body," and not that faith would make you partake of it; wherefore, the eating, of which Jesus Christ there spoke, was not a mystical eating, but an eating by the mouth; that the union of faith was consummated oti^ of the sacrament;! nor could it be believed that Jesus Chri:.- gave us nothing that was particular by such emphatic words;]{. that it is evident his intention was to render certain his gifl, by giving us his person; that the remembrance he recommended ' to us of his death, excluded not his presence, but obliged us to receive this body and this blood as a victim immolated for us; that the victim became ours, indeed, by manducation; that, in reality, faith ought then to intervene, in order to make it profitable to us; but to show that, even without faith, the word of Jesus Christ had its eflect, there needed but to consider the communion of the unworthy. He urged here forcibly the words of St. Paul, when, after relating these words, ** This is my body," he condemned so severely those " who discerned not the body of the Lord, and who rendered themselves guilty of his

* Calix. Jadic. n. 53. j Serm. de Corp. et Sang. Christ, deten. Verbl

body and blood."* He added, that St. Paul meant to speak throughout of the " true body," and not of the body in figure; and that it was evident from his expressions, that he condemned those impious persons of insulting Jesus Christ, not in his gif^s, but immediately in his person.

But where he manifested his greatest strength, was in demolishing the objections which were raised against these heavenly truths. He asked of those who objected to him, " flesh profiteth nothing,"! with what assurance they durst say, that the flesh of Jesus Christ profiteth nothing, and apply to this lifegiving flesh what Jesus Christ said of the carnal sense, or, at most, of the flesh taken afler the manner in which the Caphamaites understood it, or evil ' Christians received it, not uniting themselves thereto by faith, nor receiving at that same time that spirit and life with which it abounds 1 When they presumed to ask him. What, therefore, did this flesh avail taken by the mouth of the body, he again asked of these proud opponents. What did it avail (hat the Word was made flesh? Could not truth- have been announced, nor mankind redeemed, but by this means? Are they acquainted with all God's secrets, to say unto him, he had no other way by which to save man? And who are they, thus to set laws to their Creator, and prescribe to him the means by which he would apply his grace to them? If, at last, they opposed against him human reasons, how a body could be in so many places at once— a human body, whole and entire, in so small a space 1 He destroyed all these en^es levelled against God, by asking, how God preserved his unity in the trinity of persons 1 how, of nothing, he had created heaven and earth 1 how he had clothed his Son in a human body? how he made him be bom of a virgin 1 how he delivered him up to death? and how he was to raise up all the faithful on the last day? What did human reason pretend by opposing these vain difliculties against God, which he blasted with a breath 1 They say that all the miracles of Jesus Christ are sensible.^ '* But who has told them that Jesus Christ did resolve never to work any other? When he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of a virgin, to whom was this, the greatest miracle of all, become sensible 1 Could Mary have known what it was she bore in her womb, had not the angel announced the divine secret to her? But when the divinity dwelt corporeally in Christ J'esus, who saw it, or who comprehended it 1 Now who sees him 9i the right hand of his Father, from whence he exerts his omnipotence over the whole universe? Is this what obliges them to wrest, to break to pieces, to crucify the words of their Master! I do not comprehend, say they,

* 1 Cor. xi. 24, 28, 29. f John vL 63. \ Sena quod verba stent ibid.

how he can execute them literally i They prove to me very well, by this reason, that human sense agrees not with God's wisdom; I allow it; I agree with them; but I never knew be* fore that nothing was to be believed but what we discovered by opening our eyes, or what human reason can comprehend."

Lastiy: when it was said to him, that this matter was not of consequence, or of sufficient importance for breaking peace:— ^ who then obliged Carlostadius to begin this quarrell What for ever be accursed, that is made to the prejudice of truth!" -By such arguments he oflen silenced the Zuinglians. It must be acknowledged, he had a great strength of genius; he wanted nothing but the rule, which can be had no where but in the Church, and under the yoke of a legitimate authority. Had Luther continued obedient to that yoke, so necessary for the regulation of all minds, but especially for fiery and impetuous minds like his, he might have kept his writing free from those transports, those buffooneries, that brutal arrogance, those excesses, or rather extravagances; and the force with which he treated some truths, would not have contributed to seduction. It is for this reason we see him still invincible, when he sets forth the ancient doctrines he had learned in the. bosom of the Church; but pride closely pursued his victories. So much was this man captivated with himself for having fought so strenuously for the proper and literal sense of our Saviour's words, that he could not refrain from boasting of it. ** The Papists themselves," said he, ** are obliged to allow me the praise of having defended the doctrine of the literal sense much better than they. And, in reality, I am assured, were they all melted down into one mass, they never would be able to maintain it with the strength that I do."*

sense better than he.

He was mistaken; for although he fully proved that the literal sense was to be maintained, he knew not how to understand it in all its simplicity; and the supporters of the figurative sense demonstrated to him, that if the literal sense were to be followed, transubstantiation would carry it. This is what Zuinghus, and all the defenders of the figurative sense, in general, proved most clearly. They observe, that Jesus Christ has not said, ** My body is here, or my body is under this, and with this, or this contains my body, but only. This is my body." Thus, what he is to give die faithful, is not a substance which contains his body, or which accompanies it, but his body, without any oth^

^ Epist Lath, ad Hoop. 8 Part, ad An. 1534, £ 138.

foreign substance,"* Neither has he said, " This bread is my body," which is another of Luther's explications; but he hais said, *^ This is my body," by an indefinite term, to show that the substance he gives is no longer bread, but his body.

And when Luther explained *^ This is my body;" that is, this bread is my body, really and without figure, contrary to his intentions, he destroyed his own doctrine. For we may very well say with the Church, that bread becomes the body, in tho same sense that St. John has said, '* the water was made wine,""!* at the marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee, namely, by the change of one into the other. In the same manner may it be said, that what is bread in appearance, is, in effect, the body of our Lord; but that true bread, remaining such, should be at the same time the true body of our Lord, as Luther maintained^ the defenders of the figurative sense proved to him, as did the Catholics, that ^ it was a reasoning void of sense, and concluded that he ought either to admit a moral change only, together with themf or a change of substance, together with ^e Papists.

32. — Beza proves the same truth.

It is for this reason that Beza, at the Conference of Montbeliart, maintains against the Lutherans, that of the two expli- cations which adhere to the literal sense — ^namely, that of the Catholics, and that of the Lutherans, " It is that of the Catholics which departs least from the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper, were they to be expounded word for word." He proves it by this reason: because "the Transubstantiators say, tiiat by virtue of these divine words, that which before was bread, having changed its substance, becomes immediately the body itself of Jesus Christ, to the end that, by this means, this proposition may be true, * This is my body.' Whereas the exposition of the consubstantiators, saying, that these words, * This is my body,' do signify my body is essentially in, with, or under this bread, declares not what is become of the bread, and what that is, which is the body, but only where it is. "J This reason is plain and intelligible. For it is clear, that Jesus Christ, having taken bread in order to make it something, must have declared to us what kind of something he did intend to make it; it is not less evident, that the bread became that which the Almighty did intend to make it. Now these words show he intended to make it his body, whatever that is understood, since he said, " This is my body." If, therefore, this bread is not become his body in figure, it is become so in effect; and there is no way to avoid admitting either the change in figure, or the change in substance.

Thus, if we only understand simply the words of Jesus Christ,

I Cont de Mont. Imp. k Gen. 1687, p. 52.

the doctrine of the Church must be embraced; and Beza i$ cor* rect in stating, that it is attended with less difficulties, as to the manner of speaking, than that of the Lutherans, that is to say, it is more agreeable to the literal sense.* Calvin frequently confirms the same truth; and, not to dwell on the sense of individ- uals, a whole Synod of Zuinglians have acknowledged it.

It is the Synod of Czenger, a town in Poland, published in the Collection of Geneva. This synod, after having rejected Papistical Transubstantiation, shows *• that the Lutheran Consubstantiation is untenable," because, *^ as the wand of Moses was not a serpent but by transubstantiation, and the water in Egypt was not blood, nor, at the marriage of Cana, wine, without a change; so the bread of the supper cannot be the body of Christ substantially, if it be not changed into his flesh, by losing the form and substance of bread. "j"

It was good sense that dictated this decision. In fact, the bread remaining bread, can be no more the body of our Lord, than the wand remaining a wand, could be a serpent, or than the water remaining water, could be blood in Egypt, or wine at the marriage of Cana. If, therefore, what was bre^d becomes the body of our Lord, either it btecomes so in figure by a mystical change, according to Zuinglius's doctrine, or it becomes so, in effect, by a real change, as is maintained by Catholics.

Thus, Luther, who boasted that he alone had defended the literal sense better than all the Catholic divines, was greatly mistaken; since he did not even comprehend the true ground which holds us to this sense, nor understand the nature of those propositions which operate what they express. Jesus Christ says to that man, " Thy son liveth."J Jesus Christ says to that woman, ** Thou art loosed from thine infirmity. "§ In speaking, he does what he says: nature obeys; things are changed, and the sick person becomes sound. But words, which regard only accidental things, as health and sickness, operate only accidental changes. Here, where a substance is concerned, for Jesus Christ said, *• This is my body, This is my blood," the change is substantial; and by an effect as real as it is surprising, £e substance of the bread and of the wine is changed into the substance of the body and the blood. Consequently, when we fol- low the literal sense, we must not only believe fliat the body of Jesus Christ is in the mystery, but also that it makes the whole substance of it; and this is what the words themselves lead us

in Synt Gen. part 1. t John w, 50, 51. § Luke ziii, 18.

i;is bread is my body, but this, indefinitely. And in the same 'itanner as if he had said, when he changed the water into wine; * at which you are going to drink is wine, it ought not 1^ be understood that he had preserved together both water and wine, but that he had changed the water into wine; so when he declares, that what he presents is his body, it ought not in any way to be understood that he mixes his body with the bread, but that he effectually changes the bread into his body. To this, the literal sense leads us, as the Zuinglians themselves acknowledge, and this it is which Luther could never understand.

sense.

On account of not understanding it, this great defender of the literal sense fell necessarily into a kind of figurative sense. According to him, " This is my body," imported, this bread contains my body, or this bread is joined with my body; and, by this means, the Zuinglians forced him to acknowledge, in this expression, that granmiatical figure which substitutes that which containeth for that which is contained, or the part for the whole. ^ Then they pressed him in this way: if it be lawful for you to admit in the words of the institution, that figure which puts the part for the whole, why will you prevent us from admitting in them that figure which substitutes the thing for the sign? Figure for figure, &e metonomy which we aknowledge is worth full as much as the synecdoche which you receive. These gentlemen were humanists and grammarians. All their books were soon filled with the synecdoche of Luther, and the metonomy of Zuinglius; it was necessary for Protestants to engage on one side or other of these two figures of rhetoric; and it appeared manifest, that none but the Cathohcs, equally distant from one and the other, and admitting in the Eucharist neither bread noi a bare sign, justly established the titeral sense.

Here was perceived the difference between the doctrines introduced anew by particular authors, and those which come in their natural channel. The change of substance had of itself Bpread over both the east and the west, entering into all minds together with the words of our Lord, without ever causing any by the Church as innovators. When it was contested, and men labored to wrest the Hteral sense with which it had spread over the whole earth, not only the Church remained firm, but also

her very adversaries were seen to combat for her, whilst they combated against each other. Luther and his followers proved invincibly that the literal sense ought to be retained. Zuinglius, with his party, established with no less force, that it could not be retained without the change of substance: thus they agreed in this only, to prove against each other, that the Chiurch, which they had abandoned, had more reason on her side than any of them: by I know not what force of truth, all those who abandoned her, retained something of it, and the Church which kept the whole, gained the victory*

Hence, it cipaarly follows, that the interpretation of Catholics, who admit the change of substance, is the most natural and the most simple; both because it is followed by the greatest number of Christians, and because of these two, who impugn it by different ways, one of them, that is Luther, undertook to oppose it purely out of a spirit of contradiction, and in spite of the Church; and die other, that is Zuinglius, agrees, that if with Luther the literal sense is to be received, the change of substance must be received also witii the Catholics.

Afterwards, the Lutherans, once engaged in error, confirmed themselves therein with this argument, &at it is destroying the sacrament, to take from it, as we do the substance of bread and wine. I am obliged to acknowledge I have not found this reason in any of the writings of Luther; and, indeed, it is two weak and two far-fetched to occur immediately to the mind; for it is known that a sacrament, that is, a sign, consists in that which appears, not in the interior or substance of the thing. It was not necessary to show Pharaoh seven real kine, and seven ears of real com, to notify to him the fertility and the famine of seven years. The image that was formed in his mind was quite sufficient for that purpose; and if we must come to thmgs with which the eyes have been affected, in order that the dove should represent the Holy Ghost, and that chaste love with ail its sweetness, which he inspires into holy souls, it was not at all neces- sary that it should be a real dove which descended visibly upon Jesus Christ; it was sufficient it had the whole exterior; in the same manner, in order that the Eucharist might specify to us, that Jesus Chirst was our bread and our drink, it was sufficient that the characters and ordinary effects of these aliments were preserved: in a word, it was enough, there was nothing changed with regard to the senses. In the signs of the institution, i^at which denotes their force is the intention declared by the words of the institutor; now, by saying over the bread, '* This is my

7 .

body,** and over tibe wine, "This is my blood," and seeming, by virtue of these divine words, actually invested with all the appearances of bread and wine, he shows clearly enough, that he 19 truly a nourishment, who has taken on him the resemblance of it, and under thaliform appears to us. If, to the reality of the sacrament, true bread and true wine be necessary, it is likewise true bread and true wine that are consecrated; and which, by consecration, are made the true body and true blood of our Redeemer. The change that is made in the interior, witiiout any alteration of the exterior, makes also one part of the sacrament — namely, of the sacred sign; inasmuch as this change, become sensible by the words, makes us see that by the words of Jesus Christ operating in a Christian, he ought to be most really, though in a different manner, changed inwardly, retaining only the exterior of other men,

S9.— 'Hot0 the names of bread and wine nuof remain m the Eueharitt. — Two

Thereby those passages are explained, in which the Eucharist is called bread, even after consecration; and this difficulty is manifestly solved, by the rule of changes, and the rule of appearances. By the rule of changes, the bread become the body, is called bread, as in Exodus, the wand become a serpent, is called a wand, and the water become blood, is called water. These expressions are made use of to show at once, both the thing which was made, and the material employed to make it of. By the rule of appearances, in the same manner that, in the Old and New Testament, the angels who appeared under human shape, are called, at the same time, angels,* because they are so, and men, because they appear so; so the Eucharist will be both called the body, because it is so, and bread, because it so appears. If, then, one of these two reasons is sufficient to preserve to it the name of bread without prejudicing the change, the concurrence of both will be much stronger. And no difficulty should be imagined of discerning truth amidst these different expressions; for, when the Holy Scripture explains the same thing by different expressions, to prevent all ambiguity, tiiere is always a principal place, to which the rest are to be reduced, and where things are expressed, such as they are, in pre- cise terms. What if these angels be called men in some places? there will be a place where it will be clearly seen that they are angels. What if this blood and this serpent be called water and wand 1 you will find the principal place, where the change will be specified; and it is by that the thing should be defined. What will be the principal place, by which we are to judge of the EQcharist, if it be not that of die institution, where Jesus

II.] THfi VARIATIONSy ETC. 75

Christ made it to be what it is? So, when we would name it with relation to what it was, and what it appears, we may call it bread and wine; but when we would name it with respect to what it is in itself, it will have no other name than that of body and blood. And it is by this it ought to be defined, since it can never be any thing else than what it is made by the all-powerful words which gave it being. Both of you, as well Lutherans as Zuinglians, do, cpntrary to nature, explain the principal text by other places, and both of you, departing from the rule, do sepa* rate still to a greater distance from one another, than you do from the Church which you chiefly aimed to oppose. The Church, which follows the natural order, and reduces all the passages where the Eucharist is mentioned, to that which, beyond dispute, is the principal and foundation of all the otiiers, holds the true key of the mystery; and triumphs not only over both one and the other, but also over the one by the other.

In effect, during these Sacramentarian disputes, those who called themselves Reformed, notwithstanding their common interest, which at times united them in appearance, waged a more cruel war against each other than against the Church itself, mutually calling each other *' furies, maniacs, slaves of Satan, greater enemies to the truth and the members of Jesus Christf than the Pope himself;" which to them was saying everything.

In the meantime, the authority which Luther was desirous of maintaining in the new Reformation, that had arisen under his standard, was becoming contemptible. He was overwhelmed with grief; and that haughtiness, which he showed exteriorly, could not support him under that dejection of mind which he felt interiorly; on the contrary, the more haughty he was, the more insupportable it was to him to be despised by a party, of whom he wished to be the sole leader. The concern he felt communicated itself to Melancthon; '' Luther," says he^ *' causes in me great troubles, by the long complaints he makes to me of his afflictions; writings, judged not contemptible, have quite dejected and disfigured him; through the compassion I have for him, I find myself afflicted to the utmost extremity, for the calamities of the Church. The doubtful vulgar divide diem selves into contrary sentiments; and had not Jesus Christ promised to be with us even to the consummation of ages, I should apprehend the utter destruction of religion from these dissensions; for nothing is more true than the sentence which says, through much disputing, truth escapes from us."*

* Luth. ad Jac Pnep. Brem. Hosp. 82. Luth. Maj. Conf. ibidem. Zvdng. Reap, ad Luth. Hoep. 44 Lib. iv. Ep. 76, ad Gamer.

41. — Luther teaches Ubiqtaty. . .^^ Strange agitations of a man, who hoped to see the ' very means taken for her re-establishment ! What comfort could he find in the promises made to us by Jesus Christ, of being always with us 1 It is for Catholics to nourish themselves with this faith ; for them, who believe the Church can never be overcome by error, however violent the assault, and who, in fact, have ever found her to be invincible. But how can they advance claims to this promise in the new Reformation, whose first foundation, when they separated from the Church, was that Jesus Christ had so forsaken her, as to let her fall into idolatry ! Moreover, though it is true that truth remains always in the Church, and becomes the more purified in proportion as it is attacked, Melancthon was right in thinking, that by much disputation individuals fell into error. There was no error so monstrous, into which the heat of dispute had not impelled the passionate mind of Luther. It mside him embrace that monstrous opinion of ubiquity. These are the arguments on which he grounded this strange notion. The humanity of our Lord is united to his divinity ; therefore, the humanity, as well as the other, is every where : Jesus Christ, as man, is seated therefore, Jesus Christ, as man, is eveiy where. As man, he was in heaven before he had ascended into it. He was in the monument when the angels said he w£is not there.. The Zuinglians fell into a worse extreme, by saying that God had it not even in his power to put the body of Jesus Christ in several places. Luther runs into another excess, and maintains that this body was necessarily in every place ; that is what he taught in a book already mentioned, which he wrote in 1627, in order to defend the literal sense, and what he ventured to insert in a '* Confession of Faith," which he published in 1628, under the title of " The Great Confession of Faith."*

be adinitted or taken away; the gross divinity of this Doctor, at which Jtfelanethon is scandatixed.

He says, in this last book, that it is of little importance, whether tiie bread be admitted in the Eucharist or not; but that it was more reasonable to acknowledge therein. '* A carnal This was the new language, by which he expressed that new' union he placed between the bread and the body. These words seemed to aim at impanation, and oflen such fell from him, which had a further tendency than he meant. But, at least, they proposed a certain mixture of bread and flesh, of wine and blood, which appeared very gross, and ^as insupportable to M elancthon— " I have spoken," says he, " to Luther, concerning this mixture of the bread and the body, which appears a strange paradox to many people. He answered me peremptorily, that he would alter nothing in it; and, for my part, I do not think it proper to meddle any more in this affair."* Which is as much as to say, he was not of Luther's mind, yet dared not to contradict him.

43. — The Sacramentarian contest upset the fovndaiions of the Reformaiion, —

Calvin*s words.

Meanwhile, the excesses into which they fell on both sides of the new reformation, discredited it with men of good sense. This dispute alone destroyed the common foundation of each party. They believed they could terminate all disputes by the Scripture alone, and would have no other judge than that; and the whole world was witness, there was no end to their disputes on Scripture, even on one passage of it, than which none ought to be more clear, since it regarded a last will and testament. They exclaimed one to the other, " All is clear, and nothing more is necessary than to open your eyes." By this evidence of Scripture, Luther discovered that nothing was more impious and daring than to deny the literal sense; and Zuinglius found nothing more gross and absurd than to follow it. Erasmus, whom both were desirous of gaining, said the same to them that aH Cathohcs did: — ^^ You all appeal to the pure word of Godj and believe yourselves its true interpreters. Agree, then, amongst yourselves, before you set laws to all mankind. "| Whatever excuse they invented, they were quite ashamed that they could not agree, and in the bottom of their hearts, all thought the same that Calvin wrote to his friend Melancthon, — * It is of great importance, that the least suspicion of the divisions, which are amongst us, pass not to future ages; for it is ridiculous beyond any thing that can be imagined, after we have broken off from the whole world, we should so little agree amongst ourselves ever since the beginning of our reformation. "J

44. — The Lutherans take up arms under the Landgrave's commandf who owns

that he is in the wrong,

Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, veiy zealous for the new gospel, had foreseen this disorder, and from the beginning of the rupture endeavored to effect a reconciliation. As soon as he saw the party sufficiently strong, and, moreover, threatened by the emperor and the Catholics, he began to form designs of a confederacy. The maxims laid down by Luther for l£ie foundation

♦ Ub. iv. Ep. 76, 1588. f Lib. xviil 3, xix. 3, 113, xxxi. 59, p. 2102.

1 Calvin, epist ad Mel. p. 145. 7*

said to have been made between George, Duke of Saxony, and the other Catholic princes, to exterminate the Lutherans.* The matter indeed was adjusted: the Landgrave was satisfied with the great sums of money, which some ecclesiastical princes were obliged to pay down, to indemnify him for raising forces, which he himself acknowledged he had done on false reports.

Melancthon, who did not approve of this conduct, found no other excuse for the Landgrave, but the reluctance he felt to let it appear that he had been deceived, and had nothing more to say in his defence, than that an '' evil shame'"')' had influenced him. But other thoughts gave him much more uneasiness. They had boasted among themselves that the Papacy should be destroyed, without making war and shedding blood. Previous to the time of the Landgrave's tumult, and a httle a^r the revolt of the peasants, Melancthon had written to the Landgrave himself,**' That it was better to suffer every thing than to take up arms in the gospel cause;";[ and now it happened, that those who had labored so much to convince the world of their pacific adds, ** When I see what a scandal the good cause is liable to, I am almost overwhelmed with this concern." || Luther was far from these sentiments: though in Germany it was known as certain, and Protestant authors have acknowledged it,ir that this pretended treaty of George of Saxony was a mere illusion* Luther wished to believe it true; and wrote several letters and libels, in which he is so transported against that prince, even as to call him, *"*• of all fools, the greatest fool; a proud Moab, who always undertook what was above his strength," adding, that he would pray to God against him: then that he would give notice to the princes to exterminate such people, who wished to see all Germany in blood:"** that is to say, lest the Lutherans themselves should be placed in that condition, and begin by exterminating such princes as were opposed to their designs.

This George, Duke of Saxony, so insulted by Luther, was as much opposed to the Lutherans, as his kinsman the Elector was favorable to them. Luther prophesied against him with all his strength, regardless that he was of the same family with his Lord and master; and it is plain that it was not his fault that his prophesies were not fulfilled with the edge of the sword.

* Sleid. Lib. vi. 92. Mel. Lib. iv. Epiat 70. f Ibid.

t Mel. Lib. ill. Epist 16. § Lib. iv. Ep. 70, 72. Ibid. 72. || Ibid.

** Luth. Ep.'ad Yences. Lync* t vil et ap.Chyt in Sax. p. 312 et 988.

grave labors in vain to reconcile both parties of Protestants, — 1529.

This armament of the Lutherans, which in 1528 made all Gennany tremble, had raised their pride to such a height, that ii:^Gy }\x6ged themselves in a condition to protest openly against the decree, published against them the year following in the Diet of Spires, and to appeal from it to the emperor, to the future general council, or to that which should be held in Ger- many. It was on this occasion they re-united themselves under the name of Protestants; but the Landgrave, who had more sagacity, more capacity, and more valor than any of them, perceived that the diversity of sentiments would be an everlasting obstacle to that perfect union, which he desired to form amongst them; therefore, the same year that the decree passed at Spires, he procured the conference of Marpurg, where he caused all the leaders of the new reformation to meet, namely, Luther, Osiander, and Melancthon, on one side; Zuinglius, (Ecolampadius, and Bucer, on the other, to pass over those less distin- guished. Luther and Zuinglius were the only speakers; for the Lutherans, long before this, were silent when Luther was present; and Melancthon frankly acknowledges that he and his companions were but "mute figures."* They thought not then of amusing each other with equivocal explications, as they did afterwards. The true presence of the body and blood was plainly maintained on one side, and denied on the other. On both sides it was understood, that a presence in figure, and a presence by faith, was not a true presence of Jesus Christ, but a moral presence — a presence improperly so called, and in metaphor. They agreed, in appearance, on all articles, except the Eucharist. I say in appearance, for it is clear from two letters, which, during this conference, Melancthon wrote to his princes to give them an account of it, that, in reality, they very little understood each other's meaning. — " We discovered," says he, "that our adversaries understood very little of Luther's doctrine, although they endeavored to imitate his language;"| that is, they agreed through complaisance, and in words, though in rereality they understood not each other; and the truth is, Zuin- glius had never comprehended any thing of Luther's doctrine on the sacraments, nor of his imputed justice." J Those of Strasburg, with Bucer their minister, were also accused of not having good sentiments, that is, as they meant it, not Lutheran enough on this head, and so it aflerwards appeared, as we shall soon perceive. The truth of the thing is, Zuinglius and his companions were somewhat troubled about these matters, and

* Mel. Lib. iv. Ep. 88.

spoke whatever might please Luther, having nothing in their thoughts but the real presence. As to the manner of treating things, Luther, as usual, spoke with haughtiness. Zuinglius showed much' ignorance, so far as to ask several times, " How a wicked priest could perform a sacred thing?"* Luther pressed him closely, and made him see from the example of baptism that he knew not what he said. When Zuinglius and his companions saw they could not prevail on Luther to admit their figurative sense, they entreated him at least to hold them for brethren, but were sharply repulsed. " What fraternity do you is a sign you doubt of it, since you desire to be their brethren who reject it."! Thus ended the conference. However, they promised mutual charity. Luther interpreted this charity such as we owe to enemies, and not such as is allowed to those of the same communion. " They were indignant," said he, " to see themselves treated like heretics." They agreed, however, to write no more against each other. '* But it was only to give time," continued Luther, " to come to themselves."

This agreement, such as it was, continued but a short time; on the contrary, by the different accounts that were given of this conference, their minds were more exasperated tiian before. The proposal of fraternity made by the Zuinglians was considered by Luther a stratagem, and he said, '* that Satan so reigned in them that they had it no longer in their power to advance any thing but lies. "J

BOOK III.

[From the year 1529 to the year 1530.]

A brief summary.-^The Confessions of Faith of both parties of Protestants — ^That of Augsburg composed by Melancthon. — That of Strasburg, or of the Four Towns, by Bueer. — ^That of Zuinglius. — ^Variations in that of Augsburg concemtns the Eucharist — ^The ambiguity of that of Strasburg. — Zuinghus alone plaiuly asserts the figurative sense. — The term substance, why applied to exnlo^n the reality. — The Apology of the Augsburg Confession penned by Melancthon. — ^The Church calumniated in almost every point, chiefly in that of Justification, Operation of the Sacraments, and Mass. — The merit of good works acknowledged on both aides; also Sacramental Absolution, Confession, Monastic Vows, with many other Articles. — ^The Church of Rome many ways acknowledged in the Confession of Aussburg. — A demonstration, from the Au^burg Confession and their calunmies, and well comprehend their own doctrine.

1. — The famous Diet rf Augsburg, where the Confessions of Faith are presented

to Charles V.

In the midst of all these differences, preparations were making for the famous Diet of Augsburg, which Charles Y had * Hosp. Ibid. I Luth. Ep. ad Jen. Praep. Bremene. Ibid. { Luth. Ep. ad Jen.

called in order to pacify the troubles which this new gospel had raised in Germany. He came to. Augsburg, the 15& of June^ 1630. This period is remarkable; for then it was, for the first time, that the Confessions of Faith, published under the name of each party, appeared in form. The Lutherans, defenders of the literal sense, presented to Charles Y the Confession of Faith, called the Confession of Augsburg. The four towns of the empire, Strasbuig, Meiningen, Lindau, and Constance, which defended the figurative sense, gave in their Confessions of Faith separately to the same prince. This was called the Confession of Strasburg, or of the four towns; and Zuinglius, although he was not of the body of the empire, also sent to the emperor his Confession of Faith.

2.-!-?^ Confession of Augsbttrg digested by Melaneihon, and presented to the

emperor,

Melancthon, the most eloquent, the most polite, and at the same time the most moderate of all the disciples of Luther, drew up the Augsburg Confession in concert wijth his master, on whom they had prevailed to approach near the place of the diet. This Confession was presented to the emperor in Latin and in German, the 26th of June, 1630, subscribed by John, Elector of Saxony, by six other princes, of whom one of the chief was Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, and by the towns of Nuremberg and Reutlingen, to which four other towns associated themselves. It was read publicly in the diet, in presence of the emperor; and agreed that no copy of it should be spread abroad, either printed or written, but by his orders.* Many editions of it have been since made, as well in the German as in the Latin language, all materially differing; and yet it has been received by the whole party.

Those of Strasburg, with their associate defenders of the figurative sense, offered to subscribe it, excepting only the article of the Lord's Supper. They were not admitted on tidose terms, so they compiled their own particular confession, which was drawn into form by Bucer.

He was a man of sufficient learning, of a pliant mind, and more fruitful in distinctions than the most refined scholastics; an agreeable preacher; his style something heavy; but the advantage of his figure and sound of voice gained upon his hear- ers. He had been a Dominican, and was married like the rest, and even, as I may say, more so than the others, for on the death of his first wife he proceeded to a second, and so to a

* Cfayt Hist Confess. Aug.

third marriage. The holy fathers received not to priesthood any person who, whilst a layman, had been twice married. Bucer, both a priest and a religious, during his new ministry married three times without scruple. This circumstance recommended him to the party; they wished by these daring ex- amples to confound the superstitious observances of the ancient Church.

It does not appear that Bucer had concerted any thing with Zuinglius; the latter with the Swiss spoke plainly and openly; Bucer's thoughts were wholly intent on compounding matters, and never was man so fertile in equivocations. Tet neither he nor his party could at that time unite themselves with the Lutherans, and the new reformation made two bodies visibly separated by two different confessions of faith.

After they had been drawn up, these Churches seemed to have assumed their last form, and it was time, at least at that juncture, to hold themselves steady; but, on the contrary, here it was they betrayed most their vsuriations.

jneces throughout the whole party.

The Augsburg Confession is the most considerable of all in every respect. Besides that it was first presented and subscribed by a greater body, and received with more ceremony, it has also this advantage, that it was considered afterwards, not only by Bucer, and by Calvin himself in particular, as a work common to the Reformation, but also by the whole party of the figurative sense assembled in a body, as will appear from what follows. Melancthon made its Apology, which he enlarged a short time after. This Apology, however, must not be regarded as a particular work, since it was presented to the Emperor in the name of the whole party who laid before him the Confession of Augsburg, and the Lutherans have held no assembly since that time to declare their belief, in which the Confession of Augsburg and Apology were not placed by them upon equal authority, as appears from the acts of the assembly of Smalkald, in 1537, and from others.*

Supper, expressed four different ways, — The Variation of the two first.

It is certain, the intention of the Confession of Augsburg was to establii^ the real presence of the body and blood ; and, as the Lutherans say in the Book of Concord, '* It was then expressly designed to reject the error of the Sacramentarians, who, at the same time, presented their own particular Confession of Augs-

'■' Prsef. Apol. in Lib. Concord, p. 48. Act Smal. ibid. 356. Epitome

burg."* But the Lutherans were so far from speaking in a uniform manner on this subject, that, on the contrary, we see at first sight the tenth article of their confession, which is that in which they design to establish the reality; we behold, I say, this tenth article couched in four different forms, being, scarcely able to discern which is the most authentic, since they all appeared in editions which had tiie marks of public authcnity.

Of these four ways we see two in the Geneva Collection, where the Confession of Augsburg is delivered to us as it was printed in 1540, at Wittenberg, the birthplace of Lutheranism, in the presence of Luther and Melancthon. We there read the article of the last supper two different ways. In the first, which is that of the Wittenberg edition, it is said, that *' with the bread and wine, the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly given to bread and wine, and is expressed in these terms; " They (the Protestant churches) believe that the body and blood are truly distributed to those who eat, and disapprove of those who teach the contrary. "J

Here is a variation at the first step of sufficient importance, since the last of these expressions agrees with the doctrine of the change of substance, and the other seems calculated to oppose it. The Lutherans, however, stopped not there; and althoughj of the two ways of expressing the tenth article, which appear in the Geneva Collection, they have followed the last in their Book of Concord, at the place where the Augsburg Confession is there inserted; however, this same tenth article is seen two other ways expressed in the same book.§

And truly, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession will be found in this book, where the same Melancthon who had drawn it up, and defends it, transcribes the article in these terms : '^ In the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly given together with the things that are seen, that is, with the bread and wine, to those who receive the sacrament"

In fine, we also find these words in the same Book of Concord: ^' The article of the supper is thus taught from the word- of God in the Augsburg Confession: that the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ are truly present, distributed and received in the holy supper, under the species of bread and wine; and those are disapproved of who teach the contrary." || And it is in this manner also that the tenth article is delivered in

* Concord, p. 728. f Con£ Aug. art. 10. | Con£ Aug. art. 10. Syntagm. Gen. 2 part, p. 13b § Con^ Aug. art. 10, in Lib. Concord, p. IS.

the French version of the Confession of Augsburg, printed at Frankfort, in 1673.*

If these two ways of expressing the reality be compared, there is no person who does net see that this of the Apology expresses it in stronger words than did the two preceding ones from the collection of Geneva, but at the same time departs farther from transubstantiation ; and that the last, on the contrary, accommodates itself to the expressions which the Church makes use of, that Catholics might subscribe it

7. — Which of these ways is the original one.

If it be asked, which of these four different ways is the original one presented to Charles V, the thing admits of no small doubt.

Hospinian maintains the last to be the original, because it is that which appears in the impression which was made in the year 1530, at Wittenberg, that is in the seat of Lutheranism, tlie abode of Luther and Melancthon.'f

He adds the cause why tiiis article was changed, because it too openly favored transubstantiation, signifying the body and blood to be truly received, not with the substance, but under the species of bread and wine, which is the very expression made use of by Catholics.

And this is the very thing which enforces the belief that the article was thus expressed at first, since it is certain from Sleidan and Melancthon, as well as from Celestin and Chytrasus, in tlieir histories of the Confession of Augsburg, that the Catholics contradicted not this article in the refutation of the Augsburg Con- fession, which they there made by the order of the Emperor. t

Of these four ways, the second was that which was inserted in the Book of Concord; and it might seem that this was the most authentic, because the princes and states who subscribed this book, seem to affirm in tlie preface that they transcribed the Augsburg Confession, as it is still to be found in. the archives of their predecessors, and in those of the empire. § But, upon more exact inquiry, this will be found inconclusive, since the authors of this preface only say, that having compared their copies with the archives, '* they found that theirs was wholly and throughout of the same sense with the Latin or German originals;" which shows the pretension of agreeing in substance with the other editions, but not the positive fact, that is, that the words are throughout the same; otherwise, such different ones would not be found in another part of the same book, as we observed before.

Be that as it may, as the Confession of Augsburg could be presented to the emperor but in one way, it is strange there should

^ * Solid. R^p^t t Hospin. part 8, p. 94, 132, 173. t Sleid. Apol. Conf. Aug. ad. Art 10.. Chytr. Hist Con£ Aug. Ca^egt Hiat Conf. Aug. t iii.

iq)pear tbree others so different from that, and altogether ad M^

thentic, as we have just seen, and that so solemn an act should

be so many^ times altered by its authors in an article so essential.

But they stopped not in so fine a way, but immediately after explication of the article of Sie supper, in the Apology for their Confession of Faith, drawn up at ^eir order by Melanc^n.

In this Apology, Melancthcm being careful to express in formal terms the literal sense, approved, as has been seen, by ^e whole party, was not content to have already acknowledged a true and substantial presenee,^^adding, that Christ was *' corporeally given to us," and that this wjos the '* ancient and common" sentunent* not only of the ^' Church of Rome," but also of the ** Crreek Church."*

stme time to establish the Change of Substottiee,

And although this author but little favors the change of substance even in this book, yet his dislike to it is not so great, but that he makes honorable mention of the authorities which es* tabtish it j for in order to prove his doctrine of the *' corporeal ffesenve," from the sentiment of the eastern church, he cites die: cmumo£ the Oreek mass, when tlie priest prays expresdy, 8sj he, that the proper body of Jeaus Christ be made in the change of bread, or by the change of bread. Far from condemning any thing in this prayer, he makes use of it as a record whose au* thority he owns; and with the same judgment produces the words of Theophylast, archbishop of Bulgaria, who affinns that the bread is not the figure only, but is truly changed into flesh, f It so happens, that of three authorities which he adduces to con* firm the doctrine of ihe real presence, two there are which assert the change of substance; so necessarily do these two truths fol* low each other, so natural a connexion is there between them. When these passages, which appeared at the first publication, were afterwards mutilated in some editions by the enemies of could not establish the reality, which they approved, without admitting transubstantiation at the same time, which they had been determined to deny.

Such were the uncertainties into which the Lutherans fell at

their commencement ; no sooner did they undertake to give a

settled form to their churdi, by a confession of &ith, than the j

were so irresolute, that they immediately published ui article

- 8

council of Coastaatinople added sonietbing' to that of Nice avails them nothing; fcir the tnith is, a new heresy rising up, ^S^V tb§ OQunpi] of Nipe, whieh denied the divimty of the Holy fiilhpslt i4'ii^ ttecessasy to add aon^e words for ks condemnation.;

If the dofa iidegs of the figuralfye sense Teply, that tlieir party that the Sacramentarians at first produced two difierent ones; they were not less fruitful in different oonfeesioas ef faith than ftfi^Lulheniifl,. and have appeared no less embarrassed, no less ofthfi fileralsense.

; Thia is wlnt may justly surprise us | for it would seem that a^ilooitrine so> easy to beund^stood, according toliuman reason, asi k thatvof ihe Sacramentarians, shoidd awnrd no embarrass- HIBBtio those who undertook to explain it. But it is because the If Qsd^. q£ Jesus Christ naturally make an impression of reality MLth&mind, which all the re&ied subtleties of the figurative aanee. are not able to destroy. As, therefore, ^e greatest part mii thaae who opposed it, could not divest themselves of this Lutherans, who retained it, we must not be surprised, that, with theut figumtive'inierpretations, they mingle so many expressions the real presence taught them by the Church, ikey were so pressed to please ^mselves with the terms they had chosen^ 111. cwdec ta>retain some image of it.

im.them'lii^.qf.tk^Lifrt^ Siippv',

This was the, cause which introduced those equivocations,

we shall see, into their Catechisms an4 Conlessions of Faith*

Bucer^ the.great axchi^t of all these subtleties, gave a slight

•n^igu^^s ^9U£^ to bei^ tfan^ sei^. T!km be. speaks, or

rather makes &o6^ of Sfraabin^ and the btbers to spedi : *^ Whea Christians repeat the supper^ which Jesus Chrust made foef(M^ trulyt to be ^e food and drink ^ofsou^s^"*

In reality, &ey say Qpt'wi& tihe Lutherans, ^^ That thisbody^ an4 tins biood, are trul/ given with the bread smd wilie;'' and yet less, " that they are truly and substantially gir^i;" Bucer^ las yet, had not proceeded so far; but he says nothing eontrafjr to it, and nothing, in fact, which a Lutheran, and ejen a €ath<4ie mig^t not approve. We Kll consenting' to tibis, ^ tiiat the true body and true blood of our Lord are given to tiis to eat and drink e:tpressions; and even when it say&t **• We truly eat nd driidt the true body and true blood of our Lerd,^' k aeema to easclude eating aeud drinking by faith; whidb^ indeed* is na more than * •ckaowiedgifig that tiie body 9sbd blood mre-only i^piritodly giv^ii was so great a novdity^ For al^KMi^ the Eueharist, as well as thte other mysteries <tf -our salvalioa, had a spiritual effeet (oi its end) it had, like ^ €ther siysteries, ^t wbix^ was aecom** plished in the body for its fouadation^-— Jesus Christ was to b(| to ^ iesh* la the Mme m^oner, we wwe |o jwrtake spkitually of his sa&rifiee; yet aiso we were eorporally to reoeivf tiw fiedli of this victim, and to oat 0f it indeed. We were to be imited spiritually to the heavenly spouse; yet his bocfy yi^^ hb gave to tiks in the £uoharist, in ^rder to a mutual possession of ours, was to betlie pledge and seal, as w^l as ^e feundatioa of this spiritual union; ad thw divine marriage, 83 w^ as the ordinary ones^ though in a far different way, was to unite njuid9 was, in reatity, to e>jcplaiti the last end of Ais mystery; but to ought not to have been f<rgotteii At least, siaee it was ihat faith, to have poken distiiiotly £^ or against it,-^^ course whi^ bucer had not sufficient resolution to pursue.

88 " THE Hf STORr. or [book

we tndy eat and dnidc the true body aad true blood of our L<4^ for the food of our souls," he makes those of Strasbufg say, ** tlmt keeping themselves at a distance from all dispfute, aad ail curious and superfluous inquiry, they call back^e mind to that only which profits, and which by our Saviour was alone regarded, ' namely, that, feeding on him, we may live jn him, and by him:"^ as if explaining the principle end proposed by our Saviour were sufficient, without speaking one way or the other of the Real Presence, which the Lutherans, as well as Catholic's, granted to be the means.

Having declared these things, they conclude, by protesting "that they are calumniated when they are accused of changing the words of Jesus Christ, and mutilating them by human inters pretations, or of administering nothing in their supper but mere bread and wine, or of despising the Lord's Supper; for, on the contrary,*' they say, " we exhort the faithful to give ear to the words of the Lord with a simple faith, by rejecting all false comments, and all human inventions, and by adhering closely to th6 sense of the words, without hesitating in any way \ finally, by receiving the sacraments for the food of thehr souls."

Who condemns not, with them, superfluous refinements, human mventions, false comments on the Words <A our Lord? What CMstian does not profess to adhere closely to the sense o^ these divine tvords t But since this sense had~ been the subject of ^sputation for six whole years, and so many conferences had been held to settle it, they ought to have determined what it was, and what were those false glosses which were to be rejected. What advantage is it to condemn that in general, and by indefinite terms, winch is rejected by all parties? and who sees not, ^t a confession of faith requires decisions more clear and more precise? Certainly, were we to judge of Bucer's sehtiments, and those of his broken, by this Confession of Faith only, and knew not from other sources that they were not favorable to the Real and Substantial Presence, we might believe they were not, at lettst, far from it. They have terms to flatter those who believe it, others by which to escape if pressed; in a word, we may say, without doing them an injustice, that whilst confessions of faith are generally made to explain our thoughts on the disputes which disturb the peace of the Church, these, on the con- trary, by lengthened discourses and tedious circumloctition, discovered the secret of saying nothing ^stinctly on the subject of discussion.

From thence an odd eflect followed : namely, that of the four towns which had united themselves by this common confession of faith, and had aU embraced, at that time, sentiments contraiy

Lindau, without scruple, a short time afterwards, went oyer to the doctrine of the Reied Presence: so well had Bucer succeeded diat they could easily turn to any side.

Zuinglius dealt more frankly. In the Confession of Faith which he sent to Augsburg, ana which received the approbation of all the Swiss, he declared plainly, " That the body of Jesus Christ, afler his ascension, was no where else but in Heaven; nay, coyld be no where else; that truly, in the supper, it was, as it were, present by the contemplation of faith, and not really, or by its. essence."*

. To defend this doctrine, he wrote a letter to the Emperor and the Protestant Princes, where he establishes this difierence between him and his adversaries; that these would have <* a natural and substantial body, and. he a sacramental body.^t ^^ ^^ uniform in the usa of the same language; and in another Confession of Faith, which, at the same time, he directs to Francis the Firsts he explains, ^' This is my body," '* of a symbolical, mystical, and sacramental body; of a body by denomination and signification;" '^ in the same manner," says he, ^' as a queen, showing amongst her jewels her nuptial ring, says readily, *• This is my king, that is, this is the ring of Uie king my husband, wherewith he hath espoused me.'^';];^ I know not of any queen that ever used such aa odd phr^e; but it was not easy for Zuinglius to find, in ordinary language, such a mode of speaking as he would ascribe to our Saviour. Nay, he acknowledges no more in the Eucharist than a moral presence, which he calls ^ Sacramental and Spiritual." He always places the force ojf the sacraments in this,^^ that they assist the contemplation of faith; that they serve for a bridle to the senses, and make them concur better with the thoughts," As to the manducation, ^^ which the Jews understood in the same sense with the Papists^" according to him, ^ it ought to cause the like horror a father would feel who had his son given him to eat." In general, ^^ faith has a horror of a visible and corporal presence, which makes St. Peter say, ' depart from me, Lord;' Jesus Christ must not be eaten in this carnal and gross way: a faithful and religious soul eats his true body sacramentally and apiritually." Sacran^entally, that is to. say, in sign; spiritually, that is, by the contemplation of faith, which represents to us

' * Con£ Zuing. int O^t, Zumg. et ap. Hoep. ad an. 1530 ; 101, et seq. t Epist ad Caes. et Piinc. Prot ibid* I Conf. ad Franc I.

8*

It is not oup business hereto complain, that he calls our manducadon gross and carnal, though so much elevated above die

senses ; nor that he woi^ raise, a horror of it, as a cmd and

his party have ever made to us and the Lutherans. We shall

see, by what follows, how those who now reproach will justify

us ; it is enough that we here observe, tiiat Zuinglius speaks

plainly. From these two Confessions of Faith we learn in what

the difficulty precisely consists; on one side, a presence in

sign, and by faith; on the other, a real and substantisd presence;

and this it is which separated ttke Sacramentarians from Cadiolics and Lutherans.

It will now be easy to comprehend what was the reason why the defenders of the literal sense, both Catholics and Lutherans, used so much the words "true body, real body, substance, proper substance, "^ and others of a similar nature. They made use of the words "real and true," to signify that the Eucharist was not a mere sign of the body and blood, but the very thing itself.

For this reason, also, they employed th^ word substance; and if we trace it up to its origin, We shall find, that what introduced this word into the mystery of the Trinity, rendered it likewise necessary in tiie mystery of the Eucharist. Before the subtleties Saviour, " I and my father are one,''* the perfect unity of the Father and Son was believed to be sufficiently expressed by this text of Scripture, without the necessity of always saying they were one in substance; but ever since the time that heretics would persuade the faithful the unity of the Father and Son was onl}' a unity of concord, of thought, oi afiection, it was deemed expedient to banish these pernicious equivocal terms, by establishing consubstantiality — ^namely, the unity of substance. This term, %hich was not in Scripture, was judged simplicity of God's word.

By adding these expressions to Scripture, it was not pretended it explained itself, in respect of that mystery, obscurely or ambiguously; but it grew out of the necessity which existed of opposing by these express words the evil interpretations of her** ctics; and of preserving that natural and primitive Scripture sense, which would immediately have made impression on tfae mind, were not Uie ideasconfused by prejudice or false subtleties.

It is easj to apply this to die subjeet of die Eudiarist. Had

of these words, '^^This is my bodfv tiufl is ray l^ood>^^ we sho^

have diought we had sufficiendy explained a real presence of

Jesus Christ in the Enehanst by saying, diat what he thero

gives is his body and blood ; bat smce it has been said diat

Jesus Christ was ^n present in figure oidy or by his spirit, ov

by his virtue, or by faidi,. then, to remove aU ambiguity, it was

to us in its proper and true substance, or what comes to the

same, that he was really and substantially present. It is this

which gave rise to die term Transubstantiadon, just as natural

to express a unity of substance.

17. — The Lutherans 'had the same reason as we to make use rf the word Sub' stance; Zum^ius never iued U, nor Bucer 0t the eommmeement.

For die same reason, die Lutherans, who acknowledge the reality without die change of substance, when they rejected the term Transubstantiadon, retained that of ^ die true and substantial presence," as we have seen in thcf Apology of the Augsbui^ Conifession; and these terms were chosen to fix the natural sense of these words, ^^ Tlds is my body,'* as the word consubstantial was chosen by the fathers of Nice to fix the literal sense on these words, '^ I and my Father fure one," and these odier, die " Word was God."

to form the opinion of the figmadve sense, and explained it i die fi'aiytest mamier, ever employed the word subetance. On the contrary, he perpetually excluded ^^ die maaducation," as well as the 3id)Btaiitial presence/^ in order diat he might leave nothing but a figurative manducation,.that is, ^* In spirit and by fatdi."*

Bucer, although more inclined to amlnguous expressions, did not, at the beginning, make use of the wdrd substance, or communion and substantial presence, but was eontent not to con- demn these terms, and confined himself only to the general expressions whic^ we have seen. Such was the first state of the is sufiolcient to have poii^d at the cause.

his heon odd on iti the Cm^esamn ^J h ig s h mg U m Uu.^Miogy.

The question of justification,, in which that of firee-will was contained^ seemed to Protestants of a far difierent importance,

* Ep. ail G& et Pfiae. Plot

for which reason tliey twice demand of the emperor, in the Apology, a particular attention to this subject, as being die most important (^the whole gospel, and that also on which they have labored most.^ But I hope it will soon be discovered they have labored in vain, to say nothing more, and that in this disput<> Aere is much more of misundevvtanding than real difficulty.

Jitigsburg, ,**"

And first, we mui^ remove from this dispute the question of firee-will. Luther had returned from that excess, which induced him to say, that God's prescience wholly destroyed free-will in all creatures; and had consented to have this article placed in the Augsburg Confession:.— ^"That free-will is to be acknowl^ edged in all men that have the use of reason, not for the thipga of God, which men cannot commence or at least finish without him, but only with regard to the works of this present life and the duties of civil society, f" ^Melancthon added to it in the Apology, " with respect to the exterior works of God's law. "J Th^se are two truths akeady which admit of no discussion; do nothing in works that are truly Christian.

There was, moreover, a word, in that passage we have just

seen of the Augsburg Gcmfession, which, from men who would

attribute all to grace, was not near so correct as we speak in the

Catholic Church. It is in that place where it is said that of

itself ^^ free-will cannot commence, or at least finish the tlungs

of Gc^," a resection which seems to insinuate it can at ^Meast

commence" them by its proper strength — a Semi-Pelagian error^

from which we shall hereafter see the Lutherans at present are

not far removed.

The following article § explained how " the will of the wicked

was the cause of sin f* where, although it be not distinctly

enough said that God is not the author of it, as much at least

was insinuated, in opposition to the first maxims of Luth^^

But what is most remarkable, with respect to the other points

of Christian grace in the Confession <^ Augsburg is this, that

it every where supposes errors in the Cadiolic Church, which

errors were always detested by her ; so that they seepied rather

to have sought a subject for quarrellingihan reforming^ and the

thing will appear Tiiiaiufest upon expounding histonoally the

belief of &e one aiid the other.

Apol. ad euad. Axt. >4 Apot a eund. Art^ § Art. zix. ibid.

' In the Confession of Augsburg and in the Apology, thej grounded themselves much on the reraissioii of sins being purely the result of generosity, which ought not to be attributed to the merit and worth of precedent actions. Strange! the Lutherans everywhere ascribed to ^emsetves the honor of this doctrine, as if they had brought it back again into the Church, forgivei09s of their mna by their own works; that they believed they could merit if by doing, on their side, what they were able, and even by their own strength; that all they attributed to Jesus Christ was the having merited for us a certain habitual grace, whereby we may more easily love God; and although the will had it in its power to love him, it did it more willingly from this habit; that th^y taught no other justice than that of reason; that we could draw near to Grod by our proper works, independently of the propitiation of Jesus Christ, and that we had dreamt of a justification without speaking one word of him;* which they repeat incessantly, to conclude as often, ** That we had buried Jesus Christ.''

** ex opere operator'* what U meant.

But whilst they reproached Catholics with so gross an error, they, on the other hand, Imputed to them the opposite sentiment, accusing them of *' believing themselves justified by the sole use of the sacrament, * ex opere operdtp^ as they speak in schools,- widiout any good disposition, "f How could the Lutherans imagine, diat amongst us so much was given to man, and at the same time so little? But both one and the other are very distant from our doctrine, inasmuch as the Council of Trent is quite full, on the one side, of the good sentiments by which we ou^t to dispose ourselves for baptism, for penance, and for communion, declaring even in express terms, ^ that the reception of grace is us for it, either proximatdy or remotely, fr(n the beginning of the vocation and the first horrors of a conscience shaken by fear, even to the most perfect act of charity, is the gift of God.";{;

operata"

True it is, we say with regard to infants, that by his infinite mercy baptism sanctifies them, though they co-operate not by any good motives to this great work ; but besides, that in this

. t Con£ Aug. Art xiii. etc.

oap.^.ri.Caii. 1, S,3. Sea&sv.ii

the merit of Jesus Christ, together with the efficacy of his blood, displays ite^, the ]^&eraiis themselves say as much; >they themselves confessing that ^* little children ought to be baptized; that baptism is necessary for ^ their salvation; and that by this acknowledgment of the force of the sacrament, of itself and by its own action effectual, *^tx opere operato^^^ in children? For I do not find that the Lu&erans consider themselvos bound to maintain with Luther, that children brought to baptism, produce therein an act of faith. They must &en necessarily sav with us, that the sacrament^ by which they become vegeneraled, ope, rates by its- own proper virtue.

efficacy in the adult, and operates in them ^ ex opere operalo^^* it is easy to comprehend that tlus is not admitted to exclude the necessary good dispositions in them, but only to show that what God wonts in us, when he sa&ctities us by the sacrament, is above all our merits, all our works, all our foregoing dispositions; in a word, the pure effect of his grace^ and of the infinite merifs of Jesus Christ.

grahdkms,

.. There is no merit thereforeof ours that obtains the remission of sins; and the Confession of Augsburg ought not to have assumed the glory of this doctrine, as if it were peculiar to itself j; since the Council of Trent equally acknowledged, ^^that we are said to be justified gratuitously, because all that precedes justification, whether faith or works, cannot merit this grace;" con- formably to what the Apostle says, '* if it be grace, it is not therefore works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."!

Here then is the remison of sins, and justification gratuitously and without merit, established in aa ex.press terms in the Cadiolic Church as it cotild posbly have been done in tho Confession of Augsburg.

^ugshurg Confession^ and by Luther, in the same sense ae Uis inthe Church*'

If afler the remission of sins, when the Holy Ghost dwells^ and charity reigns in us, and the soul is rendered agreeable by a gratuitous bounty, we acknowledge merit in our good works,, in the Geneva edition, printed after that of Wittenberg, which read that *' the new obedience is reputed a justice, and merits reward. '^ And yet more expressly, that ^^ although far distant

great praises, that they are necessary, and that thet msrit

be joined to God's g^fls, which it pfeserves in na; and that it MERITS their increase;"'f and praises this sajring of St. Austin,' ^that charily, wheti it i exercised, mcrits the increase of charity." Here then is our co-operation necessary in expresv terms, and its merit confirmed by the Confession of Augsburg^ Therefore they thua cooehide Ihis article: ** thereby good nea may understand what true good works are, and how they please God, and how thbt are meritorious.";]; Merit cannot be of Trent infost forth^ on this matter.

sentiments; fbr m his Gommentery on ik Epistle to the Galatians, he writes, that ^< where he jspeaks c^ justifying fiu^, he means that which works by eharity; for^^ says he, '* faith merits that the Holy Ghost be given ud. "§ He had just said, that with at Wittenberg^ in 1659 1 eo that twenty yc^ars afler Luther had that deserved correction*

9€. — The Jpologg asserts the Merit of Works, It must not then be a matter of surprise, if in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, this opinion be found so strongly grounded. Tliere Melancthon makes new efforts to explain 2ie subject of justification, as his letters testify, where he thus teaches, '^ that there are rewards proposed and promised tb the good works of the faithful, and that they cure meritorious^ not of forgiveness of sins or of justification, (which we have not otherwise than by faith,) but of other corporal and spiritual rewards in this life, and that to come ;" according to what St. Paul saith, " that each one shall receive his reward according to his works." [I And Melancthon is so full of this truth, that he confirms it anew in the answer to the objections by these words ; ^* We confess,, as we have oflen done already, that although justification and life eternal appertain to faith, gooil works, 1k)w- ever, merit other corporal and spiritual rewards, and different degrees of rewards, according to what St. Paul says, ' that each one shall be rewarded according to his labor :' for gospel justice

b^ing occupied about the promise of grace, gratuitously receives justification and life; but the fulfilling of the law, which pro* ceeds as the result of faith, is occupied about the law itself; and then ^ recompense, continues he, is offe&sd not gratuitously, .but according to wojrks, and it is dub; and accord- ing those WHO M SRIT this rewind are justified before th^y fulfil the law."*

Thus the merit of works is constantly recognized by those of the Augsburg Confession as a thing comprised in the notion of a reward, diere being nothing ind^d mora naturally united than merit on one side, when reward is promised and^proposed on the other.

And verily, what they rej^rdbend in Catholics is not their admission, of merit, w}[dch is also asserted by them, but is, says the Apology, " that, as often as merit is spoken of, they transfer it fi'Om oth^r rewmrds to justification."! If, then, we acknowl' edge no mierit but what follows and not precedes justificatioi*^ the difficulty will be removed; and it is the very tlung thjeit was dono at Trent by this decision^ ** that we are said to be gratu-. itously justified, because not any of those things, whether faith, or works, which precede justification, can merit it.";]; And again, **that our sins are gratuitously forgiven us, by the divine mercy, for the sake of Jesus Christ."§ Whence it follows, also, that the Council admits no merit, *^ but in regard to the augmentation of grace, and life eternal." II

denies thai good works mait etenud life.

As to the augmentation of grace, it was agreed to at Augsburg, as already seen; and for life eternal, true it is, Melanc- thon would not acknowledge it was merited by good works, since, according to him, they merited other recompenses only, which are promised to them in this life and the next. But when Melancthon spoke thus, he did not reflect what he had said in this same place, that it is ** eternal glory which is due to those who are justified," according to this saying of St Paul, ^' Those whom he hath justified, he hath glor&ed also."ir Again, he reflected not that eternal life is the true recompense promised by Jesus Christ to good works, conformably to that text of the Gospel cited by him in another place in support of merit, that those who shall obey the Gospel '* shall receive a hundred fold, in this world, and hfe everlasting in the next;"** where is seen, besides the hundred fold which shall be our recompense in this life, that life eternal is promised as our reward in the life to come: so that if merit. is grounded on the promise of a recompense, as Melancthon asserts, and with truth, nodiing is more merited than eternal life, though, in other respects, nothing more gratuitous, according to that excellent doctrine of St. NA-Ugustin, ^ Life eternal is due to the merrts of good works; hut the merits unto which it is due are gratuitously given us by our Lord Jesus Christ."*

It is also true, that what prevents Melancthon from absolutely holdiig eternal life as a recompense promised to good' works, is, that eternal life being always, in a certain manner, annexed to grace, it is without works given to little children, and would be given to the adult in case they were even surprised by death flie very moment they were justified, without their having had time to act afterwards; which prevents not, in another respect, the eternal kingdom, eternal glory, eternal life, from being promised as a reward to good works, and also from being mented, in the sense expressed by the Augsburg Confession.

of Augsburg,

What does it avail the Lutherans to have altered this Confession, and to have erased in their Book of Concord, and other editions, those passages which sanction merit 1 Can t)iey, by this act, prevent this confession of faith from having been printed at Wittenberg, under the eyes of Luther and Melancthon, with no contradiction from any of the party, and with all the passages we have cited? What other effect does the erasure of them produce, but to make us remark the force and importance of them? But to what purpose is it to erase the merit of good works in the Confession of Augsburg, whilst they themselves leave it as entire in the Apology, as Siey have caused it to be printed in their Book of Concord? Is it not certain the Apology was presented to Charles Y by the same princes and in the same diet as the Confession of Augsburg?^ But what is still more remarkable, it was present^, as &e Lu^rans confess, *• in order to preserve its true and proper sense;" J for BO it is worded in an authentic writings in which the Protestant princes and states declare their faith. * Therefore, it is not to be doubted but the merit of works is agreeable to the spirit of Lutheranism, and of the Confession of Augsburg, and it is unjustly that the Lutherans disturb the Church ^ Rome on this head.

I foresee, however, it maybe said they have not approved the

* Aug. ep. 105, num. 194 K. 19. De Conw. et Grat caji. 13. N. 41,

merit of works in the same sense as we do, for three reasons; — first, because they do not acknowledge with us, that the just man can and ought to fulfil the law; secondly, because for this very reason they do not admit that merit which is called of condignity, whereof all our books are full; thirdly, because they teach that the good works of man justified stand in need of the gratuitous acceptation of God in order to obtain for us eternal fife, which they will not allow that we admit. Here, it will be said, are three characters by which the doctrine of the Confession of Augsburg and of the Apology will stand separated eter- nally from ours. But these three characters subsist not, except by as many misrepresentations of our belief: for, in the first place, if we say. we ought to satisfy the law, the whole world agrees in it, since all agree we ought to love, and the Scripture pronounces that " love or charity is the fulfilling of the law."* There is even an express chapter in the Apology which bears this title: " Of love and the fulfilling of the Law."! And we ' have just seen in it, that '' the fulfilling of the law proceeds as the result of justification;" and this is there repeated in a hundred places, and cannot be called in question. But further, it is not true that we pretend, afler one is justified, he satisfies the law of God in full rigor; since, on the contrary, we are taught by the Council of Trent that we are daily under the necessity of saying, "Forgive us our trespasses. "J So that, however perfect our justice may be, there is always something God amends in it by his grace, renews by his holy spirit, supplies by his bounty.

As to the merit of condignity, besides that the Council of ' Trent has not made use of this term, the thing bears no difficulty, since, at the bottom, it is agreed upon, that after justifi- cation, that is, afler the person has become agreeable, and the Holy Ghost dwells, and charity reigns in him, the Scripture, attributes to him a kind of dignity: " They shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy."§ But the Council of Trent has clearly explained that all this worthiness proceeds from grace; and the Catholicfs have declared it to the Lutherans ever since the time of the Augsburg Confession, as appears from the history of David Chytreeus, and from that of George Cselestiui both Lutheran authors. |l Both these historians give an account of the confutation of tne Augsburg Confession made by the Catholics at the Emperor's command, when they declare, " that man cannot merit eternal life by his own proper strength, and without the grace of God, and that all Catholics confess our

works of themselves are not of any merit; but that the grace of God renders them worthy of life eternal."

32.— 7Ae merit of Ccngndty,

With re^d to the good works we perform before we are justified— because the person then is neither agreeable nor just, on the contrary, is accounted still as in sin, and an enemy — in this state he is incapable of any true merit; and the merit of congruity or seemliness which divines allow in him, is not, in their opinion, any true merit, but a merit improperly so called, which has no further signification, than that it is suitable to the Divine Goodness to have a regard to the sighs and tears which he himself has inspired into the sinner who begins to be converted.

The same must be answered with regard to alms which a sinner bestows to '* redeem his sins," according to the advice of Daniel;* and to that ** charity which covereth the multitude of sins," according to St. Peter;f and forgiveness promised by Jesus Christ himself to " those who forgive their brethren." J The Apology answers here, that Jesus Christ does not add " By doing alms, or by forgiving, one merits forgiveness, ex opere operator in virtue of this action, but in virtue of faith. "§ But who pretends otherwise 1 Who has ever said that good works, which please God, must not be done according to the spirit of faith, without which, as St. Paul says, " it is impossible to please God 1"|| Or who ever thought that these good works, and the faith which produces them, merited forgiveness of sins ex opere operaio^ and were capable of operating it of themselves X None so much as ever thought of employing this expression, ex opere operato, in the good works of the faithful; it was applied only to the Sacraments, which are nothing but instruments of God. It was employed to show that their action was divjine, all-powerful, and effectual of itself; and nothing but a calumny, or gross ignorance, could suppose that in Catholic doctrine, good works wrought, afler this manner, the forgiveness of sins, and justifying grace. God, who inspires them, has regard thereunto, of his bounty for the sake of Jesus Christ; not because we are worthy he should have a regard to them in order to justify us, but because it is worthy of him to look down with pity on humble hearts, and therein complete his own work. Such is the merit of congruity, which may be attributed to man even before he is justified. The thing, at bottom, is indisputable; and truly, if the term displeases, it is not used in the Council of Trent, even by the Church herself.

33. — The Mediation qf Jenu Chriet always necessary.

But although God looks with another eye on sinners already * Dan. iv f 1 Peter, iv, 8. | Luke vi. 37. § Reap, ad Arg. || Heb. so. 6.

justified, and the works which he then produces by his spirit dwelling in them tend more immediately to eternal life, it is not true, according to us, that a voluntary acceptation of them is not requisite on God's part, because all is here grounded, as says the Council of Trent, on the promise which '* God has made to us mercifully," that is, gratuitously, '* for the sake of Jesus Christ," * of giving eternal life to our good works, without which we could not promise ourselves so high a recompense. Thus, ndien in the Confession of Augsburg, and the Apology,f it is every where objected against us, that after justification we believe we have no further need of Jesus Christ's mediation, we cannot be more visibly calumniated; since, besides that it is through Jesus Christ alone we preserve the grace received, we stand in need of God's incessantly having a regard to that promise which he of his sole mercy, and by the blood of the Mediator, has made unto us in the new covenant

to us.

In a word, whatever the Lutheran doctrine has that is good, had not only been entire in the Church, but also had been much better explained, inasmuch as all false ideas were clearly removed from it. The truth of this assertion appears principally in the doctrine of imputed justice. The Lutherans imagined they had discovered something wonderful and peculiar to Uiemselves, when they said, *' God imputed to us the justice of Jesus Christ, who had perfectly satisfied for us, and rendered his merits ours." Yet the Scholastics, so much censured by them, were full of this doctrine. Who amongst us has not ever believed and taught that Jesus Christ superabundantly satisfied for men, and that the Eternal Father, contented with this satisfaction of his Son, dealt with us as favorably as if we ourselves had satisfied his justice 1 If this, be all that is understood, when the justice of Jesus Christ is said to be imputed to us, it is what no one doubted, nor should they have disturbed the whole world, nor taken on themselves the title of reformers, for so known and so avowed a doctrine. The Council of Trent did acknowledge, with sufficient fulness, that '' the merits of Jesus Christ, and of his passion," were rendered ours by justification, since it repeats so oflen, '* that by it they are communicated to us," and without it none can be justified.;];

are ail the same grace.

What Catholics, together with this council, understand, when, not satisfied with the simple imputation of tiie merits of Jesus Christ, they permit not that alone to be retied on, is, that God

himself is not satisfied with that only; but in order to apply those merits to us, he at the same time regenerates us, viviiies us, ren* ovates us, diffuses his holy spirit into us, which is the spirit of holiness, and by that means does sanctify us: and all this together in our doctrine makes up the justification of a sinner. This also was the doctrine of Luther and Melancthon.* Those subtle distinctions between justification and regeneration or sanctification, in which at present the whole nicety of the Prot estant doctrine is placed, were born afler them, and since the Confession of Augsburg. The Lutherans now acknowledge that these things were confounded by Luther and Melancthon, even in the Apology, so authentic a work of the whole party<% Luther, indeed, thus defines jusfifjdng faith: " True faith is the work of God in us, by which we are renovated, and bom again of God and the Holy Ghost. And this faith is that true justice which St. Paul calls the justice of God, and which God approves. "f By this, therefore, we are both justified and regenerated at the same time; and since the Holy Ghost, that is, God himself, acting in us, interposes in this work, it is no imputation out of us, as Protestants will now have it, but a work within us.

And as to the Apology, Melancthon repeats there in every page, '* that faith justifies and regenerates us, and brings to us the Holy Spirit." And a little after, that ^' it regenerates hearts, and brings forth a new life. "J And again, more clearly: " To be justified, is of unjust to be made just; and to be regenerated is to be declared and reputed just:" which shows tdat these two things concur together. Not the least appearance of the contrary is to be found in the Confession of Augsburg; and there is nobody but perceives how well those ideas which the Lutherans then had coincide with ours.

among the Smnts,

It seems as if they had separated farther on satisfactory works, and the austerities of a religious life; for tiiey reject them fre quentiy, as contrary to the doctrine of gratuitous justification. But, in reatity, they do not condemn them so severely as one might at first be induced to think; for not only St. Anthony, and the monks of the first ages, men of frightful austerity, but also of these latter days, St. Bernard, St. Dominic, and St. Francis, are numbered amongst the holy fathers in the Apology Their mode of life, far from being censured, is judged wordiy of the saints, " becausei" say they, " it prevented them not from believing themselves justified by faith for the love of Jesus Christ."§ A sentiment far removed from the excesses which we at this day

9*

JOS' THE HISTORY OF [BOOK

Witness in the new reformation, where they blush not to con demn St. Bernard, and rank St. Francis in the list of fools. True it is, afler having placed these groat men in the number of the holy fathers, the Apology -condemns the monks who followed them, upon the pretence that " they believed they merited the forgiveness of sins, grace, and justice, by these works, and did not receive it gratuitously."^ But the calumny is manifest, since the forgiveness of sins is purely gratuitous, and given through the merits of Jesus Christ alone.

And that it may not be supposed the merit which we attribute to these works of penance was then disapproved of by the defenders of the Augsburg Confession, they teach, in general, *'of works and afflictions, &at they do not merit justification, but other recompense; and of alms in particular, when they are done in the state of grace, that they merit many benefits from God; THAT THEV MITIGATE PAINS; that they merit that we should be assisted against the perils of sin and death."! What prevents their saying as much of fasting and other mortifications? is taught by all Catholics.

Calvinists have departed from the true ideas of justification, by saying, as we shall see, that baptism is not necessary for little children; that justice once received is liever lost, and, what is a consequence of this, tiiat it is preserved even in crime. But •the Lutherans, when* they saw these errors spring up among the Anabaptist sects, condemned them by these three articles of the Confession of Augsburg:

" That baptism is necessary to salvation, and that they condemn tiie Anabaptists who assert children may be saved without baptism, and out of the Church of Jesus Clmst"t

^ That they condemn the same Anabaptists, who deny the Holy Ghost may be lost afler a man is once justified."§

^ That those who fall into mortal sin are not just ; that we ought to resist evil inclinatioiis ; that those who, contrary to God's commandment, obey them, and act contrary to their coxiscience,

38. — The inconwtencies. of certainty ^ and of apecial faith, are not removed by the

^ugtburg Vonfestion.

One will be astonished to see so many articles of importance

/Alt Lcp, 12, § Art xl p. 13. || Art vi. p. 12. Cap. de bon. Oper. p. 21.

decided in the Augsburg Confession conformably to our senti* ments; and truly, when I consider what it is which they have discovered, that is particular, I see nothing but that special faith of which we spoke at the commencement of this work, and the infallible certainty of the forgiveness of sins which they will have it to produce in consciences. And, indeed, it must be acknowl*

' edged this is what they give us as the capital point of Luther's doctrine, the masterpiece of his reformation, and the strongest foundation of piety and comfort to the faithful. However, no remedy was discovered against that terrible difficulty we at first observed, — ^in being assured of the forgiveness of sin, without ever being able to be certain of the sincerity of repentance. For after all, let imputation be what it may, it is certain that Jesus Christ imputes his justice to none but those who are penitent, pentance have in itself whatever of worth, perfection, merit, there may be, or let it not, I have sufficiently explained myself before on the subject, and shall add no more upon this occasion. Let it be either condition, or disposition and preparation, or in a word what you please, it concerns me not, since, whatever it may be, it must be had, or there is no forgiveness. But, according to the principles of Luther, I can never be assured whether I have or have it not; since, according to him, I can never know whether my repentance be not an illusion, the vain conceit of my own self-love; nor whether the sin I believe rooted out of my heart, reign not there mor^ securely than ever, as it escapes my sight.

It is to no purpose to say with the Apology, '* that faith is incompatible with mortal sin;"* now I have faith; therefore, I have not mortal sin. For ibis from this springs all the difficulty, since it ought to be said on the contrary, ** Faith is incompatible with mortal sin." It is what the Lutherans have now just taught. Now I am not assured that I have not mortal sin; it is what we have proved by the doctrine of Luther:"f I

' am not, therefore, certain that I have faith. In effect, they exclaim in the Apology, '* Who loves- God sufficiently? Who fears him sufficiently? Who suffers with sufficient patience?" ought 1 Who believes sufficiently to be justified before God? And what follows in the Apology confirms this doubt; for it proceeds, " Who doubts not frequently whether it be God or chance that governs the world? Who doubts not frequently whether he shall be heard of God?"J Therefore, you doubt frequently of your own proper faith. How, then, are you as-

♦ Apol. Cap. de Justi£ 71—81. f Sup. Cook I. J A^l G&^<k J>as^C5\*

Biired of the forgiveness of your sins? You have not, therefore, this forgiveness; or else, contrary, to the dogma of Luther, you have it without being assured you have it: or, which is the height of blindness, you are assured of it without being assured of the sincerity of your faith, or of that of your repentance; and so the forgiveness of sins becomes independent of both one and the other. See to what this certainty conducts us — this groundwork, on which is wholly built the Confession of Augsburg, this fundamental dogma of Lutheranism.

acknowledged by the Cathdics shotdd give no trouble, nor disturb the repose of conscience.

Now what they oppose to us, namely, that by the uncertainty, wherein we leave afflicted consciences, we cast them into trouble, or even into despair, is not true; and to this, the Lutherans must agree, for this reason — because, however they may boast of the assurance they have of their justification, they dare not absolutely assure themselves of their perseverance, nor consequently of their eternal happiness. On the contrary, they condemn those who say, justice once received can never be iost.^ But by this loss, one forfeits all right he had, as a justified person, to eternal inheritance. Therefore, one is never certain of not losing this right, since he is not certain that he shall never lose that justice to which it la annexed. Yet he hopes, however, for this blessed inheritance. In this sweet hope he lives happy, according to St. Paul, " rejoicing in hope."| Therefore, exclusive of this last assurance, which prohibits all kind of doubt, one may enjoy as much repose as the state of this hfe permits.

is received therein.

Hence is seen what must be done in order to the acceptlmce eternal, belong to us in Jesus Christ; and not only to us in general, but also to us in particular. On the part of God, I acknowledge, there is no impediment to this ready and firm belief: heaven and earth shall pass away sooner than his promises fail us. But that we have no impediment, nothing to fear on our side, the terrible example of those who persevere not to tbe end, and who, according to the Lutherans, were not less justified than the elect themselves, evidently establishes the con- trary. Here, tiien, in a few words, is the whole doctrine of justification. Although, to nourish humihty in our heaits, we are always in fear as far as regards ourselves, with respect to God all things are made sure to us; so that our repose in this

life consists in a firm confidence in his paternal goodness, and in a perfect resignation to his high and incomprehensible will, togetiier with a profound adoration of this his impenetrable secret. As to the Confession of Strasburg, if we consider its doctrine, we shall see how much reason there was, at the Conference of Marpurg, to accuse those of Strasburg, and the Sacramentarians in general, of understanding nothing of the justification as expounded by Luther and the Lutherans: for this confession of faith says not a word either of justice by imputation, or of the required certainty thereof. On the contrary, it defines justification to be that by which, " of unjust we become just, and of wicked good and upright,"* without giving us any other idea of it. It adds, that it is gratuitous, and attributes it to faith; but to faith joined with charity, and fruitful in good works. Thus it says, with the Confession of Augsburg, '^that charity is the fulfilhng of the whole law, conformably to the doctrine of St. Paul:"t yet explains more strongly than Melancthon had done, how necessarily the law ought to be fulfilled, asserting ^^ that no- one can be completely saved, if he be not so guided by the spirit of Jesus Christ as not to fail in any of those good works, for the practising of which God has created us; and that it is so necessarythe law should be fulfilled, that heaven and earth shall sooner pass away than an abatement be made in the least tittle of the law, or in one single iota." No Catholic ever spoke more strongly of the accomplishment of the law than this Con fession. But, although this be the foundation of merit, Bucer spoke not a word of it there; though, elsewhere, he makes no difiiculty of acknowledging it in the sense of St. Au£;ustin, wluch is that of the Church.

42. — O/Merity according to Bveer.

Whilst we are on this subject, it may not be unnecessary to consider what were the opinions of this Doctor, one of the chief leaders of the second party of the new Reformation, in a solemn conference, where he expressed lus sentiments in these terms: — *' Whereas, God will judge each one according to his works, we must not deny that good works performed by the grace of Jesus Christ, and which he himself operates in his servants, do merit eternal Ufe; not, indeed, from their intrinsic worth, but from the acceptation and promise of God, and the covenant made with him; for it is to such works the Scripture promises the reward of eternal Ufe, which, in another respect, however, is a &vor, because these good works, to which a recompense is given, are the gifls of God."t This is what Bucer wrote in 1539, in the dispute of Leipsic, that it may not be supposed

these things were written at the beginning of the Reformation, before they had time for reflection. Conformably to this same principle, tl^ same Bucer decides, in another place, that it must not be denied but '' one may be justified by works, as St. James teaches, since God will render to each man according to his works." And he proceeds, — " The question is not op merits: we reject them not in any way,and even acknowledge that eternal life 18 MERITED according to this saying of our Saviour, ' He that shall leave ofi* all for the love of me, shall have a hundred fold in this life^ and, hereafler, life everlasting.' "^

43. — Bueer undertakes to defend the Prayers of the Church, atid shows in what

sense the merits of the Saints profit us:

The merits which every one may acquire for himself, and even with respect to eternal life,. cannot be more clearly acknowledged. But Bucer advanced still farther; and, whereas the Church was accused of attributing merits to Saints, not only for themselves, but for others also, he justified it by these words: — " With regard to the public prayers of the Church, called Collects, where mention is made of the prayers and merits of the Saints; whereas, in these same prayers, whatever is entreated in that way, is entreated of God and not of the Saints, and, moreover, is entreated through Jesus Christ, by this all those who make this prayer, acknowledge that all the merits of the Saints are gifls of God gratuitously granted." And, a little after, " For we, moreover, do confess and preach with joy, that God rewards the good works of his servants, not in themselves alone, but in those also for whom they pray, since he has promised he will do good to those who love him, to a thousand generations. "f Thus Bucer disputed for the Catholic Church, in 1646, at the Conference of Ratisbon; and, indeed, these prayers were made by the greatest men of the Church, and in the most enlightened ages; and St. Augustin himself, however great an enemy he was to presumptuous merit, acknowledged, however, that the merits ofihe Saints were useful to us, when he said, " one of the reasons for celebrating in the Church the memory of martyrs, was in order that we might be associated to their merits, and assisted by their prayers." J Thus, let what may be said, the doctrine of Christian justice, of its works, and its merits, was acknowledged by both parties of the new Reformation; and what has since raised so much difficulty, at that time made none at all, or at most, if it did, it was from this cause alone, — that frequently, in the Reformation, men were swayed by the spirit of contradiction.

44— Strange doctrine of the Confession of ^igshwrg on the Love qf Ood, I cannot here omit an odd doctrine of the Augsburg Confes-

* Reap, aid Abrinc. f Disp. Ratisb. % Lib. xx. contra Faust Manich. 31.

sion on justification; namely, that not only the love of God was not necessary for it, but necessarily supposes it already accom< plished. Luther had told us as much before; but Melancthon explains it at length in the Apology. ** It is impossible to love God," says he, ^ if, previously, one has not, by faith, the forgiveness of sins; for a heart that has a true feeling of an incensed Deity cannot love him — it must see him appeased; whilst he threatens, whilst he condemns, human nature cannot so far elevate itself as to love him in his wrath. It is an easy matter for idle contemplatives to imagine these dreams of the love of God that a man guilty of mortal sin may love him above all things; because they are not sensible what the wrath and judgment of God are; but a troubled conscience perceives the vanity of these philosophical speculations." From this he concludes every where — ** That it is impossible to love God, if, previously, one be not assured of forgiveness obtained."*

That we are justified, therefore, before we have the least spark of divine love, is one of the niceties of Luther's justification: for the whole tenor of the Apology is not only to establish that one is justified before he loves, but, also, that it is impossible to love unless he be justified previously; insomuch that pardon offered with so great bounty can gain nothing on our hearts — ^ we must have received it already to be capable of loving God. Not so speaks the Church in tiie Council of Trent: — " Man excited and assisted by grace," says this Council, " believes all that God has revealed, and all he has promised; and this he believes before ail things, that the impious man is justified by the grace, by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Conscious, then, to himself, that he is a sinner, from that justice by which he is alarmed, he turns himself towards the Divine mercy, which raises up his hope in the confidence he has that God will be propitious to him through Jesus Christ, and he begins to love him as the author of all justice,"! namely, as the gracious being who gratuitously justifies the impious. This love, so happily commenced, moves him to detest,his crimes; he receives tiie sacrament — ^he is justified. Charity is gratuitously diffused into his heart by the Holy Ghost; and having commenced to love God when he offered to him his grace, he loves him still more when he has received it.

But here is a new finesse of the Lutheran justification. St Augbstin, after St. Paul, establishes, that one of the differences of Christian justice from that of the law, is, that the justice of

Jtt8ti£ p. 81. f Sesa. vL cap. 6.

tian justice is inspired by the spirit of afiection and love. But the Apology expounds it in a different way; and that justice, to which the love of God is judged necessary, into which it enters, in which consists its purity and truth, is there throughout represented as the justice of works, the justice of reason, justice through its own proper merits; in a word, as the justice of the law, a Pharisaical justice. These were new ideas, with which Christianity was as yet unacquainted: a justice which the Holy Ghost infuses into our hearts, by infusing charity, is a Pharisaical justice, which cleanses but the exterior; a justice infused gratuitously into our hearts for the sake of Jesus Christ, is a justice of reason, a legal justice, a justice through works; and, powers, whereas it appears clearly from the Council of Trent, that we maintain a justice which has faith for its foundation, grace for its principal cause, the Holy Ghost for its author from its very beginning, even to the last perfection to which it can arrive in diis life.

I believe it now appears how necessary it was to give a clear that in an article which is considered by the Lutherans as the masterpiece of their Reformation, afler all nothing has been done except to calumniate us in some points, to justify us in othersi and even in those, when some dispute may still remain, evidentiy to leave us the advantage.

46. — The Lutherans achwwledge the Sacrament of Penanee, and Saeraimental

Besides this principal article, there are others in the Augsburg Confession or Apology, of the highest importance: for example, that ^' particular absolution ought to be retained in confession; that to reject it is an error of the Novatians, and a condemned error: that this absolution is a true sacrament, and properly so called; that the power of the keys remits sins, not only in the sight of the Church, but also in the sight of God."* As to their reproaching us with maintaining that *' tiiki sacrament conferred grace without any good motive on the part of him who receives it," I believe the reader is already tired with hearing a calumny already refuted so frequently.

As to what is taught in the same place, that confession being

retained, '' the enumeration of sins ought not to be exacted in

it, because the thing is impossible, according to these words

* Who is there that knoweth his ns V "f For sins that are not

/ Caa£ Aug. art zi. cap. de Coii£

known, this was indeed a good excuse, but no sufficient reason for not subjecting to the keys of the Church those that are known* And, truly, it must be candidly acknowledged, neither Luther nor the Lutherans difier in sentiments from us on this subject; since, in Luther's little Catechism, which is unanimously received by the whole party, we find these words: — ** In the sight of God we must hold ourselves guilty of our hidden sins; but^ with respect to the Minister, we must confess those only which are known to us, and which we feel within our hearts/'^ And, the better to discover the Lutheran conformity with us in the administration of this sacrament, it will not be irrelevant to con- sider the absolution, which, as the same Luther, in the samo place, sets its down, the confessor gives the penitent, afler confession, in thesp terms: — ^" Do you not believe that my forgive- ness is that of God?" " Yes!" answers the penitent. "And I," replies the confessor, " by the orders of our Lord Jesus Christ, forgive you your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of die Holy Ghost, "t

For the number of sacraments, the Apology teaches us that Baptism, the Supper, and Absolution are three true sacraments. Here is a fourth, since " No difficulty ought to be made of admitting Orders into this rank, by taking it for the ministry of the word, because it is commanded of God, and has great promises.";]; Confirmation and Extreme Unction are specified as ** ceremonies received by the fathers," which, however, have not an express promise of grace. I know nat, then, what can be the meaning of these words of St. James's epistle concerning the unction of the sick: " If he be in sin, it shall be forgiven him;"§ but the thing was, perhaps, that Luther had no opinion of this epistle, though th Church had never called it in question. This daring Reformer cut off from the canon of Scriptures whatever did not accord with his opinions; and it is on account of this Unction that he writes, in his Captivity of Babylon, without the least testimony of antiquity, " that this epistle seems not to be St. James's, nor worthy of the apostolic spirit." ||

As for Marriage, those of the Augsburg Confession acknowledge its divine institution, its promises too, yet temporal; as if it were a temporal concern to bring up in the Church the children of God, and to save one's own soul in thus taking care of them;ir or that one of the fruits of Christian matrimony were not to provide that the children bom in it be named saints, as destined to sanctity.**

IT 1 Tim. ii, 15. ** 1 Cor. vii. 14

But the Apology, at bottom, seems not much to oppose our doctrine concerning the number of the sacraments, " provided," whole Pontifical kingdom, be rejected, that the sacraments operate grace without any good motion of him that receives them."* For they are never tired with making us this unjust reproach. It is there they place the whole stress of the question; that is, were it not for the false ideas of our adversaries, scarcely any difficulty would remain about it.

Luther had expressed himself in a revolting manner against monastic vows, even to say on that of Continency, (stop your ears, chaste souls!) that '^ it was as impossible for one to keep it as to divest himself of his sex.""!* Modesty would be offended shou4d I repeat the words he, in many places, makes' use of on this subject; and to see how he delivers himself on the impossibility of continence. For my own part, I know not what will become of that tife he says he led without reproach^ during the whole time of his celibacy, aiid to the forty-fiflh year of his age. Be this as it may, all is softened in the Apology, since not only St. Anthony and St. Bernard, but also St. Dominic and St. Francis, are there numbered among the saints; and all that is required from their disciples is, that, afler their example, they seek-the forgiveness of their sins from the gratuitous bounty of God, which the Church has too well provided for to fear any reproach on that head.;]l

10.— St. Bernard, St^Francis, St. Bonaventnre, plaeed by Luther amongst the

This place of the Apology merits attention, those of the latter ages being there placed on the list of saints, so that the Church which brought them forth and nourished them at her breast, is acknowledged for the True Church. Luther could not refuse this glorious title to these great men. He enumerates every where among the saints, not St. Bernard only, but also St. Francis, St. Bonaventure, and others of the thirteenth century. St. Francis, above all, seemed to him an admirable man, and animated with a wonderful fervor of spirit. He carries down his praises as far as Gerson, the same that, in the Council of Constance, had condemned Wickhffe and John Huss, and calls him ^^ a great man in every respect."§ Thus the Church of Rome was still the mother of saints in the fifteenth century. There is but St. Thomas of Aquin of whom Luther would doubt; for what reason I know not, imless it were that this saint was a

Moo. p. 281. § Thess. 1522.tl a 377, adv. Paris Theoloeast t ii. p. 193. do abrog. Miss. piiv. prima Tract. Ibid. 858, 259, de Vot Mon. Ibid. 271, 278.

Dominican, and Luther could not forget the sharp disputes ho had held with that order. Whatever it might be, *' he knows not," so he says, *^ if Thomas be danmed or saved:"* though, doubtless, he made no other kind of vows than die other religious, had said no other mass, and had taught no other faith.

To return to the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, even the article of the Mass is passed over there so lightly, that it can scarcely be perceived that Protestants designed any change in it They commence by complaining of the '^ unjust reproach against tiiem of abolishing the mass." — ''It is celebrated,? say they, '' amongst us with extreme reverence, and in it are preserved almost all the ordinary ceremonies. "I In reality, when, in 1523, Luther reformed the mass, and drew up lus formula,! scarcely any thing was altered by him that struck the eyes of the people. The Introit was there retained, the Eyrie, the Collect, the Epistle, the Gospel, with the wax candles and incense, if they pleased; the Credo, the Preaching, the Prayers, the Preface, the Sanctus, the Words of Consecration, the Elevation, the Lord's Prayer, the Agnus Dei, the Communion, the Thanksgiving* Such is the order of the Lutheran mass, which exteriorly appeared little different from ours; moreover, the singing was retained, and even in Latin: and this is what was said of it in the Confession of Augsburg, — " Together with the chanting in Latin, are mingled prayers in the German tongue, for the instruction of the people. In this mass we see the altar io retain them, as appeared from their practice, and the conferences then held."§ What is still more, nothing was said in the Augsburg Confession against the oblation; on the contrary, it is insinuated in this passage cited from the tripartite history: — ** In the city of Alexandria they assemble together on Wednesday and Friday, and the whole service is then performed, except the solenm oblation." || The reason was, they were unwilling to discover to the people that they had made any alteration in the public service. To judge by the Augsburg Confession alone, it might seem that masses only, wi£out communicants, were objected to, " which were abolished," said they, " because they were scarcely ever celebrated but for lucre;"ir so that, on considering merely the terms of the Confession, one would have said that nothing except the abuse was the object of attack.

52. — The Oblation, how taken away.

Meanwhile, those words, in which there is mention of the

oblation made to God of the proposed gifts, were cut off from

* Pnef. adv. Latom. Ibid. 243. f Cap. de Misa. { Form. Miss, t U. S Chyt Hist Con£ Aug. U Cqii£ Aug. cap. de Mi99t il^icl IT JM*

the canon of the mass. But the people, always struck exteriorly with the same objects, attended not to it at the commencement; and to render, however, this change supportable to them, it was insinuated that '* the canon was not the same in all churches; and even among the Latins, that of Milan from that of Rome."* This was done to amuse the ignorant; but they did not think proper to acquaint them that these canons or liturgies had none other than accidental differences; that all the liturgies agreed unanimously as to the oblation, which was made to God of the proposed gifls before they were distributed; and this is what they changed in practice, without daring to acknowledge as much in ihe public Confession.

But, in order to render this oblation odious, they would pretend to make the Church believe she attributed to it ''a merit of remitting sins, without the necessity of bringing to it either faith or any good motive;" which was repeated three times in the Confession of Augsburg, and they omitted not in the Apology to inculcate the same — ^insinuating tiiat Catholics admitted the mass for no other reson than to extinguish piety.

In the Confession of Augsburg they even attribute to the Catholics this strange doctrine, *^ That Jesus Christ had satisfied for original sin in his passion, and had instituted the mass for mortal and venial sins, which were committed every day;"t as if Jesus Christ had not equally satisfied for all sins; and, by way of a necessary elucidation, they added, that Jesus Christ had offered himself to bear the cross, *^ not for original sin only, but for all others too,"J a truth of which none ever doubted. It is not a matter of surprise that the Catholics, as Lutherans themselves relate, on hearing this reproach, all, as if with one common voice, cried out against it, saying: " That never had duch a thing been heard among them."§ But the people were to be made believe that these wretched Papists were even ignorant of the first elements of Christianity.

Now, whereas the faithful, at all times, had the oblation made for the dead deeply impressed upon their minds, the Protestants would not seem to be ignorant of, or conceal a thing so well known, and in the Apology spoke of it in these terms — ^* With regard to what is objected against us concerning oblation for the dead having been practised by the Fathers, we acknowledge that

they prayed for the dead, and we prevent none from now DOING IT; but we do not approve of the application of the Lord's Here every thing abounds with artifice: for, in the i&rst place, whilst they say tiiey do not prevent this prayer, they had it cut off from the panon, and by so doing defaced a practice as ancient and their answer is concerning prayer, not daring to let the people see that antiquity had offered for the dead; because that was too convincing a proof that the Eucharist was profitable even to those who received not the communion.

But the following words of the Apology are remarkable: " Unjustly do our adversaries reproach us with the condemnation of Aerius, whom they will have condemned for denying that the mass was to be offered for the living and the dead. This is their custom — ^to oppose the ancient heretics against us, and to compare our doctrine with theirs. St. Epiphanius declares, that Aerius taught that prayers for the dead were unprofitable. We support not Aerius, but dispute against you — ^who say, contrary to the doctrine of the Prophets, of the Apostles and Fathers, that the mass justifies men in virtue of the action, and merits the forgiveness for sinners, to whom it is applied, of the guilt and pain, provided they put no obstacle to it."! Thus is an imposition practised upon the ignorant. If it were not the intention of the Lutherans to maint|un Aerius, why do they main- tain this particular dogma, which this Arian heretic had added to the Arian heresy — -" That we ought not to pray or offer up oblations for the dead V^X This is what St. Augustin relates of Aerius afler St. Epiphanius, of whom he had given an epitome. If they reject Aerius, if they dare not support a heretic condemned by the holy Fathers, diey ought to replace in the Liturgy, not only prayer, but also the oblation for the dead.

56. — How the (Motion of the Euchariat is profitdbte to the whole world. But here is the great subject of complaint in the Apology : namely, say they, that St. Epiphanius, by condemning Aerius, did not assert as you do, " That the mass justifies men in virtue of the action, ex opere operato^ and merits for the wicked to whom it is applied, the forgiveness of the guilt and the p8un, provided they put no obstacle thereto." To hear them speak, one would say, tiiat the mass of itself was to justify all kind of sinners for whom it is said, without their so much as thinking of it. But where is the advantage of thus deceiving men 1 The manner, say we, by which the mass is profitable, even to those who

think not of it, even the most wicked, contains no difficulty at all. It b profitable to them like prayer, which certainly we suppose it could obtam of God that grace which would overcome their obduracy of heart, if they did not resist it, and which often obtains it so abundantly as to prevent their resistance. It is thus the oblation of the Eucharist is profitable to the absent, the dead, and even sinners themselves; because, in reality^, the consecration of the Eucharist, placing before the eyes of God so agreeable an object as the Body and Blood of his Son, carries with it a most powerful manner of intercession, which, how- ever, sinful men too often render useless by the impediment which they oppose to its efficacy.

What could be offensive in this manner* of explaining the effect of the mass ] As for those who converted so pure a doc- trine to sordid gain, Protestants know very well the Church did not ^prove of them; and for masses without communicants, the Catholics told them ever since that time, what since has been confirmed at Trent, that, if none communicate at it, it is not the fault of the Church; '^ since, on the contrary, she wished the assistants would communicate at the mass they hear;"* so that the Church resembles a rich benefactor, who always keeps an open table, and ready served, although the guests come not to it.

The whole artifice of the Augsburg Confession, concerning the mass, is now seen: it consists in scarcely touchmg the exterior; in changing the interior, even what was most ancientf without apprising the people of the alteration; in accusing Cath^ olics of the grossest errors — even so as to make them say, contrary to their own principles, that " the mass justified the sinner," (a thing always reserved to the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,) and that too without any good motive, in order to make the Church and her Liturgy more odious.

57. — *d horrible calumny^ groundtd on Prayers made to Saints,

They were not less industrious in disfiguring the other parts of our doctrine, and particularly that of prayer to the saints. " There are those," says the Apology, " who attribute downright divinity to the saints, by saying, they see in us the hidden thoughts*!* of our hearts." Where are those divines, who attribute to saints the seeing of the hidden secrets of hearts like to God, or seeing them otherwise than by that light he imparts to them, as, when he pleased, he did to the Prophets? " They make the saints," said they, " not only intercessors, but also the MEDIATORS OF REDEMPTION. They deviscd that Jesus Christ was more difficult, and the saints more easy, to be appeased; they confide more in the mercy of the saints, than, in that of Jesus Christ; and, flying from Jesus Christ, they seek the saints."* It is unnecessary to justify the Church from these abominahle excesses. But to remove all doubt that this they, " of popular abuses; we speak of Uie opinion of doctors." And a little afler, " they exhort to confide more in the mercy of the saints than in that of Jesus Christ. They enjoin to trust in the merits of the saints, as if we were reputed just by reason of their merits, as we are reputed just by reason of the merits of Jesus Christ" Afler imputing such excesses to us, they say that the merits of the saints are applied to us."! A little equity would have enabled them to see in what manner the merits of the saints are useful to us; and Bucer himself, an unsuspected author, has sufficiently vindicated us from the reproach which they objected to us on that head.

68. — Calumnies regarding Images^ and a gross imposture with respect to

Invocation of Saints,

But their object was to exasperate and irritate the minds of

men ; and, therefore, they further add, " From the invocation

of saints they proceed to images. They honored them, and

make us believe there is in the images of the constellations when

they are made at a certain time."J Thus they excited the

public hatred. It must be acknowledged, however, that the

Confession of Augsburg proceeded not to this extremity ; and

that these images were not so much as mentioned in it. To

satisfy the party, something more severe must be said in the

Apology. Particular care, however, was taken not to let the

people see that these prayers, addressed to the saints, that they

might pray for us, were common in the ancient Church. On

the contrary, they spoke of it as "a new custom, introduced

without the testimony of the Fathers, and of which nothing had

been seen before St. Gregory, that is, before the seventh ceatury."§ The people were not yet accustomed to despise the

timorous, reverenced the great names of the Fathers. But now

it assumed boldness, and knew not how to blush ; insomuch that

they have conceded to us the fourth century, and are not

ashamed to assure us that St. Basil, Si. Ambrose, St. Angustin, in a word, all the Fathers of this so venerable an age,

have, with the invocation of saints, set up, in the new idolatry,

tlie reign of Antichrist.

* Ad Art. zxi. cap. de Invoc f Ibid. I Ibid. 229. ^ Ibid.

Then, and during the time of the Augsburg Confession, the Protestants boasted, that they had on their side the holy Fathers, chiefly in the article of justification, which they esteemed most essential; and they not only pretended the ancient Church was for them, but thus concluded the exposition of their doctrine. ^ Such is the abridgment of our faith, where nothing will be seen contrary to Scripture, nor to the Catholic Church, nor even to THE Church of Rome, as far as she can be known from her writers.* The matter which is the subject of dispute regards some few abuses, which, without any certain authority, have been introduced into the Churches; and though there should be some difference, it ought to be tolerated, since it is not necessary that Church rites should be every where the same."")*

In another edition are read these words: ** We despise ijot it is not irregular passions, but the authority of God's word, and OF THE ANCIENT Church, that has moved us to embrace thijs doctrine, in order to increase the glory of God, and provide for the advantage of pious souls in the Universal Church. "J

Also in the Apology, aflerthe exposition of the article of Justification, considered without comparison the most important, they said, " That it was the doctrine of the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers, of St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, and the greatest part of the other Fathers, and of the whole Church, who acknowledged Jesus Christ for propitiator, and author of justification; and that all which was approved by the Pope, some cardinals, bishops, divines, or monks, was not to be taken for the doctrine of the Church of Rome:"§ whereby particular opinions were manifestly distinguished from the received and con- stant doctrine, with which they professed not to interfere.

60. — Memorable words qf Luther^ acknowledging the true Chvrch in the

The people, therefore, still believed they followed in every thing the sentiments of the Fathers, the authority of the Catholic Church, and even that of the Church of Rome, a veneration for which was deeply imprinted upon all minds. Even Luther himself, however arrogant and rebellious, returned at times to his good sense, and manifested plainly, that the ancient veneration, which he had formerly entertained for the Church, was not wholly extinguished. About the year 1534, so many years since his revolt, and four years after the Confession of Augsburg, was

published his treatise for abolishing the Private Mass. It is the same in which he relates his famous conference with the prince of darkness.* There, though so much incensed against the Catholic Church, even so far as to hold it for the seat of Anti* christ and abomination, so far from taking from it the title of Church, on that account, he concluded, on the contrary, ** That she was the true Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the most holy place. In this Church," continued he, '* God miraculously preserves baptism, the text of the Gospel in all languages, the remission of sins, and absolution as well in Confession as in public; the Sacrament of the altar towards Easter, and three or four times a year, though one kind has been taken away from the people; the vocation and ordination of pastors, comfort in the agony of death; the image of the crucifix, and at the same time Sie remembrance of the death and passion of Jesus Christ: the Psalter, Lord's Prayer, the Symbol, die Decalogue, and many pious canticles in Latin and German." And a little after: — " Where the true relics of saints are to be found, there, without doubt, has been, and still is, the Holy Church of Jesus Christ; there the saints have dwelt; for the institutions and sacraments of Jesus Christ are there, excepting one kind that has been forcibly taken away. For which reason it is certain, Jesus Christ has been there present, and his Holy Spirit there does preserve his true knowledge, and the true faith in his elect." Far from looking on the cross put into the hands of dying persons as an object of idolatry, he, on the contrary, holds it ^r a monument of piety, and a wholesome admonition, that recalled to our minds the death and passion of Jesus Christ. As yet, the revolt had not extinguished in his heart those good remnants of the piety and doctrine of the Church; nor am I surprised that, in the frontispiece of all the volumes of his works, he is represented,

Bh^Both kinds.

As to what he says of taking away one kind, the Reformation found itself very much embarrassed about this article, and this is what was said of it in the Apology: ^* We excuse the Church, which, not being able to receive both kinds, has suffered, this injury; but we excuse not the authors of this prohibition."'}'

To comprehend the mystery of this part of the Apology, but few words are necessary. Its author, Melancthon, writes to Luther, consulting him on this subject, whilst the Cadiolics and Protestants were disputing it at Augsburg. * Eckius beheved," said he, ** that communion under one or both kinds should be bald for indifierent. Which I would not allow; and yet I ex-

* Tr. de Misaa, t vil p. 236, et seq. f Cap. de utriusque Spede, p.835

cused those who hitherto, through error, had received but one ; for they exclaimed, we condemned the whole Church*"*

They durst not then condemn the whole Church: they abhorred the very thought; which led Melancthon to this pure expedient of excusing the Church in an error. What more could those who condemn her say, since the error here meant, is supposed to be an error in faith, and an error tending even to the entire subversion of so great a sacrament as that of the Eucharist 1 But no other mefiiod was to be found: Luther approved it; and the better to excuse the Church, which communicated under one kind only, he joined the violence she suffered from her pastors in that point, to the error into which she was led: thus she was admirably excused, and by this method the promises of Jesus Christnevertoabandonher were excellently well preserved.

The words of Luther in reply to Melancthon merit observation: " They cry out, that we condemn the whole Church." The whole world was astonished at this. '^ But," answers Luther, " we say that the Church being oppressed and deprived by violence of one kind, ought to be excused; as we excuse the synagogue in not having observed all the ceremonies of the law duringthecaptivity of Babylon, when she had itnot in her power, "f

The example was unhappily cited; for certainly those who detained the synagogue captive were not of her body, as the pastors of the Church, whom they here represented as her oppressors, were of the body of the Church. Again, the synagogue, though externally under control as to its observances, was not on that account drawn into error, as Melancthon maintained the Church had been, in being deprived of one kind: but, in short, the article passed. Lesit they should condemn the Church, it was agreed to excuse her, as to the error she had been in, and the injury which had been done her; and the whole party subscribed to this answer of the Apolgy.

All this but little coincided with the seventh article of the Augsburg Confession, where it is declared, " That there is one Holy Church, which shall remain for ever. Now the Church is the assembly of the Saints, where the Gospel is taught, and the sacraments rightly administered. "J To salve this idea of the Church, not only the people- were to be excused, but the sacraments also were to be well administered by the pastors; and if that of the Eucharist did not subsist under one kind alone, no longer could the Church herself be made to subsist.

62. — The body of the Lutherans svbmit themsebtet in the Jiugtbvarg Omftuion

The difficulty in condemning the doctrine of the Church was

} Coii£ Aug. Art vii.

hot less pressing, and this was the reason that the Protestants durst not acknowledge, that their confession of faith was oppo have just seen, that they were not distinguished but by certain rites and some slight observances. And, moreover, to show they always pretended to make one body with her, they openly submitted to her council.

This appears in the Preface of the Confession of Augsburg, addressed to Charles Y. '* Your imperial majesty has declared, that you could determine nothing in this affair, wherein religion was concerned, but would have recourse to the Pope, to procure the convention of an universal council. You repeated the same declaration in the last year in the last diet held at Spire, and manifested that you persisted in the resolution of procuring this, assembly of a general council: adding that the affairs between you and the Pope being concluded, you believed he might easily be induced to call a general council." By this it is seen what council it was, of which there was question. It was a general council, to be assembled by the Pope, and the Protestants submitted themselves to it in diese terms: *^ If matters of religion cannot be amicably arranged with our parties, we offer in cdl obedience to your imperial majesty, to appear and plead our own cause before such a general, free, and Christian council." And, finally, " It is to this general council, and to your imperial majesty conjointly, that we have and do appeal, and we adhere to this appeal."* When they spoke in this maimer, it was not their intention to give the emperor authority to pronounce on the articles of faith: but upon appealing to tiie coun- cil, they also named the emperor in their appeal as the person who was to procure the convocation of this holy assembly, and whom they solicited to retain in the meantime all things in suspense. So solemn a declaration will remain for ever upon record in the most authentic act the Lutherans have ever made, and in the very front of the Augsburg Confession, in testimony against them, and in acknowledgment of the inviolable authority of the Church. All then submitted to it, and whatever might be done before her decision arrived, was ail provisional. With this specious appearance they retained the people, and perhaps even deceived themselves. They involved themselves still further, however, and the horror they had for schism diminished daily. Afler they had been accustomed to it, and the party had gained strength by treaties and leagues, the Church was forgotten; all they had said of her holy authority vanished like a dream, and the title '* of a free and Christian Council,"" used by them, became a pretext to render their calling for a council illusorj, as will be seen hereafter.

Lutherans,

This is the history of the Augsburg Confession and of its Apology. We see the Lutherans would relinquish many things, and almost all, I dare say, should they only take the trouble to lay aside the calumnies with which they there charge us, and comprehend fully the dogmas in which they are so visibly conform- able to our doctrine. If they had been advised by Melancthon, they would have drawn still nearer to Catholics, for he spoke not all he wished; and whilst he was laboring at the Confession of Augsburg, he, himself, writing to Luther, concerning the Articles of Faith, which he entreated him to revise, " They must," says he, ^^ be often changed, and fitted to the occasion."* Thus did they patch up this famous Confession of Fcuth, which is the foundation of the Protestant religion; and thus wore the dogmas therein treated. Melancthon was not permitted to soflen matters as he wished: — " I changed something," says he, " every day, and changed again, and should have changed much more if our companions would have suffered me."! *' But," proceeded he, ** they are concerned at nothing;" the meaning was, as he explained it every where, that, witi^out foreseeing what might happen, they thought of nothing but carrying all to extremities; for which reason Melancthon, as he acknowledges himself, *' was always oppressed with cruel anxieties, endless cares, and insupportable regrets.";]; Luther held him under greater restraints than all the rest together. We see, in the letters which he wrote that he even refused to read his letter. "§ Express messengers were sent to him in vain; they returned without an answer; and under thes^ restraints the unfortunate Melancthon, who did alt he could to check the impetuosity of his master, and of the party, always weeping and sighing, wrote the Confession of Augsburg.

BOOK IV.

[FR>m the year 1-530 to 1537.]

A. brief fiummary. — ^Tke Protestant Leagaes, and the resolution of taking up arms warranted by Luther. — ^Melanct£>n*s embarrassment upon these new the L-utherans. — ^They arc equally rejected by Zuinglius and Luther.^- on that foundation. — ^Whilst they are returning to the opinion of Luther, Mdancthon begins to doubt of it, however subscribes every thing required iy Lvlfaer. — The Articles of Smalkald, and Luther's new explication of the Real Presence. — M^lancthon's limitation of the Article which regards the Pope.

Rigorous was^ the decree of the Diet of Augsburg against Protestants. As the Emperor then set up a kind of defensive

^ league with all the Cstholic states against the new religion* the Protectants, on their part, resolved more than ever to unite among themselves. But the division regarding the Lord's Supper, obstacle to the reunion of the whole party. The Landgrave, in no way scrupulous, made his treaty with those of Basil, Zuricht and Strasburg. But Luther would not hear it mentioned; and the Elector, John Frederick, persisted in the resolution of makf ing no league with them: in order, therefore, to settle this matter, the Landgrave despatched Bucer, the great negotiator of those times in matters of religion, who, by his orders, had an interview with Zuinglius and Luther.*

At this time a little pamphlet of Luihei^s put all Grermany in a ferment We have seen that the great success of his doctrine had made him believe that the Church of Rome was going to fall of itself; and he then maintained strongly that arms ought not to be employed in the cause bf the Gospel, not even to delend themselves against oppression. f The Lutherans agree, that nothing was more inculcated in his writings than this maxim.

.He was desirous of giving his new church £is beautiful character of primitive Christianity; but he could not adhere to it long. Immediately afler the Diet,^; and while Protestants were labor-, ing to form ihe league of Smalkald, Luther declared, that although he had constantly taught hitherto, *4t was not allowable to resist lawful powers, at present he referred to the lawyers, to >Khose

0ttch bad times one might be brought to extremity, when not only the civil law, but conscience also, would oblige the Faithful to take up arms, and associate themselves against all those who should make war ujpon them, even against the Emperor."* The .letter, which Luther had written against George, Duke of Sax* '&em as at an end ; but that was a letter written to a private individual only. Here, however, is a public writing, by which If we credit Melancthon, Luther had not been consulted par^ ^ularly about &e leagues ; the affair was somewhat palliated to him, and this writing came forth without his knowledge. But Was expressly consulted ; nor is it found that his writing was {>ublished by any but himself, and truly who would have dared to do it widiout his orders ?t This writing set all Germany in a flame. Melancthon complained of it, but in vain. *^ To what ^ purpose," says he, " was the circulation of this writing" throu^- Out all Germany ? Ought the alarm to have thus been sounded to excite all die towns to make confederacies ?"§ It was with difficulty he was brought to renounce that beautiful idea of ref^ ormation Luther had instilled into him, and which he had so Well maintained, when he wrote to the Landgrave, " That it was better to suffer everything than to take up arms in the cause of the Gospel. "II He had said as much about the leagues the Protestants were treating about, and which he had endeavored to prevent, as far as he was able, at the time of the Diet of Spire, to which he had been conducted by his Prince, the Elector of Saxony. ♦* It is my opinion," said he, " Aat all good men ought to oppose these leagues :"ir but in such a party these fine sentiments could not be supportecl. When it was seen that proph- ecies went on too slowly, and Lu&er's blast was too weak to cast down this so much detested Papacy, instead of entering into themselves, they permitted themselves to be carried away by the most violent measures. At length Melancthon hesitated, but not without exti*eme reluctance : nay, the agitation he showed while these confederacies were forming excites compassion : he writes to his friend Camerarius, ** We are no longer consulted about the question — ^whether or not it be lawful to defend ourselves by

be ciq>able of any enterpiise. Strange are the aberrafioiis of men, and their ignorance extreme! None are touched with this. Baying — *Be not solicitons, for your heavenly Father knowe& what is needful for you.' Man believes not himself secure \a^ less he has good and secure supports. In this weakness of minds our theological maxims could never make themselves be heard."* Then he ought to have opened his eyes, and seen that the new Reformation, incapable of maintaining the maxims of the Gospel, was not what he imagined it to be until then. But let us attend to the following part of the letter: ** I will not," says he, ** condemn any person; neither do I believe the precautions of our people ought to be blamed, provided that they do nothing that is criminal, which we shall well know how to provide against" No doubt these Doctors knew perfectly well how to withhold armed soldiers^ how to set bounds to the ambition of princes, after they have engaged them in a civil war. Alas! if this war itself was a crime, according to the maxims h^ the course of this war? But he durst not admit his party to b^ in the wrong; and after he was unable to frustrate their resolutions to a war, he found himself under the obligation of supports ing them by arguments. This caused him to mgh. ** Oh!" says he, ^ how well did I foresee, at Augsburg, all these commotions!" It was then he so bitterly lamented the transports of his friends, who pushed all to extremities, and were, said he, *^ concerned at nothing." For this he wept incessantly; nor eould- Luther, with all the letters he wrote, give him relief. His grief increased when he saw so many projects of leagues warmnted by Luther himself. But, ** in conclusion, my dear Cam- eiarius," thus he finishes his letter, *this thesis is wholly singular, •nd may be considered several ways, for which reason we must pray to 6od."t

His friend Camerarius, in his heart, approved no -more than be of these warlike preparations; and Melancthon did alwa3rs 'whm he c>>uld to support him. Above all, Luther was to be excused. A few days after the above letter, he acquaints the same Camerarius, ** That Luther had written extremely moderately, and it was with great difficulty they had extorted his determination from him. I believe," says he, *' you see completely we are not in error. In my opinion, we ought to give ourselves no more concern abont these same leagues; and, truly, such is the present conjuncture, that, in mj opinion, we ought not to condemn them. So let us again pray to God."|

V eiy right ; but God holds in derision pravers made to him 19 deprecation of public calamities, when we do not oppose such

proceedings as bring them on us. What do I my? When wc approve, when we subscribe to them, though with reluctance. Melancthcm was sensible of this; and troubled, as wel> for what he himself, as what others did, entreats his friend to comfort and support him, ** Write to me often," thus he ^)eaks i ** I have np ease but from jour lettcrs^r"

This, then, was a point determined in the new Refonnafion^ that it was lawful to ^e up arms, and necessary to join in leagues. At this period Bucer entered upon his negotiations with Luther; and whether it was that he found hua inelined league, or that by some other means he was able to meet him immediately to obtain the adhesion of Zuinglius; but the negotiation was interrupted by the war that intervened between the Catholic and Protestant cantons. The latter,. though stionger, were vanquished; Zuinglius was killed in ba4;tle,andmanifested9 that however warm a disputant, he was no lesa bold a combat-v ^t. The party found it difficult to defend, in a pastor of souls, this unbecoming bravery, and the excuse was, that he followed that of ia. soldier;* but, after aU,. it was certain that he had advanced far into the hottest of the engagemeirt,. afid died sword in hand. His death was followed by that of (Ecolampadius. Luther says he was beaten to death by the devil, whose assault be was unable to resist; j" and others, that he died of grief^ being unable to support the anguish which so many troufale brought upon hinu In Germany, the peace of Naremberg moderated the rigots of the decree of the Diet of Augsbuig ^ by Catholics or Lutherans; and the Elector, Joha Frederick*' obstinately refused to admit them into the league unt^ they should have agreed with Luther in the article of Sie Real Presence. Bucer, not desponding, pursued his object* and, by all ^ possible ways, labored to surmount this only obstacle to the re* * union of the party. To persuade either party was deemed inw possible,and ahready fruitlessly attempted at Marpuig. A mutual toleration* each one retaining his own sentiments, had been re* jected there by Luther wi£ contpn^t* who persisted to say* with Melancthon* that this would be injurious to the truth* whidi. he defended. No other method was left for Bucer* but to have, recourse to equivocation, and to acknowledge the substantial presence so as to leave himself a way of escaping.

The plan he adopted to effect so considerable a concession is surprising. It was an ordinary discourse with the Sacramentarians, that they ought to be cautious not to place simple signs in the sacraments, Zuinglius himself had made no difficulty of acknowledging something more in them; and, to verify his words, some promise of grace annexed to the sacraments was sufficient. The example of baptism sufficiently proved this. But, whereas the Eucharist was not only instituted as a sign of grace, but, moreover, was called the body and blood, — not to be a simple sign, it was necessary the body and blood should be received in it. It was said, therefore, they were received by faith: the true body was therefore received, for Jesus Christ had not two. When they had come so far as to say the true body of Jesus Christ was received by faith, they acknowledged the proper substance was received. To receive it, with- . out it;eing present, was a thing incomprehensible. Behold, then, said Bucer, Jesus Christ substantially present. There was no further occasion for speaking of faith; it was sufficient to understand it. Thu9 did Bucer, absolutely and without restriction, acknowledge the real and substantial presence of our Lord's body and blood in the Eucharist, although they were only in heaven; which, however, was afterwards soflened by him. In this manner, without admitting any thing new, he changed his whole language; and, byliabituating himself to speak like Luther, began at length to say, they never had understood each other, and that this long discussion, which had caused so much excitation, was nothing but a dispute on words.

5. — The agrtenuni Bucer proposes is only in words.

He had spoken more justly, had he said their agreement waa itt words only; since, afker all, this substance, which was said to be present, was^ as distant frcmi the Eucharist as heaven im from earth, and was no more received by the faithful than the: substance of the sitti is reeled by the eye. This is what Luther and Melancthon said. The first called the Sacraineiii tnians a double-tongued Action,* on account of their equivocations; and said, •* They made a devilidi game with the words of our Lord.'^ •* The prosencot which Bucer admits," sayir the latter, < is but a presence in word, and a presonce of virtue* But it is the presence of the body and blood, and not tint of their virtue, which we require. If this body of Jesus Chiist be no where else but in heaven, and in not with the bread, nor ill the bread* — if, finally, it is not to be found in tiie Eucharist but

* * Luth. Ep. ad Sen, Francef. Hosp. ad 1533^ 128.

bj the contemplation of faith, it is nothing but an imaginary presence."

Bucer and his companions were displeased that what was done hj faith was here called imaginary, as if faith were nothing but a simple imagination. ^'^Is it not enough," said Bucer,, *' that Jesus Christ is present to th^ pure spirit and to the soul elevated on high?"* There was much equivocation in these words. The Lutherans agreed that the presence of the body and blood, in the Eucharist, was above the senses, and of a nature not to be perceived but by the mind and by faith; but required, however, that Jesus Christ should be present, in the sacrament, in his proper substance. Whereas Bucer would not have him present, indeed, elsewhere than in heaven, where the mind, by faith, sought him; which had nothing in it that was real, nothing that answered to the idea given by these sacred words, — ^" This is my body, this is my blood."

But that which is spiritual, is it not real also? and is there nothing real in baptism, because there is nothing in it that is corporeal? Another equivocation. — Spiritual things, such as Grrace and the Holy Ghost, are as present as they can be, when they are spiritually present. But what is a body present in spirit only, if not a body absent in reality, and present only in thought? a presence which cannot, without fallacy, be called real and substantial. But would you, then, said Bucer, have Jesus Christ corporeally present, and do not yourselves acknowledge the presence of his body in the Eucharist to be spir- itual? Neither Luther, with his companions, no more than the Catholics, denied that the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was spiritual as to tiie manner, provided it were granted to them, that it was corporeal as to the substance: that is, in more plaiii words, the body of Jesus Christ was present, but in a divine, supernatural, incomprehensible maimer, which the senses could not reach; spiritual, inasmuch as the mind alone, subject to faith, could know it, and that its end was entirely eelestial. St. Paul had justly called the human body, raised from the dead, ^* a spiritual body,"f on account of the qualities with which it was invested, divine, supernatural, and above the reach of the senses: with much more reason, the body of our Saviour, placed after so incomprehensible a manner in the Eucharist, might be so called.

Again, all they said of the mind being elevated on Jiigh, to

seek Jesus Christ at the right himd of his Father, was no more than a metaphor, not at 11 capable of representing a substantial reception of the body and blood, since this body and blood lemained only in heaven, as the soul, united to its body, remained only on earth; nor was there any more a true and sub- stantial union between the faithful and the body of the Lord, than if there never had been a Eucharist, and Jesus Christ had never said, *^ This is my body." Let us suppose these words had never been uttered by him at all; the presence, by the mind and by faith, would still subsist in a manner entirely similar, and if the words of Jesus Christ oblige us to more strong expressions, it is because they grant us what would not have been given without them, namely, the proper body and the proper blood, whose immolation and effusion have saved us on the cross.

9. — Whether a loc<d fttaenee were (o be adndited.

Two fruitful sources of cavilling and equivocaticm remained for Bucer; one in the word local, and the other in the word sacrament or mystery. Luther and the defenders of the real presence never had pretended that the body of our Lord was contained in the Eucharist, as in a place to which it was coinmensurate^ and in which it was comprehended after the ordinary manner of bodies; on the contrary, they believed nothing to be in the flesh of our Lord which was distributed to them at the holy table, but the simple and pure substance, together with the grace and life with which it abounded; nay, more than this, divested of all sensible qualities and modes of existence with which we are acquainted. Accordingly, Luther easily granted to Bucer that the presence under debate was not local, provided it were granted to him it was substantial; and Bucer strongly insisted on the exclusion of local presence, believing he had weakened as much by this as he had been forced to allow of the substantial presence. He even made use of this artifice to exclude the oral manducation of our Lord's body. He conceived it to be not only useless, but even gross, carnal, and little worthy of the spirit of Christianity; as if this sacred pledge of the flesh and blood, offered on the cross, which our Saviour still gave us in the Eucharist, to certify to us that the victim and immolation of it were wholly ours, had been a thing unworthy of a Christian; or that this presence ceased to be true, under pretext that, in a mystery of faith, God had not designed to make it sensible; or, lastly, that a Christian was not touched with this inestimable tdcen of divine love, because it was not known to him otherwise than by the word alone of Jesus Christ; things so fiu* di0tiuil from the spirit of Christianity, that the grossnesa

of their -minds is inconceivable, who, not able to relisdi them, look on others, that do, as gross minded.

The other source of equivocation was in the words Sacrament and Mysteiy. Sacrament, in the ordinary acceptation, means a sacred sign: but in the Latin language, from which this word is taken, sacrament oflen signifies a high, secret, and impene^ trable thing. This also is the signification of the word ^nystery. The Greeks have no other word to express sacrament than that of mystery; aiid the Latin Fathers frequently call the mystery of the Incarnation, the sacrament of the Ibcamation, and so of the rest. %

Bueer and lus followers thought they had gained their point, when they said the Eucharist was a mystery, or a sacrament of the body and blood: or, that the presence acknowledged in it, and the union then effected with Jesus Christ, was a sacramental presence and union; and, on the contrary, the defenders of the Real Presence, both Catholics and Lutherans, understood it to be a presence and union, real, substantial, and properly so called; but hidden, secret, mysterious, supernatural in its manner, and spiritual in its end, proper, in a word, to this sacrament; and it was for all these reasons th^at they cidled it sacramental.

Far, therefore, were they from denying that the Eucharist was a mystery in the same sense as the Trinity an^ Incarnation; liamely, a, thing high as well as. secret, and altogether incom* prehensibie to the mind of man.

11. — The Eucharist is a sign, and how ? Nor did they even deny that it was a sacred sign of the body and blood of our Lord ; for they knew that the sign does not always exclude the presence ; on the contraiy, there are signs of such a nature as denote the thing present When it is said, a sick person has given signs of life, the meaning is, from these signs it is seen that the soul is still present in its proper and true substance. The external acts of religion are intended to manifest, that truly we have religion in our hearts ; and when the ^geis appeared in human shape, under this appearance, which represented them to us, they were in person present. Thus the defenders of the literal sense spoke nothing incredible, when they taught that the sacred symbols of the Eucharist, accompanied with these words, " This is my body, this is my blood," denote to us Jesus Christ present, and that the sign is most closely and inseparably united to the thing.

13 — M the Myeteries of Jesus Christ are signs m eetimn respects.

It murt be acknowledged still furter, that what is meet true

IT.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 1S9

figures to us that perfect union we ought to have with the Divinity in grace and glory. His hirth and death are the figure of our spiritual birth and death. If, in the mystery of the Eucharist, he condescends to approach our bodies in his own proper flesh and blood, thereby he invites us to the union of minds, and figures it unto us. In a word, until we have arrived to the full and manifest trutli, which will render us for ever happy, every truth will be to us the figure of a truth more intimate: we shall not taste Jesus Christ all pure and in his proper form, and entirely disengaged from figure, until we shsdl see him, in the ful- ness of his glory, at the right hand of his Father: for which reason, if in the Eucharist he is given to us in substance and in truth, it is under a foreign species. This is a great Sacrament and great Mystery, in which, under the form of bread, is hidden from us a true body; in which, in the body of a man, the majesty and power of a God are hidden firom us; in which such great things are performed after a mannar impenetrable to human senses.

What latitude for the equivocations of Bucer, in these several significations of the word Sacrament and mystery! And how many evasions might not be prepared from terms, which each one wrested to serve his own purpose! If he granted a real and substantial presence and union, though he did not always express that he understood it by fdith, he believed he saved all, by adding to expressions the word Sacramental; this done, he exclaimed, they disputed only on words, and how strange it was they should disturb die Church, and prevent the progress of the Reformation, for so frivolous a dispute.

No person would credit him in this. Not only Lutber and the Lutherans laughed at his pretence, that the whole Eucharistic dispute was only a dispute on wordsy-— even those of his own party told him plainly he imposed on the world by his substantial presence, which, after all, was only a presence by faith. CEcolampadius had observed how much he had confused the subject by tiiis his substantial presence of the body and Mood, and a little before he died, had written to him, that, in the Eucharist, there was only for those ** Who believed, an effectual promise of the remission of sins, by the body given, and the blood shed; that our souls were nourished therewith, and our bodies associated to the resurrection by the Holy Ghost: that we thus re- ceived the true body, and not bread only, nor a simple figure," (he took good care not to say that we received it substantially;) ** ibs^i in truth the wicked received but a figure; but that Jesus

Christ WSM9 present to those who were his, as God, who strengthens tfnd who governs us."*

^ This was all the presence CBcolampadius would allow, who concluded in these words: ^^ This is aU, my dear Bucer, we can grant the Lutherans. — Obscurity is dangerous to our Churches. Act afler such a manner, my dear broker, as not to deceive our hopes."

Those of Zurich dedared to him with still greater freedom, that it was an illusion to siay, as he did, that this dispute was only verbal, and warned him that his expressions led him to the doctiine of Luther, to which he arrived at length, but not so soon. Then they raised loud complaints of Luti^er, who would not treat them like brethren; yet, however, acknowledged him " for an excellent servant of God;"•{• but it was observed by the party, this suavity served only to make him *^ more inhuman and more insolent."!

IS.— The Cor^essim of Faith qfthou qf Basil

Those of Basil showed themselves far removed both from the sentiments of Luther and the equivocations of Bucer. In the Confession of Faith, which is placed in the collection of Geneva in the year 1532, and in Hospinian's history in the year 1534, because, perhaps, it was published for the first time in the ono of these two years, and renewed in the other, they say, that *' as water remains in Baptism, where the forgiveness of sins is ofiered to us; so the bread and wine remain in the Supper, where, with the bread and wine, the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ are figured to us, and ofiered by the minister."§ To explain this more plainly, they add, ^* Our souls are nourished with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, W a true faith," and by way of elucidaticm put in the margin, ^* That Jesus Christ is present in the Supper, but sacramentally, and by the remembrance of faith, which raises man up to heaven* and does not take Jesus they confine not the natural, true and substantial body of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine, nor adore Jesus Christ in the signs of bread and wine, commonly called the Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ; but in heaven at the xighi hand of God his Father, whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead." This is what Bucer would neidier say, nor explain clearly; that Jesus Christ, as man, was no where than in heaveo although, as fiir as a judgment can be formed, he was then of) that opinion. But he phinged still more deeply into notions so

metaphysical^ that neither Scotus, nor the most refined Scotists, came near to him; and all his equivocations tamed on these abstracted ideas.

At this time Luther published his book against private mass, where that famous conference is to be found, which he formerly had with the angel of darkness, and where, convinced by his reasons, he abolishes, like an impious wretch, that mass he had said for so many years with so much devotion, if we may believe him.* It is surprising to see how seriously and lively he describes his awakening, as in a surprise, in the dead of night; the manifest apparition of the devil to dispute against him. *' The terror widi which he was seized, his sweat, bis trembling, and the horrible palpitation of his heart in this dispute; the strong arguments of Ae demon, who leaves no repose to the inind; the sound of his thundering voice; his oppressive ways of arguing, when he makes both question and answer perceptible at once. I then was sensible," says he, ^ how it so often happens that men die suddenly towards the dawn of day: it is by means by his disputes reduce diem to such difficulties, that it is enough to cause death, as I have many times experienced.** He informs us in passing, thttt the devil frequently attacked him in this manner, and to judge of the other attacks by diis, it is to be believed he had learned many thii^ from him besides the condemnation of the mass. It is here he attributes to the evil spirit formerly so great an enemy to Lutheranism in its birth. I mean not to enlarge on so trite a subject: I am satisfied with having observed, t^ God, for the confusion, or rather for the conversion of the enemies of the Church, has permitted Luther to fiill into so great a blindness, as to acknowledge, I do not say, that he was frequently tormented by the devil, wldch might be common to him with many saints; but m^at is peculiar to him, that he was converted by his industiy, and tliat the spirit of falsehood had been his tutor in one of the principal points of his reformation.

In vain do they pretend here, that the devil disputed against Luther, only to overwhelm him with despair, by convincing him of his crime; for the dii^nte liad not that tendency. When Luther appears convinced, and unable to answer any thing more, the devil presses no farther, and Ludier rests satisfied he had learned a truth <^ which he was before ignorimt. If this be true, hfw horrible to be tutored by such a master! If Luther fiuicied he invented it, bow sad a stoiy had he to boast of!

* De hrog. Miss. priv. t vil p^ m,

18. — The Swiss are incensed against Luther. The Swiss were scandalized at the conference of Luther, not so much because the devil appeared there in the capacity of a doctor : they were embarrassed enough to defend themselves against a similar vision, of which Zuinglius boasted,^ as we have already seen ; but they could not endure the manner in which he there treated CBcolampadius. Most severe libels came out on this subject : but Bucer went on negotiating ; and through his mediation a conference was held at Constance, for the reunion of both parties. There, those of Zurich declared they would compromise with Luther, provided, on his side, he would grant them three points: one, that the flesh of Jesus Christ was not eaten but by faith ; another, that Jesus Christ, as man, was only ill a particular place in heaven ; the third, that he was preseiit in die Eucharist, by faith, in a manner proper to the sacraments. These words were plain and void of equivocation. The other Swiss, and in particular those of Basil, gave their joint approbation to so clear a proposal. And, indeed, it was wholly con- formable to the Basil Confession of Faith : but, although this confession gave a perfect idea of the doctrine of the figurative sense, those of Basil, who had drawn it up, failed not to draw up another, two years after, on the occasion we are going to relate*

19. — JSnother Basil €kn\fes8ion of Fatth, and the former modified. In 1636, Bucer and Capitocame from Strasburg. These two celebrated architects of the most refined equivocations, taking occasion from the Confessions of Faith, which the churches separated from Rome prepared to send to the council which the Pope had just convened, solicited the Swiss to make one, ** which might be so framed as to assist the agreement they had considerable hopes of effecting ;"t that is, it was proper to select such terms as the Lutherans, ardent defenders of the Real Presence, might take in good part. With this view, a new Confession of Faith was drawn up, which is the second of Basil ; the expressions we have related in the first, which specified, too pre- cisely, that Jesus Christ was not present, except in heaven, and that nothing but a Sacramental Presence, and by remembrance asserting, as they had done in the first Basil Confession, *< that the body of Jesus Christ is not contained in the bread." Had they used these terms without some modification, the Lutherans would easily have p<rceived their object was directly to oppose the Real Presence ; but Bucer had expedients for every thing. By his insinuations, those of Basil were detenmned to say,

XI,] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. ISS

tain H, waa espelled out (^ their communion.^ They add that dirers writings have been published by them against this preseace in si^H and those that defend it hold them for their adirersaries, call them Papists, Antichrists, slnd Idolaters.*

' ' • ^ -1

ISS.-'^The same thing eonfirmedt

Another proof of their sentiment is a saying of theirs, " that Jesus Christ is prer^ent in the bread and wine by his body and blood; o&erwise,'^ proceed "they, ** neither those that are worthy would receive any thing but bread and wine, nor those that are unworthy would be guilty of the body and blood, it being impossible they should be guilty of what is not there J'f Whence it follows that they are there^ not only for the worthy, but also for the unworthy.

' True it is, they are against our adoring Jesus Christ in the Eucharist for two reasons: first, because he has not commanded it^ secondly, because there are two presences of Jesus Christ, Hs personal, corporeal, and sensible presence, which ought to attract our adoration; and his spiritual or sacramental presence, which ought not to attract it. But for all this, they nevertheless acknowledge the substance of the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament: " we are not commanded," say they, " to honor this substance of the body of Jesus Christ consecrated, but the substance of Jesust)hrist which is at the right hand of the Father.'' J Here, then, have you, in the Sacrament and in heaven, the sub- ^ance of Jesus Christ*s body, but adorable in heaven" and not^ fl in the Sacrament. And, lest you should wonder at this, they add, " that Jesus Christ would not even oblige men to adore him on earth when he was there present, because he waited the tima. of his glory;*'§ which shows their intention was not to exclude the substantial presence, when they exclude adoration; on the contrary, they supposed it, since, had they not believed it, they would have had no manner of, occasion to excuse thems^ves for not adoring in the Sacrament what, in reality, was not thefe.

Let us not inquire of them now, whence they learned this rare ' doctrine; that, to adore Jesus Christ, it is not sufficient we know him present, and that it was not his intenti<Mi we should adore him on earth, but only in his glory: I am satisfied with relating what (hey say of the Real Presence, nay, of the Real Presence not after the manner of the Melancthonists, in the sole use, but immediately afler the Consecration.

Apol.l532,paitiv.p.^90. Ib.p.298. n$id.jp.S91,3d9. fn^.309. I Ap. ad Jjstd, p. 67, et alibi passim. Ibid. p. 301, 306, 307, 309, 31 1, etc. voir. II* 12 -

1S4 THE HISTOIVT OF [BOOK

With these expressions apparently so distinct and so decisive for the Real Presence, in other places they confound themselves after so strange a manner, that it seems as if they feared nothing 80 much as leaving a clear and certain testimony of their faitn: ' for they repeat continually that Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist in person.^ It is true, they call his being there in per- . son, being there sensibly and corporally: expressions which they always link together, and oppose to a spiritual manner of beiog, acknowledged by them. But what casts them into a new confusion, is that they seem to say,t Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist with this spiritual Presence, as he is in Baptism and in preaching the word, as he was eaten by the ancient Hebrews in ihe desert, as &t, John the Baptist was Elias. Nor do I comprehend what they mean by this odd expression:J Jesus Christ is not here " with his natural body after an existing and corporeal manner, existenier et corporaliter," but is here§ " spiritually, patenter, benedict e, in virtue," What they add is not intelhgible, that '' Jesus Christ is here in the abode of benediction," to vijt^ according to their language, he is in the Eucharist,^^' as he is at the right hand of God, but not as he is in the heavens*" If he be there as he is at the right hand of God, he is there in person. Thus naturally should one conclude: but how shall we distinguish the heaven^ from the right hand of God? there we are at a' loss. The Brethren spoke distinctly when they said:|| *^ There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the same in the Sacrament with his natural body, but who is afler another man^ ner at the right hand of his Father: for it is one thing to say, there is Jesus Christ, this is my body; and another to say, he is there afler such a manner." But no sooner had they expressed themselves in plain terms, than they bewilder themselves in strange subtilized notions^ into lyhich they are plunged by the confusion and uncertainty of their minds and thoughts, together with a vain desire of contenting both parties of the Reformation.

They incline to the Jirst.

The more forward they advanced, the more important and mysterious they became; and as the Lutherans and Calvinists strove each to gain them, so they also, on their side, seemed inclined to content both parties. At length, this is what they said in 1558, and what they appeared resolved to stand by. IT They complain, at first, they were accused '* of not behoving that the

t Ibid. p. 302, 304, 307, 308. | Ibid. 74. § Ibid. || Ibid. p. 71.

XI.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 19^

presence of the true body and 41^10 blood was present'' What odd expressions, presence to be present! thus they speak in the preface: but teach in the body of the Confession, that it ought to be acknowledged that the bread is the true body of Jesus Christ* and the cup his true blood, without adding any thing of. your own to his words. But whilst they forbid adding any thiqg to the wowk of Jesus Christ, they themselves add to them 'the word (rue, which is not t)iere; npd whereas Jesus Christ said, "This is my body," theysuppmb he said, "This bread is -my body;" a very different thing, as elsewhere you may have seen. Now if it were allowable in them to add what they judged necessary to denote a true presence, it was no less Allowable in others to add also what was requisite to remove all ^(mbiguity; and to reject these expressions afler disputes had acii^en, was opposing light, and leaving the questions undecid^dt It was' fbr this reason Calvin* wrote to them, that he could not 'approve they fail to do, he maintained their confession of faith could not

' b# subscribed without peril, and would occasion great disputes. But Luther was satisfied with diem, as they approximated near to his, expressions, and were more inclined towards the Confession of Augsburg. For they even continued to complain of those,! who denied that the bread and wine were the true body and true hlodd of Jesus Christ, and who balled them Papists, Idolaters, and -Antichrists, on accoulit of their acknowledging th^ true presence. Finally, to show how far they were leaning to the side of the Real Presence, they enjoin their ministers, ia

. distributing this sacrament,;|; apd in reciting the words of our ^ Lord, " to exhort the people to believe that, the presence of al&ough in other respects little inclined to adoration, '^ That the sacrament be received kneehqg."

■ .189. — Lviher give ihem hif itpprofrafion, and how.

By thus expounding and thus palliating as already seen, they so contented Luther, that he prefixed his approbation to a confession of faith pubhshed by them,§ declaring, however, " That for this time they not only appeared more adorned, more free, and more polished, but also more considerable and better;" which sufficiently intimates, he approved their confession only inasmuch as it had been reformed agreeably to his maxims. 190.— TAnr Festivals, theit Churches, their Fasts, the Celibacy qf their Pritsts.

It does not appear that any uneasiness was given them in regard of the stated fasts preserve^ amongst them, nor in regard

of the fesdvals they celebrated, forbidding all labor, not onlj in h<orof our Lord, but also of the Bless^ Virgin and the Saints. They were not upbraided that this was observing days contrary to the precept of the Apostle, nor that these holy days in honor of the saints were so many acts of idolatry. Neither were they accused of raising churches to saints, under the pretext that they continued^ as we do, to name the Church of the Yh-gin, in Temph dh<B Virginis, of St. Peter, of St. Paul, churches consecrated to God in memory of them. "They are likewise suffered to enjoin their priests celibacy, and degrade them from priesthood upon marrying, for this unquestionably was their practice no less than that of ^e Taborites.^ All this is harmless in the Brethren; in us only every thing is rank poison.

191. — The perpetiud Virgmity of Mfaryf Mother of God,

I would also have them asked, where they find in Scripture what they say of the blessed Virgin: " that she was a Virgin before and after her delivery, "f It is true, this was the belief of the holy fathers, and the contrary rejected by them for no less than an execrable blasphemy: yet does it, nevertheless, evince <hat many things may be accounted blasphemies, the contrary to which is nowhere in holy writ; so that, when they boast of speaking nothing but from Scripture, they really mean no more by it than that it serves their turn to talk in this strain: nor is this apparent respect for the Scripture anything in them but a blind to the ignorant and simple.

It is averred that these Bohemian brethren (whose words were so meek and respectful in regard of higher powers) the more they engaged in the Lutheran sentiments, so likewise the more did they enter into their intrigues and wars. Ferdinand found them mingled in the Elector of Saxony's rebellion against Charles the Fifth, and drove them from Bohemia. J They took sanctuary in Poland, and it appears, from a letter of Musculus to the Protestants of Poland, in 1556, that it was but a few years since these fugitives from Bohemia were received into that kingdom.

Sendonur,

Some time after this, the union of the three Protestant sects of 1670, at the Synod of Sendomir, and bears this title : " The union and mutual agreement made between the Churches of Po-

* Axt. XV. xvii Act Syn. Tonn. 1595. Syn. part ii. p. 840, S42. Art ix. £n. Silv. Hist Boh. ap. Lyd. p. 395, 405. f Orat Enc ap. X^yd. p. 30,

Alt. xvii. p. 801. I Syntag. Gen. part ii. p. Wi%

XI.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 1S7

land; to wit, between those of the Augsburg Confession, those of the Confession of the Bohemian Brethren, and those of the Confession of the Helvetic churches, or Zuingiians."* In this act the Bohemians style themselves the Bre£ren of Bohemia, whom the ignorant call Yaudois. It appears then manifestly that the question here was about those Yaudois who, by mistake, were named so, as we have shown, and who accordingly disclaim this origin. For, if^th respect to the ancient Yaudois, we -learn from an old author,f that there were scarce any of them in the kingdom of Cracovia, namely i{i that of Poland, no more than in England, in the Low Countries, in Denmark, in Sweden, in Norway, and in Prussia; and since this author's time, this little number is so dwindled away to nothing, that, in all these countries, we hear no more mention of them.

The agreement was made in these terms. In order to explain therein the point concerning the Supper, the whole article of the Saxonic Confession, where this matter is handled, was there transcribed. We have seen that Melancthon drew up this Confession in 1651, in order to have it presented at Trent. In it was said, that * Jesus. Christ is truly and substantially present in the and blood of Jesus Christ."^ To which they add, in a strange manner of expression, *^ Tlmt the substantial presence of Jesus Christ is not only signified, but truly rendered present, distributed, and given to those who eat; the signs not being naked, but joined to the thing itself, agreeably to the nature of the sacraments. "§

195.— r/n this qgreemet^t the Zuing^iant, nutre than all the rest, recede from their ^ partietdar tenets.

, ^^ The substantial presence," it seems, was had very much at heart, when, in order to inculcate it the more forcibly, they said, it was not only signified but trulv present; but I always distrust these strong expressions of the Reformation, which thejnore she diminishes the truth of the body and blood in the Eucharist, the more rich id she always in words; as if she could repair by ^em the loss she sustains in things. Now, when you come to the point, although this declaration abounds with equivocal expressions! ^^^ leaves subterfuges to each party whereby to preserve their particular doctrine; it is, nevertheless, the Zuingtians that take die greatest step, since whereas they said in their confession that the body of our Lord being in heaven absent firom us, becoipes present to us only by its virtue, the terms of the agreement import, that Jesus Christ is substantially present to us;

Bib. fP. part. iL p. 785. \ Y. sap. lib. viii. n. 18. Svn. Con£ part i.

VOL. II. 12*

•

and notwithstanding all the rules of human language^ a presence in virtue becomes immediately a presence in substance.

There are terms in the agreement which it were difficult for the Lutherans to reconcile to their doctrine, did not men inure themselves, in the new Reformation, to expound every thing to their own sense. For instance, they seem much to depart from the belief they are in, that the body of Jesus Christ is taken by the mouth even by the imworthy, when they say in this agreement, " The signs of the Supper give by Faith to the Believers, what they signify."* But, besides that they may say they spoke in this manner, by reason that the real presence is not known but by faith; ^ey may also add that, in fact, there are blessings in the Supper which are given to the behevers only, as life eternal, and die nourishment of the soul, and it is those they mean when they say, " The signs given by Faith, what they signify."

197. — Disposition of the Bohemian Brethren. • I do not wonder the Bohemians signed this agreement without difficulty. Separated about forty or fifty years before from of the world except a comer of Bohemia, which they inhabited, upon seeing the Protestants appear, all they thought of was to support themselves with their protection. They knew how to gain Luther by their submission ; by equivocating, they had all that could be desired from Bucer; the Zuinglians suffered themselves to be soothed by the general expressions of the Brethren, who said, yet without practising it, that nothing ought to be added to the words our Saviour used. The most difficult to be pleased was Calvin. We have seen in the letter]" he wrote to the Bohemian Brethren, who had taken refuge in Poland, how he blamed the ambiguity of their confession of faith, and declared there was no subscribing it without opening an inlet to dissension or error.

198. — Rtflei^kns on this Union. Contrary to his judgment, all was subscribed, the Helvetic Confession, the Bohemian, and the Saxonic, the presence of substance together with that of virtue only; namely, the two contnjy doctrines with their equivocations favoring them both. All whatever they pleased was added to our Lord's words, even at die time they ratified the Confession of Faith, wherein was laid down for a maxim, that nothing ought to be added to them : all passed, and a peace was concluded by this means. You see now all the sects, divided from Catholic unity, separate and unite among themselves ; separating from the chair of St. Peter, they separate from one another, and bear the just punishment of despising the band of their unity. When they re-unite in appearance, they are never the more united in die main ; and their union, cemented only by political interests, serves but to evidence, by a new proof, that they have not so much as the idea of Christian unity, since they never do unite in one accord, in one mind, as St. Paul ordains.*

May it be allowed us at present to make a few reflections on this history of the Y audois, the Albigenses, and the Bohemians. You see whether the Protestants were right in reckoning them among their ancestors; whether this extraction be to their credit; and in particular whether they ought to have looked on Bohemia, since the time of John Huss, as the mother of the reformed churches. t It is clearer than the sun, on one side, that they only bring in these sects from the necessity of finding witnesses in the foregoing ages for what they believe to be the truth; and on the other, that nothing is more despicable than to allege such witnesses as are all convicted of falsehood in capital points, and who, in the main, neither agree with Protestants, nor with us, nor with themselves. This is the first reflection Protestants should make.

the evidence of Scrij^vre,

The second is of no less importance. They ought to consider that all these sects, so diflerent from one another, and withal so opposite as well to us as to Protestants, agree with them in the common principle of guiding themselves by the Scriptures: not, indeed, as the Church in all times has understood and still understands them — for this is a most certain rule; but as every man of him&ielf is capable of understanding them. This is what has produced all those errors and all those contrarieties which we have observed. Under the pretext of Scrip- turei every man has followed his own notions; and the Scripture, taken in this way, so far from uniting minds, has divided them, and made every one worship the delusions of his own brainy under the name of the eternal truth.

Paul's prediction.

But there still remains the last and by much the most important reflection to be made on all these things we have just seen in this contracted history of the Albigenses and Yaudois* There we discover the reason of the Holy Ghost's inspiring St. Paul with this prophecy: ^* the spirit speaketh expressly, that) in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed

* Phillip, ii. 2. f Jur. Avis aux Protes. de PEurope at the beginnipg

of his Prejug. legit p. 9

to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a^-hot iron; forbidding to marry, and pommanding to abstainrfrom meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."* All tibe holy fathers are agreed that this is meant of the impious sect of Marcionites and Manicheans, who taught two principles, and attributed to the evil one the creation of the universe; which made them detest the propagation of mankind, and the use of many kinds of food which they believed unclean and bad in their nature, as being produced by a creator who himself was bad and impure. St. Paul points, therefore, at these accursed sects by these two their so noted tenets; and without previously mentioning the principle whence they drew these two evil conse- quences, he expresses the two sensible characters whereby we have seen that these infamous sects were known in all times.

202. — The Doctrine of two Principles pointed at by St. Pad: why this Doc-*

But although St. Paul does not immediately express the deep cause why these deceivers forbade the use of two things so natural, he denotes it sufficiently further on, when he says, in op- position to these errors, that " every creature of God is good,"f overthrowing by this principle the detestable sentiment of those that descried impurity in the works of God, and making us withal sensible that the root of this lay in not knowing the creation, and in blaspheming the Creator. A^ocordingly, it is. what St. Paijl calls, in particular, more than all other doctrines, ^ the doctrine of devils,"]; there being nothing more suitable to the jealousy against God and against men of these seducing spirits, than to attack the creation^ condemn God's works, blaspheme against the author of the law and the law itself, and defile human nature with all mapner of impurities and illusions. For this is what Manicheism consisted in, and what truly is the very doctrine of devils; especially if you add these enchantments and impostures, which all authors testify were so frequently made use of in this sect. To wrest now the so plain and so natural sense of St. Paul, against those who, acknowledging both marriage fuid all sort of meats for the work and institution of God^ yet abstain voluntarily from them to mortify the senses wfid purify the mind, is a too manifest delusion, and one which we have seen long ago exploded by the Fathers. It is, then, very perceptible whom St. Paul aimed at, nor is it possible to mistake those he has so accurately described by their proper characters.

Why the Holy Crkost, amongst so many heresies, would only what they endeavored to account for, in the best way they couldin their age. But time, the faithful interpreter of prophecies, has discovered to us the deep cause; nor shall we wonder any more that the Holy Ghost was so particularly careful to forewarn us against this sect, after having seen it was this that in- fected Christianity the longest and the most dangerously; the longest, through so many ages as we have seen the world infected by it; and the most dangerously, not making a glaring breach from the Church like the rest, but lurking, as much as was possible, within her precincts, and insinuating herself under the appearances of the same faith, the same worship, and even an astonishing show of piety. For this reason St. Faul,^ the ' apostle, so expressly points out its hypocrisy. Never has the spirit of lying, remarked by this apostle, been so justly charged observed, that these wretches allowed every thing you pleased; they made nothing of lying in the most material points; they stuck not at perjury to conceal their tenets; their readiness in betraying their consciences showed in them a certain insensibihty which St. Paul admirably well expresses by the cauteryf which renders the flesh insensible by mortifying it, as the learned Theodoret;|; hath observed on this place; nor do I think ever prophesy could have been verified by more sensible characters than this has been.

than the rest.

No longer are we to wonder why the Holy Ghost would have the prediction of this heresy to be so particular and distinct. It was more than all other heresies the error '^ of the latter times," as it is called by St. Paul,§ whether we understand by the latter times, according to the Scripture style, all the times of the new law; or understand by that period of ages when Satan was to be loosed anew. || So long since as the second and third century, the Church beheld the rise of Cerdon, of Marcion, of Manes, those enemies to the Creator. IT The seeds of this doctrine are every where to be met with; you find them in Tatian, who condenmed wine and marriage; and in his Concordance of the Bible had erased all the texts that expressed Jesus Christ's ge-

* Ante, 1 Tim. f Ante. | Coram, in hunc. locmn. § 1 Tim. iv. II Rev. zz. 3, 7. IT Epip. hser. zlvi. Theod. i. hsr. fiib. 20. Ibid. v. c 24

nealogy from the blood of David. A hundred other infamous 3ects had attacked the God of the Jews even before Manes and Marcion; and we learn from Theodoret, that this last did but give another turn to the impieties of Simon the magician. Thus did this heresy commence from the very beginning of Christianity: it was the true " mystery of iniquity"* which fell to work in St. Paul's time; but the Holy Ghost who foresaw this pestilence was one day to rage in a more glaring manner, made it be foretold by this apostle with an astonishing evidence and distinctness. Marcion and Manes have set this mystery of iniquity in a more manifest light; the abominable sect has continued its pestilent succession ever since that time. This we have seen, and never did heresy disturb the Church for a longer that, by the eminent doctrine of St. Austin, by St. Leo's and St. Galasiue's great care and diligence, it was extinguished every where in the West, and even in Rome, where it had strove, to establish itself; then was seen to arrive the fatal time of Satan's being loosed " out of his prison."! A thousand years afler that this strong armed had been bound by Jesus Christ at his coming into the world, the spirit of error grew up more than ever; the remains of Manicheism, too well sheltered in the East, broke in upon the Latin Church. What hinders our looking on those miserable times as one of the periods of Satan's being loosed, without prejudice to the other more hidden meanings? J 'If Gx)g and Magog only be wanting to fulfil this pro- phecy, we shall find in Armenia, near Samosata, the province named Gogarene, where the Paulicians dwelt, and Ma^og amongst the Scythians, from whence the Bulgarians took their rise. Thence came those numberless enemies of " the beloved city,"§ who first assaulted Italy. The contagion flew, in an instant, to the extremity of the north: a spark raises a great combustion; the flame almost spreads over the whole face of the universe. In all parts of it is discovered this lurking poison; Arianism, with all kinds of heresies, together with Manicheism, shoot up again under a hundred unheard of and uncouth names. Scarcely could it be compassed to quench this fire in the space of three or four hundred years, and even some of its remains might be seen in the fifteenth century.

205. — Hofvii the Vaudois eamejrom the JSlbigensian Manicheans, Nor did the evil cease, when nothing seemed lefl of it but its ashes. Satan had supplied the impious sect wherewith to renew the conflagration, in a manner more dangerous than ever. Church discipline was relaxed over all the earth ; the disorders

* 2 Thess. ii 7. f Rev. zz. S,3, 7. Matt zii. 29. Luke zi. 21, 22,

I Rev. u. 7, 8. Boch. Phal. lib. iii. 13. § Rev. xx. 7, a

and abuses, carried even to the foot of the altar, made the good their virtuous courses; but wrought a far different effect on haughty minds. The Roman Church, the mother and bond of churches, became the object of hatred to all indocile tempers; envenomed satires spirit up the world against the clergy; the Manichean hypocrite trumpets them over the whole universe, and gives the name of Antichrist to the Church of Rome, for then was that notion broached in the sink of Manicheism, and amidst the precursors of Antichrist himself. These impious men imagine they appear more holy, when they say, holiness is essentially requisite to the administration of the Sacraments. The ignorant Vaudois swallow down this poison. No longer will they receive the sacraments from odious and defamed ministers; '* the net is broken"^ on all sides, and schisms multiply. Satan no longer stands in need of Manicheism; hatred against the Church is widely diffused; the viperous sect has lefl a brood like to itself, and a too fruitful principle of schism. No matter, though these heretics have not the same doctrine, they are swayed by hatred and bitterness, and banded against the Church; this is enough. The Yaudois believe not like the Albigenses, but like the Albigenses they hate the Church, and proclaim themselves the only saints, the only ministers of the sacraments. Wickliff* believes not like the Yaudois, but Wickliff" proclaims^ like the Yaudois, that the Pope and his whole clergy have forfeited all authority by their loose behaviour. John Huss does not believe like Wickliff*, though he admires him; what he admires in him chiefly, and almost only follows in him is, that crimes annul authority. These despicable Bohemians, as we have seen, succeeded to this spirit, which they particularly made appear, when, amounting to no more than a handful of illiterate men, they presumed to rebaptize the whole world.

206. — How Luther and Cahin sprung from the Mbigenses and Vaudoia.

But a Still greater apostacy was hatching by means of these sects. The world teeming with animosity, brings forth Luther and Calvin, who canton Christendom. The superstructure is different, but the foundation is the same; it is still hatred against the clergy and the Church of Rome, and no man of sincerity can deny that this was the visible cause of their surprising progress. A reformation was necessary — ^who denies it? but it was still more necessary to refrain from schism. Were those that promoted this schism by their preaching any better than their neighbors 1 They acted as if they were; this was enough to delude and ** spread like a canker," according to St. Paulas expression, "f The world was desirous of condemning and reject-

*Lakoy.& t8Tim.il 17.

ing their leaders; thi^ is called Reformation. A specious name dazzles the people, and, to stir up hatred, calumny is not spared: thus is our doctrine blackened; men hate it before they know it.

807; — The'Proteitant Churches seiik in vain a succession of Persons in the

preceding Sects,

"With new doctrines, new bodies of churches are erected. The Lutherans and Calvinists make the two greatest; but they lawful mission. The Yaudois and Albigenses, alleged by some, ' are not to their purpose. We have but just shewn them to be mere laymen, as much at a loss to make out their own mission and title, as those that seek their aid. We know the Toulousian heretics were never able to delude so much as one priest. The preachers of the Vaudois were trading men or mechanics, nay women. Th6 Bohemians had no better origin, as is already proved; and when Protestants name us all these sects, they name not their fathers, but their accomplices.

208. — Miich less do they find in them a succession of Doctrine,

. But, perchance, though they do not find in these sects a successionjof persons, they will find in them a succession of doc- trines. ^ Much less: in certain respects like to the Hussites; in others, like the Yaudois; in some like the Albigenses and the other sectaries; in other articles they are quite contrary to them; i^ this manner, without lighting upon any thing that is uniform, and la3dng hold here and there of what seems to suit them; without succession, without unity, without true predecessors, they climb to what height they can. They are not the first to reject the honor due to Saints, nor the oblations for the dead: they find, before their days, bodies of churches of this same belief in these two {joints. The Bohemians embraced them, but we have seen these Bohemians seek in vain for associates through the whole earth. However, here is a church at least before Luther; this is something to such as have nothing. But,;af%er all, this church before Luther is but fifly years before him; they must strive to advance higher; they will find the Yaudois, and, a little more distant, the Manicheans of Toulouse. They will find, in the fourth age, the Manicheans of Africa opposed to the worship of Saints. One only, Yigilantius, follows them in this particular point, but higher than this no certain author can be found; yet thereon depends the stress of the question. They may go a little further as to oblations for the dead. The priest Aerius will appear, but alone, and without followerls; an Arian besides. This is all can be found that is positive; whatever is bmlt besides this„ will be built manifestly

idea of faith to a still greater distance. It is also to be ob* served that, in this article, Luther says nothing against the pres* ence out of the use of the Sacrament, nor against the perma* determining when it was, nor for how long a time.

36. — Whether Bread em be the Body. act The terms which he generally used were, that the body and blood were given *' under the bread" and "under the wine ;"* dius he explains himself in his little Catechism. He adds a word in the large one, and says, *• that the body is given to us in the bread and under the bread."*!* I cannot discover exactly at what time these two Catechisms were written, but it is certain the Lutherans acknowledge them both for authentic acts of their rehgion. To the two particles, " in," and ** under^" the Confession of Agsburg adds ** with ;" and it is the ordinary phrase of the true Lutherans, ** that the foody and blood are received in^ under, and with the bread and wine ;" but, hitherto, it had never been said in any public act of the whole party, that the bread and wine were Ihe true body and true blood of oiir Lord. Luther here decides the poin^ and necessary it was for Melanc> <hon, how great soever his repugnance might be, to unite Ihe bread with the body, — to subscribe even that the bread was the true body.

37. — Luther eannot evade the equwoealumsofthe Sacramentarians who elude a£L The Lutherans in their Book of Concord assure us, that Luther Was forced to this expression by the subtleties of the Sacramentarians,^; who invented evasions to accommodate to their moral presence Luther's strongest and most precise expressions, for the real and substantial presence : from this we may again, as we go on, observe, that it is not a matter of surprise, if the defenders of the figurative sense invent expedients to call in the support of the fathers ; since Luther himself living and speak** ing, who knew their subtleties, and who undertook to oppose them, found it difficult to prevent them from wresting his words to their own sense by their interpretations : ^sitigued with their subtleties^ he directed his mind to the discovery of such ex* pressions as they might no longer wrest, and drew out the artkle ci Smalkald in the above form.

of Jesus Christ, according to the opinion of the Sacramen* tarians, be not received except by means of a livefy fai&^ it Ga

*Conap.33(>. tn>id.p.653. tlbid.p.r2a § La>. ii N. 3. p. 3^

{

not be said with Luther, that '' the impious receive it;^ and as long as they shall maintain, that the bread is not the body of Jesus Christ, except in figure, without doubt theyjivill never say with the Article of Smalkald, '* That the bread is the true body of Jesus Christ;" thus Luther, by this expression, excluded the figurative sense, and all the Sacramentarian interpretations. But he was not aware he no less excluded his own doctrine, since we have shown that the bread cannot be the true body, unless it become so by a true and substantial change, which Luther would not admit.

Thus when Luther, and the Lutherans, afler turning the Article of the Real Presence so many different ways, endeavor at last to explain it so precisely, as that the Sacramentarian equivocations might remain entirely excluded, we see them fall in- sensibly into expressions, which, according to their principles, have no sense, and cannot be maintained except in the Catholic doctrine.

38.-^ ^Ae violence of Litther agohvst the Pope in the Articles of Smalkald, At Smalkald, Luther expresses himself with great asperity against the Fope^ who, as we have seen^ was not even named in the Articles of the Augsburg Confession^ nor in the Apology ; and lays down, aioong the articles from which he resolved never to depart ^' That the Pope is not of divine right ; that the power he has usurped is full of arrogance and blasphemy ; that all he has done or now does, in virtue of this power, is diabolical ; that the Church can and ought to subsist, without ahead; that although the Pope should acknowledge he is not of divine right, but was made purely to maintain, more conveniently, the unity of Christians among sectaries, yet no good could ever come from such authority ; and that the best way to govern and preserve the Church, is for all the bishops, though unequal in their gifts, to remain equal in their ministry, under the one only head Christ Jesus : lastly, that the Pope is antichrist."*

d9,-~Mdancthon wishes that the authority of the Pope shxndd be aeknmoledged, I Expressly mention, at length, these decisions of Luther, because Melancthon gave them a limitation which cannot be suf- ficiently considered.

At the conclusion (^.the Articles are seen two lists of subscriptions, in which appear the names of all the Ministers and Doctors of Ihe Confessicm of Augsburg, f Melancthon signed with all the others; but because he refused to agree to what Luther had said of the Pope, he made his subscription in these terms, ** I, Philip Melancthon, approve the foregoing articles as pious and Christian; As for the Pope, my opinion is, if he would receive the Gospel, that for the peace and tranquillity of those

who are already under him, or shall be hereafter, we may grant to him that superiority over the bishops, which he enjoys already by human right."*

object of Luther's aversion. Ever since the time the Fopea condemned him, he became irreconcilable to this power, and induced even Melancthon to sign an act, by which the whole new reformation declared in a body, " We never will approve of the Pope's haying power over the rest of the bishops. "f At Smalkald, Melancthon retracts it. It was the first and only time complaisance, or submission, or some similar motive, whatever it might be, induced him to pass over, in spite of all his doubts^ the much more difficult point of the Eucharist, we must believe tiiat powerful reasons influenced him to resist in this. These reasons merit investigation the more, as by this examination we shall discover the true state of the new reformation; the particular dispositions of Melancthon; the cause of all the troubles which constantly agitated him, even to his death; how a man engages on the side of error with general good intentions; and how he there remains in the midst of the most violent anxieties that can be felt in this life. The thing merits to be deeply discover it to us.

BOOK V.

[Gfeneral Reflections on the a^tations of Melancthon, and the state of

the Reformation.]

A brief summaij. — ^Melanctfaon's agitations, reg^ts,vacillatinscondition. — ~ The cause or all his errors, and ot his disappointed hopes. — -The unhappy success of the Reformation, and the wretcned motives that attract men to it, adinowledsed by the Authors of the party. — Melancthon in vain acknowledges the perpetuity of the Church, the authority of her judgments, and that of her Prelates. — ^Imputed Justice leads him away, though, by his Confession, he dpes not find it in the Fathers, not even in St Augustin, oa whom he had formerly rested.

The first proceedings of Luther, at which time Melancthon devoted himself entirely to him, were attended with a specious appearance. Exclaiming against abuses, which were but too true, with much force and liberty; mingling with his discourses pious sentiments, the remnants of a good education; and at the same time leading a Ufe, if not perfect, at least blameless in the eyes of men, are things which luive no small attractive influence*

I

We are not to suppose that heresies always have for their authors Kbertines and wicked men, who designedly make religion subservient to their passions. St. Gregory Nazianzen does not tepresent to us Heresiarchs as men destitute of religion^ but as l&en who mistake it ** They are," says he, "men of great But these great wits," proceeds he, **are withal ardent and impetuous, who pursue &e afiair of refigion with a boundless warmth:"* that is, who have a false zeal, and mingling proud disgust, and inyincible assurance, and their own conceits with religion, urge all to extremes: to this also must be united an air of regularity, or where would be that seduction so often pre^^ dieted in the Scripture t Luther had formerly a zest for devotion. In his early life, alarmed by a clap of thunder, which hd thought would have struck him dead, he entered into religion irith dispositions sufficiently sincere. What occurred with regard to indulgences has already been explained. If he advanced extraordinary tenets of doctrine, he submitted himself to the Pope. Condemned by tlie Pope, he appealed to the Council, which ^e whole Christian world, many ages before, had deemed necessary to redress the grievfmces of file Church. To refbmi corrupt morals was an object desired by the universe: and although sound doctrine always subsiated equally well in the Church, yet it was not explained equally well by dl preachers* Many preached nothing but indulgences* pilgrimages, almsgivistg to the religious,, and made those practices, which were only the accessaries of piety, the foundation of religion. They spoke dogma of imputed justice, took a new view of it, appeared to literature than thec^ogy, to be the only preacher of the Gospeh

justice.

It is but just to gifve all to Jesus Christ, The Church attributed all to him in the justification of the sinner, as well and better than Luther, but in a different manner. We have seen how Luther attributed all to him^by absolutely taking all from man; and, on the other hand, the Church attributed all to him, by maintaining, for an effect of his grace, all the good man has, and even the right use of his free-will in all that regards a Christian life* The novelty of Luther's doctrine and opinions captivated men of wit. Melancthen was the chief of them in Germany. To erudition, to polite*^ ness, and to elegance of style, he united a singular moderation. He was considered to be the only person capable of succeeding, VX learning, to the reputation of Erasmus; and Erasmus him*

himself, by his own choice, would have elevated him to the first honors among the learned world, had he not seen him engaged in a party against the Church; but the tide of novelty bore him down with the crowd. From the beginning of his attachment to Luther, he wrote to one of his friends, " I have not yet treated the matter of justification as it should be treated, and I am aware that none of the ancients treated it in this manner."* These words demonstrate a man captivated with the charms of the new doctrine; and yet he has but touched so great a subject, and already knows more than all the ancients. We see him charmed at a sermon which Luther made on the subject of the Sabbath-day. t He there taught that repose, in which God did all, and man nothing. A young professor of the Greek language heard such novel ideas, promulgated by the most lively and vehement orator of his age, with all the ornaments of his native language, and immense applause: it is not a matter of surprise tiiat he was captivated. To him Luther appears the greatest of all men— a man sent by God — a Prophet. The unexpected success of the new reformation confirmed this opinion. Melancthon was sincere and credulous; men of talent are oflen so: there he was taken. All the votaries of polite literature follow his example — Luther becomes their idol. He is attacked, and perhaps with too much acrimony. The ardor of Melancthon is enkindled; the confidence of Luther engages him still more; and with his master, he permits. Umsetf to be captivated with the temptation of reforming Bishops, Fopes,^ Princes^ Kings; a^d Emperors, even at the expense of unity and peace^ Lu&er, it is true, was the slave of unheasd-of excesses: ^s was a subject of sorrow to his moderate disciple. He trembled whenever he thought of the implacable, wiath of this Achilles \ and feared ^* nothing less from the old age of a man, whose passions were so violent, than the transports of a Hercules, a Philoctetes, and a Marius.;";{ that is, he anticipated what, indeed, happened, something furious. This he writes confiden* tially, and in Greek, according to his custom, to his friend Camerarius: but, as with men of wit, a witty saying oflen has great influence, a bonmot of Erasmus supported him. Eras* mus said that the world, stubborn and obdurate as it was, required a master as rude as Luther:§ that is, as he explained it to him, Luther seemed necessary to the world, as t3rrants are, whom God sends for its correction; as a Nebuchadnezzar, a Holofemes; in a word, as a scourge of God. In this there was no subject in which to glory; bu( Melancthon, who had understood

* Lib. iv. Ep. 126. Col. 574. f Ibid. Col. 675.

t Lib. iv. Ep. 240, 315. § Lib. xviii. Ep. 25, 19, 3.

13*

it on the fair side, persuaded himself, at the commencementt

that, in order to awaken the world, nothing less was necessary

than the violence and thunder^ of Luther.

But at length the arrogance of this imperious master declared

itself. The whole world rose up against him, even those who

were equally intent upon the reformation of Ihe Church. A

thousand impious sects enrolled themselves under his banner^

and, 'under the name of Reformation, arms, seditions, and civil

ip^ars, devastated Christianity. To increase these sorrows, the

Sacramentarian contest divided the new-bom reformation into

two almost equal parts. However, Luther urged every thing

to extremes ; and his discourses, instead of calming, imbittered

the minds of men. His conduct appeared so weak, and hi*

excesses so singular, that Melancthon nei^er could excuse nor

" support them. From that time his agitations were exceedingly

great. Every moment he wished for death. For thirty years

his tears ceased not to llow.^ *^ And the Elbe," said he,/* with

all it streams, would not have famished him with water sii^cieiil

to weep for the sorrows of the divided reformation. "f

5. — Melancthon licknowledges at length thai Luther's great auecesa ptoeeedai

fomm abad prindfie.

at first dazzled, and which with all others he considered as a mark of the finger of God, was but a weak relief to him,, when time had discovered to him the true causes of this great progress and apd independence had been the great supporters of the reformation. If the cities of the em^nre were seen to run in crowds to will feel pain at th^se words, but it is Melancthon who writes them, and writes them to Luther:— -^* Our people blame me be* catise I restore the jurisdiction to Bishops* The people accus*- tomed to liberty, having once cast off the yoke, will not receive it again: and the imperial towns are most averse to this authority. They seek not doctrine and religion, but power and liberty.";^ He repeats this complaint again to the same Luther: — ^*' Our associates," says he, ** dispute not for the Gospel, but who shall independence; and if they were averse to their Bishops, it was not because they were their pastors, but because they were their sovereigns.

Episcopal authority.

To speak all, Melancthon was not anxious to re-establish the ♦ Lib. iv. Ep. 100—1 19, 842. t Lib. il Ep. 202. J Lib. L Ep. 17. § Lib. i. Ep. 20.

temporal power of the Bishops; but what he wished to have restored, was the ecclesiastical government, the spiritual jurisdiction, and, in a word, '^ the Episcopal administration;" because he saw that without that every thing would fall into confusion. *' Would to God I could confirm, not the sovereignty of Bishops, but restore their administration; for I see what kind of Church we are likely to have if we subvert the ecclesiastical government EVER."* It is what always happens when the yoke of lawful authority is thrown off. Those who excite the people to insurrection under the pretext of liberty, become tyrants themselves; and if it be not yet sufficiently seen that" Luther was of that number, what follows will establish it beyond all doubt. Melancthon proceeds; and afler blaming those who loved not Luther, only because^ through his means they removed the Bishops, he concludes, ^* They had gained a liberty which would do posterity BO good. For what will be," proceeds he, ^* the state of the Church, if we change iall the ancient customs^ and there be no

In this disorder he anticipates each one will become his own matter* If the ecclesiastical powers, to whom the authority of will the new ministers subsist who have taken their places? It is only necessary to hear Capito speak, the colleague of Bucer in the admimstration of the Church of Strasburg: — ^* The authority of the ministers," says he, *^ is wholly aboli^ed; all is lost---all falls to ruin. There is not any Church amongst us, not so much as one, where there is any discipline. The people is free — ^yon wish to establish a new Papacy." And a little after: *' God has given me to understand ^at it is to be a us to reject the Pope. For the people, accustomed to, and nourished, as it wwe, in ticentiousness, have rejected the curb altogether, as if, by destroying the power of the Papists, we, at the same time, destroyed the force of the Sacraments and ^t Ministry. They loudly tell us, I know enough of the gospel; what need have I of your aid to find out Jesus Christ; go and preach to those that are disposed to hear you."! What Babylon more confused than this Church, which blasted she had come 'forth from the Church of Rome as from a Babylon? Such was the Church of Strasburg; that Church which the new reformed

incessantly proposed to Erasmus, when he complained of their disorders, as the most orderly and modest of all the churches. Such was this Church in 1537, that is, in her vigor and in her bloom.

Bucer, the colleague of Capito, entertained no better opinion of it in 1549;. and acknowledges that nothing had been there more sought after, " than the pleasure of hving after their own fancy."*

Another minister complains to Calvin, that there was no order in their churches, and gives this reason, '^ That a great number of their people believed they had withdrawn themselves from the power of Antichrist, by revelling with the wealth of the Church, as pleased them best, and by despising all discipline, "f These are not discourses which censure disorders with exaggeration; they are what the new Pastors write to each other in confidence; and by them are seen the sad effects of the new reformation.

the Magiitraitea make themadvea Popes.

One of the fruits it produced was the slavery into which the Church fell. It is not surprising if the new reformation pleased princes and magistrates, who then became masters of all, even adjoining Geneva, Mpntbeliart, was an assembly diere held, by the principal inhabitants, in order to know *' what the Prince could ordain concerning the 'Supper. "jl In vain Calvin resists this abuse: he has little hopes of a remedy; and all he can do is to complain of it, as the greatest disorder that can be brought into the Church. Mycon, the successor of CEcolampadius in the ministry of Basil, makes a similar complaint to as little purpose: *' The lajrmen," says he, *' assume all to themselves, and the magistrate hai% made himself Pope."§

This was an evil unavoidable in the new Reformation; it established itself by rising up against the Bishops, by warrant from the magistrates. The magistrate suspended the mass at Strasburg, abolished it in oth^r places, and modelled the divine service; the new pastors were instituted by his authority; after that it was but just that he should have all power in the Church. Thus all that was gained in the new reformation, by rejecting the Pope, the ecclesiastical successor of St. Peter, was to give themselves a lay-pope, and place the authority of the Apostles in the hands of the magistrates.

Luther, proud as he was of his new Apostleship, could not defend himself against so great an abuse. Sixteen years had

elapsed since the establishment of his Reformation in Saxonj^, widiout ever thinking of visiting the Churches, even to see if the pastors whom they had appointed discharged their duty, or if the people knew, at least, their. Catechism. '^ They were taught very well," says Luther, " to eat flesh on Fridays and Saturdays, to lay aside confession, to believe they were justified by faith alone, and that good works merited nothing;"* but seriously to preach repentance, Luther well assures us, was a thing they never thought of. — The Reformers were otherwise em*, ployed. At last, to restrain this disorder, in 1538, they thought of the remedy of a Visitation, so recommended in the Canons. *^ But not a man amongst us," says Luther, '' was as yet called to this ministry; and St. Peter prohibits any thing being dond in the Church without being assured, by a certain deputation, that what one does is the work of God;" that is, in a word, "a mission, a vocation, a lawful authoritv is necessary for that end. "I Observe, these new evangelism were assured of their extraordinary mission from above, to cause the people to rise up against their bishops, to preach in opposition to diem, to take upon themselves the administration of sacraments, contrary to their prohibition: but for the true episcopal function, which is to visit and correct, not one of them had received the vocation sion; so much those, who boasted of it, did distrust it in reality. The remedy discovered for this defect was to have recourse to ^ the Prince, as to a power undoubtedly ordained by God in this country.*^ Thus Luther speaks. But was this power of God'a appointment established fat this function t Luther acknowl** ^dges it was not, and rests upon this foundation, that a visitation is an apostolic function. Why, &6n, have recourse to the

Srince t ^ Because," says Luther, " although the secular power e not charged with this office, they will not fail, in charity, to name visitors;" and Luther exhorts the other princes to follow this example; that is, he would have the function of Bii^opa be exercised by the authority of princes: and this attempt, in the language of the Reformation, is called charity.

acknowledges U,

This statement demonstrates that the Sacramentarians were not the only people who, destitute of lawful authority, had filled their Churches with confusion: Capito, it is true, after complaining, as we have seen, that discipline was unknown in the Churches of his sect, adds, *^ there was no discipline except in the Lutheran Churches."§ But Melancthon, who was ac-

* Visit Sax. c de Doct c. de Libert Christ f Ibid.

t Viat Sax. cap. de Doct cap. de Libert Christ § Int fijnst Calv. p. n. 7,

,quainted with them, speaking of these Churches, in 1532, and much ahout the time itiai Capito wrote his letter, relates, ^' that discipline was destroyed among them, and they doubted of the most important matters: however, that, like the others, they would take no care to explain their tenets, and these evils were incurable:"^ so that no advantage remains on the part of the Lu- therans, unless that their discipline, such as it was, so much excelled that of the Sacramentarians as to excite their envy.

11. — Mdancthon laments the Licentiousness of the party f in tohich people at

table decided points of Religion,

It is expedient we should also learn, from Melancthon, in what manner the great men of the party treated theology and ecclesiastical discipline. Confession of sins was but feebly spoken of among the Lutherans; and though Uttie was said of it, and though the remains of Christian discipline which they wished to retain were small, yet they had such an influence on a man of importance, as Melancthon relates, that he openly declared at a *^ great banquet (for there only, says he, diey treat theology) that they ought to oppose it; that Uiey ought to be on their guard, lest that liberty they had recovered should be taken from them, otherwise they would be enchained by a new slavery, and that already, by little and litde, the ancient traditions were renewing."! This is the consequence of exciting the spirit of rebellion among the people, and indiscreetly inspiring them with a hatred of traditions. We have in one sii^e banquet a representation of what was done in the others. This spirit prevailed among all the people; and Melancthon himself says to his friend Camerarius, speaking of these new churches, '^ You see the excesses of the multitude, and their blind desires:";|; no order could be established among than.

Thus the true reformation, namely, of morals, retrogaded instead of advancing, and this for two reasons— one, because authority was destroyed, and because the new doctrine inclined to favor human passions. I undertake not to prove that the new Justification had this bad ejffect. It is a subject oflen treated of before, and foreign to my purpose. I shall speak only of those notorious facts that, afler the establishment of imputed justice, the doctrine of good works fell into such disrepute, that some of the chief disciples of Luther said it was a blasphemy to teach they were necessary. Others went so far as to sav they were contrary to salvation; all concurred in deciding they were not necessary. It is permitted, in the new Reformation, to say, that good works are necessary, as things, which God requires from man, but it cannot be said that they * Lib. iv. Ep. 136. t Ibid. 71. Ibid p. 769,

^re necessary to salvation. And why, then, does God require them? Is it not in order to save us? Has not Jesus Christ himself said, " If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments V^* It is, therefore, precisely for obtaining life and eternal salvation that good works are necessary according to the Gospel, and it is what the whole Scripture preaches to us. But the new Reformation has discovered this subtlety, that one may without difficulty allow them to be necessary, provided it be not ^r salvation. The question regarded the adult, for as to little children, all were agreed. Who would have believed the Reformation was to bring forth such a prodigy 1 and that this prop- osition, *' Good works are necessary to salvation," should ever have been condemned 1 . It was done by Melancthon and all the Lutherans in many of their conventions,*}* and particularly that of Worms, in 1557, the acts of which we shall see in their proper place.

Erasmus,

I intend not here to impeach Protestants with their bad morals; our own, with relation to most men, did not appear better. I wish only to disabuse them of the idea that their Reformation was attended with the fruits that might be anticipated from so beautiinl a name, or that, their new justification had produced one good effect. Erasmus frequently said, that of the many whom he had seen embrace the new Reformation, (and he maintained a familiarity with most of their chiefs,) he had not seen so much as one whom it had not made worse instead of making better. *' What an evangelical generation is this M said he. J " Nothing was ever seen more licentious, and, withal, more seditious; nothing, in a word, less evangelical than these pretended evangelists: they abrogate vigils, and the divine service of the night and day. They were, said they, Pharisaical superstitions; but then tiiey should have substituted something better in their place, and not become Epicureans to escape Judaism. All is carried to extremes in this new Reformation. They root up only what ought to be pruned; they set fire to the house in order to cleanse it. Morals are neglected; luxury, debauchery, adulteries, increase more than ever; there is no order, no discipline among them^ The people indocile, afler having shaken off the yoke of their superiors, will believe no person; and in so disordered a licentiousness Luther will soon have reason to regret what he calls tiie tyranny of bishops." When he wrote in this way to his Protestant friends regarding the unhappy fruits of their reformation,§ they candidly agreed

with him. ** I had much rather," said he to them, " have to do with those Papists you decry so much."* He reproaches them i^th the malice of Capito, the malignant falsehoods of Farel^ whom (Ecolampadius, at whose table he lived, could neither suffer nor restrain; the arrogance and violence of Zuinglius, and in a word, with those of Luther, who sometimes seemed,t0 speak like the Apostles, and at other times abandoned himself to such strange excesses, and such vile scurrility, that it was plainly seen the apost<dic air he affected at times proceeded not from his heart. The others with whom he was acquainted were no better. *' I find^" said he, *' more piety in one good said was not to flatter the Catholics^ whose disorders he im- ' peached with sufficient freedom. But, besides that he disapproved their boasting of the reformation, without any supericnr merit of their own, he judged there was an essential difierence between those who neglected good workei through weakness and those who lessened their dignity and necessity by maxim.

But here is a testimony which will press the Protestants more closely: it is that of Bucer. For in 1542, and more than twenty years after the reformation, this minister writes to Calvin, *^ that true repentance was" j; — so much had they abused the name of reformation and gospel. We have just heard as much from Ihd lips of Luther. § Five years after this letter of Bucer, and in the midst of the victories of Charies Y, Bucer writes again to Ae same Calvin: ** God has punished the injury we have done to his name by our long and pernicious hypocrisy." || This was confining a sufficiently proper name to licentiousness covered with the title of reformation. In 1649^ he describes in - stronger terms the little fruit of the pretended reformation, when he writes again to Calvin. '' Our people have passed from the hypocrisy so deeply rooted in the Papacy, to a profession, such as it is, of Jesus Christ; and there is but a small number who have departed from this b3^ocrisy."ir Now he certainly seeks for a subject of dispute, and endeavors to render the Church of Rome guilty of that hypocrisy he acknowledges in his own party. For if by the Roman hypocrisy, according to the style of the reformationyhe understands the watchings, the abstinence, and devotions performed in honor of the saints, and similar practices, it was impossible for the new Reformed to be more

I

This history would require that I should relate the answem returned by tibe ministers, with regard to this decree of Sainte- Foy, after it became public, and was urged against them by the Catholics. But vll of Ihem, by the above account of Htm feet, fell of themselvea. Some said, a mutual toleration was the only &ing in question; but it is {4ain enough^ a common Confession cf Faith was not necessary for that end, since the effect of thir t<^eration is, not to make one common faith, but to bear mutually with (Hie another's faith. Othei-s* in excuse for the gvei^ power of deciding on doctnne lodged in the hands of four depu-^ ties, answered, this was because it was known ^* near the matter"*, what they could agree in; this " near the matter" is ad- mirable. Dom^tleds men are not over nice in questions of feidi when satisfied with knowing ** near the matter'^ what they ^ore to say; and little also do they know what to stick to, when, for want of such knowledge, they give their deputies so utilimited a power of concluding whatsoever they shall think fitting^ The Minister Claudel answered, that they knew precisely what they were to say; and should the deputies have gone beyond it, they" would have justly been disowned as men that had gone beyond tjieir commission. But this answer, allowing it so^ does not satisfy the chief difficulty, consisting in this, that to please the exclude, as well the Real Presence as the other points contested with them; that is to say, they must evidently have changed, in such important articles, a Confession of Faitli expressly affirmed hy them to be contained in the word of God. *

25. — JJifferenee between what was desigiied to be dene in favor of the Lutherans at Frankfort and Sainte-Foy, and what was done at Charenton.

Care ought to be taken not to confound what was to be done then with what was done since, when the Lutherans were received into communion at the Synod of Charenton^ in 1631. This last action shews only, that the Calvinists can bear with the Lutheran doctrine, as a doctrine not at all prejudicial to the fundamentals of faith. But it is certainly quite a diffisrent thing to tolerate, in the Lutheran's Confession of Faith, what you believe erroneous in it, and to suppress in your own what you believe to be a truth revealed of God, and expressly declared by his word. This is what they had resolved to do in the assembly of Frankfort and at the Synod of S^nte-Foy; this is what they would have executed, had it pleased the Lutherans; Presence that all which clashed with it was not erased out of the Sacramentarian Confessions of Taith. B^t die reason of

VOL. lu 14

tbis was, once change, and no end of changing; a Confession of Faith which changes the doctrine of ages past, shews thereby that itself may be changed likewise; nor must we wonder the Synod of Sainte-Foy thought they had power to correct in 1678 what the Synod of Paris had established in 1559.

All these means of agreement now mentioned, so far from ^diminishing the disunion of our Reformed, did but increase it. Here were men ignorant as yet what to stick to, whose first step, at setting out, was by a breach upon the whole Christian world. Here was a religion built on the sand, which had no stability even in her Confessions of Faith, although made with such nice care, and published with such pomp. Even the professors of it could not persuade themselves that they had not a right to innovate in so changeable a religion, and it was this produced the novelties of John Fischer, known under the name of Fiscator, and those of Arminius.

27. — Piscator^s dispute,

Piscator's affair will teach us many important matters, and I am the more desirous to relate it at full length, the less it is known by the generality of our reformed.

Piscator taught divinity in the academy of Herborne, a town in the earldom of Nassau, towards the end of the sixteenth century. Examining the doctrine of Imputed Justice, he says that the justice of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us, is not that which he practised during the course of his life, but that which he underwent in bearing voluntarily the punishment of our sin on the cross; as much as to say, the death of our Lord being a sacrifice of an infinite value, whereby he paid and satisfied for us, it was also by this act alone that the Son of God was properly Saviour, without any necessity of joining to it any other acts, this being of itself sufficient; so that, if we are to be justified by imputation, it is by that of this act, in virtue whereof precisely we are acquitted in tibe sight of God, and whereby •* the hand- writing of the sentence passed against us was defaced," as St. Paul speaks, ** by the blood which pacifieth both heaven and earth.'** 28. — This doctrine detested by the J^alional 'Synod of Oap, — First decision.

This doctrine was detested by our Calvinists in the Synod of Gap, anno 1603,1 as contrary to the eighteenth, twentieth, and twenty-second articles of the Confession of Faith, and it was resolved by them, ^' that a letter should be addressed to Mr. Piscator, and likewise to the university in which he taught."

It is certain these three articles decided nothing as to what * Qol. il 14. t Syn. de Gap. ch. de la Con£ de Foy.

as to the eighteenth^ in which it was pretended the decision might be found, it said no more than that "we are justified by the obedience of Jesus Christ, which is allowed us," without specifying what obedience; so. that Piscator found it Iio hard matter to defend himself in regard to the Confession of Faith, But since they will have it that he innovated in respect to the Confession of the pretended reformed of this kingdom, which had been subscribed by those of the Low Countries, I agree to it.

Piscator was written to by order of the sjoiod,^ as resolved, and his answer, modest, but firm in his sentiment, was read at the Synod of Rochelle, in 1607. After reading it, this decree was made: " As to the letter of Dr. John Piscator, Professor in the Academy of Herbome, in answer to that of the Synod of Gap, rendering account of his doctrine which teaches justification to be by the sole obedience of Christ in his death and peission, imputed as justice to the faithful, and not by the obedience of his life; the assembly not approving the division of causes so conjoint, hath declared, that the whole obedience of Christ in his life and death is imputed to us for the entire remission of our sins, as being no other than one and the same obedience, ^^

^.-^Important observation, that the Doctrine of the Calvinists against Piscator resolves the difficulties they urge against us in regard of the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

In consideration of these last words, I would vrillingly ask our Reformed, why, in order to merit for us the forgiveness of our sins, they require, not only the obedience of the death, but also that of the whole life of our Redeemer? Is it that the merit of Jesus Christ dpng is not infinite, and not more than sufficient, for our salvation? This they will not say; they must, therefore, say, that what is required as necessary afler an infinite merit, does neither destroy its infiniteness nor sufficiency: but at the ing his intercession by his presence not in heaven only, but also on our Altars in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, is destroying nothing of the infiniteness of the propitiation made on the cross; it is only, as speaks the Synod of Rochelle, not dividing things conjoined, and accounting all Jesus Christ did in his Ufe, allhe did in his death, and all he now does whethw in heaven, where he presents himself for us to the Father, or on our Altars, where be is present in another way, as the continuation of one and the eame intercession^ and of one and the sam^ obedience which he began in his life, consummated ip hia death, and never cesmu

MO tw at8T0B;r Of [noiir

to lenew botk in heaven and in Ae mystmesy &ereby to appfy tbem to ua effectually and perpetually*'

91. — Tfdrd deeiakm, — Formulary and Subscr^Hon ordamtd agabnai Pitttior

The doctrine of Piscator had its partizans. Nothing waa found against him in die eighteenth, twentieth, and twentysecond articles of the Confession of Faith. And, indeed, they abandoned the two laat to fix on the eighteenth, which was no more to the purpose, as we have seen, than the others; and to drive the matter home against Piscator and his doctrine, they went so far, in the national Synod of Privae,. as to oblige all &e pastors to subscribe expressly agasist Piscator in these terms; "I underwritten N. in regard to the contents in the eighteenth article of the Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches, regarding our justification, do declare and protest, that / understand it according to the sense received in our churchy approved by the national synods^ and conformable to God^s word; which is, that our Lord Jesus Christ was subject to the moral imd ceremonial law, not only for our good, but in our stead; and that ail the obedience he rendered to the law is imputed lous^ and that our justification does consist, not ovfy in the remission of sins, but in the imputation of active justice; and subjecting myself to the word of God^ I believe ' that the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,' and that be did minister to the purpose he came for: promising never to depart from the doctrine received in our churchesy and to subject

WImt it avails imputed justice, that '* Jesus Christ came to minister, and not to be ministered unto;" and to what purpose this text is brought abnip^-and without connexion into £e midst ef this decree, let him guess that can. Neither do I see what use the imputation of die ceremonial law is to us, which never was made f(>r us; nor for what reason ^ Jesus Christ must have been subject to it^ not only for our good, but in our stead.'' I well comprehend how Jesus Christ, having dispersed the shadows and figures of the law, has left us free from the servitude of the ceremonial taws, which were but shadows and figures; but that k was necessary for such intent that he himself should have been subject to them in our stead, the consequence would be pernicious, since it might be equally concluded he had also set us free f^om the moral law, by his fulfilling it. All this shows the Mttle exactness df our Reformed, who were more intent on showiag eruditidn in a profusion of big empty words^ Ifaazi on speaking ^^^^ accioracy ia Hiekr decrees*

I am at a loss to know what could be the reason that Pisca<* tor's affair was taken so very much to heart by our French Re formed, or why the Synod of Privas descended to the utmost precautions, by enjoining the above subscription. This, however, ought to have been decisive: a formulary of fhith, ordered to be subscribed by all the pastors, should have explained the matter fully and distinctly. Nevertheless, after this, subscriptiou and all the precedent decrees, it was still necessary to make a new declaration at the Sjniod of Tonins in 1614. Four great decrees one after another, and in such different terms, concerning a particular article, and on so limited a subject, is very ex- traordinary; but in the new Reformation something is always found to be added or curtailed, and never is their faith explained so sincerely, nor with so full a sufficiency, as to make them fidhere precisely to thq first decisions.

34* — The impieiy of Imputed Justice as it is proposed by these Synods,

To conclude this affair, I shall make a short reflection on the nature of the doctrine, and some reflections on the procedure.

As to the doctrine, I very well understand how the death of Jesus Christ, and the payment he made to the divine justice of the punishment we owed it, is imputed to us, as you impute to a debtor the payment made by the security for his acquittance. But that the perfect justice fulfilled by our Lord in his life and death, and the absolute obedience he rendered to the law, should be imputed to us, or as they speak, allowed, in the same sense, tiiat the payment of the surety is imputed to the debtor; is the same as to say, that he discharges us by his justice from the obligation of being good and virtuous, as by his punishment he discharges us from the obligation of undergoing that which our sins had merited.

of the contrary,

I understand, then, and very clearly, in another kind of manner, what it avails us to have a Saviour whose sanctity is infinite.* For thereby I behold him alone worthy to obtain for us all the graces requisite to make us just. But that we should formally be made just, because Jesus Christ was just; and that his justice should be allowed us, as if he had fulfilled the law to our discharge, neither does the Scripture say it, nor can any man of good sense comprehend it.

By this means accounting as nothing our interior justice, and that which we practise through grace, they make us all in the main equally just, by reason that the justice of Jesus Christ, supposed by them the only one that renders us just, is infinite*

VOL. II. 14*

i8t THE HISTO&V 0r [book

The J likewise wrest fram the elect of God that crown of jii0tice which the just Judge reserves for each one in particular, since they suppose aU have the same justice which is infinite ; or if at length they confess, this infinite justice is allowed us in different degrees, accordingly as we approach to it more or less

This is, m a few words, what I had to say on the doctrine itself. I shall be still ndore brief as to the procedure: it has nothing but what is weak in it, nothing grave nor serious. The act of most importance is the formulary of subscription enjoined at the Synod of Privas, but, from the very beginning, #iey do not so much as think of convicting Piscator from the Scriptures* The poliit to be proved was, •* That the obedience of Jesus Christ, whereby he fulfilled the whole law in his life and death, is allowed us in order to make us just," which is called in the foanuidary of Privas, as before in that of Gap, the imputation c^ the active justice.

Now, all that could be found in four synods to prove this doctrine and the imputation of the active justice, by the Scrips tore, is,, that "the Son of Man did not come to be ministered unto, but to minister," a text so little adapted to imputed justice, that th^re is no discovering even to what purpose it was cited.

But so it is with these new reformers, provided they name but the wof d of God with emphasis, and then fling out a text •or two,, however wide from the purpose, they think to have answered &e profession they make of believing nought but Scripture in ^press terms. The people are dazzled wi& these big promises,.and are not even sensible what a sway the authority of their ministers has over them, though when all is done it is by that their assent is determined.

37. — How the €f09\fe9rion of Faith is quoted.

As fit>m ^e word of God nothing vras proved against Piscator, so likewise their Ccmfessioa ^ Faith was opposed in vam against him.

For we have seen them at Privas immediately forego the twentieth and twenty-second articles, which were produced at Gap. The eighteenth is only insisted on, and as it spoke nothing but what was generfd and indeterminate, they bethought themselves of thus remedpng it in the Forinulary: * I declare and protest that I understand the eighteenth article of our Confession of Faith according to the sense received in our churches, approved in our S3mods, and conformable to the word of God."

The word of God would have sufficed alone ; but as that

was in diflfmte, to finish it there was a necessity of coining back to the authority of things jud§^r And abiding by the article of the Confession of Faith, understanding i( not according to its precise terms, but according to the sense reeeived in churekes, ai^d approved in the National Synods, which 'finally regulates the dispute by tradition, and shows us that the most assumed means of understanding what is written, is to see in what main ner it always had been understood.

This is what passed, as to the affair of Piscator, in four iia lional s3mods. The last of them was that of Tonins, held in 1614, where, after the subscription commanded by the Synod of Prrvas, all seemed determined in the most serions manner im aginable; yet afler all there was nothing in it, for the year following, to go no fiuther, that is, in 1615, Du Moulin, ihe most renowned of all their ministers, openly made a jest of it, with the approbation of a whole synod. The history of the diing is this:— -

38. — They hugh at aU these Decrees, — Nothing eerieius m the Iteformaiien^^

The party of the Reformation opposed to Lutheranism had always been disturbed because they could never contrive among themselves a common Confession, to unite all their members, as the Confession of Augsburg united all the Lutherans. So many different Confessions of Faith showed a principal of division which weakened the party* They came back, therefore, once more to the project of a reunion. Du Moulin proposed the means in a writing sent to the Synod of tho Isle of France* The whole drift of it was to dissemble the dogmas, which thej could not agree in; and Du Moulin writes in express terms, that among the things it was requisite to dissemble in this new Confession of Faiths they ought to place Fiscator's question regarding Justification:^ a doctrine so mudi detested by four national s3naods,becomes indifferent all of a sudden in the opinion of this minister, and the synod of the Isle of France, with the same hand with which it had but just subscribed Fiscator's condemnation, nay, the pen, as I may say, still wet with the ink it had made this subscription with, thanks M. du Moulin by express letters for this proposal:t such instability is there in the new Reformation, and so easily does she sacrifice the greatest matters to this common Confession which she never could attain.

Refarmatum*

The words of Du Moulin are too remarkable not to be related. ^ There," says he,t viz., in this assembly to be held for this new Confession of Faith, '^ I am for no disputes about religion, ibr minds once heated will never be brought to yield, and each

5 Act lut Blood. Piece. VL p. 73. fl^Nd. |Ibid.ii.4. ^

one in hi^etum cries out victory; but I would have laid on the table the Confession of tiie churches of France, of England, of Scotland, of the Low Countries, of the Palatinate, of the Bwiss, &c. That out of these Confessions we might strive to form one common <ie, wherein we should dissemble many things^ without the knowledge of which one might be saved, as is Pis^ eator^s question regarding Justification, and many subtle opinions proposed by Jirminius about Free-will, Predestination and Per* severance of the Saints."

He adds, ** as Satan had corrupted the Church of Rome by her -having too much, namely, by avarice and ambition, so he strives to corrupt the churches of the new reformation by know-* ing too much,- to wit, by curiosity," which, in reality, is the temptation all heretics sink und^r, and the snare they are taken in; and concludes that, in the way of agreement, " they shall have gone the greatest part of the journey, if they can but pre* vail on themselves to be ignorant of many things, be contented with necessaries to salvation, and be easy in regard of others."

How to agree in this matter was the question, for if by such fhings, the knowledge of which is necessary to salvation, he understands those which every private man is obliged to know, under penalty of damnation, this common Confession of Faith is already made in the Creed of the Apostles, and in that of Nice. The union made on this foundation would reach much beyond the newly reformed churches, nor could they hinder our being comprehended in it; but, " if by the knowledge of things necessary to salvation" he understands the full explanation of all the expressly revealed truths of God, who has revealed none the knowledge of which does not tend to secure the salvation of ^ his faithful, there " to dissemble" what the S3mods have declared ** expressly revealed of God," with " detestation" of the contrary errors, is laughing at the Church, is holding her decrees for imposture even after signing them, is betra^^ both religion and conscience.

makes so slight a matter, not of Piscator's propositions only, but ulso of the much more important ones of Arminius, was afterwards one of the most unmerciful censors of them, you will ac- knowledge, in Ms procedure, the perpetual inconstancy of the new Reformation, always suiting her dogmas to the occasion. ^

43. — Great points to be suppressed; amongst <^hersy that which is contrary t6

the Real Presence,

To conclude the account of this project of reunion then concarted, when this commoa Confession of the party opposed to the

litttberaiia dbould be finished, another wan to be made al8o but preb^ided** Du Moulin here sets forth all the ways of exf* pressing them^dives, so as ^*- not to condenm the Real Pres^neoi Lutheran tenets; and what he cannot save by equivocations or ef Lutherans, of Calvinists, of Sacramentarians, and^ by force of equivocating, to make no other name remain for Protestants than the common one of the Christian Church Reformed. The whole synod of the Isle of France applauded this fine phm; and ^is union, thus completed, it would be time, proceeds this min* ister, to solicit the recondliatioa of the Church of Rome — but he doubts as to dieir succeeding* And with good reason, for we have, not one instance of htir ever approving equivocations m i^e once believed revealed by God.

But I do not allow to Du Moulin and the rest of the sam€^ party, that the differences in their Confessions of Faith are only in the method and expressions, or else in polity and ceremonies; or, if in matters of faith, in such only as had not yet passed into law or public ordinance: for we have seen, and sbkll see the contrary through the whole sequel of this history. And can they say, for example, that the doctrine of Episcopacy wherein the Church of England is so firm, and carries it to such a pitch as to receive no Cahinistic ministers without reordaining them, IB a matter only of expression, or, at most, of mere polity and ceremony's Is it nothing to look on a Church as utterly desti-^ tute of pastors lawfully ordained 1 It is true the Calvinists' are even with them, as we are assured by one of their famous min isters in these words: *^ If any of ours should teach the disthic<* tion of bishops and priests, and thi^t there is no true ministry without bishops, we could not suffer him in our Communion, ^t is to say, at least in our ministry. "f The English Protestants therefore are excluded from it* Is this a difference of small importance 1 This same minister does not speak • so of it, h^ being agreed that, on account of these differences, which he will have but small, of government and discipline, they treat one another as persons excommunicated. | If we descend to particulars in these Confessions of Faith, how many points shall we find in some which are not in others 1 And in reality, were the difierence in words only, their obstinacy would be too great

I Id. am ata Ftot< lU 3, at the beginniiig or his Piej. Legit,

not to agree afler so frequently attempting it: if in ceremoniei^ onlj, their weakness would be too great in insisting on them; but the truth is, they are all sensible how little they agree in the main; and if they boast of being well united, this only serves to confirm, that the union of the new Reformation is rather political than ecclesiastic.

Nothing now re^iains but to entreat our brethren to consider the great steps they have seen taken, not by private men, but by their whole churches, touching matters decided by them with all the authority, said they, of the word of God: yet all these decrees came to nothing. It is a way of speaking in the Ref* ormation always to name the word of God: they believe a thing never the more for that, nor fear the least to suppress what they had advanced under the sanction of so great an authority; but we must not wonder at it. There is nothing in religion more authentic than Confessions of Faith; nothing ought to have been better warranted by the word of God than what the Calvinists had inserted in them against the Real Presence and the other dogmas of the Lutherans. It was not only Calvin that accounted, as detestable, the invention of the Corporeal Presence; De corporali prasmtid detestabile commenium:* the whole- Reformation of France had just said, in body, by the mouth of Beza, that she detested this monster, as well the Lutheran Consubstantiation as the Papistical Transubstantiation. But there is nothing sincere, nor serious, in these detestations of the Real Presence, since they were ready to retrench all that had been said against it, and this, not only by decree of a national synod, but by a joint determinatioa of the whole party solemnly assembled at Frankfort. The doctrine of the figurative sense, not to speak here of other points, afler so many battles and such a number of pretended martyrs, would have been buried in eternal silence, had it but pleased the Lutherans. England, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Low Countries, in a word, all the Calvinists any where to be found, consented to this suppression. How therefore can men remain so wedded to a tenet, which they see so little revelation for, that it is already cast forth from the profession of Christianity by the concurrent wishes of the whole party.

* 2 De£ oont Weetp. Opusc 83. S. n. 9,

BOOK xrii.

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING ANTICHRIST, ANP VARIA-

TIONS ON THIS SUBJECT FROM LUTHER'S TIME DOWN

TO THIS.

A brief Summaiy. — ^Vaiiations of the Protestants in regard to Antichrist- Luther's vain predictionis. — Calvin's evasion.— Whit Luther lays down, as to this Doctrine, is contradicted by Melanctfaon. — A new article of Faith added to the Confession in the Synod of Gap. — The foundation of this decree ^naniiestly false. — ^This Doctrine despicable in the Reformation.^— The absurdities, contrarieties,. and impieties of the new interpretation of prophecies proposed by Joseph Mede, and maintained by the minister Jurieu. — The most holy Doctors of the Church enrolled amongst Blas- phemers and Idolaters.

•Antichrist.

The disputes of Arminius raised great combustions in the United Provinces, and it were now time to treat of them; but as the questions and decisions resulting from them are of amof^ particular discussion, before I engage therein, a famous decree should be mentioned of the Synod of Gap, the account of which was deferred, not to interrupt the affair of Piscator.

It was therefore in this Synod and in 1603, that a new decree was made to declare the Pope Antichrist. This decree was counted of so great importance that it passed into a new article of faith, the thirty-first in order, and took place after the thirtieth, it being there said that all true pastors are equal; so that what gives the Pope the character, of Antichrist, is his styling himself superior to other bishops. If it be so, it is a great while since Antichrist has reigned; nor do I conceive why the Reformation has so long deferred enrolling in the catalogue of this great number of Antichrists she has introduced, St. Innocent, St. Leo, St. Gregory, and the rest of the Popes whose epistles show us the exercise of this superiority in every page.

Now when Luther so greatly exaggerated this new doctrine of the Antichristian papacy, he did it with that prophetic air above remarked in him.* We have seen in what a strain he foretold the downfall of the Papal power; and how his preach* ing was that breath of Jesus Christ which was to overthrow the man of sin; without arms, without violence, by himself alone, without any intervening power: so dazzled, so intoxicated was he with the unexpected effect of his eloquence! ^he whole Reformation was in expectation of the speedy accomplishment^ of this new prophesy. But when they saw the Pope still keep

rock,) and that the Pontifical power, so far from tambling at the blast of this false prophet, maintained itself against the conspiracy of so many revolted powers, insomuch that the attach- ment of God's people to this sacred authority, which makes the band of their unity, redoubled rather than was weakened by so pro|^ecies, and at the weak credulity of those who took them TOT celestial oracles. Tet Calvin had his evasion ready when he said to one that ridiculed them,* ihat " though the body of as to leave nothingf but a dead carceiss*" Thus men will run the hazard of a prophesy, and if the event does not answer, a flash of wit brings ^em off.

But they tell us with a serious air it is a prophesy, not of Luther, but of the Scripture, and evidently to be seen (so it should ince it is an article of faith) in St Paul, and in Daniel. As for die Revelations, Luther did not think fit to employ this book, ' nor receive it into his canon. But for St.' Paul,| what could be more evident, seeing that the Pope sitteth in the temple of God? In the Church, says Luther,;]; that is questionless in the true Church, the true temple of God; it being unexampled in Scripture, that a temple of idols was ever called by this name: so that the ^first step they must make towards a right understanding how th^ Pope is Antichrist, is to acknowledge that Church, wherein ho presides, for the true Church. What follows is not less manifest. Who does not see how " the Pope showeth himself that he is God, exalting himself above all that is worshipped?" Chiefly in that sacrifice so much condemned by our Reformers, . in which, for proof that he is God, the Pope confesses his sins with all the people; raises himself above every thing by entreating all the saints and all his brethren to beg forgiveness for him; also by declaring afterwards, and in the most holy part of this sacrifice, that he hopes this forgiveness, " not through his own merits, but through the bounty and grace, and in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord?" A new kind of Antichrist, that obliges all his adherents to place their hope in Jesus Christ, and for idways having been the most firm assertor of his divinity, is placed by the Socinians at the head of all Antichrists, as the chief of them all, and as the most incompatible with their doctrine.. 4 — Protestants discredit themselves by this Doctrine,

But again, if such a dream can deserve our serious attention^ which of all these Popes is '' that man of sin and the son of perdition specified by St. Paul?" We never met in Scripture with the like eiq>ressions, unless to characterize some particular per-

Nevertheless, they thought fit to say, in the Augshurg Confession and Apology, that nothing was advanced therein but was con* formable to their doctrine. Above all, St. Augustin was cited; and it had been too shameful to the Reformers to own that so great a Doctor, the defender of Christian grace, had been ignorant of the foundation of it. But what Melancthon writes to a friend in confidence, shows us plainly that it was only for form sake, and to save appearances, they named St Augustin in the party. For he repeats three or four times, with a kind of concern, that what hinders his friend firom well understanding this matter is, because ^* he is still too much wedded to St. Augustin's imagination," and that '' he must tuvi away his eyes en- tirely from the imagination of this Father."* But, then, what is tlus imagination he must turn his eyes from 1 Why it is, saya he, the imagination of being held for just by the fulfilling of the law, which the Holy Ghost works within us. This fulfilling, according to Melancthon, avails nothing towards rendering man agreeable to God, and it was a false imagination in St. Augustin to have thought the contrary: thus does he treat so great a man. public opinion men have of him. But, in the main, continues he, ** he does not sufficiently explain the justice of faith." As if he said, on such a subject, we ought at least to cite a Father the whole world considers die best interpreter of this article, although, to spedk the truth? he makes not for us. He found nothing more favorable in the rest of the Fathers. *' What dense darkness," said he, ** do we find on this subject in the t^ommon doctrine of the Fathers and our adversaries, "f What became of those fine words. Consult with Uie ancient Church? Why^ did he not practise what he advised others? And seeing he knew no i^iety^ (as, indeed, none there is but what is grounded on the true doctrine of justification,) how could he believe so many saints were ignorant of it? How could he imsigine he saw so clearly in Scripture what he did not see in the Fathers, not even in St. Augustin, the doctor and defender of justif3ring grace against the Pelagians, whose doctrine also, in tiiis point, the whole Church had constantly followed?

But what most deserves our observation in this place is, that he himself, smitten as he was with the specious idea of his imputed justice, never could succeed in explaining it to his own liking. Not content with laying down the dogma regarding it in the most ample manner in the Confession of Augsburg, he applies himself wholly to the expounding of it in the Apology;

imd, whilst he composed it, he wrote to his friend Camerarius, " I trul/ suffer a very great and painflil labor in the Apology, in the points of justification, which I desire to explain profitably."* But, however, after all this pains-taking, has he fully explained it 1 Let us hear what he writes to another friend; it is the same we' have seen him reprove as too much wedded to St. Augustin's imaginations. " I have endeavored," says he, *'to explain this doctrine in the Apology, but, in such discourses as these, the calumnies of our adversaries permit not the explaining of myself so as I do to you at present, though, in reality, 1 say the same thing."! And, a little after, " I hope you will find some kind of he|p from my Apology, although I there speak with caution of so great matters." This whole letter scarcely contains one single page, the Apology has more than a hundred on this subject; and, notwithstanding, this letter, according tQ him, expl£dns it better than the Apology. The thing was, he durst not say in the Apology as clearly as he did in this letter, " that we must entirely take off our eyes from the accomplishment of the law, even from that which the Holy Ghost works in us." This is what he called rejecting St. Augustin's imagination. He saw himself always pressed with this question of the Catholics: If we are agreeable to God independently of all good wi>rks, and ail fulfilling of the law, even of that which the Holy Ghost woirks in us, how and whereto are good works necessary 1 Melancthon perplexed himself in vain to ward off this blow, and to elude this dreadful consequence: " Therefore good works, according to you, are not necessary." This is what he called calumnies of adversaries, which hindered him from owning frankly, in the Apology, all he had a mind to say — this was the cause of that great labor he had to undergo, and of those precautions of which he spoke.

To a friend the whole mystery of the doctrine was disclosed, but in public he was to be on his guard; he yet further added to his friend, that, afler all, this doctrine is not well understood, except in " the conflicts of conscience:" which was as much as to say, that when a man could do no more, and knew not how to assure himself of having a will sufficient for fulfilling the law, the remedy for preserving sdl this, notwithstanding the undoubted assurance of pleasing God preached up in the new Gospel, was to take off their eyes from ihe law and the fulfilling of it, in order to believe that, independently of all this, God reputed us for just. This was the repose Melancthon flattered himself with, and which he never would relinquish. This difficulty, indeed, always occurred, that of holding oneself assured of the forgiveness of sins ^vithout a like assurance of conversion; as^if ti^ese

* lib. iv. £p. 110. Omnino valde multum laboris sustineo, &c. f Lib. i Ep. 94.

two things were separable, and independent one of the other. This occasioned, in Melancthon, that great labor; and therein he could never satisfy himself; so that after the Confession of Augsburg, and so many painful inquiries of the Apology, he comes besides, in the Confession called Saxonic, to another exposition of justifying grace, where he advances other novelties, iwhich we shall see in time.

Thus is man agitated when smitten with an idea- that has but a delusive appea^iance — fain would he explain his thoughts, but knows not* how — fain would he find in the Fathers what he searches afler; no such principle is to be found in them, yet cannot he renounce the flattering idea that so agreeably prepossesses him. Let us tremble and humble ourselves — let us ac- knowledge that, in man, there is a profound source of pride and error; and that the weaknesses of the human mind, like to the judgments of God, are unfathomable.

31. — Mdancthon^agrievoiu agonies — he foresees the dreadful consequences ofth$

Melancthon was persuaded he saw truth on one side, and lawful authority on the other. His heart was divided, and the struggle to reunite these two gave him continual torment. He was not able to renounce the charms of his imputed justice, nor to make the body of the bishops receive a doctrine unknown to those who had governed the Church till then. Hereupon, the authority which he loved for being lawful, became odious to him, because it opposed that which he mistook for trutii. At the same time that you hear him say " he never called the authority of bishops in question," he arraigns their ' tyranny," chiefly be* cause they opposed his doctrine, and believes '' he weakens hi own caudie by laboring to re-establish them."*

Mistrusting his own conduct, he racks himself, nor foresees any thing but disasters. " What will this Council be," says he, " if held, but a tyranny either of Papists or of others: a battle of divines more cruel and stubborn than that of centaurs V^'\ Well was he acquainted with his master, Luther, and feared no less the tyranny of his own than that he attributed to the adverse party! The fury of divines makes him tremble. He sees, authority once shaken, that all the dogmas, even the most impor-^ tant, will be called in question, one afler another, without knowing where to stop. The disputes and differences about the Lord's Supper discovered to lum what was to happen on other articles. " Good God!" says he, " what tragedies will posterity behold, if these questions ever come to be moved, whether or no the Word, whether the Holy Ghost be a person!" J These

matters began to beiftooved in bis time, but he judged this beginning to be but weak as yet; for he perceived the minds of men to become insensibly bolder and bolder against the estab-' Ushed doctrines, and the authority of ecclesiastical decisions. What would have been the case hall he seen the other pernicious consequences of the doubts which the Reformation started ] the whole order of discipline pubhcly overthrown by some, and independence set up, that is, ancu'chy, with its whole train of evils, under the specious and flattering name of liberty; the spiritual power placed by others in the hands of princes; Christian doctrine impugned in every point; Christians' denying the work of the creation, and that of man's redemption; destro3dng hell; abolishing the soul's immortality; stripping Christianity of ail its mysteries, and changing it into a sect of philosophy wholly adapted to the senses: thence indifference of religions arising, and, what naturally ensues, the very foundation of religion sap* ped; the Scripture directly combatted; the way opened to Deism, that is, to Atheism in disguise; and the books that broach these prodigious doctrines issuing from the bosom of the Reformation, and from tiiose quarters where she predominates. What would Melancthon have said had he foreseen all these evils? and what would have been his lamentations 1 He had seen enough to 'trouble him his whole life long. The contests of his own times and party were sufficient to make him say that without a visible miracle, all religion would be soon extinct.

What benefit did he then find in those divine promises, whereby, as he himself attests, Jesus Christ had bound himself to maintain his Church, even in her extreme old age, and never Co suffer her to perish?^ Had he thoroughly considered this blessed promise, he would not have been satisfied with owning, RS he has done, that the Gospel doctrine would subsist eternally, in spite of errors and disputes: but would have owned, moreover, that it ought to subsist by the means established in the Gospel, that is, by an inviolable succession of the ecclesiastical ministry. He would have seen that it was to the Apos- tles and to the successors of the Apostles this promise was addressed — " Go, teach, baptize; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, "f Had he comprehended well these words, he would never have imagined that truth could be Separated from that body, wherein succession and lawful authority were found; and God himself would have taught him, that as the profession of truth can never be overruled by error, the force or the apostolic ministry can receive no interruption

by any relaxation of discipline. This is the faith of Christians: thus, with Abraham, they must believe the promise, '* In hope against hope;''* and further believe that the Church will preserve her succession, and bring forth phildren even then when she shall appear the most barren, and her strength, through length of days, the most exhausted. Melancthon's faith could not stand this trial. He believed, indeed, in the promise in general, whereby the profession of truth was to subsist, but had not sufficient faith in the means God had appointed for its maintenance. What did the retaining so many good sentiments avail him? The enemy of our salvation, says St. Gregory, the Pope,^ does not always wholly extinguish them; and as God leaves in his children some remains of concupiscence, which keeps them in humility, Satan, his imitator, in a contrary sense, leaves also in his slaves, however strange it may seem, some remains of piety, (false, to be sure, and deceitful,) but yet apparent, whereby he accomplishes their seduction. To complete the mischief, they believe themselves saints, without reflecting that piety unattended with all its requisites, is nothing but hypocrisy*

Melahcthou, from some interior impulse, was moved to think that peace and unity, without which there is neither faith nor Church,, had no other support on earth but the authority of the ancient pastors. He did not follow this divine light to its whole extent; his foundations were all subverted; every thing fell out contrary to his hopes. He aspired to unity; he lost it for ever, without being able to meet with so much as the shadow of it in the party wherein he had sought it. The Reformation, brought about or supported by arms, filled him with horror; he saw himself under the necessity of finding out excuses for an extravagance which he detested. Let us reflect on what he wrote to the Landgrave of Hesse, whom he saw ready to take up arms: — '* May your Highness be persuaded that it is better to endure all extremities than to take up arms for the Gospel cause.";]; But he was forced to retract this fine maxim, when the party had entered into a confederacy to make war, and Luther himself had declared for them.

The unfortunate Melancthon could not even retain his natural sincerity ; but was obliged to join with Bucer in laying snares for the Catholics, in affected equivocations ; to load them with calumnies in the Confession of Augsburg ;§ to approve publicly ihis Confession, which he wished from the bottom of lus heart to see reformed in so many points ; to speak always as best pleased others ; to pass his whole life in perpetual dissimulation; and that even with lespect to religion, the first act whereof is to

* Ronuiv. 18. f Bastor. part iii Adro. 31.

If I TBB Ridtonr oi^ [book

believe, as the second is to confess. What constraint! what and animates ano^er; they must not only defend themselyes but multiply; the fine name of Kefomiation makes all lawful^ and the first engagement makes all necessary.

33. — The Princes and Doetort ^fthe party are alike insupporlahle to khn.

Meanwhile the heart is stung with secret reproaches, and such a state becomes irkscne Melancthon oflen declares that strange things pass in his mind, and knows not how to express his internal anguish. In the account he gives his intimate friend Camerarius, concerning the decrees of. the Assembly of. Spire, and the resolutions taken by the Protestants, all the terms he employs to represent his grief al'e extreme. '* They are incredible agitations and the torments of hell; he is almost brought to death's door What he feels is horrible: bis consternation is astonishing. During his oppressions he is sensibly convinced how much certain people are to blame."* When he dares not to speak out, it is some head of the party that is to be under- Stood, and principally Luther: it was not certainly out of any fear of Rome that he wrote with so much precaution, and k^ within such bounds; and, en the other hand, it is most certain nothing troubled him so much as what passed in the party itself, where all things were carried on by political interests, underhand contrivance, and violent counsels; in a word, nothing was there treated on but leagues, '* which all good men," said he, ^^ ought to prevent, "f All the af&irs of the Refmrmatioa turned on these leagues of princes with the confederate towns, which the emperor had a mind to break, and the Protestant princes were resolved to maintain; and this is what Melancthon wrote to Camerarius on the subject: — ^^ You see, my dear friend, that in all these ccmventions nothing is less thought on than religion; fear makes them propose agreements, such as they Are, for a time and with dissimulation; and no wonder if such treaties succeed ill; for is it possible that God should bless such counsels 1"'l Far from exaggerating, when he speaks thus, it is per^ ceived, even from his letters, that he saw something u^ the party fitill worse than what he wrote. *' I see," says he, *' that there as something secretly contriving, and I wish I were able to stifle all my thoughts. "§ He had such a disgust against the princes f his own party and their assembhes, into which they always brought him, in order to draw from his eloqu^ce and facility excuses for counsels he approved not of, that at length he cried out—*' Happy are they who meddle not with pubhc afi^s." j|

* Lib. iv. Ep. 85. f SHieid. lib. viil t Lib. iv. Ep. 137.

Nor did he ever find the least repose, till, after a too clear conviction of the evil intentions of those princes, *' he had quite left off giving himself any concern about their projects. "* But they entangled him again in their intrigues in spite of him; and we shall soon see how he was obliged to authorize, by writing, their most scandalous proceedings. The opinion he had of the Doc-* tors of the party, and how tittle he was satisfied v;ith them, has been already shown: but here is something still stronger. " Their maimers are such," says he, " that, to speak very moderately, many people, moved at the confusion they b^old amongst them, think any other state a golden age comparatively to that they put us in."t He judged " t^Bse wounds incurable;" J and the Reformation, from die very beginning, stood in need of another reformation.

diehurhed.

Besides diese agitations, in hb correspondence with Camerarius, Osiander, and the rest of the heads of the party, and with Luther himself, he was continually upon die subject of the prodigies that happened, and the dreadful threats of die angry heavens. Sometimes you know not what he would be at: but it is always something terrible — something, I know not what, which he promises to disclose in private to his friend Camerarius, raises a kind of horror when you read him.§ Other prodigiest almost coincident v^th the sitting of the Diet of Augsburg, appeared to him favorable to the new Gospel. At Rome, ** the Bxtraordinaiy overflowing of the Tiber, and a mule's bringing forth whose foal had a crane's foot;" in the territory of Augsburg, the birth of a *' calf with two heads," were to him a sign ^f an unquestionable change in the state of the universe, and in particular of " Rome's approaching ruin by schism:"|| it is what he writes most seriously to Luther himself, infoiming him withal, that this happened on that same day the Confession of Augsburg was presented to the emperor. Here we see with what notimis the authors of this Coxiifession, and the heads of the Reformation, fed themselves at so great a conjuncture: Me- is apt to think he is reading Titus Livius, upon viewing all the prodigies there related. Is this aH? Oh, the extreme weakness of a mind in other respects admirable, and, but for his pre- possession, so penetrating! The threats of astrologers terrify him. He is continually under frights from the ominous conjunctions of die stars — ** a dreadful aspect of Mars" makes him tremble for his daughter, whose horoscope he himself had cast.

* Lib. hr.Ep. 288. t Ibid. Ep. 74S. i Ibid. Ep. 758.

He is not less '' dismayed at the horrible flame of a comet extremely northern*"*

While the conferences were held at Augsburg upon matters of religion, he comforts himself for their proceeding so slowly on, because '' the astrologers foretell that the stars will be more propitious to ecclesiastical disputes towards autumn. "f God was above all these presages, it is true; and Melancthon repeats it frequently, as well as the almanac-makers;- but, after all, the stars rule even Church affairs. We find his friends, that is, the heads of the party, entered with him into these reflections: as for himself, his unlucky nativity promised him nothing but endless contests on doctrine, great labors, and httle fruit. He is astonished, bom as he was on the hills adjacent to the Rhine, that it should have been foretold him he was to suffer shipwreck on the Baltic Sea;| and being sent for into England and Denmark, he is determined not to venture himself on that sea. To so many prodigies and so many threats of unfriendly constellations, to complete the illusion, he joined also prophecies. It was one of the party's weaknesses to believe that their whole success had been foretold; and here is one of the most remarkable predictions they boast of. In 1516, as they say, and a year before the commotions of Luther, some cordelier or other, commenting on Daniel, had taken it into his head to say, that the '^ Pope's power was going to decline, and would never rise again. "§ This prediction was equally true with that other which this new prophet tacked to it, namely, that in 1600, **the Turk would be master of all Italy and Germany." Notwithstanding, Melancthon seriously relates the vision of this fanatic, and boasts of having the original by him, just as it was written by the brother cordelier. Who would not have trembled at this news 1 The Pope, it seems, already staggered at Luther's blow, and now they will have it that he is quite laid flat Melancthon takes all this fof prophecy; so weak is man when prepossessed. Afler the Pope's downfall he believes he sees the victorious Turk pressing forward; nay, the earthquakes that happened then confirm him in this thought.

Who would believe him capable of all these impressions, if all his letters were not full of them? We must do him this honor — ^they were not his own dangers which caused him so much trouble and anxiety. In the midst of his most violent agitations we hear him say confidently, " our dangers^disturb me less than our faults." II He assigns a fine motive for his grief — the public grievances, and particularly the grievances of Uie Church: but the truth is, he was sensible in his conscience, as he frequently

acknowledges, how great a share those persons had in these grievances who had boasted of being the reformers of them. But enough of the troubles which afflicted Melancthon in particular: die reasons of his behavior at the Assembly of Smal- kald, and the motives for the restrictipn he put to that furious article which Luther proposed against the Pope, have been suf* ficientlj explained.

BOOK VI.

[From the. year 1537 to the year 1546.]

A brief Summary. — ^The Landgrave endeavors to maintain union between the Lutherans and Zuinglians. — A new remedy discovered for the incon* tinence of this Prince, by allowing him to marry a second wife, the 6rfit being alive. — ^The remarkable instruction he gives to Bucer, in order to induce Luther and Melancthon to adopt this sentiment. — ^The dogmatical judgment of Luther, Bucer, and Melancthon, in fiivor of Polygamy. — ^The new marriage ensues in consequence of this consultation. — The Party is ashamed, and has not courage to deny or acknowled^ it — The Landgrave <^the Swiss, whom this ceremony had alienated from the League of Smalkald. — On this occasion Luther is provoked anew against the S^cramen- tarians. — Melancthon's design to destroy the foundation of the Altar Sacrifice. — ^It is acknowledged m the Party that this Sacrifice is inseparable from the Real Presence and Luther's doctrine. — As much confessed concerning Adoration. — A Momentaneous Presence, and in the sole reception, Divines of Louvain. — ^He acknowledges the Sacrament to be adorable, detests the Zuingliaos, and dies.

1. — The semddotu Inecntineney of the Landgrme, and what remedy woe fiund

for it in the Reformation.

The agreement of Wittenberg continued not long; it was foolish to imagine that a peace so patched up could be of long duration, and that so great an opposition in doctrine, with so great an emotion in the minds of men, could be surmounted by equivocations. Luther could not forbear uttering angry words and venting his spleen against Bucer. Those of Zurich were not backward in defending their Doctor; but Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, who had always warlike projects in contemplation, kept the whole Protestant party united, as for as he was able, and for some years withheld them from coming to an open rupture. This Prince was the support of the League of 8malkald, and, considering the great need they had of him in the party, they allowed to him what no example before had warranted among Christians — it was to have two wives at once; nt>r could the Reformation find out any other remedy for his incontinence.

The^ historians who have written that this Prince was, in other

respects, very temperate,* were not let into the whole secret of the party; they did all they could to conceal the intemperance of a Prince whom the Reformation cried up above all others. the League of Smalkald became so formidable, that this Prince had a distemper which was carefully concealed; it was one of those that are not to be named. He recovered; and, for his intemperance, the heads of the Reformation prescribed the new remedy above-mentioned. They concealed, as much as they were able, this shame of the new doctrine. M. de Thou, with all his penetration into foreign affairs, could, it seems, discover no more than that this Prince, " by the advice of his pastors," had a concubine together with his wife. This is enough to cover these false pastors with confusion who thus authorized concubinage: but it was not then known that these pastors were Luther himself and all the heads of the party, and that they permitted the Landgrave to have a concubine under the title of a lawful wife, although he had then another whose marriage subsisted in full force. At present this whole mystery of iniquity is discovered by the authentic papers which the late Elector Palatine, Charles Lewis, caused to be printed, and part of which, Ernest, Prince of Hesse, descended from Philip, has made public since his becoming Catholic.

2. — Important acts rdating to this mattery taken from a hook^printed by order of

the Elector Charles Lewis, Count Palatine,

The book which the Prince Palatine caused to be printed bears this title, — ** Conscientious Considerations on Marriage, with a Dilucidation of the Questions till this present time debated, touching Adultery, Divorce, and Polygamy." The book came out in German, in 1679, under the borrowed name &f counsellors. The design of the book is, apparently, to justify Luther against Bellarmine, who accused him of authorizing polygamy, but, in reality, he shows that Luther favored it; and lest it might be said he, perchance, advanced this doctrine at the beginning only of the Reformation, he produces what was dpne long afler, in this new marriage of the Landgrave. He instances in three pieces, the first of which is an instruction of the Landgrave himself delivered to Bucer, for he was the person commissioned to negotiate with Luther the whole business,, whence it is plain that the Landgrave at times employed him in adjusting matters of a quite different nature than were the Sacramentarian contests. You have here a faithful copy of this instruction; and, as the piece is remarkable, it may be here seen

entire, translated word for word, from German into Latin, and

by a good hand.*

o second toife — this Prinee''s instriietions to his Envoy.

The Landgrave begins by setting forth how that, *' since his last illness, he had reflected much on his state, and chiefly upon this, that a few weeks afler his marriage he had begun to wallow in adultery: that his pastors had frequently exhorted him to approach the holy table, but he did believe he should there meet with his judgment, because he will not abandon such a course of life."! He imputes to his wife the cause of all his disorders, and gives the reasons for his never loving her; but, having a difficulty in explaining himself on these matters, he refers them to Bucer, whom he had made privy to the whole affair. Next he speaks of his complexion, and the effects of high living at the assemblies of the empire, at which he was obliged to be present. To carry thither a wife of such a quality as his own, would be too great an encumbrance. When his preachers remonstrated to him that he ought to punish adulteries and such hke crimes, " How," said he, "can I punish crimes of which I myself am guilty 1 When I expose myself in war for the Gospel cause, I think I should go to the Devil should I be killed there by the sword or a musket-ball.;]; I am sensible that, with the wife I have, NEITHER CAN I, NEITHER WILL I, change my life, whereof I take God to witness; so that I find no means of amendment but by the remedies God afforded the people of old, that is to say, polygamy. "§

He there states the reasons which persuade him that it is not forbidden under the Gospel; and what deserves most notice, is his saying, *^ that, to his knowledge, Luther and Melancthon advised the King of England not to break off his marriage with the Queen, his wife; but, besides her, also to wed another." || This, again, is a secret we were ignorant of: but a Prince, so well informed, says he knows it; and adds, that they ought to allow him this remedy so much the readier, because he demands it only " for the salvation of his soul." " I am resolved," proceeds he, ** to remain no longer in the snares of the Devil; NEITHER CAN I, NEITHER WILL I, withdraw mysclf but by this way; wherefore I beg of Luther, of Melancthon, of Bucer himself, to give me a certificate, that I may embrace it. But, if they apprehend that such a certificate may turn to scandal at this time, and prejudice the Gospel cause, should it be printed, I

* See the end of this (6th) book. t Inst N. 1, 2. lb. n. 3.

I Inst N. 5, § Ibid. N. 6. U Ibid. N. 6. et seq. Ibid. N. 10. Ibid. N. 11, 12.

desire at least they will give me a declaration in writing, ihai God would not be offended should I many in private; and that they will seek for means to make this marriage public in due time, to the end that the woman I shall wed may not pass for a dishonest person, otherwise, in process of time, the Church would be scandalized."* Then he assures them that '* they need not fear lest this second marriage should make him injure his first wife, or even separate himself from her; since, on the contrary, he is determined on this ocousibn to carry his cross, and leave his dominions to their common children. Let them, therefore, grant me," continues this Prince, ^ in the name of

> God, what I request of them, to the end that I may both live and die more cheerfully for the Gospel cause, and more willingly undertake the defence of it ; and, on my part, I will do wlmtsoever they shall in reason ask of me, whether they demand the

. revenues of monasteries, or other things of a similar nature. "f

6. — Ccntmuation of it — the Landgrave proposes to have recourse to the Emperor^

We see how artfully he insinuates the reasons which he, who knew them so thoroughly, was sensible would have most influence on them; and, as he foresaw that scandal was the thing they would most dread, he adds, *' That already the ecclesiastics hated the Protestants to such a degree, that they would not hate them more or less for this new article allowing polygamy: but if, contrary to his expectation, Melancthon and Luther should prove inexorable, many designs ran in his head — amongst others,, that of applpng to the Emperor for this dispensation, whatever money it might cost him. "J This was a ticklish point — " For," continues he, '^ there is no likelihood of the Emperor's granting this permission without a dispensation from the Pope, for which I care but Uttle," says he;§ "but for that of the Emperor I ought 'not to despise it, though I should make but httle account of that too, did I not otherwise believe that God had rather allowed than forbidden what I wish for; and if the attempt I make on this side (that is upon Luther) succeed not, a human fear urges me to demand the Emperor's consent, certain as I am to obtain aH I please, upon giving a round sum of money to some one of his ministers. But although I would not for any thing in the world withdraw myself from the Gospel, or be Engaged in any affair that might be contrary to its interest, I am, nevertheless, afraid lest the Imperialists should draw me into some* thing not conducive to the interests of this cause and party. I^ therefore, call on them," concludes he, " to afford me the redress I expect, lest I should go seek it in some other place less agreeable; desirous a thousand times rather to owe my repose to their

permission than to all other human permissions. Finally, I de- , sire to have, in writing, the opinion of Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, in order that I may amend myself, and with a good con^ science approach the Sacrament." — Given at Melsinguen, die Sunday aftier St. Catherine's Day, 1539.

"Philip, Landgrave op Hesse.'^

6. — Tht dogmaiical advice of Luther, — Pclygamy Mowed by him and the other

heads of the Protestants*

The instruction was equally pressing and ticklish. We see the secret springs which the Landgrave sets in motion: he for* gets nothing; and whatever contempt he showed for the Pope, the very naming him on this occasion was too much for these new Doctors. So dexterous a Prince let not that word shp without design; and,, besides, the very hint of entering into conjunction with the Emperor, was enough to make the whole j>arty tremble. These reasons carried with them much more weight than those the Landgrave had striven to draw from Scripture. To cogent reasons there was joined an artful agent. Ac- cordingly, Bucer obtained of Luther a consultation in form, the Original of which was in German, in Melancthon's hand and style.* It is permitted to the Landgrave, according to the Gospel,! (for every thing is done in the Reformation under that name,) to marry another wife besides the one he has already* They deplore, indeed, the condition he is in, " that he cannot refrain from his adulteries as long as he shall have but one wi^e;"J and represent to him this state as very bad in the sight of God, and contrary " to the security of his conscience. "§ But at the same time, and in the next period, they grant him their leave, and declare to him that " he may marry a second wife, if he be fully bent upon it, provided only he keep it secret." Thus the same mouth pronounces good and evil; || thus the crime becomes lawful by concealing it. I blush to write these things^ and the Doctors who wrote them were themselves ashamed of them. This may be seen through the whole tenor of their perplexed and winding sentences: but they, in the end, were obliged to speak the word, and allow the Landgrave, in express terms, this bigamy he so much coveted. This was the first time it was ever said, since the birth of Christianity, by men styling themselves Doctors in the Church, that Jesus Christ had not forbid- den such marriages: that text of Genesis, '^ They shall be two in one flesh," TT was eluded, cdthough Jesus Christ had reduced it to its first sense and primitive institution, which suffers but two persons in the nuptial band.** The resolution, in the German language, was signed by Luther, Bucer, and Melancthon*

Two other Doctors, one of them Melander, the Landgrave's minister, signed it also, in Latin, at Wittenberg, in the month of December, 1539.* This permission was granted in form of dispensation, and reduced to a case of necessity,^ for they were ashamed of passing this practice into a general law. They found out necessities against the Gospel, and after haying so much blamed the dispensations of Rome, they ventured to ^ve one of that high importance. All the most renowned persons of the Reformation in Germany consented to this iniquity: God visibly gave them over to a reprobate sense; and those who exclaimed against abuses in order to render the Church odious, themselves commit much stranger and more numerous Ones at the very beginning of their R>eformation, than they could either rake up or invent during the course of so many ages that they upbraid the Church with her corruption.

The Landgrave had very well foreseen he should make his Doctors tremble with the bare mentioning his thoughts of treating with the Emperor onjhis affair. They answer him, that this Prince has neither faith nor religion — '' that he is a cheat, who has nothing of German manners in him, with whom it is dangerous to enter into any engagements.";]; Writing thus to a Prince of the empire, what is it else but putting all Gennany in a flame? Then what can be more abject than what appears at the beginning of this advice? *' Our poor, little, miserable, and abandoned Church," say they, ** stands in need of virtuous governing princes. "§ Here is the reason, if taken right, these new Doctors go upon. But these virtuous princes the Reformation stood in need of, were princes who would make the Gos- pel subservient to their passions. The Church, indeed, may want the support of princes for her temporal repose; but to broach pernicious and unheard-of po nts of doctrine, purely to please them, and, by this means, to sacrifice to them the Gospel they boast of re-establishing, is the true mystery of iniquity, and the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary.

8.— TAc stcret of the second Marriage, whichufasto pass for Concvhtne^e — thii scandal despised by those who were of the Consultation.

. So infamous a Consultation was enough to discredit the whole party; nor could the Doctors who subscribed it have silenced the clamors, nor shunned the odium of the people, who, as themselves do own, would have " ranked them with Mahometans, or Anabaptists, diat make a jest of marriage."j| Accordingly they took their measures, and, in their advice, forbade the Landgrave, above all things, ever to discover this new marriage. There were

♦ Book of Consden. Confid. S. N. 8. f Consult N. 4, 10, 21.

but a very* small number of- witnesses to be present, wbo were also to be bound to secrecy '* under the seal of confession,"* — thus spoke the Consultation. The new bride was to pass for a concubine. They preferred this scandal in the house of this Prince to that which would be caused throughout all Christendom by the sanctioning of a marriage so contrary to the Gospel, and to the common doctrine of all Christians, f

9. — The second Marriage %8 made in private — the contract agreed upon, — 1540.

The consultation was followed by a marriage, in form, betwixt Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, and Margaret of Saal, by the consent of Christina of Saxony, his wife. The Prince had no more to do but declare, at his marriage, that he did not take this sec* ond wife " through any levity or curiosity, but from inevitable necessities of body and conscience, which his Highness had laid before many learned, prudent. Christian, and devout preachers, ifdio had advised him to put his conscience in repose by this means.";]; The instrument of this marriage, dated the 4th of March, 1540, may be found, together with the consultation, in the book which was published by order of the Elector Palatine. Prince Ernest has cdso furnished the same pieces, so that they are become public in two ways. It is ten or twelve years since copies of them have been produced in a book dispersed through all France,§ and never contradicted; and now we have them in such an authentic form that there is no room lefl for doubt. That nothing further might be required, I have added thereto the Landgrave's instruction, and Uie history is now complete.

10. — The f.andgrave's and Luther's Answer to those who reproach them vnth

this J\Ianiage.

Evil deeds generally come out one way or other. Whatever caution was used to conceal this spandalous marriage, it began, nevertheless, to be suspected; and certain it is, both the Landgrave and Luther were upbraided with it in public writings, but 9iey shifled off the matter by equivocating. A German author has published a letter of the Landgrave's to Henry, the young Duke of Brunswick, where he speaks to him in these words: — " Tou reproach me with a report that prevails of my having taken a second wife, whilst the first is still living: but I declare to you, that if you or any other person say that I have contracted an unchristian marriage, or that I have done any thing unworthy of a Christian Prince, it is all downright calumny: for although, towards God, I look upon myself as a miserable sinner, I live, however, before him, in my faith and in my conscience, after such a manner that my cordessors do not hold me for an unchristian person. I give scandal to no one, and live with the Princess, my wife, in a periect good understanding."* All this was true, in his way of thinking, for he did not allow that the marriage he was reproached with was unchristian. His first lady was satisfied with it, and the Consultation had stopped the mouths of the Confessors of this Prince. Luther answers with no less artifice. " They reproach the Landgrave," says he, " with being a polygamist. I have not much to say on that subject. The Landgrave is able,. and has men learned enough to defend him. As for myself, I know one only Princess and Landgrave of Hesse, who is and ought to be named wife and mother in Hesse; and there is no other that can give young Landgraves to this Prince, but the Princess who is the daughter of George, Duke of Saxony."! And, indeed, they had ordered matters so that neither the new bride nor her children could bear the title of Landgiaves. To defend themselves thus, is aiding their own conviction, and acknowledging the shameful corruption introduced in doctrine by those who, in all their works, spoke ef nothing but re-establishing the pure Oospel.

Afler all, Luther did but follow those principles he had laid down in other places. I have always dreaded speaking of these ** inevitable necessities" which he recognised in the union of the two sexes, and of that scandalous sermon he delivered at Wittenberg on marriage; but, since the series of this history has made me at once break through that barrier which modesty had laid in my way, I can no longer dissemble what is found printed in Luther's works. J It is true, then, that in a sermon which he delivered at Wittenberg, for the reformation of mar^ riage, he blushed not to pronounce these infamous and scandalous words: — " If they are stubborn (he speaks of wives) it is jfitting their husbands should tell them, if you will not another will: if the mistress refuse to come, let the maid be called." A man would blush to hear such words in a farce, and on the stage. The chief of the reformers preaches this seriously in tiie Church; and, as he turned all his excesses into dogmas, he adds; — " However, it is necessary for the husband to bring his wife first before the Church, and to admonish her two or Uiree times; afler that put her away, and take Esther instead of Vasthi." This was a new cause for divorce superadded to that of adultery. Thus did Luther handle the subject of the reformation of marriage. We must not ask him in what Gospel he found this article; it is sufficient that it is included ^* in those necessities," which he fain would believe were above all laws

* Hortlederas de Caas. Bdl. Germ. An. 1540. t Jen. T. vii. fol 4S& t Serm. de Maitrini. C. v. fol 123^

and precautions. After this, will any one wonder at what he aljowed the Landgrave? In this sermon, it is true, he orders to repudiate the first wife before the other be taken; and, in &e consultation, he permits the Landgrave to have two at once. But, then, the sermon was pronounced in 1522, and the Consultation was penned in 1539. It was but feir that Lutheir i^ould have learned something after seventeen or eighteen year^ spent in reforming.

rament in the Mass. — How this occasion was made use of to infla^ him tmew against the Sacramentarians. — 1543, 1543.

From that time forward the Landgrave had almost an absolute sway over this patriarch of the Reformation; and after having found out his weak side in so essential a point, he no longer thought him capable of resisting him. This Prince was little versed in controversies; but, to make amends, like an expert politician, he knew how to conciliate the minds of men, io manage different interests, and keep up confederacies. His chief aim was to prevail upon the Swiss to enter into that of Smalkald; but he perceived they were offended at many things in practice among the Lutherans, and particularly at the eleva^ tion of the Holy Sacrament, which was still in use, with the ring and groans. Five-and-twen^ years luid Luther preserved thes^. Landgrave never ceased attacking Luther on this head, and importuned him in such a manner^ that after suffering this custom to be abolished in some Churches of his party, he at length se^ it aside in the Church of Wittenberg, which was under his immediate direction. These changes happened in 1542 and 1543.^. The Sacramentarians triumphed at it; they believed that Luther, was now relenting: and, even among the Lutherans, it was said he was at length fdling off from that admirable resolution, wherewith he had, up to that period, maintained the apcient doctrine of the Real Preseiice, and that he was about coming to an uqderstanding with the Sacramentarians. He was nettled at these reports; for he was impatient of the most trifling circumstance t(iat infringed on his autiiority.f Peucer, Melancthon's son-inlaw, from whom we have taken this account, observes, he took no notice of it for awhile; for, say he, " his great heart was not easily wrought upon. "J We shall now, however, see by what means they roused him. A physician named Wildus, of great

t Pwic. itttd. Sultzeii id. Ep. ad Cal. inter. Cj^lv. Ep. p. 59. (Pfuc iin^

16*

repute in his profession, and much esteemed by the nobility of Misnia, where these reports were most ^read against Luther, eame to visit him at Wittenberg, and met with a kind reception at his house. " It fell out," proceeds Peucer, " that, at a fea^t, where Melancthon was also present, this physician being heated with wine, (for at the Reformers' tables men drank as in other places, and such abuses as these were not what they had undertaken to correct;) this physician, I say, began to talk unguard- edly of the elevation lately suppressed, and told Luther very frankly, that the common opinion was, he had made this alteration only to please the Swiss, and that he had at length adopted their opinions. This great heart was not proof against these words uttered in liquor; his emotion was perceptible, and Melancthon foresaw what ensued.

13. — Luther^s old jealousyawakened against Zumglius and his disciples. — 1545.

In this manner was Luther animated against the Swiss, and his wrath became implacable on account of two books, which those of Zurich caused to be printed the same year. One was a translation of the Bible made by Leo of Juda, that famous Jew who embraced the Zuinglian doctrine; the other was the works of Zuinglius, carefully collected, with great eulogium of this author. Although tliere was nothing in these books against Luther's person, immediately upon their publication he flew out into the greatest extravagance, nor had his transports ever appeared so violent. The Zuinglians published, and the Luther- ans have almost owned the same, that Luther could not endure that any one, besides himself, should meddle with translating the Bible.* He had made a very elegant version of it in his own language, and thought it was not consistent with his honor tiiat the Reformation should have any other, at least where German was understood. The works of Zuinglius awakened his this man against him, to dispute with him the glory of being the first reformer.;!; Be that as it will, Melancthon and the Lutherluis all owned that, afler a truce office or six years' standing, Luther first renewed the war with greater fury than ever. Whatever power the Landgrave had upon Luther, he could never restrain his transports for any considerable time. The Swiss produce letters in Luther's own hand, where he forbids the bookseller, who had made him a present of Leo's translation, ever to send him any thing from those of Zurich, " for they were damned men, who dragged away others into hell; and the churches no longer could communicate with them, nor consent

* Hoep. part ii. p. 183. Calix. Judicium, N. 72. p. 121, 122.

to their blasphemies, and he had resolved to oppose them by his writings and his prayers, to his very last breatii."*

believes them inevitably damned. — 1544.

He kept his word. The year following he published a.comment upon Genesis, where he placed Zuinglius and CEcolara- padius with Arius, with Muncer, and the Anabaptists, among the Idolaters, who made for themselves " an idol of their own thoughts, and adored them in contempt of God's word." But what he afterwards published was much more terrible — ^it was his httle " Confession of Faith," where he calls them ** madmen, blasphe^lers, miserable wretches, damned souls, for whom it was no longer lawful to pray:"| for he carried matters tathis extremity, and protested he never would have any further communication with them, " neither by letters, nor by words, nor by works," if they did not confess " that the bread of the Eucharist was the true natural body of our Lord, which the impious, and even the traitor Judas, received not less by the mouth than St. Peter and the rest of the faithful."

\5,'^Luther's Jlnathemas,

"By that means he believed he had put an end to the scandalous interpretations of the Sacramentarians, who turned all to their own sense; and declared he held all for fanatics, who should refuse subscribing this last *^ confession of faith. "^ For he now assumed so high a tone, and so threatened the world with his anathemas, that the Zuinglians no longer called him any thing but the ^* new Pope, and new Anti- Christ." ' '^'

Thus not less vigorous was the defence than the attack. Those of Zurich, scandalized at this strange expression, *^ the bread is the true natural body of our Lord," were much more so at Luther's outrageous contumelies; insomuch that they wrote a book, entitled, *' Against the vain and scandalous Calumnies of Luther," in which they maintain *' that a man must l>e as mad as himself to bear with his furious sallies; that he dishonored his old age; and, by his violence, rendered himself contemptible; and he ought to be ashamed of filling his books with so much abusive language, and so many devils." The truth is, Luther had taken care to place the devils within and without, at top and at bottom, at the right hand and the left, before and behind the Zuinglians; inventing, withal, new phrases to pierce them through and through with devils, and repeating this odious name even so as to excite horror.

♦ Ibid. f. 183. t Hosp. Ibid. p. 186, 187. Calix. Jud. N. 73. p. 123. et se<).

Such was his custom : in 1542 the Turk threatened Germany

more thaii ever ; he had published a prayer against him, where

he brought in the Devil after a strange manner. "Thou knowest," said he, " O Lord, that the Devil, the Pope, arid the Turk

have neither right nor reason to torment us, for we have never

offended them : but because we confess that thou, O Father,

and thy Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are but one

only God eternal — there is our sin, there is our whole crime ;

for that it is they hate and persecute us ; and we should no

longer have to fear any thing from them, did we but renounce

this faith."* What a blindness, to jumble together the Devil,

the^Pope, and the Turk, as the three enemies of the faith in the

Trinity! what a califmny to aver that the Pope persecutes them

for this faith! and what folly to exculpate himself to the enemy

of mankind as one that never had given him any displeasure!

receive the body of our Lord, — Invention of solid Fcdth,

Sometime afler Luther had renewed his indignation against the Sacramentarians, in the manner already mentioned, Bucer framed a new confession of fiaith. These men were never tired of that; it seemed as if he had a mind to oppose it to the little confession which Luther had but just published. That of Bucer came up pretty near to the expressions of the Wittenberg agreement, whereof he was the mediator; but he would not have made a new confession of fai& had he not intended to change something. The thing was (he would no longer say as distinctly and generally as he had done) that the body of our Saviotnr might be taken without faith, and taken very really in virtue of our Lord's m^itution, which our evil disposition could not deprive of its efficacy. f Bucer here corrects that doctrine, and seems to lay it down as a condition for the presence of Jesus Christ in the Supper, not only that it be celebrated according to Christ's institution, but also *' that men have a solid faith in those words by which he gives himself."]; This Doctor, who durst not give a lively faith to those who communicated unworthily, in favor of them invented " this solid faith*" which I leave to the examination of Protestants:^ and he would have it, that, by aych a faith, the unworthy received '' not only the sacrament, but the Lord himself."§

Impious,

He seems puzzled what to say of the communion of the impious ; for Luther, whom he would not openly contradict, de- cided, in his httle confession, that they as truly receiyed Jesus

Christ as the saints. But Bucer, who feared nothing so much

as speaking plainly, says, that those amongst the impious, ^* who

have faith for awhile, receive Jesus Christ in an enigma, 83

they receive the Gospel." What prodigies of expression! and

for those who have no faith at all, it seems he ought to say, they

do not at all receive Jesus Christ. But that would have been

too clear ; he is content with saying, ^' they do not see, nor

touch, in the Sacrament, any thing but what is sensible." But

what else would behave men see and touch therein, besides

what is capable of striking the senses? The rest, that is, the

body of our Saviour, may be believed, but no one boasts of

either seeing him, or touching him in himself; nor have the

faithful any advantage in that respect above the impious. Thus

Bucer, according to his custom, does nothing but perplex ; and,

by his subtleties, prepares the way, as we shall see, to those of

Calvin cmd the Calvinists.

20. — Jielancthon labors to make the Real Presence momentaneousj and places U

only in the act of using it.

Meanwhile, Melancthon made it his particular endeavor to

diminish, as I may say, the Real Presence, by striving to reduce

it to the precise time of its reception. This is a principal dogma

of Lutheranism, and it is of great moment clearly to understand

how it was established in the sect.

21. — The aiversion for the Mass is the true foundation of this dogma. — Two things

the Protestants cannot bear therein.

The Mass was the great aversion of the new - Reformation, though, in point of fact, it was nothing else but the public prayers of the Church, consecrated by the celebration of tlib Eucharist, wherein, Jesus Christ present, honors his Father, and sanctifies the faithful. But two things offended the new Doctors, because they never thoroughly had understood them: one was the oblation, the other the adoration given to Jesus Christ present in these mysteries.

22.— Luther's Uind hatred to the Oblation and the Canon of the Mass,

The oblation was nothing but the consecration of the bread and wine, in order to make them the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and render him, by this means, truly present. It was impossible this action should not, of itself, be agreeable to God; nor that the sole presence of Jesus Christ, showed to his Father, by honoring his supreme majesty, should not be capable of drawing down his graces on us. The new Doctors were bent to believe that a virtue of saving men, independently of faith, was attributed to this presence, and to the action of the Mass: we have seen their error, and on so false a pre-supposition, did the Mass become the object of their aversion. The most holy words of the canon were decried. Luther discovered poisoo

in every part thereof, even in that prayer we there make a little before Communion^i— " O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who by thy death hast given life to the world, by thy body and blood free from all my sins." Luther, who could believe it! condemned these last words, and would imagine that we attributed our deliverance to the body and blood, independently of faith, without Reflecting that this prayer, addressed to Jesus Christ, Son of the hving God, who by his death has given life to the world, was itself, in every part, an act of the most lively faith. No matter: ''Luther said, that the monks attributed '' their salvation to the body and blood of Jesus Christ, without mentioning one word of faith."* If the priest, at communion, said with the Psalmist, " I will take the heavenly bread, and call upon the name of the Lord,"t Luther found fault with it, and said, '' that we improperly, and unseasonably, turned off the mind from faith to works." How blind is hatred! How envenomed must that heart be which poisons such holy things!

23. — In what sense %oe offer in the Mass for the redemption of trumkind, — The

Ministers forced to oipproct this sense.

No wonder if, after this, they showed the same virulence against the words of the canon, where it is said that *^ the faithful offer this sacrifice of praise for the redemption of their souls." that the intention of the Church here is to offer for the redemption, not to merit it anew, as if the cross had not merited it, but *' in thanksgiving for so great a benefit," and with the design of applying it to us.J But never would Luther or the Lutherans enter into so natural a sense; nothing would they see in the Mass but horror and abomination: thus, all that was most holy in it was wrested to an evil sense; and thence concluded Luther '' that the Canon ought to b^ ajs much abominated as the Devil himself."

24. — The whole Mass is comprehended in the Red Presence alone. — This Presence cannot be admiited without owning it permanent, and existing out of the Reception.

In the hatred which the reformation had conceived against the Mass, nothing was so much desired as to sap the foundation of it, which, after all, was nothing else but the Real Presence. For upon this presence did the Catholics ground the whole worth and virtue of the Mass: this was the only basis of the oblation, and all the other worship; and Jesus Christ there present constituted its very essence. Calixtus,§ a Lutheran, has owned, that one of the reasons, not to say the principal one, which made so great a part of the Reformation to deny the Real Presence*

* De abomin. Mis. jpriv. seu Canonis, t. ii. pp. 393, 394, t Ps. cxv. t Blond. Pnef. in lib. Albert de Eachar.

was, because they knew no better way to destroy the Mass and the entire worship of Popery. Luther, could he have done it, would himself have come into this sentiment; and we have seen what he said of the inclination he had to shake off Popery in this particular as well as others. And yet, whilst he retained, as he saw himself forced to do, the literal sense, and the R^al Presence, it was evident that the Mass subsisted entire; for, upon his retaining this literal sense, the Catholics concluded, not only that the Eucharist was the true body, since Jesus Christ had said " this is my body," but also that it was the body from the time Christ had pronounced it so; consequently, before the manducation, and from the very instant of consecration, since it was not then said, '* this shall be," but " this is;" a doctrine wherein we shall now perceive the whole Mass to be contained.

25. — The Real Presence permanent and independent of the Reception retained by Luther, even after he had suppressed the Elevation.

This consequence which the Catholics drew from the Real Presence to the Permanent Presence, and subsisting independent of its use, was so clear that Luther had acknowledged it;^ it was on this foundation that he had always retained the Elevation of the Host, even to the year 1543, and, even after he had abolished it, he still writes, in his '' Little Confession," in 1544, that '^ it might be retained with piety, as a testimonial of the real and corporeal presence in the bread, since, by this action, the priest did say, ' Behold, Christians, this is the body of Jesus Christ, which was given for you.' " Whence, it appears, that, although he had changed the ceremony of Elevation, he did not change the foundation of hb sentiment on the Real Presence, but continued to own it immediately after the Consecration.

86. — Melancthon finds no other means of destroying the Jdass, but by denying

the Permanent Presence.

With this ^th it is impossible to deny the sacrifice of the altar; for what will they have Jesus Christ do before his body and blood are eaten, but to render himself present for us before his Father 1 It was, then, in order to hinder so natural a consequence, that Melancthon sought always to reduce this pres^* ence to the sole manducation; and it was chiefly at the conference of Ratisbon that he displayed this part of his doctrine. Charles the Fifth had ordered this conference in 1541, betwixt the Catholics and Protestants, that means might be found out for reconciling both religions. It was there tiiat Melancdion, acknowledging, according to his custom, ^e real and substantial presence together with tiie Cadiolics, took great pains to abow that the £ucbanst, like other Bacraments, was not a sacra

* Loth. parr. Conf. 1644. Ho8p. p. 13.

ment, except in the lawful use thereof, that is, as he understood it, except in the actual reception.*

27. — Melancthon^s frivolous reasons.

The comparison he drew from the other Sacraments was very weak; for, in signs of this nature, where all -depends on the will of the institutor, it appertains not to us to prescribe him general laws, nor to tell him he can make but one kind of sacraments; in the institution of his sacraments he might have proposed to himself divers designs, which must be understood from the words he employed at each particular institution. Now, Jesus €hrist having said, precisely, " this is," the effect ought to be as speedy as the words are powerful and true; nor was there room for further reasoning.

But Melancthon replied; and this was his main argument, which he ceased not to repeat, that God's promise not being made to the bread, but to man, the body of our Lord ought not to be in the bread but when man received itf By a similar method of reasoning it might as well be concluded, that the bitterness of the waters of Mara was not corrected, J nor the waters of Cana made wine,§ but at the time they were drunk, since these miracles were wrought only for the men who drank t>f it. As, then, these changes were made in the water, but not for the water, there is no reason we should not likewise acknowledge a change in the bread which is not for the bread; there is no reason why this heavenly bread, as well as the terrestrial, should not be made and prepared before it be eaten, nor can I conceive how Melancthon should lay such stress on so pitiful an argument. 29. — These reasons of Melancthon destroyed all Luther's doctrine.

But the most considerable thing here is, that by this reasoning, for, by proving that nothing at all was done in the bread, he [H'oved that nothing was done in it in any instant, and that tlie body of our Lord is not diere, either in tiie reception, or out of the reception; but that man, to whom this promise is addressed, receives it at the presence of the bread, as at the presence of water he receives, in baptism, the Holy Ghost and sanctifying grace. Melancthon saw well this consequence, as it will appear hereafler; but whether he had the cunning to conceal it then, or Luther looked not so narrowly into it, the hatred he had conceived against the Mass, made him pass over all that was ad- tanced in order to destroy it.

30. — Melancthon^ s last reason mere weak than aU the rest.

Melancthon made use of another argument still weaker than

* Hosp. pp. 154^ 179, 180. f Hasp. pp. 154, 179, 180. Mel. Lib. B.

TI.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 19S

(he foregoing ones. He said that Jesus Christ would not hid tied ; and that to bind him to the bread, further than the time of using it, was to take away his free-will.* How can one think such a thing, and say, that the free* will of Jesus Christ is de* stroyed by a tie that proceeds from his own choice ? His wocd binds him, without doubt, because he is faithful and tme ; but this bond is not less voluntary than inviolable.

$i,—Meiancthim^s true reason wasjbecause he could not sepatate the Mass from the Real Presence, were that-oioned permanent.^^Lviher's saying.

This was what human reason oppesed toihe mystery of Jesus Christ; vain subtleties, mere quirks: but a weightier motive lay at the bottom of &dl this. Melancthon's true reason was^ because he could not deny but that Jesus Christ, placed on the holy table before the manducation and by thersole consecration of the bread and wine, was* an object of itself agreeable to God^ which attested his supreme excellence interceded for men, and had all the conditions of a true oblation. In this manner the Mass subsisted, neither could it be overthrown, but hy over- 'hrowing the Real Presence out of the manducation. Accordingly, when Luther was told that Melancthon had strenuously denied this presence at the Conference of Ratisbon, Hospinian reports, he cried out, '* Cheer up, my dear Melancthon, the Mass is now fallen to the ground — ^thou hast destroyed the mystery which, hitherto, I had struck at, but in vain.''^ Thus, by ^e Protestants' own confession, the sacrifice of the Eucharist will ever remain immoveable, as long as in these words, '' This is my body," an effectual presence shall be admitted; and in order to destroy the Mass, the effect of our Saviour's words must be suspended, their natural sense be taken away, and '^ this is" be changed into ^' this shall be."

nument Presence.

Although Luther permitted Melancthon to say whatever he pleased against the Mass, yet he in nowise departed from his former notions, nor did he reduce the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to the bare reception of it. It is even plain diat Melancdion shifted with him on this subject; and there are two of Luther's letters, in 1543, wherein he commends a saying of Melancthon's, ** that the presence was in the action of the Supper, but not in a precise and mathematical point."!]! As for Lu^er, he determined the time to be from the Pater Noster which was said in the Lutheran Mass immediately afler tiie Consecration, until aH the people had communicated, and all the remaining particles were consumed. But why stops he

* MA. ep. Sup. cit Hosp. Part ii. p. 184, etc Joan. Stonn. Antip. hr Ftot4. t Hosp. p. 180. } Jen. t iv. i^. 585, 58|8, etap. Csleet

ttke abs^dt, as St. Justin tells us was done in his time,* what reason would there have been to say, that Jesus Christ had im mediately withdrawn his sacred presence? But why should he mot contmue it £<* some days after, when the Holy Sacrament ■liou}d be reserved for die communion of the sick t It is nothing but mere caprice to take away ihe presence of Jesus Christ in this case; and Luther and the Lutherans iiad no longer any rule, when, out of the actual recepticm, they admitted the use of it but for never so shorta time. But what made still more against them is, that the Mass and Oblation always remained; and, Imd there been but one moment pf presence before the communion, this presence of Jesus Christ could not be deprived of any of die advantages which attended it. For which reason Melancthon always aimed, whatever he might say to Luther, at placing die presence in the precise time of the reception alone, and this only way could he find of destrojring the Oblation and Mass*

Nor was there any other way for destroying the Elevation and Adoration. It has been shown that, at taking away the Elevation, Ludier, so far from condemning it, approved the prin- ciple of it. I repeat once more his words: — "The Elevation,'* he says, " may be preserved, as a testinionial of the real and corporal presence; since the doing that is sa3ang to the people, Behold, Christians, thiais the body of Jesus Cfest, which was given for you.''^ This was what Luther wrote after abolishing The reason is worthy of the man; and we learn from himself, ^ that if he attacked the Elevation, it was only out of spite to the Papacy; and, if he retained it so long, it was out of spite to Carlostadius. In a word," concludes he, ^* it should be retained when it was rejected as impious, and it should be rejected when commanded as necessary. "| But, upon the whole, he acknowledged what, indeed, is not to be doubted — ^that diere Gould be no difficulty in showing to the people this divine body from the very time it began to be present.

As to the Adoration, after having one while held it as indifferent, and anodier laid it down as necessary, he at length ad- hered to his last conclusion;§ and in the positions which he published against the Doctmrs of Louvain,in 1545, that is, a yur pefore his deadi, he called the Eucharist " the adorable sacrap ^(Hent^ll The Sacramentarian party, who had so much triumphed when he set aside the Elevation, was in a conaternation? and Calvin wrote, '' that, by this decision! he had rakied va^ the id<d in God's temple."^ ^

Melancthon was then more than ever convinced that it was impossible to destroy the Adoration, or the Mass, without reducing the whole Real Presence to the precise moment of die manducation. He saw, even, that it^ras necessary to go further, and that all the points of Catholic doctrine relating to the Eucharist returned upon them one afler another, if they did not find out a way to separate the body and blood from the bread and wine. He then pushed the principle already spoken of so far as that nothing was done for the bread and wine, but all for man: insomuch, that in man only was the body and blood to be really found. Melancthon has never explained in what manner he would have this to be done: but as to the foundation of this doctrine, he never left off insinuating it with great secrecy, and in the most artful manner he was able: for there were no hopes, as long as Luther lived, of making him relent on this point, nor of being able to speak freely what men thought: but Melancthon so deeply rooted this doctrine in the minds of the Witten- . berg and Leipsic divines, that, afler Luther and he were dead, diey plainly explained themselves in favor of it in an Assembly, There they feared not to reject Luther's proper doctrine, and the Real Presence which he admitted in the bread; and finding no other means of defending themselves against Transubstantiation, the Adoration, and Sacrifice, they went over to the Real Presence taught them by Melancthon; not in the bread and wine, but in the faithful who received them*! They declared, therefore, '* That the true substantial body was truly and substantially given in the Supper, although there was no necessity of sajdng that the bread was the essential body or the proper body of Jesus Christ, or that it was corporally and carnally taken by die corporeal mouth; that ubiquity raised a horror in them; that it was a subject of astonishment that men should be so positive in affirming that the body was present in the bread, since it was of much more importance to consider what is done in mani for whom, and not for die bread, Jesus Christ rendered himself present. " Afler that they explained their sentiments concerning

be explained that the body is not present in it except in the actual use: '' That the Monks would always have the same reason for beseeching the eternal Father to hear them through his Son, whom they rendered present in this action; that the Supper haviiig been instituted for the remembrance of Jesus Chnst, as he could not be taken nor remembered without believing inland calling on him, tiie addressing one's self to him in the Supper as present, and as placing himself in the hands of sacrificing priests after the words of Consecration, could by* no means be hindered." By the same rvason they maintained that, admitting tiiis Real Presence of the body in the bread, the sacrifice could not be rejected, and they proved it by this example: " It was,'^ said they, '' the ancient custom of all suppliants, to take in their presdnt them to their fathers, in order to prevail with them by their interposition." They said, in the same manner, that having Jesus Christ present in the bread and wine of the Sapper, order to render him propitious to us; and, lastly, they concluded " that it would be jnuch more easy for the monks to establish their Transubstantia,tion, than for those to impugn it, who, rejecting it in word, affirmed, nevertheless, that the bretti was the ^ essential body, that is, the proper body of Jesus Christ."

96. — Luther'i cfocfrme, immediately after his deaths changed by the Divines

of Wittenberg.

Luther had said at Smalkald, and made the whole party subscribe to it, that the bread w€is the true body of our Lord equally received by saints and sinners: he himself had said, in his last *• Confession of Faith," approved by the whole party, "that the bread of the Eucharist is the true natural body of our Lord."* Melancthon and all Saxony had received this doctrine with all the rest, for Luther would be obeyed: but, afler his death, they fell off from it, and owned with us, that these words, the bread is the true body," import necessarily the change of bread into the body; since, it being impossible for the bread to be the body by nature, it could not become so but by a change; thus they openly rejected their master's doctrine.f But they went much further in the above declaration, and confess that, admitting, as Lutherans had hitherto done, the Real Presence in the bread, there could be no objection to the sacrifice, ^ich Catholics offer to God, nor to fiie adoration they pay to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

37. — M ansioeringthe arguments of these IHnines,

Their proofs are convincing. If Jesus Christ is believed to be in the bread, if faith lays hold of him in this state, can this * Art vl Cone, p* 330. f S. lib. iv. Parva. Con£ S. n, 14^

VI.] THE V1KIAT10N8, ETC. IW

faith subsist without adoration?>Does not this faith itself nece^* sarily imply the highest adoration, since it draws after it the inyocation of Jesus Christ, as Son of God, and as there presentl The proof of the sacrifice is not less conclusive: for^ tia iheae divines say, if, by the sacramental words, Jesus Christ is ren* ^ered present in the bread, is not this presence of Jesus Christ of itself agreeable to the Father, and can our prayers be sano tified by a more holy oblation dian that of Jesus Christ present! What do C Aholics say more, and what is their sacrifice else but Jesus Christ present in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and representing himself to his Father the victim by which he had been appeased 1 There is no way, then, of avoiding the sacrifice, no more than the adoration and transubstantiation, without denying this real presence of Jesus Christ in the bread.

Thus the Church of Wittenberg, the Mother of the Reforma* tion, and whence, according to Calvin, the light of the Gospel proceeded in our days as it proceeded formerly from Jerusalem, no longer can maintain the sentiments of Luther, her first founder.* The whole doctrine of this head of the Reformation contradicts itself: he invincibly establishes the literal sense and Real Presence: he rejects the necessary consequences there-^ from, as maintained by Catholics. If, with him, the Real Presence is admitted in die bread, the whole Mass, with the Catho- lic doctrine, must of course be admitted without reserve. This seems too grating to these new Reformers; for what good have they been doing, if they must be forced to approve these things, wilb the whole worship of die Church of Rome? but, on the other side, what more chimerical than a Real Presence separated. from the bread and wine 1 Was it not, in showing the bread and wine, that Jesus Christ said, ** This is my body V* Has he said, we should receive his body and blood dii^ided from those things wherein it was his pleasure they should be contained; and if we are to receive die proper substance of them^ must it not be afler such a manner as he declared at the instil tution of this mystery 1 In these inextricable difficulties, the ' desire of abolishing the Mass prevailed; but the method which Melancthon and the Saxons had taken to destroy it was so bad, that it could not subsist. Those of Wittenberg and Leipsic themselves soon after came back, and Ludier's opinion, whicb placed die body in the bread, kept its ground.

Whilst this head of the Reformers drew ^ear his end, he

17*

daily became more and more furious. His theses against the doctors of Louvain are a proof of it. I never can believe that his disciples will behold, without shame, the prodigious aberra* tions of his mind even to the last period of his hfe. Sometimes he plays the buffoon, but in the lowest way imaginable, and fills hbi theses with these wretched equivoques; vaecultas^ instead of facvllas; cacolycc^ ecclesia^ instead of calholica; because he finds in these two words, vaccultas and cacolyca^ a frigid allusion to doctors our masters, he always styles those of Louvain,. nosirolli odious or contemptible by these ridiculous diminutives of his own coining. When he has a mind to speak more seriously, he calls these doctors '' Downright beasts, hogs. Epicureans^ pagans, and atheists, who are unacquainted with any other Scripture, but from the doctrine of men, all they vomit out; and the making himself a public laughing-stock, provided he drove all to extremes against his adversaries.

He ^ treated the Zuinglians no better; and, besides whiat he said of the adorable sacrament, which utterly destroyed their doctrine, he declared seriously that he held them for heretics^ and shut out.of the pale of God's Church, f He wrote, at the him an unhappy wretch, " They have afforded me a great plea- ' sure," says he: " I, therefore, the most unhappy of all men, esteem myself happy for one thing only, and covet no other beatitude than that of Ihe Psalmist: happy is the man that hath not been in the council of the Sacramentarians, and hadi never walked in die ways of the Zuinglians, nor sat in the chair of of these extravagances of their master. There were secret murmurings in the party, but none durst speak out. If the Sacramentarians complained of Luther's transports to Melancthon, and those who were better affected towards them, they answered, " That he softened the expressions in his books by his familiar discourses, and comforted them, for that their master, when he was heated, spoke more than he meant to speak; which," said they, " was a great inconvenience," J but what they could not help.

t £p. Crucig. ad Yit Theod. Hosp. 194, 199, &<u

VI.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 19&

4L— Luther's Death.

The above letter was of the twenty-fifth of January, 1546. "The eighteenth of February following, Luther died. The Zuin-^ glians, who could not refuse him praises without ruining the Reformation, of which he had been the founder, to comfort themselves for the implacable enmity ho had evinced towairds them, even to his death, spread abroad some conversations he had. held with his friends, wherein they pretended he was much mitigated. These accounts carried no appearance of truth; but truly, whether they did or not, it is of little importance to the design of this work. I write not on private conversations, but acts only and public works; and if Luther had given these new instances of his inconstancy, it would, however, be the business of the Lutherans to furnish us wherewith to defend him.

42. — t^ new piece produced by Mr. Bwmei on Luther's sentiment. ' To omit nothing of what I know concerning this fact, I shall observe, moreover, that I find in Mn Burnet's " History of the English Reformation," a letter of ^ Luther's to Bucer, which is given us under this title : '^ A paper concerning a reconciliation Wiih the Zuinglians."* This piece of Mr. Burnet, if considered, not in the extract which this artful historian makes of it in his history, but as it is in his >' Collection of Records,"'}* will set forth the extravagances that pass in the minds of innovators. Luther begins with this remairk, ^* That it must not be said, they understood not one another." This is what Bucer always pretended, that their disputes were only on words, and that they understood not one another ; but Luther could not suffer such ah illusion. In the second place, he proposes a new thought to reconcile the two opinions : ^' The defenders of the figurative sense must allow," says he, ^' that Jesus Christ is truly present : and we," proceeds he, '' will grant that the bread alone is eaten : partem solum manducari.^^ He does not say, we will grant, '^ that in the sacrament there is truly bread and wine," as Mr. Burnet has translated it ; for that had not been a new opinion, such as Btantiation, which admits both the bread and wine in the Sacrament, had been received in Lutheranism from its first beginning.

But die new thing he proposes is, that although the body and blood be truly present, nevertheless there is nothing eaten but bread alone: so absurd a refinement, that Mr. Burnet could not hide the absurdity of it in any other way than by suppress-

* The author was not apprised that Bishop Burnet had fiilsified thift record the fact proved against him, by Dr. Hicks. In the latter editions of his histoiy the fault is corrected in uie '* Collection of Records," though his mfering it. But there is no need of troubling oi^self to find out sense in this new project of agreement. After having proposed it as useful, Luther turns short ; and considering what an inlet would thereby be opened to new questions tending to introduce Epicurism: "No," says he, "it is better leaving these two opinions just as they are, than proceed to these new explications of them, which, far from making them pass on mankind, would indeed only serve to exasperate them the more. Finally, to allay this dissension, which, he says, he would have redeemed with his body and blood, he declares on his side, that he is willing to believe his adversaries are sincere. He demands they would believe as much of him, and concludes for mutually bearing with one another, without specifying in what manner that was to be done : so that he seems to mean nothing else by it, than abstaining from writing and giving one another abusive language, as had already been agreed upon, but with very little success, at the conference of Marpurg. This is all that Bucer could obtain for the Zuinglians, even when Luther was in his best humor, and, probably, during those years when there was a kind of suspension of arms. However that may be, he soon returns to his old temper ; and^ for fear the Sacramentaziana should endeavor, a^r his death, to wrest him by their equivocations to their own sentiments^ towards the end of his life, he made those declarations against them we have already seeut leaving his disciples as much animated against Jthem as he himself had been.

LANDGRAVE SPOKEN OF IN THIS BOOK V^

INSTRUCTIO.

dum apud EUetorem Saxione.

I. Primo, ipsis gratiam et fausta meo nomine denunciet, et si corpore animoque adhuc bene valerent, quod id libetitor in^ telligerem. Deinde incipiendo qu6d ab eo t^npore quo me noster Dominus Deus infimiitate visitavit, vaiia apud me considerassem, et prsertim quod in me repereihn qu6d ego ab aliquo tempore, quo uxorem duxi, in adulterio et fornicatione jacuerim. Quia vero ipsi et mei prsedicantes seep^ me adhortati sunt ut ad Sacramentum accederem: Ego aut^n apud me talem prsfatam vitam deprehendi, null& bon§k conscienti^ aliquot annis ad Sacramentum accedere potui. Nam qui^ talem vitam BESERERE NOLO, qu& boua consciouti^ possem ad mensam Domini accedere? Et sciebam per hoc non aliter qukm ad judicium Domini, et non ad Christianam confessionem jne per*

TI.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. SOI

Quia verb apud me deprehendi qu6d apud meam uxorem pr8Bsentem a fornicatione ac luxuria, atque adulterio abstinere non possim : nisi ab h&c vit& desistam, et ad emendationem me convertam, nihil certius habeo expectandum qukm exheeredationem fornicatione, adulterid, et his similibus abstinere non possim

II. Prim6 quod initio, quo eam duxi, nee animo nee desiderio eam complexus fuerim. Quah ipsa quoque complexione, amabiiitate, et odore sit, et quomodo interdum se supedluo potu cumque ad ea deseribenda difficultatem babeam, Bucero tamen omnia declaravi.

III. Secundb, quia valid& complexione, ut medici sciunt, sum, et s8Bp^ contingit ut in fcederum et Imperii comitiis diu verser, ubi lautk vivitur et corpus curatur; quomodo. me ibi gerere mecum ducere possim, facile est conjicere et considerare.

' lY. Si porr6 diceretur quare meam uxorem duxerim, vere imprudens homo tunc temporis fui, et ab aliquibus meorum consihariorum, quorum potior pars defuncta eat, ad id persuasis sum.. M atrimonium meum ultra tres septimanas non aervayi, et sic constant^r perrexi.

Y. Ulteriiis me concionatores constanter urgent, ut scelera puniam, fomicationem, et alia; quod etiam libenter facerem: quomodo autem scelera, quibus ipsemet immersus sum, puniam, ubi omnes dicerent, " M agister, prius teipsum puni?" Jam si semper mal& conscientid, facerem et cogitarem: Si tu m hac nem perges. Seape Deum interek invocavi, et rogavi: sed ' semper idem remansi.

. YI. Nunc ver5 diligenter consideravi scripturas antiqui et novi Testamenti, et quantum mihi gratise Deus dedit, studios^ perlegi, et ibi nullum aliud consolium nee medium invenire po* uxorem meam nbc possim, nec velim abstinere (quod coram Deo tesfor) qukm talia media adliibendo, quse k Deo permissa nec prohibita sunt. Quod pii Patres ut Abraham, Jacob, David, Lamech, Solomon, et alii, plures quam unam uxorem habuerint, et in eundum Christum crediderent, in quem nos credimus, quemadmodum S. Paulus ad Cor. x. ait; et prsetrea Deus in veteri Testamento tales Sanctos valde laudarit: Christus quoque eosdem in novo Testamento valde laudat, insuper lex Mo*

g^ere debeal.

YII. £t m olijiceretur, Abrahamo et antiquis concessum^ Lex Moisis permittat, et in eo neminein specificet ac dicat, utnim du8B uxores habeiutef et sic neminein excludit £t si Christus solilin promissus nt stemmati Judee, et nihilominus Samuelis pater. Rex Achab et alii, plures uxores habuerunt, qui tamen non sunt de stemmate Judse. Idcirc6 hoc, quod istis id soliim permissum fuerit pr<^ter Messiam, stare non potest.

YIII. Cum igitur nee Deus in antique, nee Christus in novo Testamento, nec-Propheta, nee Apostoli prohibeant, no vir duas uxores habere possit; nullus quoque Fropheta, vel Apostohis propterek Beges, Principes, vei alias personas punierit autvituper&rit, qubd duas uxores in matrimonio simul habuerint, neque pro crimine aut peccato, vel qu5d Dei regnum non consequentur, judicd,rit; cilm tamen Paulus multos indicet qui regnum Dei non consequentur, et de his qui duas uxores habent, nullamomnino mentionem i&ciat Apostoli quoque ci!lm gentibus in- illos prim6 ad fidem receperant, uti in Actis Apostolorum est: de hoc etiam nihil prohibuenint, qu6d non duas uxores in matrimonio habere possent; ciim tamen multi Gentiles fuerint qui: plures qukm unam uxorem habuerunt: Judis quoque prohibitum non fuit, quia lex illud permittebat, et est omnino apud aliquos in usu. Quando igitur Paulus clar^ nobis dicit oportere Episcopum esse umus uzoris virum, similiter et Ministrum: prohibuisset.

IX. Et post hsBC ad hune diem usque in orientabbus regienibus aliqui Christiani sunt, qui duas uxores in matrknonio ho* bent Item Yalentimanus Imperator, quem tamen Historic!, Ambrosius, et alii Docti laudant, ipsemet duas uxores habuit, legem quoque edi curavit; qu6d alii duas uxores habere possent,

X. Item, hc^t quod sequitur non multdm cUrem, Papa ipsemet Comiti cuidam; qui sanctum sepulchrum invisit, et intel- lexerat uxorem suam mortuam esse, et ide6 aliam vel adhuc unam acceperat, concessit ut is utramque retinere posset. Item Bcio Lutherum et Phihppum Regi Anghse suasisse, ut primam uxorem non dimitteret, sed aliam prseter ipsam duceret quemudmodum prater propter consilium sonat. Quando verb in contrarium opponeretur, qu6d ille nullum masculum hseredem ex primd, habuerit, judicamus nos plus hicconcedi oportere causes quam Paulus dat, unumquemque debere uxorem habere propter

Halute animse, christian^ vita, abstractione ab igaomini^ et inor-

^ dinat^ luxuri^, qukm in eo ut quis hseredes vel nullos habeat.

XI. Itaque hec omni ame pennovenmt, ut mihi propoaueriin, quia id cum Deo fieri potest, sicut non dubito, abstinere k £Qfnicatione, et omni impudicitift, et vi^ quam Deus permittit, uti Nam diutius in vinculis diaboli co|lstrict^^ perseyerare oo|i intendo, et aliks absque h&c vi& me prseservare nec possum, ipsum Bucerum petitio, ut mihi testimonium dare velint, si hoc

XII. Casu quo autem id ipsi hoc tBoapore propter scandalum, et quod Evangelicee rei fortassis prsejudiccu'e aut nocere posset, public^ typis mandare non vellent; petitionem tamen meam esse, ut imhi scripto testimonium dent: si id occultb facerem me per id non contra Deum egisse, et quod ipsi etiam id promatrimonio habere, et cum tempore viam inquirere velint, quo- modo res hsc publicanda in mundum, et qu& ratione persona quam ducturus sura, non pro inhonest^, sed etiam pro honesty habenda sit. Considerare eniib possent, qu6d aliks persons quam ducturus sum graviter accideret, si ilia pro tali habenda esset quae non Christian^ vel inhoniest^ ageret. Post qukm etiam nihil occultum reraanet, si constant^r ita permanerem, et communis Ecclesift nesciret quomodo huic persons cohabitarem, utique hsc quoque tractu temporis scandaliun causaret.

XIII. Item non metuant qu5d propterek, etsi aliam uxorem acciperem, meam modernam uxorem mal6 tractare, nec cum ek dormire; vel minorem amicitisuu ei exhibare velim, qukm antea feci: sed me velle in hoc casu cnicem portare, et eidem omne bonum prsestare, neque ab e&dem abstinere. Yolo etiam filios, quos ex prim& uxore suscepi,Priacipes regi<Hiis relinquere, et reliquis aliis honestis rebus prospicer e: ease proinde adhuc semel petitionem meam, ut per Deum in hoc.mihi consulant, et BONA, seu alia concemat, ibi me promptiu^ rtepe^^nt

XIY. Yellem quoque et de^i^erp jmk pliu^/i ^^ J^l^^i^ unfun uxorem ad i^tam modernam uxorem meam. Item ad mundum vel mundanum fructum h&c in re non nimis attendendum est; sed magis Deus- respiciendus, et quod hie prsecipitf prohibet, et liberum relinquit. Nam imperator et mundus me et quemcunque permittent, ut public^, meretrices retineamus; sed plures qukm unam uxorem non facile concesserint. Quod Deus

I

ulant, et videtur mihi sicut matrimonium Sacerdotum. Nam Sacerdotibus nullas uxores concedunt, et meretrices retinere ipsis permittunt. Item Ecclesiastic! nobis adeo infensi sunt, ut propter hunc articulum quo plures Christianis uxores permitteremus, nee plus nee minus nobis facturi sint.

XY. Item Philippo et Luthero post modum indicabit, si apud opem inveniam; turn me varias cogitationes habere in animo: etsi multis mihi pecuniis constaret, quod Caesar absque Pontificis dispensatione non faceret; quamvis etiam Pontificum dispe'nsationem omnind nihili faciam: veriim Csesaris permissio mihi om- nin6 non esset contemnenda; quam Csesaris permissionem omnin6 non curarem, nisi scirem quod propositi mei rationem coram Deo haberem, et certius esset Deum id permisisse qukm prohibuisse.

XYI. Yertlm nihilominus ex humano metu, si apud banc partem nullum solatium invenire possem, Csesareum consensuih obtinere, uti insinuatum est, non esset contemnendum. Nam apud me judicabam si aliquibus Ceesaris Consiliariis egregias pecunise summas donarem, me omnia ab ipsis impetraturum: sed praeterek timebam, quamvis propter nullam rem in terra ab Evangeiio deficere, vel cum diving ope me permittere velim induci ad aliquid quod Evangelics causes contrarlum esse posset: ne Ceesareani tamen me in aliis seecularibus negotiis ita uterentur et obligarent ut isti causae et parti non foret utile: esse idcircb adhuc petitionem meam, ut me aliks juvent, ne cogar rehi in iis locis quasrere, ubi id non libent^r facio, etquod millies libentiils ipsorum permissioni, quam cum Deo et bon& conscientid, facere possunt, confidere velim, qukm, Caesarea, vel ALUS HUMANis permissionibus: quibus tamen non ulterius confiderem nisi antecedenter in diving Scriptura fundat'ae essent, uti superitls est declaratum.

XYII. Denique iterat6 est mea petitio ut Lutherus, PUlippus, et Bucerus mihi h&c in re scripto opinionem suam velint aperire, ut postelt vitam meam emendare, bon^ conscienti& ad liberiiis et confidentiils agere possim.

Philipfub Landoraffius Hassijb.

THfi VARIATIOIVS, BTC.

THE CONSULTATION OP LUTHER AND THE OTHER PRQT* . EST ANT DOCTORS CONCERNING POLYGAMY.

To the fno$t serene Prince and Lord Pfaflip Landgrave of Heme, Cmmt qf

Most Serene Prince and Lord,

I. Postquam vestra Ceki- I. We have been informed by tudo per Dominum Bucerum Bucer, and in the instruction

diutumas Gonscientieesus mo* eonsideratiottes indieari curavit, addito scripto sea in- structione quam illi vestra Celsitudo tradidit; licet ita properanier expedire responsum difficile sit, noluimus tamen Dominum Buceruoi, reditum, utique maturantem, sine scripto dimittere*

II. Imprimis sumus eK am^^ mo recreati, et Deo gfattas agimus, qu^d vestram Celsi* verity petimusque, ut Dens Celsitudinem vestram in corpore et animo oonfbrtare et

III. Nam prout Celsitudo yestra videtf paupercula et misera Ecclesia est exigua Dominis Regentibus, sicut non dubitamus Deum idiquos conservaturum, quantumvis tentationes diversseoccurraot.

IT. Gircaquostionemquam nobis Bucerus proposuit, hsec nobis occurrunt consideratione digna: Celsitudo vestra per se ipsam satis perspicit quantum differant univers&- lera legem cendere^ vel in

which your Highness gave him^ have read, the trouble of mind* and the uneasiness of conscienco your Highness is under at this preeent; and although it seemed to us very difficult so speedily to answer the doubts proposed | nevertheless, we would not pet^ mit the said Bucer, who waa urgent for his retum to your

II. It has been a subject of the greatest joy to us, and we have praised God, for that ha has recovered your Highness from adaagerotts fit of sickness^ and we pray that he will long health both in body and mind.

ignorant how great need our poor, mi8erable,iittle, and aban# doned Church stands in of vii^ tuous Princes and Rulers t* protect her; and we doubt not but God will always supply her with some such, although firom prive her of them, and proves her by sundry temptations.

lY. These things seem to us of greatest importance in the question which Bucer has proposed to us: your Highness sufficiently of yourself comprehends the difference there is be-

THE HISTORY OF

certo casu gravibus de causis ex concessione diving, dis-

Knsatione uti; nam contra eum locum non habet dispensatio.

V, Nunc suadere non pos- Bumus, ut introducatur public^, et velut lege sanciatur permisso plures qukm unam, uxores ducendi. Si aliquid hac de re prselo committel^etur, facile intelligit vestra Celsitudo, id praecepti instar intellectum et acceptatum iri, unde multa scandala et difficultates orirentur. Conside- Iret, quaesumus,Ceisitudo vestra qu^m sinistra acciperetur, isi quis convinceretur banc legem in Germaniam introdux- iss^, quffi cetemarum litium et inquietudinum (quod limeuf dum) futurum esset seminanum.

YI. Quod opponi potest, quod coram Deo ssquum est id omnin6 permittendum, hoc cert^ ratione et conditione est accipiendum. Si res est mandata et necessaria, verum est •quod objicitur; si nee mandata, nee necessaria sit, alias circumstantias oportet expendere ut ad propositam ques- tionem propius accedamus: Deus matrimonium instituit ut tantdm duarum et non plurium personarum ess^t soci- etas, si natura non esset corrupta; hoc intendit ilia sen- tentia: Erunt duo in came

[book

and using (for urgent leasons and with God's permission) a dispensation in a particular case: for it is otherwise evident that no dispensation can take place ^ against the first of all laws, the divine law.

Y. We cannot at present advise to introduce publicly, and establish as a law in the New Testament, that of the Old, which permitted to have more wives than one. Your Highness is sensible, should any such thing be printed, that it would be taken for a precept, whence infinite troubles and scandals would arise. We beg your Highness to consider the dangers a man would be exposed unto, who should \be convicted of having brought into Germany such a law, winch would divide families, and involve them in endless strifes and disturbances.

YI. As to the objection that may be made, that what is just in God's sight ought absolutely to be permitted, it must be answered in this manner. If that which is just before God, be besides com^landed and neces- sary, the objection is true: if it be neither necessary nor commanded, oth^r circumstances, before it be permitted, must be attended to; and to come to the question in hand: God hath instituted marriage to be a society of two persons and no more, supposing nature were not corrupted; and this is the sense of that text of Genesis, ** There shall be two in one flesh," and this was observed hi the beginning.

I

"J

THfi VARIATIONS, ETC.

YII. Sed Lamech pluralitatem uxorum in matrimonium invexit, quod de illo Scriptura memorat tanquam introductum contra primam regulain.

YIII. Apud iniideles tamen fuit consuetudine receptum; postea Abraham quoque et posteri ejus plures duxenmt uxores. Certum est hoc postmodumlege Mosis permissum fuisse, teste Scripturd^ Deute'r. 2. 1. 1. ut homo haberet dnas uxores: nam Deus fra Cum ver5 principio et creation! consentaneum sit onicft uxore contentum vivere, hujusmodi lex est laudabilis, et ab.Ecclesift acceptanda, non lex huic contraria statuenda; nan) Christus repetit banc sententiam: Erunt duo in came und, Matth. xix. et in memonam revocat quale matrimo- nium ante humanam fragilitatem esse debuisset.

IX. Certis tamen casibus locus est dispensationi. Si quis apud exteras nationes captivus ad curam corporis et sanitatem, inibi alteram uxorem superinduceret; vel si quis haberet leprosam; his casibus alteram ducere cum consilio sui Pastoris, non intentione novara legem indu- cendi, sed suaanecessitati consulendi, hunc nescimus, quit mtione damnaxe licerit

YII. Lamech was the first that married many wives, and the Scripture witnesses that this custom was introduced contrary to the first Institution.

YIII. It nevertheless passed into custom among infidel na-^ tions; and we even find afterwards, that Abraham and his posterity had many wives. It is also certain from Deuteronomy, that the law of Moses per- mitted it afterwards, and that God made an allowance for frail nature. Since it is then suitable to the creation of men, and to the first establishment of their lows that the law enjoining it is praiseworthy; that it ought to be received in the Church; and no law contrary thereto be introduced into it, because Jesus Christ has repeated in the nineteenth cluster of St. Matthew that text of Genesis, ' There shall be two in one flesh:^ and brings to man's remembrance what marriage ought to have been before it degenerated fromi its purity.

IX. In certain cases, however, there is room for dispensa-*' tion. For example, if a married man, detained captive in a distant country, should there take a second wife, in order to preserve or recover his health, or that lus own became leprous, we see not how we could condemn^ in these cases, such a man as* by the advice of his Pastovy should take another wife, pro^ vided it were not with a design of introducing a new law^ but

{

COS

THE HISTORY OF

X Cum igitur alkid sit inducere legem, aliud uti dis- pensatione, obaecnunus ves* tram Celsitudinem sequentia velit considerajre.

Prim5 ante omnia caven* dumt ne heac res inducatur in orbem ad modum iegis, quam equendi libera omnium sit potestas; Deinde considerare dignctur vestra Celsitu- do scandalum nimium, quod Evangelii hostes exclamaturi sinty nos similes esse Anabaptistisy qui simul pku-es duxe- runt uxores. Item EYangelicos eam sectari libertatem plures simul ducendif qum in Turcia in usu eet

XL Item principtm facta ktius spargiqulun privatonua ecnosideret.

XII. Item consideret privatas personas, hujusmodi [Mincipum facta audiemtes, facile eadem siln permissa persuadere, prout q>paret ta- Ua facile iirepere.

XIII. Item considerandum Celsitudinem vestram abundare nobilitate effert spiritiisy in qu& multi, uti in aliis quoque terris sint, qui propter amplos proventus, quibua ratione catbedralium beneficio- rum perfruuntur, vald^ evangelio adversantur. Non ig- uoramus ipsi ma^oram oobilium vald^ insula dicta; et

[book

with an eye onlj to bis own particular necessities.

X. Since then the introducing a new law, and tiie using a dispensation with reject to the same law are two verj different things, we entreat your Highness to teke what follows into consideration.

In the first place, above all things, care must be taken, that plurality of wives be not introduced into the world by way of law, for every man to follow as he thinks fit. In the second place, may it please your Highness to reflect on die dismal scandal which would not fail to happen, if occasion he given to baptists, who have several wives at once, and the Turks,. who take as many wives as they are able

to WMfcin fain-

XI. In the third place, diat the actions of Princes are more widely spread than those of private men.

XII. Fourthly, that inferiors are no sooner informed whattheir superiors do, but they imagine they may do the same, and by that means licentiousness becomes universal.

XIII. Fiflhly,tbat your Highnesses estates are filled with an untractable nobility, for the most part very averse to the Gospel, on account of the hopes they are in, as in other countries, of obtaining the benefices of cathe- dral churches, the revenues whereof are very great. We know the impertinent discourses vented by die most illustrious

<{[ualem ee nobilitas t sub** dita ditio erg& C^lsitudinem vestram sit pre&biturat si publica introductio fiat^ baud dt& ficile est arbiteri.

XIY. Item Cetettudo ves^ trat quffi Dei fiiingularis edt gratia, aptid rages et potentes etiam exteros magnb est iii honore et respectu; apud quos iherit6 est, qubd timeai He baec res pariat norainis di-* oiulta scandala confluant, to*- gamus Celsitudinem Yestrain, lit banc rem mature judicio expendere velit.

XY. Illud quoque estve* mm qu6d Celsitudinem vestram omai modo rogamus et kortamur, ut fomicatioaem et adulterium fugiat Habuimus quoque, ut, quod ras est^ loquamur, k>ngo tempore noa parvum masrofem, qu5d inlellexeruttus vestram Oelsita- dinem ejusmodi impuritate morbi, aliaque pericuia sequi possent*

XYI. Etiam rogamut Ceiffitudinem vestram ne talia extra matrimonium, ieria peccota velit mstimare, stcut mundus beoc ventis ttudere et psrvi pendere sdet: Yeriin aduiteriis. item aduhetium Davidis^est severam vindicfn divine exemplura^ t Paulua

of your nobilityi and it is easily een how tbey and the reift of your subjects would bedisposedi in case your Highnetis (Edkould

Ood^ hedi a great reputation in the empire and foreign coun-^ tries; smd it is to be feared lesl the execution of ^s project, of adouble marriage should gieady diminish this esteem and respects The concurrence of so many acandals obliges us to beseech your Highness to examine the thing with all the maturity of with.

XY. With no less earnestness do we entieai your Hlghtiessi'by and adnlteiy; aad^ to own the truth sincerely, we have a l6ng time been sensibly grieved to see your Highness abandoned divine veogeatice, diat^mpersi and many other dangerous coo*

XYi. We also beg of yottr Highness not to entertain a no of marriage is but a light and trifling fault, as the world is used to imagine; since God hath often chastised impurity with the most severe punishment: and that of the deluge is attributed to the adulteries of the great ones; and vine vieiigeaiieo; and St. Fi|l repeata aocpuoitly, that God ia 18*

in regnum Dei: nam fidei obedientia comes esse debet, lit non contra conscientiam agamus, 1 Timoth. iii. Si cor nostrum non reprehenderit nos, podsumus loti Deum invocare; et Rom. viii. Si eamalia desideria spiritu mortificaverimus, vivemus; si autem secundiim camem am-^ bulemus: hoc est, si contra conscientiam, agamus,morie* mur.

XTII. Hc referrimu8,nt consideret Deum. ob talia vitia non ridere, prout aliqui audaces faciunt, et ethmcas ooffitationes animo fovent. Libent^r quoque intelleximus vestram Celsitudinem ob ejusroodi vitia angi et conqueri. Incumbunt Cekatudini vestro negotia totum mundum concementia. Accedit Celsitudi- nis yestrs complexio subtilis, et minimi robusta, ac pauci somni, unde merit6 corpori tur.

XYIII. Legitur de laudatbsimo Principe Scanderbego, qui multa pneelara facinora patravit contra duos Turca*

[boos

not mocked with impunity, and that adulterers shall not enter into the kingdom of God. For it is said, in the second chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, that obedience must be the companion of faith, in order to avoid -acting against conscience; and in the thu^d chapter of the first of St. John, if our heart con^ demn us not, we may call upon the name of God with joy: and in the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, if by the spirit we mortify the desires et the flesh, we shall live: but, on the according to the flesh, that is, if we act against one own consciences.

XYII. We have related these passages, to the end that your Highness may consider seriously that God looks not on^e vice orimpiuity as a laughing matter, as isu ()posedby those audacious libertines, who entertain heaflienish notions on this subject. We are pleased to find that your Highness is troubled with remorse of conscience for these disorders. The management of the most in^ortant a^rs in the world is now incumbent on your Highness, who is of a very delicate and tender complexion; many prudent persons to manage their constitutions, are more than sufficient to prevail with your Highness to imitate them. X VIH. We read of the incomparable Scanderbexg, who so frequently defeated the two most powerful £aiperors of the Turks,

VI.]

riim Imperatores, Amurathem dum viveret, feliciter tuitus est, ac conservavit. Hie suos milites saepnlis ad castimo^ Tiris d&quh ammos demere ac Yenerein. Item qu5d si vestra Celsitudo insuper alteram uxorem haberet, et nollet esset vestrae Celsitudini consuteum ac prospectum. Opor- tet miumquemque in extemis istis suorum membrorum esse doimnam, uti Paulus scribit: Curate ut membra vestra sint arma justitia. Quare vestra Celsitudo in consideratione aliarum causarum, nempe scandali, curarum, laborum ac solicitudinum, et corporis infiraiitatis velit banc rem sequft lance perpendere, et simul in memoriam revocare, qu6d Deus ei ex modern^ conjuge pulcbram sobolem utriusque sexus dederit, ita ut contentus hkc esse possit. Quot alii in suo matrimonib debent patientiam exercere advitandumscandalum? Nobis non sedet animo Celsitu- dinem vestram ad tarn difficilem novitatem impellere, aut inducere; nam dttio vestrse Celsitudinis, aliique nos impeterenty quod nobis e6 minus ferendum esset,^ qu^ ex pnecepto divino nobis incumbat matrimonium, omnia^ que humana sd divinam institutionem dirigere, atque in e& quoad possibile conser?are,

THfi VARIATIONS, ETC.

Amurat II and Mahomet II, and whilst alive, preserved Greece from their tyranny, that he ofl^i exhorted his soldiers to chastity, and said to them, ^t there was nothing so hurtful to men of theirprofession,.a8 venereal pleasures. And if your Highness, afler manying a second wife, were not to forsake those licen* tious disorders, the remedy proposed would be to no purpose. Every one ought to be master of his own body in external actions, and see, according to the expression of St. Paul, that his members be the arms of justice. May it please your Highness, th^^fore, impartially to examine the considerations of scandal, of labors, of care, of trouble, and of distempers, which have been represented. And at the same time remember that God has given you a numerous issue of such beautiful children of both, sexes by the Princess your wife, that you have reason to be satisfied therewith. How many to tiie exercise and practice of patience, from the motive only of avoiding scandal 1 We are far from urging on your Highness to introduce so difficult a novelty into your family. By so doing, we should draw upour ourselves not only the reproaches and persecution of those of Hesse, but of all other people. The which would be so much the less supportable to us, as God coinmands us in the ministry wiuch we exercise, as much as we are able, to regulatemarriage, and all theother duties of human

THE HISTORY OF

onmeque ecandalum removere*

XIX. Is jamestmossieculit cultads incidat; et humanum conditionis hominibus instabile, unde di versa pertimes- cenda.

XX. Si autem vestra Celsitudo ab impuctidl vitli non absttneat, quod dicit sibi im^ pofisnbile, optaremua Celsitu* dtnetn vestram in meliori statu esse coram Deo^ et secure conscientil Tivere ad propris anim® saiutem, et di^oonm

XXI. Qubd si denique ves-^ tra Celsitudo omnind eoncluserit, adhuc unara conjugem ducere, judicainus id secretb faciendum, ut superitis de dispensatione dictum, nemp% ut tantum vestrse Celsitudini, illi fidelibus constet Celsitudinis sub sigillo confessioms.^ Hinc scandala. Nihil enim est inusitati Principes concubinas alere; et quamvis non omn^ bus k plebe constaretrei ratio, tamen prudentiores iatelligoreot, et magis phceret bno moderata viven£ ratio, cpx^ms adulterium et alii belluiniet impudici actus; nee curandi aliorttm sermones, si rect^ cum codsoientili agatur. Sie

[b60K

life, according to the divine Institution, and maintain them in that state, and remove all kind of scandal.

XIX. It is now customary among worldlings, to lay Uie blame of every ^ling upon the Preachers of the Gospel. The heart of man is equally fickle in the more elevated and lower stations of life; and much have we to lear on that score.

XX. As to what your Highness says, that it is not possible for you to abstain from this im* pure life, we wish you were in a better state before God, that you lived with a secure conscience, and labored for the sal- yation of your own soul, ^d the wei&re of your subjects.

XXI. But aiVer all, if your Highness isv fully resolved to many a second wife, we judge it ought to be done secretly, ai) we have said with respect to the dispensation demanded oti the same account, that is, that none hut ihe person you shall wed and a few trusty penons, know of the matter, and they, too, obliged to secrecy under the seal of confession. Hence no contradiction nor scandal of moment is to be s^prdbended; for it is no extraordinary thing for Princes to keep concubines; and though the vulgar i^uld be scandal* ized thereat, the more intelligent would doubt of the truth, and pru-* dent persons would approve of this moderate kind of hie, pre£> erably to adukery, and other brutal actions. There is no need of being nnch concerned for whiiiaen wfll 84gr provided ail

TI.]

Tte' VARIATIONS, ETC.

SIS

nam quod circi^ matrimoniutn in lege Mosis fiiit pennissuixit Hvangetium non revocaty aut vetat, quod externum regimen non immutat, sed adfert &temam justitiam et setemam vitam, et ordituf veram obedientiam erga Deum, et co- nalur cormptam natoram re* parare.

XXIL Habetitaque Celsitudo Testra non tantum om- nium nostrtlm testimonium in casu necessitatis, sed etiam antecedentes nostras considerationes quas rogamus, ut vestra Celsitudo tanquam laudatus, sapiens, et Christia- nus Princcps velit ponderare. Oramus quoque Deum, ut velit Celstitudiiiem vestram ducere ac regere ad suam laudem et yestm Celsitudinis animas salutem.

XXIII. Quod attinet ad consilium banc rem apud Csbsaremtractan^; existimamus ilium, adulterium inter minora peccatanumerare; nam magnoper^ verendam, ilium Pa- pistic^, Cardinaliti^, Italic^, Hispanic^, Saracenic^ imbutum fide, non curaturum ves- tr Celsitddinis postulatum, et in proprium emolumentum vanis verbis sustentaturtun, sicut intelligimus perfidum ac Germanici oblitum.

goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified; for the Gospel bath nei- ther recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has^ot changed the external economy;' but added jus^ tice only, and life everlastingt for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.

XXIL Your Highness hath therefore, in this wnting, not only the approbation of us all, in case of necessity, concerning what you desire, but also the reflections we have made there- upon; we beseech you to weigh them, as becoming a virtuous, wise, and Christian Prince. We also beg c^ God to direct all for his glory and your Highness's salvation.

XXIII. As to your Highness's thought of communicating this affair to the emperor before it be concluded, it seems to us that tiiis Prince counts adultery among the lesser sort of sins; and it is very much to be feared lest his faith being of the same stamp with that of the Pope, the Cardinals, the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Saracens, he make light of your Highness's pro-i posal, and tinrn il to his own advantage by amusing your H^h*' ness with vain words. We know he is deceitful and perfidious, and has nothing of the German in him*

THE HISTORY OF

XXIY/ Yidet Celsitudo consulit. Turcam sinit imperturbatum, excitat tantum rebelliones in Gennaoilt, ut Burgundicam potentiam e^ ferat. Quare optandum ut nulli Christiam Principerillius infidus machinatibnibus se misceant. Deus conservet vestram Celsitudinem. Nos ad serviendum vestne Celsitudini sumus promptissiim. curii post festum Sancti Xicolai, 1539.

subject! servi,

Martinus Luther. Philippus Mei.ancthon. Martinus Bucerus. Antonius Cortinus. Adam.

Joannes Leningus. Justus Wintpertb.

[book

XXIY. Tour Higbness sees, that he uses no sincere endeavor to redress the grievances of Christendom; that he leaves the Turk unmolested, and labors for nothing but to divide the empire, tiiat he may raise up the house of Austria on its ruins. It is therefore very much to be wished that no Christian Prince would give into his pernicious schemes. May God preserve your Highness. We are most ready to serve your Highness. Given at Wittenberg the Wednesday after the feast of Saint Nicholas, 1639.

Your Highnesses most humble, and most obedient subjects and servants,

Philip Melancthon.

Martin Bucer.

Antony Gorvin.

Adam.

John Leningub.

Justus Wintperte.

Denis Melanther.

Ego Georgius Nuspicher, accepts k Cffisare potestate, Notarius publicus et Scriba, testor hoc meo chirographo public^, qu6d banc copiam ex vero et inviolate originali pro* pri& manu k Philippe Melancthone exarato, ad instan- tiam et petitionem mei clementissimi Domini et Prinoi- et quinque foliis numero ex*- cepta inscriptione complexus aim, etiam omnia propria et diligenter auscultlirim et contulerim, et in omnibus cum

I George Nuspicher, Notary Imperial, bear testimony by this present act, written and signed with my own hand, that I have transcribed this present copy from the true original which is in Melancthon's own handwrit* ing, and hath been faithfully preserved to this present time, at the request of the most serene Prince of Hesse ; and have ex ness every line and every wordy and collated them with the same original ; and have found them

VI.]

originali et^subscriptione nominum concordet. De qu&re teriim testor proprid, manu*

Georgius Nuspicher,

Notarius.

THE VARIATIONS. ET(;.

Instrumentum Copulationis Philippi Landgravii, et

In nomine Domini Amen.

Notum sit omnibus et sin gulis, qui hoc publicum instrumentum vident, audiunt, legunt,qu5d Anno post Christum natum 1540, die Mercurii mensis Martii, post meridiem circa secundam circiter, Indictionis Anno IS^potentissi* mi et invictissimi Romanorum Imperatoris Caroli-quinti,clementissimi nostri Domini Anno regiminis 21, coram me infrascripto Notario et teste, Rotemburgi in arce comparu* erint serenissimus Princeps et Dominus Phitippus Landgravius Comes in Catznelen- bogen, Dietz, Ziegenhain, et Niddd,, cum aliquibus suib Celsitudinis consiliariis ex un^ parte; et honesta, ac virtuosa Yirgo Margareta de Saal, cum aliquibus ex su^ consanguinitate ex alterd, parte; il\^ intenti6ne et voluntate coram me publico Notario ac teste, public^ confessi sunt, ut matrimonio copulentur; et postek ante memoratus mens clementissimus Dominus et Princeps Landgravius Philippus per Reverendiim Pominum Dioin the things themselves, but also in the signs manual, and have delivered tho present copy ii^ five leaves of good paper, whereof I bear witness.

George Nuspioher,

Notary,

The Marriage Contract of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal.

In the name of God^ Amen,

Be it known to all those, as well in general as in particular, who shall see, hear, or read this public instrument, that in the year 1540, on Wednesday, the fourth day of the month of March, at two o'clock or thereabouts, in the aflemoon, the thirteenth year of the Indiction, and the twentyfirst of the reign of the most puissant and most victorious Emperor Charles Y, our most gracious lord; the most serene Prince and Lord Phihp Landgrave of Hesse, Count of Catz- nelenbogen, of Dietz, of Ziegenhain, and Nidda, with some of his Highness'fl Counsellors, on one side, and the good and virtuous Lady Margaret de Saal with some of her relations, on the other side, have appeared before me. Notary, and witness underwritten, in the City of Rotenburg, in the castle of die same city, with the design and will publicly declared before me, Notary public and witness, to unite themselves by marriage; and accordingly my most gracious Lord and Prince Philip the Landgrave hath ordered this^ to be proposed by the Reverend

sie

THE HISTORT or

hysium Melandrum rubb Ce!- ravit proponi ferial hunc 9en sum. Chm omnia aperta sint oculis Dei, et homines pauca lateant, et sua Celsitado yeiit cum nominate virgiae ]\(ar-' garet^ matrimonio copularif etsi prior susb Celsitudinis conjux adhuc sit in vivisi ut hoc non tribuattir 'fevitati et curiositati, ut evitetur scanda^ illius honestse consanguinitatis honor et fama non pati- atur; edicit sua Celsitudo hie coram I>eo, et in suam conscientiam et animan hoc non lieri ex levitate, aux curiosi^ tate,nec exaliqu^vilipensione juris et superiorum,sed urgeri aliquibus gravibus et inevitabiiibus necessitatibus consci- impossibile sit sine alia superinducta legitima conjuge causam etiam sua Celsitudo multis prsedoctis, piis, prudentibus, et Christiahls Pnc- dicatoribus antehac indicavil,^; qui etiam consideratis inevita- ' biiibus causis id ipsum suaserunt ad suas Celsitudinis. animse et conscientise consulendum. Quse causa et ne- cessitas etiam Serenissimam Principem Ohristianam Ducissam Sa^onias, suibb Celsi- tudinis tanquam dilectissimi

[BOOIt

Denis Melaader, preacher to his Highness, much to the seiwe as follows: — ^** Whereas Ae lye of God searches all things, and but little escapes the knowledge of men, his Highness declares that his- will is to wed the said Lady Margaret de Saal, although the Princess his wife be still living, and that this action may not be imputed to inconstancy or curiosity; to avoid scandal and maintain the honor of the said Lady, and the reputotion of her kindred, his Highness makest oath here before God, and upon his soul and conscience, that he takes her tc^wife through no levity, nor curiosity, nor from any contempt of law, or superiors; but diat he is obliged to it by such important, such inev* itable necessities of body and conscience, that it is impossible for him to save either body or seal, without adding another wife to his first. All which his Highness haft laid before many learned, devout, prudent, and Christian preachers, and con* great men, after, examining the motives represented to them, put his soul and conscience at ease by this double marriage. And the same cause and the same necessity have obliged the most serene Princess, Christina Duchess of Saxony, his High- Q^s's f|rst lawful wife, out of her great ptudence and sincere devotion, for wliich she is so mbch to be commended, freely to consent and admit of a partner, to the end that fte soul and

Tu]

met, et honor Dei promoveretur ad gratios^ consentien- Celsitodinis bsec super relata syiigrapha testatur; et ne cui •oandaluin detur e6 qu5d du- tempore sit insolitum; etsi iti lioc 'oasa Ghiistianum et Heitam sit, non vult sua Celsi<- tudo public^ coram pluribus ■<Mmsueta8 ceremonias josurpare, et pdam nupdas cele*- brare cum memorat^ virgine Mar^roia de Saai; sed htc Volunt invicem jungi matri- -motiio. Finito hoc sermone nominati Philippus et Bfaar* ga^eta aunt matrimonio juncti, et miaquseque persona alteram sibi desponsam agnovit et acceptavit, adjuncts metui fidelitatis promissione in nomine -Domini. Et anteme- moratus princeps ac Dominus ante hunc actum me ii^rasciiptnm Notarium requisivit, ut desuper unam aut plura instrumenta conficerem, et mihi etiain tanquam personsd publicse, verbo ac fide Principis addixit ac promisit, se omnia ha$c inviolabilit^r semper ac firmiter senraturum. In prsesentia reverendorum prsedoctorum Dominorum M. rhilippi Melancthonifl, M. Martini Buceri, Dionysii Melandri, etiam in prassenti^ ^trenuorum ac prsestantium Eberhardi de Than Electoralis' Consiliarii, Hermanni de Malsberg, Hermanni de Hundeishausen, Domini - Jooaois

bbdy of her most dear Espouse may run no further risk, and the glory of God may be increased^ as the deed written with tiii^ testifies. And lest occasion m scandal be taken from 4ts not being the custom to have two wives, although this be Christian and lawful in ^e present case^ his Highness will not solemnize these nuptials in the ordinary way, that is^ publicly before many people, and with the wonted eeremonies, with the said Margaret de Saal; but bodi the one and the other will join thems^es in wedlock, privately and without nioise, in presence only of the witnesses underwritten." — Afler Melander had fifl- ished his discourse, the said Philip and the said Margaret accepted of each other for husband and wife, and promised mutual fidelity in the name of God. The said Prince hath required of me. Notary underwrit- ten, to draw him one or motb collated copies of this contract, and hath also promised, on the word and faith of aprince^ to me a public person, to observe it inviolably, always and without alteration, in presence of the Revere nd and most learned nias<- ters Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, Denis Melander; and likewise in the presence of the illustrious and valiant £bethard de Than, counsellor of his electoral Highness of Saxony, Her- man de Malsbeig, Herman de Hundelshausen, ^e Lord John Fegg of the: Chancery, Rudolph Scheack; ^nd'alsaiatfaepres^

i

de Miltitz viduffi defuncti Joannis de Saal memoratfld sponsffi matris, tanquam ad hunc actum requiaitonim testium.

£t ego Balthasar Rand de Fuldltfpotestate Cffisaris Notarius publicus, qui huic ser- moni, instructioait et matrimooiali sponsioni, et copula- ti<mi cum suprd, memoratis testibtts interfui, et hsec omnia et singula audivi, et vidi, et tanquam Notaiius publicus requisitus fui, hoc instrument tum publicum met manu scripsi, et subscripsi, et consueto sigillo munivi in fidem et testimonium.

Balthasar Rand.

THE HISTORY OF

[BOOK

ence of the most honorable and most virtuous Lady Anne of the family of Miltitz, widow of the late John de Saal, and mother of the spouse, all >m quality of requisite witnesses for the validity of the present act

And I Balthasar Rand, of Fuld, Notary public imperial, who was present at the discourse, instruction, marriage,espousal8, and union aforesaid, with the said witnesses, and have heard and seen all that passed, have written and subscribed the present contract, being requested so to do; and set to it the usual seal, for a testimony of the trudi thereof.

Balthasar Rand.

BOOK VII.

[An Account of the Variations and Reformation of England under Heniy VIII, from the year 1529 to 1547; and under Edward Vl, from 1547 to 1553 ; with the subsequent history of Granmer, until his death, in 1556.]

A brief Summary. — ^The English Reformation condemned even from Afr. against the Holy See. — His Ecclesiastical Supremacy. — The grounds o^ and conse(|uence8 from, this doctrine. — ^This point excepted, me Oathofic Faith remains whole and entire.r— Henry's decisions in matters of Faith.— His Six Articles. — ^The History of Tbomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Oanteifoury, author of the English Reformation. — ^His base compliances, oop- Fuption, and hypocrisy. — ^EQs shameful sentiments boncenung the Hierarchy. — The conduct of the pretended Reformers, and in particular of Thomas Cromwell, the Kin^s Vrcar-Greneral and Vicegerent m Spirituals. -^The prodigious blindness of Henry through the wh(?e course of his life. — His death.— The minority of Edward VI, his son.— Henry's decneei leversed. — ^The King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy alone remams in force. — It is carried to such a pitch, that even Protestants are a^amed €£ it— Cranmer's Reformation built on this princi]^— The King looked upon as judge in matters of Faith. — ^Antiquity despised.— Continual Variations. — ^The death of Edward VL — Cranmer's treason, in conjunction vnth otheis, against Gtueen Mary, the late King's sister.— The Catholic Religion reestablished. — Cranmer's ignominious end^— Some particular remaiks on Mr. Bumetfs Histoiy and the En^iiah Refonnatioo.

tr^The death of Htnry VIU^ King of England,^On ibis oceasum the aeemmt qf

The death of Luther was soon followed by another death, which caused great changes in religion. It was that of Henry YIII, who, afler giving such great hopes in the first years of his teign, made so bad use of die rare qualifications of body and mind, with, which the divine bounty had so liberally endowed him. Nobody is ignorant of the irregularities of this Prince, nor of the blindness he fell into by his unhappy amours, nor how much, blood, he shed afler he hsui given lumself up to them* nor of the dreadful consequences of his marriages, fatal, almost every one of them, to those he took to his bed. Nor is it less known on what occasion he, once a very Catholic Prince, made years, he had made from Catherine of Arragon, relict of his brother Arthur, and the marriage he had contracted with Anne Boleyn, he not only rose up against the authority of that See which condemned luip) but also, by an attempt till then unheard of among Christians, declared himself head of the Church of England, as well in gpiritus^s aa temporals; and from thence begins the English Reformation, whereof so ingenious a history has been given us of late yeu^, and, at the same time, so full

The author of it. Dr. Gilbert Surhet, upbraids us in his very Preface, and through the entire progress of his History, with having derived great advantage from the conduct of Henry YHI, and that of Ensland's first Runners. Above all, he complains of Sanders, a Catholic historian, whotn he accuses of having invented heinous facts to make the English Reformation odious* doctrine. " A religion," says he, '* whose foundation was laid in falsehood, and superstructure raised on impositi(i, may be supported by the same means which gave it birth."* He even carries this outrageous invective to a higher pitch: ^ Sanders's book might well serve the ends of that Church, which has, all along, raised its greatness by public cheats and forgeries." The he decks his own Church with are pompous and glittering. ^^ The Refonnation," proceeds he, '* was a work of light, and needs not the aid of darkness to giv6 it a lustre. A full and distinct narrative of what was then done will be its apology as well

* Appen. t lii. pk 303.

SHT THE HIST0RT OF [BOOK

r its history." These are fine words, nor cotdd more magnificent ones be used, if, in the changes that happened in England, he had been to show us even the same sanctity which shone forth at the first hiiik of Christianity. Since he desires it, let us^then consider this history, which, by its naked sknplicity alone. Justifies the Reformation. We stand not in need of a Sanders; Mr. Burnet will suffice to let us clearly see what Was this work of light, and the bare series of facts related by this artful defender of the English Reformation is enough to give us a just idea of it. And if England there finds the sensible marks of that blindness', which God sometimes diffuses over kings and nations, let her not blame me, who do but follow a history which the whole body of the Farhament has honored with so authentic who has permitted the errors of this learned and illustrious nation to rise to so visible a height, only to the end she mi^t, by this means, the more easily know herself.

3. — The first fact avotoedthat the Reformation began by a num eqw^ rejected f Jbf\i M parties.

The first important fact I observe in Mr. Burnet, is what he advances even in his prefacoi. and continues to give prodfs o£ through the whole body of his book: that •* when Henry VIH begain the Reformation, the King's design seemed to have been in the whole progress of these changes to terrify the Court of Rome, and force the Pope into a compliance with what he desired: for, in his heart, he continued addicted to the most ex^ travagant opinioi^ of that Church, such as Transufostantiatioa and the other corruptions in die Sacrifice of the Mass, so that he rather died in this communion than in that of the Protestants." Whatsoever Mr. Burnet, may please to say of this matter, we shall not admit this Prince, whom he seems to c^er us,, a member of our communion; and since he casts him ofi* from his own, the immediate result of this fact is, that the author of the English Reformation, and who, in reality, laid the tme founda^ tion of 4t, in the hatred he excited against the Pope and Church of Rome, is one equafiy rejected and excommunicated by all sides.

What in this place mostly deserves our observation is, that this Prince was not content with believing in his heart, and outwardly professing all those points of faith, which Mr. Burnet calls the greatest and most extravagant of our corruptions, but even by law, in his new capacity of supreme head, under Jesus Christ, of the Church of Englsuid, made them that church's articles of faith. He caused them to be approved by all the

I' Elxt. froln tte Journ. of the House of Lords and Com., 3d Jan. 1681, 23d

Bishops and all his Parliaments, tiiat is, by all the tribunals in

which the highest degree of ecclesiastical authority in &e Church

of England resides at this day, he made them be subscribed,

and put in practice throughout all England, and in particular by

heroes, who, whether Lutherans or Zuinglians in &eir hearts,

and zealous for setting up the new Gospel, went nevertheless,

as usual, to Mass, as to die public worship which was paid to

God, or said it themselves ; in a word, practised all the rest of

the doctrine and service received in the Church in spite of their

religion and consciences.

5. — What wtre the mstrumenta made me of hy Henry Vlllin the Reformation.'^

Thomas Cromwell was the person the King appointed his Yicar-General in spirituals, in 1533, immediately ailer his condemnation; and whom,in-1636,as Supreme Head of the Church, he made his Vicegerent, whereby he placed him at the head of all ecclesiastical i^airs, and of the whole sacred order, though he were no more dian a layman, and always remained such.* Till then that title had not been met with on the Ibt of the Crownofficers of England, nor among the employments recorded in the review of the empire,'f nor in any Christian kingdom whatsoever; and it was Henry YIII that first showed England, and the Christian worid, a Lord Vicegerent and a King^s Vicar General in spirituals.

6. — Thamaa Crtmmer is Mr. Bumeti hero.

Cromwell's intimate friend and chief manager of die English Reformation was Thomas Cranmer, Arehbishop of Canterbury, This is Mr. Burnet's great hero. He abandons Henry VIII,^ whose scandals and cruelties are too flagrant. But he was well aware, should he do the same by Cranmer, whom he looks li^n to be the author of tiie Reformation, this would be giving us at once too bad an idea of this whole work. Therefore he enlarges much in the praises of this prelate; and not content with admiring every where his moderation, his piety, and prudence, he sticks not at making him as irreprehensible, or even more so, in him, as in any prelate that has been in the Christian Churci\ fornnyae/t

The truth is, we must not rely much on the praises Mr. Burnet gives the heroes of the Reformation: witness those he bestowed on Montluc, Bishop of Valence. " He was," says he, " one of

f 9um. L ill p. 181. t No^i^ I™Pni* t Pnftce, towaids the eiid

19*

,|he wkest mkii^ters of his time^ and always for moderate councils in matters of religion, which made him be sometimes sus- pected of heresy. And^ indeed, the whole sequel of his life ~ declared him to be one of the greatest men of that age: only being so long, and so firmly, united to the interest of Queen Catharine M^cis, takes off a great deal of the high character which the rest of his life has given him."^ The crime certainly was not very' great, since he owed all to this Princess, who be** sides was his Queen, the wife and mother of his Kings, and always in union with them; so that this Prelate, against whom this only exception could be made of being faithful to his bene* &ctress, in Mr. Burnet's judgment, must have be@n the most the Reformers bestow on the grea^ men of their sect are not to - be taken literally. The same Mr. Burnet, in the very book

. wherein he so highly extols Montluc, speaks thus cf him — *^ This Bishop was eminent; but he had his faults." After what he has said of him, these faults, we ought to think, will be but trifling; but read to the end, and you will find they consisted in this, that ** he had endeavored to corrupt the daughter of an Irish gentlei man who had received him into his house; and had with him an £nglish mistress whom he kept,"! ^^^ having drunk, without reflection, the precious balm which Solymaa the Magnificent ha^ made this Prelate a present of, ^* he fell into such a rage, that all the house was disturbed with it,^ hereby he discovered both his lewdness and passion at once." Here are the trifling faults of a Prelate, ^ the whole course of whose life declared him to be one of the greatest men of that age. The Reformation, either not over nice in virtue, or indulgent to her heroes, easily forgives them such abominations; and if Montluc, forliaviog only a Uttle spice of Refoimation, was a man, notwithstanding such crimes, almost irreproachable, no wonder so great a Reformer a& Cranmer should have merited such high encomiums. Thus warned against any imposition for the future, from the £reat commendations,, wherewith Mr. Burnet extols his Re- K>rmers and Cranmer most particularly; let us now form the histoxy of this Prelate on the facts related by this historian, his perpetual admirer, and observe^ at the same time in what spirit the BTeformation was conceived.

King's /aoor and that af ^nru Boleyn.

Ever since the year 1629, Thomas Cranmer had put himself at the head of thstt party, which favored the Queen's divorce, and the marriage the King was resolved upon with Anne Boleyn. In 1630, he wrote a book against the validity of Catharine's

VII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. SS8

marriage, and we^ay judge how successfully, by thus flattering the predominant passion of his Prince, he made hia court From that time, he began to be considered at Court as a kind of favorite, and looked on as the person likeliest to succeed in credit to Cardinal Woolsey. Cranmer was then devoted to Luther's doctrine, and as Mr. Burnet says, was looked on as the most learned of those who had embraced it.* Anne Bo-* leyn, proceeds this author, had also received some impressions of this doctrine. I Afterwards he makes her appear wholly de-. voted to the sentiments of those whom he calls the Reformers. By this word we must always understand the hidden or avowed enemies of the Mass and Catholic doctrines. Crome, Shaxton, Latimer, and others, adds he, of that society, favored the fiing'is cause. J Here we have the secret which linked Cranmer and his adherents with Henry's mistress^ : here lies Uie foundation of this new favbrite^s interest, and the beginnings of the English Reformation. The unhappy Prince, who knew nothing of these associations and designs, did himself insensibly combine with the enemies of that faith, which he till then had so well defended, and through their secret machinations, became unwittingly subservient to the designs of destroying it.

9. — Cranmer, sent to Rome on account qf the divorce, is there matte the Pope's

Cranmer was sent into Italy and Rome in behalf of the divorce, and there carried the dissimulation of his errors so far, that the Pope made him his penitentiary; which shows he was a priest. He accepted of this employment, Lutheran as he was. From Rome he went into Germany, there to msmage his good friends the Protestants; smd then it was he married Ossiander's sister. Some say,, he had debauched her, and was forced to marry her; but I shall not vouch for these scandalous facts till I find them well attested by those of the party or at least by unsuspected auth(N^.§ As for the marriage, the fact is certain. These men are accustomed, in spite of the canons, in spite of the pro&ssicm of continency, to look on such marriages as good. But Henry was of another mind, and held married priests in abhorrence. II Craamer had been already expelled Jesus College, in Cambridge, for a former marriage* The second he contracted, whilst a jniest, would have brought him into much more dreadful circumstances, since, by the cadon law, he would have been excluded from this holy order by a second marriage, though contracted even before priesthood. The Reformers, in their hearts, made but a jest both of the sacred canons and their own vows; but for fear of Henry, it was necesseuy to keep this mar*

* Bom. lib. ii. p. 87. t Ibid. t Ibid.

riage private, and this great Reformer set out by deceiving hi master in a concern of this importance.

though a married man and a Lutheran*

Whilst he was in Germany, in the year 1533, the Archbishopric of Canterbury became vacant by Warham's death. The King of England nominated Cranmer, and he accepted of it.* The Pope, who knew no error in him, but^at of maintaining the nullity of Henry's marriage, t^ thing at that time ua- decided,) gave him his bulls; Cranmer received them, and dreaded not, by so doing, to contaminate himself by receiving, as the party used to speak, with the character of the beast. 1 1. — Cranmei^s consecration; profession ofsubmissisn to the Pope; his hypocrisy.

At his consecration, and before they proceeded to ordain him, he took the usual oath of fidelity to the Pope, introduced some ages before. This was not without scruple, as Mr. Burnet tetts us; but Cranmer had ways and means of coming off, and salved all by protesting that he intended not to restrain himself by this oath from what he owed his conscience, his king, and his country: a protestation in itself quite needless; for who of us imagines he engages himself by tills X)ath to any thing that is contrary to his conscience, or the service of his king and country 1 Far from thinking we prejudice any of tiiese, it is even expressed in the oath, that we take it without prejudice to the ri^ts of our order. Salvo ordinemeo. The submission which is sworn to the Pope in spirituals,! is of a different order from what we naturally owe our Prince in temporals, and without pfdtesting, we have always well understood, that one does not mterfere with the other. But in a word, either tiiis oath is a mere 6mpty form, or it obliges to acknowledge the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction. The new Archbishop, therefore, acknowledged it in word, though he believed no such thing. Mr. Bumetij; grants that this expedient did but Uttle agree with Cranhief's sincerity; and in order to extenuate as far as he was able sd criminal a dissimulation, adds a little after, ^ by which, if he did not wholly save his inte^ty, yet it was plain he intended no cheat." What is it, then, we call a cheat, or can there be a greater than io swear what you do not believe, and come prepared with shifts to elude yow oatfa, by a protestation conceived in words so indetenninate? But Mr. Burnet thinks not fit to tell us that Cranmer, who waa consecrated with all the ceremonies of ^e Pontifical, besides this oath he pretended to evade the force of, made other declarations, against which he did not protest: viz. ^^ To receive with submission the traditions of tiie Fathers and the constitutions of th^ Holy See- Apostolic, to render obedience to St. Peter in the

person of his vicar the Pope and his successors, accoiiiding to canonical authority; to keep chastity," which in the intention of the Church, as expressly declared from the time one is admitted to subdeaconship, imported celibacy and continency. This is what Mr. Burnet makes no mention of. He does not tell us that Crankier said Mass according" to custom together with his cpnsecrator> Cranmer ought also to have protested against this act, and against all the Masses he said when officiating in his Church; or, at least, during the whole reign of Henry VIII, that is, for thirteen years successively. Mr. Burnet speaks not a word of all these fine actions of his hero. He tells us not, that when he made priests, as doubtless he did in the space of so many years as he was Archbishop, he made them according to the terms of the Pontifical, wherein Henry changed nothing, '' of changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ by their holy benediction, of offering the sacrifice, have been much more important to protest against so many acts 8.0 contrary to Lutheranism, than agamst the oath of obedience tp the Pope. But the thing was, Henry YIII, whom a protestation against the Pope's supremacy did not offend, would not have endured the rest. This was tiie cause of Cranmer's dissimulation. Here then we have him, all at once, a Lutheran, a married man, a- concealer of his marriage, an Archbishop according to the Roman Pontifical, subject to the Pope, whose power he detested in his heart, saying Mass which he did not Relieve Mr. Burnet, a second Athanasius, a second Cyril, one of the most perfect prelates the Church ever had. What a notion would he give us, not only of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, but also of St. Augustin, St. Ambrose St. Basil, and all the Saints in general, had they nothing in them more excellent, nor jess defective, than a man who practises, for so long a time, what he believes the very height of sacrilege and abomination 1 Thus are men blind in the new Reformation; and thus the darkness which overcast the minds of the first Refcumers, is diffused around their defenders to thid very day.

Mir. Burnet pretends that his Archbishop did all he could to waive this eminent dignity, and admires his moderation. For my part, I am far from disputing with the greatest enemies of the Church, certain moral virtues, to be met with in heathens and philosophers; which, in heretics, were nothing else but a

* Pon^ Rom. in Ord. Presbjrt.

snare of Satan to entrap the weak, and a part of that hypocrisy which seduces them. But Mr. Burnet has too much wit not to see that Cranmer, who had on his side Anne Bole}!!, with whom the King was so smitten; who did all which could be required to favor the lunorous paission of that prince; and who, after declaring against Catharine's marriage, had made himself so neces- saxy to the breaking of it, was very sensible Henry could never choose an Archbishop more favorable to his designs: so that nothing Was more easy for him than to obtain the Archbishopric by refusing it, and thus add the reputation of moderation to die jionor of so great a prelacy.

Accordingly, no sooner was Cranmer raised to this digraty, out he bestirred himself to make an interest in the parliament i^ favor of the divorce. Before this time, in the year 1532, die King had already privately msyrried Anne Bolejni: she was with who was privy to it, signalized himself in this juncture, and tuous marriage with Catharine: " a marriage," said he, " the world had long been scandalized with;"* and declared to him that, for his part, he was determined to suffer no longer so great a scandal. Here is a man of wonderful resolution, a second John the Baptist. Thereupon he cites the King and Queen to appear before him: he proceeds: the Queen does not appear: the Archbishop declared her contumacious, and the marriage null from the beginning; nor did he forget, in his sentence, to take upon him, as was customary with the Archbishops of Canterbury,! the quality of Legated to the See Apostolic. Mr. Bur- net insinuates,! this might be done in order to make the sentence firmer: that is - to say, the Archbishop, who in his heart neither owned Pope nor Holy See, was willing, for the King's sake, to take that title which would best authorize his pleasures. Five days after, he confirmed the private marriage of Anne Boleyn, though contracted before that of Catharine was declared void, and the Archbishop iiesitated not to ratify so irregular a proceeding.

14. — The Bontenee tf dement VII, and Henry^ rage against the Hdy See, The definitive sentence of Clement YII against the King of England is known sufficiently. It followed soon after that which Cranmer had given in his behalf; Henry, entertaining still some hopes from the Court of Rome, had. again submitted himself to the decision of the Holy See, even after the Arcbbishop's judgment There is no need oi relating to what excess of wra& the King was t]:;^sported, and Mr. Burnet himself owns '* he kept no measure in his resentments."* Accordingly, from that period he began to cany his title, of Supreme Head of the Church of England, to its utmost extent

15.— Jtfore and FUhar eondtmned to Death fir r^fitamg to aim the King Head

qftho CAvrc^— 1534;

Then it was the world lamented the death of two, the greatest rhen of England for piety and learning: of Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor; and Fisher, Bishop of Rochester.^ Mr. Burnet himself grieves at the occurrence, and looks upon the *^ tragical end of these two great men to have left one of the greatest blots on this King's proceedings."];

These were the two most illustrious victims of tiie ecclesiastical supremacy. More being very much urged to own it, made this fine answer: " That he snould distrust his own understandring, were he alone against the whole Parliament: but, although tiie great council of England was against him, the whole Church, the great Council of Christendom, was on his side." Fisher's end was not less glorious, nor less Christian.

Then began executions indifferently against Catholics as well as Protestants, and Henry became the most sanguinary of all princes. But remarkable is the date: *^ It does not appear," says Burnet, '* that cruelty was natural ^o him. For, in twentyfive years' reign, none had suffered for any crime against the State" § but two men, whose punishment could not be imputed to him. " Yet, in the ten last years of his life," says the same author, "many instances of severity occurred." || Mr. Burnet will not have him imitated, nor condemned with too much severity; but none condemns him more sharply than Burnet himself, who thus speaks of this Prince: " The vastness and irregularity of his expense procured many heavy exactions, and twice extorted a public discharge of bis debts, debased die coin, with other irregularities. His proud and impatient spirit occasioned many cruel proceedings; the taking so many lives only for den3dng his supremacy, psqrticularly Fisher's and More's, the one being extremely old, and the other one of the glories of his nation, for probity and learning." The rest may be seen in his Preface; but I cannot omit tibe last touch: " That which was the first of all, and deserved most to be blamed, was the laying a precedent for the subversion of justice, and oppressing the clearest innocence, by attainting men without hearing them." All this notwithstanding, Mr. Burnet would have us believe, that although

{lib. ill p. 180. , II Burn. Hb. ill p. 181.

** upon slight grounds he was too ready to bring his subjects to (he bar, yet they were indicted arid judged always according to accused without allowing them a hearing, and laying snares for the innocent in the formalities of justice, were not the height of -cruelty and tyranny. But what can be more horrible than what is added by the same historian ? " That this Prince, whether impatient of contradiction, or perhaps blown up, either with the vanity of this new title of Head of the Church, or with the praises "which flattery bestowed on Mm ; he thought all persons were bound to regulate their belief by his dictates, "f These are, indeed, *' such odious blemishes in the life of a Prince," as Mr. Burnet speaks, "that no honest man can excuse ;" and we are obliged to this author for having saved us the trouble of looking out for proofs of all these excesses in histories that might be more suspected. But what cannot be dissembled is, that Henry, so averse before to these horrible disorders, did not fall into them, according to Mr. Burnet's own confession, till the ten last years of his Ufe ; that is, he fell into them immediately after his divorce, afler his open rupture with the Church, after he had usurped, " by an example unprecedented" in all ages, the ecclesiastical supremacy : and forced he is to own, that one of die causes of his prodigious blindness was, "this glorious title of Head of the Church," whidi his people had bestowed upon him. I now leave the Christian reader to judge, whether these be the characters of a Reformer ; or rather, of a Prince, whose excesses the divine justice revenges by other excesses ; whom it delivers over to the desires of laa own heart, and abandons visibly to a reprobate sense.

(gainst tke Faith of the Church,— 1 535.

The death of Fisher and More, and so many other hloody executions, cast tierror into all minds; every body swore to Henry's Supremacy, and none durst stand up against it. This Supremacy was established by divers Acts' of Parliament, and ••the first act of the king's supremacy was the nomiiiating Cromwell vicar-general in spirituals, and visitor of all the monasteries and other privileged places throughout England.";]: This %as properly declaring himself Pope 5 and what is more remarkable, this was placing the whole ecclesiastical power in or,'if 'Mr. Burnet hkes belter, at least a Lutheran. It has appeared, that Craxkmer, Cromwell's intimate friend, was of the ^Mftte^'jf^y, and' &at both of them acted unanimously, in order to excita^the iheensed Sitig Hg^anat 'the tictent ^th.§ The

new Queen favored them with all het power^ atid took Shaxtoa aiid Latimer, hidden Protestants, to he her chaplains, and pro* Sioted them to the bishoprics of Salisbury and Worcester. But although every thing went contrary to the old religion, and the sion, it is not always in the hands of men to cany on their evil purposes as far as they desire. Henry was provoked only against the Pope and Holy See. Accordin^y, he attacked only this authority; and God willed it so, that the Reformation, from ker infancy, should bear marked on her forehead the impression of this Prince's hatred and revenge. Whatever, therefore, might be the vicar-general's aversion to the Mass,- power was not then given hiih, like anotiier Antiochus, against the perpetual sacrifice;* one of his visitorial injunctions was, that every priest should say Mass daily, and the religious observe their rule care* folly, and particularly their three vowsw'f

Cranmer also made his metropolitical visitation, but it was slier he had obtained the King's license for it: they began to perform all acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in virtue of the royal authority. The whole drifl of this visitation, as of all the actions of those days, was firmly to establish the King's ecclesiastical supremacy.^ At that time, the complying archbishop had nothing so much at heart as this, and the first act of jurisdiction, which the bishop of th^ first See in England did, was to enslave the Church, and subject to the earlhly Kings that power which she had received from heaven.

19. — The Plundering qf Monaateriea. The visitations were followed by the suppression of Monasteries, whose revenues the King appropriated to himself. Prot- estant and Catholic countries indififerently cried out shame against the sacrilegious rapine of goods consecrated to God ; but to the character of revenge, which the English Reformation bore from the beginning, was to be joined that also of an infamous avarice; and this was one of the first fruits of Henry's supremacy, who made himself head of the Church, to have a title to plunder it^

80. — The death f ^uetn Catharine, — wS comparison betwixt this Prince$8 and

and pious Princess," says Mr. Burnet, ^ and led a severe and mortified life. In her greatness, she wrought much with her own hands, and kept her women well employed about her;" and by the writers of those times, " she is represented as a most

* Dan. rill. p. 12. f Bum. lib. iii. p. 186. { Ibid. p. 184. § Ibid. p. 183.

might be ^vindicated from those infamous actions, which her favorites, at their death, charged her with, Mr. Bumetl does not

* deny that her gaiety was immodest, her liberties indiscreet, her behaviour irregular and licentious. A virtuous woman, not to say a queen, never bears with the failure of due respect, so far as to suffer such declarations as men of all degrees, even the lowest, made to this Princess.- Why do I say suffer? — be pleased with them, — and not only take part therein, but also draw them on herself, and not blush to say to one of her gallants, ^Vthat he looked for dead men's shoes, and if aught came to the King but good, he would look to have her*"}; All these things are owned -by Anne, and far from showing a greater discountenance to those bold lovers, it is certain, without entering farther into the matter* she did but treat them the better for it. In the midst of this strange conduct, " we are assured that she grew more full of good works, and alms-deeds,"§ and Math the exception of her advancing the pretended Reformation, which nobody disputes* this is all that is told us of her vi^ues.

But if we carry our reflections still higher, we cannot but ^knowledge the hand of God on this Princess. She enjoyed but three years that glory to which so many troubles had elevated her: a new fit of love raised her up, and a new amour pulled her down; and Henry, who had sacrificed Catharine to her, soon sacrificed Anne to the youth and charms of Jane Seymour. But Catharine, when she lost the King's affections, preserved, at least, his esteem to the very end; w&reas, he had Anne executed infamously on a scaffold J| This djeath happened a few months after that of Catharine. But Catharine preserved to the very last the character of gravity and constancy^ whicli she had kept up during the entire course of her life. As for Anne, at the moment she was taken, whilst she prayed to God in tears, she was observed to break out into a fit of laughing, like a distracted person: IT the words she vented in passion against her lovers, who had betrayed her, showed ike disorder she was in, and the troubled state of her conscience. But here is a visible mark of the hand of God. The King^ always hurried on by his new amours, caused his maniage with Anno to be annulled in favor of Jane Seymour, as he had annulled Catharine's in favor of Anne. Elizabeth, Anne's daughter, was dehad dug for her innocent rival. But Catharine, even to death, maintained the dignity of a Queen, the truth of her marriage, and the honor of Mary's hirth. Anne on the contrary, through a shameful compliance, owned what was false,''— that she had hiarried Henry whilst Lord Piercy was living, with whom she had before contracted; and by confessing, contrary to her conscience, the nullity of her marriage with the King, involved her daughter Elizabeth in her own shame. To me end that God's justice might appear more manifest in this memorable event, Cranmer, that same Cranmer who had annulled Catharine's marriage,* annulled, likewise, that of Anne, to whom, of all persons living, he was most obliged. God struck with blindness all who had contributed to the breach of so solemn a marriage as was that of Catharine: Henry, Aime, the archbishop himself, not one escaped. Cranmer's base pusillanimity, and his extreme ingratitude to Anne, excited the abhorrence of all good men; and his shameful comphance, in breaking all marriages just as it pleased Henry, took from his first sentence all the appearance of authority which the name of an Archbishop could have given to it.

82. — Cranma^s haae ecmptianee iU excttsed hf Jtfr. Bvmet Mr. Bumetf sees with great concern so odious a blot in the life of his great Reformer, and to excuse him says, that Anne declared, in his presence, her marriage with Lord Piercy ; by which it was evident, that which she had made with the Bang was not valid ; upon which confession he could not but separate her from this Prince, and give sentence for the nullity of the marriage. But here is a too manifest imposition ; it was notorious in England that Anne's engagement with Piercy, far from being a concluded marriage, was not even a promise of marriage to be concluded, but a bare proposal of a marriage desired by this lord : which, so far from invalidating a subsequent marriage, would not even have been an impediment to the contract- ing of it. Mr. Burnet agrees herein, and lays down all these facts as certain.;^ Cranmer, who knew the whole secret of what had passed between the King and Anne, could not be ignorant of them; and Piercy, the Queen's pretended husband, had "taken his oath before the two Archbishops, that there was no contract, nor promise of marriage even between them, and received the Sacrament upon it before the principal of the King's privy* council ; wishing it might be to his damnation, if tibiere were any such thing."§ So solemn an oath received by Cranmer discovered to him plainly that Anne's confession was not free. TThen she made it, she was adjudged to die, and, as Mr. Burnet says, ^* even thunderstruck with the terrible sentence of being burnt,"* This the laws had condemned her to; and the mitigating so cruel a part of her judgment depended on the King alone Cranmer might easily judge that, in such a condition, she might be wrought upon to confess what they pleased, ** either by some hopes of life, or by mitigating her sentence."'}' Then was the time for an Archbishop to lend his helping hand to an oppressed person, whom trouble, cnr hopes of softening her punishment, makes to speak against her conscience. If Anne, his benefactress, did not move him, he ought, at least, to^have compassion- in adultery, and, as such, incapable of inheriting the crown, and this on no other grounds but a declaration extorted from the Queen her mother. Nor does 6odl>estow so great an authority on bishops, but with the obligation of lending the assistance of their eloquence to the infirm, and their strengti^ to the oppressed* But virtues, to which Cranmer was a stranger, were not to be expected from him : not even the courage to represent to the Kmg, the manifest contrariety of tiie two sentences, which he caused to be pronounced against Anne ; one of which condemned her to death for defiling the King's bed hy her adulte^ ries ; the other, by reason of a pre-contract, declared she never had been married to the King.;]; Cranmer dissembled so flagrant an iniquity; and all he did in behalf of the unhappy Princess was to write a letter to the King, wherein he wishes she may declare herself innocent ;§ which he concludes with a postscript, protesting he is exceedingly sorry that such faults giving Henry the least suspicion that he disapproved of anj thing he did

It had been thought his credit was shaken by Anne's downfall. And, indeed, immediately upon it, he was forbidden to approach the King; but he soon found means of ingratiating himself at the expense of his benefactress, and by cancelling her marriage. IT The unfortunate Princess was in hopes of moving the King, by owning all he desired. This confession only saved her from the stake, and Henry condemned her to the block. She comforted herself on the day of her death,, because she had heard say, the executioner was very dexterous; and besides, said she, I have a slender neck. At the same time, adds the witness of her death,^he put her hands about it, laughing heartily; either from ostentation of an uncommon intrepidity, pr because her head was turned at death's approach; and it seems to have been God's judgment on that unhappy Princess^

VII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 23S

that her end, dismal as it was, should yet have something in it no less ridiculous than tragical.

It is time to relate the definitions of faith which Henry made in quahty of Supreme Head of the Church of England. In these articles, drawn up by thaking himself, we have a confinna tion of the Catholic doctrine. Here we find ** the absolution of the priest taught, as instituted by Jesus Christ, and to be locked tipon as valid as if given by God himself, with the ne* cessity of confession to a priest, if it may be had."* On this foundation are built the three acts of penance divinely instituted, contrition and confession in express terms, and satisfaction under the name of wordiy fruits of penance, which we mi3t bring forth, although it be true that God pardons sins only for the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and not on account of our merits. Here is the whole substance of the Catholic doctrine. Nor must it be imagined by Protestants, that what is said of satisfaction is peculiar to themselves, since the Council of Trent has ever believed that the forgiveness of sins is a pure grace, granted on account of the sole merits of Jesus Christ.

In the Sacrament of the Altar is owned, *< The very same body of Christ, that was born of the Yiigin Mary, truly and sub* stantially given under the forms of bread and wine;" or, as the English original speaks,-** Under the form and figure of bread:'' which marks most distinctly the Real presence of the body, and gives to understand, according to the usual expression, that nothing but the species of bread remains.

^ 26. — Ccncerwng Images and Saints,

Images were retained, with full liberty of incensing them, kneeling before them, brining ofierings, and showing respect to them, in consideration that these homages were a. relative honor, directed to God, and not to &e Image.*!* This was not only approving the honor of Images in general, but those things, in particular, wherein it is carried to its greatest height.

The people were to be taught that it was good to pray to the saints, that they would pray for, and with us, yet so as not to think to obtain those things at dieir hands which were only to be obtained of God. "J

When Mr. Burnet looks upon this as a kind of " Refbrmation, that the immediate worship of Images was removed, and the direct invocation of saints changed into a simple prayer of praying for the faithful,"§ he does but trifle; since there is not'a Catholic but will own to him that he hopes for no^iing from the

* Bam. Ub. iii. p. 216. flbid. t Ibid. p. 217. § Ibid. p. 218,

flaints but by their prayers, nor renders any honor to images but what is here expressed with relation to God.

,-^0/ Ceremonies. — Of the Cross. Touching ceremonies, these are expressly approved of, viz, ** holy water, blessed bread, hallowing the font, the exorcisms in baptism, giving ashes on Ash- Wednesday, bearing palms on Palm-Sunday; creeping to the cross on Good-Friday, and kissing it in memory of Christ's death:"* all these ceremonies were looked upon as a kind of mysterious language, which brought to mind God's benefits, and excited the soul to raise itself up to heaven, which, in reality^ is the very notion all Catholics luive

of them.

28. — On Purgaiory and Masses far the deadf

The custom of praying for the dead is warranted as having s certain foundation in the book of Maccabees, and a continuation in the Church from the beginning: all is approved of, and it is held ^' consistent with the due order of charity to pray for them^ and to make others pray for them, in Masses and Exequies, and edged in the Mass, which was the great aversion of the new Reformation, viz. that virtue by which, independently of communion, it profited tiiose lor wbom^ it was said, inasmuch as those

3d. — The King decides eonetrning Fofth, by his oum authority.

With relation to- each of these articles the King said, that he

enjoined all bishops to announce them to the people, '^ By him

committed to their spiritual charge ;" a language till then quite

unheard of in the Church. The truth is, w^en he decided these

points of Faith, he had befbre heard the bishops, as judges hear

lawyers; but it was he that prescribed and decided. All the

bishops signed, after Cromwell, the Yicar-general, and Cranmer,

Archbishop of Canterbury.

30 — Crmmer and the rest subscribed Hmry^s articles against their ccnsdences*^ — J^r, Burnet strives in vain to exctue them,

Mr. Burnet is ashamed to see his reformers approve the chief

Articles of the Catholic doctrine, and even the Mass itself, which

alone contained them all. But he excuses them, saying, ^^ That

some of the bishops and divines were not then so fully convinced

about some matters, which afterwards they arrived to a clearer

understanding of, and so it was their ignorance and not their

cowardice or policy, that ^lade them comphant in some things, "i];

make the Reformers ignorant of what was most essential in the

Reformation? § If C ranmer and his adherents sincerely approved

t Bum. 1. iii p. 219^ J Ibid. p. 21.

all these articles, even the Mass, wherein could they be called Lutherans? and if, from that time, they rejected in their hearts all these pretended abuses, as doubtless they did, what was their signing tiiem else but a shameful prostitution of their consciences? Nevertheless, Mr. Burnet will have it, at all events, that the Reformation took a great step at that very time, because in the first of Henry's articles the " Scriptures and the ancient Creeds were made the standards of the people's faith,"* with a prohibition of saying any^ thing that was not conformable to them; a thing which nobody denied, and which, consequently, stood in no need of being reformed.

Such are the articles of faith which were established by Henry in 1536. But although he had omitted some, and in particular no mention was there made of four Sacraments, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matiimony, it is certain, however, that he altered nothing therein no more than in the other points of our faith; but his design was to express particularly, in those articles, what was most controverted at that time, to the end that he might leave no doubt of his perseverance in the ancient faith*

At the same time, by Cromwell's advice, and in order to draw in the gentry to his sentiments, he sold ^em in tiieir several counties the lands of those monasteries that had been suppressed, and at very low prices. f Such was the cdnning of the Reformers, and such the ties that linked men to the Reformation.

32. — Cromwell and Cranmer emfirm anew the Faith qfthe Church, which they

detested in their hearts.

The Yicegerent published also a new ecclesiastical regulation, which had the doctrine of the above articles, so conformable to Catholic doctrine, for its foundation. Mr. Burnet finds a great likelihood that these injunctions were opened by Cranmer,j; and gives us a new instance, that, in point of religion, this Archbishop was capable of the most criminal dissimulations;

. 3^--Henrtfs Six j$Hieles,^l53B.

Henry explained himself more distinctly as to ibe aneient faith, in the famous declaration €)£ those six articles which he published in 1539. In &e first, he establidied Transubstantiation; in the second. Communion in one kind; in the third, the Celibacy of Priests, with the penalty of death for those who the necessity of auricular Confession. § The§e articles were published by authority <^ the King and parliament; and it was

enacted that those who obstinately opposed them should suffer death, and the rest be prisoners during the King's pleasure.

Whilst Henry declared himself in so terrible a manner against the pretended Reformation, Cromwell, the Yicegerent, and the Archbishop, saw no other way of advancing It, than by giving the King a wife, who might protect them and their designs. The Queen, Jane Seymour, died in the year 1537, in childbed, of £dward. If she experienced not Henry's fickleness, Mr. Burnet is of opinion, it was owing, in all likelihood, to the shortness of her life. Cromwell, who remembered how much power Henry's wives had over him as long as they continued in his affection, believed that Anne of Cleves'* beauty would be a great prop to his measures, and prevailed with the King to marry her; but unluckily this Prince fell in love with Catharine Howard,f and scarce had he accomphshed his marriage with Anne, but he bent all his thoughts to break it off. The Vicegerent underwent the punishment of having advised him to it, aiid found his ruin where he thought to meet with his support. It was perceived that he gate private encouragement to the new preachers, enemies of the Six Articles and Real Presence,;]; which the King defended vehemently. Some words spoken by him on this occasion against the King, were brought to his ears.§ Whereupon the Parliam^t, by the King's orders, condemned him for a heretic and traitor to his country. || It was observed, he was condemned without being heard, and so bore the punishment of that detestable advice he had been the first author of, to attaint people without hearing them. And afler this, will any one sav that the arm of God was not visible on these miserable Reformers, the most wicked, as we see, no less than the greatest hypocrites of all mankind 1

Cromwell, above all the rest, prostituted his conscience to flattery; he, in his quality of Ticegerent, authorizing in public all Henry's articles of faith, which he strove secretly to destroy. Mr. Burnet conjectures that if he was refused a hearing, it was because '* It was very probable that in all he had done tibat way, viz. for the pretended Reformation, he had the King's warrant for it, and acted only by his order, whose proceedings towards a too gross, and to be deluded by it a man must wilfully blind himself. Will Mr. Burnet have the face to say, that the proceedings towards a Reformation^ which he attributes to Henry,

♦ Burnet, p. 271. f Ibid. p. 276, 1 Ibid. p. 277,

§ Ibid. p. 276. . Illbid. p.77. . f Ibid. p. 279.

were in prejudice to his Six Articles, or the Real Presence, or the Mass 1 This would be giving himself the lie, since he owns throughout his whole work, that this Prince was always very zealous for, or, to use his own words, addicted to, all these articles. Nevertheless he would here have us believe, that Cromwell had secret orders to undermine them, when at the same time he is put to death for having favored those who impugned them.

36. — Cranmer*s prostitution of eonseience^-he annuls the King*s marriage toitk ^nne of Cleves — the magnificent terms €f this unjust sentence — the King marries Catharine Howard, who is favorable to the Reformation, and soon beheaded for her ir^amous behaviour — the judgment of the Convocation.

But let us leave Mr. Burnet's conjectures, and hb vain shifb to color the Reformation, and confine ourselves to &cts which it was still requisite, for the King's satisfaction, to rid him of his odious wife, by making void the marriage with Anne of Cleves. The pretext was very gross. The betrothing of this Princess to the Marquis of Lorrain whilst bo& parties were minors, and which they never ratified when of age, was alleged as the cause of nullity. It was plain nothing could be more weak in order to dissolve a perfectly complete marriage. But, though reasons were wanting, the King had a Cranmef ready for all jobs. By means of this Archbishop this marriage was cancelled similarly to the two others. ^' The sentence was pronounced on the 9th of July, 1540, and the whole convocation, without one dissent'* ing* vote, judged the marriage null. The sentence wa9 signed by all the ecclesiastics of both chambers, and sealed with the seals of both Archbishops." Mr. Butnet is ashamed, and owns* ** this was the greatest piece of compliance that ever the king had from his clergy; for they all knew there was nothing of weight in that pre-contract," which was m%de the foundation of the divorce.*!* Therefore they acted openly against their consciences; but lest we should, at another time, be imposed upon by the specious terms of the new Reformation, it is proper tp take notice that they pass this sentence, as representing the great Council, afler having said that the King required nothing of them but what was truci, was just, was honorable, and holy: in this manner spoke those corrupted Bishops. | Cranmer, wiio presided over this assembly, and carried the result of it to the Parliament, was the greatest coward of them all; and Mr. Burnet, after having strained hard to palliate the matter, is forced to own that, overcome with fear, (for he knew it was contrived to send him quickly afler Cromwell,) he consented with the rest.§ Such was the courage of the second Athanasius, the virtue or

I Collec. Rec. lib. hi n. 19. p. 197. § Bumet, p. 28],

tbis second Cyril. Upon this unjust sentence the King married Cadiarine Howard, no less zealous for the new Reformation than Anne Bolojm. But strange was the destiny that attended these female Reformers. Her scandalous life soon brought her to the scaffold, nor was Henry's house ever clear from the stains of blood and infamy.

The prelates made a new confession of faith, which this Prince confirmed by his authority; wherein the belief of the seven sacraments was declared in express terms, that of penance, in the absolution given by the priest; the necessity of con* fession, transubstantiation, concomitancy. *' So that," says Mr. Burnet, ** communion in both kinds was not necessary; ^e veneration of images and praying to saints, in the same isense we have seen in the Being's first declaration, which is the sense of the Church; the necessity and merit of good works in order to obtain life everlasting; prayers for the dead; and, in short, all the rest of the Catholic doctrine, except the article of Supremacy, whereof we shall speak apart."*

3d. — Cranmer's hypoerisyf toko signs aU of them.

Cranmer, with the rest, subscribed to every one; for, although Mr. Burnet asserts that some articles passed which were cour trary to. his sentiments, yet he yielded to the plurality, and we observe no opposition on his part to the common judgment. The same exposition had been published by the King's authority ever since the year 1638, signed by nineteen Bishops, eight Archdeacons, and seventeen Doctors, without any opposition. Such, at that time, was the faith of the Church of England and of Henry, whom she had owned for her head. ' The Archbishop approved of all against his conscience. His master's will was his sovereign rule; and, instead of the Holy See with the Catholic Church, the King alone was to him infallible.

Mecpiwhile, he continued sa3Fing Mass, which he rejected in his heart, although nothing was changed in the Mass-bookst Mr. Burnet agrees, *' The alterations tiiey made were inconsiderable, and so slight, that there was no need of reprinting either the Missals, Breviaries, or other Offices: for," proceeds this historian, " a few erasures of these Collects, in which the Pope wns prayed for, of Thomas Becket's Office (St. Thomas of Canter- Dury,) and the Offices of other Saints, whose days were, by &e King's injunctions, no more to be observed, with some other deletions, made that the old books did still serve."! After all, then, the same worship was still practised, Cranmer complied

with it; and if you would know all that troubled him, it was, as we learn from Mr. Burnet, because, excepting Fox, Bishop of Hereford,* as great a dissembler as himself, the odier Bishops that adhered to himt were rather clogs than helps to him, because they would not be managed and governed by politic and prudent measures, but were flying at many things tbat were not religion.

One may wonder, perchance, how a man of this temper ventured to speak against the Six Articles; for this is the only place where Mr. Burnet makes him courageous; but he himself discovers the cause to us. It was because he had z. particular interest in the article which condemned married priests to death, . for he was then married himself.;]^ It had been too much to suffer his own condemnation to pass m Parliament for a standing law, and his fear even made him then show some kind of courage: accordingly, though he spoke but faintly against the other articles, yet he delivered himself fully against tfas. But, after all, it does not appear that he did any more on this occasion than, afler a vain struggle to dissuade the passage of the law, to fall in at last, as his custom was, with the general opinion.

But here is the greatest act of his resolution. Mr. Burnet would have us believe, upon the credit of an author of Cromwell's life, that the King, being concerned for Cranmer on ac- count of die act OB behalf of Sie Six Articles, was desirous of knowing why he opposed them, and ordered Mm to put all his arguments in writing, which he did. § The paper, written out fair by his secretar}', fell into the hands of one of Cranmer's enemies. It was immediately carriedto Cromwell, then living, with the design of having the author taken up; but Cromwell stifled the thing, and so Cranmer escaped this hazard. ||

This account naturally leads us to believe that the Kmg knew nothing at all of Cranmer's writing against the Six Articles; and that, had he known it, this prelate would have been utterly ruined; and, lastly, that he escaped purely by his cunning and perpetual dissimulation: however, if Mr. Burnet had rather have it so, t am willing to believe the King found so great a propensity in Cranmer to approve, in public, all hislnaster could desire, that thb prince had no reason to be under any concern

what a person of such c(npliance might think in private, nor could he find in his heart to part with so commodious acounsellor.

sacrifices to the Crvnoiu

It was not only with regard to his new^ mistresses that the King experienced him to be so great a flatterer: Cranmer had forged for him, in his own brain, that new idea of supremacy annexed to the Crown: and what he ssiya concerning it, in a paper produced by Mr. Burnet among his Records, is unex-~ ampled.* He teaches then, ** That all Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their subjects, as well concerning the administration of God's word, for the cure of souls, as concerning the ministration of things political and civil governance; and, in both these ministrations, they must have sundry ministers under th^n to supply that which is appointed to their several offices; as for example, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Treasurer, Lord Great Master^ and the Sheriffs for Civil Ministers; and the Bishops, Parsons, Yicars, and such other Priests as he appointed by his Highness in the ministration of the word; as for example, the Bishop of Winchester, the Parson of Winwick, &c. All tiie said officers aind ministers, as well of that sort as the other, must be ap pointed, assigned, and elected, and in eveiy place, by the laws and orders of Kings and Princes, with divers solemnities, which he not of necessity r but only for good order and seemly fashion: for if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnity, they were, nevertheless, truly committed; and there is no more promise of God, that grace is given in the committing of the ecclesiastical office, than it is in the committing of the civil office."

Afler thus making all ecclesiastical ministry to rest on a simple delegation of princes, without so much as ordination or ecclesiastical consecration being necessary on the occasion, he ob- viates an objection which immediately occurs; to wit, how pastors exercised their authority under princes that were not Christians; and answers conformably to lus principles, that there was no remedy then for the correction of vice, or appointing of ministers in the Church of God; but the people accepted of such as were presented to them by the apostles, or others whom they looked upon as filled with the spirit of God, and this of their own voluntary will; and afterwards gave ear to them, as a good people ready to obey the advice of good counsellors. This is what Cranmer spoke in an assembly of bishops; and this was

* Ree. p. L lib. lii. n. SI. p. SSO.

the notion he had of that divine power which Jesus Christ gave to his nnsisters.

44, — Cranmer altoays persisted in these sentiments. I am under no necessity of rejecting this prodigy of doctrine BO strongly refuted by Calvin and all the other Protestants, since Mr. Burnet himself blushes for Cranmer, and is willing to take already appeared, that his subscriptions are not always a proof of his real sentiments, I must tell Mr. Burnet, that he conceals from us, with too much artifice, Cranmer's true notions. It made not against him, though the institution of bishops and priests was divine, and he acknowledges this truth in that very piece of which we have just produced the extract. For at the close of this ninth question, it is expressly mentioned, that '^ all of them were agreed," and consequently Cranmer, "that the apostles had received from God the power of creating bishops or pastors."* Neither could it be denied, without too manifestly contradicting the Gospel. But what Ci^anmer and his adherents pretended was, that Jesus Christ had instituted pastors to exercise their power dependantly of the prince in every function ; which certainly is the most monstrous and the most scandalous flattery that ever entered into the heart of man.

rethtced to practice.

Accordingly, it thence came to pass, that Henry VIII gave ihe bishops power to visit their diocese with this preface; — ** That all jurisdiction, as well ecclesi^tical as secular, proceeded from the regal power, as- from the first foundation of all magistracy in all kingdoms; that those who, till then,liad exercised this power precariously, were to acknowledge it as coming from the liberality of the prince, and give it up to him when he should think Jit; and upon these grounds he gives po^er to such a bishop, as to the King*8 vicar, to visit his diocese by the regal authority; and to promote whom he shall judge proper to holy orders, and even priesthood;" and, in short, to exercise all the episcopal functions, " with power to subdelegate," if he thought it necessary. •{•

4&*'^Cranimitr acts conformably to this dogma, — the oniy one wherein the Ref*

Let us say nothing against a doctrine which destroys itself

by its own enormity, and only tske notice of that horrid proposkion which makes the power of bishops so to flow from thai

of the £ingt that it is even revocable at his will. Cranmer wa^

80 persuaded of thus royal power, that he was not ashamed, himself archbishop of Canterbury, and primate of the whole Church of England, to take out a new commission of the same from under £dward YI, though but a child, when .he reformed the Church according to his own model ; and of all the articles published by Henry, this was the only one he retained.^

This power was carried to such a pitch in the English Ref^ ormation, that EUzabeth had some scruples about it; and the horror men had of seeing a woman the Church's supreme head, and the fountain of all pastoral power, whereof, by her sex, she was incapable, opened their eyes at length to see, in some measure, the excesses to which they had been carried, "f But we shall see, without diminishing the force, or removing the grounds of it, they did no more than just palhate the matter; nor can Mr. Burnet, at this day, but lament to see excommunication, belonging only to the spiritual cognisance, and which ought to have been reserved for the bishop with the assistance of the clergy, by a fatal neglect given over to secular tribunals; that is, not only to Kings, but likewise to their officers: — ^" an error,^ proceeds this author, '^ grown since into so formed a strength, ^t it is easier to see what is amiss, than to knowhowto rectify it."

And, certainly, I do not conceive any thing can be imagined more contradictory, than to deny their Kings, on one side, the administration of the word and sacraments; and grant them, on the other, excommunication, which, in reality, is nothing else but God's word armed with the censure which comes from Heaven, and one of the most essential parts of the administration of the sacraments; since, undoubtedly, the right of depriving die faithful of them can appertain to none else but those who are appointed by God to give them to the people. But the Church of England went much further, inasmuch as she has attributed to her Kifigs and to the secular authority, the right of making rituals and Uturgies, and even of giving final judgment without further appeal, in points of faith; that is, of that which is most essential in the administration of the sacraments; and the most inseparably annexed to the preaching of God's word. And as well under Henry VIII as in the succeeding reigns, we find no ritual, no confession of faith, no liturgy, which derives not their ultimate sanction and force from the authority of the King and parliament, as the sequel will make plain. They went even to that excess, that, whereas die orthodox emperors, if formerly they made any constitutions concerning faith, either they made

them in order to put in execution Church decrees, or at lea^

waited for the confirmation of their ordinances. In England

they taught, on the contrary, ** that the decrees of councils, in

points of faith, were not laws, nor of any force, till they were

ratified by princes ;"* and this was the fine idea which Cranmer

gave of Church decisions in a discourse of his reported by Mr*

Burnet.

Reformation.

This Reformation, therefore, took its rise firom Henry's vices,

and the flatteries of this archbishop. Mr. Burnet takes great

pains to heap up examples of very vicious princes, whom 6od^

has made subservient to great ends.*}* Who questions it? But

without examining the histories he quotes, where he blends trudi

with falsehood, and what is certain with what is doubtful ; can

he show one only example, where God, intending to reveal to

men some important, and, during so many ages, unknown truth

: — ^not to say utterly unheard of — ever did choose so scandalous

a King as Henry YIH, and so base, so corrupt a bishop as

Cranmer? If the schism of England, in the English Reforma*

tion, be a divine work, nothing in it is more divine than the

King's ecclesiastical supremacy, since, by that, not only did

commence the breach with Rome, the necessary foundation,

according to Protestants, of every good reformation, but that

also is the only point wherein they have never varied since the

schism. God made choice of Henry YIII to introduce this

new article of faith apiong Christians, and, withal, made choice

of this very prince to be a remarkable instsmce of his most pro

found and most terrible judgments ; not of that sort by which

he subverts monarchies, and gives to impious Kings a manifestly

disastrous end ; but of that other, whereby, delivering them over

to their flatteries and passions, he suffers them to run headlong

into the utmost excess of wilful blindness. Meantime, while

he thinks fit, he withholds them on this bpnk, in order to make '

manifest in them those ipysteries of his counsels he is willing

men should know. Henry YIII attempts nothing against the

other Catholic verities. All his attacks are levelled only at St.

Peter's chair ; by that, it became apparent to the whole universe,

that this prince's design was only to revenge himself on that

pontifical power which had condemned him, and that his hatred

was his sole rule of faith.

BO.'^It ecneemt not Fmih to exmnino the eotiduet of Clement VII, and hia

methods of proceeding,

Afler that, I am under no necessity of examining all Mr. Burnet relates, whether as to the intrigues of Conclaves, or the

behaviour of Popes, or thfe artifices of Cleeaeni VII. What advantage can he draw from thence 1 Neither Clement, nor the ' other Popes are, amongst us, the authors of any new article of faith. Nor have they separated us from the holy Society in which we were baptized; nor have they taught us to condemn our ancient pastors. In a word, they make no sect among us, and their vocation has nothing in it that is extraordinary. If they enter not by the door, which is always open in the Church, the very case specified in the Gospel,* of honoring the chair without approving, or imitating the persons. Nor ought I at au nor whether Clement YII could, or ought to revoke it, and annul the marriage. For, although I look upon it as certain, that this last Pope acted well in the main, and, in my opinion, nothing can be blamed on this occasion but, at tiie most, his policy, which was at one time too timorous, and at another too hasty: this is not a question for me to decide in this place, nor a pretext for impeaching the Church of Rome of error. These mat- ters of dispensation are often regulated by simple probabilities; nor is one obliged to look therein for the certainty of faith, whereof they are not always even capable. But since Mr. Burnet makes from this a capital accusation against the Church of Rome, I cannot, methinks, but dwell a tittle upon it.

61 — 'Die account of the Marriage Dispute entered upon, — The fact is laid down* — The vain pretexts with which Henry covered his passion.

It is a fact, notoriously known, that Henry VII had obtained a dispensation from Julius II to marry the widow of Arthur, his eldest son, to Henry, his second son and successor. This Prince, afler he had seen all the reasons for doubting, consummated, when a King, and at age, this marriage, with the unan- imous consent of all the estates of his realm, the 3d of June, 1509, that is, six weeks afler his cgming to the Crown, "j* Twenty years elapsed without calling in question a marriage so sincerely and honestly contracted. Henry, falling in love with Anne Boleyn, called conscience in to assist his passion; and his marriage becoming odious to him, at the same time became doubtful and suspected. Meanwhile, a Princess had sprung from this marriage, who from her infancy had been acknowledged heiress of the kingdom; J so that the pretext which Henry took for breaking be doubtful, was a mere trick, since none dreamed of disputing it with his daughter, Mary, who, in fact, was unanimously owne^ for Queen, when the order of birth called her to the crown. Oa

the contrary, if any thing could obstruct the succession of this great kingdom, it was Henry's doubt; and, it appears, that all he published relating to the doubtfulness of his succession, was nothing but a cloak, as well for his new amour, as for the disgust he had taken to the Queen his wife, <Sn account of some infirmities she had contracted, as Mr. Burnet himself owns.*

A Prince, whom passion rules, would have it believed he has reason on his side: so to please Henry, the dispensation, on which his marriage was grounded, was attacked several ways, some taken from fact, others from right. As to fact, the dispens€ition was maintained to be null, because granted on false allegations. But as these arguments of fact, reduced to these minute niceties, were over^ruled by the favorable condition of a marriage that had subsisted so many years; those from right as granted in prejudice to the law of God, which the Pope could not dispense with.

63. — Argtmunta of right grounded on Levitietis, — The state of the questiint.

'The question was, whether or no the prohibition in Leviticus,

not to contract within certain degrees of consanguinity or affinity,

and, among others, that of marrying the brother's widow, did so

appertain to the law of nature, as to be obligatory in the Gospel

law."!* The reason for doubting was, because we do joot re&d

that God ever dispensed with what was purely of the law of

nature : for example, since the multiplication of mankind, there

has been no instance of God's permitting the marriage of brother

and sister, nor others of this nature in 2ie first degree, whether

ascending, or descending, or collateral. Now, there was an

express law in Deuteronomy,;!; which, in certain cases, enjoined

a brother to take his sister-in-law and the widow of his brother

to wife. God, therefore, not destrojdng nature, which he is the

author of, gave thereby to understand that this marriage was

not of that sort which nature rejects ; and this was the foimda^

tion which Julius II's dispensation was grounded upon.

Henry'sfiret marriage.

We must do the Protestants of Germany this justice: Heniy could never obtion from them the approbation of his new marriage, nor the condemnation of Julius II's dispensation. When this affair was spoken of in a solemn embassy, which this Prince sent to Germany, in order to join himself to the Protestant confederacy, Melancthon decided thus: ^* We have not been of &e English Ambassador's opinion; for, we believe, the law of pot wedding a brother'a wife, is suscepttible (^ dispensatton^

. 81*

although we do not believe it to be abolished."* And, agaip, more concisely in another place: " The Ambassadors pretend, that the prohibition against marrying a brother's wife is indispensable; and we, on the contrary, maintain it may be dispensed with.^'t This was exactly what they stood for at Rome, and Clement YII's defkiitive sentence against the divorce rested on this foundation.

55. — Bucer of the same opinunu Bucer was of the same opinion upon the same motives ; and we learn from Mr. Burnet, that, according to this author, one of England's Reformers, " The law of Leviticus did not bind, and could not be moral, because God hath dispensed with it.";]; .

56. — Zuinglius and Calvin of the contrary opinion, Zuinglius and Calvin, with their disciples, were favorable to the King of England ; and it is not unlikely but that a design of settling their doctrine in that kingdom, contributed not a little to their complaisance : but the Lutherans sided not with them, although Mr. Burnet makes them to vary a little, in the matter: At first, " they thought," says he, "^the laws in Leviticus were not mcnral, and did not oblige Christians ; yet, afler much disputing, they were induced to change their minds, but could not be brought to think that a marriage once made might be annulled."^

And truly their decision, as reported by Mr. Burnet, is a very, odd one; since, after their owning that '^ The law of Leviticus is divine, natiural, and moral, and to be observed as such in all churches, insomuch that a marriage, contracted contrary to this law with a brother's widow, is incestuous;"|| they conclude^ nevertheless, that this marriage ought not to be broken: with some doubt at first, but, at length, by a final and definitive deter^ mination, as Mr. Burnet owns; so that aii incestuous majriage, a marriage made contrary to divine, moral and natural- laws^ which still remain in their full force tluroughout the whole Christian Church, ought to subsist, in their judgment; nor is a divorce, in this case, allowable.

This decision of the Lutherans is, by Mr. Burnet, referred to the year 1530: that of Melancthon, just mentioned, is posterior, and in 1536. However, it is a favorable precedent for Ju- lius II's dispensation, and the sentence of Clement YII, that ^se Popes have met with defenders among those who sought nothing more than to censure their proceedings at any rate. The Protestants of Germany were so resolute in this sentiment

that* for all the ties and interests Cranmer had then with them,' he could engage none on his master's side, but only his brotherin-law, Osiander, whose authority will hereafter appear of no

great weight.

had bribed two or three Cardinals. Without informing myself of the truth of these facts, I shall observe only, that a cause must be bad indeed that stands in need of such infamous supports. And as for the Doctors, whose subscriptions Mr. Bur- net boasts to us, where is the wonder that, in so corrupted an age, so great a. King was able to find those who were not proof allow us to call in question the authority of Fra-Faolo, nor of De Thou.* Let him give ear to these two historians. One says, ^*that Henry having consulted in Italy, in Germany, and in France, he found one part of the divines favorable, and the other contrary. That the greatest number of those of Paris were for him, and many believed they had done it more from the persuasion of the King's money than that of his arguments."'}' The other says, ** that Henry made diligent inquiry into the opinions of divines, and in particular of those at Paris, and the report ran, that these being gained by money, had subscribed in favor of the divorce."^

I will not decide whether the conclusion of the Faculty of Divinity, at Paris, produced by Mr. Bumet§ in favor of Henry's pretensions, be true or not; others will take this question in hand: this only shall I say, that it is very much to be suspected, as well on account of the style, far different from that which the &culty is accustomed to make use of, as because Mr. Burnetts conclusion is dated the 2nd of July, 1530, at the Mathurins; whereas, at that time, and for some years before, the assemblies of the faculty were held commonly in the Sorbonne.

^l.^The testimony of the Lawyer^ Charles du Movlwu In the notes which Charles du Moulin, that renowned civilian, has made on Decius's Consultations, he speaks^ of the debate of the Doctors of Divinity at Paris, in favor of the King of £ngland, the 1st of June, L530, but this author places it in the Sorbonne. || He makes but little account of this declaration, wherein the party that favored the King of England carried it by fifly-three votes against forty-two; " wluch majority of eight voices," says he, '^ deserved no great weight, on account of the

II Not ad XJanfl. GOSL

English angels of gold which were distributed for the purchase of it: this," he afiirais, "he knew from the attestations which the President du Fresne and Poliot had given in by order of Francis I.'^ Whence he concludes, the true judgment of the Sor- bonne, that is, their gepuine and unbought judgment, was that which favored the King's marriage with Catlmrine. It is, moreover, very certain that, during Sie deliberation, Francis, who then favored the King of England, had charged M. Lisset, the first President, to sohcit the Doctors in his behalf, as appears by the original letters still kept in the King's hbrary, wherein the President gives an account of his diligent compliance. Whether, published in England under the name of the faculty, as hapj^ens in like cases, is a matter which •! am not interested in examining into at present. It is apparent enough that the King of England's conscience was radier burdened than eased by such con- sultations, carried on by intrigue, by money, and by the authority of two so great monarchs. The rest of them, alleged by our author, were not transacted with more integrity. Mr. Burnet himself assures us, " that the King of England's agent in Italy, in many of his letters, s£ud that, if he had money enough, he did not doubt but he should get the hands of all the divines in Italy."* Money, therefore, not the good- will, was wanting. *f But not to dwell any longer on the minute stories Mr. Burnet is so triflingly circumstantial in, there i^ nobody but will own that Clement YII had been too unworthy of his place, if in an mercenary consultations.

S^^-Reasms for the decinon of H^ement VII, And, indeed, the question was determined on more solid pnnciples. It appeared, clearly, that the prohibition of Leyiticua bore not the character of a natural and indispensable law, since God derogated from it in other places. The dispensation of Julius II, grounded on this reason^ had so probable a foun^ dation, that it appeared such even to the Protestants of Germany.. No. matter what diversity of sentiments there might was not evidently contrary to the divine laws, which obhged Christians. This matter, then, was of the nature of such things*, science can have. It was also but too manifest that, had it not been for Henry VIII's new fit of love, the Church never had been troubled with the shameful proposal of a divorce^ after a

jnarriage contracted and continued with a good conscience so many years* Here is the knot of the affair; and without speaking of the process, wherein, perchance, policy, good or bad, might intervene, Clement YII's decision, when all is said, will be a testimony to future ages, that the Church knows not how to flatter the passions of Princes, nor approve their scandalous proceedings. 63. — Two points of Reforrnaiion under Henry Vlllf according to Mr, Burnet,

We might here conclude what concerns the reign of Henry YIII, did not Mr. Burnet oblige us to consider two commencements of Reformation, which he remarks at this time: one is, his putting the Scriptures into the hands of the people; the other, his showing that every nation might reform itself independently of all others.

64.—- I^f Poiil — The reading of the Scriptures, hoio granted to the people

under Henry VUL

As for what regards the Bible; this is what Henry YIII said in 1540, in his Preface to the Exposition of the Christian Faith above spoken of: ** That, whereas there were some teachers whose office it was to instruct the people; so the rest ought to be taught, and to those it was not necessary to read the Scriptures; and that, therefore, he had restrained it from a great many, esteeming it sufficient for such to hear the doctrine of the Scriptures taught by their preachers." Afterwards he allowed the reading of them that same year, upon condition " that his subjects should not presume to expound, or take arguments from Scripture;"* which was obliging them anew to refer themselves to the pastors of the Church for Scripture interpreta- tions;"!• in which case it is agreed the reading of this divine book must undoubtedly be very wholesome. Moreover, if at that time the Bible was translated into the vulgar language, there was nothing new in that practice. We have the like Versions for the use of Catholics in ages preceding the pretended Keformation; nor is that a point of our controversies.

65. — Whether the progress of the Reformation be oioing to the reading of the

Scriptures, and m what manner.

Mr. Burnet, pretending to show that the progress of the new

^Reformation was owing to the reading of Scripture allowed to the

people, ought to have stated that this reading was preceded by

artful and cunning preachers, who had filled their heads with new

interpretations. In this manner was it that an ignorant and

headstrong people found, indeed, nothing in Scripture but those

errors they had been prepossessed with : and what hastened and

completed their ruin was the rashness inspired into them, of

every man's deciding for himself which was the true sense of

* Bum. lib. ui. p. 293. f Ibid. p. 303.

.Scripture, of every man's making for himself his own creed. Thus it was that ignorant and prejudiced people found in Scripture, the pretended Reformation: but what man is there of the least sincerity that will deny me, that, by the same means, they would as clearly have found Arianism in it, as they conceived they did Lutheranism or Calvinism? ^

When this notion is once put into the heads of the ignorant, that all is clear in Scripture, that they understand it in all that is necessary for them, and, dierefore, that the judgment of all pastors and of all ages is quite needless to them, they take for certain truth the first sense that ofiers, and what ihey ar- accustomed to always appears the most genuine. But, they ought to be made sensible that, in this case, it is die letter often whicb kills, and in those very passages, which appear the most plain, God has oflen hid the greatest and most awful mysteries.

67. — Proof from Mr, Burnet of the snares laid for the tmieamed in the pretended

perspicuity of Scripture,

For example, Mr. Burnet proposes to us this text, ^' Drink ye all of this," as one of the most clear that can be imagined, and which leads us the most directly to the necessity of both kinds. But it will now appear to him, from what he owns himself, that what he thinks so plain becomes a snare to the igno- rant; for these words, *' Drmk ye all of this," in the institution of the Eucharist, are not, after all, more plain than these in the institution of the Passover: ^^ Thus shall ye eat the paschal iamb, with your loins girded, and your staff in your hand:"* consequently, standing; and in the posture of people ready to depart, for that, indeed, was the spirit of this Sacrament. Neverdieless, we are assured by Mr. Bumet,! ^^ ^^^ ^^^ practised by the Jews, who, afterwards, changed this custom into the common table posture, and lay down, according to the custom of the country, at the eating of the lamb, as at other meals; and that this change, which they made in the Divine institution, we are sure was not criminal, since our Saviour made no scruple in complying with iwl I ask him in this case, whether a man who should have taken this divine commandment literally, without consulting the tradition and interpretation of the Church, would not have found in it his certain death, since he would have, found in it the condemnation of Jesus Christ;§ and whereas this author adds afterwards, it seemed reasonable to allow the Christian Church the like power in such things with the Jewish, why then should a Christian, in the new Passover, believe he has seen every thing relating to the Supper, upon reading the words only of the institution? and wili not he be obliged to examine,

besides these words, the tradition of the Church, in order to know what sher always looked upon as. necessary and indispensable in the Communion? Without pushing this examination any further, this is enough to shpw Mr. Burnet they must of necessity come into it; nor can the pretended perspicuity, which the illiterate think they find in these words, '* Drink ye all of this," be any thing but an illusion.

she could regulate her Faith independently of all the rest of the Church.

The second ground of Reformation, pretended to be laid by Henry YIII, Mr. Burnet makes to consist in the establishment of this principle, that every national Church was a complete body within itself, so that the Church of England, with the authority and concurrence of their head and King, might examine and reform all errors and corruptions, whether in doctrine or worship. These are fine words. Discover but their meaning, •nd you will find that such a reformation is nothing but a schism. A nation, which looks on itself as a complete body, which regulates its faith, in particular, without regard to what the rest of the Church believes, is a nation which separates itself from the universal Church, and renounces unity of faith and sentiments, so much recommended to the Church by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. When a Church thus cantoned makes the King her head, she gives herself, in matters of religion, a principle of imity, which Jesus Christ and the Gospel have not established;* changes the Church into a body politic, and gives room to erect,as many separate Churches, as states may be formed. This idea of Reformation and Church was first conceived in the brain of Henry YHI and his flatterers, nor had Christians ever before been acquainted with it.

69*r^Whether the Church of England in thia followed the ancient Churchy a$

Jtfr. Burnet pretends it did.

We are told, that all the provincial councils in the ancient Church were so many precedents for this, who condemned heresies, and reformed abuses."f But this is visibly imposing on mankind. True it is, provincial councils were obliged immediately to condemn heresies which arose in their respective countries: for in order to suppress them, ought they to have waited till 1he contagion had spread and alarmed the whole Church? Nor is that our question. What he should have made appear to us is, that these Churches looked on themselves as a complete body, in the same manner they do in England; and reformed their doctrine, without taking foi their rule what the whole body of the Church unanimously did believe. Of

> Fre£ and part ] I ill p. 294. f Ibid.

this, I say, no example will ever be produced. When the African' Fathers condemned the infant heresy of Celestius and Pelagius, they laid for a foundation the prohibition of interpreting the Holy Scripture otherwise than the Catholic Church, spread over the whole earth, had always interpreted and understood it. Alexander of Alexandria laid down the same foundation against Arius, when, condemning him, he said, " We know but one Catholic and Apostolic Church, which, incapable of being sub-? verted by the world's whole power, overthrows every impiety and every heresy." And again, " In every one of these articles we believe what hath pleased the Apostolic Church."* Thus did the Bishops and particular Councils condemn heresies by a prior judgment, by conforming themselves to the common faith of the whole body. , These decrees were sent to all churches, and from this unity they drew their utmost force.

70. — Whetiur the Church of England had reason to believe, that now-or-days it

But, say they, the remedy of a universal council, easy as it was under the Roman empire, when the Churches had one common sovereign, is become too difficult, now that Christendom is divided into so many states: another fallacy. For, in the fust place, the consent of Churches may be declared otherwise than by general councils: witness, in St. Cyprian, the condemnation of Novatian; witness that of Paul of Samosata, of whom it was written, that he had been condemned by the council and judgment of all the bishops of the world, because all had consented to the council held against him at Antioch;| lastly, wit- ness the Pelagisms, and so many other heresies, which, without a general council, have been sufficiently condemned by the united authority of the Pope and all the Bishops. When the necessities of the Church required a general council to be assembled, the Holy Ghost always provided means; and so many councils, as have been held since the fall of the Roman empire, have made it plainly appear, that to assemble the pastors when requisite, there needed not its assistance. The reason is because, in the Catholic Church there is a principle of unity inde- pendent of the kings of the earth. To deny this, is making the Church their captive, and rendering the heavenly government, instituted by Jesus Christ, defective. But the English Protestants would not acknowledge this unity, because £e Holy Se6 is the external and common bond diereof; and it was more agreeable to them to have, in matters of religion, their king for (heir head, than to own, in St. Peter's chair, a principle by God established for the unity of all Christians.

Vin:—The reason why.

The Six Articles published by the authority of King and Par* Itament had the force of law during the whole reign of Henry Till. But what sway over consciences can decrees concerning religion have, which, drawing all their strength from regal authority, to which God has intrusted no such commission, have nothing in them but what is political? Though Henry VIII enforced them with innumerable executions, and cruelly put to death, not only Catholics, who detested his supremacy, bat also ike Ludierans and Zuinglians, who impugned the other articled of his faith, all manner of errors crept insensibly into England, nor did the people any loftger know what to stand to, when they saw St. Peter's chair d€£(pised, from whence it was notorious faith first came to this great isle, whether the conversion of its inhabitants under Pope £leutherius be considered, or that of the English, which was procured by St. Gregory the Great.

The whole establishment of the-Chiiich of England, the whole order of her discipline, — ^the wtiole disposition of the hierarchy in this kingdom; in a word, the mission, as well as the consecration of bishops, was so certainly derived from this great Pope nd the chair of St. Peter, or from bishops holding Mm for the liead of their communion, that the English could not renouhce this power without weakening among them even die origin of

72. — They argued in England from false principles^ when they rejected the Pope^t

Skpremaey.

When they set about rejecting the authority of the Holy See in England, it was observed by them ** that Gregory the Great had exclaimed against the ambition of that title of T7niversal Bishop, and refused it much about the time that England received the faith from those he -sent over^" whence, concluded Oranmer and his associates, ** When our ancestors received the faith, the authority of the See of Rome was within the limits of a laudable moderation."*

73. — Whether St. Gregory ^ Pope^ under voh^m tfie English toere convertedfhad

Not to <Hspute, in vain, on this title of Universal which the Popes never do assume, and may be more or less supportable according to die different senses it is taken in; let us consider for a moment what St. Gregory, who rejected it, believed nevefdieless relating to the authority of his See. Two passages known to the whole world will decide this question. ' ** As for 4aesti<Mis its being subjected to the See Apostolic, i^iich neither

cease to acknowledge?"^ And in the following letter, speaking of the primate of Amca, as to what he says, *' that he is subject to the See Apostolic* I know no bishop tiiat is not subject to k when delinquent. Furthermore, when delinquency requires not Otherwise, we are all brethren according to the law of huinilify."'|' Here, then, have we all bishops manifestly subject to ^ an* Aortty and correction of the Holy See, and this autiboiity ac* knowledged even by the Church of G<istantinople, at that time Ae second Church of the whole world in dignity and power. Here is the foundation of the pontifical power; the rest, w\a6ti custom t>r toleration, or, if you please, even abuse might have introduced or increased, mig^t be preserved, or suffered, or ez<* tended more or less, as order, peace, and public tranquillity should require. Christianity was bom in England with' the confession of this authority. Henry YIII could not endure itt even widi this laudable moderation owned by Craomer in St. Gregory: his passion and policy made him annex it to bis crown, and by this so strange an innovation, he opened the way for all that followed.

Some say this unhappy Prince, towards the end of his days* felt some reiuorse for the excesses he had run into; and in order to calm his conscience, sent for some bishops to him. I vouch it not; those who, in scandalous sinners, but particulaiiy in Kings, are for discovering such biting stings of conscience as appeared in an Antiochus, are not acquainted with all God's ways, nor reflect sufficientiy on that deadly insensibility and false peace he sometimes suffers his greatest enemies to fall into* Be that as it will, should Henry have consulted his bishops, what could be expected from a body which had enslaved the Church t Whatever indications Henry might give of desiring to be sincerely advised in this juncture, he could not restore to the bishops that liberty which his cruelties had deprived them of; dreadfiil to them were the vicissitudes of temper this prince was subject to; and he who could not brook truth from the mouth of Thomas More, his Chancellor, nor from the holy Bishop of Rochester, both of whom he put to death for speaking it freely to him, never more deserved to hear it

Zttmgji<m.~1547, 1648.

In this state he died ; and no wonder if, after his death, tilings

all goes to ruin. Edward TI, his only son, succeeded him ac*-

Mrding to the law <^ the land. As he was scarce ten yean (dd,

*Lib.mlnd.8.S^64 flbid.e5.

▼II.] THE VARIATIONS, BTC. SM

^e kingdom was goveraed bj a Council, appointed by die de ceased King; but Edward Seymour, brother to Queen Jane, and tlie King's uncle by the mother's side, had the chief authority, with the title of Protector of the Kingdom of England. He was a Zuinglian in his heart, and Crammer was his bosom friend. This Archbishop then threw off ^e mask, nor did he longer conceal any of that venom which lay lurking in his heart against the Church.

In order to prepare the way for their intended reformation under the King's name, they set out by declaring him, as Henry had been before, the supreme head of the Church of England in spirituals and temporals.* In Henry's time it was a settled maxim, that the Kmg was Pope in England. But far different prerogatives Were conferred on this new papacy than the Pope fiom Edward, revocable at the King's pleasure, as heretofore had been enjoined in King Henry's time; and, in order to advance the reformation, it was judged necessary to keep them under the subjection of an arbitrary power. The Archbishop of Canterbury, and primate of all England, was the first to bend his neck under this shameful ycke. This is not to be wondered at, since he was the person who inspired all these sentiments: the rest did but follow the pernicious example he set to them^f l%is was somewhat moderated afterwards, and the bishops- were obliged to look upon it as a favor to hold their bishopricks of the King during life.| In the tenor of their commissions, it was plainly expressed, as under Henry, pursuant to Cranmer's doctrine, that the episcopal power, as well as that of the secular magistracy, flowed from the crown as from its source, that the bishops exercised it only precariously as delegates in the King's name, and which thev were to deliver up again when it shoi^d please him to call for it, from whom Ihey had received it. § ** The King gave them faculties to ordain and deprive ministers, inflict censures and punish scandalous persons, and to do aU the other parts of the episcopal function, all which they were to execute and do in the King's name -and under his authority." || At tiie same time, it was owned, that this pastoral charge was committed to bishops by the word of God. It was necessary to make use of this word to give themselves credit. But although nothing was found therein for the regal power, except what related to the concerns of this world, it was nevertheless extended to what is most sacred in the pastoral charge. Commissions for consecrating bishops were issued out by the King, and

flbid llbid. { Ibli]. and put 1. p. 876. |1 Part 8. L i. p. Sia

I

directed to whom he pleased: so that, according to this new hierarchy, as the bishops were not consecrated but by the royal authority, so by the same only could they proceed to ordination.^ Even the form and prayere of ordination, as well of bishops as of priests, were regulated by Parliament. The sam6 was done in respect to the Uturgy and pubhc service, and the whole ad- !

ministration of the sacraments. In a word, all was subject to ii

the King, and, upon abolishing the ancient law, the Farhament^ [

it seems, was to make a new body of canons. All these attempts were grounded on a maxim which the Farhament of England had laid down fc: a new article of their faith, viz., that all jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, was derived firom tiie King, as from its source.']:

It is not here to our purpose to deplore the calamities of the Church thus enslaved, and shamefully degraded by her own ministers. Our business is to relate facts, and a bare relation of them will suffice to show their enormity. **N6t long afler, . the King declared he intended to visit his kingdom, therefore, from the King, commanding all to remember him in the pubtic ^*ayers as the supreme head of the Church of England, which was to be observed under the pains of excommunicaticm, se^ questration, or deprivation. "§ Thus, together with ecclesiastical censures, the whole pastoi;^! authority is openly invaded by the King, and the most sacred depositum of the sanctuary wrested from the priestly order, without sparing even that of faith, which Ihe Apostles had lefl to their successors.

I cannot but stop here a moment to consider the groundwork of the English Re&rmation, '* that work of light, a full and dis^ tinct narrative whereof makes its apology as well as history.^ The Church of England glories above all the other Churches of the Reformation, for having proceeded orderly and by lawful tiie first place, and above all, necessary that ecclesiastics should have had the chief share in the management of this great alteration in religion. But quite the reverse was done, and ever since it, except as they were authorized by the King."|l All the complaint they made amounted to no more than that an encroach-

♦ Bum. part 1. L L pp. 141, 142, 143. f Ibid. p. 43. J Ibid. p. 27;

ment was made on their privileges; as if for tbem to medd]^ widi religion were only a privilege, and not ^sseati^l to the y^iy being of the ecclesiastical order.

But perchance one may imagine they met with better treat* mation was set on a more solid basist Quite the contrary; thej begged it as a favor of the Parliament, ** at least, that mattery, of religion should not be determined till they had beep consult^ ed, and bad reported their opinions and reasons,"* What i^^ Wretched state had they brought themselves to, not to intermed-f die otherwise than by barely offering their opinions; they who were the proper judges in such cases, and of whom Christ had said, *' He that hears you, hears me!" but this, says our historian, could not be obtained.^ But, at least it may be allowed, them to decide on articles of faith, of which they were the preachers. By no means. The King's counsellors resolved, to follow the method begun by the late King, of sending visiters. ever England with eccleiuastical injunctions and articles of faith; and it was the business of the King's council to regulate, the articles of religion thait were to be proposed to the people: by his authority. § Meanwhile, the Six Articles of Henry VHl declaration, ^Ho make profession of such doctrine as afterwards, at any time, should be certified by the archbishop to the other bishops in the King's name."|| Besides, it was but too evident the clefgy were only named for form sake, since all was done i^ ttie King's name.

aoer his Kingdom Wlfitriher orders*

It seems we need say no more, after the relation of socli

great excesses. But lamentable as it is, let us continue it. I|

is in. seme manner laboring to heal die Church's wounds to be

wail them in the sight of God. The King took to himself so

absolute an authority over the word and preaching, that a procn

lamation was issued, by which nonei were to preach witho^|

license from the King or his visiters — the Archbishop of Canter*

bury or the bishop of the diocese ; so that the chief right was i|)

the King, nor had the bishops, but by his permission only, any

share therein. Sometime after, the Council allows those to

preach who were likely to set forth the pure word of God aiter

such sort as the Holy Ghost should for the time put in the

preacher's mind. IT The Council, it seems, had changed their

minds ; after they had made preaching depend on the reg(4

§Ibid.p.26. ||IUd.p.59. IT D>id.p.(f|

?8*

power, they here leave it to the discretion of those who should imagine themselves filled with the Holy Ghost, and by this means all fanatics are admitted to it. The year following they changed again. '^ To restrain the clashing and contention of pulpits, the power of granting licenses to preach was taken from the bishops of each diocese, so that none might give them \

but the King and the archbishop."* By this means it is an easy ij

effects of this restraint are not what we are now upon. What ought to be considered is, that the whole authority of the word was delivered up to the prince alone. Things were carried so fiir, that after declaring to the people that the King had employed learned men to take away dl subjects of controversies, '* till the order now preparing should be set forth, he did inhibit all manner of persons to preach in any public audience."| Here &en was preaching suspended throughout the whole kingdom, the bishops silenced by the King's proclamation, and all waiting* in suspense, ignorant what religion the King would think fit to coin for them. *^ To this was tacked an admonition, exhorting all persons to receive widi submission the orders that should, in a short time, be sent down to them." Thus was the English Reformation brought about; that work of light, a distidict narra<* five whereof makes, according to Mr. Burnet, its history as well as its apology.

80.— 7Ac Six Jhiides abolished.

These preparations being thus nmde, the English Reformation was set on foot, in die King's name, by the Duke of Som- erset and Cranmer; and here the regal power pulled down that fidth which the regal power had before set up. The Six Articles, which Henry YIII had caused to be published with his whole spiritual and temporal authority, were repealed;| and, notwithstanding all the precautions he had taken in his will to preserve those precious remains of the Catholic religion,, and perhaps, in time, to restore it wholly, the Zuinglian doctrine, so much detested by this prince, gained the ascendant.

81. — Peier Mariyr called oner, and Zuin^ianism established, — 1 549, 1550, 1551.

Peter Mart3rr, a Florentine, and Bernardin Ochin, afterwards to begin this Reformation. ' Both of them, like the rest of the reformers, had exchanged the monastic state for that of wedlock. Peter Mart3rr was a downright Zuinglian. The doctrine which he proposed in England concerning the Eucharist in 1549, was reduced to these three positions: —

I. There is no transubstantiation.

[

II. The bodj and blood of Jesus Christ are not corporeally in the Eucharist, nor under the species of bread and ¥dne.

III. The body and blood of Christ are united to the bread and wine sacramentaily, that is, jfiguratively, or at most, virtually**

83. — Bucer not hearkened to. Bucer did not approve the second proposition ; for, as hath been. seen, he was for excluding a local presence, but not a corporeal and substantial one. He maintained that Jesus Christ could not be separated from the Supper, and that he was afler such a manner in heaven, as not to be subst^tially removed out of the Eucharist. Peter Martyr believed it was an illusion to admit a corporeal and substantial presence in the Supper, and with the Lutherans ; and what respect soever he might have for Bucer, the only Protestant he had any consideration for, yet he did not come into his sentiments. A set of articles! was drawn up in England, conformable to Peter Martyr's opinion : it was there specified, '* That the body of Jesus Christ was no where but in heaven : that he could not be really present in difierent places ; so that no corporecd or Real Presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was to be believed." This is what was defined. But, as yet, their faith was not in its utmost perfection, and, in due time, we shall see this article pretty much reformed.

■ We are here obliged to Mr. Burnet for owning a thing of no

small weight : for he grants us that the Read Presence is

acknowledged by the Greek Church. These are his words:

** The Lu^erans seemed to agree with that which had been the

doctrine of the Greek Church, that in the Sacrament, there was

both the substance of bread and wine, and Christ's body likewi8e."jl Herein he is more sincere than the greatest part of

those of his religion ; but, at the same time, opposes a greater

84.— ^TA Refsmurs repent themselves of having said that tn the Reformation of the Liturgy they had acted by Ute assistance of the Holy Ghost.

Then did the spirit of change entirely possess England. In the Reformation of the Liturgy and common prayers, which was made by the authority of Parliament, (for Grod gave ear to none but such,) it had been set forth in the preamble to the Act, that the commissioners named by the King to draw them up '' had finished the work with one uniform agreement, and by the aid of the Holy Ghost." § Men were astonished at this expression. But the Reformers had their answer ready, viz.f

* Hosp. part 3. An. 1547. pp. 207, 908, et seq. Bum. part 2. 1. L p. 106.

{

^ That thifl was not so to be understood, as if thej had been inspired by extraordinary assistance; for then there had been no room for any correction of what was now done."* Now these Reformers were still for correcting and changing on; and never did pretend to frame their religion all at once. And, indeed, very considerable alterations were soon made in this Liturgy, and their chief aim was to deface all the tracks of antiquity * that hitherto had been preserved.

^ destroyed.

In the consecration of the Eucharist this prayer had been retained, '* With thy Holy Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifls and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us4he body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son,"t of the Church of Rome's Liturgy, which St. Augustin the Monk words, yet still it was found '' too much to favor transubstantiation,";j; or even the corporeal presence, and was afterwards entirely erased.

The words of that prayer were yet much stronger, as the Church of England used, it at the time she embraced Christianity: for, whereas they had put in the reformed Liturgy, that these gifts may be unto us the body and blood of Jesus Christ; in the original it stands thus, that *' This oblation be made uito us the body and blood of Jesus Christ." This word made^ im ports a true action of the Holy Ghost, who changes the gifts, conformably to what is said in the other hturgies of antiquity: *< Make, O Lord, of this bread, thy own body; and of this wine, Ifae own blood of thy Son; changing them by thy Holy Spirit."§ And these words, ** be made imto us the body and blood," were said in the same spirit with those of Isaiah, ** Unto us a child is bom, unto us a son is given:^'|| not implying, that the sacred gifts are then only made the body and blood when we receive Siem, as the Reformers will have it; but signifying that it is iar us diey were formed in the Eucharist, as for us tiiey were formed in the Virgin's womb. The English Reformation has corrected every thing that too much favored transubstantiation. The word oblation would likewise have too much favored a sacrifice: to give die sense of it in some manner, they substituted gifts. At length, it was wholly taken away, and the Church of Engfamd

§ Litems. Basil, ^. ||Ia,i;E.6.

kl

VII.] THE VARIATIONS^ ETC. . SSI

would no longer hear that sacred prayer she heard, when, coming forth from the baptismal font, she first received the bread of life. If it be insisted on that the holy priest Augustin brought them the Galilean Liturgy or Mass, rather than the Roman, the free choice of either having been lell to him by St. Gregory, that alters not the case: the Galilean Mass, said by the I&laries and the Martins, in the main, differed not from the Roman, nor the rest.* The Eyrie Eleison, the Pater, the Pax, or the blessing, may be given in one place of the Mass rathef than another^ and such thmgs, as little essential, made, the whole difference; aiid for this reason was it that St. Gregory left the choice thereof to the holy priest he sent into England. t As well in France, as at Rome, and in all the rest of the Church, a prayer was made to beg the transformation and change of bread and wine into the body and blood; the merit and mediation of saints with God WCU9 every where employed, but a merit grounded on the divine mercy, and a mediation supported by that of Jesus Christ. In all of ^ese Liturgies the dead were frequently prayed for; and, with respect to all these things, there was but one language in the East and West, in the South and North. 88. — The Reformation corrects itself with respect to Prayers for the Dead, The English Reformation had retained, in Edward's time^ they prayed that his sins might be pardoned.;]; But all these remains of the primitive spirit are abolished: this prayer savored too much of purgatory. It is certain it was said from the first ages, both in the East and the West: no matter, it was the Pope's Mass, and that of the Church of Rome: it must be banished England, and every word of it turned to the most odious sense.

89. — Sequel qf JUterations,

The Church of England, I may venture to say it, altered everything she derived from antiquity. § Confirmation must be nothing but a catechism to renew the baptismal vows. But, said Catholics, the fathers, from whom we receive it by a tra* dition founded on the Acts of the Apostles, and as ancient as the Church, say not so much as a word of this notion of catechism. This is true, and they are forced to own it. Confir- mation, nevertheless, is turned to this form, otherwise it would be too papistical. The holy chrism is taken away, which the Ghost; II the use of oil, even in extreme unction, will at last bo laid aside, whatever St. James may say; and though St Innof

oided that eittreme unction was not heard of till the tenth centfuy.

Among these alterations three things remained; holy cereitionies, the festivals of saints, abstinence and Lent. They &ought it but meet that priests, in the public service, should put on a mysterious dress, symbols of purity and the other dispositions which the divine worship does require. Ceremonies were l^ked upon as a mystical language, and Calvin appeared* too extravagant in rejecting them.* The use of the cross was re^* tained, ** as a public declaration that they were not ashamed of the cross 6f Christ."']' At first, it was ordered to be kept up and in the consecration of the sacramental elements, as an outward expression of the veneration" they had for this holy cere- mony, j; Nevertheless, it was at last suppressed, in ccmfintia^ tion and the consecration, in which St Augustin, with all antiquity, bears testimony, that it was ever practised; Aor can I devise why it was retained only in baptism. 91. — Bn^(md justyies us in the observance offestwids, evm ^se of Saints.

Mr. Burnet justifies us with relation to fasts and holydays; which da3rs he will not have accounted holy of their own nature, nor from any magical virtue in that time.§ This we consent to, and certainly, such a natural or magical virtue, which he thinks himself obliged to reject, never entered into any man's head. He says, < that none of these, days were propeiiy dedicated to any saint; but only to God in remembrance of such saints." II This is our very doctrine. In a word, he every where, and in every thing, vindicates us on this subject, since of men,** need but object this to the Church of England, and she will vmdicate us.

They do no less evidently justify us from the reproach of teaching the doctrine of devils, when we abstain from certain meats for penance sake. , Mr. Burnet answers for us, when he blames carnal men, who will not conceive *' that the frequent use of fasting, with prayer and true devotion joined to 4t, is perhaps one of the greatest helps that can be devised to advance one to a spiritual temper of mind, and to promote a holy course of life. "ft Since it is from this spirit, not a kind of temporal forbidden flesh on Fridays and Saturdays, on Yigils, the four

♦ Bum. p. 75. t Ibid. p. 79. J Ibid. p. 170. § Ibid. p. 191. II Ibid. fibid. ♦♦Mattii,xv.9, ft Bum. p. 9,

Ember-wedkg, and tfarou^^ut hent, we have nodung on Ais subject to upbraid cme another with* There is only reason to wonder that the King apd Parliament should command these holydays and abstinences;* that the King should declare what were fish-days, and grant licenses and dispensations from these observances;*{' and, lastly, that in matters of religion they shoijdd prefer the King's commandments to those of the Church. tion, was a maxim of Cranm^s. Whereas, in reality, the worship depends on faith, and should.by that be regulated, Cran mer confounded this order; and, before he had examined the doctrine, suppressed, in the worship, what most displeased him. According to Mr. Burnet, the belief of Christ's presence in every crumb of bread gave occasion to laying aside the cup.| And indeed, argues he, in this hypothesis, ** communion in both kinds was not necessary." § So that the question about the necessity of both kinds depended on that of Uie Real Presence. Now, in 1548, England still believed the Real Presence, and the Parliament declared, that^* the whole body of Christ was contained in every piece of consecrated bread, whether it were small or great " |{ The necessity, nevertheless, of communicating under both kinds had been already established; that is, they had drawn the consequence before they were well assured of the principle.

94 — Sequel,

The year following, Christ's presence in the sacrament was greatly called in question, and the thing left undecided. Yet •the adoration of Jesus Christ in die sacrament had already been suppressed provisionally; as if one, seeing the people stand in great awe as in the King's presence, should say, — Good people, let us, in the first place, lay aside these exterior tokens of respect; there will aflerwards be time to examine whether the King be present or no, and whether this honor be agreeable.to him. The oblation of the body and blood was in like mannei* taken away; although this oblation, afler all, be nothing else but the consecration made before God pf this body and blood as really present before the manducation; and without examining the principle, ''that which in^tably ensued from it, was already destroyed.

The cause of so irregular a proceeding was the leadiifig the people by motives of hatred, and not of reason. It was ^ el^y matter to excite hatred against certain practices, whereof they concealed from the people the beginning and right use, especially when some a];uses were interwoven with th^m:ir th^ it

I

was easy to render priests odious who abused fhe Mass for sordid gain; and hatred once inflamed against them, was by a thousand artifices insensibly turned against the mystery they celebrated) and even, as hath appeared, against the Real Presence, the foundation of it. ^

The.same was done with respect to Images, and a French letter, wjuoh Mr. Burnet g^ves ais of Edward YI to his uncle, the {vptector* makes it palpable. To exercise this young prince's stylot his msrster sent him about collecting all the pas- . sages wherein Godspeaks against idols, ^f In reading the Holy Scripture, I was desirous," said he, *Uo note several places which forbid both to adore and to make any images, not only of strange Gods, but also to form any thing; thinking to make it like to the Majesty of God the Creator." In this credulous ag^e, he had simply beheved what was told him, that Catholics made images, thinking they made them like to the Majesty of God. *' I am quite astonished," proceeds he, ^* God himself and his Holy Spirit having so often forbidden it, that so msxty people have daj'ed to commit idolatry by making and adoring images/^ He fixes the same hatred, as we see, on the making, as on the adoring them; and, according to the notions that were given him, is in the right, since, undoubtedly, it is not lawful to make images with the thought of making something *^ like to the Ma^ jesty of the Creator J*^ For, as this prince adds, God cannot be seen in things that are material, but will be seen in his own works. Thus was a young child deluded by them. His hatred was stirred up against Pagan images, in which man pretends to represent the Deity: it was shown him that God forbids to make such images, but they not having as yet taken it into their heads to say that it is unlawful to make such as ours, or unlawful to represent Jesus Christ and his saints, they took care to conceal from him, that those of Catholics were not of this nature. A youth of ten or twelve years old could net discover it of himself; to make images odious to him in general, and confusedly, was enough for their purpose. .Those of the Church, though of a different order and design, passed in the same light as the others: dazzled with the plausible reasoning and authority of his masters, every thing was an idol to him; and the hatred he had conceived against idolatry was easily turned against the Church;

96. — Whdhtr amf advantage can he drawn from the sudden progress of the pro^

tended Reformation.

The people were not more cunning, and it was but too easy

lo animate them by the like artifices. After this, can the sudden progress of the Reformation be taken for a visible miracle^ j&e work of Grod's own hand 1 With what assurance could Mr^ Burnet say it; — ^he I who has so thoroughly discovered to us Am iaorainate passion, and condemned by tile Pope, sets men M work to exaggi&fttte puticular facts, some odious proceeckogi ring with -satires against ignorant and scandalous priests; they are brought on the stage, and made the subject of farce and comedy, insomuch that Mr. Burnet himself expresses his indig-^ nation at it.^ Under the authority of an infant King, and a protector violently addicted to Zuinglianism, invective and satire are still carried to a higher pilch. ^' The laity, that had lon^ looked on their pastors with an evil eye,"*]* greedily swallowed down the poisonous novelty. The difficulties in the mystery of the Eucharist are removed, and the senses, instead of being kept under subjection, are^flattered. Priests are set free from, the obligation of continency; monks from all their vows; the whole world from the yoke of confes^on, wholesome, indeed, for the correction of vice, but burdensome to nature. A doc^ trine of great liberty was preached up, and which, a^ Mr. Burnet says, ^' showed a plain and simple way to the kingdom of heaven. ";|; Laws so convenient met with but too ready a compliance. Of sixteen thousand Ecclesiastics, who mad<^ up the body of the English clefgy, we are assured by Mr. Bufnet, three parts renounced their celibacy in Edward's time;§ that is, in the space of five or six years; and good Protestants were made of these bad Ecclesiastics, who thus renounced their vows. Thus was the clergy gained. As for the Laity, the Church revenues> Exposed to rapine, became their prey. The vestry-plate en riched the prince's exchequer: the shrine alone of St. Thomas of Canterbury, with the inestimable presents that had been sent to it from all parts, produced a royal treasure of immense sums of money. H This was enou^ to degrade that holy martyiv. He was attainted, that he mi^t be pillaged; nor were the riches of his tomb the least of his crimes. In short, it was judg^ more expedient to plunder the Churches, than, conformably to' the intention of the foundersi to appfy their patrimony to it^ right use. Where is the wonder, if the nobility, the clergy, and the people were so easily gained upon? is it not rather a visible miracle that there remained a spark in larael, and that all oiler kingdoms did not follow the example of England, Denmarfcy

Amidst all these Reformations, the only one that visibly made no progress was that of manners. The success of Luther's convinced that things went on no better in England. We have seen Henry YIII, her first Reformer; the ambitious Duke of Somerset was the second. He equalled himself to crowned heads, though but a subject; and assumed the title of ** Duke much disordered by the plague, his thoughts were only bent on designing such a palace as had not been seen in England; and to aggravate his guilt by sacrilege, he built it upon the ruins, and with the materials, of three Episcopal palaces and a parish church: and the revenues extorted from several Bishops and Chapters, who " had resigned many manors to him for obtaining his favor, none daring to oppose bis will."*!* He did this,, it is true, with leave obtained from the King; but his abusing thus the authority of a minor, and the inuring his pupil to such sacri* legious donations, inflamed the guilt. I pass over the rest of his misdeeds, for which the Parliament condemned him, first to resign the s^uthority he had usurped over the council, and aflerwards to lose his head. But not to examine the reasons he had to condemn the Admiral, his brother, to the block; how shameful a thing to liave subjected a man of that dignity, and his own brother,' to that iniquitous law, of * attainting a man" on the bare allegation of witnesses, ^^ without bringing him to make his own defence!" By virtue of this law, &e Admiral, besides many others, was judged without a hearing.| The Protector prevailed upon the King to (urder the Commons to proceed in it mthout hearing the party accused, and in this manner it was

Mr. Burnet takes a great deal of pains to justify his Cranmer Ibr signing) Bishop as he was, the death of this unhappy person, and meddimg in a cause of blood contrary to the canons. In erder to this, he lays down^ according to his custom, one of 1}iose specious plans, whereby he alwa3rs strives, indirectly, to at a distance from the main point. § If Cranmer was to be excused, it ought not to have been merely for violating the canons, have a great regard for; but for breaking through the law of * Bumet, part ii. fib. i. p. 134. flbid. tlb>d*p.l00. § Ibid.

nature, sacred even among heathens, of ^* not delivering any man to die, before that he, who is accused, have the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself."* Cnuir mer, notwithstanding this law, condemned the Admiral and signed the warrant for Ins execution. Should not so great a Reformer have stood up against so barbarous a procedure? na truly: he deemed it a business of more importance to demolisb altars, beat down images, not sparing even those of Jesus Christt and abolish the Mass, which had been said and heard by so many Saints ever since the first establishment of Christiaoity among the English.

JIfory. — 1553.

To conclude the life of Cranmer: at the death of Edward VI, he set his hand to the entail of the Crown, in which this young Prince, out of hatred to the Princess his sister, who was ^ Catholic, changed the order of succession. Mr. Bumet would have us believe that the archbishop signed it with great reluctance, and is satisfied if this great Reformer shows but some scruple in committing crimes. ^ Tet the Council, which Cranmer was at the head of, gave all necessary orders to arm the people against Queen Mary, and maintain the usurper Jane Grey; preachers were set to work in the cause, and Ridley, Bishop of London, had orders to *' set out Queen Jane's title in a sermon at Paul's.";]; When her affairs proved desperate, Cranmer, with the rest of them, owned his crime, and had recourse to the Queen's clemency. This Princess resettled the Catholic religion, and England reunited herself to the Holy See. As Cranmer had always suited his religion to that of the King, it was easily believed he would also follow that of the Queen, and manifest no more difficulty with regard to saying Mass tiban he had done under Henry, thirteen years togetiier, without believing in it. But his engagement was too strong, and bad he thus turned with every wind, he had too openly declared himself void of all religion. § He was sent to the Tower both for the crime of treason and mat of heresy, and deposed by the Queen's autiiority. 11 This authority was lawful with respect to him who had owned and even established it. It was by this authority he himself had deposed Bonner, Bishop of London^ and was therefore punished by laws of his own making. For the like reason the bishops, who, by patents, had received their bishoprics ibr a certain time, were deprived; and till the ecclesiastical order should be entirely re-established, the Protestanto were proceeded against according to their own mudiiis*

* Acts zxv. 16. t Burnet, put il p. 883,

|Ibid.]ib.ii.p.S3& §Ibid.p.S5a HIb>d.^tarir

Oranmer, affcer his deposition, was led some time i& prisom Afterwards, declared a heretic, he himself owned diat it ^ was because he had denied the presence of Jesus Christ on the ormation under Edward YI was made to consist, and I am ium under Elizabeth.

101. — Cranmer^s false answer before his judges.— 155B. ' When Cranmer's punishment was to be determined according to form. Commissioners from the Pope, and those of Philip and Mary (for the Queen bad then married Philip II, King of Spain) |5at in judgment against him. The accusation turned on his marriages and heresies, "f Mr. Burnet assures us that *lhe Queen forgave *him the treason for which he had been already condemned by Parliament. He confessed the facts which were imputed to him concerning his doctrine and marriages, ^ only said he had never forced any to subscribe. "J

102. — Cranmtr condemned by his oton principles. From these words, so full of meekness, one might be induced to think Cranmer had never condemned any person on account of doctrine. Not to mention here the imprisonment of Gardiner^ Pishop of Winchester, that of Bonner, Bishop of London,§ and other things of the like nature, the archbishop had signed and consented, in Henry's time, to Lambert's and Anne Askew'ii death, for deiiying the Real Presence ;1[ and under Edward, to tiiat of Joan of Kent and of George Van Pere, both burnt for heresy. What is still more, Edward, thinking it a piece of cruelty, refused to sign the warrant for burning her,^ and could not be persuaded to it but by Cranmer's authority. tT If, then* he was condemned for heresy, he himself had often enough set the exmpple.

(■ppeded to a General Council,, but seeing nothing availed, he renounced all the err<M of Luther and Zuinglius, and^ together wi& the Real Presence, distinctly owned all the other pouitf iconbeived in such terms 9 expressed the truest sorrow for \m former errors. The Protestants were extremely shocked at it

* Bum. lib. ii. p. S83. f Ibid, part ii. p. 257. t Ibid. p. S3i.

when he saw, notwithstanding his preceding abjuration, the Queen was detent^ined not to pardon lum, heretumed to hi first errors; but he soon recanted them, 'Vail this time," saya Mr. Burnet, ^j being under some small hopes of life." So thati continues this author, having been ** dealt with to renew his subscription, and then to write the whole over again, he also did it" But here was the secret he found out to secure his con* science. Mr. Burnet goes on: " But conceiving likewise some ' jealousies that they might bum him he wrote secretly a paper* containing a sincere confession of his faith; and, being brought out, he carried that along with him." This confession, thus secretly written, shows us clearly enough that he was determined not to appear a Protestant as long as any hopes remained* At last, finding himself utterly disappointed, he resolved to de* clare what his heart had concealed, and so give himself the appearance of a martyr.

. Mr. Burnet uses all his address to hide the shame of so miserable a death; and after alleging, in behalf of his hero, the faults of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, which we find no mention of in ecclesiastical history, he now produces St. Peter's denial, so memorable in the Gospel. But what comparison is there betwixt a momentary weakness of this great Apostle, and the wretchedness of a man who betrayed £us conscience during almost the whole course of his life, and for thirteen years together, to begin from the very time he was made a bishop? who never dared to avow his sentiments but when he had a King to back him 1 And, lastly, on the very brink of death, confessed liope; so that his counterfeit abjuration was manifestly nothing - else but a Qoiitinuatipn of the base dissimulation of his whole life*

105,— Whether it be true, that Cranmer complied no more with Henry VJJJ •

Nevertiieless, our author will stifi boast to us the steady firmness (good God) of &is perpetual flatterer of kings, who sacri- ficed every thing to the will of his masters, annulling as many marriages, setting his hand to as many condemnations, and c<nsenting to as many laws as they pleased, even to those which were, either in fact or in his opinion, the most unjust; who, finally, was not ashamed to bring the heavenly authority of bishops under subjection to that of the Kings of the earth, and enslave the Church, in discipline, in preaching the word, ia the administration of Sacraments, and in Faith. Nevertheless, but pae only blemish of his hfe does Mr. Bumet find, that of his

23*

abjumtioii;* andy as for the rest, allows only, that he was some-* justify him eoii^>letely in all his compliances, he affirms, ^^ he &i(mght none of them ^, sin,"]; consequently was no further ob-* sequioiis to Henry than his conscience allowed him. Hiacon^ notoriously false* foimded on no other principle than Henry's new amours. His conscience allowed him, though a Lutheran^ to set las hand to articles of faith, wherein Lutheranism was conderaned,^ and the. Mass, the unjust object of the horror ofthe new Reformation, was established. His conscience allowed kirn to s&y Mass as long as Henry Uved, without believing in it; to offer to God, even for the dead, a sacrifice which he held for an abomination: to ordain priests, giving them also the power o£ offering; and according to the form of the Pontifical, which he durst not alter, to exact chastity of those whom he made sub-deacons, although he did not think himself obliged to it, being a married man; to swear obedience to the Pope, whom he looked upon as Antichrist; to accept his Bulls, and receive Archie piscopal institution by his authority; to pray to Saints, and incense their images, notwithstanding that, in the Lutheran piinciples, all this was nothing less than idolatry; in a word, to profess and practise all that he believed ought to be banished ■ 106. — Mr. Burnet btd ill excuses his Reformers.

But the thing was,, " the Reformers," it is what Mr. Burnet t^ells us, ^' did not know, as yet, that it was absolutely a sin to re^ tain all these abuses till a proper occasion offered for abolishing &em."§ Doubtless, they did not know it was a sin to change, according to their notion, the Lord's Supper into sacrilege, and to defile themselves with idolatry. To make them abstain from such things, God's commandment was not sufficient: they were

Naaman is brought forward as an instance, who,, obliged by his office, to give the King his hand, would not remain standing whilst his master knelt down in the temple of Remmon; and acts of religion are compared with the duty and decorum of a ecular employment J| The Apostles are brought forward to* us, who, " Afler the raw was dead, continued to worship at the temple, to circumcise, and to offer sacrifices;"ir and the ceresmonies, which God had instituted, and which all the Fathers allow ought to be buried honorably, are compared with actions believed to be manifestly impious.*^ The same Apostles aie

* Burner, p 336. f Ibid. | Pre£ torn, i

VII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. S7I

adduced to us, who made themselves all things to all men, and also the primitive Christians^ who adopted some cerem<mie8 aS paganism. But if the prirbitive Christians adopted ceremonies that were indifferent, does it follow from thence, that men oii^t to practise such as they believe are full of sacrilege 1 How blind, how contradictory to itself is the Reformation, which, in order to raise a horror of the Church's practices, must call them idolatrous! Obliged to excuse the same things in her first authors, she holds them for indifferent, and makes it more conspicuous than the sun, that she banters the whole universe by calling that idolatry which is not so, or that those she admires for her heroes were, of all men, the most corrupt. But God hath revealed their hypocrisy by their own historian, and Mr. Burnet is the man that hath exposed their shame in full view.

However, if to convict the pretended Reformation by their own witnesses, I have only, as it were, abridged Mr. Burnet's history, and received as true the facts I have related: I do not mean thereby to grant the rest, and allow all he relates as fact for the sake of those truths he was n^t able to deny, though prejudicial to his own religion. I shall not, for example, allow him, what he asserts without witnesses or proof, that there was a resolution taken between Francis I and Heiuy YIII to with* draw themselves by agreement from the Pope's obedience,* and change the Mass into a bar& Communion;f that is, to suppress the Oblation and Sacrifice. This fact, averred by Mr. Burnet, was never even heard of in France. We are as much at a loss to know what this historian means by affirming, that the reason which made Francis I alter his resolution of abolishing the Pope's power was, because Clement YII *' had granted hmi so great power over his own clergy, that he could scarce have expected more, if he had set up a patriarch in France;";{; for here is nothing but mere empty words, a t^ng unknown to our historians Mr. Burnet is no better versed in the history of the Protestant religion, when he so boldly advances, as a thing avowed among the Reformers, that good works were indispen* sably and absolutely necessary to 0alvation,§ for he hath seea and will see this proposition, good works are necessary to sal* vation, expressly condemned by ike Lutherans in &eir mont solemn assembhes. It would be departing too much from my design, were I to descend to other facts of&e like nature; but I eannot but make it known to the world, how little credit this historian merits, with relation to the Council of Trent, which he ran over in so negligent a manner, that he did not so much

* Bum. part i. L ii. p. 133. f Ibid. L iil p. 140. t Ibid. p. J33. J Pwrt i. L iii. p. 986, 287. Si^.LY.n.19. Iii£ 1. viii a. 30, t aec]^

as tbke notice of the very title, which this council placed at the beginning of all its decisions. For he upbraids it with ** haying usurped the most glorious title of the most holj Oecumenical Council, representing the Catholic Church,*'* although this qual* ity be not found in any one of its decrees: a thing of little importance in itself, since it is not this expression that makes a council; yet it never could have escaped a man that had but just opened the book with the least attention.

It behooves one, therefore, to be very cautious how he credits our historian in what he pronounces touching this council on the testimony of Fra-Paolo, its declared enemy rather than historian. Mr.' Burnet pretends that' this author ought, with respect to Catholics, to be above all exception, because he is one of their own party;'f and this is the common artifice of all Protestants. But they are very well convinced in their consciences, that this Fra-Paolo, who counterfeited our religion, was in reality nothing but a Protestant in a monk's disguise. None knows him better than Mr. Burnet, who boasts him to us. He who, in his history of the Reformation, sets him forth for an author of our party, in another book, lately translated into our language, takes off the mask and shows him a Protestant, that had concealed himself;| that looked upon the En^ish common-prayer book as his pattern; that occasionally, from the falling out between Paul Y and the republic of Venice, labored for nothing more than to bring this republic§ ** to an entire separation, not only from the Court, but also from the Church of Rome; who believed himself to be in a defiled and idolatrous Church, wherein he continued neveiw of his conscience by passing over many parts of the canon^ and not joining in those parts of the offices that went against his conscience." II This is what Mr. Burnet writes in ^ life of William Bedell, the Protestapt Bishop of Eilmore, in Ireland, who was present at Venice at ^be time of the difference^ and to whom Fra-Paolo had disclosed his sentiments. There is no need of mentioning this author's letters, which are all Protest tant, and were in every library, and which Geneva at length hath made public. I speak to Mr. Burnet only of what he wrote himself, at the time he counted amongst our authors Fra-Paolo a Protestant under a monk's disguise, who said Mass not be* lieviftg it, and who remained in a Church whc^se worship ap> peared to him idolatry.

But what he deserves the least to be pardoned in is, whe^i

♦ Part il L i. p. 80. f P^^rt 1. Pre£ J The Life of Beddl, Bishop of Iplmor^ p. 8. § Ibid. p. 2?. || XWd. p. 16. ^

in imitation of Fra-Paolo, and with as little truth, he lays before us those ingenious plans of Primitive* Church doctrine. This invention, I must ovin, is equally^ commodious and agreeable. An artful historian, in the midst of his narration, slily introduces all he pleases of antiquity, and erects for us a scheme of his own contrivance. Under pretext, that a historian ought not to enter into proofs, or play the Doctor, he is content Mi& alleging such facts as are favorable to his own religion. Is he inclined to ridicule the veneration of images or relics, or the Pope's authority, or prayer for the dead, or even, to omit nothing, the pallium t he gives to these practices such a form and such a date as he was a device set up by Pope Paschal II;" although it be found five hundred years before, in the letters of Pope Yigilius and St. Gregory. The credulous reader, finding a history all over work whose character ought to be sincerity, an abridgment c^ the antiquities of several ages, without once dreaming that the author gives him, either his prejudices or conjectures for certain truths, admires the erudition and agreeable turns of the Work, believes he has reached to the very original of things, and drinks at the fountain-head. But it is not just that Mr. Burnet, under the insinuating title of a historian, should thus peremptorily de-r cide on Church-antiquity, nor that Fra-Paolo, whom he copies after, should acquire a right to make what he pleases pass for truth concerning our religion, because that, under a Monk's habit, be hid a Calvinistic heart, and labored under-hand to discredit the Mass he said dsuly

1 1 1. — Gtrson died s t ra ng dyfrom the purpose^ Let not Mr. Burnet, therefore, be any longer credited as to what he relates of the Church's dogmata^i since he turns all of them to a wrong sense. Whether he speaks of himself, or introduces in his history a third person that speaks of our doctrine, his inward design is ever to decry it. Can his Cranmer be home with, when, abusing a treatise which Oerson had made 2>e auferibilitate papm^ he concludes, as from this Doctor, ** That the papal power is a quite needless thing V* whereas, he means only, as the sequel of this work demonstrates, so as to leave n6 room for doubt, that the Pope may be deposed in certain cases; When an author relates such things seriously, his design is to trifle with mankind, and he destroys his own credit with all thinking persons.

But the subject on which our historian has exhausted all his

s

ingenuity, and has employed, as I may say, as his finest coloring, is that regarding the Celibacy of Ecclesiastics. I shall not discuss what he says, either in his own, or Cranmer's name. One may judge of his remarks on antiquity,* by those he makes on the Roman Pontifical, which will easily be granted me has nothing in it obscure with respect to celibacy: " It was considered," says he, " that the promise made by clergymen, accord- ing to the rites- of the Roman Pontifical, did not necessarily oblige them to celibate. He that confers the orders asks of him that receives them, 'Wilt thou promise to live in chastity afid sobriety!' To which the sub-deacon answers, * I will.* " Mr. Burnet concludes from these words, that no other chastity was here understood, but that which one is obliged ** in a state of marriage, as well as but of it." But the imposition is too gross to be borne with. The words he relates are not naid in the ordination of a sub-deacon, but in that of a bishop. *(* And in that of a sub-deacon, he that presents himself to this order is stopped to hear declared to him that, till then, he was free; but if he proceeds further, he must keep chastity. Will Mr. Burnet now say again, that the chastity here in question is that which is kept in a state of marriage, and which teaches us ** to abstain from all unlawful embraces ]" — Must we then wait for the sub-deaconship to enter into this obligation t And who is it that does not acknowledge here that profession of continency, which is imposed, according to the ancient canons, on the principal clerks from the very time they are raised to the sub-deaconship 1

Mr. Burnet still replies,! that, whatever might be required by the time of Edward, had been ordained witiiout any such '* question or answer made, and so were not precluded firom marriage by any vow." But the contranr appears from himself, he having owned that in the time of Henry YIH notiiing was altered in the rituals, nor in tiie other books of offices, except some extravagant prayers addressed to saints, or some other matter of light importance; and it is easy to be seen, that this Prince was far enough from taking from ordination the profession of continency, as he had even prohibited the violation of it; first, under pain of death, and, when he was most mitigated, ' under the forfeiture of goods and chattels."§ And this, indeed, was the reason why Cranmer never durst declare his marriage during the life of Henry VIII; but, to save himself, was forced to add to a forbidden marriage the reproach of clandestinity.

♦ Burn. TOurt. ii. L i. pp. 91, 92. f Pont Rom. in Consec. Ep,

XJM. § Parti L ill. p. 888/

No wonder tiien^ that under such an Archbishop, no regard was had to the doctrine of his holy predecessors, St* Dunstan, St* Lanfranc, St. Ansehn, and such others, whose admirable virtues, and particularly that of continency, were an honor to the Church. Nor do I wonder, that in his time, St. Thomas of Canterbury's name, whose life was the condemnation of Thomas Cranmer, was effaced from their Calendar of Saints — — St. Thomas of Canterbury resisted the attempts of unjust Kings; Thomas Cranmer prostituted his conscience to them, and indulged their passions. The one^ banished, his goods confiscated, persecuted in his own and the persons of his dearest friends, every way afflicted, purchased me glorious liberty of speaking what his conscience dictated for truth, with a generous contempt of I1 the conveniences of hfe, and of life itself: the other, to please his Prince, spent his life under a shameful dissimulation, and an outward conformity in everything to a religion, which he inwardly condemnedv The one combated even to blood for the Church's minutest rights; and by maintaining her prerogatives, as well those which Jesus Christ had acquired by his death, as those which pious Princes had endowed her with, defended the very outworks of the holy city: the other surrendered to the Kings of the earth her most sacred trust; the word, worship, sacraments, keys, censures, authority, even faith itself. In a word, every thing was inthralled, and the whole ecclesiastical authority being united to the royal throne, the Church had no more power than the^State pleased to allow. Lastly, the one, intrepid and exemplary pious through the whole course of his life, was yet more so in die last period of it: the otheri always dastardly and trembling at death's approach, shrunk even below himself, and at the age of three-score and two, sacrificed even, to the dregs of a despicable life, his fai& and conscience. Accordingly, he has left but an odious name amongst men; nor can any thing but stress of wit and quirk, which plain facts belie'^ excuse him even to his own party: but the glory of St. Thomas of Canterbury will Uve as long as the Church; and his virtues, which France and England have venerated with a kind of emulation, will never be forgotten. Nay, the more doubtful the cause of this holy martyr appeared to the politic world, the more did tl\e divine power declare itself in his behalf, by the signal chastisements of Henry II, this holy Prelate's persecutor, by the exemplary |>enance of this Prince, which alone could appease the wrath of heaven, and by miracles of so great a lustre, wrought at his tomb, that they drew to it the Kings of France as well as England. Miracles, I say, so continual, and so well attested by the unaiiimous consent of all the historians of those

times, that to deny tfaem is to reject at once the truth of all hitoiy whatsoever. The Englisii Reformation, nevertheless, hath struck the name of so great a man out of the Calendar of Saints. More flagrant still have been their attempts: nothm^ but th them nothing but fables; at most, but legendary stories, when ke relates the nnracles of their conversion, the holiness of-their IMustors, of their Kings, and their religions. St. Augustin, the Monk, who brougfit them to the Crospel, and St. Gregory, Pope, who sent him, escape not the hands of the Reformation: they are attacked and defamed by her chief writers. To believe them,* the mission of those samts, who laid the foundation of the £nglish Churcht was the work of the ambition and policy of Popes; and St. Gregory, so humble, so holy a'Pope, by converting the English, aimed rather at subjecting ^em to the Holy See, than to Jesus Christ. This is what is published in England, and her Reformation establishes itself by trampling under foot and polluting the whole Christianity of the nation in its very source. But so learned a nation, it is to be hoped, will not always remain under this seduction: the respect they retain for the Fathers, and their curious and continual researches into antiquity, i^iill bring them back to the doctrine of the first ages. I cannot believe the chair of St. Peter,- whence they received

Christianity, will always be the object of their hatred The

give ear to the prayers of his Saints.

BOOK VIII.

[Fxom thd year 1546 to the year 1561.]

A brief Smnmaiy. — ^The war begun between Charles V and the Confederates of Smaikald.— Luther's Theses which had excited the Lutherans to take op arms. — ^A new subject of war on account of Herman, Archbishop of Cfologne.— The prodiaous iterance of this Archbishop. — The Protestants defeated by -Charles V.— The Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of fiene made prisoners.— The Interim, or the Emperor's book, which regulates matters of Ret^ion provisionally for the Protestants alone, till the ^ Lutheran: his new doctrine concerning Justification. — Imputes among tfie Lutherans after the Interim. — lllyricos, Melancthon's Disciple, strivei

. to undo him on account of indi&rent ceremonies. — He renews the dooi> trine of Ubiquity. — ^The Emoeror presses the Lutherans to appear at th Council of Trent — The coniession called Saxonic, and that or the Duchy f Winembei^g, drawn up on this occasion. — The distinction between mop*

The Conference at Worms for reconciling Religion8.7-The7utheranfl at' variance among themselves, however unanimou^y agreeing that Good ahout the true edition <n the Confession of Auesburg. — ^The uncertauty ineonsistent with themselves, and, in order to answer libertines as weli at weak Christians, they fall into Demipelagianism. — An account of the Book, of Concord compiled by the Lutherans, and containing all their decisions.

Formidable was the Smalkaldic league which Luther had excited in a manner so furioua, that the worst excesses wer to be dreaded from it. Elated with the power of so many confederated Princes, he had published the Theses abovementioned. Never was any thing seen more violent.* He had maintained them from the year 1640, but we learn from Sleidan that he pubtished them anew in 1645, that is, a year before his dealh. There he compared the Pope to a mad wolf, ** against whom the whole world takes up arms at the first signal, without waiting for com* mands from the magistrate. And if. after he has been diut up in an enclosure, the magistrate sets hun at liber^, you may continue," said he, " to pursue this savage beast, and with impunily engagement before the beast has rec^ved its mortel wound, yoe have but one thing only to repent of^ that you did not bury your all tibose who defend him must also be treated like a band of robbers under their captain, be they kings, be they Cnsars.^'jr Sleidan, who relates a great part of these bloody Theses, durtfl not venture to repeat these last word8,'they a|^ared so horrible to him; but they were in Luther's Theses, and still are to be i|^en in the edition of his works.];

His extreme Ignorance.

A fresh subject of feud happened at this time. Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, took it into his head to reform his dio* cese after the new fashion, and to that purpose had sent fof Bucer and Melancthon. Of all prelates, this was certainly the most illiterate; and a man ever resigned to the will of whomsoever governed him. Wlulst he gave ear to the sage counsel of the learned Gropper, he held very holy councils for <he def<race of the ancient &ith, for the true reformation^of manners^ Afterwards, the Lutherans got possession of his mind,-and made

♦ Sleid. L I n. 25. t Sleid. lib. xvi p. 861. t T. i Wit p. 407.

was one day speaking to the Emperor about this n&W refbrmer,^ ♦* What will the poor man reform V^ answered he, *• scarcely does he understand Latin: he never said Mass but thrive in all his life. I heard him twice; he did not know so much 9ls the beginning of it." The fact is certain; and the Landgrave, who read good books in the German tongue, and understood religion." Understanding it, in the Landgrave's notion, was favoring the party. As the Pope and the Emperor joined together against him, the ** Protestant Princes promised him their assistance, in case he were attacked on the score of religion."^

' ci Emperor,--The victory of Charles r.—The Book of Jnterini,-^154&.

They soon came to open force. The more the Emperor declared that he did not take up arms on account of rehgion, but in order to do himself justice on certain rebels that were headed by the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave, the more Ihese published in their manifestoes, that this war was not entered upon but by the secret instigation of the Roman Anti Christ and the Council of Trent In this manner they endeavored, conformably to Luther's Theses, to make the war they waged against the Emperor appear lawful:]; yet there was a dispute amongst them how Ghu'les Y was to be treated in their public writings. The Elector, more conscientious than the rest would not have him styled Emperor, because, *^ If so," said hes **they could not lawfully wage war against him." The Land< grave had none of these scruples; and, besides, who had degraded ftke Emperor? Who had deprived him of the empire 1 Was it to become a maxim, that whosoever united himself with die Pope, resigned the title of Emperor 1 The thought was as ridiculous as criminal. In conclusion, to please all parties, it was resolved, without owning or denying Charles V for Emperor, that he should be treated as bearing himself for such, and by this expedient all hostilities were allowable. But the issue of the war was not favorable to the Protestants. Overthrown by the famous victory of Charles V near the Elbe, (1547,) the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave taken prisoners, Uiey knew aot which way to turn themselves. The Emperor, of his own authority, proposed to them a form of doctrine called the Interim, (1648,) or the Emperor's book, which he enjoined them to follow provisionally till the Council sat In it all the errors of the Lutherans were rejected; and the marriage of such priests as had become Lutherans, with communion under both kinds where it was re-established, were tolerated only. The Emperor

was bhuned at Rome for undertaking to pronounce in matters of religion. Those on his side answered, he had not taken upon him to nake a decision or law for the Church, but only to prescribe to the Lutherans what they might best do till the Council met. ^ This question belongs not to my subject; it is sufficient ^ tbeniic act of the Church, since neither the Pope nor the bishops have ever approved it. Some Lutherans accepted of it rather by force than otherwise: the greatest part rejected it, and the project of Charles V had but httle success.

Whilst I am on the subject of this book, it will not be amiss to observe, that it had been formerly proposed at the conference of Ratisbon in 1541. Three Catholic divines, Pflugius, Bishop of Naumburg, Gropper and Eckius, by the Emperor's orders^ were there to treat about the reconciliation of religions with Melancthon, Bucer, and Pistorius, three Protestants. Eckius rejected the book, and the Prelates, togedier with the Catholic States, did not think it fit that a body of doctrine should be proposed, without being communicated to the Pope's Legate, men at Ratisbon. Cardinal Contarenus was the man, a very learned divine, and whom even the Protestants have praised. Wherefore, the Legate having been consulted, 'answered, that an affair of this nature ought to be " referred to the Pope, in order to be regulated either in the general Council, that was going to be opened, or by some other proper method."*

The truth is, these conferences went on nevertheless; and when the three Protestants were agreed with Pflugius and Gropper on any articles, they were called artic][es accordedj although Eckius all the while opposed them.f The Protestants desired the Emperor to authorize these articles in the meantime, while the rest were under debate. But this was opposed by the Catholics, who declared several times, they could not consent to the changing of any dogma, or rite, received in the Catholic Church. The Protestants on their side, who pressed the reception of the articles accorded, put their own explications on them, which were not agreed to, and made a list of ** things omitted in the articles accorded."]; Melancthon, who digested these remarks, wrote to the Emperor in the name of all the Protestants, that the " articles accorded" should be received, •* provided they were well understood;" that is, they themselves

♦ Sleid. lib. xhr. Act Coll. Ratisb. Argent 1542. p. 199. Ibid. 132. Met lib. i. Ep. 24, 25. Act Ratisb. Ibid. 136. t Ibid. 153. Sleid. Ibid. 157.

i

were sensible of their being conceived in ambiguous terms, and it was nothing but an imposition to press, as they did, the reception of them. Thus all the projects of accommodation vanished into smoke:. the which I am pleased with remarking occasioi> ally, that it may not be thought strange I should speak only, aS Ratisbon*

success t)f this Book, — 1 546.

Another was held in4he same city, and with as little success, in 1546.* The Emperor, nevertheless, ordered his book to be revised, and Pflugins, Bishop of Naumburg, Michael Holding, the titular Bishop of Sidon, and Islebius, a Protestant, put the finishing stroke to it. But he did but set a new example, how bad success these imperial decisions were used to have, in matters of religion.

Whilst the Emperor was exerting himself to make his Interim be received in the city oi Strasburg, Bucer published there a new confession of faith, in which this Church declares, that she always unchangeably retains her first confession of faith presented to Charles Y at Augsburg, in 1530, and likewise receives the agreement made at Wittenberg with Luther, namely, that act which imported that even those who have not faith, and who abuse the sacrament, receive the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, j* In this confession of faith, Bucer excludes notiung expressly but transubstantiation, and leaves whole and entire all that can establish the real and substantial presence.

8. — Two Contrary acts are received at Strasburg at the ^ame thne.

The most remarkable thing in this is, that Bucer, who in sub scribing the Articles of Smalkald, at the same time, as hath ap-> the Confession of Strasburg; that is, he authorized two acts which were made to destroy each other; for it may be remembered, that the Confession of Strasburg was made only to avoid the subscribing that of Ai^sburg, and that those of the Confesnon a^ Augsburg would never admit for brethren, those of Stras- burg, nor &eir associates.;}: All this is now reconciled; that is, in the new Reformation it is lawful to change, but not lawful to acknowledge that you change. The Reformation, should it own this, woidd i^pear too human a work; and it is better to approve four or five contradictory acts, provided it be not ac*

knowledged tliat they are so, than to own one's self wrong, especially in confessions of faith.

9r-Bueer goes to England, where he dies, without being able to change any

thing in Peter J^artyr^s Articles.

This was the last action that Bucer did in Germany. During the commotions occasioned by the Interim, he found a refuge m England among the new Protestants, who gathered strength under Edward. There he died in great esteem, yet not being able to alter any thing in the Articles which Peter Martyr had then. But Bucer's notions will have their turn, and we shall see Peter Martyr's Articles changed under EUzabeth.

an uproar.

JThe troubles, caused by the Interim, dispersed very many of the Reformers. The Protestants even were scandalized to see them thus forsake their Churches. To venture their lives for them, or forv the Reformation, was what they were not accustomed to; and ^ it has been an observation of old standing, that none of them laid down their lives for their flock; unless it were Cran mer, who yet did all he could to save his, by forswearing his religion, as long as swearing was to his purpose. The famous Osiander was one of the first that fled. On a sudden, he disappeared at Nuremburg, and left the Church which he had gov emed twenty-five years, and ever since the beginning of the Reformation. Prussia was the place he retreated to. ~ Of all countries this was one of the most addicted to Lutheranism. It belonged to the Teutonic Order (1525 ;) but the great master of it, Prince Albert of Brandenburg, conceived all at once a desire of marryiiig, of reforming, and making himself a hereditftxy sovereign. And thus did the whole country become Lutheran, and the doctor of Nuremburg soon excited there new disorders*

11. — What sort of man Osiander toas — his doctrine about Justification,

Andrew Osiander had signalized himself among the Lutherans by a new opinion he had introduced concerning Justifica^ tion.* He would not have it to be by the imputation of Jesus Christ's justice, as all other Protestants maintained, but by the intimate union of God's substantial justice with our souls, grounded on that saying oflen repeated in Isaiah and Jeremy, " The Lord is our righteousness. "f For, as, according to him, we live by God's substantial life and love, by the essential love he bears himself, so we are just by his essential justice communicated to us; to whicb^ the substance of the word iacanuite

24*

dwelling in 418 by faith, by the word, and the sacraments, is to be added. Ever since the time that the Confession of Augsburg was in hand, he had used his utmost endeavors to prevail with the whole party to embrace this prodigy of doctrine, and, to Luther's face, defended it with the greatest boldness. At the Assembly of Smalkald men were astonished at his rashness; yet, fearing lest new divisions might break out in the party, wherein he had distinguished himself by his great learning, they chose to bear with him? He, above all men, had the talent of diverting Luther; and Melancthon, at their return from the Conference of Marpurg, held with the Sacramentarians, wrote to Camerarius* that '* Osiander had made Luther cuid all of them exceedingly merry.

This he did by pls^ying the droll, chiefly at table, when bir; wit abounded most; but in such profane jests, that I have a difficulty in repeating them. It is Calvin who informs us,*!* in a letter which he writes to Melancthon concerning this man, *' That, as oflen as he found-good wine at an entertainment^ he praised it by applying it to those words which God uttered with respect to himself, * I am tiiat I am.' " And, again: ^^ Here is the Son of the living God." Calvin had been present at the banquets in which he vented tbese blasphemies, at which he conceived a horror. Yet they passed off without any exception being taken to thenu The same Calving speaks of Osiander as of a ^< brutal man, a wild beast not to be tamed. As for him," said he, '* the very first time I saw him, I detested his profiifie apirit and infamous behaviour, and always looked upon him as the shame of the Protestant paily." Tet he was <me of the pillars of it: the Church of Nuremburg, one of the first of the sect, had placed him at the head of her pastors from the year 1522^ and he is ev^y where found at the conferences among the chief of the party; but Calvin is astonished '^ that ^ey were able to bear with him so long, and cannot conceive, considering all his furies, how Melancthon could have lavished so much praise upon him.

JH will be^ thought, perchance, that Calvin used him thus barskly from a particular hatred of his own, for Osiander was the most violent enemy the Sacramentarians had, and he it was Hmt carried the subject of the Real Presence to such extremity BB to maintun that they ought to say of the Eucharistic bread, ^ 4ua bread is God.'^§ But the Lutherans entertained no better opinion of him; and Melancthon, who often found it served his

turn to praise him, ^a Calvin reproaches him with doing to ez cess, writing to his friends,* does nevertheless blsime ^*his extreme arrogance, his ravings, his other excesses, and the monstrousness of his opinions." It was not Osiander's fault that he did not go to trouble England, where he hoped that the. esteem in which his brother-in-law, Cranmer, was held, would give him credit; but Melancthon acquaints usl that persons of authority and learning had represented the danger there was of bringing into that country a man who had spread in the Church so great a chaos of new opinions. Cranmer himself gave ear to reason on this head, and listened to Calvin,;]; who spoke to him of the illusions whereby Osiander bewitched himself and others.

He was no sooner arrived in Prussia than he set the University of Koningsberg§ in a flame with his new doctrine of Justification. However eager always in its defence, yet he stood in fear, say my authors, " of Luther's magnanimity," and, during his life, never durst write any thing on that subject. || The magnanimous Luther feared him no less: in general, the ^ Reformation, void of authority, feared nothing so much as new divisions, which she knew not how to terminate; and, lest they should irritate a man whose eloquence was formidable, he was lefl at liberty to utter what he pleased by word of mouth. In Prussia, finding himself free from the party's yoke, and, what elated his heart, in great favor with the Prince, who had given him the first chair in his University, he gave himself free scope, and soon divided the whole country.

15. — The dispute on Cerenumies, or things indifferent.

Other disputes were enkindled at the same time in the other parts of Lu^eranism. That which arose about ceremonies, or things indifferent, was carried on with a great deal of acrimony. If Melancthon, supported by the Academies of Leipsic and Wittenborg, where he was all-powerful, would not Imve them re- jected (1549.) It had ever been his opinion that, in the exterior worship, the less was changed the better. For which reason, ' during th^ Interim, he made himself very easy about these in* to draw a. persecution on themselves. This doctrine was made crinunal in him, and it was decided in tlie party that these indifferent things ought absolutely to be rejected, because the wre

^ Acifd. Regiomontana. || Chytr. lib. xvii j>. 445.

An. 1525. Lib: i Ep. 70. Lib. B. Ep. 96. Concord, p. 514^ 789.

I

made of ^em was contrary to the liberty of the Churches, and contained, said they, a kind of profession of Popery.

design. His aim was directed at Melancthon's ruin, whose disciple he hsid been, but of whom he was afterwards become so jealous as not to endure him.* And now particular reasons urg^d him on more than ever: for, whereas Melancthon endeavored then to undermine Luther's doctrine of the Real Pres- to maintain xibiquity. In fact, we see it decided by the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches, and the acts thereof are printed in the Book of Concord, which almost all the Lutherans in Germany have accepted. It shall be spoken of hereafter: and, to follow the order of time, I must speak at present of the Confession of Faith called Saxonic, and of that of Wirtemberg,*}" not Wittenburg in Saxony, but the capital city of the Duchy of Wirtemberg.

They were both made much about the same tlme^ namely, in 1551 and 1552, in order to be presented to the Council of Trent, where the victorious Charles V would have the Protestants make their appearance. The Saxonic Confession was drawn up by Melancthon, and, as we learn from Sleidan,]; by order of Maurice, the Elector, whom the Emperor had put in the place of John Frederick. All the doctors and all the pastors, solemnly convened at Leipsic, approved it with one voice; nor ought there to be any thing more authentic than a confession of faith made by so renowned a person, in order to be presented in a general council. §^ And, truly, it was received not only throughout all the territories of the House of Saxony and of many o^er Princes, but also by the Churches of Pomerania and that of Strasfourg, as appears by the subscriptions and declarations or those Churches. Brentius was the author of the Confession of Wirtemberg, next to Melancthon the most famous man of the the repetition of that of Augsburg. Christopher, Duke of Wir* temberg, by whose authority the Confession of Wirtemberg was publi^ed; declares likewise that he confirms, and does but re^ peat, the Confession of Augsburg; but, in order to jepeat'it, tibere was no necessity of making another; and this wonli r^|9ea^ only shows they were ashamed of producing so many iiew confessions of faith.

18. — Jirtide of the Eucharitt in the Saxcnie Confeenonfu Accordingly, to begin with the Saxonic ; the article of the Eucharist was there explained in terms very different from those employed at Augsburg.* For, to say notiiing of the long discourse of four or five pages which Melancthon substitutes in lieu of two or three lines of the tenth article of Augsburg,! which decided this matter ; here is what was essential in it : " It is necessary," said he, *' to inform mankind that the sacraments are actions instituted by God, and that things are not sacraments except in the time of Iheir use so established ; nevertheless, in the established use of this communion, Jesus Christ is trulyahd substantially present, truly given to those who receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ ; whereby Jesus Christ testifies that he is in them, and makes them his members."

19. — Changes which Melancthon made by the Staeonic Confusion^ in the Jhiidet

of that of Augsburg and Snudkald,

Melsu^cthon avoids saying what he had isaid at Augsburg, *^ That the body and blood are truly given with the bread and wine, and much more, what Luther had added at Smalkald, that the bread and wine are the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ, the which are not only given and received by pious Christians, but also by the impious." These important words, which Lutiier had chosen with so great care, in order to explain his doctrine, although signed by Melancthon at Smalkald, as hath appeared, were by Melancthon himself cut off from his Saxonic Confession. It seems he was no longer of opinion that the body of Jesus Christ was taken by the mouth together wfth the bread, nor received substantially by the impious, although he did not deny a substantial presence, in which Jesus Christ came to the faithful, not only by his virtue and spirit, but ^so in his own proper flesh and substance, divided, nevertheless, from bread and wine: for it seems, among the many novelties on this subject, this, too, was to show itself, and, according to the prophecy of the venerable Simeon, Jesus Christ, in this mystery, was to be *' a mark set for contradictions";!; in these latter ages, as, with respect to his divinity and incarnation, he had been in the first ages of Christianity;

* • In this manner was the Confession of Augsburg and Luther's doctrine* repeated in the Saxonic Confession. The Confession of Wirtemberg§ departs no less fi-om that of Augsburg, nor from- the Articles of Smalkald. It says, "that the true body and title blood are distributed in the Eucharist, and rejects those who say the bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of

i

Jesus Christ absent. It adds, that it is in the power of God to annihilate the substance of bread, or to change it into his body; but that God uses net this power in the Supper, and true bread remains with the true presence of die body. It manifestly jbstablishes concomitancy, by deciding that, although Jesus Christ be distributed whole and entire, as well in the bread as in the wine of the Eucharist, the use, pevertheless, of both parts oughl tp be universal." Thus it grants us two things; one, the possibility of transubstantiation, the other the certainty of concom- itancy: but though it defends the reality so far as to admit concomitancy, it explains nevertheless diese words, '^ This is my body," by those of Ezekiel, who says, *' This is Jerusalem," showing the representation of that city.

Thus there is nothing but confusion when man departs from the straight path to follow his own ideas. As the abettors of the figurative sense receive some impression from the literal one, so the abettors of the literal sense ate sometimes dazzled by the deceitful subtleties of that which is figurative. But it is not our business to examine here, whether or not, by torturing the different expressions of so msuiy confessions of faith, some violent mode may be found out to bring them to a conformity of sense. It is enough for me to point out what difficulty those had in satisfying themselves with their own confessions of faith who had forsaken the faith of the Church.

than it had been in that of Jhtgabvrg.*

The other articles of these confessions of faith are not less remarkable than that of the Eucharist.

The Saxonic Confession acknowledges that " the will is free; that God wills not sin, nor approves, nor co-operates to it; but that the free-will of men and devils is the cause of their sin and fall." Melancthon is here to be commended for correcting Luther and correcting himself, and for speaking more clearly than he had done in the Confession of Augsburg.

I have heretofore observed that, at Augsburg, he didjfiot own the exercise of free-will, except in the actions of civil life, and - of the will, and that it suffices not alone for the works, -Avhich we call "supernatural," he twice repeats, that " the , will afler

♦ Conf. Wirt C. de Euch. p. 53.

t Cap. derem. pecc. de lib. arb. etc Synt. Gen. part iL p. 54^ 60, 61, vto.

having received the Holy Ghost, remains not idle," namely, that it is not without action; which seems to give to it, as the Council of Trent likewise does, a free action under the guidance of the Holy Ghost who moves it interiorly.

And what Melancthon gives us to understand in this confession of faith, he explains in his letters more distinctly; for ho proceeds even to own the human will, in supernatural works, as ** a joint agent;" agens partiale^ according to the school language;* as much as to say, that man acts with God, and of both there is made one total agent Thus he explained himself at the Conference of Ratisbon in 1541, and though he well knew that this explication would be displeasing to his companions, yet he adhered to it, because, says he, the £ing is true. Thus did he come back from the excesses he had learned from Luther, though Luther persisted in them to the very last. But he delivers himself more at large on this subject, in a letter written to Calvin:'!' ^^ ^^ ^ friend," says he, ^ who, reasoning on tingency nevertheless:" yet he owned he was not able to reconcile these points. ^ For my part," proceeds he, ^^ who hold that Qod is not the cause of sin, and wills not sin, I own this contingency in the infirmity of our judgment, to the end that the ignorant may confess that David fell of himself, and by his own will, into sin; and might have preserved the Holy Ghost he had within him, and that in this combat there is some action of the will to be acknowledged," which he confirms by a passage of St. Basil, who says, '' Only have the will, and God will come unto you." Whereby Melancthon seemed to insinuate, not only that die will acts, but also begins; which St. Basil rejects in other places, and Melancthon does not appear to me ever to have rejected sufficiently, since we have before taken notice, how he had introduced a word into the Confession of Augsburg,;]; by which he seemed to intimate, there was not so much harm in sa3ring that the will could begin, as that it could finish of itself the work of God.

of grace,

' Be tluct as it will, it is certain he owned the exercise of freewill in the operations of grace, since he so plainly owned that David could have preserved the Holy Ghost at the time he lost it, as he might have lost it at the time he preserved it : but although this was his sentiment, he durst not declare it distinctly

* Demipela^an, lib. iv. Ep. 240. f Ep. Md. inter. C&L Ep. p. 384.

in the Saxonic Confession; — ^happy for him he could insinuate it The thing was, Luther had so dreadfully thunderstruck freewill, and bequeathed to his sect such an aversion to the exercise of it, that Melancthon durst not utter, but with fear and trembling, what he believed regarding it, and even his own confes- sions of faith were ambiguous.

S6. — His doctrine condenmed 69 Ms Brethren, But all his precautions could not secure him from censure. Illyricus and his followers would never forgive him this short sentence which he had placed in the Saxonic Confession, — *^ The will is not idle, nor without action." They condemned this expression in two synodical assemblies, toge&er with the text of St. Basil, wluch, as we teave seen, Melancthon made use of. This condemnation b set down in the Book of Concord.* All they did to save Melancthon's honor, was not to name him, but only to condemn his expressions under the general name of new authors, or papists, or scholastics. But whoever shall consider with ^mt care the very expressions of Melancthon were person aimed at, and the iiincere Lutherans own as much.

27. — Cof^fimon of the new Sects. Here is, in short, the nature of these new sects. Men suffer themselves to be prejudiced against certain doctrines, of which I

they take up false notions. Thus did Melancthon, at first, run no action in works supernatural. Convinced of his error, he leans to the opposite extreme, and so far from excluding the action of free-will, he proceeds to attribute to it even the beginning of supernatural actions^ When a little inclined to return to truth, and to own that free-will hath its agency in the operations of grace, he stands condemned by his own people: such is the confusion and perplexity man falls into, by casting off the salutary yoke of Church authority.

38. — Doctrine of the Lutherans, which contradicts itse\f. But although one part of the Lutherans will not receive these terms of Melancthon, the will is not without action in works of grace. I see not how they can deny the thing, since they all confess, unanimously, that man, under grace, may^reject and lose it. . X

This is what they have asserted in the Confession of Augsburg; what they have repeated in the Apology; what they have anew decided and inculcated in the Book of Concord;! so that nothing among them is more certain. Whence it is plain they

♦ Page 5, 82, 680. f Ibid. p. 675, etc.

acknowledge with the Council of Trent a free-will, acting under the operation of grace, so as to be able to rejecjuit; which thing who, for want of Well understanding the state of the question, make thait doctrine criminal in us, which they support, nevertheless, in Uieir brethren the Lutherans.

of mortal and venial sins,*

There is also an article in the Saxonic Confession, so miich the more deserving of notice, as it overtiirows one of the foun-, dations of the new Reformation, which will not own that the. distinction between sins, mortal and venial, is grounded on the. nature of sin itself. But hero the divines of Saxony confess with Melancthon, that there are two sorts of sin; " one which banishes the Holy Ghost from^the heart; the other, which does not banish him." In order to explain the nature of these dif^ ferent sins, they observe two kinds of Christians; *' one who repress concupiscence; the other, who obey it. In those who. combat against it," proceed they, ** sin is not reigning; it is venial; it bereaves us not of the Holy Ghost; it subverts not the foundation, and is not against conscience." They add, '* that such sort of sins are covered," that is, they are not imputed '* through God's mercy." Certain it is, according to this doctrine, that the distinction of mortal and venial sins consists, not only in God's pardoning some, and not pardoning others, as is commonly said in the pretended Reformation, but that it proceeds from the nature of the thing. Now, to condemn the doc- trine of imputed justice, no more than this is requisite; since it is allowed for certain, notwithstanding the sins the just man falls into daily, that sin reigns not in him, but rather charity reigns in him, and consequently justice, which suffices to denominate him truly just, since a thing takes its denomination from what is prevailing therein. Whence it follows, that to explain '^ gratuitous justification," there is no necessity of saying, we are jus- tified by imputation, but rather, that we are truly justified by a justice which is in us, yet proceeding from the gift of God. 30. — Jderit of Works in the Confusion of Wirtemberg.

Melancthon omitted, for what reason I knpw not, to insert in the Saxonic Confession, what he had inserted in the Augsburg^. Confession and Apc^ogy concerning the merit of good works, j* But it must not be concluded from hence, that the Lutherans had rejected this doctrine, since, at the same. time, a chapter is found in the Confession of Wirtemberg, where it is said, *^ that good works ought necessarily to be practised, and through the gratuitous bounty of God they merit &eir corporal and spirituai *■ Page 75. t ^<JV^ Wirt c. de bonis operib. Ibid. p. 106L

< 26 '

I

<>f merit perfecdy agrees witii grace.

In 1567, a new assembly, by ^e appointment of Charles Y, was held at Worms for settling religion. Pfhrgias, the Itnthor •f Ibe Interim, presided in it. Mr. Burnet, ver attentive ' to turn every thing to the advantage of the new Reformation, gives ft e^iort accotmt of it, in which he represents the Catholics as men, ^ who, unable to bear down those they call heretics widi open force, divide them among themselves, and engage them into heats about lesser matters." But Melancthon's own testimony, in this case, will discover the true state of the affiur.* As soon as the Protestant doctors named for the conference were come to Worms, the ambass^ors of their respective princes assembled them together to acquaint them, from the said princes, that, above all things, and before they conferred with the Catholics, they were ** to agree among themselves, and, at the same time, to condemn four sorts of errors. 1. That of the Zuioglians. 2. That of Osiander about justification. 3. That prop- osition which affirms good works are necessary to salvation. 4. And lastly, the error of those who had received indifferent ceremonies. This last article expressly glanced at Melancthon, and it was Illyricus with his cabal that proposed it. Melancthon had been warned of his designs, and in his journey wrote to his friend Camerarius,'(' that, *^ at table, and over the bottle, certain preliminary articles were drawn, with the design of mak ing him and Brentius sign them." With the last he was very much united, and represents Illyricus, or some one of that cabal, ^* as a fury thai went from door to door to exasperate people." It was also believed in the party, that Melancthon w^ls pretty favorable to the Zuinglians, and Brentius to Qsiander. The same Melancthon appeared much inchned to the necessity of good works, and this whole enterprise visibly aimed at him and his friends. Hitlierto, therefore, it was not the Catholics that labored to divide the Protestants. They were sufficiently di* vided of themselves; nor was it, as Mr. Burnet pretends, ** about lesser matters;" since, except the question of indifferent monstrous justification, and the manner in which good works were to be judged necessary, were of the utmost consequence.

As to the first of these potnts, Melancthon agreed, that the

> ML Ub. i Ep. 7a Bum. (Mtft iL fitk. ii. {^355. lib. L Ep 70. fjmd. Eo, ad Albert Hardepb. t ad Baliins. apad Hospin. An. 1557, 250.

VIII.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. S^

To the second, that Osiander was not less worthy of censure. To the third, that from this propositioiit ^^ good works are necessary for salvation," the last word should be cut off, so that good works, in spite of the Gospel, which denounces that, without them, we have no share in the kingdom of God, remain ^' neoeasary" it is true, but not " for salvation;" and whereas Mr. Bur- net hath affirmed that the ^^ Protestants always declared good works indispensably and absolutely necessary to salvation;" quite on the contrary, we find this equally rejected by Melanc- Ihon's enemies, and by himself,- — namely, by both parties of the Protestants in Germany.

As for Osiander, Brentiiis did not fail to take his part, not by defending the doctrine tinpiuted to him, but by maintaining that they had not comprehended this author's sense, though Osiander had so plainly expressed himself, that neither Melancth<Hi nor anybody else doubted of it. It appeared, then, to &e Lutherlins, a very easy matter to agree ail in tiie oofademnations re quired by Illyricus and his firiends; but Mehuiedion put a'Stop to it, who was ever apprehensive of raising new disturbances in ^e Reformation, which, by its great divisions, already seemed threatened wi^ destruction.

Thi^se disputes of the Protestants soon reached the ears of the Catholics, for Ill3rricus and his friends raised great clamors, not only at Worms, but over all Germany. The Catholics had resolved to press, in the conference, tlie necessity of submitting to the Church's judgment, in order to put an end to disputes arising among Christians; and the contentions of Protestants very opportunely fell in with this design, they making it appear that they themselves^ who spoke so much of the perspicuity of Scripture, and its full sufficiency to terminate all dispi^es, agre^ of finishing the least debate. The weakness c^ the Reformation, so ready at starting difficulties, so bad at solving them, was visible to every eye. Then Illyricus and his friends, to show the Catholics they were not unprovided of meaiis to repress others bred in the Protestant party, laid before the Catholic deputies a copy of condemnations they had drawn, but which was rejected by their companions; thus the division blazed abroad in a manner not to be concealed. The Catholics judged it to no purpose to continue on these conferences, where, indeed, every thing

with the Melacthonists, as St. Paul* lefl the Pharisees to dispute with the Sadducees, drawing all the advantage he could from their notorious dissensions."

'S5. — Osiander's triumph in Ptussia. — Ttu memorable conversion of Staphylus. In Prussia, something vigorous, and some resolute d^^ision, was expected against Osiander, whose insolence was no longer to be borne with. He made it openly appear how Ettle account he made of the Augsburg Confession, of Melancthon, its author, and of the merits even of Jesus Christ, which he did not so much as mention in the justification of sinners. Some divines of Koningsberg did what they could to oppose his doc- trine, and among others, Frederick Staphylus, one of the most renowned professors in divinity of that univensity, who, for six* teen years together at Wittenberg, had heard Luther and Melancthon;! but finding they gained nothing by their learned worksy and Osiander's eloquence prevailed universsdiy, they ^ad recourse to the authority of the Church of Wittenberg, an4 ihe rest of the Protestant Churches in Germany. When, instead of distinct and vigorous condemnations, which the weak faith of the people stood in need of, they beheld nolhing come reaped advantage, they pitied the weakness of the party thus bereft of all authority against errors. Staphylus opened iua

36. — *^ new form of the Lutherans in order to explain the Eucharist in the wfssembly of Frankfort. — 1558.

The Lutherans asembled themselves at Frankfort the year afler, in order to agree about a form relating to die Eucharist, as if, till then, they had done nothing. They began, according to custom, by saying, diey did but repeat the Confession of Augsburg. ;|; Notwithstanding, they added to it, ** that Jesus Christ was given in the use of the Sacrament, truly, substantially, and in a vivifying manner; and that this Sacrament con- tained two tilings, — nameh'^, the bread and the body; and that it is an invention of the Monks unknown to all antiquity, to say, that the body is given us under the species of bread. '* .

Strange confusion! they did nothing, said they, but repeat the Confession of Augsburg; yet this expression, condemned by them at Frankfort, namely, "this body is present under the species," is found in one of the editions of ^at same Confession which they pretended to repeat, and even in that edition owned at Frankfort to be so genuine, that to this day, in Ihe rituals used by the French church of that city, we read the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession, couched in these terms —

* Acts zjdii. 6. f Chyt in Sax. lib, xvii. Tit Osiand. p. 444, et seq^

Hud. 448. t Hasp. £864. K ^

and wine."*

foriotw.— 1559.

But the concern of most weight among tb Lntharans at that ' time, was that of ubiquity, which Westphalns^ James Andreorr Smidelin, David Chjrdirseus, and others, set up with all tfaeis: might. Melancthon opposed two reasons against them, thaw which nothing could be more convincing: one, that this doctrine' confounded die two natures of Jesus Christ, making him im mense, not only according to his divinity, but his humani^ like^ wise, and even with respect to his body; the other, that it destroyed the mystery of the Eucharist, by taking away every thing that is peculiar to it, should Jesus Christ, as man, be no other ^'ay therein present than he is in wood and stone. These two reasons made Melancthon look with horror on the doctrine of ubiquity, and the aversion he had to it made him insensibly begin to incline towards those who defended the figurative sense* He held a particular communication with them, above all, with- Calvin. But certain it is, he did not find in his sentiments what he desired.

Calvin obstinately maintained,*!* that- a believer once regenerated could not lose grace; and Melancthon agreed with the Lutherans, that this doctrine was damnable.and impious. Calvin could not endure the necessity of baptism, and Melancthon would never depart from it Calvin condemned what Melancthon taught on the co-operation of free-will, and Melancthon did not believe he could recant.

It appears sufficiently they were no less at variance about predestination; and although Calvin repeated frequently that Melancthon in his heart could not help thinking as he did, yet. he never could draw any thing from him to that purpose.

As for what concerns the Supper, Calvin boasts every where that Melancthon was of his opinion ; but as he does not produce one word of Melancthon's clearly to that purpose, but, on the contrary, taxes him in all his letters and books with having never explained himself sufficiently on that subject, methinks one may reasonably doubt of what he has advanced; and what seems to me to be most probable is this, that neither of these two authors thoroughly understood the other : Melancthon beicg imposed upon by the expressions of a proper substance, which Calvin every where affected, as we shall see ; and Calvin, drawing to his own

26*

fleose the words by which Melancthon separated the bread from, the body of our Lord, yet without the design of derogating: tiwreby from the substantial presence, which he owned in the faithful communicants.

If Peucer, Melancthon's son-in-law, may be belieyed, his falher-in-law was a downright Calvinist. Peucer became one^ himself, and suffered greatly afterwards for his correspondence with Beza, in order to introduce Calvinism into Saxony.* He took a pride in following the sentiments of his father-in-law, and wrote books where he gives an account of what he had heard from him in private relating to this subject But without impeaching Fencer's credit, it is no unlikely thing that he, in a matter &ey had so perplexed widi equivocal expressions, might not have fully comprehended Melancthon's meaning; and for want of that have adapted his words to his own preconceived, opinions.

Afler all, to know what Melancthon. thought one way or other^ is to me of very small importance. Many Protestants in Germany, more interested in this cause than we are, have under- taken his defence; in whose behalf I shall only say, what candor and truth oblige me to, viz., that I have no where found in any of this author's writings that Jesus Christ is not received, except by faith; which, howsoever, is the true characteristic of the figurative sense. Neither do I find that he has ever said, with t&se that maintain it, that the unworthy do not receive the true body and true blood; but, on the contrary, it appears to me that he persisted in what was determined on this subject in.' the Wittenburg agreement. f

40. — J\ielancthon dares not speak. What we know for certain is, that through the fear Melanctiion was in of increasing the scandalous divisions of the new Reformation, which he saw was quite void of all moderation, he scarce ventured to express himself but in terms so general^ that each one might find in them whatever meaning he thought fit. The Sacramentarians did not suit him ; the Lutherans ran all into ubiquity. Brentius, almost the only Lutheran he had maintained a perfect union with, went over to that side ; this prodigy of doctrine spread insensibly through the whole sect. He would willingly have spoken, but knew not what to say ; so great was the opposition he met with to what he believed was truth. J ' Have I the power," said he, " to unfold truth whole and ientire in the country I am in, and would the court endiire it ?" To oot prevent me."

* Peuc narr. hist, de sent. Mel. It. hist, career. &c.

this manner: but, besides that they produce his letters, which they pretend to have the originals of, one needs but read those his friends have published, to see that these discourses, which pass for his, agree perfectly with that disposition which the implacable dissensions of the new Reformation had placed him in.

His son-in-law, who relates the &cts with a great deal of simplicity, affirms he was so hated by the Ubiquitarians, that one time Chythrsus, one of the most zealous of them^ said, **' They ought to moke away with Melancthon, otherwise they should find in him a perpetual obstacle to their designs." He himself, in a letter he wrote to the £Iector Palatine, which Peucer makes mention of,* says, *^ That he would no longer dispute against men whose cruelties he did experience." And this was but a few months before his death. How many times," says Peucer, '^ and with how many sighs, hath he unfolded to me the reasons which hindered him from- discovering to- the world the bottom of his sentiments?" JBut what could ccmstrain him in the court of Saxony, where he then was, and in the midst of Lutherans, hut the court itself, and the violence of his companions 1

How deplorable a state, never to meet widi peace, or truth,

as he understood it! He had left the ancient Chmt^h, which

had on her side succession, and all preceding ages. The Lu-

^eran Church, which he and Luther had founded, and which

he believed the only refuge of truth, embraced ubiquity, which

he abhorred. The Sacramentarian churches, which, next to

the Lutheran, he believed the most pure, were full of other

errors he could not endure, and which, in all his confessions of

fidth, he had rejected. He was respected, as appeared, by the

Church of Wittenberg; but the grievous restraints he lay

under, and the measures he was bound to follow, prevented his

speaking all he thought ; and in this state he ended his miser^

able hfe in 1560.

• ky this conduct, — 1560.

Ulyricus and his companions triumphed upon his death; Ubiquity was estabtished almost throughout all Lutheranism, a town in Saxony:t till then, Melancthon had restrained them from pronouncing such a sentence. From the time it passed, but the authority of the Church, to which all were bound to yield

* Peuc. Hist. car. Ep. ad. Pal. ap. Hosp. 1559. 260. Peuc Aulicua, t Hosp. 1660. p. 263. 2, Defi Cont Westph.

without fifftfaer dispute. The principal party of the new Rieformation^ tiie Lutherans, began to discover that nothing bul Church authority could curb men's minds and prevent divisions; sod, indeed,, we see Calvin* never ceases to reproach them for laying greater stress on the name of the Church than the very by Luther. This was 'true, and the Ludierans, in their turn, 1 were obliged to answer all the arguments which the Protestant party had opposed against the Catholic Church and her council. They objected against the Church, that she made herself judge in her own cause, and that the Pope, with his bishops, were at one and the same time the accused, the accusers and the judges. The Sacramentariuis said as much of the Lutherans, by whom they stood condemned. The whole body of Protestants said to the Church, that their pastors ought to take th^r place amongst the rest, in the council going to be held, and to judge on ques^ tions of faith; otherwise, it were prejudging against them without a hearing. The Sacramentarians made the same reproach to the Lutherans, and maintained to them, that by taking on themselves the authority to condemn then^ without calling their pastors to the sitting, they began themselves to do that which they had called tyranny in the Church of Rome.! It appeared evident that they^nust ultimately imitate the Catholic Church, which alone knew the true method of judging questions of faith: nor did it appear less manifest, by the contradictions the La* therans fell into upon following this method, that it did not belong to innovators, nor could subsist but in a body, which had practised it from the origin of Christianity.

•Augsburg. — 1561.

It was resolved at this time to choose, among all the editions of the Augsburg Confession, that which should be deemed authentic. | It was a surprising thing, that a confession which regulated the faith of all the Protestants in Germany and the whole North, and had given a name to the whole party, should have been published so many ways, and with such considerable differences, at Wittenburg and elsewhere, under Luther and Melancthon's inspection, without any care taken to adjust these variations. At lastyin 1561, thirty years afler this confession was made, in order to silence the reproaches which were flung at Protestants, of not having as yet fixed a confession, they met at Naumburg, a city of '{'huringia, and there selected an edition; but in vain, inasmuch as the other editions having been printed

Hoep. An. 1560. p. 269, etseq. f Hosp. An. J 560. pp. 270, 871^

t Act, conv, Nftum. ap. £lop. 1561, p. 280, et seq.

by public authority, they never could suppress them,* nor hinder one from following one, others another, as we have elsewhere mentioned.

What is still more, the assembly of Naumburg, in choosing one edition, declared expressly, it was not thence to be concluded that they disapproved of all the rest, especially that which had been made at Wittenburg in 1640, under the inspection of Luther and Melancthon, which, besides, had been publicly made use of in the Lutheran schools, and in the conferences with Catholics.

Nay, it cannot even be decided which of these editions were preferred at Naumburg. It seems most probable to have been that which is printed with the consent of almost all the princes* and stands at the beginning of the book of Concord; but even that is not certain, since we have shown four editions of the supper-article, equally owned in the same book.*!* Again, if the merit of good works was cut off from the Confession of Augsburg, we have found it remaining in the Apology; and that even is a proof of what was originally in the Conf<^ion, since it is certain that the Apology was made on no o&er account than to defend and explain it.

But the dissensions of the Protestants, on the sense of the Confession of Augsburg, were so far from being terminated at

the asfiembly of Naumburg. j; thmt on 4ha contrary, Frederic ike

Elector Palatine, who. was one of the members of it, believed, or would seem to believe, that he found in this Confession the Zuinglian doctrine he newly had embraced; so that he adhered to ihe Confession of Augsburg, and, not concerning himself about Luther, still remained a Zuinglian.

Thus, it seems, every thing was found in this Confession. § The jeering and malicious Zuinglians called it Pandora's box, whence issued forth good and evil; the apple of discord, among the goddesses; a shoe for every foot; a vast wide cloak which Satan might hide himself in, as well as Jesus Christ. These men had proverbs at their fingers' ends, and dealt them out not isparingly to ridicule the different senses that each one found in the Confession of Augsburg. Ubiquity was the only thing that could not be discovered in it; and yet this ubiquity became a dogma among the Lutherans, authentically inserted in the book of Concord.

Here is what we find in that part of the book which bears this title, — ** An abridgment of articles controverted among the Diyines of the Ccmfession of Augsburg."* In the seventh chapter, entitled — Of the Lord's Supper: — ** The right-hand of God is every where, and Jesus Christ is truly 'and effectually united to it according to his famnanity." And still more expressly in the eighth chftptery entitled — Of the Person of Jesus Christ, — w£ermn is explained what ^t Majesty is, which in the Scrip- | tores is attributed to the word ** incarnate:" there we read these wordsy — ^* Jesus Christ, not only as God but also as man, knows all things: is able to do all things; is present to all creatures/' This is a strange doctrine. Tme it is, the Holy wills nothing but what the Divkuty wills who governs it. True it is, this Holy Soul knows all that regards the world present, since all therein halli a relation to mankind, whereof Jesus Christ is the redeemer and judge, and the angels themselves, who are the ministers of our sah^tion, are subject to this powers True it is, Jesus Christ may render himself present where he pleases, even according to his huiaanity, and with respect td his body^an^ blood; but that the soul of Jesus Christ koows^ or can know, all that Grod knows, is attributing to a creature an infinite knowledge, or wisdom, and equalling it to God himself* To make the human nature of Jesus Christ be necessarily wherever €r4d is, is giving it an immensity not suitable to it,

said by the same reason, that Jesus Christ, as man, is in all times, ivhich would be too open an extravagancy, but, neveiv iheless, would follow as naturally from the personal union, according to ^reasoning of ^e Lutherans, as the presence of Jesus Christ's humanity in all places.

Confeesion <^j3ugahwrg.

The same doctrine of ubiquity may be seen, but with mora perplexity and a wider comp of words, in a part of this same book which bears this title:f — ^ A solid, easy, and clear Rep* etition of some Articles of the Augsburg Confession, which have been disputed on for some time by some Divines of this Confession, and are here decided and accorded by the rule and analogy of God's word, and the brief form o£ our Christian doc trine." Let who will expect from such a title the clearness and brevity it promises him; for my part, I shall only observe two things on this word repetition:| the first, that although the doctrine of ubiquity, which is here established, be in no kind spoken of in the Augsburg Confession, this is called, nevertheless^ '* a - repetition of some articles of the Augsburg Confession." They

* Lib. Concor. p. 600. t Solido. plana. &c. Cone p. 628.

VIII.} THB VARIATIONS, ETC. S9S

were afraid of makiog it appear that they were obliged to tack some new ck>ctrine to it, and ail the novelties they had hroached were thus made to {Miss under the Baaae of a repetition. The second, that it hath never he^i the luck of Protestants t htcvm explained themselves aeigbt the fkst time. They were always forced to come to repetitioost which, wlien all was said, were not a whit clearer than what wttl beibre.

To conceal no doctrine of the Lutherans of any importance in the book of Concord, I hold myself obliged to say, that they do not place ubiquity fer the foundation of Jesus Christ's Presence in the Supper: it is certain, on the contrary, that they make this Presence depend on the words of the institution only ; but they set up this ubiquity to stop the mouths of the Sacramentarians, who had ventured to say, that it was impossible for God to put Jesus Chast's body in more than one place at once ; which appeared to them, not only contrary to the article of God's Omnipotence, but also to the Jdajesty of Jesus Christ's

We must now consider what the Lutherans say concerning the co-operation of the will with grace: so weighty a question in our controversies, that we cannot refuse it our attention.

On this the Lutherans say two things, which will afford great light towards the finishiiig of our contests. I am going to propose them with as much <krder and clearness as I am able, and shall use my utmost endeavor to ea^ie the reader's mind, which might be wearied with the subtlety of these questions.

The first diing the Lutherans do* in order to explain the cooperation of the will with grace, is to distinguish the moment of conversion, from what ensues; and having taught, that man's co-operation hath no place in the conversion of a sinner, they add, that this co-operation ought only to be owned in the good works which we do cdlerwards.

I own, it is hard enough to comprehend what ihey would be at For the co-operation, winch they exclude from die moment of conversion, i explained in certain places after such a manner, as seems to exclude nothing,*!* but ^^ the co-operation which is nade by our own natitral stiength.and of >ouieekrm^" as -Si* Paul speaks. If it be so, we are agreed: but then we do not see wimt need there was of distinguishing between^Hie moment ef eonvnien, and all tet followed after, since man neiflier operates, nor co-operates through the whole sequel, any moref

Ihan in ike moment of conversion, but by the grace of God. it is plain, that a man who repents, who betievesj and loves perfectly, repents, believes, and loves with more force, but not in. the main afler another manner, than when he begins to repent, to believe, and to love: so that, in one and the other state, if ^> the Holy Ghost operates, man co-operates with him and sufa^ jects himself to his grace, by an act of the will.

In effect, it seems that the Lutherans, in concluding for the co-operation of free-will, would exclude thiit only which is attributed to our own strength. *• When Luther," say they, *^ affirms that the will is purely passive, and in nowise acts m the conversion, his intention was not to say that no new motion was excited' in our souls, and no new operation therein begun; but only to give to onderstaml, diat man can do nothing of himself, or by his own natural strength."*!*

This was setting out well: but what follows is not of a piece. For aftor saying, what is very true, *• That man's conversion is an operation and gift of the Hdy Ghost, not in any of its parts only, but in the whole, they conclude very preposterously, that the Holy Ghost acts in our understanding, our heart, and our will, as in a subject that suffers, man abiding without action, purely passive." "-

This bad conclusion, which they draw from a true principle, makes it plain they do not understand thems^^ves; for, after all, what seems to be their meaning is, that man can do nothing of himself, and that grace anticipates him in all, which, 1 say again, is incontestable. But if it follow from this principle, that we remain without action, this consequence reaches not only the moment of conversion, as the Lutherans pretend, but extends itself also, contrary to their, notions, to the whole Christian life, since we can no more preserve grace by our own strength, than acquire it, and whatever state we are in, it anticipates us in every thing.

41* — Oondunon*— jj^we nnderskmd onetmof Aer, there remmna no dispute abomt

c(hoperation.

I know not, then, what the Lutherans mean when they sayv it must not be believed, that '* man converted, co-operates wilb Hke Holy Ghost, as two horses conpur to draw a cart ;"1 fiaf

Con. IK 668. ' tifaidip.6a0. | Ibid.|.674w

*

r 1

that is a truth which no one disputes with them, since one of these horses receives not the strength he has from the other i whereas, we agree that man co-operating hath no strength which is not given him by the Holy Ghost; and that nothing is more true than what the Lutherans say in the same place,* viz., * When you co-operate with grace, it is not by your own natura^ powers, but by new powers which the Holy Ghost bestows upon you."

Thus, the least right understanding between us clears this point of all shadow of difficulty. When the Lutherans teach, thai our will does not act in the beginning of conversion, they only mean to say, that God excites good motions in us, which, .4hough in us, are not from ourselves: the thing is unquestionable, and it is what is called exciting grace. If they will say, that the will, when consenting to grace, and, by this means, beginning to convert itself, acts not by its own natural strength, this again is a point avowed by Catibolics. If they will say, it acts not at all, but is purely passive, they do not understand themselves, and, contrary to their own prmciples, destroy all' action and co-operation, not only in the b^inning of conversion, but also through the whole course of a Christian life.

The second thing which the Lutherans teach, concerning tho co-operation of the will, deserves to be observed, because it discovers to us what a labyrinth man bewilders himself in when he forsakes his guide.

The bjyjkjof Concord strives to clear the following objection, raised by libertines on the foundation of Lutheran doctrine, "f •* If it be true," say they, " as is taught amongst you, that the will of man hath no part in the conversion of sinners, but the Holy Ghost does all therein, I have no occasion either to read the Holy Ghost sends me his gifts."

This same doctrine involved the faithful in great perplexities :

for as they were taught, that as soon as ever the Holy Ghost

acted in them, he alone wrought upon them in such a manner,

that they had nothing at all to do ; all those, who did not feel

this ardent faith within them, but rather nothing, only misery

and weakness, fell into these dismal thoughts, this dangerous

doubtfulness — Am I of the number of God's elect, and will

God ever send me his Holy Spirit ?

Udnrng general prhie^es.

In answer to these doubts of libertines and weak Christ]an9,

who deferred their conversion, there was no saying to them that they resisted the Holy Ghost, whose grace interiorly solicited them to yield themselves up to him; nce they were told, on the contrary, that in ^se first moments of a sinner's conversion, the Holy Ghost did all himself, and a man acted no more than a log of wood. Wherefore, they take another method to make sinners comprehend that it is their fault if they be not converted, and, in order to that, they- lay down these positions: —

^' I.* God wills that all men be converted, and attain to eternal salvation.

II. For that end he hath commanded the Gospel to be pjpeached in public.

^ III. Preaching is the means whereby God gathers together ftom amongst mai^ind a Church, the duration whereof has no

^ lY. Preaching and hearing ^e Gospel are the instruments of the Holy Ghost whereby he acts effectually in us, and converts us." -„

Having laid down these four general positions tow^ing the effibaey of preaching, (hey apply them to the conversion of a sinner, by four other more particular ones, via. —

" V-t Before ever a man is regenerated, he may read, or hear the Gospel outwardly; and in these exterior things he hath, in some manner, his free* will to assist at Church assemblies, and there to hear, or not to hear, the word of God.

" VI. They add to this: that by this preaching, and by the attention given to it, God mollifies heai-ts; a little spark of'^faith is enkindled in them, whereby the promises of Jesus Christ are embraced, and the Holy Ghost, who works these good sentiiqents, is, by this means, sent into the hearts of men.

" VII. They observe, that, although it be true that neither the preacher nor the hearer can do any thing of themselves, and that it is necessary for the Holy Ghost to act in us, to the end we may believe the word; yet neither the preacher nor the hearer ought to have any doubt of the Holy Ghost's being present by his grace, when the word is announced in its purity according to God's commandment, and men give ear to, and meditate seriously thereon.

" VIII. Lastly, they conclude that, in truth, this presence and these gifts of the Holy Ghost do not always make themselves be felt, yet, nevertheless, it ought to be held for certain that the word hearkened to is the instrument of the Holy Ghost, whereby he displays his efficacy in the hearts of men."

¥111.] THE VABIATIONS9 ETC. SOS

is clearly solved, as well in regard to libertines as weak Chri> tians. In regard to libertines, because by the first, second* third* fourth, sixth, and seventh propositions, preaching, attentively Siat man is free to hear preaching; he is, therefore, free to give to himself that, by which grace is given him, and so libertines are content. And for weak Christians, who, although attentive to the word, know not whether they be in grace, inasmuch a they do not feel it; there is a remedy for their doubt from th^ eighth proposition, which teaches them that it is not lawful to douhi but the grace of the Holy Ghost, though not felt, doe$ accompany attention to the word: so that there remains no difficulty, according to the Lutheran principles, and neither the libertine nor weak Christian have any thing to complain of; since, for their conversion, all, in short, depends on attention to the word, which itself depends on the free-will.

And that it may not be doubted what attention it is they speak of, I observe they speak of attention,* inasmuch as it precedes the grace of the Holy Ghost: they speak of attention, applied by the free-will to hear or not to hear; they speak of attentioo^ whereby one gives ear externally to the Gospel, whereby one assists at Church assemblies, where the virtue of the Holy Ghost displays itself, whereby an attentive ear is given to the word which is his organ. It is this free attention to which the Lutiberans annex divine grace; and they are excessive in every thing, since they will have it on one hand, when the Holy Ghost begins to move us, that we do not act at all; on the other, that this operation of the Holy Ghost, which converts us without any co-operation on our side, is attracted necessarily by an act of liberty acts purely by its natural strength.

This is the current doctrine of the Lutherans, and the most learned of all of them, that have written in our days, has ex* plained it by this comparison. He supposes all mankind plunged into a deep lake, on the surface of which God has provided a salutary oil to swim, which by its virtue alone will deliver all these wretches, provided they will use the natural strength that is lefl them to draw near to this oil, and swallow but some drops of it This oil is the word annoanced by preachers. Men of

* Con. p. 671. } Calizt, judic. n, 38, 33 34.

themselves may apply their attention to it; but as soon as they approach by their natural strength, in order to listen thereto, of itself, without their further intermeddling, it diffuses a virtue in ^ir hearts which heals them.

Thus all the vain scruples, which made the Lutherans, under pretext of honoring God, at first destroy free-will, and afterwards grow fearful at least of allowing too much to it^ and at last in giving to it so great power, that to its action, and the most natural exercise of it, all is annexed. This it is to walk without rule, the rule of tradition once forsaken: they think to avoid the error of Pelagians, but, winding about, they return to it another way, and the compass they take brings them back to Demipeietgianism.

This Demipelagianism of the Lutherans, by little and little, spreads even to Calvinism, from the inclination that party hath of uniting itself with the Lutherans; in whose favor they have begun to say already, that Demipelagianism does not damn, that is, there is no harm in attributing to free-will the beginning of salvation.*

60.^-^ dyjiculty in the hook of Coneordf concerning the certainty of Salvatum, I find, moreover, another thing in the book of Concord,*)^ which, were it not well understood, might cause a great confusion in the Lutheran doctrine. It is there said, that the faithful^ in the midst of their weaknesses and combats, '* ought by no fheans to doubt either of the justice which is imputed to them by faith, or of their eternal salvation." Whereby it might seem that Lutherans admit the certainty of their salvation as well as Calvinists. But this would be too visible a contradiction in their doctrine, since, to believe the certainty of salvation in every one of the faithful, as the Calvinists believe, they ought also to believe, with them, the inamissibility of justice, which, as hatk been seen, the Lutheran doctrine expressly rejects.

To adjust this contrariety, the Lutheran Doctors answer two things: one, that by the doubt of salvation, which they exclude (rom the faithful soul, they understood nothing but the anxiety, agitation, and trouble, which we exclude as well as they;]; the other, that the certainty they admit in all the just, is not an cd>solute certainty, but conditional, and supposes that the &ithful soul does not depart from God by voluntary wickedness. The

t Jur. Syst de I'Eg. lib. il ch. iil pp. 24d, 253. f Con. p. 585.

Art xziii. c. 5. Thed. unic n. 6. pp. 1426 et 1499.

▼III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. SOS

matter is thus explained by Doctor John Andrew Gerard, who has published lately an entire body of ccmtroversy; the meaning of which is, that, in the Lutheran doctrine, the believer may rest Ailly assured that God on his side will never be wanting to him, if he be not first wanting to God — a thing not to be doubted of. To give the just more jcertainty, is too evidently contradicting that doctrine which teaches us that, be we never so just, we may &\\ from justice, and lose the spirit of adoption; a point as little questioned by Lutherans as Catholics.

Since the book of Concord has been compiled, I take it the Lutherans in body have never made any new decision of faith. The parts of which this book is con^osed are from difierent authors and of different dates; and the Lutherans' design was to give us in this collection what is most authentic amongst them. The book came out in 1579, after the famous assemblies held at Torg and Berg, in 1576 and 1577. This last place, if I am not mistaken^ was a monastery near Magdeburg. ~ I shall not relate in what manner this book was subscribed in Ger many, nor the tricks and force, which, as is reported, were put on &ose who received it, nor the oppositions of some princess and cities who refused to sign it. Hospinian* has written a long history of it, which appears well enough grounded as to the chief of its facts. Let the Lutherans who are concerned therein, contradict it. The particular decisions, which relate to the Supper and Ubiquity, were made near the time of Melanc* thon's death, viz., about the years 1558, 1559, 1560, and 1561*

our disturbances in France. In the year 1559, our pretended Reformists drew up a confession of faith, which they presented to Charles IX in 1561, at the Conference of Poissy.'l' This was one of Calvin's productions, whom I have often already spoken of; and the reflections I must make on this confessioa of faith, oblige me to set forth more thoroughly the conduct tmd doctrine of this its author*

BOOK IX.

(In the Year 1561, Calvin's Doctrine and Character.]

A brief summary. — ^Protestants be^ to appear in France. — Calvin is their bead. — ^His notions concerning Justification, wherein he reasons more con- to the Lutheran doctrine. — The certaintv of salvation, inamissibility of justice. — ^Infant Justification independently of Baptism. — Contradictions on this third point — ^In respect to the Eucharist, he equally condemns Luther and Zuinglius, add aims at a medium between both. — He proves the necessity of Admitting the Real Presence, beyond what he does in Mvhkh destroy it—The pre-eminence of Catholic doctrine. — Those who impugn it are' forced to speak our languaige and assume our principles. — Three difierent confessions of the Calvinists to satisfy diree dififerent sorts

' of people, the Lutherans, the Zuinglians, and themselves. — Calvin's pride uid passion. — ^His genius compared with that of Luther. — The reason why ne did not appear at the Conference of P<Hssy. — There Beza presents the Protestants' Confession of Faith: they tack to it a new and long explication of their doctrine about the Eucharist — The Catholics express themselves intelligibly and in few words. — ^What happened with relation to the Augsburg Confession. — Calvin's sentiments.

1.— Ca2vm'< genius. — He subtilizes more than Luther.

Calvin's genius possibly might not have been so well adapted as Luther's was to excite people and inflame their minds: but after these commotions were once set on foot, he raised himself in many countries, in France especially, above even Luther himself, and became the head of a party, which yields but little to that of Luther.

By the pentration of his wit, and the boldness of his decisions, he refined upon, and outstript all his contemporary builders of new churches, and new-reformed the but new Reformation.

S. — Ttoocapit<d pomts of the Reformation, — Caivin*s refinements on both of them. The two points they laid the main stresses upon, were Justification and the Eucharist.

As for justification, Calvin looking upon it as the common foundation of Protestancy, adhered to it at least equally with Litdiert but grafted on it three important articles.

salvation.

In the first place, that certainty which Luther owned for justification only, was by Calvin extended to eternal salvation; that is to say, whereas Luther required no more of the faithful than to believe with an infallible certainty that they were justified; Calvin, besides this certainty of justification, required the like of their eternal predestination: insomuch that a perfect Catvinist can no more doubt of his being saved, than a perfect Lutheran of his being justified.*

So that, were a Calvinist to make his particular confession of faith, he would put in this article, " I am assured of my salvation." We have an example of it. In the Collection of Geneva stands the confession of Prince Frederic III, Count Palatine, and Elector of the Empire. This Prince explaining Son, and the Holy Ghost, when he comes to explain how he believes the Catholic Church, says, "That he believes that God never ceases gathering it together, by his word and Holy Ghost out of the mass of all mankind; and that he believes he is of that number, and ever shall be a living member of it."*!* He adds, he believes " That God being appeased by the satisfaction of Jesus Christ will not remember any of his sins, nor all the wickedness with which I shall," says he, " go on combating through the whole course of my life; but that he will gra- tuitously give me the justice of Jesus Christ, insomuch that / have no reason to apprehend the judgments of God, Lastly, I know most certainly," continues he, " that I shall be saved, and shall appear with a cheerful countenance before the tribunal of Jesus Christ." There spoke a true Calvinist, and these are the true sentiments inspired by Calvin's doctrine, which this Prince had embraced.

can be lost.

Thence followed a second dogma, that whereas Luther allowed that a justified believer might fall from grace, as we have observed in tiie Augsburg Confession, Calvin maintains, on the contrary, that grace once received can never be lost: so that, whoever is justified and receives the Holy Ghost is justified, and receives the Holy Ghost for ever. For which reason the aforesaid Palatine placed amongst the articles of faith, that " he was a living and perpetual member of the Church." This is the dogma called the inamissibility of justice; namely, that doctrine by which it is believed that justice once received never can be lost. This word hath such a sanction from its universal use on this subj'ect, that to avoid multiplying words we must accustom our ears to it.

There was also a third dogma, which Calvin established aa a

corollary from imputed justice, viz., that baptism could not be

necessary to salvation, as the Lutherans maintain.

* Sup. 1. iii n. 38. Instit L 3. 2. n. 16. &c. 24. c. Antid. Con. Trid. iii

the certainty qf Salvatunu

Calvin was of opinion that the Lutherans could not reject these tenets, without destroying their own principles. They require of the believer to be absolutely assured of his justification^ as soon as he asks it, and to trust in the divine goodness, because, according to them, neither his prayer nor trust can admit of-^e least doubt Now, prayer and trust regard salvation no less than justification and forgiveness of sins; for we pray for our salvation, and hope to obtain it as much, as we pray for the forgiveness of sins, and hope to obtain it: therefore we are as much assured of the one as of the other.

If, then, we believe, that we cannot miss of salvation, we must therans who teach the contrary.

Again^ if we are justified by faith alone, Baptism is neither necessary in fact nor desire. For which reason Calvin will not admit that it works in us forgiveness of sins, or infusion of grace, but is a seal only, and token, that we have received ^m.

10. — The ameequence from this Doctrine, that the Children of the Faithfld are

bom in Grace*

It is certain, diat whosoever says these things ought also to say that infants enjoy grace independently of baptism. Nor did Calvin make any difficulty of owning it. This made him broach that novelty, viz., that the children of the faithful were bom in the Covenant, that is, in that sanctity, which baptism did no more than seal in them; an unheard-of doctrine in the Church, but necessary for Calvin, in order to support his principles.

The foundation of this doctrine, according to him, is in that promise made to Abraham, I will be ** thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee." Calvin maintained* that the new alliance^ ho less efficacious than the old, ought, for this reason, to pass like that from father to son, and be transmitted the same way; whence he concluded that, the substance of baptism, that is, its not be refused them; to wit, the Sacrament of baptism;" a doctrine by him held so certain, that he inserted it into his Catechism in the same terms I have now worded it, and in full as strong, into the form of administering baptism.

12. — Why Cdvin is looked upon as the *iuthor </ ^he thru preeedeni Dogmsu,

not mean to say he was the first that ever taught them ; for the

Anabaptists, and others^ too, had maintained them before, either

in the whole, or in part ; but I only say he gave them a new

turn* and showed better than any one else the conformity they

have with imputed justice.

faaiher astray.

For my part, I cannot help thinking that, in these three arti* cles, Calvin argued more consequently than Luther ; but withal, run himself into greater difficulties, as must necessarily happen to those who reason on false principles*

If, in Luther's doctrine, a great difficulty result from man's being assured of his justification, there is a much greater one, and which exposes human weakness to a more dangerous temptation, m being assured of his Salvation.

Nay, by saying the Holy Ghost and justice can no more bo lost than faith, you oblige the faithful, once justified, and persuaded of their justification, to believe, that no crime, be it ever so great, can cause them to fall from this grace.

In fact, Calvin maintained,^ that, <' upon losing the fear of use of were indeed extraordinary: for he said, faith '* was overwhelmetl, buried, smothered; that the possession of it was lost, that is to say, the feeling and knowledge of it." But after all this he added, " it was not extinct."

An uncommon subtlety is requisite, to reconcile all these words of Calvin; but the truth is, willing as he was to maintain his tenet, he could not but allow something to that horror in man, of owning justif3ring faith in a soul that has lost the fear of God, and fallen into the worst of crimes.

16. — Difficulty of that doctrine which teaches that Children are bom in Grace. If to these three points you join also that doctrine which teaches that the children of the faithful bring grace with them into the world at their birth, what a horror must this raise ! it following necessarily from thence, that the whole posterity of every true believer is predestinated ! The demonstration is obvious, according to Calvin's principles. Whosoever is bom of |l believer, is born in the covenant, and consequently, in grace ; whosoever has once had grace, can never lose it ; if he has it not only for himself, but also necessarily transmits it to his whole posterity) we have then grace extended to infinite generations. If so much as one true believer be found in a whole lineage, all the descendants of this person are predestinated. If so much as oae be

vm for drawing these eontequencee.

But the horrid consequences of Calvin's doctrine condemn no less the Lutherans than the Calvinists; and if these last are not to be excused for running themselves into such dreadful straits* the former are not less blameworthy for laying down the principles* whence such consequences so clearly follow. ^

Notwithstanding that the Calvinists have embraced these three dogmas* as a groundwork of the Reformation* the respect they have for the Lutherans* if I am mot mistaken* has been the cause that, in their confessions of faith,* they rather insinuated than expressly established the two first tenets* namely* the certainty of salvation, and the inamissibility of justice. An authentic declaration of them was no where made, properly speaking* till in the Synod of Dort; it shall appear in its own place. As for the dogma, which owns, in the children of the faithful, grace inseparable from their birth, we find it in the Catechism which I have quoted verbatim, and in the form of administering baptism.

their principks.

However, I will not aver that Calvin and the Calvinists are very steadfast in this last tenet. For although they say on the one hand, that the children of the faithful are bom in the covenant, and the seal of grace, which is baptism, is not due to them, but because the thing itself, namely, grace and regeneration, is acquired to them by their being happily bom of faithful parents; it appears on the otiier hand, they will not allow that the children of the faithful are always regenerated when they receive baptism, and this for two reasons: the first, because, according to their maxims, the seal of baptism hath not its efiect with regard to the predestinated; the second, because the seal of baptism works not always a present efiect, even with regard to the predestinated, since such a person may have been baptized in his infancy who was not regenerated till old age.

These*%wo doctrinal points are taught by Calvin in several places,! but particularly in the agreement he made in 1554, between the Church of Geneva and that of Zurich. This agreement contains the doctrine of both these churches; and being

* Conf. de Fr. Alt. 18-23. Cat Dim. 18-20. Cat Dim. 5a Forme du Bapt 5. n. 11.

received by bodi, it has the full authority of a confession of faith insomuch that the two aforesaid points of doctirine being there expressly taught, they may be reckoned among the articles <^ faith of the Calvinistic Church.

It is then plain, this Church teaches two things that are contradictory. The first, tiiat the children of the faidiful are certainly bom in the covenant and in grace, which implies a necessary obligation of giving them baptism: the second, that it is not certain they are bom in the covenantor in grace, since no one knows whether he be of the number of the predestinated.

There is besides a great inconsistency in saying, on the one

side, that Baptism, of itself, is a certain sign of grace, and on

the other, that many of those who receive it without putting any

obstacle on their part to the grace it offers them, (as in the case

of iniants,) yet receive from it no effect. But leaving to Calvinists the trouble of reconciling their own jarring tenets, I rest

satisfied with relating what I find in their confessions of faith.

Hitherto Calvin soared above the Lutherans, but fell withal much lower than they had done. On the subject of the Eucharist, he not only raised himself above them, but also, above the Zuinghans, and, by the same sentence, condemned both parties, which, for so long a time, had divided the whole Reformation.

They had disputed for fifteen years successively on the article of the Real Presence without ever being able to agree, whatever could be done to reconcile them, .when Calvin,* then but young, made himself umpire, and decided that they had not understood each other, and that the heads of both parties were in the wrong; Luther, for too much pressing the corporeal Presence: Zuinglius and CEcolampadius, for not having sufficiently expressed that the thing itself, that is, the Body and Blood; were joined to the sign; a certain Presence of Jesus Christ in the Supper, which mey had not sufficiently comprehended, being to be acknowledged.

by his Treatise on the Suipper,

This work of Calvin was printed in French in 1640, and afterwards translated into Latin by the author himself. He had already gained a great repute by hb Institutions, which he published, for Hie first lime, in 1634, and which afler that he made.

frequent editions of, witfar considerable additions, being extremely particular in pleasing himself, as he says in bis. prefaces. But men's eyes were more turned upon him, when they saw one, 80 little advanced in age, undertake to condemn the Chiefs of. both parties of the Reformation, and the whole world was big with expectation of the novelty he was going to produce.

This is, indeed, one of the most memorable points of the new

Reformation, and deserves the mo^e to be considered, die nuelre

it seems forgotten by the Calvinists now-a-days, althou^ it

makes one of the most essential parts of their coniession'Of &ith.

27. — Cahin is not content teith receiving a sign in the Supper.

If Calvin had only said, {hat the signs in the Eucharist are not empty, or that the union we there have with Jesus Christ is effective and real, and not imaginary, this would be nothing: we have seen that Zuinglius and CEcolampadius, whom Calvin was not quite satisfied with, had said altogethef as much as that in their writings. The graces we receive by the Eucharist, and the merits of Jesus Christ applied to us therein, suffice to make us understand, that, in this Sacrament, the signs aip not empty, and none ever hath denied but the fruit we gather from it is very real.

2S. — ^ol even an efficacious sign^

The difficulty then lay, no^ in discovering to us how grace, united to the sacrament, became an efficacious sign, and nillof virtue, but in showing how the Body and Blood were effectually communicated to us in this Sacrament: for this was the thing peculiar to this Sacrament, and what all Christians were accustomed to look for in it, by virtue of the words of the institution.

To say that, together vrith the figure, the virtue and merit of

fully said by Zuinglius and CEcolampadius, that Calvin could

have found nothing wanting in their doctrine, had he not required

something more than this.

30. — C(dv$h?s do^rine partakes something of that of Bucer and the ati^^es nf

Wittenberg.

Bucer, whom he acknowledged, in some measure, for liis master, by ^enfesang, as he had done at the Wittenberg agreement, a Substantial Presence common to all communicants, worthy and unworthy, thereby established a Real Presence independent of faitht and had endeavored to come up to the idea of reality, with which the words oC our Saviour naturally fill the mind. But Calvin thought he said too much;* and although he

approved of producing to the Lutherans the articles of Wittenberg, in order to show that the quarrel relatmg to the Eucharisl was concluded by them, yet he did not^ in his heart, abide by

wwds, " This is my Body/*

"To understand the principle of it, it will be necessary to trace back in a few words the state of the question, and not fear repeating something of what has been already said on this subject. The matter in question was to loiow the sense of these words, ♦• This is my Body, this is my Blood." Catholics maintained, the design of our Saviour was thereby to give us his Body and Blood to eat, as, in the old liiw, the flesh of the Victims, sacrificed for the people, was given to them.

As this manducation was to the ancients a ^gn that the victim was theirs, and that they pcutook of the sacrifice; so the Body and Bipod of our Saviour, sacrificed for us, being given us to take by the mouth with the Sacrament, are to us a sign that they are ours, and that it was for us the Son of God made a sacrifice of them on the cross.

To the end that this pledge of the love of Jesus Christ might be certain and efficacious, it was requisite we should not only have the merits, the spirit, and the virtue, but also the proper substance of the sacrificed victim, and that it should be as truly given us to eat, as the flesh of die victims had been given in the Jewish dispensation.

Thus were these words understood, " This is my Body given for you, this is my Blood shed for you,"* viz.. This is as truly my Body, as it is true this Body was given for you; and as truly my Blood, as it is true this Blood was shed for you. By the same reason, it was understood that the substance of this flesh and blood was given to us no where but in the Eucharist, since Jesus Christ said no where else, *' This is my Body, this is my Bk)od."

Now, we receive Jesus Christ many ways dirough the whole course of our fives, by his grace, by his illuminations, by his Holy Spirit, by his Omnipotent virtui^ ; but this singular manner of receiving him, in tiie proper and true substance of his Body and Blood, was peculiar to die Eucharist.

Thus was the Eucharist looked upon as a new miracle, which

confirmed to us all the others which God hath wrought for our

8lyatioa. A human body, whole and entire, given in so mai^

places, to so numy people^ under the species of btead, was

enoiigb to startle every mind, and we have already seeiif thai

the Fathers made use of the most surprising e£^ts of the

Divine Omnipotence, to explain this by.

Little would have availed so great a miracle wrought in our behalf, had not God afforded us &e means of reaping advantage from it, and this we could not hope for, but by faith.

This mystery was, nevertheless, like all the rest, independent of faith. Believe or not believe it, Jesus Christ took flesh, Jesus Christ died, and oflered himself a sacrifice for us; and by the same reason, whether we believe it or not, Jesus Christ does give us the subst^ce of his Body to be eaten in the Eucharist; for it was requisite he should, by that, confirm to us that it was for us he took it, and for us he sacrificed it: the tokens of the divine love, in themselves are independent of our faith; our faith is only requisite to receive the benefit of them.

At the same time that we receive this precious earnest, certifying to us that Jesus Christ sacrificed is wholly ours, we must apply our minds to this inestimable testimony of the divine love. And as the ancients eating the sacrificed victim, were to eat it as sacrificed, and remember the oblation, which had been made to G od, in sacrifice for them; those likewise who, at the holy table, receive the substance df the body and blood of the lamb immaculate, must receive it as sacrificed, and call to mind that the Son of God had made a sacrifice of it te his Father, for the salvation, not only of the whole world in general, but also of each one of the faithful in particular; for which reason, when he said, ^* This is my body, this is my blood!"^ he subjoined immediately after, '* This do in remembrance of me;'' that is, as the sequel makes appear, in remembrance of me sacrificed for you, and of that immense chari^ which made me lay down my life for your redemption, conformably to the saying

We must therefore be very careful not to receive only the sacred hody of our Saviour into our bodies; we must also unite ourselves to it in mind, and remember that he gives us his body, to the end that we ms^ have e certain pledge that this sacred victim is wholly ours. But wliilst we stir up this pious reflection in our minds, we -ouglit to enter into the sentiments of an afiectionate acknowledgment to our Saviour; and this is the only means of perfectly enjoying this inestimable pledge of our isalvation.

Jldid although the actual reception of dits body and blood be

not allowed us but in certain moments, namely, in communion, our thankfulness is not confined to so short a time; and ^e having received tiiis sacred pledge at certain moments, is enough to perpetuate the spiritual enjoyment of so great a good through all the moments of our lives. For though the actual reception of the body and blood be but momentary, yet the right we have to receive it is peipetucd; like to tiiat sacred right one has over another by the bond. of marriage. Thus the mind and body unite themselves to enjoy their Saviour, and the adorable substance of his body and blood; but as the union of bodies is the foundation, that of minds is the perfection of so great a work. Whoever, tiierefore, does not unite himself in mind to Jesus Christ, whose sacred body he receives, enjoys not as he ought so great a gift; like to tbose brutal and treacherous spouses who unite bodies without uniting hearts.

34. — The hody and mind tnust be vnited to Jesus Christ Jesus Christ wishes to find in Us that love with which he abounds at his approach. When he finds it not, the union of bodies is not less real ; but, instead of being firuitful, it is odious and insulting to the Son of God. Those who draw near to his body without tins lively faith, are ** the crowd that press him ;'^ those that have this faith are the sick woman '* that touches him."* All touch him, rigorously speaking; but those who touch him without fiiith, press and importune him : those who, not content with touching him, look up<Hi this touch of his flesh as an earnest of that virtue which goes out of him unto those 11^0 love him, touch him truly, because they touch alike Mi heart and body.

This it is which makes the difference between those who eommunicate, discerning, or not discerning, the body of the Lord; receiving, with the body and blood, the grace which ac companies them naturally, or rendering themselves guilty of ^e Christ exercises on all tbut almightiness given to him in heaven and on eardi, applying to himself, to some as a Saviour, to others as a rigorous judge.

This is what was necessary to be re-considered concerning the mystery of the Eucharist, in order to understand what I have now to say ; and it is plain, 'the state of the question is to know, on the one hand, whether the gift which Jesus Christ bestows upon us in the Eucharist of his body and blood be a mystery, like the rest, independent of faith in its substance, and

M

ak>oe wii^KHit any thing else intervening on his part but ^piiitual promises^ figured by the Sacrament, and announced by tbe woid. By the first of these sentiments the real and substantial peesence 19 estabbsbed; by the sepopd^ it is.denied thait Jesus Clidst i no way uniled lo us,, exc^ ka figure in the Sacramento and in

We have seen that Luther^ whatever design he m^t have lo reject ^ Substantial Presence, had fcom the words of our it up. We have seen that Zuinghus and CEeolampadius^ <Ksheartened at the impenetrable lofliness of a mystery so far laised above our senses, could never enter into it. Calvin,, urged on the one side wkh the impression c^ reality, and on the other with the difficulties which thwart our senses, seeks a middle way, difficult enough to make agree in all its parts* 37.— Hour strongly Ccdvin speaks of the rea^ty.

true body aod bloed of Jesus Christ; and this he expressed with such energy, that the Lutherans almost beheved he sided with them: for he repeats a hundred and a, hundred times, that *^ Truth must be given us,, together with the signs,. &at under these signs we truly receive the body and blood or Jesus Cbnst; that the flesh of Jesus Christ is distribute in the Sacrament;. that it penetrates us; that we sure partakers, not only of th& spirit oi Jesus Christ, but also, of his flesh; that we have th& proper substance,, and are madp partakers oT it: that Jesu Christ unites himself to us whole andi entire,, and for that end unites himself to us in body and mind; that we must not doubi but we receive his proper body; and if tbere be eoe in the world Uiat confesses this trutlx sinc^ely, he is the maou.^'

He not only acknowledges in the Supper, ^The vktoe of the body and blopd,, but will have the substance j<Nned to it;" and declares,*!* when he speaks of the manner of receiving: Jesus Christ in the Supper, he means not to speak of the parts yoa there have: ** In his merits, in his. viirfeue,^ in his efficacy, in the firuit of his death,, in his pc^er.'' Calvin rejects aU these ideas^ and complsdns of the Lutherans, wbo, says he, reproaching of Jesus Chnst, ^Marken the communion which he reqdires wo should have with him.'' He. cainries hies thought so far, tha^t h

* Inattt l&yiv. c 1 7. n. 17,&c Diluc. Ezpoa Adm. oont Wealp. int.opipe.4EC^ t Tr. de Coen. Doniini, 1540. Int. opusc Inst iv. xvi 18, &c. &c. DUuc

exchides eten as insufficient all the union that may tie had widi Jesus Christ, not aoly by the imagination, hut also by the diought, or by the sole apprehension of the mind. ^ We are," says he, *' united to Jesus Christ, not by fancy and imagination,

Yet he still says we are united to him only by faith, which but little agrees with his other expressions; but the thing is, from a notion as odd as it is novel, he will not have that which is united to us by faiths be united to us barely by thought; as if faith were any thing else than a thought or an act of our minds, divine indeed and. supernatural, which the Heavenly Father alone can inspire, but still a thought.

40.-^Cdvfn requires the proper aubtianee.

There is no knowing what all these expressions of Calvin

mean,* if they do not signify that the flesh of Jesus Christ is in

us, not only by its virtue, but in itself, and by its proper sub*

stance ; nor are these strong expressions only to be found in

Calvin's books, but also in his Catechisms, and the confession

of faith which be gave to his disciples, wfaidi shows how literacy

they are to be understood.

Zuittf iius and CEcolarapadius had often objected to Catholics and Lutherans that we received the body and blood of Jesus Christ as the anciejtt Hebrews renceived them in the desert; whence it followed thai we receive them not in substance, their substance not existing ^en, but in spirit only. But Calvinj* jcannol suffer^ this reasoning, and owning that our fathers re eeived Jesus Christ in the desert, he maintains ^ey did not re* eeive him like us, sioee we now have ^* the substance of Ins flesh, and our manducati<ia k subitaatial, which that of the ancients could not be4"

, Secondly, he teadies that this body once offered for us,| " Is given <o # in the Supper to ascertain to us that we have part m naturally speaking, is as much as to say, we must distinguish jpiur faith which renders Jesus Christ present to us in the £• >chs^rist, hut that Jesus Christ, otherwise present as a sacred pledge of divine love, serves as a support to ov^r faith, For as

{Cat Dim. 52.

27*

Aat he loved our nature, we own bis incarnation as independent ef cwr faith, andy withal, as means given us whereby to support it; in like manner, to teafch that Jesus Cbhst gives us his hody^ m the sacrifice he made of them in truth, is owning that the body and blood are given us, not because we believe, but to the sod that our faith, being excited by so great a present,, may rest more assured of the divine Love, which by such an earnest we are made certain of. Hereby, then, it appears manifestly that the gifl of the body and blood is indepeadent of faith in the ss^ crament; and Calvin's doctrine lea4 us to this conchision by another way.

For he says in the third place,* and repeats it frequently, that ** the Holy Supper is composed of two tl^gs, or that there are two thitigs ia this Sacrament, the material bread ami the wine iduch we behold with our eyes^ and Jesus Christ, wherewith in the Wittenburg agreement. Luther and the Lutherans had taken them from a famous passage of St Iiensausrwhereia it i said that the ^ Eucharist is composed d a cdestial and a terres* stance of bread as that of the body. This explanation of theirs was disputed by the Catholics; and, without entering here into this eontroven^ against iibe Luthefaas, if to thea tlus expkuii^ tion seemed contrary to Catholic transubstantiation, it manifesdy overthrew the Zuinghan figure, and at least established Luther's consubstandatioe: for to say we have in the Saaramenty^aame^K:^ in the sign itself, the thing terrestrial together with the c^estial,. ^t is, according to the Lutherans' sense, the mattmal bread with tlie very body of Jesus Christy is manifestly placing hotk substances together i but to say ^at die sacrament is composed of bread, wluich we see before our eyes, and of Jesus Clurist, 4iiio is in the higlbest heavens, at the right hand of him. Father,, would be an expression completely extravagant. They must

It is to tills that expression tends which we find ia Calvia,. ** that under the sign of the bread we take the body, and under the sign of the wine we take the blood, distinctly one fi'om the other, to the end we may enjoy Jesus Christ whole and entire.''

^Inst Kb. tv. c. 17. n. 11. 14 Catecfa. Dim. 53. Sap. lib. n. 83. Lib. iv.c. 34

And the t^ng here most, remarkable is, that Calvin says* the body of '' Jesus Christ is under the bread, as the Holy Ghost is under the dove;" which necessarily imports a substantial presence, nobody doubting but the Holy Ghost was substantially present under the form of the dove, as, in a particular manner* God ever was when he appeared under some figure.

The words he makes use of are precise: " we do not pretend," says he, "that a symbolical body is received; as it was not a symbolical spirit which appeared in ^ baptism of our Lord: the Holy Ghost was then truly and substantially present; but he rendered himself present by a visible symbol, and was seen in the baptism of Jesus Christ, because he truly appeared under the symbol, and under the external form of the dove."

If the body of Jesus Christ is as present to us under the

bread as the Holy Ghost was present under the form of a dove,

I know. not what more can be desired for a real and substantial

presence. And Calvin says all these things in a work, wherein

he purposes to explain more clearly than ever how Jesus Christ

Is received, since he says them after having long disputed with

the Lutherans on this subject, in a book which bears this title,

^* A clear Exposition of the manner how we.partake of the body

of our Lord."

bread, as God was in the ark.

In the same bdo^k he says^l ** Jesus Christ i present in the sacrament^ as God was present in the ark, where," says he, ^he rendered himself truly present^ and not only in figure, but in his proper swbstance." Thus, when this mystery is very clearly and very plainly to be spoken of, expressions are oatu-^ nfiy employed, which lead the mind to the Real Presence.

And it is for this reason, in the fourth place, that Calvin says

herst} Mkd evety where else, that he disputes not of the thing,

kilt only of the manner. " I dispiite not," aays he, " about the

presence, nor the substantial mandocation^but about the maimef

^k of the one and the other.^* He repeats, a hu&drefi times

over, that he agrees to the thing, and only questions which way

it is accomplished. AU his disbiples speak the same language,

^ body of Jesus Christ, according to tlieir faith, is not as sub*

stantially with them, as, accordmg to ours, it is with us ; which

shows that it is a dictate of the spirit of Christianity to make

Jesus Christ as present in the Euchariat as possible, and that

t Ibid. I Inst, et Opusc. p. 77.7, et aeq. pp. 839, 844^ eU^

Thence it comes, fifthly, that Calviii admits of a presence that who are angry when you speak to them of a miracle in the Sup* per: on the contrary, he is vexed when you tell him there is none. He is continually repeating that the mystery of the £u charist surpasses the senses; that it is an incomprehensible work of the divine power; a secret impenetrable to the mind of man; that words are wanting to express his thoughts; and his thoughts, though greatly transcending his expressions, fall far beneath the summit of this unutterable mystery: ** insomuch,'* says he, ^* that he rather experiences what this union is, thsin understands it:" which shows he feels, or thinks he feels, the effects, but the cause is above his reach. Accordingly, he inserts in the Confession of Faith,! '^ that this mystery, by its loftiness, surpasses the measure of our senses, and the whole order of nature; and, forasmuch as it is celestial, cannot be apprehended, that is, comprehended, but by faith." And laboring to explain, in the Catechism,^ how it is possible that ** Jesus Christ should make us partakers of his proper substance, considering that his body is in heaven, and we oh earth, he answers, ** This is done by the incomprehensible virtue of his spirit, which, indeed, conjoins things separated by distance of place.**

A philosopher would easily comprehend that the divine po^nrer is not confined within the limits of place: the meanest capacities understand how they may be umted in spirit and. in though|> to what is most distant from tbeoi; and Calvin, leadixig us by his expressions Jto a more miraculous union, either speaks without meaning, or expludes the union by faith alone.

in the Eucharist which is neither in baptism nor preaclong, maes he says in the Catechism, ^* That al^iough Jesus Christ be ^ercni truly communicated to us, nevertheless, it. is hut in part, and not fully;" which shows that he is otherwise gives to us in ths Supper than by faith, since &ith^ being as Uvely and perfect im in the Eucharist t

What he adds^ in order to expkun this fulnese, is yet strongefr,

lor there it is he says what has been already cited, that ** Jesiis

Chtist gives us his body and blood, to ascertain to us that we

teceive the fruit thereof." Here then is that fulness whiok wo

receive la the Eilclianst, and not in baptism or preaching: whence it follows, that faith alone does not give us the body and blood of our Saviour; but that this body and blood being given to us af^er a special manner in the Eucharist^ ascertain to us, ta wit, give us a certain, faith* that we have part in the sacrifice which was made of them.

Lastly, what Calvin lets fall, speaking even of the unworthy, makes appear how far a miraculous presence, independent of fiuth, is to be believed in this Sacrament: for, although what ke most inculcates is,* that the unworthy not having faitibi, Jesus Christ is ready to come to them, but does not come in eflfect, the force of truths nevertheless, obliges lam to say, that ^ He is titdy offered and given to all those who are seated at the holy ta^e* although he be not received with fniit, but by the faithful' enly,'^ which is the very way of speaking that we employ.

In order ^n to understand the trvth of the mystery which

Jesus Clurist works in the Eucharist, it must be believed that

his proper body is therein truly offered md given, even to the

unworthy, and is also received, although not received with fruit :

^f^itoh cannot be true, if it be not also true, that what is given

us in this Sacrament is the proper body of the Son of God, in^

52. — Contimtatum qf Catvm^t txpreaafons canummg the Communion of the

vnvforthy,

Calvin confirms this again in Buother place, where he writes thus:f '' In this consists the integrity of the Sacrament, which the whole world cannot violate^ to witi^ that the fiesh and blood of Jesus Christ are as truly given to the unworthy as to the faithful and electa" Whence it follows, that what is given them is the flesh and blood of the Son of God independently of faith, since it is certain, according to Calvin, that they have not faith, or at least do qot exercise it in this state.

Thus have Catholics reason to say, that what makes the sacred gift, which we receive in the Eucharist^ be the body and blood of Jesus Christ, is not the faith we have in his word, but the word alone by its all-powerful energy: insomuch that faith adds nothing to the truth of the body and blood, but only makes them profitable to us; and nothing is more true than ^s saying of St* Augustin,| that the Eucharist is not less ^^Jhe body of our Lord to Judas, than to the rest of the Apostles."

by the unworthy.

The comparison which Calvin makes use of in the same place

X Au^. Serai, xi. deyerb, Doo^

Still more strengthens the reality: for, after having said of the body and blood, what we have just seen, *^That they are not less given to the unworthy than to the worthy," he adds, tius happens alike as with rain, ** which, falling on a rock, runs off without penetrating: in like manner," says he, ** the impious repel the grace of God, and hinder its penetrating into tfiem."^ Observe, he here speaks of the body and blood, which, by coa-~^ sequence, must be given to the unworthy, as really as rain &fis upon a rock. As to the substance of the rain, it falls no less on rocks and barren places, than on those where it fructifies; and so, according to this comparison, Jesus Christ muist be no less substantially present to the obdurate than to the faithful who receive his Sacrament, though only in these it fructifies. The people who press him in the Gospel, and the faithfiil, who re^ ceive him worthily, are fiiat pious woman that touches him. If we consider the body only, all touch him alike: bat ^re is reason to say, those who touch him witl^ faith alone touch him truly, because the^ only touch him fruitfully. Can one speak in this manner, widiout owning Jesus Christ is most realty pres* ent both to the one and the other, and that these words, ** this is

I am well aware that when Calvin speaks thus strongly of the body being given to the impious as truly as to saints,;^ he, nevertheless, distinguishes betwixt giving and receiving; and that, in the same place, where he says, the flesh of Jesus Christ ** is as truly given to the unworthy as to the elect," he hath also said that it is not received, except by the elect alone; but this is an abuse of words. For, if he means that Jesus Christ is not received by the unworthy in the same sense that St. John has said in the Gospel, ** He came unto his own, and his own received I

him oot,"§ that is, believed not in him, he is in the right But as those who received not Jenus Christ after this manner, did not hiijider, by their infidelity, his coming as truly to them as to the rest ; nor did they hinder '* the word made flesh to dwell among us," II from being truly received, with regard to his per* sonal presence, in the midst of the world, nay, even in the midst of the world that knew him not and crucified him : in like manner must it be said, to speak consequently, that these words, ** this is my body," render him not less present to the unwortl^, who are guilty of his body and blood, than to the worthy woo

'*' Inst lib. iy. c. 17. n. 33. 8. Def. opusc. p. 781.

j Dilic Exn. opusc p. 84a 1 Inst, fib. iv. o.^, n. S9.

§Jahnlir^ '^ (Ibid,

IX.] THB VARIATIONS, ETC. $2S

approach them with faith; and barely with respect to the cor* poreal presence, he is equally received by both.

I shall here observe one word of Calvin's, which vindicated us from a reproach he^ and his followers are continually laying at our door. How often do they object to us these words, ** The flesh profiteth nothing?" and yet Calvin explains them thus,* ** The flesh profiteth nothins, of itself alone, but it profiteth together with the spirit." "[Hiis is exactly what we say and what ought to be concluded from these words: not that Jesus Christ does not give us the proper substance of his flesh Mependently of our faith, for he has given it, even according to Calvin, to the unworthy; but, that it profiteth nothing to receive his flesh, if it be not received together with his spirit And if his 8{Hnt be not always received together with his flesh, this is oot because it is not always there, for Jesus Christ comes to us fuir of spirit and grace; but because, in order to receive that spirit which he brings, ours mtist be opened by a lively faith.

the carcass of Jesus Christ

It is not, therefore, a body without a soul, or, as Calvin speaks, a " carcass," which we midte the unworthy receive, when they receive the sacred flesh of Jesus Christ without profiting: no more than it is a carcass and a body without soul and spirit, which Jesus Christ gives them, even in the sentiments of Calvin himself, f It is but a vain exaggeration to call tidat body a car* cass, which is known to be animated; for Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, dies now no more; he hath life in him, and not only fliat lifb which makes the body live, but that life also which enlivens the soul. Jesus Christ, wherever he comes, carries with him life and grace. He brought with, and in him, his whole virtue with respect to the crow49 that thronged about him; but *^ this virtue went not forth," but in behalf of that woman who touched him with faith. So, when Jesus. Christ gives hims^f to the unworthy, he comes to them with the same virtue and spirit which h^ sheds on the faithful; but this virtue and spirit must Bj^nk the same things we do, to speak consequently.

But, it is very true, he does not speak fliem. True, that, aK*

though he says we are partakers of the prefer substance of the

body and blood of Jesus Christy he will Iwve this substimce only

united to us by faith ; and after all, in spite of these great wohis

X

of Proper Substance, his design is, to own nothing ielse in the Eucharist but a presence of virtue.

It is true, likewise, that afler he had said,^ we are partakers of the " proper substance" of Jesus Christ, he refuses to say, *' he is really and substantially present;" as if the participation were not of like nature with the presence, and the proper substance of a thing could ever be received when it is present only by its virtue.

58. — He dudts the mirade which he owns in the Supper.

himself is sensible he is obliged to own in the Eucharist; it ist said he, an incomprehensible secret, a miracle surpassing aM sense and understsuiding of man* And what is this seccet, this miracle? Calvin thinks he has expressed it in these words if ** Is it reason which teaches us, that the soul, immortal and spiritual by its creation, is enlivened by the flesh of Jesus Christ, and that so powerful a virtue flows from heaven on the earth 1^ But he deludes us and himself too. The singular miracle which the Holy Fathers, and, afler them, all Christians ever believed in the Eucharist, does not regard that virtue precisely which the flesh of Jesus Christ derives from the incarnation. The miracle consists in the verifying of these words, ** this is my body," when nothing but mere bread appears to the eye, and in the giv ing the same body, at the same time, to so many different per sons. It was in order to explain these incomprehensible wonders, that the Fathers alleged all the other miracles of the divine power, the changing ofwater into wine, and all the other changes* even that great change which of nothing made all things. But Calvin's miracle is not of this nature, not even a miracle *ht is peculiar to the sacrament of the Eucharist, nor a sequel from these words, "this is my body." It is a miracle which is wrought in the Eucharist and out of the Eucharist, and which, to speak the truth, is what essentially flows from the very mystery of the incarnation.

qf the Eucharist,

Calvin himself was aware that some oflier miracle was to be sought in the Eucharist. He has expressed as much in several places of his works, but particularly in the Catechism:J " How comes itto pass," says he, *nhat Jesus Christ makes us partakers of tka proper substance of his body, considering his body is in heaven, and we on earth.'^ in this consists the miracle of the Oalvinists answer wifli him? That the incomprehensil^ Ttr-> tue of the Holy Ghost, indeed, conjoins.things separated by

♦ 2 Defena. opuac p. 775. f Diluc Exp. optuc. 845. J Dun. 53.

and say^ the Holy Ghost can every where render present what he has a mind to give in substance? I understand him, and ac* knowledge the true miracle of the Eucharist. Would he sagf that things separated, and remaining separated as far as heaven is from earth, are, nevertheless, united, substance to sabtance I This is,no miracle of the Almighty^ but a chimerical and contradictory proposition, which nobody can understand.

But in reality, to speak the truth, neither Calvin nor the Cal^ viaists do admit of any miracle in the Eucharist. A presence by faith, and a presence by virtue, is not miraculous; the sun has as much virtue, and produces as great efiects, at as great a distance. If, therefore, Jesus Christ be only present in virtue, there can be no miracle in the Eucharist; for which reason the Swiss, men naturally sincere, who have no other use for words than to speak just as they think, would never hear it mentioned. Calvin, in (his more penetrating, very well saw with all the Fathers and all the faithful, that, in these words, '* this is my body," there was as clear a mark of omnipotence, as in these *' let there be light.'' To answer this idea, it was necessary, at least, to sound high the name of a miracle; but in the main, T ^nfound the laws of nature, that a body cannot be in several ^places, nor be given us whole and entire under the form of a morsel of bread? Is not this reasoning derived from philosophy t Undoubtedly; and, nevertheless, Calvin, who all along employs it, declares in many places,^ *' that he will not make account," but of Scripture only. And why 1 because, on one hand, he cannot divest himself of them, nor so far raise himself. above man as to despise them; and, on the other hand, he is very sensible that receiving them in matters of religion, is not only destroying the mystery of the Eucharist, but all the mysteries of Christianity at once.

sense.

The same confusion appears when these words, ** This is my Body," are to he explained. All his books, all his sermons, dl his discourses, are full of the figurative interpretation, and the figure metonymy, which puts the sign for the thing. This is ^ the way of speaking, which he calls *' sacramental," which he " will have the Apostles beforehand well accustomed to when < * Diluc Exp. optiac. p. 858,

. my Body," according to him, are all the same ways of speak* log; and this is what you find in every pa^e.

Whether or not he were fully satisfied with this, the following passage will make appear.* It is taken out of a book entitled, * A clear Explanation," already by me quoted, and which was written against Heshusius, a Lutheran minister. **> Behold,^ says Calvin, ^ how this hog makes us speak. In this phrase* This is my Body^ there is a figure like to this;" Circumcision is the Covenant, the Rock was Christ, the Lamb is the Passover. *^ The Forger imagined he was prattling at table, and spending his wit among his guests. Never will such fooleries he found in our writings; but, in plain words, this is what we say, viz. when we talk of Sacraments, a certain and particular way of speaking, usual in Scripture, must be followed. Thus, without escaping under the covert of a figure, we think it enough to say, what would be clear to the vi^iole world, did not these beasts obscure even the sun himself, that the figure meton3nny the sign."

. Had Heshusius fallen into such a contradiction, Calvin/jvouid certainly have told him in plain terms he was drunk; but Calvin^ Was sober, I must own, ^nd when he confounds himself, it.is him. He disowns here what he says through every page; to rejects that figure with contempt which he is forced to belidce himself to again the same moment; in a word, he can slaiid to nothing he says, and is ashamed of his own doctrine.

^^—He 8mo frniher into thmi^tdty than the rest of the Sacramentarians. —

How ke endeavored to clear U,

It must be owned, nevertheless, that he was more exact than the rest of the Sacramentarians, and besides the superiority of his wit, the dispute which had been so long on foot, had given Mm leisure more fully to digest this matter. For he does not stand so much' upon allegories and parables, — I am the door, I 1^, am the vine, — ^nor on other expressions of the like nature, which! always carry their own expositions withlhem so clear and manifest, that a child even could not be mistaken.! And besides, if because Jesus Christ made use of allegories and parables, every ^ng was to be understood in that sense; he plainly saw that would be nothing but filling the. whole gospel with confusion. To remedy this, Calvin J bethought himself of these forms of

♦ Diluc. Exp. opusc p. 861. f Admon. ult ad Westpb. opusc p. 81S. I % Def. opufic* p, 781> etc. ; pp. 812, 813 818, etc

IX.] THE HISTORY OF S27

expression which he calls ** sacramental," wherein &e sign is put for the thing; and, by admitting them in the Edcharist, which^ beyond doubt, is a sacrament, he believes he has found a cetw same into a precedent for other matters.

S4. — The examples which he drew from Scripture, — That of C^eumeisiony

which confutes instead of serving hvn.

He also brought more apposite examples from scripture than any of the Protestant writers before him. The chief difficulty lay in finding out a sign of institution, wherein, at the institution itself, the name of the thing is immediately given to the sign without preparing the mind for it, and this with the proper word by which this sign is instituted. The question was, whether any such example could be found in scripture. Catholics main* tained there could not; and Calvin thought to convince them by this text of Genesis, in which Almighty God, speaking of circumcision which he instit ited, named it the Covenant: — ^" Mj covenant," says he, " shall be in your flesh."* Bpt he was plainly mistaken, since Almighty God, before he had said, ^* my Covenant shall be in your flesh," had said already, " it shall bo tC sign of the covenant." The sign was therefore instituted before the name of the thing was given to it, and the mind, by this exordium, prepared to the understanding of what ensued: ' from whence it follows, that our Saviour should have prepared the minds of the apostles, in order to take the sign for the thingi Jiad he designed to have given this sense to these words,— 7 " This is my Body — this is my Blood;" but having not done this, it is to~be believed he intended to leave the words in their natural and obvious sense. Calvin owns as much himself, since by saying that the apostles ought already to have been accustomed to these sacramental ways of speaking, he owns it would have been incongruous to employ such, had tb^ey not been accustomed to them. As it then manifestly appears they e6uld not be accustomed to give the name of a thing to the sign of institution, without being forewarned, and there being no example of this nature in the Old or New Testament, from Calvin's own principles, it must be concluded against Calvin, that Jesus Chrisl ought not to have spoken in this sense, and had he done it^ hi^ Apostles would not have understood hiiti.

is tdso coiled the Body of Jesus Christ,

And, indeed, the truth is, although he placed his chief strengdi in these ways of speaking, by bim called sacramental, and in all intricacies, ever guided himselfby this elue, he is so litde satisk fied therewithf tluit he says in o^r places, diat the scripturea

# Cte. svii. 13. ita^tu

naming tiie Church the Body of our Lord, is the chief sapport of his doctrine. To make this his chief defence,, shows him, mdeed, conscious of his weakness. Is the Church the sign of our Lord's body,, as Calvin makes the bread to be "i* By no means; she is his body, as he is her head, by that so common a way of speakings by which a whole nation, and the prince who governs them, are represented as a kind of natural body, which hath its head and members. What can then be the reason^ that after Calvin had laid his main stress on these sacramental ways of speaking, he depends still more on a manner of speaking, which is absolutely of another kind: unless it be, that to support a figure of which he stands in need, he calls to. his assistance all the figurative ways of speech, of what natxire soever they be what little coherence soever they may have 1

The rest of his doctrine gives him no less pain, and the violent expressions he makes use of plainly discover it. We have seen how he will have the ffesh of Jesus Christ to penetraie us by its substance. I have taken notice that„ notwithstanding all these great words, he means no more by them, than that it penetrates us by its virtue; but this manner of speaking appearing weak to him, in order to mix the substance therewith>he makes us receive in the Eucharist*! as it were, " an extract of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, upon condition, however, that it remain in heaven, and from its substance life flow down upon us;" as^ if we received the quintessence and the choicest part of his " flesh, the rest abiding in heaven. I will not say he believed it so; but only,, that the grounds of doctrine not being able to supply him wherewith to answer the idea of reality he was so full of, he supplied this defect by far-fetched, unheaxd-of, anct extravagant expressions.

impresses on the mhid.

That I may not here dissemble any part of Calvin's doctrine, concerning the communication which we have with Jesus Christ, I am obliged to say, he seems in some places to make Jesus Christ as present in baptism as in the Supper; few* in general, he distinguishes three things in the sacrament besides *the sign J — ** the signification, which consists in the promises; the matter or the substance, which is Jesus Christ, with his death and resurrection; and the effect, namely, sanctification, kfe eternal, and all the graces which Jesus Christ brings to us." Calvin acknowledges all these things, as well in the Sacrament of Baptism, as in that of the Supper; and he teaches of Bajptisca

♦ Inst iv. 17. t Muc. Expos, apvac p. 864^ J Inst. lib. iv. c xvil n. H^ ,

ent to wash souls, than the water to wash bodies; and, according to St. Paul, we are indeed there clothed with Jesus Christ, and our clothing does not less encompass, than our nourishment penetrates us." Hereby,* then, he openly declares that Jesus Christ is as present in Baptism, as in the Supper; and the coo* sequence from his doctrine, I own, naturally leads him to it; for, after all, he neither admits of any other presence in the Supper than by faith, nor of any faith in the Supper but what is. in Baptism; consequently, I am far from pretending he ad^ mits in it any other presence in effect. What I pretend to show is, the perplexity he is cast into by these words, '^ This is my Body." For either he must confound all mysteries, or he must be able to give a reason why Jesus Christ spoke no where else but in the Supper with this energy. If his body and blood be as present, and as really received every where eke, there was no reason to choose these emphatic words for the £ucharist rather than for baptism; and the eternal wisdom would have spoken in vain. This very thing will be the everlasting and inevitable eonfusion of those who defend the figurative sense. On one side, the necessity of allowing something particular to the £u* charist with respect to the presence of tiie Body; and on the other, the impossibility of doing this, according to their principles, will always involve them in perplexities from which they can never disengage themselves; and to extricate himself was what made Calvin use so many strong expressions relating to the Eucharist, which he never durst apply to baptism, though there was the same reason for doing it, according to his principles.

His expressions are so violent, and the turns he here gives to his doctrine are so strained, that his disciples have been forced to abandon him in the main, nor can I but observe in this plfice a notorious variation in the Calvinistic doctrine; inasmuch as the Caivinists now-a-days, under pretext of interpreting Calvin's words, reduce them to notliing at all. To receive the ^ proper substance of Jesus Christ" is, according to them,'}* nothing else - but receiving him ** by his virtue, by his efficacy, by his merit,'* the very things wh^ch Calvin had rejected as insufficient. All that w ean hope from these great words, **the proper substance" what we there receive, is not the substance of another: but, as for his substance it is no more received, than the substance ot the sun is received by the eye when enlightened by its rays: the meaning of which is, that they are indeed quite strangers now to

, * Diluc. Exp. opusc. p. 864. f Piescrv. p. 195, t IW|d' P ^^

28*

that proper substance so much inculcated hy Calvin. If they defend it, it is only from a point of honor, and lest they should ^em too openly to recant; and if Calvin, who abetted it with so much force in his books, had not also inserted k in the Catechisms and Confession of Faith, it would have long since been quite abandoned.

The same may be said of those words of Calvin and of the Catechism, viz. that Jesus Christ is received fully in the Eucharist, but in preaching and baptism **in part only."* This, naturally understood, implies, that the Eucharist hath something particular in it, which baptism and preaching have not: no such thing; it means now no more, than three are more than two; that, after having received grace by baptism and instruction bj the word, when to all this God adds the Eucharist, grace increases, and is strengthened, and we possess Jeeus Christ more perfectly. Thus, aH the perfection of the Eucharist is its coming^ in the last place; and although, in instituting it, Jesus Christ made use of such particular terms, it hath notlung particular notwithsitandtng, nothing more thsm baptism, unless, perhaps, a new sign; and Calvin^s talking so big of the [nroper substance Was all to no manner of purpose.

By this means, the explanations now given to Calvin's words,

and to those of the Catechism and Confession of Faith, under

the pretext of interpretation, are a real variation in doctrine, and

a proof that the illusions, by which Calvin endeavored to bhnd

subsist.

70. — Wktiher there (e noihiiig tn these passages of Calvin, but bare defects

of expression.

' To cover this manifestly weak side of the sect, it is true, the

Csdvinists answeryf that from these expressions we reproach

them with, at most nothing can be concluded but that,,perchance,

the terms employed by them in explaining their doctrine at the

beginning might not be quite so proper. But to answer in this

manner, is affecting ^at they did not see the difficulty. What

Ought to be concluded froi£ these expressions of Calvin and the

Calvinists is, that the words of our Saviour had, at first, do what

they would, made such an impression of reality on their minds,

as they never could come up to by words, and which, afterwards,

forced them upon expressions, which, having no sense in their

belief, give testimony to ours ; which is not only imposing on

themselves by an erroneous way of speaking, but confessing an

error in the thing itself, and, even in their confession of faitl^

bearing the stamp of their own conviction.

* Dim. 62. Presenr. p 197. j Preseir. Ibid. p. 19i

IX.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. SSI

For instance, when he is forced to say, on one side, that the proper substance of the body and blood of our Lord is received; and on the other, that they ace only received by their virtue, as the sun is received^ by its rays, this is confounding himself and uttering contradictions.

Then again, when he is forced to say on one side^ that the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is as much received, in the Calvinistic supper as in that of the Catholics, and that there is no difference but in the manner; and on the other side, that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are as far distant from the faithful as heaven is from earth, and that a Real and Substantial Presence is, after all, one and the same thing with an absence, at so prodigious a distance; this is a prodigy unheard of in human language, and such expressions only serve to make us see they would fain have it in their power to say, what, according to their own principles, they can^ not say in reason.

72. — Why Heretics are obliged to imitate the language of the Church.

And that I may show once for all, not to come back to it again, the consequence of these expressions of Calvin and the first Calvinists; let us reflect, that never as yet could any heretics be found, that did not affect to speak like the Church. The Arians and Socinians say, as well as we, that Jesus Christ is Ood, but iraproperiy, and by representation, because he acts in. the name of God, and, by God's audiority. The Nestorians make no difficulty of saying, that the Son of God and the Son of Mary are but the same person; but just as an ambassador is the same person with the Prince he represents. Shall we say that they hold the same principles as the Catholic Church, and only differ in the way of expressing their thoughts 1 On the contrary, it will be saidi they speak like her witibout thinking like her, because falsehood is forced at least to mimic truth. With relation to proper substance and such like expressions in the works of Calvin and the Calvinists, the case is just the same.

73.— TA triumph of Truth,

Here we may observe the conspicuous triumph of Catholic verity, inasihuch as the literal sense of the words of Jesus Christ, which we defend, after forcing Luther to maintain it, however contrary to his inclinations, as hath been seen, hath also forced Calvin, who denies it, to confess nevertheless so many things, which make for, and establish it in an invincible manner^

Before I quit this subject, I must observe one passage, in

Calvin,* which affording great room for speculation, I question whether I shall be able to dive to the bottom of it. It concerns the Lutherans, who, without destroying the bread, enclose the body in it. " If," says he, *' whait they pretend, be only this, that, whilst the bread is presented in the mystery, the body is also presented at the same time, because truth is inseparable from its sign, this is what I shall Itot much oppose."

Here is, then, a thing which he neither altogether approves nor disapproves. It is a middle opinion, betwixt his own and the body inseparable froto the sign; by consequence^ independently of faith, siiice it is certain, that, without it, the sign may be received: and what is this else, but the opinion, which I have attributed to Bucer and Melancthon, whereby they admit a Real Presence, even in the communion of the unworthy, and without the assistance of faith; requiring this Presence to accompany the sign as to time, but not to be confined to, or con- tained in it, as to place? This is what Calvin will not much oppose; that 's, he does not much disapprote of a Real Presence inseparable from the sacrament, and independent of faith.

75. — Ceremomis rtjeded^hy Calvin,

I have endeavored to make known the doctrine of this srecond Patriarch of the new Reformation, and persuade myself 1 have discovered what it was that gave him so much authority in that party. It appeared he had new ideas about imputed justice, which was the groundwork of the Reformation, and about the Eucharist w)iich had divided them for so long a time; but there was still a third point, which greatly enhanced his credit among those who valued themselves for men of wit. It was his boldness in rejecting ceremonies much beyond whatever the Luther* ans had done,f for they had made it a law to themselves, to retain those which were not manifestly contrary to their new tenets. But on this head Calvin was inexorable. He condemned Melancthon, who, in his opinion,^ thought ceremonies of too little a concern; and if die worship, introduced by him, appeared to some too naked, 0ven this had anew charm for the men of taste and spirit, who thought thereby to raise themselves above their senses, and soar beyond the vulgar. And because the Apostles had written little on ceremonies, which they wera Reformers, that they adhered with the greatest purity to the letter of Scripture, which in England and Scotland gave them the name of Puritans.

76. — What opinion the other Proteaiants had of the Calvinists,

By this means Calvin refined upon, and outstripped the first authors of the new Reformation., The party which bore his nanfie was hated extremely by all the other Protestants, who looked upon them as the most haughty, restless, and seditious of any that had appealed as yet. There is no need of alleging wh tt has, in several places, been written of them by James 1, Kin':^ of England and Scotland. He makes, nevertheless, an exception in favor of Puritans of other countries, thinking it enough to publishf from his own experience, that he knew none more dangerous, or greater enemies to the regal powej-, than those he had met with in his own kingdoms. Calvin made much progress in France; and this great kingdom, by the attempts of his followers, saw itself on the very brink of ruin: so that he was in France much like what Luther was in Germany: and Wittenberg, which gave the new Gospel its first birth, was rivalled by Geneva, where ruled this head' of the second party of the new Reformation.

77. — Calvin''s pride, - How much smitten he was with this glory, we shall perceive by a few worda he wrote to Mclancthon.* ** I own myself," says he, " much your inferior ; yet am nowise ignorant to wha* a degree God has raised me on this theatre, nor can our friend* as it were, exposed upon a grand theatre, and t'e eyes of all Europe turned upon him ; to see himself advanced to the foremost rank by his eloquence; to be conscious of the name he had acquired, and an authority revered by such a party made Calvin no longer able to contain himself; to him this was too alluring a charm, and it is the same charm that has made all heresiarchs,

It was from a sense of this secret pleasure that, in his answer to Balduinu3,'f his great adversary, he thus expressed himself: *' He tells me, with reproach, that I have no children, and that God has snatched away the 'son he had bestowed upon me. Ought I to be thus reproached? I, who have so many thousancls of children throughout all 'Christendom!" To which he adds, " To all France is known my irreproachable faith, my integrityf my patience, my watchfulness, my moderation, and my assiduous labors for the service of the Church; things that, from my earljr youth, stand proved by so many illustrious tokens. With the support of such a conscience, to be able to hold my statioq to the.very end of life, is enough for me."

* Ep. Calv. p. 195. f Resp. ad ^d. int, opusc Caly. p. 370.

79. — Tht difference between Lvther and Calvin,

example; although) to avoid the ridicule which Luther fell into, he particularly set up for the character of modesty^ as one who had a inind to have it in his power to brag, that '* he w^ with^ out pnde, and feared nothing so much as boasting:"* so that Luther, who was hunied away by the iinpetuosity of his temper,,, ever thoughtless of moderation or itestraint, praised himeelf as it were in transport: but the self-commendations Calvin fell into, in spite of all the laws of modesty which he had set to himself, burst from the centre of his heart, and violently broke through all barriers. How pleasing was he in his own eyes, when he commends so muclit ^^ His own frugality, his incessant labors, Jbis constancy in dangers, his watchfulness to comply with his charge, his indefatigable application to extend the kingdom of Christ Jesus, his integrity in defending the doctrine of piety and the serious occupation of his whole life in the meditation of heavenly things." Nothing Luther ever said came up to thia, nor did the sallies of unbridled passion ever make him say so much as Calvin utters of himself in cold blood,

Nothing delighted him more than the glory of writing well; and Westphalus, a Lutheran, hanng called him a declaimer, *' Do what he will," says Calviti, " nobody will ever give him credit, and the whole world is fully satisfied how well I kaow how to press an argument, and kow dis^nct is that conciseness Mith which I write. "J - >

This is giving to himself, in Aree word^, the i^hole glory that commendation which Luther never arrogated to himself; for though he was one of the sprightliest orators of his age, so far from making it appear that he valued himself for eloquence, he took a pleasure in saying he was a poor monk, bred up in sebools and obscurity, unacquainted with the art of spealung. But Calvin, wounded in this tender part, flies out, and, at the expense of modesty^ cannot forbear saying that nobody dehvera his thoughts more distinctly, or argues mor<i.strongly than himself.

SI, -^Cabnn's eloquence.

Let us then allow him this glory, since he is so fond of it, of

having written as well as any of that age ; nay, if he desires

it, let us even set htm above Luther r for, although Luther bad

something more original and lively, Calvin, inferior in genius,

IX.] ' THE VARIATIONS, ETC. SSA

seems to cany it by dint of study. Luther triumphed in speaking; but Calvin's pen was more correct, especially in Latin; and his style, which was more serious, was also much more c<^pent and more chastened. They both spoke tii^r native language in perfection: the vehemence of both was extraordinary; both gained many disciples ai^ admirers by their talents; . were knpatient <^ contradiction, nor did their eloquence ever flow more copiously than when fraught with contumelies.

Whoever blushed at those expressions idiich Luther's arro^ excesses of Calvin: his adversaries are always knaves, fools, rogues, drqnkards, furies, madmen, beasts, bulls, asses, dogs, swine; and Calvin's fine style is polluted with this filth through every page. Be they Cathdiics or Lutherans, it is all one to him, he spares none. Westpfaalus's school is to him a stinking hog-sty. The Lutherans' supper is almost id ways called a supper of Cyclopes, *' at which a barbarky may be seen becoming Sc3rthians;"* if he is used to say that the devil drives on Papists, he repeats a hundred timesf he has bewitched the ^* Lutherans, and that he cannot comprehend why he, above all others, is assaulted by them, unless it be that Satan, whose vile slaves they are, so much the more urges them on against him, as he sees his labors more useful to the Church than theirs."

The individuals whom he treats thus were the chief and most

renowned among the Lutherans. Amidst these invectives he

still boasts of his sweetness;!{; and after having stuffed his book

with all (hat can l^e imagined, aot only most bitter, but also most

atrocious, he thinks be cornea well off by saying,§ ** That he

was so remote from any gall, when he penned these injurious

taunts, that he himself,' upon reading his work over again, stood.

quite astonished that so much harsh language could have ever

been uttered by him, and his heart still void of bitterness. It

furnished him with all these abusive words, which stood ready

to bolt from him. After all, he is not displeased that these stupid

creatures have, at last, smarted under the lash, and hopes diis

may help to mend them." Yet he does not refuse to own he

has said something more than he would have done, and that the

remedy applied by him was a little too violent. But, after this

modest confession, he indulges his passion more than ever, and

in the very same breath that he interrogates, '< Dog, dost thou

imderstand me? Madman, dost thou comprehend me? Dost

* Opasc p. 799. Ibid. pp. 803, 837. t Diluc. Expos. Ibid. p. 839.

pleased that the cotttmnelies men load him with are not retaliated.''* Luther's passion, compared with this, was meekness itself; and, should k comparison be instituted between them, tiiere is not a man who had not rather stand the brunt of the impetuous and insolent fury of the one, than of the profound and bitter malice of the other, who brags of being cool in the disgorging of such a flow of rancor upon all that come in his waj.

83. — The contempt fu hat for the Fathers. Both of ihem, after their attacks on mortal men, turned their malice against heaven, by openly despising the authority of the Holy Fathers. Every body knows how often Calvin had trampled on their decisions, what a pleasure he took in taking them to task like school-boys, in giving them their lessons, and the outrageous manner whereby he thought to elude their unanimous consent, by saying, for instance,t *' that these good men followed, without discretion, a custom that prevailed without reason, and which was but a little while in getting into vogue."

The subject he then, had in hand was prayer for the dead. All his writings are full of the like discourses. But, in spite of heretical pride, the authority of the Fathers and ecclesiastical antiquity lies weighty on their minds. For all Calvin's avowed contempt of the fathers, he cites them, nevertheless, as witnesses, whose authority it Is not lawful to reject, when, after quoting them, he writes these words: J " What will they say to the ancient Church l will they damn the ancient Church, or will they banish St. Augustin out of the Church?" The very same might be ^retorted on him, regarding the subject of prayer for the dead, and in the rest; where it is certain, and oflen by his own confession, that he hath the Fathers against him. But without entering into this particular dispute, I am satisfied with hav- ing observed that our Reformists are often constrained by thft than their doctrine and inclination carries them to.

85. — Whether Calvin ever varied in his doctrine.

Those who have seen the endless variations of Luther may inquire whether Calvin fell into the same fault. To which I shall answer, that, besides a more coherent way of thinking, he had the advantage of writing a long time after the beginning of the pretended Reformation; so th^t matters having been already much discussed, and doctors having had leisure to digest them, Calvin's doctrine seems more uniform than that of Luther. But, however, we shall see hereafter (whether from a policy usual

IX.] THE YARIATIOKS, ETC. 3S7

lo the heads of new sects to mend and perfect their own worky or, by a necessity common to those who (all into error) that Calvin ulso varied very much^ not only in his own particular writings, but also in the public acts, which he drew in the name of all his followers, or which he inspired them with. And even to go no further, upon considering only what I have already related of his doctrine, we may have seen that it abounds with contradic-^ tions, that he follows not his own principles, and, with great words* says just nothing.

pared with the Catechism and the Confession of France, — 1554.

And if we make never so little reflection on those acts which he framed, or which the Calvinists, with his approbation, published in five or six years' time,* neither he nor they can in any way c:lear themselves of the guik of having expounded their faith with a criminal dissimulation. In 1554, we have seen a solemn agreement made between those of Geneva and Zurich; it was drawn by Calvin, and the common faith of these two Churches is there set forth. ^ Concerning the Supper, no more is said there than that these words, * This is my body,' must not be taken precisely in a literal sense, but figuratively; so that the name of the body and blood is by metonyn^v given to the bread and wine which signify them; and that if Jesus Christ nourishes us by the food of his body, And the drink of his blood, this is done by faith and (fae virtue of the Holy Ghost, without any transfusion or other mixture of substance, but because we have life by his body once sacrificed, and his blood once shed for us." If, in this ** agreement," we find nothing mentioned either of the proper *' substance" of the body and blood received in the Supper, or of the incomprehensible miracles of this Sacrament, or such like things as have been remarked in the Cate- chism and the Confession of Faith of the French Calvinists, die reason is obvious. Namely, because the Swiss, as hath appeared, and those of Zurich, having been instructed by Zuinglius, would never come into the notion of any miracle in the Supper; and satisfied with a virtual presence, knew not the meaning of that communication of proper substance, which Calvin and the Calvinists kept such a stir about: in order, there- fore, to come to an agreement, these things were necessarily to be suppressed, and such a confession of faith as die Swiss could accept was to be presented to them.

87. — ^ tliird Confession of Faith sent into Germmnf, — 1557. To these two confessions of faith drawn by Calvin, one for France, the other to please the Swiss, a third also during hia

Hfe was added in favor of the German Protestants. Beza and Farel, deputed by the reformed churches of France and that of Geneva in 1567f carried it to Worms^ where the Princes and States of the Augsburg Confession were assembled. The design was to engage them to intercede, in the Calvinists' behalf, with Henry II, who, treading in the steps of Francis I, his father, did his utmost to depress them. The expressions of *' proper substance," readily laid aside when the Swiss were treated with, were not forgotten now: nay, so many other things were added, and so much said, that, how all this can be reconcileable with the doctrine of a figurative.sense is past my skill to discover. For it is there said,^ ^^That not only tlie benefits of Jesus Christ are-received in the Supper, but even his proper flesh and substance; that the body of the Son of God is not there proposed to us in figure only and by signification symbolically or typically as a memorial of Jesus Christ absent, but that he is truly and certainly rendered present with the symbols, which are not mere signs. And if,^' said they, '^ we add, that the manner whereby this body is given to us is symbolical and sacramental, this is not because it is only figurative, but by reason that, under the species of things visible, God ofiers to us, gives to us, and, with the symbols, renders present to us, that which is there signified to us; and this we say, to the end it may appear that in the Supper we retain the proper body and the proper blood of Jesus Christ; and, if any dispute still remain, it concerns nothing but the manner."

Till now, we had never heard the Calvinists say that the Supper was not to be looked upon as a memorial of Jesus Christ absent: . we had never heard them say, that in order to give us, not his benefits, but his^substance and his proper flesh, he rendered it truly present to us under the species; nor that in the Supper was to be confessed a presence of the proper body and the proper blood; and were we not acquainted wi& the equivocations of the Sacramentarians, we could not but take thera for as zealous defenders of the Real Presence as the Lutherans themselves. To hear them talk, one might reasonably doubt if any difference between theirs and the Lutheran doctrine still remained. <* If," said they, ** any dispute still remain, it coiicems not the thing itself, but the manner of the presence only;^ 'so that the presence they acknowledge in the Supper must, in reality, be as real and as substantial a that which the Lutfaerans confess.

And, in fact, when afterwards they treat on the manner of this presence, they reject nothing in this manner but what the Lutherans reject : they reject the natural or local manner of

uniting liiraself to us; and nobody says timt Jesus Christ is united to us in the natural ahd ordinary way, or that he is in the sacrament, or in the faithful, as bodies are in their place*- forlie is there certainly in a more elevated manner. They reject the effusion of the human nature of Jesus Christ; to wit, Ubiquity, which die Lutherans rejected hkewise, and which, as yet, had not so highly gained the ascendant. They reject n gross mixture of the substance of Jesus Christ together with ours, which nobody did admit, for nothing can be less gross, and further remote from vulgar mixtures, than the union of our Lord's body with ours, which is no less avowed by Lutherans than by Catholics. But what they, above all things, reject utterly, is that gross and diabolical Transubstanttation, without saying so much as a word of the Lutheran Consubstantiation, which, as we shall see, they did not think in their hearts a whit less diabolical or less carnal. But it behooved them to be silent on that head, for fear of offending the Lutherans, whose assistance they were then imploring. And, finally, they concluded quite short* by saying that the presence which they acknowledge, is brought about in a spiritual munner, and supported by the incomprehensible virtue of the Holy Ghost; — words which the Lutherans themselves employed, as well as Catholics, in order to exclude^ together with a presence in figure, even a presence in virtue, which has nothing in it that is hiiraculous or beyond comprehension.

SS,— Another Ccnfession of Faith made hy thosf in Prisinh ^ <^<*' ^ ^^ '^^

to the Protestanis,

Such was the Confessiop of Faith which the Calvinists of France sent to the Protestants of Germany. Those who were trapriapned^in France on the score of religion, joined to it their particular declaration, in which they expressly receive the Confession of Augsburg in all its articles, excepting only that of the Eucharist; adding, nevertheless, what is not less strong than Christ absent; dien, turn themselves immediately against the Papists, and their change of substance and adoration, without speaking so much as a word against the particular doctrine of Lutheranism.

This was the cause that induced the Lutherans, with the joint consent of all their divines, to judge that this declaration sent from France was conformable, in every point, to the Confession of Augsburg, notwithstanding what was there said concerning the tenth article; because, in the main, it said more on the Real Presence than this article had done.

The article of Augsburg expressed ** that, with the bread and wine, the body and blood were truly present and truly distributed

to those who took the Supper.'' These say, ** that the proper flesh, and the proper substance of Jesus Christt is truly present, •nd truly given with the symbois^^and under the visible speeies;'' and the rest nothing less precise than what has been related; Substantial Presence, the Lutherans who believe it, or the Cai* Tinists who disbelieve it, the last will certainly have the preference.

89. — J3$l the tther articles tf the Augsburg Confessions are otoned by the

As for the other articles of the Confession of Augsburgr they stood confirmed by the sole exception of this article of the Supper; that is to say, the Gal vinists, even those who were de tained in prison for their religion's sake, professed, contrary to their belief, the necessity of baptism, the amissibillity of justice, the uncertainty of predestination, the merit of good works, and frayer for the dead; all paints which we have read in express terms in the Augsburg Confession; and in this manner did the martyrs of the new Reformation destroy, by their equivocations, er express denial, that faith for which they died.

90l — Reflections on these three Confessions of Faith. Thus have we clearly seen three difierent languages of our Calvinists in three different Confessions of Faith. By that which they made for themselves, they appeared anxious to please themselves :. to content the Zuinglians,^ they lopped off some* thing from il; and, in case of need, they knew what to add to make the Lutherans their frieiids.

91. — The Conference of Poissy. — Hmo undertaken, — Cidvin cornea nU i9 ii^

but leaves the affair to j^eza. — 1561.

We shall now hear the Calviniists explain' their doctrine, not among one ano^er or to th^/Zuinglians or Lutherans, but Uk the Catholics* This happened ki 156 U in ^ minority of Charles IX, at the famous Conference of Poissy, where, by th^ orders of Queen Catharine de Medicis, his mothei; and. regent pf the kingdom, the prelates were assembled, in order to confer with the ministers about reforming those abuses which gave a pretext to heresy..*

general council, so oflen promised by the Popes, and of the frequent interruptions of that which was at hingth convened bjr diem at Trent, ^e Queen, deceived by seme prelates of susr pected doctrine, whose sentiments were backed by the Lord Chancellor de I'Hdpital, a great personage, ahd very zealous for his country, believed too easily4 that in so universal a commotion ahe mi^ pf herself take care of Fiaiice apart, without the au*

thoritj of the Holy See and council. She was made to believe that a conference would reconcile men's minds^ and that the disputes which divided them would more surely be determinded by an agreement than by a decision, which could not fail of displeasing one or the other side. The cardinal Charles of Lorrain Archbishop of Rheims, who, having governed all under Francia II, with his brother Francis, Duke of Guise, had always main^ tained himself in great repute, a great genius^ a great statesman, of a sparkling and winning eloquence, learned even for a man of his quality and employments, hoped to signalize himself in public, and withal to please the court, by entering into the Queen's design. By this means the assembly of Poissy was set on foot. The Calvinists deputed thither the ablest men they had, excepting Calvin, whom they would not show, whether from fear of exposing to the public hatred the head of so odious a party, or he himself beheved it safer for his honor to send his disciples, he remaining at Geneva where he ruled, and underhand mahaged the assembly, than to engage in person.

It is likewise true, that the weakness of his health, and the violence of his headstrong temper, rendered him less able to maintain a conference, than Theodore Beza, who was of a more rdbust constitution, and had more command of himself:^ Bezathen, was the man that most appeared, or rather, who alone ap- peared in this assembly. He was looked upon as the principal disciple, and the intimate friend o£ Calvin, who had chosen lum for a coadjutor in his ministry and labors at Geneva, which seemed the metropolis of his Reformation. Calvin despatched his instructions to him, and Beza returned him a full account of all transactions, as appears from both their letters.

Two points of doctrine only, property speaking, were debated in this assembly; one relating to the Church i Uie*other to the Supper. Theve lay the stress of the whole affair, because the article of (he Church was looked upon by. Catholics as general churches; and among the particular articles disputed on, none appeared so essential as that of the Supper. The Cardinal of Lorrain urged the opening of the Conference, though the main body of the prelates, especially the Cardinal de Toumon, Arch^ bishop of Lyons, who preshted over them m. quality of the oldest Gapdinal, had an extreme repugnance to it:* They apprehended^ and with reason too, lest the subtleties of the ministers, their dangerous eloquence heightened with an air of piety never wanting to the most perverse of heretics, and more than all thi% lest the charms of novelty might impose on courtiers, before whom they were to speakt but chiefly m the King and Queeiit

29*

both susceptible, he by reason of his tender age, she from natural curiosity, of any impressions, rather bad than good, con- sidering the wretched disposition of human nature, and the temper which then prevailed at court. But the Oardinal ef Lonain^ supported by Montluc, Bishop of Yalencey carried the point, and ik> the conference began.

thmi makes for Mm concerning the absence of Jenn Christ in the Supper.

There is no need of my giving an account^ either of the ad> mirable harangue^ made by the- Cardinal of Lorrain, and its merited applause, or o^ the honor which Beza acquired by offering to answer at the moment to the Cardinal's premeditated dis- august assembly,, ^e ministers presented publicly t6 the Kin^, in the name of ill iheir churches, their joint Confession of Faith> drawn under Henry II, in their first synod held at Paris,, as above mentioned^ Beza, who presented it„ made at the same time, by a long discourse,, the defence o£ it, when, notwithstandieg all his address, he fell into a great self-contradiction. He,, who a few days before, being accused by the Cardinal of Lorvain in the presence of Queen Catharine, and &e whole court, of having written in one of his books, that Jesus Christ was no more in the Supper than in the mire, JVon fnagis in Cand gu'am in Catnoj had rejected this proposition as impious and detested by the whole party, advanced the eqtttvfldient to it, at tiie Conlerence, even in the £Mre of alli France. For, being on the sub- ject of the Eucharist, in the heat of his discourse, he said, thai teat from the Supper as the hi^st Heavens are from ear&. The whole -assembly was in a commotioa at these words*f They^ remraibered with what a horror he had spoken of that Supper, as from the mire. He now falls into it again,, when nobody urges him. The- murmur from all sides inade it appeay^ how much men were struck with so strange a novelty. Beza himself, uttder confusion fbr having said so much did not cease lequosts, to obtain the liberty of explaining himself, on the plea that, being pressed by time, he had not had the leisure of making Us thought rightly understood before the King. But so mai^ words are not required to utter what a man believes. And^ indeed, one may venture to say, tiiat what disturbed Beaa was sol •ay deficiency in expounding his tenets, but rather, whal gav^

♦Ep. Bez. ad Cahr. inter. Ep. Caly. p. 330. f Thuan. amil 48. '

IX.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. . S43

him and his friends so much anxiety, was, that by laying open in too distinct terms the bottom of the party's doctrine on the real absence of Jesus Christ, he had made it but too visibly appear, that the great words of Proper Substance and the liko which they employed to keep up some notion of reality, were nothing but mere sham.

From harangues they soon proceeded to particular confer^ ences, chiefly on the Supper, wherein the Bishop of Valence* and Duval, Bishop of Sees, to whom a smattering of erudition, not to mention other motives, gave a secret prc^ensity towards Calvinism, were set on nothing else, together with the ministers, but to find out some ambiguous formulary which both sides, in some measure, might rest satisfied with, without diving to the bottom of the question.

The strong expressions, which we have seen in the Confession of Faith then presented, were pretty well adapted to this scheme; but the ministers must needs make further additions which ought not to be admftted. This will appear surprising; for, as they ought to have done their best fully to explain their doctrine in the confession of faith, which they but just presented to so solemn an assembly, it seems that, when questioned concerning their belief, they should have nothing else to do than refer themselves to so authentic an act: but this is what they did not do; smd behold here in what manner they proposed their doctrine by common consent. '* We confess the presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the holy Supper, where he truly gives us the substance of his body and blood by the operation of his Holy Spirit, and that we receive and eat spirit* ludly and by faith, tlus same true body, which waa sacrificed for us; to the end we might be bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, and be enlivened, and receive all that is profitable to our salvatioa; and by reason that faith, supported by God's promise* makes presei^ the things received, and takes really and in fact the true natural body of our Lord* by vktue of the Holy Ghost; in this sense* we do believe and confess the presence of the^ proper body and the proper blood of Jesus Christ in the Supper." Here are still those great phrases, those pompous eaq^ressioos* and those long discourses for the purpose of saying nothing. But after all this verbosity* they were not yet satisfied with their e^ could be no hindrance to our partaking of the body and blood <^ Jesua Christ* by reason that our Lord's Supper is a heaven^ thing* and although we on earth receive witii our moudis tfa* souls* which are nourished therewith* being raised up jto keavea

by faith, and the efficacy of the Holy Ghosts enjoy present the body and blood of Jesus Christ; and in that manner the body and blood are truly united to the bread and wine, but in a sacramental way, to wit, not according to place, or the natural posi- tion of bodies, but inasmuch as they efficaciously signify, that God gives this body and this blood to those who faithfully partake of the signs themselves, and that by faith they truly do re- ceive them." How many words, only to express, that the signs of the body and blood, received with faith, do, by this fiedth in< spired from God, unite us to the body and blood which are in heaven! No more than this had been requisite to explain, themselves distinctly; and this substantial enjoyment of the body truly and really present, and the rest of that strain, are to no other purpose than to raise a mist of confused ideas, instead of dispelling, by setting things in a clear light, w^hich, in an explanation of faith, we are obliged to do. But in this simplicity, which we demand of them, Christians would not have found what they desired, namely, the true presence of Jesus Christ in both his natures; and, deprived of this presence, would have perceived, as it were, a certain void, which, for want of the thing itself, the ministers endeavored to fill up with this multi< pjicity of sounding, yet insignificant expressions, The Catholics, at a loss to know the meaning of ail this monstrous language, could only perceive from it that Beza's great design, by all these phrases, was to supply what he was coiiscious was too hollow and defective in the Calvinistic Supper. The whole force of them lay in these words, '* Faith makes present the things promised." But this discourse appeared very indeterminate to Catholics. By this means, said they, judgment and the general resurrection, the gk>ry of the blessed, as well as the fire of the damned, will be equally present to 09 presence, by faith, makes us receive the very substance of things, nothing hinders the happy souls that are in heaven from reeeiving, actually and before &e general resurrection, the proper Bah- stance of their bodies as truly as we are here made to receive by fiuth, the proper substanee of the body of Jesus Christ* For, if faith renders things so truly present, as thereby to possess the sub-^ stance of them, how much more the beatific vision! But in oid^r to unite to us the proper substance of the body and Mood, what avails this lifting' up our souls to heavea by faith? Can a moral elevation, and in affection Onlyv^bring about such unions! .. la this manner, what substance <i8 &ere thlit cannot be embraeedl Holy Ghost ini^res faith, out ttaik Uius ms^d,-be it never aa

strong, unites itself no more to the substance of things than other thought-;, than other affections of the mind. What can be the meaning of those indefinite words, " We receive from Jesus Christ what is profitable to us," without declaring what this is? if these words of our Saviour, " Flesh profiteth nothing,'' are, as the Ministers will have it, tabe understood of the true flesh of Jesus Christ considered as to its substance, to what why is there kept so great a work about the substance of the flesh and blood received so really? why not reject, concluded Catholics, these empty words, and,^ in proposing their faith, at least lay cant aside, and speak intelligibly?

96. — Peter Martxfr's opimion. concerning the equivocations of the Ministers, Peter Martyr, a native of Florence, and one of the most famous Ministers that were in this assembly, was of this mind, and frequently declared that, for his part, he knew no meaning this word substance had ; yet endeavored to explain it the best way he could, not to give offence to Calvin and his companions.

-97.— What Dr Depense added to the expressitms of the JUinisters, in order to

make them pass the better,

Claude Depense, a Parisian Doctor, a man of good sense^ and learned for a time when matters had not so well been canvassed and cleared up, as they have since been by so much dis- putation, was among those who were to labor with the Ministers to reconcile the article of the Supper. Being sincere, and of a mild temper, he was judged proper for this design: but, for all his mildness, he could not bear with the doctrine of the Calvinists; but thought those insupportable who made the work of God, namely, the presence of the body of Jesus Christ, to depend not on the word and promise of him who gave it, but on ^eir faith who were to receive it; accordingly he disapproved tiieir article from the first proposition, and before all the additions which they since made to it. For his part, therefore, to render our communion, with the substance of the body, inde^ pendent of the faith €f men, and annexed only to the efficacy and operation of the word of God, letting pass the first wordg as far as those where the Ministers say, ** That fiiith makes tilings present," he substituted these words in lieu thereof namely, '* And because the word and promise of God makes present the things promised, and by the efficacy of this word we do really and in fact receive the true natural body of our Lordi in this sense we confess and Itoknowledge in the Supper (he presence of his proper body and proper blood." Thus he owned a real •and^jsitb^tantial presence iu^pendently of fiuth, and m virtue of the sole words of oiiir Lorcl \ whereby he thought tQ

determine the ambiguous and unsettled sense of those tenns

which the Ministers made use of. -

whole Catholic doctrine.

The Prelates approved of nothing in all this, and pursuant to the opinions of the Doctors, whom thoy had brought along with them, declared the article of the Ministers heretical, captious, and insufficient: heretical, because it denied^the substantial, and properly so called, presence; captious, because, in-denying it, it seemed to favor the thing; insufficient, because it concealed and dissembled the ministry of priests, the force of the sacramental words, and the change of substance, the natural effect thereof.* On their side they opposed to the Ministers a declaration of their faith, as full and as precise as that of the Cal- vinists was imperfect and perplexed. Beza relates it in these terms: — " We believe and confess, that in the holy sacrament of the altar, the true body and blood of Jesus Christ is really and substantially under the species of bread and wine, by the virtue and power of the divine word pronounced by the priest, the sole minister ordained for this effect, according to the institution and commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ."'}' Here is nothing captious or equivocal, and Beza owns this was all that '* could be drawn at that time from the clergy, in order to allay the troubles of religion, the prelates having made themsehrea judges, instead of conferring amicably." I desire no other testimony than this of Beza, to show that the Bishops did their duty in fairly explaining their faith* avoiding great words which faith. Such plain dealing as this suited not the Ministers, and so this great assembly broke up without any manner of success. God baffled the policy and pride of those who thought by their eloquence, little arts, and weak contrivances, to quench, in its

of manners.

The reformation of discipline succeeded but little better. Fine speeches were uttered, fine proposals made, but to littlf or no effect. The Bishop of Valence discoursed admirably, as his custom was, against abuses, and on the duties anfl chaise of Bishops, chiefly on that of residence, which he observed the least of any. But, to make amends, he was quite silent as to cehbacy, and the ex€u;t observance of it, though, by the Fathers, it was always insisted on as the brightest ornament of the eccle^

* Bez. Hist. Eocl. 1. iv. p. 611-414. La Poplin, 1. vii,

. siastical order. He h&d not feared to violate it by. a clandestine marriage, in spite of the canons; nay, a Protestant historian, who, notwithstanding he s^ts him off for one '* of the wisest and greatest men of that age through the whole sequel of his life,"^ reveals to us his passion, his avarice, and the shameful disorders of his life, the noise of which reached as far as Ireland, in the most scandalous manner imaginable. Yet he declaimed

'^ loudly against vice, and convinced mankind that he was one of those admirable reformers who could correct and reprove. every thing in their neighborhood, provided you leave them but alone to dieir own corrupted inclinations.

100. — The Tmthi^rtide of the Augsbwrg Confession is proposed to tke Cdvinists,

but they refuse to sign U,

As for the Calvinists, it was a triumph to them to have been so much as heard in such an assembly. But this imaginary triumph was but short, for the Cardinal of Lorrain had a long while conceived a design to propose to them the signing.of the the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession: should they sign it, this would be embracing the Reality, which all those of that confession so strenuously defended; should they refuse it, this would be condemning Luther and his followers in an essential point, who were unquestionably the first authors of the new Reformation, and its main support. In order to make the division of all these Reformers more manifest all over France, the Cardinal had taken his measures beforehand, and agreed with the Lutherans of Germany to send him three or four of their ablest doctors, who, appearing at Poissy under pretext of making up their whole differences at once, should there undertake the Calvinists. Thus these new doctors, all of them proclaiming the Scripture to be so very clear, would have been seen urging one another with its authority, yet never able to come to the least agreement. The Lutheran doctors arrived too late; but the Cardinal nevertheless failed not to make his proposal. Beza and his companions, resolved not to sign the Tenth Article, as proposed, thought to escape by inquiring of the Catholics, in re* turn, whether they were willing to subscribe the rest; by vdiich Article of the Supper alone, a subtile, but frivolous evasion.f themselves with Luther's authority, nor the Confession of Augsburg, nor the defenders of it, all which the Calvinists could riot be too tender ol^ for fear of condemning the Reformation in ks very source. However ^t may be, this was 9II the Cardinal obtained; and content with making it appear to all France, that this party of Reformers, who outwaiidly appeared so terrible, were

* y. S. lib. vii. n. 7. f Ep. Bes. id Calv. inter Cal. Ep.pp. 346, 347.

jet inwardly so weak by their own divisions, be suffered the assembly to break up. But Anthony of Bourbon, King of Navarre and first Prince of the blood, very favorable, till then, to the new party, which he was only acquainted with under the appellation of Lutherans, undeceived himself; and instead of that piety, which he had before believed in them, began, froiki that time, to be convinced there was nothing in it but bitter zeal and prodigious infatuation.

101. — The Confession oft^ugsburg received by the Calvinists in all other poifils,

yet through policy otily,

Tet it was no small advantage to the Catholic cause, to have obliged the Calvinists, in such an assembly, to receive anew the Confession of Augsburg, with exclusion only of the article of the Supper; since, as we have seen, they renounced by this means theless, spoke out, and made a solemn declaration of it, with the cottsefit of all his colleagues. But whatsoever policy, and the occasion,, as on many others, their thoughts and words did not agree; nor can this be doubted of, when the instruction, which even during the Conference, they received from Calvin,* is looked into. ** You," says he, " that assist at the Conference, ought to be upon your guard, test in maintaining your own just right, you appear stubborn, and so cause the whole blame of the rupture to be cast on you. The Confession of Augsburg, you are sensible, is the torch which your furies employ to light op ^ that fire which has set all France in a combustion; but you ought to look narrowly into, the rea(on which makes them press you so much to receive it, considering that its suppleness has ever been displeasing to men of good sense, and that Melanc- (hon, its author, often repented of having drawn it up: and lastly, that in many places it is adapted to the practice in Germany; besides that its obscure and defective brevity has this evil in it, of omitting sundry articles of the greatest moment."

It then plainly appears, that it was not the sole article of the

Supper, but, in general, the whole Confession of Augsburg whick

displeased him. This only article, nevertheless, was excepted

against ; though when Germany was concerned, it was oflea

foiund proper to waive even this exception.

This is what appears by another letter of the same Calvin,

written also during the Conference, whereby we may perceive

liow many different parts he played at the same time, it was*

I say^ at this very time, and in tiie year 1561, that he wrote a letter to the Princes of Germany in behalf of those of Strasburg; lit the beginning of which he makes them say,* ** That they are of the number of those who receive the Confession of Augsbui^ throughout, even in the article of the Supper;" and he adds^ *^ that the Queen of England (Elizabeth) aidioogh she approves of the Confession of Augsbg, rejects neveaiheless the carnal ways of speaking of Heshusius, and others," who could not endure either Calvin, or Beza, or Peter Martyr, or M elancthon himself, whom, with respect to the, Suj^r, they accused of relaxation.

The same behaviour may be seen in the Confession of Faith of the Elector Frederick III^ Count Palatine, reported in the Collection of Geneva: a confession wholly Calvinistical, and ' as inimical to the Real Preience as any ever was; since this Prince there declares, that Jesus Christ is not in the Supper *^m any manner, eiiher visible, or invisible, comprehensible, or incomprehensible, but in heaven only."! Nevertheless, his son and ^successor, John Casimir, in the preface which he places before this Confession, says expressly, " that his father never did depart from the Confession of Augsburg, por even from the Apology which was joined to it:" it is that of Melancthon, which we have seen to be so distinct and full for the Real Presence; and, if the son should not meet- vnih credit, the father himself, in the body of his Confession, declares the selfsame thing, in the selfsame terms.

104. — Calvin's shifting address with regard to the Tenth Jlrticle of the Augsburg Cijnfession.

It was therefore a method pretty much in vogue, even amongst the Calvinists, to approve purely and simply the Confession of Augsburg when Germany was concerned, either out of a certain respect for Luther, the common father of the whole pretended Reformation; or because that confession only had been tolerated in Germany by the States of the empire; and even out of the empire itself had obtained so great an authority, that Calvin and the Calvinists;]; durst not own, without great deference and precaution, that they departed from it; seeing that, in the excep- tion even of the sole article of the Supper, which they often made, they rather chose the subterfuge of diversity of editions, and difference of sense put upon this article, than absolutely to reject it.

And accordingly, Calvin, who makes so free with the Confession of Augsburg, when he speal^ in confidence to his friends,

X Ep. p. 319. 8. Def. Ult Adm. ad Weetp. *t

•▼eiy where else shows an outward respect for it, even in regard to the article of the Supper, owning he receives it when rightly explained** and in the same, manner Melancthon, the author thereof, did himself understand it. But.there is nothing more frivolous than this evasion ; for, although this Confession was penned by Melancthon, he did not expound therein his own particular doctrine, but that of Luther and the whole party, whose secretary and interpreter he was, as he himself often declares. that person who drew it up might be referred to, it ought, however, to be considered, not what Melancthon's notions were afterwards, but what they and those of all his sect were at that time ; there being no reason to doubt but he endeavored to explain naturally what they all believed : so much the more, as we have seen that he as sincerely rejected the figurative sense at that time, as Luther himself; which he never openly approved, notwithstanding the various shifts and inconstancy he afterwards was subject to. It is not, therefore, upright and just dealing to appeal to Melancthon's judgment in this matter ; and for all Calvin's continual boasts of speaking his real sentiments without the least dissimulation, yet it is plainly seen that his design was to flatter the Lutherans. Nay, so palpable became this flattery, that at length they were ashamed of it even in the party; and this was the reason that, in the acts we have just considered, especially in the Conference of Poissy, they resolved to accept the article of the Supper, but that only ; not at all concerned that by their approbation of all the rest, they passed sentence against their own Confession of Faith, which they had but a little before [uresented to Charles IX.

INDEX

TO

THE FIRST VOLUME.

SAME HEADS IN THE SECOND VOLUME.

the Lutherans, 108 — ^and by tfaiie

•Abstinence from flesh retained in England, 263—the Church of Rome

Adoration, the Protestants cannot endure the adoration rendered to Jesus Christ in the Euchc^rist, 189— Luther's doctrine imphes c^donition, 153 — ^the adoration of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist suppressed in England under Edward VI, 263— Firfe Vol. II.

Aeriiu, The Lutherans^ contradictory sentiments on the doctrine of Aerius against prayer for the dead, 113.

the Church, 19, 20,

Albert, of Brandebpurg, Qreiit Master of the Teutonic Order, turns Ludieran, and why, 281.

Amissibilitjf of justice owned in the Confession oi Augsburg, 102 — ^received in 1557, by the Calvinistsof

Amsdorf, {Mcholaa,) ordained Bishop of Naumburg by Luther, 36.

Anabaptuts, the, preach without mission or miracles, 37 — they instil into people the spirit of rebellion, 51 — they rise in arms with unparalleled fury, 52 — they are condenmed in the Confession of Aussburg with respect to three conaiderfible articles, 102.

Anne Boieyn, mistress of Heniy VIII, King of England, favors Lutheranism, 57, 222 — Henry VIII marries her, 226 — she upholds with all her power Thomas Cromwell and C raumer in their designs, 228 — ^her im- modest and licentious behaviour, 230— her infamous death, 230, 232 — ^her daughter Elizabeth declared illegitimate, 230.

Anne of CUves, Henry VIII, King of England, marries her, 236 — she is repudiated, 237.

•$nt!umy of Bourbon, King of Navarre, disabused of the good opinion he had of the Protestant party, 347.

J^polog^, the, for the Augsburg Confession, made by Melancthon, 82 — approved by the whole party, ib, — altered by the Lutherans, 84.

Augustin, (St,) his doctrine on justifying grace approved by the Lu- therans, 107 — rejected by Melancthon, 169,

Avgiiatin, (St,) the Monk sent by St

Augsburg, Diet o^ where the Confessions of Faith are presented to Charles Vj80— the Au^burg Confession of Faith, how drawn up by Melancthon, 81 — 107 — this is neld in the greatest repute of all the Protestant Confessions of Faith, 82 — ^the tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession relating to the Supper expressed four different ways, &. — which of these four is the original 84 •^-aword in the Augsbcag Oonfts*

INDEX.

>iaid about the Mass in the Confer ■ion of Augsburg, 111 — ^the Znfians* jests upon the Confession of ugsburgf 297 — owned defective, 160, 298— corrected, 292— and nevertheless from a point of honor always approved, 170, 292 — the different editions not to be reconciled, 297, et seq. — ^the Calvinists ieceive the Confession of Augsburv m 1 557, with the exceptim only of the tenth article, 255-— which they refuse to sign at Poissy, 347 — what Calvin said concerning the Confession of Au^burg, 348 — ^the dissim- .ulation of we Ekctor Frederick III, with respect to, the Confession of address with regard to the tenth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, ib.

Bmtism, error of the Zuin^ans on baptism, 61 — infant baptism by the Lutherans believed necessary to salvation, 93 — the necessity of baptism taught in the Confession of Augsburg, 102— this necessity denied by Calvin, 293-Caivin teachea that baptism is not necessary to salvation, 308 — Calvin's contradictions upon infant baptism, 31 1 — the necessity of baptism received in 1557 by the Calvinists of France^ 339.

Basil, the Confession of Faith of those of Basil, 130— another Confession of those of Basil, and the precedent one softened, 132 — theei^uivocation of this Confession of Faith, 133.

Bimard, (St,) his desire of the Ref^ onnation of Church-disciptine, 18 —St Bernard, iil-citaed by Protestants for the necessity 6f re(brrai|i^ by Luther in the list of S^ts, 110.

to begin the Reformation there, 258^

Beza maintains that the sense which Catholics ^ve to the words of the institutbn is more supportable tiian

. tiiat^of the Ltttbenm^ 70— he is

of France totheassembly of Wmhis and Geneva, 338 — ^he is present at the Conference of Poissy, 341^he harangues there, and {eta (all more than he intended to have said with relation^ to the absence of Jesu& Christ m the Supper, 342 — Vidt Vol. II.

by Protestji^nts, 152 — Melahcthon is for owning Bishops, 164 — all the Bishops in England subscribe the decisions of Henry VIII, 234 — the Bishops of England take out new commissions from Edward VI, 255 — the Bishops of England have no share in matters of reli^on and feith, 257.

Bohemians, their separation condemned by Luther, 31 — ^the buffi>oiierie of Luther, 42, 198.

Brags of Calvin, 334.

Osiander, 291.

Bucer gives a figurative sense to the worcre of the institution, 64 — he was present at the Conference of Marpurg, 79 — ^he draws up the Stras- Durg Confession of Faith, 81 — his character, ib. — ^his fruitfulness \n equivocations, ih. 86-^his doctrine on the merit of ^ood works^ T05 — he undertakes, me defence of the prayers of the Church, and shows m what sense the merits of Saints are useful to us, 106 — he is despatched by the Landgrave of Hesse to have an interview with Luther and Zuin^lius, 121 — his transactions with Luther^ 124 — his equivo^ eating sh^ in order to reconcile the parties, 125— the agreement by him proposed, no more than verbal^ ib. — ^his equivoca^ons on the worda Sacrament and Mystery, 128— he plays with words, 129— he owns that the unworthy receive tiie body of Jesus Christ really, 114, 196 — he grants six Articles to Luther con-* ceming the Stepper, 134— he de% ceives Luther, ana evades the terms of agreement, 135 — his cquivoca tipps owned by Calvin, 13& — ^those even of Zurich make a iest of them, 138 — expfication of tne doctrine, and the return of the towns fiqm his belief U>. that oi the Qa|

INDEX. S53

Presence, 140 — ^he satisfies the Lutherans in the assembly of Smal- kald, 144 — ^Bucer's testimony concerning the hypocrisy of the Pro- testants, 15&-4ie is sent to Luther by the Landgrave to obtain leave for this Prince to marry a second wife, his first still living, 179 — ^he makes a new Confession of Faitli, 188 — his perplexities with relation to the communion of the innpious, ib, — ^his doctrine about the Eucharist not hearkened to in England, 191 — he is present at the Conference of Ilatisbon, 279 — ^he makes a- new Confession of Faith, ib, — he dies in England without having been able to change any thing in the articles of Peter Martyr, 281. Burnet, (Mr.) a new piece published by Mr. Burnet about Luther's senthnent touching a reconciliation with the Zuinglians, 199 — ^heowns that the Reformation began in England by a man equally rejected by both parties, 220 — ^Mr. Burnet's magnificent words concerning the

tides of Henry VUI, ih, — he is confounded at Cranmer's doctrine about the power of the ministers of the Church, 240 — he laments-his seeing in England the ecclesiastical power in the hands of seculars, ib, — ^he sets down two points of Rel^ ormation under Henry YIII, 249— a proof, fit>m Mr. Burnet, of the snares laid for the weak and simple by the pretended perspicuity of Scripture, 250— Mr. Burnet's confession of the belief of the Greek Church, 259 — ^he vindicates us in the observance of Saints-days and abstinenceifrom flesh, 262 — ^bis vain efibrts to justify Cranmer in little things, without saying a word of mat ones, 266 — ^he ill compares Uranmer's twice abjuring his faitli to the denial of St. Peter, 269— he badly excuses the Reformers, 270 — the ullacy in the examples alleged by him, w. — his facts far from bem^ certain, 271 — ^his imposition with regard to Fra-Paolo, 272 — ^his error concerning the Pallium, 273 — ^his cross error concerning Celibacy and tiie Roman Pontifical, ib. — Vide

English Reformation, 219 — the herocs of Mr. Burnett history even bv his own testimony are not always very virtuous men, 981 — what he relates of Montiuc, Bishop of Ya^ Ct^mnies of Protestants against the lence, ib. — what he says of Cran- Church on the point of Justification,

mer. Archbishop of Caiiterbiiry, 222— what he says of the oath Cranmer took at his Consecration, 224 —what he says of the cruelties and

92 — other calumnies on the merit of good works, 94 — three other calumnies against the invocation of Saints, and concerning Images, 115.

excesses of Henry VIII, 227 — ^the Go/vin, his esteem for Ludier, 6, 23 —

rine, the lawful w^fe of Henry VIII, 3,29 — what he says of the disorderly behaviour of Anne Boleyn, ift. — ^he comes ofi" lamely in his excuse of Cranmer's cowardice, 231 — how he excuses the Protestants of England for subscribing the decisions of Henr^ VIII, who approved the principal points of the Uatliolic doctrine, 234^his va^n (irtifices to ex- cuse the hypocrisy of Thomas Cromwell, 236— he is ashamed of ^t sentence which annulled the marriage of Henry VIIl with Anne pf Cleves,237 — ^he owns thi^t scarce

fmy thing was changed in the 0& ^er Henry VIII, 238— what he says

80*

what Cahrin writes to Melancthon upon the strange division of Protestants, 77-**bi8 sentiments on equivocations in matters of Faith, 136 — ^what he writes to Bullinger and Melancthon about the tyrarniy of Lulher, 157 — what he says or the adoration of the blessed Sacrament retained by Luther, 194 — lie ftyors Henry VIII in lus divorce, 245 — ^he rejeets the caiemonies of the Church; 246 — what he Ba3rs of Osiander's profane temper, SS82 — the incompatibility ofhis sentiments with thos^ of Melancthon, 15d--he 305 — hie' genius; his refinements auipass those of Luther, 306— he adas to iniputed justiee the certainty of Balyation, ti.— ?he teaches that

Muy to salvation, ib. — he maintains that tin children cf the faithibi are bom in grace, 308 — Calvin's principles but supposed; he argued better than Luther, but swerved wider from truth, 309y— two tenets of Calvin's concerning children, not fluiting with his principles, ^10 — bis agreement with those of Geneva and Zurich, tft. — the contradictions of his doctrine upon Infant Baptism, 311 — his refinements upon the Eucharist, ib. — he shows that, after filleen years' disputing, the Lutherans and Zuinglmns had not under- stood one anouieron this point, ib. — Calvin, alrea<fy known on account <^ his Institutions, makes himself more so by his treatise on the Supper, ib. — his doctrine on the Eucharist almost forgotten by his followers, 312 — ^he is not satisfied with receiving a sign only in the Supper, ih. — not even an emcadous sign, nor the virtue and merit of Jesus Christ, tfr.— his doctrine partakes somewhat of that of Bucer's and of the Articles of Wirtemberg, ib. — ^he endeavors to reconcile Luther and Zuinglius, 3 1 6 — with what —-a new eflect of Faith, according Christ otherwise than did the vn-w cient Hebrews, tl^.'-!^ccerding to his expressions it must be befieved that tae reception of the bedy of Jesus Christ is independent of Fahh, i6.— and that the kue body ia in Uie Sacrament 318— he maintains that the body is upder the mga of breads as the Holy Ghost is under the do?e,t(. — ^he makes Jesus Christ present in ^ bread as God WM in the ark, 319 — ^he saya he disputes but of the manner,, and admits the thing as much aa we, ib. — he admits a presence ofthe body 390 — ^he admits a presence that is

S roper and peculiar to the Supper, ^. — the conmiunion of the unwoi^ thy* how real, according to Calvin, 321 — a comparison by lam oiade

use of to etifaree the trutft of l6e

body's being received by the unworthy, 321 — ^he speaks inconse- auently, 322 — he explains as we do mat saying, "that flesh profiteth nothing," 323 — he weakens his own expressions, and eludes the miracle which he owns in the Supper, ib. — of his doctrine to explain the miracfe ofthe Eucharist, 324 — ^his poplexities and contradictions in the de- fence of the figurative sense, 32a — the cause orhi perplexity, 326 -—he saw further into'the difficulty than the rest of the Sacramentarians: how he ^ideavors to salve it, ib. — the examples which he drew from Scripture; that of Circumcision convicts instead of helping him, 327 — ^another example notning to the purpose, viz. that the Church is called the body of Jesus Christ, ib. — ^he makes- new efibrts to salve the notion of reality impressed by the Institution of Jesus Christ, 328 — ^how his doctrine is explained in the book entitled, '* Du Pr^servati^'* &c. 329 — he would make one understand more than he rea;^ meant to say, 33t — a passage of Calvin's for a Real Presence independent of Faith, ib. — ^he rejects ceremonies, 332 — ^his pride and boasting 333 — the dinerence between Calvin and Luther, t6^— haw he braced of his. eloquence, 334 — ^he has as much violence and more acrimony than Luther 335 — the contempt hie passes on the Fathers, 336— whether ne has varied in hb doctrine, ib,, — why he wa!s not in person at the Conference of Poissy, 340 — ^the instruction he senda to the Ministecs during the Conference^ 348 — ^what. he says ofthe Confossion of Augs* bnrg, ih. — ^his special caution with regardtothe tentn Article ofthe Au^ Calvinists (The) give in to the Semi^ pelagianism of the Lutherans, 304 — they have two tenets concerning children not confonnable with their

principles, 3 1 — the present Calvin-^ ists have abandonea the doctrine of Calvih> about the Supper, 329— Ihey were more sensible that a miracle oug^t to be admitted in the £nch%

list than they did indeed admit one, 3S4-^what opinion other Protestants had of the Oolvinists, 333 — Variations in the Acts of Calvinista, 337 — they send a Confession of Faith into Germany, which is not consist^it with the n^rative sense, 338 — they send thither another Confession of Faith, in which they deliver themselves more strongly in fiivor of the Real Presence than the Luthefans themselves, 340 — ^they own all the Articles of the Augsburg Confession except the tenth, ib, — they depute the ablest men among tb^oa to the Confi;rence of Poissy, 341 — there they present thdr Confession c^ Faith to Charles IX, 342 — their explanation of the Supper Article, full of intricate woras, 343 — they refuse to sign the tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession, 347— which 3iey receive

^ throughout in all other points, but only out of policy, 348 — now many diuereni parts they at that time played wrai respect to the Coi^fession of Augsburg, ib,

Camerariuif Melancthon*s friend, does not approve the preparations for war made by the Princes of Germany, 123.

formed brethren, and the injury done to the Church by their rejecting the

Carlostadius attacks the reality, 48 — his character, 49 — ^the sense he gave to the wotds of the Institution, tb. — ^the origin of his contests with and sets up oommnnion under both kinds, ib, — ^he is driven from Wittmberg, 50 — ha unites himsdf with the Anabaptists, 51-^he tumukuates ^ people of Orlemond, ik — he drinks with Luther, and promises him to write against the Real Presence, 52 — he marries, 53 — ^he is reconciled to Luther, 64.

by Henry VIII a^amst all laws, 222, 226— jdeath of this Princess; a eoroparison between her and Anne Bdeyn, 229 — she maintains to death the truth of her maniage and the dignity of a (i\Bonn| 830.

VIII, 236— this Prince first manies, then puts her to death, ib,

Caiharine Medicis causes the Conference of Poissy to be held, 340.

Catholics (The) by the Confession of Sacramentarians thonselves, un^ derstand the words of the Eucfaaristic Institution better than the Lutherans, 64— ven by the Confession of a whole Synod, 70 — their sense in this point is the most natural, 73 — they alone have a con- sistent doctiine, 197 — they are justified by the divisionis of the Prot- body," 313 — and on these words, Do this in remembrance of mQ,^' 314 — their reflections on the indeterminate and pompous expressions of the Calvinists concerning the subject <^ the Eucharist, 344.

Cetibacy, despised by the pretended Reformers, 63— three parts in feur

Cerenumiea of the Church confirmed by Henry VIII, Kins of England, 233— rejected by Calvin, 262 and 332 — disputes among the Lutherans about Ceremonies, 283.

Certainty of Justification according to Luther, 24 — this certainty is the master-piece of the Reformation, 103 — the difficulty it labors under, i6.— what certainty is admitted in 104^-the difficulty with respect to the certainty of salvation in the opinion of the Lutherans, 304 — certainty of salvation taught by Calvin, 306— difliculties attending the certainty of salvation, 309 — Vide Yol 11.

Charles T, assenbles the Diet of Au^burg in 1530, where the Con* fessions of Faith are presented to him, 80 — he causes the Confession of Augsburg to be refiited, 82^-^e the Catholic States against the Protestants, 121— his victory over the Protestants, 278— be causes the book of thelnterion to be made, and

INDEX.

Worms in order to reconcile both

what be says of a detiberation ot the Faculty of Paris, upon the divorce of Henry VIII, 247.

according to Calvin, 309-:-difficultiesof this doctrine, 16. — ^two tenets cf Calvinists concerning Children not consistent with their principles, 310.

Church, authority of the Church rejected by Luther, 35— what Me- lancthon says of the promises made to the Church, 160, 172— the Lutherans, at the time of the Augs- burg Confession, durst not reject 1 16, 1 18 — remarkable words of Luther confessing the true Church in the Romish Communion, 1 16 — ^perpetual assistance promised to the Church and confessed by Melancthon, 160, 172— the authority of the Church absolutely necessary in matters of Faith, 171 — ^Melancthon owns it, ib. and 172 — all Protestants own it, and are forced to prac- tise what they called tyraioiy, 296 •—the dreadful consequences of the subversion of Church authority fereseen and experienced b? Melanc- thon and the rest of the Reformers, 150, 160, 171— authority of the Churdb overthrown in the Reformation, 151 — sacrifi^ to the Secular Power, i6.^<^alvin condemns, but cannot hinder it, 152 — the Church enslaved by the English dogma of Henry VIII concerning the authority of the Church, 241 — a manifest contradiction in tiie English Doctrine upon the authority of the Church given to Kings, 242— the consult of the whole Church can declaim itself other ways than by General Councils, 252 — the Reformation founded on the rum of Church authority, 255 — ^howthe Church is the bod^ of Jesiis Christ, 327 — ^why Heretics are (breed to imitate the lan^ageof the Church, 331 — that pomt relating te the Church treated of in the Conference

Chgthrmu (David,), an Ufaiwattaikiiy 293 — ^his hatred agamat Melanotbon, 296.

Henry VIII, King of En^and, 226 — ^it appertains not to Faith to examine tne conduct and proceedinss of Clement Vll, 243— remarfs upon the conformity of the sentiment of Protestants with the sen- tence of Clement VII, 246— reasons for the decision of Clement VII, 248.

Communion under both kinds set up by Carlostadius, 50 — ^Luther holds Communion under both kinds for an indifierent thin^, ib^ — ^what the Lutherans say of it in the Apdcfgf of the Augsburg Confession, 117 — what Luther says in excuse for the whole Church on the subject of Communion under one kind, ib, — by the Protestants' own confes- ■ sion, the question of the necessity of both kinds depends on the Real

Concomitanjcy retained by Henry VUI, in the Wittenburg Confession 9C Faith, 285.

Concord, a brief account of the book cf Concord made by the Lnther* ans, 305.

C<mference of Luther with the Devil^

Confusion, with the necessitv of the numeration of sins retained by the Lutherans, 108— and by the £ngli9h,238.

Confusion of Faith, §k remarkable ^ne of the Elector Frederick III, 3Q7— the Confession of Faith of the French Calvinists cooapared with the 4^^:eenient of Geneva S^T-sr-ia 1557, it is sent to th6 Assembly of Worms, 338 — another Confession of Faith, of the French Calvinists, drawn in wder to be sent to the Protestants, 339.

Conftsswn of Faith of Angsburgi ^pide Augsburg.

Calvin. Confession of Faith of Saxony, victe

Saxony.

Stra0bui]g

tfgmfasthn of Faith of Wktemberg, vide Wiitdmberg.

a bare Catechism, 861.

Pope at Ratisbon, 879— what he there says of the book of the Interim, ffr.

Conti leneyt perpetual, judged impoesiblei>y Luther, 48, 1 !Q.

Cofitriftan, aecordingto Luther, makes men greater hypocrites, 89.

in the Conidssion of Au^sbuig, submit themselves to the judgment Vol. 11.

Crantner, (Thomms) is the beio of Mr. came into favor with Henry VIII and Anne Bolejm, ik. — Cranmer soit to Rome on account of the divoice of the Kin^ of En^and, 823 — he conceals bis belief t^. — is there made the Pope's Penitentiary; be marries in private, thoo|h i^ priest, t6.— he is nominated Archbishop of Canterbury, and receives the Pipe's Bulls, though a manied man And a Lutheran, &.-his<x>nsecratioi) and his hypocrisy, 234 — ft reflection on Cranmer*8 pretended moderation in accepting the Arcbbishopnc of Canterbury, 88^— Cranmer proceeds to the divorce, and in the sentence takes upon him the quality of Le^te of tne Holy See, 88&— -his visitations made by tiie authority of the King are fbfkrwed by a depredation of the goods of Monasteries, 889— rhe annuls Henry VIIPs and Anne Boleyn's marriage, 830-— he subscribes the articles of Henry VIII, 834— he confirms.the Church's Faith which he condemned in his heart, 835r— with Anne of Cleves; the magnincent terms of this unjust sentence, 837-^ypocrisy of CTranmer, who subscribes every thinz that is desired of him in point of religion, 838 •^8 behavioitf with lesp^ to the

INDEX. S57

Six Articles of Henry VUI, 839^ Cranmer's shameful notions coneemins the Ecclesiastical Authority which lie sacrifices to the Crown, 84l>-4iis Doctrine about the Au thority of the Church in time of peraecutioii, ik. — Cranmer's flat* teries, the cause of the Reformation in England, 843— he is the first to subject himself to the ahameful yoke which Edward VI imposes oa the Bishops, 855^— he, with the Duke of Somerset, begins tiie Reformation in England, 858 — ^in his Reformation he inverts all order, 863— he signs the Admiral's death, though comlemned without a hearing, 867 — ^he spirits up rebellion agamst Ctueen Mary, ib, — ^he is do* posed and cast into prison for treason and heresy, ib. — ^he is declared a'heretic, and for what article, 263 — Craniwir's false aiwer before hi Judges; he is condemned pursuant to bis own princif^es, t6. — whether it be true ttiat he was no further compliant to Henry VIII than his conscience permitted him, 869.

Cromwell ( Thonuu) made Vicar-General in spirituals by Henry VIII, 881 — ^in bis visitation he enjoins every Priest to say Mass every day, 889— he subscribes the decisions of Henry VIII, 834 — he confirms the Faitii of the Church which he rejected in his heart, 23^5 — he is con- demned to death as a heretic and a traitor, 236 — his hypocrisy, ib.

Cro8, use of, retained in England, 834, 868.

Crucifix. Luther praises Godfiv that the Crucifix is, by the Church of Rome, put into the hands <^ dying people, 117 — Luther's picture befture his works represent him on his knees before a Crucifix, ih.

uiey declare that our D>octrine upon the Eucharist is more supportable than that of the Lutherans, 71.

Poissy, who explain very plaiidv, and in few words, the whole Catoolic Doctrine cooceming the En* ch^riat, 34$,

Dtpetkae, (Claude) what this Doctor added to the expressions of the Ministers to make them more allowable, 345.

Diet of Augsbar^-^Fide Augsburg.

JDi^erence between invented Doctrine, and Doctrine received by tradition, 92.

DUfitiona amons these pr^ended Gospellers, 4S, 290— they over-

- throw all the foundations of the Reformation, 77 — Vide Qhurch Reformation.

Indulgences, 82.

clear as Protestants imagine, 250

Eckiusj present at the Conference of

• of the Interim, 279.

Edward VI, son of Henry VTO, succeeds him, 254 — ^his guardian is a Zuinglian, 255 — ^under him commissions revocable at will are given to the Bisliops, ib. — ^he invades the whole Episoopal authority, ib. — -iie assumes an absolute authority over the word of God and preaching, 257 — he abrogates the Six Articles published by Henry VIII, 258—- now he was prejuaiced from his childhood against Images, 264: — Zuinglianism takes deep root in England under Edward Vl,281.

Edtoard Seymour, guardian to Edward VI, 255 — undertakes the English Reformation, {6.--^hi8 pride, violence, and crimes, 266.

£Uevation of the Eucharist taken away by Carloetadtus, 49— 'retained by Luther in despite of Carlostadius, 50, 111 — destroyed and judged at the same time irreprehensiue by

EUxabethf dau^ter of Anne Boleyn, is declared illegitimate by Cranmer's sentence, 231.

En^and, Beginning of the pretended Reformation of ^gland, 219— the Reformation of England begpin by Heniv VIII, who was equally rejected by bodi sides, 220^— what in- struments Henry VIII makes use of to set up tlw Reformation in

£n^bnd,221-^-dl the Bisbops aub^ — nothing is changed in England in the Missals and Ofiice-books of the Chnich under Henry VIII, 238 ormation in England, according to Mr. Burnet, how groundless, 249—^ the Church of £ji^land acted by a Bchismatical principle, when she believed she might regulate her

' Kaith independently of all the rest of the Church, 251— whether the Ghui^bof Endand therein followed the ancient Church, ib. — whether she "had reason to believe that it was too difficult a matter to consult the Faith d tlie whole

- Church, 252 — all. kind of novelties the^ severities of Hennr V HI, and prindples when they rejected tiie Pope's Supremacy in England, ih, — ^Die foundation of die English Reformation laid upon the ruin of Ecclesiastical authority, 255 — the K^ops of Eln^and have no share in matters of Relio;ioa, 256 — the Reformation begun in England by Peter Martyr and Bemardm Ochin, 258 — ^the Reformers in England repent themselves of having said, that in the Reformation of the Liturgy they had acted with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, 259 — ^En^nd discards the Mass which she had heard from her iirst conversion to Christianity, 260 — England vindicates us in the observance of the festivals of Saints and abstinence from flesh,262— threepartsinfouroi the English Clergy renounce celibacy under £di(ra3 VI, 265— Zuin- ^lanism strmgthens itself in Enghnd under Edward VI, 258— Fide

Reformation, 136— equivocations of the Saoramentarians with rdation to the Eucharist, 126, 133 — of the Calvinists upon the same subject, 343— Peter Martyr's senti- ments concerning these equivocations, 345.

Erutmua objects to Lu&er the uaan-

INDEX. S69

imous consent of the /Fathers in assured of his Faltli without being behalf of Free-will, 41^-what he assured of his repentance, 24 — says of the fierce and threatenihg Special Faith, according to Luther, air (^ the new Protest^ants, 44 — its difficulties, 23 — which are not Erasiyius's letter to Melancthon removed in the Confession of A ugsupon Luther's passionate trans- bur^ 102 — ^wbat Faith does in uie ports, 48 — dispute between Ei'as- Mystery of the Eucharist, 317 — mus and Luther about Free-will, what it does there, according io 55 — what he writes concerning Calvin, ib, — Fide Certainty, vide

these Reformers, 63 — what he sajrs Farel is deputed from the Reformed to Protestants about their disputes Churches of France, to the Assemof the true sense of Scripture, 77 . biy of Worms and Geneva, 338.

— ^Erasmus's testimon^r concerning Faihers (Holy,) thev pretend to follow pretended Reformists, 155. — in the main thev despise Uiem,

Eiu:hanst, what Luther thought of it, 41, 1 1 5 — the Holy Fathers despised 44 — what was always the Church's by Calvin, 336 — ^they forced resoect Faith concerning it, 45 — ^how the * from Protestants in spite of their

applied to the Eucharist after Con- Festivals of Saints retained in Engsccration, two rules taken from land, 262.

Scripture, 74 — why the word Sub- Figure, The puzzling and contrastancc is made use of in the Eu- dictions of Calvin in the defence of charist, 90 — how the oblation of tl^ the figurative sense, 325-^lhe Cal- Eucharist is profitable to the whole vinists send into Germany a Conworld, 11 2-— equivocations of the fession of Faith not agreeable to Sacramentarians upon the Eucha- the figurative sense, 338.

rist, 126 — how the Presence of the Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, is con- Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucha- demned to death for not acknowlrist IS spiritual, ib, — whether a local edgins the King for Head of the Presence be to be admitted in the Church, 227.

Eucharist, 127 — how the Eucharist Hesk, Calvin explains as we do this is a Sign, 128 — whether the Prcs- passage,-^" The flesh profiteth

durable in the Eucharist, 1 37 — Doc- Fox, Bishop of Hereford; his dissinitrine of the Catholic Church about ulation, 239.

the Eucharist confirmed by Henry Frmice, Beginning of the troubles of

vin upon the Eucharist, 311-:— sen- Francis (St.A numbered amongst the timent of the Catholic Church upon Saints by Luther, 110.

joyment of the Body of Jesus Christ to this Prince was never before IS perpetual and permanent in the heard of, 272.

Eucharist, 31 4 — what must be done Frankfort, Assembly of the Luthei^ to communicate worthily, ib, — we ans at Frankfort, and how they must be united to the Boaf of Jesus there explain the Eucharist, 292.

expression, the true Body of Jesus Frederiekf Elector Palatine, retains Christ must be in' the Eucharist, both the Confession of Auaburg

341 — the decisions of the Bishopa Frederick Uly Elector Palatine ; this ence, Vol. II. Faith, 307 — ^his dissimulation with

regard to the Confession of Augi-

. Free-will retracted in the Aagaburg Confession, 92— Melancthon*s Doctrine concerning the co-operation of Free-will, 287— the Luther- ans* Doctrine concerning Free-will contradicts itself, 288 — decision of the Lutherans about the co-operation of Free-\rill,299— thewill free to retain or reject Grace, a Doctrine confessed b^Melancthon, but

Apology of the Augsburg Confes-" sion in the same sense as in die Church, 97 — and in the Confession of Strasburgi 105.

Gardinet, Bishop of Winchester, imprisoned by the orders of Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, 268

Oeneva. Calvin makes an a':;reement with those of Geneva, 310 — coni pared with the Catechism and Confession of France, 537 — Calvin rules Geneva, 341. "

treated by Luther, 78 — ^he is an enemy to the Lutherans, ih.

Gerard, a Luthe "an doctor; in what manner he explains the certainty of salvation taught by his party, 304.

Germanyf set all in a flame by Luther's writings, 51-7-the Lutherans by a great armament make all Germany tremble, 78 — all Germany in arms at a writing of Luther's, 122.

of Paris, his opinion about the Re^• ormation of the Church, 19, 20 — he is praised by Luther, 110— 4ie is cited to a wrong sense by Mr. Burnet, 273.

God the author of aH crimes, according to Lulher's. Doctrine, 56^Vide Vol. n. — Strange Doctrine of tiie Lutherans concerning the love of Qod, 106.

Goods, of Monasteries, pillaged in Qlipand, 229— the goods of the Church sold at a low price in England, 235 — ^the goods of the Churdi exposed to the plunder of tiie Laity under Edward VI, 265.

Grace, Grace once received can never be lost, according to Calvin, 307 — difficulties of this Doctrine, 310.

Gregorff (SL) Pope, under whom the Enghsh were converted, had no other sentiments than we have of the authority of the Holy See, 253,

Chrmtper, By the advice of the learned Gropper, Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, holds very holy councils, 277— he is present at the Conference of Ratisbon, 279.

Hddingj titular Kshop of Sidon, present at the Conference of Ratisbon, and there revises the book of the

Henry //, King of France, did his ut> mos^ t6 depress the C al vinists, 338i

Henry Vlllf Kin^ of England, 'm basely handled l>y Luther, 47, 57 — he reproaches Luther with his scandalous marriage and errors, ib, — he 1$. for marryin V a second wife, the 6 rst Still livmg,ms ceremonies, 219, 232, 245, &c.— what was the Faith of this Prince, 22Q^he assumes the title of supreme head of the Church of England, ib. — what

' were the instruments h€L made use of in his Reformation, ib. — ^be marries Anne Boleyn, 226 — ^he becomes enraged against the Holy See, ib, —he puts to death Thomas More, and Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 227 — the remarkable date of his cruelties, ib. — all England takes the oath of Supremacv, 228 — he appropriates to nimself the goods or Monasteries, 229 — he puts Anne Boleyn, to death in favor of Jane Seymour, 232; — ^he confirms the Doctrine of the Church with regard to Penance, 233 — ^the Eucharist and Images, ib. — and invocation and Purgatory and Masses for the pronounces on matters of Faith, ib, — he confirms anew the Faith of the Church, 235— he marries Anne of Cleves; falls in love with Catibarine Howard, and executes Crom- well, 236— he repudiates Anne of Cleves, 237 — ^he marries Catharine Howard and puts her to death, S37, .238 — he confirms again the Faidi of the Chureh, 23d-^he makes all Ecclesiastical power proceed from the Crown, 240 — tils vices the b^

I

IKDEXf

tt4!^ — exaraen of his first marria^ and the frivolous pretexts with which he covered his passion, 244 247 — what judgment ought to be 2>iassed on the pretended consultation of the faculty of Haris concern- ing Henry's divorce, f 6. — testimony ofthe Civilian Charles du Moulin, t&. — in what manner he allows the people to read the Scriptures, 249 — ^he will have the Church of every country regulate her Faith independently of all other Churches, 251 — ^his death, 254— a total change in England after his death, ib. Heretics, Why Heretics are forced to mimic the language ofthe Church,

331. JB^ermant Archbishop of Colore, calls

the Protestants into his Diocese ;

his extreme ignorance, 277 —

abused by Calvin on the subject of

the Eucharist Hus9. XJohn) inspires the people with

a hatred of the Clergy^ 22 — his

—Vide Vol I L

Jane Seymour is beloved by Heniy Vin, who marries her, 230 — ^her death, 236.

Jena, Synod of Jena, where the Lutherans condemned the Zuinglians,

JUyrieusy (Flaecus) his jealousy, and his hidden designs against Melancthon, 2S4 — ^he condemns Melano-

Images, pulled down by Carlostadius, 50 — ^Luther's opinion concerning Images, 66 — Calumnies of the Protestants with respect to the honor we show Ima^, ib, 1 17 — Luther praises God for that the Church of Rome preserves the In>- a^s of the Crudnx, 117 — tiie Dootnne of the Church concermns Im- ages confirmed by Henry VIII, King of England, 233, 238-~artifices employed to excite young£d- ward YI against the Church's Doc tiine Ivith relation to Images, 264 --ride Vol. n.

Impanation^ set up by some Luthfiiv ' ans, and rejected by Luther, 46

Imputation, unputed justiee — Vidd Justification.

Indulgences, attacked by Luther, 23 — ^me Indulgence that Luther preached, 30.

Interim, {Book qf the) made by order of Charles V, and why, 278^-this Book never approved by the Church, 279— the last hand put to it; the little success it was attended with, 280.

Invocation, Calumny of the Lutherans concerning Invocation of Saints, 115 — ^Invocation of Saints confirmed by Henry VIH, 233, 238— Vide Vol. n.

Isleibius, a Protestant present at the Conference of Ratisbon, 280.

Julian, what Cardinal Julian writes to Eugenius IV concerning the Reformation of the Clergy's manners, 19.

Julius II gives to Henry Vltl, King of England, a dispensation to mari^ the widow of his brother Arthur, 244 — the dispensation of Julius II attacked by reasons of fact and right, 245 — ^the Protestants of Germany favorable to the dispensation of Julius II, ift.

Justification, by imputation, is the fication since what nas been said concerning it in the Confession of Augsburg^ 92 — and that of Saxony, 289 — calumnies Hxed on Catholics about Justification, 92 — ^Justification^ Regeneration, Renovation, are all m substance the same Grace, 100 — how Luther defines Justification or justifyiiis Faith, 101 — the uncertainty of Justification which Catholics own, hinders hot the repose of conscience, 104 — what is in Justification the true repose of conscience, and what certamtyis there received, ib. — ^what is the Doctrine of Justification according to the Catholic Church, 106 — error of Lutheran Justification, that one is assured of his Justification and not of his Conversion, 24, 100 — ^the pernicious effects of this Doctrine^ and how much it encourages oeg* ligence and laxity, 150, 17^9 172-^

86<

INDEX.

another errar, 107 — Osiander's Doctrine on Justification, 261 — to Luther's Justification Calvin adds the certainty of Salvation, 306 — he teaches that Justification cannot be lost, 307 — dhficulty resulting firom this Doctrine, 309^Fu<e Luther,

Koningsbergdisturbed by the new Doctrine of C)8iander on Justification, 283 — some Divines of Kon- ingsberg oppose this Doctrine with ^eat vigor, 292 — they are astonished at the weakness of the Xu- theran Party, (6^-— one of them perceiving the Protestant Churches quite void of authority is converted, ib.

Landgrave of Hesse, takes up arms to maintain Luther's new Gospel, and owns he is in the wrong, 77— he strives in vain to reconcile both Parties of Protestants, 78 — he makes a treaty with the people of Basil, Znrich, and Strasburg, 121 — he sends Bucer to have an interview with Luther and Zuinglius, ib. — his scandalous incontinency, and what remedy the Reformation applied to it, 177 — important Records of this matter printed by order of the Elector Charles Lewis Count Palatine, 177— he asks of Luther and the otlier heads of the Party to crant him leave to many a second wife, the first still living, 179 — Monasteries if they favor his petition, ib, — ^if they refuse him, he purposes to have recourse to the Emperor, and even the Pope himself 180 — ^he obtains leave to marry another vr^e, 181 — ^his second marriage is performed in secret, 182-^ the contract passed between the parties, tft.— his answer to the young Duke of Brunswick relating to this marriage, ifr.— he obliges Luther to Sacrament in the Mass, 185 — ^reo- Olds appertaining to the Landerave's second marriage, 200, &c; he is defeated by the ^peior, 278.

Latin. The Latin song preserved in the Lutheran Mass, 111.

Leagues* Protestant leagaes, coo* demned at first by Luther and Me* lancthon, afterwards approved by

odious to Melancthon and all honest men of th4Party, 174 — ^made w^ evil designs^which create a horrar in Melancthon, 175 — Vide War.

Lenslature (The) make themselves ^ope in the new Reformation, 152 — Calvin condemns the Doctrine which makes the Church dependant on the Legislature, ib.

Lent retained in England, 262.

Leo X causes Indulgences to be published, and Luther opposes themf 29 — he makes Luther's writinge be

y burnt, 34.

Liturgy f reformed by Parliament in England, 259 — all the remains of antiquity which were at first pr^ served m the English liturgy are defaced, 260.

Louvain. Luther's passion a^unst the Doctors of Louvain, 197.

makes the Reformation depend on tiie destruction of the Papa^, 21 — his character and qualities, 22 — ^tbe groundworks of his Reformation: what he means by his ^'imputed Justice and Justification by Faith," 23 — what is by him called special Faith, ib. — according to him, one is adsured of his Justification without being assured of his Repentance, 25— %e maintains that all the sins of the just are mortal, 26 — ^the ^ ficulty which this Doctrine labon under, 25 — ^he blames security, 26 — this Doctrine inexplicable, 27*^ his answer by distinction of two kinds of sins, 28— contradiction of his Doctrine on Justification, i&.— sequel of Luther's contradictions, ib. — he spoke better at the b^iiining of the dispute, 29 — ^his stranse Doctrine about the War against £e Turk, 30— his apparent humilitv and his subinissioh to the Pope, if. — treasons he grounds this subnu> sion upon, ib. — his transports of passion, for which he asks pardon. 31 — he ofiers silence to Leo X and Charles Y, Ifr.— he will not hear of recanting, 32 — ^he is condemned by

INDEX.

S6S

Pope and Princes that abet him, ib, — oat orff spite he approves John Decretals be burnt, 35—- the dijficulty he had in renting the au- thority of the Church, and how he glories when he had compassed it, t6. — ^Luther's letter to the Bishops; hispretendedextraordinaiy mission, 36 — ^he presumes to make a Bishop, ik'^his arguments against the Ana^ baptists who preached without mission and miracles, 37 — what sort of miracles he pretends to authorize his mission by, 38 — ^what he writes to his Father upon his quitting the Monastery, t6. — he acts the Prophet, and promises to destroy the Fepe without sufiering arms to be employed, 39 — his boasts, and the contempt-he passes on all the Fathers, 41 — ^he writes against Free-will, ib, — ^he blames oontinency though commanded by all the Fathers, 42 — ^his bufiboneries and extravagances, ib, — seditions and violence are the first fruit of Luther's preaching, 43 — his book "of the Captivity of Babylon;" his sentiments on tne Eucharist, and the desire he has to undermine the Reality, 44-r-he attacks Transubstantiation, 45— his gross manner of explaining the Reality, ib, — ^his Variations upon Transubstantiation; his,.unheard-of method of de- ciding iki points of Faith, 46 — ^he does not relish Impanation, ib. — ^his itaipotent rage against Henry YUI, 48 — the origin of his contests with Carlostadius, 49 — ^his pride; he upbraids Carlostadius that he acts without mission, 50 — ^Luther's sermon wherein he threatens to recant and set up the Mass again; his extravagance in boasting his power, ib, — ^he decides out oT spite in the most important matters, t6.— how war was declared betwixt him and rebellion, ib, — ^he is sent to Oriemond to Pacify the people tumult- uated by Carlostadius, 52 — at his entryinto itbe is pelted with stones,

an inn, he bids him defianoe to write against him, ib. — the share he had in the revolt of the Peasants of Germany, ib, — he marries a Nun, 53 — ^great diminution of his authority, 55 — his dispute with EIrasmus about Free-will, t6. — his blasphemies in hb treatise of Will enslaved, 56 — he makes Grod the author of all brags of his pride, tb, — ^he does not spare Zuin^us upon what he had said of the Salvation of Heathens, worse than all the rest, 66 — ^the words of a famous Luthento upon ibt — ^Luther's strong arguments for the Real Presence, and then his boasting of them, 67 — ^what he answered to this objection c^ the Sa- > cramentarians, " the flesh proliteth nothing," 68 — he refutes their other objections, ib. — be will have neither peace nor union with them, 69 — the Zuingiians prove to him that the Catholics understand the literal s^ise better than he, ib,—hoyr Luther overthrew his own Doctrine about Consubst^ntiation without thinking of it, ib, — he did not understand the force of these words, "This is my Body," 71— the Saeramentarians prove to him that ho admits a kind of figure, 72 — ^Luther affri^ted at these disputes, 75 — ^he teacnes Ubiquity, ib, — ^he declares anew that it matters httle whether the Substance of Bread be admitted, or taken away, 76 — ^he abuses George, Duke of Saxony, after a vile manner, 78 — he is present at the Conference of Marpur^ and the only man that speaks of ms whole Party, 79— he will not there unite himself to the Zuingiians, 80— ^lis Doctrine about Free-will retracted in the Confession of Au^bu^ 92 — ^how he defines justiiymg rath, 101 — he rejects the Epistfe of St into the list of Saints; his odd doubtof the Salvation of St Thomas of Aquine, ib, — he confffsnon the

nmnion, lt6 — hispictiire at the beg^ming df his works represents him on his Knees before a Crucifix, 117 — ^what he says in excuse for the whde Church with relation to Communion under one kind, 118 — he warrants the Protestants^ resolution of taking up arms, 121 — he calls the Sacramentarians ''a dou- Zutngbans complain of his insolence and ii^iaraanity, and at the same time call him a great servant of God, 1^0 — ^his Conference with the Devil, 131 — he is deceived by the durable Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharisi^ 137 — ^he celebrates the Supper together with- the Sacramentarians in token of peace^ 138 — ^he makes a new declaration of this Faith in the Smalkaldic articles^ 144 — ^he explains the words of the institution after a new manner, tfr.-^-he cannot evade the equivocations of the Sacramentarians, who elude tiie Fope in the Articles oS ^aialkald, 146 — ^he receives his mission from the Prince to make his Ecdesiastical visitation, 152 — ^his insup- portable tyranny, 157 — Calvm srievesat it in vain, 158 — ^he allows uie Landgrave to have two wives at once^ 173, &c. — ^his dogmatical advice on Polygamy, 181 — ^his answer upon the second marriage of the Landgrave, and his scandalous sermon a&out marriage, 183, 184 — he sumresses the £levation of the Holy Sacrament in the Mass, ib, — yet without disapproving of it, 191, 194— his old jealousy against Zinngttus and his disciples is awakened, 186 — he will not suffer the Sacramentarians to be prayed for, and believes them inevitably damned, 187 — ^he has always the Devil in his mouth; his 8eand(dou Prayer, in which he says he has never offended to the Oblation and Canon of the Mass, 189 — ^he retains the Real and permanent Presence subsisting out of the use of the Sacrament, 191 — remarkable letters of Luther in belialf of the permanent Presence,

193, fcc'— his Doctrine aboat ifie Eudmrist changed immediat^ af' ter his death by the Divines of Wittenberg, 196— towards the end of his days he is more furiouo than ever; his passion against th Doctors of Louvain, 197 — ^hislast sen- timents concerning the Zuin^ans, ib, — his death, 199 — a new piece

Eroduced by Mr. Burnet, about lutiber'a sentiment touching a reconciliation with the Zuinghans, ib. to 3tir up the Lutherans to rise in arms, S77 — what he says of the Pope, whom he compares to a mad woi^ ib, — the difierence between Luther and Calvin, 334 — ^Luther less bitter than Calvin, ib.

the conduct of the Landgrave, 77 — they unke under the name of Protcstonts, 78 — what they say in the book of Concord about the tenth 83 — ^the Lutherans' shuts in defence of their Variations, 85 — ^in thear Doctrine, the Sacraments operate Infant Baptism necessary to Salvation, 102---their Variations in what they have retrenched fixun the Confessions of Augsburg, 97 — the Lu- therans a^ree that Justi6cation, Regeneration, and Sanctification, are confounded by Luther and Melancthon, 100 — according to the Lutheran principles, the uncertainty oT Justifieation acknowl- edged by Catholics ought to cause no trouble of conscience, 104 — ^tbey acknowledge the Sacrament of Penance and Sacramental Ab8<4ution, 108 — what they say of the Mass in the Augsburg Confession and Apology, 1 11 — they cut off the Oblation ofthe proposed g^, ib. — what they have mvented in onlerto render this Oblation odious,. 112 — what they say of Pmyer for the Dead, and Aerius who rejected it, 113— -their calumnies aboi^t invoeating Saints, and concerning Im- ages, 115 — ^they dare not reject the authority of the Church of B,ome 116 — the body of the Lntherans

' Council called by the Pope, 118 — Melancthon*8 description of the Lutheran Churches, 159 — the Lutherans are favorable to the dispen- sation of Julius II and to the first marriage of Henry VIII, 245 — ^their odd decision in this matter, 24&— 'their dispute relating to Ceremonies, ib. — Their Doctrine about Free-will sel£<^ontradictory, 888— their division in the Assembly at Worms, 29(V-^they all with one voice condemn the necessity of ^ood works for Salvation, ib. — their divisions break forth, 291-^at Frank- fort they make a new formulary to explicate the Eucharist, 292--&ey condemn the Zuinglians at the Synod of Jena, 295~4hey meet at Naumburg, in order to agree about the Confession of Augsburg, 296-— they set up Ubiquity, 297 — ^their design in setting up Ubiquity, 298 —-two remarkable decisions of the Lutherans on the co-operation of Free-will, 299 — ^the perolezity and contradiction of the Lutheran Doctrine, 300 — ^how they answer to the objections of Libertmes, and to the dimcnlties of weak Christians, upon the co-operatipn of Free-will, 3&1 — their rraolution is clearly Demi- Pelagian; a proof of the Demi- Pdagianism of the Lutherans, 303 — ^the Lutherans scurriloudy used

Manners, No reformation of Manners in the Protestant Churches 155, 176 — Vide Reformation.

Jtfanmrg. Conference of Marpurg what passed at it, 78.

Confossion acknowledge in marriage a divine institution and prom- ises, 110 — ^Luther's marriage, 53 — Carlostadius's marriage, t6.— -CEcolampadius*s marriage, 63 — ^Sneer's marriage, 81-Eraamus*s sentiments on these scandalous marriages, 63 -^Luther's scandalous sermon upon marriage, 184, 185 — ^Thomas Cranmer's marriage, 224 — ^the Land-

Eiave's second marriage — Vide andgrave of Hesse. Jtfory, dau^ter of Henry VIII; they rebel against her in En^mo, 267 r-flhe restores Catholic region and

makes Cranmer be condemned, 267.

Mass, Low Masses abolished by Carlostadius, 50 — Luther threatens his Disciples with re-establishmg the Mass, ii. — ^the Mass abolishea at Zurich, 65 — the Lutheran Mass, 1 1 1 — ^Mass without communicants, 1 14 — in what sense it is believed by Cathdics that tl^e Mass is profits^ ble to the whole worid, 113 — ^Luther's treatise for abolishing the Mass, 116 — in what sense we ofl^r in tibe Mass for the Redemotion of maidund, 190 — the whole Mass is included in the sole Real Presence, 190, 196, 197— -what Melancthon does in order to destroy the Mass, 191~^Mass for the Dead retained in Enghuid by Hemy VIII, 234— Mass abrc^ted in England under Edward VC260-the Galilean Mass and the rest are in substance the same with that of Rome, 261 — the Prayer beting the change of Bread into the Sdy, 260, &c.— what is the sense of tiiis Prayer, ib, — rotained and afterwards taken away under Eklward VI, ib. — Canon of the Mass; what it is that Luther blames therein, 189 — Vide Oblation.

Mediation of Jesus Christ always necessary, 99.

Luther had allowed Transubstan- . tiation to certain Churches in Italy, 46— what he sa^s of Carlostadius, 49 — what he writes to Camerarius concerning Luther's marriage, 54 — his anxiety on Luther's account, 55 — he bewails the passionate transports of Luther, 56 — ^in re^rd to the Doctrine of Free-will he is more moderate than Luther, ib, — ^he laments the condition which the world was brought to by the disputes ing to the Eucharist, 76 — ^the quandary he is in how to excuse the Landgrave who had taken up arms to maintain Luther's Reformation, 78 — ^he is present at the Conference of Marpurg, ib. — he draws up the CQnfession of Augsburg, 81 — ^he makes tl^e Apolo<^ of it, 82 — ^how he there tjranscribea the Tenth Arti-*

31*

INDCX.

de of die Augsbnig Confeseioii i^ latm^ to the Supper, 82 — ^he is carelul to express in the Apdogy tbe literal sense of the words of Institution, 83 — ^he knows not his own meaning, when in the Apology he denies that good works ment life everlasting, 96 — ^remarkable words of Melancthon on the alterations he has a mind should be made in the Confession of Augsburg, 120 of war, which were approved by Luther, 122 — ^he wavers on this head; what he wiites to Camerarius concerning it, <^ — ^what he says of the Sacramentarians^ Doctrine about the ELuchaiist, 125 — his notion of equivocations in matters of Faith, 137 — ^he begins to doubt of Luther's Doctrine $ nis unskilfulness in divinity^ 141 — Ratramnus's for a new decision about the Eucharist, 143 — ^he is for owning the Pope's authority, 146 — ^how he was drawn over to Luther, 147 — ^how he excuses Luther's passion, 149 — the beginning of his perplexitiea, 150 — ^how he owns that Luthei's great success was owing to bad principi'es, ib. — he foresees the disorders that would result from the contempt of E)|piscopal Authority, was quit& ruined among the Lutheran Churches, 151 — ^he bewails the licentiousness of the Party who decided points of Religion at table, 154 — ^tyrannized over by Luther; he thinks of retiring, 150--he i put to a plunge; his vraole life long he is in search after his relision, 169, 160 — ^what tenets he looked upon illexplained, 162 — at the very time he tbmks of reforming tbe Confusion of Augsburg he declares he stands by it, 163---his sentiments about the necessity of owning the Pope and Bidiops. 164— t4he Assembly the Council called by the Pope sons for the restrictioa he made to his subscription of the artides of Smalkald, 167 — ^Mehmcthon's remarkable words concerning the authority of the Church, 168-^e

cannot divest himself of the opicioa of imputed justice whatever grace -God bestows to reclaim Mm-; two truths by him confessed, ib. — ^he foresee? the dreadful consequences of the subversion of^Church Authority, 171 — ^the grounds of his errors; he idleges Hbe promises made to the Church, and does not sufficiently trust in them, 172 — he writes to Camerarius that the Protant Princes and Doctors are eaually insupportable, 174— the proaigies, the prophecies, and the horoscopes which affii^ht him, 176 — his Dogmatical advice conc^ning Polyga- my, I8f — he labors to render the Real Presence momentaneous, and to place it sdely in the actual use thr€of^ 189 — iK> other means does he- find (^destroying the Mass than sembling with Luther on this subject, 193 — he is present at jthe Con- ference of Ratisbon, 279^-his opinion concerning Osiander, 282 — ^he is against rejecting Ceremonies, 883 —he strives to undermme Luther's doctrine about the Real Presence, 284 — ^he draws up the Saxonic Confession of Faith, to.-— he there ex- 5 tains' tiie article of the Eucharist iflferently i&om that of Augsburg, 885 — he changes his opinion concerning tho Will of Grod, with re- spect to sin, 287 — his Doctrine on the co-operation of Freo-w^ i6.-^ his Doctrine. on Free-will condemned by his Brethren, 888— he owns the distinction between venbd and mortal sins, 289 — he complains of the Dedsions which the Doctors of the Party made against him at ef Ubiquity makes him incline towards me Sacramentarians, 893— whetiier Mekinothon was a Calvinist with respect to the Euchaiist, ib. — ^Melancthon's deplorable condition, and his death, 295. Merit. The Church tradueed hy the Lutherans upon this merit of good works, 94— the merit c£ good

INDEX.

of Augsburg and Apology, 95 — there is something in life everlasting, which falls not under merit, 97 — merit of Condignity, 98 — ^merit of Congruity, 99 — ^how the merits of Jesus Clurist are ours, and how imputed to us, 100 — of merit accord- m^ to Bucer, 105— the merits of Saints are profitable to us by'Bucer's Confession, 106— the merit of good woriu retained by the English under Henry VIII, 238— and owned in the Confession of Wirtenberg, II.

Miracle. Luther requires of the Anabaptists that they should warrant their pretended mission by Miracles, 37 — the miracles Luther boasts of, 38 — ^the Zuinglians will not bear the mention of any miracle in the Eucharist, 139 — Calvin confesses a miraculous presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the- Eucharist, 318 — ^he shifts off the miracle whch he admits in the Supper, 324 — ^what is the miracle of the Eucharist according to the Fathers, ib. — the Calvin- ists were more sensible of the necessity of admitting a miracle in the Eucharist than they did in fact admit one, 325.

Mission. Luther pretends his mission was extraordinary, 36 — ^he confesses the necessity of mission, 37, 50 — he receives his mission from the Prince, in order to make his Ecclesiastical visitation, 152.

Monastery, Pilla^ng of Monasteries under Henry "^II, 229.

Monks, Monks reckoned among the Saints in the Apolc^ of the Augsburg Confession, 101.

Mr. Burnet says of him, 221 — ^be some ambiguous formulary for the Supper, 343— his empty discourses on the Reformation oif manuers, 346 — ^his private marriage, ib.

More, Thomas, Lord Chancellor of England, is condemned to death (or not owning the King supreme head ofthe Church, 227.

Mmcer, Father of the Anabaptists, preaches without mission, 37-— Luther condemned him on this head only, ib. Mystery. Equivocations of 4he Sacramentarians on this word, 128— all the mysteries of Jesus Christ are signs in some respects, ib.

J^mmbwrg, assembly of the Lutherans at, and what passed there, 296.

Oblation ofthe Eucharist cut off from the Lutheran Mass, 112 — what. was invented in order to render this Oblation odious, ib. — ^how the Oblation of the Eucharist is profitable to the whole world, 113 — it is a necessary consequence from the Real Presence; the Lutherans themselves own as much, 190, 191, 196 — ^it is suppressed in England under Edward VI, upon a false pretence, 260, 264 — Vide Mass.

(Ecojiampttdius takes up the defence of Carlostadius, 57 — his character, 62 — ^what Erasmus says of his marriage, and the rest of his behaviour 63 — he writes against the Real Presence, ib, — ^his death, 125 — ^he had admonished Bucer, that there was nothing but trick in his equivocations, 129.

Operation, ex opere operato, ill-understood by Protestants, 99, 113, 114 — ^it is admitted by them, 93.

in the Church of Rome by Luther's own Confession, 117 — ordination of Bishops and Priests regulated by the Parliament in England, 256.

Origin ofthe contests between Luther and Carlostadius, 49.

where Carlostadius takes shelter, 51— he there raises great disturbances, and drinking with Luther declares war against him, 52.

Omamemis preserved in the Lutheran Mass, 111— and in England, 262.

Osiander renews the Doctrine of impanation, 46— he b present at the Conference of Marpurg, 78 — ^his sister marries Thomas Cranmer, 223— Osiander's character and his the profane spirit of Osiander observed by Calvin, 282 — ^the notions that Protestants had of Osiander, i&.<>a-he keeps within no bounds, 283 — ^his Doctrine on Justification is

291 — ^his triumph in Prussia, 292,

Porta. The pretended consultation of Uie Paris fiiculty of Divinity conconcerning the (uvorce of Henry Vin, 247.

Ptiichanua Radbertus, 143.

Penance. The Lutherans acknowledge the Sacrament of Penance and Sacramental Absolution, 108 — Henry VIII confirms the Church's Faith of the Sacrament of Penance, 238.

Peter ly^illy. The sentiments of Cardinal Peter D'Ailly, Bishop of Cambray, on the Reformation of the Church, 20 and 21.

Peter Martifr is called into Endand to begin the Reformation uiere. His Doctrine on the Eucharist, 250 — ^his opinion of the equivocations of the rest of the Ministers, 345.

before she was wedded to Henry VIII, 230 — ^what the en^igement which Lord Piercy had with Anne Boleyn, ib,

Pistorius, a famous Protestant, present with Bucer and Melancthon at the Conference of Ratisbon, 279.

Poissy, Conference of Poissy, 340 — how undertaken, ib. — matters han- ' died in this Conference^ and its opening, 341 — all there in commotion at what Beza advanced against the Real Presence, 342.

Polygamy f warranted by Luther and the other heads of the Party, 181 — the Landgrave's instruction, and the dogmatical advice of Luther and the other heads of the Party upon polygamy, 181, 183, 200.

Pope. Luther's submission to the Pope, 30 — ^Luther's passionate transports against the Pope, 146 — Melancthon is for owning the Pope's authority. 146, &c 165— the evils that resulted from rejecting it, 150 — owned by rejected in Englana on false principles, 253— KWe Vol II.

Prayer f Bucer undertakes the defence of the Church's prayer, 106 — sprayer and oblation for the dead, what is said of them by the Lutherans, 1 18

" — ^the calumnies on the prayers we address to Saints, 114r— Luther's scandalous prayer, in which be says he had never offended the Devil, 187 —prayer for the dead confirmed by Henry VIII, 234, 23&— retained for awhile, and then abrogated under Edwaid VI, 261 — public prayers reformed in Englana by the Parliament, 259 — prayers for the dead're* ceived in the Confession of Augsburg, and by the Calvinists in 1557, 340.

Presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, on what grounded, 49, 65, 76— inseparable from Transubstantiation, 70, 71 — ^it raises horror in Zuinglius, 89 — ^whether it be gross and carnal, 90, 127, 128, 141 — Real Presence the foundation of spiritual union, 87 — ^if the Presence of the body be no more than spiritual, the words of the institution are in vain, 127 — ihey have a difficulty in rejecting the Real Presence, 87 — ^how spiritual, 126 — ^whether a local presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist ought to be admitted, 127 — whether the presence of the body of Jesus Christ be durable in the Eucharist, 137 — ^the real permanent presence, and subsisting when not m use, retained by Luther, 137, 191, 192 — ^the Real Presence owned in the Greek Church by Mr. Burnet's Confession, 259 — me Real Presence believed by the English in 1548, 263 — absolutely rejected, 260, 264— the liberty of behoving it afterwards allowed, ifr. — Calyin ad- mits a presence of the body of Jesos Christ m the Eucharist that is inefiable and miraculous, 329 — ^he admits a presence that is proper and: peculiar to the Supper, t^.r— h^ eludes the miracle of this presence after having confessed it, 384 — a Vide Eucharist, Reahty, Transub-. stantiation — Vide Vol. II.

ifi explained in the book called ** The Preservative," 329.

Pride of Calvin, 333.

Primacy of the Pope— Fiile Pope.

IHPEZ.

Luther as th^ head, 21--^whence came^ the name of Protestants, 78 -^heir confederacy after the Diet of Augsburg, 121— -they despise the authority of Bishops and ecclesiastical discipline, 151 — ^their Refor- mation whereon grounded according to Mdancthon, ib, — ^no Refor- mation of manners among Protestants, 155— rthe Protestants of Ger- many favorable to the dispensation on the conformity of the soitiments of Protestants with the sentence of Clement VII, 246— the Protestants of G^ermany vanquished by Charles V, 278 — ^what opinion Protestants had of the Calvinists, 333— the Holy Fathers force respect fixm Protestants, though against, their

Prussia set all in commotion by Osiander, 281 — ^this country turns Lu- theran, 281, 282.

ent at the Conference of Ratisbon, 279 — ^he puts the finishing stroke to the book of the Interim^ i^* — he presides in the Conference d Worms, 290.

Purgatory. The Church's doctrine on Purgatory confirmed by Henry Yin, 234, 238— retained for a while, then abolished under Edward VI, 277.

Puritans, What James I, King of England, said of the Puritans, 332.

Ratisbon. Conference of Ratisbon in 1541, and what passed at it, 279— another Conference of Ratisbon in 1549, and what passed at it, 280.

Ratramntu. Ratramnus's Book puzzles Melancthon, 142 — what the dispute in Ratramnus's time, 143.

a great mind to subvert the reality, reality attacked by Carlostadius, 48,51 — impugned by Zumglius,61

. strongly defended by Luther, 67 — Melanctlion labors to place ihe reality during the time of^the sole use of the Sacrament, 189 — Calvin makes vain efforts to keep up the idea of reality, 328— he cannot satisfy the notion of reality impressed b^ our Lord's institution, i^. — the

reality well expressed by the Pre lates assembled at Poissy, 345— Fide Eucharist, Real Presence, vide Vol. II.

Refermation of the Church desired more than an age ago, 18 — ^the Reformation that was desired touched only discipline, and not fiuth, 20 — ^two ways of desiring the R^ormation of the Church, 21 — the Reformation of Protestants established by seditions and wars, 42 -~-the Reform makes two separate bodies- in Germany by different Confessions of Faitn, 81 — ^it is resolved in the new Reformation to take arms, 121 — ^no Reformation of manners in the Protestant Church, 155, 174, 186, 296— the causes of its progress, 158 — ^no authority in the Reformation to terminate their disputes, 283, 286, 292, 296— Refor- mation in England, vide England : whether the progress of the Rcf^ ormation be aue to the reading of Scripture, and how, 249 — foundation of the Reform laid on the ruins of ecclesiastical authority, 255 — the Reformation under Edward began in England by Peter Martjrr, and Bemardin Ochin, 258 — all order fliihvef ted in the English Reformation, 263— -ifxhether any advantage can be drawn firom the sudden progress of pretended Reformation, 264 — ^the Reformation goes from one excess to another, 288, 305 — ^vain discourses of the Bishop of Valence on the Reformetion of manners, 346

Reformers^ or the heads of the Rel^

■ ormation, careful to secure themselves : Cranmer the only one

. among them that dies for this cause,

Rome. The Church of Rome praised and respected by Luther, 30.

^e Sacraments operate ex opere operatoy 93 — ^what the Lutherans think of the seven Sacraments, 109 —equivocation of the Sacramentarianson the word Sacrament, 128 — the seven Sacraments retained by the English under Heniy VUI^

m

S70 INDEX.

the Sacramentarian war amons the new refimned, 49 — progress of the Sacramentarian doctrine, 63-— the Sacramentarian party form themselves, ib, — the Sacramen^arians prove to Luther that he admitted a kind of fi^re, 73 — the Sacramentarian dispute undermines the groundwork of the Reformation, 77 — Calvin owns it, ib, — the Sacra^ mentarians ofier to subscribe the Confession of Au^burs excepting the Supper-article, 8 1 — they are not more steady in explaining their Faith than the Lutherans, 86 — their eauivocating on the Eucharist, 126 — tney make words signify just what they please, and inure themselves to strain all kind of language, 61, 125, 129, 138, 143, 145— in token of peace they celebrate the Supper with Luther, 138— Luther's wrath again enkindles against them, 186 — ^Luther will not have the Sacramentarians any longer prayed for, and believes them irrevocably damned, 187.

Sacrifice. Luther's doctrine imports a

taught by Calvin, 306.

owned in the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, 101.

Saxony, The Saxonic Confession of Faith, why made, and by what author, 284-^how the Eucharistic ar- ticle is there explained, 285 — other alterations made in this Confession, on the will of GK>d touching sin, and the co-operation of Free-will, ib, — a considerable article in the Saxonic Confession relating to the distinction of mortal and venial sin, 289.

Scripture. Luther boasts of understanding the Scripture better than ever any man had done, 66 — ^Luther owns that the Scripture is miraculously preserved in the Church of Rome, 1 16 — in what sense Henry VIII permits the people to read Scripture, 249 — ^whether the progress of the Reformation be owing to reading of the Scripture and how, t*.— how they impose on men by Scripture ill-interpreted, 250 — ^what the Holy Fathers have said of the

manner of undemtanding Seiipture, 25-Fuie Vol. U.

preachings 43.

Sani-Pelagimtitm, favored in the Con* fession of Augsburg, 98— and by Mdancthon; 287— 4aught by the

Sign. How the Eucharist b a sign, 158 — all the mysteate of Jesus Christ are si^s m certain respects, 129 — Calvin is not content ¥fith receiving a sign in the Supper, 312.

Sin. B£ors of the Zuin^tans on original si% 60 — ^the forgiveness of sins purely gratuitous, according to the Council of Trent, 94— enumeration of sins retained in confession of sins conserved in the Churdi of Rome by Luther's Confession, 116 — a considerable artide in the Confession of Saxony on mortal and venial sins, 289.

Smdkald. The Luth^ims labor to form the Smalkaldic Confederacy, 122— the Assembly of Smalkald occaaioiied by the Council called by Paul III, 144— Luther fiiesout against the Pope in the Articles of Smalkald, 146 — ^in the Assembly of Smalkald, Melancthon is of opinion that they should own the Council summoned by the Pope, 167.

Somerset (Duke of) begins the Reformation in England, 258 — whether this Duke had any thing of show of a Reformer, 266.

Song, Latin Song retained in the Lutheran Mass, 111.

Koningsberg, 298 — ^his remarkable conversion, ib,

Siraaburg. The Strasburg Confession

^of Faith, or of the four cities, 81 — "equivocal terms of this Confession on the Article of the Supper, 85— the Confession of Strasbuig explains Justification in the same manner as the Church of Rome, 105 — ^they at the same time receive

Substance. Why this Mrqrd is emploved in the Euchariaty

iia>Bx. S71

Luther, 132.

Lutherans to take up arms, 277.

Thomas ^mdnas, Luther's odd doubt of the saivation of this Saint, 110.

f^the list of Saints by the Engtish, 275 — ^the behaviour of this §aint quite different fh>m that of Thomas Cranmer, ib,

Thomas Cranmer — Vide Cranmer.

Thomas Jdore — Vide More.

Thomas Muncer — Vide Muncer. *Towmonf (Cardinal off) Archbishop of Lyons, presides in the Conference of Poissy, 341.

Trortsubstaniiadon attacked by Luther, 45 — Variation of Luther on Transubstantiation, tb, 76 — it follows from his expressions, 46, 145 — and from that of Melancthon in the Apology, 191 — ^Transubstantiation destroys not the Sacrament^ 73 — why the name of bread re^. tained, 74 — ^why the Church makes use of the word transubstantiation, 91 — Transubstantiation, according to the Zuinglians, is established by Luther's doctrine, 69 — and according to the Divines of Leipsic and Wittenberg, 195 — the doctrine of

, Transubstantiation confirmed by Henry VIII, 238 — and abolished

under Edward VI, 263 Vide

Vol. II.

Twk, Luther's strange doctrine about war against the Turk, 30.

VHqmty, taught by Luther, 75 — friends, 293 — me question of Ubiquity causes Melancthon to incline towards the Sacramentarians, t6. — Ubiquity, after Melancthon's death, established throu<s;hout almost all Lutheranism, 295— Ubi- quity rejected by the Calvinists, 297— Fiife Vol. If.

Untoorthy. The Communion of the unworthy how real according to Calvin, 321 — ^how the unworthy teeeive the body of Jesus Christ without receiving the spirit of it, 323.

with respect to these Variations, 85 — ^their Variations in what they haye lopped from the Confession of Augsburg, 97 — ^Variation of the. Sacramentarians, how astonishing^ 86 — Variations in the Acts of the Calvinists, 337 — Vide all the other titles, vide Vol. II.

War, Luther and the Lutherans confess that it is not lawful for them to makewar,39,51, 52, 121, 173— they League, vide Vol. II.

Westphalus, a famous Lutheran, teaches Ubiaui^^, 293.

JVirtemherg. Tne Confession of Faith of Wirtembcrg, why made, and by what authors, 284 — ^the Article of the Eucharist is there othentise couched than in that of Augsburg, 285 — the merit of good works is there confessed, 289.

Wittenberg. Agreement of Wittenberg, and its six Articles, 134— issue of this agreement, 138 — the Diyines of Wittenberg own that

' there is no ayoiding the Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, and Adoration, otherwise than by changing Luther's doctrine, 195 — the Divines of Wittenberg change Luther's doctrine immediately after his death, ] 96 — ^the Lutherans unable to answer the arguments of the Divines of Wittenberg, t*. — the Divines of Wittenberg come back to Luther's sentiments, and why, 197.

Works. Sada&ctory works owned in the Apology of the Au^^uis Confession, 101 — ^the merit (h gooa works, vide Merit. — The necessity of good works, in order to salva^ tion, condemned by the Lutherans, 290.

Worms. The Conferences of Wonns, in order to reconcile both rdigions, 290 — Assembly at Worms in 1557, whither the Rdbnned Churches of France and Geneva send Beza and Farel, 338.

on the salvation of Heathens, 57, 58 — his errors on original sin, 60 — his errors on baptism, 61 — he fcrces

hia contempt of antiquity, ti. — he writes iigunat the Real Fiesenc^ 64--he takes lh>m the Euchuiet ■II thkt raises it above the Benaes, ib. — a Split appears to hin), and

preaches the Reformation in Switserland, ii.— he ia present at the Conference of Marpu^, where he confers with Luther, t£— he aenda his Confession of Faith to the Em- , 83 — his Confession of "aith lre &om equivocationa, 89 — what a presence of the bod;-of Jesus Cbnat he acknowledges in the — Zuindiua's death in

Rith'l

Zmn^imt prove to Luther that tlu Catholics undersland the literal seose better than he, 70— a whole to Luther that he admits a kind oT figurative sense, 72 — the; will not hear a miracla or omnipoteoce spoken of in the Eucharist, 139— thej reprove Luther for alwaja havitig the Devil in his mouth, and call hun madman, 188 — Luther's last sentiments concerning the

Zuingliana, 198 Zuinglianism

gains ground in England, 858 — Uie Zmngliana are condemned by the Lutherans, 995 — their ea& at the Confession of Augabum S97.

Sneer's equivocations, 138 — ^ilvin Zurich, 31IX

BKD OT THE FIRST

CATALOGUE

WAY, NEW-YORK.

KT A liberal discount made to Literary Institutions, Clergymen on the Mission, Country Merchants, Devout Sodalities, and Pious Confraternities, Religious Book Societies, and all who buy for gratuitous distribution among the poor, or for the purpose of aiding in the diffusion of the Catholic Faith.

The Holy Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate; diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions, in divers lan- guages; the Old Testament, first published by the English College, at Douay, A. D. 1609 ; and the New Testament, first published by the English College at Rheims, A. D. 1582. With Annotations, References, and a Historical and Chronological Index. — The whole revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate. Royal

Oc> To this edition Annotations and Parallel References are given to the corresponding passages of the sacred volume, and Historical and Cnronological Indexes of the Old and New Testaments, compnsins a Summary of Sacred History, a Table of Controversial References, a Table of all the Epistles and Gospels, for all the Sundays and Holidays throughout the year, the Decree of Scriptures, and other useful and valuable Tables, not to be foundin any other edition^ making this the most complete and valuable Cathohc Bible ever publif;hed m this country. — ^It is the only one patronized by the Catholic Hierarchy and Clergy, and they use no other.

The Manual of Catholic Piety: containing a selection of Fervent Prayers, Pious Reflections, Pathetic Meditations, and Solid Instructions; adapted to every state of life. By Rev. Wm. Gahan, 32mo., closely printed, 16 plates, 50 cts.

books in the English language.

The Pocket Manual of Spiritual Exercises; or, Devout Catholic's Vade Mecum, d2mo. 16 plates, closely printed, 37 cts.

9Cr Another most admirable little prayer book ; and ai^er the Catholic Piety, the best of any.

Rivers's Manual; or. Pastoral Instructions upon the Creed, Commandments, Sacraments, Lord's Prayer, &c. &c. Collected from the Holy Scriptures, Councils, Fathers, and approved Writers in Grod's Church, with Prayers conformable thereto, for the use of those who wish to be instructed in the Principles and Duties of

The Most Important Tenets of the Catholic Church fairly escplained. By the Rev. R Baxter, S. J. To which is added, the Declaration of the Catholic Prelates, the Vicars' Apostolic, and their co- adjutors in Great Britain. 32 mo., 25 cts.

The Douay Catechism ; or, an Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine ;

with proofs of Scripture on points controverted, by way of Ques- ^ tion and Answer. Composed in 1649, by Rev. Henry Tuberville, [ D. D., now approved and recommended for his diocese, by the Right Rev. Benedict, Bishop of Boston, 18mo., 25 cts.

W^ This is the only full edition published; the Philadelphia one, put out under the name of Dr. Doyle's Catechism, has left out the office of our Blessed Lady.

The General History of the Christian Church, from her birth to

her final triumphant state in. Heaven. Chiefly deduced from the

Apocalypse of St John, the Apostle and Evangelist. By Sig.

W^ " Blessed is he that readeth, and heareth the words of this prophecy.*'

The Layman's Ritual, containing Practical Methods of Christian Duties, both Religious and Moral, drawn out of Holy Scripture, the Roman Ritual, the Catechism ad Parochos, &c. Containing, also explanations of the Ceremonies used at Mass, and in the Administration of the Sacraments, with the Blessing of Creatures, 18mo. 62i cts.

9Cr This invaluable work, written with so much unction, should be in the hands of every one who desires to have a proper understanding of the holy ceremonies of the Catholic Religion.

St Bonaventure's Life of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Translated from the original Latin. To which are added, the Devotions to the Three Hours' Agony of our Saviour on the Cross, and the Life of the glorious St. Joseph, 18mo. 75 cts.

Cobbett's History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland ; showing how that event has impoverished and degraded the main body of the people in those countries, in a series of letters, addressed to all sensible and just Englishmen ; 2 vols, in