An historical defence of the Reformation in answer to a book intituled, Just-prejudices against the Calvinists / written in French by the reverend and learned Monsieur Claude ... ; and now faithfully translated into English by T.B., M.A.

CHAP. V.

A further Examination of the Reasoning of the Author of the Prejudices, upon the subject of our Separation.

THe Third Proposition of the Author of the Prejudices is already sufficiently confuted by what I have said. He sayes, that since our Society is not visibly ex∣tended throughout all Nations, therefore it cannot be the True Church. But we have shewn him, that we cannot at this day rationally attribute that visible extension throughout all Nations, to any of the Societies that divide Christianity, and by consequence, that it is a chimerical mark, by which we may con∣clude, that there is no true Church in the world, since there is none which is not visibly excluded from many Nations. We have shewn him also, that his pretended mark does not agree either with the experience of the Ages past, nor with the do∣ctrine of the Fathers, nor even with that of the Doctors of the Roman Church; and that instead of having any foundation in the Doctrine of S. Augustine, it is evidently contrary to him. So that we have nothing to do at present, but to go on to the Examination of the Fourth and Fifth Proposition. They bear this sense, That the Calvinists urge the principle of the Donatists far higher, than ever those Schismaticks did. For as for them, they did not say, that there was any time wherein the whole Church had fallen into Apostasy, and they excepted the Communion of Donatus; whereas the Calvinists would have it, that there have been whole Ages, wherein all the Earth had generally apostatized, and lost the faith and treasure of salvation. That the Societies of the Berengarians, the Waldenses and Albigenses, &c. in which he sayes, that some of us include the Church, could not be that Catholick Church whereof S. Augustine speaks.

To establish that which he layes to our Charge concerning the entire extinction of the Church, he first produces the testi∣mony of Calvin. This is, sayes he, that which Calvin has distinctly declared in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, where after having pretended, that the threatning that S. Paul uses against those

who do not remain in the state of grace, where the goodness of God had sent the Gospel, in declaring to them, that they ought to fear being cut off, as the Jews, from the Covenant of God, he addresses himself to the whole body of the Gentiles converted to Jesus Christ. Ad totum Gen∣tium corpus, adds he. And certainly, that horrible Apostasy of the whole world which has fallen out since, manifestly shews us, that this advice of S. Paul was not unprofitable. For God having diffused in so great an extension of Countreys, almost in a moment, the waters of his Grace, so that Religion flourished every where; within a very little while after, the truth of the Gospel was vanished, and the treasure of salva∣tion banished out of the Earth. But whence could that change come, unless from this, that the Gentiles were fallen away from their Call, and therefore it is that he clearly professes in a Letter to Melancthon, that they had separated from all the world. Plusquam enim absurdum est postquam discessionem à toto mundo facere coacti sumus alios ab aliis desilire. The Author of the Prejudices, yet further makes use of an Article of our Confession of Faith to prove the same thing, which sayes, That we believe, that no one ought of his own authority to thrust himself into the government of the Church; but that that ought to be done by election while it is possible, and while God permits it. Which exception we emphatically add to it, because it has failed some∣times, and even in our time, in which the state of the Church was in∣terrupted, till God had raised up men after an extraordinary manner, to order the Church a new, which was in ruine and desolation. Grounding himself on these two passages, he insults over Monsieur Vigerius, the Author of the Discourse in the Book of the Perpetuity of the Faith, because he had declared, That none of us had ever said, that it could be possible that the Church should no longer subsist, and that he defied Monsieur Arnaud to shew him one only Author among us who had thought so. Before he had expressed such desires, sayes the Author of the Prejudices, it would have been well to the purpose, that he had better informed himself about that which not only some Authors of his Sect have wrote, but the Master of all their Authors, which is Calvin, who sayes a great deal more than that which is contained in that Book of the Perpetuity of the Faith, since he looks upon the Church not only as possible to perish, but as having effectually done so for many Ages, so far as to say, that the threatning of S. Paul, which he pretends to be spoken to the whole body of the Gentiles, had its effect, that all the Gentiles had fell from their Call through a general Apostasy, that the light of the Gospel had vanished, in respect of them, and that they had

lost the treasure of salvation. It is upon this foundation that he builds his Proposition, and pretends to make us pass for worse men than the Donatists.

But all this is nothing else but an effect of the unjust and violent hatred that this Author has conceiv'd against us, and Monsieur Vigerius had reason to deny that which he has denyed. As the dispute here is only to know, what our Hypothesis is upon the point of the perpetual subsistence of the Church, it would be sufficient methinks to stop the mouth of the Author of the Prejudices, to tell him, that he troubles himself to no pur∣pose, that we do not believe, that intire extinction of the Church throughout all the world, which he layes to our charge, and that he has mistaken the meaning of Calvin, and that of our Confes∣sion of Faith; for there is no likelihood that he should better know what we believe, than our selves, nor that he should be a more faithful Interpreter of the sense of Calvin, and that of our Confession of Faith, than we our selves. Notwithstanding, to make the Character of the Author of the Prejudices more and more known, and what judgement we ought to make of that which he propounds, when he speaks with the greatest confidence, it will be good to relate here the testimony that Monsieur the Cardinal of Richelieu, has given to the Protestant Churches con∣cerning that that they believe and teach upon the subject of the perpetual subsistence of the Church until the end of the world. For we might say, that he had the Author of the Prejudices in his view, and wrote about this matter only to confute him. There is not, sayes he, any point in controversie between our Adver∣saries and us, about which their Confessions of Faith speak so clearly, and agree so uniformly as this, which I may truly say ought not to be put into the number of the controverted points. The Confession of Ausburg, which may be said to be as▪ well the Rule, as the source and origine of all the other Confessions of Faith of our Adversaries, sayes in express terms, that the Church ought perpetually to remain, one and holy. That of Saxony sayes, that the Article of the Creed which de∣clares the Church Holy and Catholick, was inserted therein, only to con∣firm the faithful against the doubts that they might have of the stabi∣lity of the Church. That of the Switzers, does not only affirm this truth, but sets down the same reason for it that I my self have made use of here above, since God, sayes it, would from all eternity that men should be saved, we must acknowledge this truth, that the Church

has alwayes been for the time past, that she subsists for the present, and that she will do so till the end of the world. The Scotch holds this Article to be so undoubtedly true, that it compares the belief of it to that of the Mysterie of the Trinity, saying, That as the faithful believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, so they also constantly believe the perpetuity of the Church. The Flemish professes the same truth, and gives the reason, altogether founded upon the Regality of Jesus Christ, which being perpetual, supposes in all times some subjects, over whom he must reign. The French Confession alone sayes nothing upon this occasion; but it is so far from saying nothing of it, through the difficulty that they found in this point, that on the contrary, the cer∣tainty which they had of it, was, in my opinion the cause of their si∣lence. She does not therefore, it may be, speak any thing, because she did not think she could doubt of so evident a truth, of which her founders have spoke so clearly for her. Luther teaches it in terms so express, that he makes perpetuity to enter into the definition of the Church, as a quality that making a part of its essence, is altogether inseparable from it. He draws the duration of the Church from an Article of the Creed and the words of Jesus Christ, which bind us to believe it, saying that it is an Article of Faith taught in the Creed, and founded upon the promise of Jesus Christ, who ought alwayes to have a holy Christian Society in this world, that should subsist until the consummation of Ages. Calvin does not say less, and his words are not less express. We must, sayes he, hold it for certain, that from the beginning of the world, there never was a time wherein the Church of God was not, and there never will be, till the consummation of Ages, in which it shall not be. Ʋpon this foundation refuting Servetus, who maintained, that the Church had been banished from the world for a certain time, he sayes boldly, that to say, that God had not alwayes preserved some Church in this world, would be to accuse him of a lye, because he has promised, that it shall endure as long as the Sun and Moon shall. Beza speaks as the Flemish Confession, which ac∣knowledging that the reign of Jesus Christ is perpetual, acknowledges also, that he ought alwayes to have subjects, upon whom to exercise that Kingly Office. Du Moulin and Mestresat, are not less ingenuous in this point, &c. Thus it is that Monsieur the Cardinal of Richelieu has justified us against the Author of the Prejudices. He could not, in my judgement, have spoken either more clear∣ly or more strongly.

In effect, they cannot without ignorance or calumny, ascribe that opinion of the intire extinction of the Church through∣out all the world to us. We say indeed, and we say it with an extream grief, that the Church has been for some Ages in so great an obscurity, that we can very hardly see any traces of the natural beauty of Christianity shine forth there, Ignorance, Er∣ror, Superstition, as most thick Clouds have covered the face of Religion and the Government of the Church has fallen into so strange a disorder, that we can see nothing but confusion in all parts; so that the Church could not but appear under a very deplorable condition under that Eclipse. This is that which Calvin means, by that intire defection of the world, whereof he speaks in the passage that the Author of the Pre∣judices has alledged, and that which is also represented in our Confession of Faith, by that ruine and desolation, whereinto we say the Church was fallen. But how great soever that ruine should have been, we do not believe as the Donatists do, that the Church had absolutely perished, or that it was intirely ex∣tinct through all the world. We do not so much as believe that it was restrained to those Societies which the passion of their enemies has laboured to cry down under the names of Sects, calling them Berengarians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Petro-bu∣sians, Henricians, Wicklefists, Hussites, &c. and over whom the Au∣thor of the Prejudices has insulted so fiercely after his usual manner. Those Societies were yet the most illustrious part of the Church, because they were the most pure, the most enlightned and the most generous; but the Church did not wholly and entirely reside in them. For, not to speak of the little Chil∣dren that dyed before the Age of discretion, and to whom we do not doubt that God was merciful, we are perswaded that while Errors and Superstitions might be seen to reign in their Pulpits, in their Books, in their Schools, and in the Councils, and that a great number were filled with them, that God pre∣serv'd to himself amidst the people a considerable number of the truly faithful, who have kept their faith and their conscience pure, by reason of their simplicity, contenting themselves with the principles of the Christian Religion, adoring one only God, their Creator and Father, putting their confidence in one only Jesus Christ, dead and risen again for them: and as to the rest, living holily and Christianly with embarassing themselves either

with the opinions of the School, which they did not know, or the Superstitions wherewith they beheld Christianity loaded, and which the sole instinct of their conscience could make them reject. We no wayes doubt, that even among the most en∣lightned persons, there has been a great number who have groaned under so many corruptions as they saw the Church afflicted with, and who in waiting for better times, have kept themselves, without bearing a part in them. But we say no∣thing upon this subject, but what the Fathers, and in particular S. Augustine, have said concerning the state of the Church under the domination of the Arians. For they have said two most remarkable things. First, That while the wicked and the He∣reticks possessed the Pulpits, while they preached their blasphe∣mies there, whilst they were Masters of the Councils, whilst they had the multitude and the powers of the Age on their side, while they persecuted the good to the utmost, and while all seemed to stoop under their yoak, God preserved in that cor∣rupted Ministry, a considerable number of the truly faithful, who kept under the veil of their simplicity, their faith pure, receiving that which they preached of good to them, and not being infected with the bad. The second thing that they have said is, that there were those there, who being more enlightned and more strong in the faith than the others, opposed themselves to the Heresie of the Arians, and would not have any commu∣nion with them, suffering constantly their banishments, and the most cruel punishments for so just a cause. To justifie this truth, I shall only here set down that which S. Augustine has wrote upon this subject in his Epistle to Vincentius: but be∣fore I relate his words, we must note, that the Donatists pre∣cisely did that which the Author of the Prejudices has done, when he has abused some hyperbolical expressions that Calvin made use of, and the words of our Confession of Faith, to lay it to our charge, that we believe an entire extinction of the Church. For the Donatists after the same manner abused some passages of S. Hilary, in which that Saint had exaggerated the lamentable state of the Church in his dayes, under the do∣mination of the Arians; from whence they conclude, that S. Hi∣lary had thought that the Church had entirely failed. It is therefore to refute this Objection that S. Augustine explains himself after this manner. The Church, sayes he, is sometimes ob∣scured

and covered as it were with clouds, by the great number of scandals, when the wicked take the advantage of the night to shoot against those who are true in heart. But even then, she is eminent in her most firm defenders: and if it be allowed to us to make some distinction in the words that God spake to Abraham, Thy po∣sterity shall be as the Stars of Heaven, and as the Sand that lyes upon the Sea-shore. I mean, that we must understand by the Stars, some few persons more firm and illustrious than the others; and by the Sand, the multitude of the weak and carnal, which in a time of a calm appears quiet and free; but which is sometimes covered with the floods of tribulations and temptations. Such was the time whereof Hilary speaks in his Writings, which you artificially make use of to elude so many Divine Testimonies which I have set before you, as if the Church had perished throughout all the world. You may as well say, that there were no more Churches in Galatia, when the Apostle said, O foolish Galatians! who hath bewitched you, that after having begun in the Spirit, you should end in the flesh! for thus it is well nigh that you calumniate the learned Hilary, under a pretence that he censured the negligent and the fearful, for whom he has as it were so many birth-pangs till Iesus Christ should be formed in them. Who is there that knows not that in the time of Arianism, divers simple persons, deceived by obscure expressions, imagined, that the Arians be∣liev'd the same thing with themselves; that others yielded through fear and dissimulation, and consented in appearance to heresie, not walking in integrity in the way of the truth of the Gospel, you would see, you Donatists, that he had not pardoned those persons: for you are not ignorant of the doctrine of the Scripture upon this subject. Read what S. Paul has wrote concerning S. Peter: See afterwards, what S. Cyprian has thought was to be done on these occasions, and you will find, that it is to very ill purpose to blame the mildness of the Church, which gathers together the members of Iesus Christ, when they are dispersed, instead of dispersing them when they are gathered together. Howsoever it be, there have been yet some firm ones, who were sufficiently enlightned to know the snares of the Hereticks. They were indeed very few in number, in comparison of others; but yet nevertheless, some of them generously suffered banishment for the cause of the faith, and others kept themselves concealed here and there throughout the earth. Thus it was that the Church, which increased in all Nations, preserved within her self the good Wheat of our Lord, and thus it is that she will preserve her self unto the end, till she

extend her self over all people, and even over the Barbarians themselves. The Church therefore consists in the good seed that the Son of Man has sown, and of which it is said, that it should grow up, until the harvest, amidst the Tares. The field is the world, and the harvest is the end of the world.

See here, after what manner S. Augustine declares his opinion concerning the state of the Church and its subsistence under the Arians; since coming afterwards to speak of a passage of S. Hilary, which they had objected to him, he sayes, that we must understand that which he had said, not in regard of the good Wheat which was yet mingled with the Tares; but only in regard of the Tares: or if his words had any relation to the good Wheat, we must take them as only designing to enflame the zeal of the fearful by such answers. And he adds that the holy Scripture it self frequently makes use of this way of expressing it self in general terms, which at first seem to belong to the whole body; but which notwithstanding regard only a part. Habent etiam scripturae canonicae, hunc arguendi mo∣rem, ut tanquam omnibus dicatur, & ad quosdam verbum per∣veniat.

We may now see very clearly, that we are so far from being like to the Donatists, as the Author of the Prejudices layes it to our charge, that we tread on the contrary, in the footsteps of St. Augustine. For first of all, our Hypothesis touching the subsistence and obscurity of the Church, is throughout conform to his. We say, as he does, that God has alwayes preserved his truly faithful in the very communion of the corrupted Church. We say, with him, that in the most violent entring in of Error and Superstition, God has not left himself without wit∣ness, since he has raised up, not only persons, but whole Soci∣eties, that have openly and couragiously maintained the truth, and withdrawn themselves from under the Roman Domina∣tion. And as to the passages that the Author of the Prejudices objects to us out of Calvin and our Confession of Faith, we give the same explication of it that S. Augustine gave to those of S. Hilary, which the Donatists objected to him: That is to say, that that defection of all the world, and that ruine and desolation whereinto the Church had fell, that Eclipse of the truth and treasure of salvation, are expressions that regard pro∣perly only the Tares that covered the Field of the Church,

and not the good Seed which was mingled with those Tares. These expressions only regard the greater number of those who followed those Superstitions and Errors, and not those who in the midst of that confusion kept their Religion pure; and much less those who had the courage to oppose themselves openly to Error, and to resist it even unto Persecutions and Martyrdom.

I know that he has accustomed himself to form some difficul∣ties and Objections against our Hypothesis; but we have this satisfaction, to know, that he can make none that does not equally regard the Hypothesis of S. Augustine and ours, and to which, by consequence, the Author of the Prejudices himself would not be obliged to answer, if he would not act the Do∣natist. He confesses himself, that S. Augustine had acknow∣ledged, that there might have been some Catholicks hid in He∣retical communions; and besides, he cannot deny, that the pas∣sage which I have set down, is express upon that subject. 1. If therefore he demands of us, who those faithful were, who be∣fore the Reformation, kept their faith pure, without infecting themselves with the publick errors; and if he urges us to mark them out to him one after another, to tell him their names and their Genealogy, I will demand of him likewise, who were those good seed of S. Augustine, who under the Arian Ministry, preserved their faith, without being infected with Heresie; and I will intreat him to mark them out to me by name, and to give me their history. 2. If he demands of us, how we un∣derstand those persons could with a good conscience live under a Ministry, where they taught Transubstantiation, the Adoration of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the religious wor∣shipping of Images, which we believe to be fundamental er∣rors; I will also demand of him, how he understands, that the good seed of S. Augustine could live under an Arian Ministry, where they taught, that the Son of God was not consubstantial with his Father; and that the Father was not the Father eter∣nally; which are errors that the Author of the Prejudices him∣self judges abominable. 3. If he tells us, that our Fathers ought not therefore to have undertaken a Reformation; but that they ought to have left things in the estate wherein they were;

since howsoever corrupted the Latin Church was, according to us, we could yet be saved in her communion: I shall tell him, that by the same reason, the Orthodox ought not to have taken care to have re-established the purity of the faith in the Church, nor to have extirpated Arianism; since that however corrupted and infected the Church was with that Heresie, there was yet a way to work out their salvation in her communion, and un∣der her Ministry. 4. If he sayes to us, that our Fathers ought not at least in reforming themselves, to have separated themselves from those who were not for a Reformation; nor to have for∣sook their communion and assemblies, I will also say to him, that after this reckoning, the Orthodox in labouring to purge the Church from Arianism, ought not at least to have sepa∣rated it self from those who would retain Arianism, but that they ought to have remained with them in one and the same communion, and in the same assemblies, which nevertheless they did not. 5. If he sayes to us, that the Berengarians, the Wal∣denses and Albigenses were Schismaticks, since they had with∣drawn themselves from a communion, and a Ministry under which God yet preserves the truly faithful, I will likewise say to him, that those couragious men of S. Augustine were in this reckoning Schismaticks, since they had not less withdrawn themselves from that communion and publick Ministry, when that Ministry was in the hands of the Arians, as I have shewn by express testimonies. 6. If he tells us, lastly, that since we acknowledge, that they could have worked out their salvation under the Ministry of the Roman Church before the Reforma∣tion, we ought to confess, that we may yet at this day be saved in it, since things are in the same estate now, in which they were before; I shall tell him, that the Arians could have raised the same objection against the Orthodox after their sepa∣ration. For the Arians did not pretend to have changed any thing in the state of the Ministry under which S. Augustine ac∣knowledged, that God had preserved the truly faithful. So that all the Objections which he shall make against our Hypothesis, will be common to those against that of S. Augustine; and the Author of the Prejudices will himself be as much concerned as we to answer them.

But not to refer our selves wholly to him, let us see whe∣ther those difficulties are of such a weight, as that there is no way left rationally to satisfie us. It seems to me therefore, that as to the first, S. Augustine has said, that it is great injustice to demand the names of those particular men, who kept them∣selves pure under an impure Ministry, since we do not keep a register of every particular man, nor of the state of their con∣sciences; and that it is sufficient to know in the general, that the promises that Jesus Christ has made, alwayes to preserve to himself a Church upon Earth, are inviolable, that we must not therefore doubt, that there has alwayes been good seed in the midst of the Arian tares. It is the same answer that we make, there needs nothing but to apply it.

To the second, he has answered, that the simplicity of many among the people, who went not so far as to understand the bad sense of the Arian expressions, sheltred them under Heresie; that many others of the more enlightned remained in silence, through the fear of persecutions, contenting themselves to keep their own faith pure, without partaking in the wickedness of the wicked, and without listing themselves up against it. In ef∣fect, it is a Maxim of Phoebadius, That it is sufficient to an humble conscience, to keep its own faith, without engaging it self to refute the belief of others: and it is one of S. Augustine himself, That no bo∣dy can be culpable for the sins of another, nor by consequence, for the Heresies and Superstitions that infect a Ministry; pro∣vided he take no part in them, and no wayes consent to them, either in effect or appearance. But this is yet the same answer that we make: for as I have already said, we do not doubt, that there was among the people a very great number of per∣sons whose light went no further than the meer knowing of the chief Articles of Christianity, contained in the Creed, in the De∣calogue and Lords Prayer, and who by consequence were hid under those capital Errors with which the publick Ministry was then loaded. We no wayes doubt, that in the midst of that dark∣ness there were not a great many enlightned persons, who through the fear of persecutions, remained under the same corrupted Mi∣nistry, with the others, separating the good from the bad, discer∣ning

the Errors and Superstitions, taking no part in them, and living as to other things, in that hope that they should not be cul∣pable for the sins of others.

To the third, S. Augustine has answered, that it is an absurd Objection. For it is not more absurd to say, that we ought not to take care to heal a Disease, under a pretence that as great as the Disease is, life yet remains, than to say, that we ought not to take care to purge the Church and the Ministry from a Heresie that infects it, under a pretence, that there is yet a way to be saved in her communion and under her Ministry. That we must, on the contrary, labour as much as possibly we can, to re-establish Christianity in its whole frame, lest the evil should increase, and be made incurable through a too great negligence, and least that good which remains in the Church, should be wholly corrupted by the contagion of the evil. But this is also the very same answer that we make. Our Fathers ought to have employed all their endeavours to reform the Latin Church, by their Exhortations, by their Books, by their Sermons, by their Example, because that we ought alwayes as much as possibly we can, and as the time and our knowledge call us to it, to labour to settle Religion in a state of purity, lest in the end Errors and Superstitions render themselves universal, and the whole Church should perish through our negligence. For although Jesus Christ has promised us, that it shall never perish, yet notwithstanding this would be to tempt God, and to render our selves unworthy of his grace, to neglect the means that he gives us for its preservation, and that so much the more, as according to humane judgements, there was no other than that of the Reformation.

To the fourth, S. Augustine has answered, That in labouring to purge the Church from Arianism, it was necessary that they should separate themselves from the communion of those who obstinately persisted in that Heresie; and the fixed resolution that they testified to remain in it, was a sufficient cause to make them withdraw themselves from their Assemblies. But we answer with greater advantage, that our Fathers in labou∣ring for a Reformation, ought to have forsaken the Assemblies

of those, who not only were fixed in the opinion of having nothing reformed, and opposed themselves with all their might to hinder a Reformation; but who went so far as to im∣pose a new necessity on mens consciences to believe their Opinions, and even to excommunicate all those who would not believe them.

As to the fifth, S. Augustine, did not intend to say, that those who had separated themselves from the Arians, when the Ari∣ans were the Masters of the Ministry, were Schismaticks, since he himself calls them the Stars of Heaven, the Couragious and Unshaken, firmissimi qui fortiter pro fide exulabant: he never meant to condemn their Assemblies which they made apart, to have nothing common with Heresie, since it was nothing else but the effect of that heroical courage which he ascribes to them, and of that ardent zeal which they had for the glory of God. In effect, S. Hilary praises some Bishops of France, Ger∣many and Flanders, of whom he writes that they had separated themselves from the communion of those who held the Or∣thodox Bishops in Exile; and in particular, he extolls those among them, who having appealed to a Synod of Bithynia re∣mained firm and constant in the faith, and in gathering them∣selves into a communion among themselves, they separated them∣selves from the communion of the others. S. Augustine has therefore answered, that they were no wayes Schismaticks, for two reasons. The first is, because the causes for which they refused communion with the Arians, and withdrew themselves from their Ministry were just and lawful; not frivolous and capricious, as those of the Donatists, but weighty and fundamen∣tal; since they disputed about the Eternal Divinity of Jesus Christ, which the Arians would abolish. The second, because that although these couragious men of S. Augustine had renoun∣ced the communion of the Arians, and withdrawn themselves from their Ministry, yet they did not believe notwithstanding, that there was absolutely no more salvation to be had in the Society which they had forsaken. For, besides that receiving as they did, their Baptism from it, they could not doubt, that the Children who dyed before they were infected with that Heresie, were saved, they did not also condemn the simple and

the weak, who remained unfeignedly in that communion, without taking part in the impieties which were taught there, so that their separation did not absolutely respect that Society; but only the Hereticks that corrupted it. But this is that which we say concerning the Berengarians, the Wal∣denses, the Albigenses, &c. we need but only to apply the same answer to them.

Lastly, as to that which regards the sixth Objection, S. Au∣gustine has said, that there was a considerable difference between the time wherein the Arians made up almost the whole body of the Christian Church, and that wherein the true Doctrine was re-established in a great part of the Churches; that the first was a time of oppression, and the other a time of liberty; that in the former time there being scarce any more a visible communion on the Earth, under which the faithful might place themselves, they could remain under a corrupted Ministry, from which each one in particular had a right to separate the pure from the impure, in waiting till God should deliver his Church out of the hands of those bad Pastors. But in the second time, where the Orthodox and Arian communions were in a visible opposition, and such as was every where known, it was not possible for them to remain under the Arian Ministry, with∣out having an Arian heart; or at least, without falling into a detestable hypocrisie. For in the opposition of these two communions, this very thing that they should remain in the Arian, was a manifest condemnation of the Orthodox; which they could not do, without being either Arians, or hypocrites. Moreover, in the former time those who remained out of ne∣cessity under the Ministry of the Arians, remained there in grief, and ardently desiring that God would procure them some means to get out of it, and to return to an Orthodox Ministry. But in the latter, God having given them the power to joyn them∣selves to a pure communion, they could not remain in the Arian, without loving and being pleased with it, through those worldly interests which they could never prefer before the Confession of a pure faith, without being injurious to God, without wounding their own consciences, without having a de∣bauched and profane spirit; and in a word, without binding over

themselves to eternal damnation. Behold here, what S. Au∣gustine has answered; and it is no hard matter to judge, that we must answer them thus when they make the like Objections to us. We must distinguish between two Times, to wit, that which went before the Reformation, and that which followed it; and by the same reasons which I have alledged, we will shew them, that although it was possible in the former time for some to work out their own salvation under the corrupted Ministry of the Latin Church, yet it does not follow, that we may do so at this day, under that of the Church of Rome, since those two communions are now found to be set in opposition.

I shall not urge this matter further. We may now me∣thinks, conclude from all that which I have handled in the foregoing Chapter and in this, that if there ever was a vain and ill-grounded Objection, that which the Author of the Prejudices has made against us, is certainly one of that na∣ture. His Argument is founded upon nothing else but false or ill-understood Propositions. For it is not true, that S. Au∣gustine believed that there was any particular Society among all those which make a profession of Christianity, from whose Assemblies one might not, in certain cases, depart and with∣draw ones self from its communion. It is not true, that the Separation which is between the Church of Rome and us, is that which that Father has absolutely condemned, and for which he accuses the Donatists to be Schismaticks. It is not true, that he would accuse them of Schism without examining the foundation, by a meer passive Separation, as that is where∣in we are, from the Church of Rome. It is not true, that he has taken that visible extension throughout all Nations, for a perpetual mark of the true Church. It is not true, that he would have that mark to decide the question of the true Church, when the Doctrine of it is disputed. It is not true, that we hold, that the Church before the Reformation, had perished throughout all the Earth. It is not true, that we reduce all to the Berengarians, Waldenses and Albigenses, &c. on∣ly. Lastly, It is not true, that the Doctrine of S. Augustine upon this subject, is any way contrary to us; but it is true,

that our Principles have all the conformity with his that any man can reasonably require. This is in my judgement, that which may be clearly collected from that which I have said.

As the Interest that we have in the clearing of this mat∣ter, does not go much farther, I would here put an end to this Chapter and this Third Part, concerning our Separation, if the interest of Truth and Charity did not bind me to make a reflection upon a Proposition that the Author of the Pre∣judices has set before us, which is, that Schismaticks are out of a state of Salvation. For I hold, that this Proposition cannot be maintain'd after the manner that the Author of the Prejudices has propounded it, that is to say, absolutely, and without any distinction. I am not ignorant that to establish this rigorous sentiment, they produce some passages of the Fathers, who have in effect spoke of Schism in extreamly vehement terms, as if they had a design to exclude from the communion of God, and all hopes of salvation, all those in general who should be found engaged in it. But that very thing, ought to be an example to let us see, that we must not alwayes take according to the rigour of the Letter, all that the Fathers have said in the heat of their disputes. For unless we should be altogether un∣reasonable, we must place a difference between three sorts of persons who are to be found in a Schismatical communion. 1. The Authors of Schism, who usually are the Pastors and Guides of the flock. 2. Understanding persons, who take part in the affairs, and who very well knowing what they do, give their consent to Schism, and defend the Authors of it. 3. The people, that is to say, the ignorant persons who scarce know any thing that passes, or who know but very confusedly. And for that which regards the Authors and other intelligent persons, as it is most frequently, passion, inte∣rest, pride and ambition, that make them separate, and that all those passions turn them in the end, into an implacable hatred against their brethren, they deserve our condemnation; for those crimes are incompatible with the Spirit of Jesus Christ; and it is a manifest demonstration, that the world and its corruption reigns in the souls of those who are guilty of it;

we must therefore say of such Schismaticks as these, that while they remain in this condition, there is no hope of salvation for them, because that the true faith, the Covenant of God, and the communion of Jesus Christ cannot subsist under the reign of those brutal passions. But to imagine, that the whole body of a people, who are to be found engaged in a Schism, either through the faction of the more powerful, or a con∣science prepossess'd by a zeal without knowledge, by a Piety too scrupulous, should be depriv'd of all hope of salvation; this would be without doubt to fall into a very rigid Opinion.

To make this clear by Examples, I have already mentio∣ned elsewhere, that Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Churches of Asia, upon the difference about the day of Easter, from whence there followed a Schism between those Churches and this of Rome. I do not now enquire to which of the two parties the crime of the Separation, ought to be imputed, either to the Asiaticks, who adhered too strictly to the cu∣stom of their Ancestors and the Authority of Polycarp; or to Victor, who without Prudence and Charity, separated him from divers great and flourishing Churches, about a matter that was left self-free and indifferent in Religion. I only say, that this would be an horrible injustice, to condemn those people to eternal flames, who should be found to be engaged in that ridiculous quarrel, only through the capricious humours of their Bishops. In effect, we have seen, that notwithstan∣ding this Schism, they did not fail both the one and the other to sit together in the Council of Nice.

We must pass the same judgement of a Schism that fell out in the fourth Century, at Antioch, between the Meletians and the Eustatians, both the one and the other Orthodox and se∣parated from the Arrians, but who nevertheless would not communicate together, because that although Meletius had preached and defended the Council of Nice, and suffered per∣secution for it, yet he had been created Bishop by the Arians, by reason of which, the other Orthodox would no more commu∣nicate with those of his party, which obliged them to hold

their Assemblies apart. It was therefore a true Schism on one side and on the other; but as it proceeded only from an ex∣cess of zeal on the side of the Eustatians, we ought not to pass a sentence of damnation so lightly against them.

I say the same thing of the Schism that fell out about the end of the Fifth Century, between Acatius Bishop of Constan∣tinople and Felix the Third Bishop of Rome, who mutually ex∣communicated one another, for the interests of John Talaia and Peter Mongus competitors for the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Acacius defended the side of Peter, whom Felix accused to be a Heretick, and an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon; and Felix, on the contrary, upheld Talaia, whom Acacius had ac∣cused of Perjury, and to be unworthy of a Bishoprick; and this Schism also lasted down to their Successors, thirty and five years between the East and West. But although Acacius, drawn in by intrigues to the side of an hypocrite, had wrong at the foundation, yet we ought not notwithstan∣ding to believe that all those great Churches who kept com∣munion with him, and defended his memory, after his death, were absolutely cut off from the hope of Paradise.

In the Sixth Century, there was another Schism, whereof I have already spoken, which was very contentious, and em∣broiled, under the Emperour Justinian, Vigilius being Bishop of Rome, and Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople. The ground of the quarrell, was taken from the Writings that had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon, and which afterwards were condemned as heretical by the Emperour Justinian, and the condemnation was subscribed by Mennas and the other Pa∣triarchs and their Bishops, Vigilius who was of another opi∣nion, undertook the defence of those Writings, and excom∣municated Mennas and the rest who had condemned them. But some Months after, he took off his Excommunication, at the solicitation of the Empress Theodora, to whom he owed his Bishoprick; and which was more, in the following year, he himself pronounced an Anathema against those three Wri∣tings. But the Bishops of Africa, Illyria and Dalmatia persisted to defend them; and those in Africa assembled in Council, ex∣communicated

Vigilius, as a dissembler. Some time after Vigi∣lius repenting himself of that which he had done, undertook a second time the defence of those Writings. Justinian, on the contrary, made an Edict, by which he renewed their con∣demnation; and Vigilius, on his side, excommunicated all those who should consent to this Edict. In fine, the Fifth General Council assembled at Constantinople, where in spight of all the Decrees of the Bishop of Rome, the three Wri∣tings were condemned, and all those who should approve them were excommunicated. Vigilius persisting in his opinion was banished, and dyed some years after. But his Successors, Pe∣lagius and Gregory approved the Council, and subscribed to what had been done there; and it was in fine, generally received by all, and reckoned for a Fifth General Council. We must acknowledge, that if the people were to be saved or damned according to the good or bad conduct of their Pastors, Hea∣ven and Hell would be very miserably dispensed, while the time of those disorders lasted. For our adversaries themselves are constrained to confess, that this quarrell that made so great a noise, that produced so many Excommunications, so many Separations, so many acts of violence, and so many ba∣nishments, and which ended by the dishonour of the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, was founded upon nothing but a personal ani∣mosity, sayes Baronius, or as Sirmundus sayes, upon an indifferent controversie, which concerned nothing the doctrine of the faith, on which side soever it had been decided. If we must therefore judge ac∣cording to the relation of these two Authors, all that we can say is, that both the parties were equally Schismatical, who violated the peace and unity of the Church without any just reason: and who mutually excommunicated one another for nothing: and if we add that rigorous judgement against the Schif∣matical Societies, without any exception or distinction, we must say, that there was then no longer a true Church upon the Earth, nor any hope of salvation.

But to go yet further; If all those who live in the com∣munion of Schismaticks, are out of the Church, in a state of Damnation, I would fain have them satisfie me about some difficulties that I find in the History of the same Vigilius. For

the two first years of his Papacy, it was he that was called, a false Pope, a Schismatick, an Usurper of the Bishoprick of Sylverius, whom the Hereticks had banished, to set up this man, who had promised them to communicate with them. And in effect, Liberatus and Victor of Tunis relate, that after he was in possession of the Papacy, he wrote to the Here∣ticks, as having the same faith with them; and Bellarmine de∣clares, that at this time, Vigilius was an Anti-Pope and a Schis∣matick; because that Sylverius the lawful Pope, was yet li∣ving, and there could not be two lawful Popes at the same time. Baronius and Petavius say the same thing. Notwith∣standing it is true, that during these two years of Schism Vi∣gilius was peaceably acknowledged to be the Bishop of Rome, both by the Church of Rome and by all Christendom. No Church refused to live in his communion, no Bishop with∣drew himself from him as a Schismatick. He performed without any opposition all the Functions of his Bishoprick, he received the honours, and had the profits of it. All the Earth was then Schismatical with him, and by consequence, there was no further either a Church or Salvation in the World, if it was only in the person of Sylverius and some Bishops who had subscribed to the Sentence of the Deposition and Anathema that Sylverius being in Exile pronounced against Vigilius, and against all those who should adhere to him. After this I would fain have them tell me, how Vigilius could pass from the state of a Schismatick, to that of a true Pope. It was, say Baronius and Bellarmine, by the consent of the Clergy and People of Rome, who assembled together and chose him law∣fully after the death of Silverius. But besides that, this new Ordination of Vigilius, and this Assembly of the People and Clergy, is an effect of the invention of Baronius, which is grounded upon nothing but one word of Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper, who lived above three hundred years after; besides this, I say, that the People of Rome and that Clergy, had not they themselves lost through Schism, the form of the true Church? how was it restored to them? how could they re-establish themselves? Who gave that right to a company of Schismaticks cut off from the communion, and the cove∣nant of Jesus Christ, to make a Rebell, a Schismatick, an ex∣communicated

person, a man that by the sentence of Sylverius could not perform any Sacerdotal Function, to make such a one, I say, a lawful Pope?

See here already some inconveniencies considerable enough, that flow from that rigorous sentiment; but if we would go yet further, we may find it may be others that are not less severe. For what will they say to the Schisms that fell out so frequently in the Latin Church through the concurrence of Anti-Popes? Will they dare roundly to pronounce, all those people who have lived and dyed, under the obedience of those false Popes, and who by consequence having been engaged in a true Schism, have been totally cut off from the Christian Communion, and deprived of salvation? Let the Author of the Prejudices, who has taken such pains to damn the World without any mercy, take the pains if he pleases to examine one matter of fact, that I will set before him, and which should be enough, methinks, to decide this Question, at least in re∣gard of him. It is this, that during the great Schism of two Anti-Popes, which was ended at the Council of Constance, there were Saints that the Church of Rome has canonized, and whom it prayes to, who lived and dyed under two contrary obediences, and who by consequence dyed, both the one sort and the others, in a true Schism. For in the year 1380. S. Catherine of Siena dyed under the obedience of Ʋrban the Sixth, in the year 1381. S. Catharine of Swedeland, the Daugh∣ter of S. Bridget dyed under the same obedience. In the year 1395. S. Margaret of Pisa dyed under the obedience of Boniface the Ninth, in the year 1399. S. Dorothy of Prussia dyed under the obedience of the same Pope; and in the year 1405. S. Wil∣liam the Hermite of Sicily dyed under the obedience of Innocent the Seventh. On the other side, in the year 1382. S. Peter of Luxemburg dyed under the obedience of Clement who was the Anti-Pope of Ʋrban; and some time after S. Vincent of Fer∣rara lived, and wrought Miracles in the party of Benoist the Anti-Pope of Gregory the Twelfth. Behold here Saints of both sides, and yet one or the others must of necessity have been Schismaticks. From whence it appears, that the Church of Rome her self is concerned to oblige the Author of the Preju∣dices

to moderate his style, and not to take as it seems he has done, that which the Fathers have said in disputing against the Schismaticks, in its utmost latitude.

But although all that I have said, should have no place, the holy Scripture distinctly decides this difficulty. For if he would but read the History of the Ten Tribes of Israel, af∣ter they were separated from that of Judah, at the instiga∣tion of Jeroboam, he will find that they were in a real Schism, since they had forsaken the Worship at Jerusalem, and had built new Altars, against the express commandment of God; and yet nevertheless that did not hinder God from preserving his truly faithful and elect, even in the midst of them. For there were those seven thousand who in the time of Elias had not bowed the knee to Baal, and whom S. Paul calls the remnant of the Election of Grace, were not these Israelites en∣gaged in a bad party? Had not God his Prophets and his Al∣tars yet among them? Lord, said Elias, they have killed thy Pro∣phets, and thrown down thy Altars. And the hundred Prophets of God that Obadiah hid in two Caves, to withdraw them from the persecution of the Idolatress Jezabel: the Altar of God that Elias repaired in Carmel, to sacrifice there by the mira∣culous fire that fell down from Heaven to consume the victim, the calling of Elisha and Micaiah; and in a word, the whole History of those schismatical Ten Tribes, does it not evidently note, that God looked on them as his true Church, in which there was yet a means to be saved? We must not therefore abuse that which the Fathers have wrote against Schismaticks, in intending to aggravate their crime, and to draw them from it; nor must we take their expressions in the whole rigour of the letter. Their meaning is not, that all those generally who are found engaged in a Schismatical Communion, even down to Tradesmen and Labourers, who remain there with an upright heart, and through the prejudice of their consciences, are out of the Church, and eternally damned; but that the Authors and Defenders of Schism, who run into it, through their personal interests, or out of a spirit of fierceness, pride, and an hatred incompatible with the Spirit of Jesus Christ, commit a horrible crime; and that while they are in that state,

they remain deprived of all hopes of salvation. That if the Fathers have said any thing more generally, and which cannot be thus restrained, it is just to understand it in a comparative sense; that is to say, that setting that Schismatical party of the Church, in opposition to that which is not so, the hope of salvation appears evidently in this, which it does not in the other, where it is obscured by that Schism.

Notes

• Prejug. ch. 9. p. 200, &c.
• P. 287.
• Monsieur le Cardinal de Richelieu, liv. 1. c. 4.
• Aug. Ep. 48.
• Pag. 290.
• Phoebad. contr. Arian. Aug. passim.
• Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 34.
• Baron. ad ann. 484.
• Baron. in Vi∣gil.
• Victor. Tunun. in Chron.
• Sirmond. prae••. in facund.
• Vide Baron. in Vigil.
• Liberat. Bre∣viar. cap. 22.
• Victor. Tunun. in Chron.
• Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.
• Baron. ad ann. 539.
• Baron. ad 540. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.
• Vide Raynald. ad ann. cita∣tos.