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 Bucer. — That of Zuinglius. — Variations in that of Augsburg concerning the Eucharist. — The ambiguity of that of Strasburg. — Zuinglius alone plainly asserts the figurative sense. — The term substance, why applied to explain 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 sides ; also Sacramental Absolution, Confession, Monastic Vows, with many other Articles. — The Church of Rome many ways acknowledged in the Confession of Augsburg. — A demonstration, from the Augsburg Confession and Apology, that the Lutherans would return to us, did they but lay aside their calumnies, and well comprehend their own doctrine.

— The famous Diet of Augsburg, where the Confessio?is 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 V. had called in order to pacify the troubles which this new gospel had raised in Germany. He came to Augsburg the 15th of June, 1530. 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 V. the Confession of Faith, called the Confession of Augsburg. The four towns of the empire, Strasburg, 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 Stras- burg, or of the four towns ; and Zuinglius, who was not inclined to be silent on so solemn an occasion, although he was not of the body of the empire, also sent to the emperor his Confession of Faith.

— The Confession of Augsburg digested by Melancthon, 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 with 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 High Dutch the 25th of June, 1530, 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 orders¹. Many editions of it have been since made, as well in the German as the Latin language, all materially differing ; and yet it has been received by the whole party.

— Of the Confession of Strasb\irg, or of the Four Towns, and of Bucer who formed it.

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 those 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 hearers. 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 third marriage. The holy fathers received not to priesthood any person who, whilst a la}Tman, 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

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 91 these daring examples to confound the superstitious observances of the ancient church.

It does not appear that Bucer had concerted any tiling 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. Yet neither he nor his party could at that time unite themselves with the Lutherans, and the new reformation made two bodies visibly separate 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 variations.

— Of the Confession of Augsburg, and its Apology ; the authority of these two pieces 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. The Emperor had caused some Catholic divines to refute it ; 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 Ausburg 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.²

— The tenth article of the Confession of Augsburg, which relates to the Lord's Supper, expressed four different ways. — The Variation of the two first.

It is certain, the intention of the Confession of Augsburg was to establish 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 Sacra- tome Act. ib.

mentarians, who, at the same time, presented their own particular Confession of Augsburg³." 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 the marks of public authority.

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 Wittemberg, the birth place 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 Wittemberg edition, it is said, that " with the bread and wine, the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly given to those who partake of the supperf-" The second speaks not of 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];."

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 although, 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 §.

— Two other ways in which the same Article is couched, and their differences.

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 Con-

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 93 cord : " 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 contrary⁴." And it is in this manner also that the tenth article is delivered in 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 not 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.

— 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 Wittemberg, that is in the seat of Lutheranism, the abode of Luther and Melancthon %.

He adds the cause why this article was changed, because it too openly favoured 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 Chyti'aeus, in their histories of the Confession of Augsburg, that the Catholics contradicted not this article in the refutation of the Augsburg Confession, which they there made by the order of the Emperor §.

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 the 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 ||.

94 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK

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 ttS&^, as the Confession of Augsburg could be presented to the emperor but in one way, it is strange there should appear three so different from that, and altogether as authentic, 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.

— The Fifth way in which this same Tenth Article is expressed in the Apology of the Confession of Augsburg.

But they stopped not in so fine a way, but immediately after the Confession of Augsburg, they gave to the emperor a fifth explication of the article of the supper, in the Apology for their Confession of Faith, drawn up at their order by Melancthon.

In this Apology, Melancthon being careful to express in formal terms the literal sense, approved, as has been seen, by the whole party, was not content to have already acknowledged a true and substantial presence, adding, that Christ was "corporeally given to us," and that this was the "ancient and common" sentiment, not only of the " Church of Rome," but also of the " Greek Church⁵."

— The manner in which the Reality is explained by the Apology, tends at the same time to establish the Change of Substance.

Arid although this author but little favours the change of substance even in this book, yet his dislike to it is not so great, but that he makes honourable mention of the authorities, which establish it; for in order to prove his doctrine of the " corporeal presence," from the sentiment of the eastern church, he cites the canon of the Greek mass, when the priest prays expressly, says he, that the proper body of Jesus Christ be made in the change of bread, or by the change of bread. Far from condemning anything in this prayer, he makes use of it as a record whose authority he

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 95 owns ; and with the same judgment produces the words of Theophylast, archbishop of Bulgaria, who affirms that the bread is not the figure only, but is truly changed into flesh⁶. It so happens, that of three authorities which he adduces to confirm the doctrine of the real presence, two there are which assert the change of substance ; so necessarily do these two truths follow 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 transubstantiation, it was because they were displeased that they could not establish the reality, which they approved, without admitting transubstantiation at the same time, which they had been determined to deny.

— The evasion of the Lutherans, with regard to these

Variations.

Such were the uncertainties into which the Lutherans fell at their commencement ; no sooner did they undertake to give a settled form to their church, by a confession of faith, than they were so "irresolute, that they immediately published an article of such importance as that of the Eucharist, in five or six different forms. They were not more unchangeable, as shall be seen, in the other articles ; and what they commonly answer, that the council of Constantinople added also to that of Nice, avails them nothing ; for the truth is, a new heresy rising up after the council of Nice, which denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, it was necessary to add some words for its condemnation ; but in our present case, where nothing new occurred, it was nothing but want of steadiness which introduced among the Lutherans the variations we have seen.

— The Sacramentarians are not more steady in explaining their Faith.

If the defenders of the figurative sense reply, that their party fell not into similar inconsistencies, let them not flatter themselves with this persuasion. In the " Diet of Augsburg," where the confessions of faith commence, it has been demonstrated that the Sacramentarians at first produced two different ones ; and we shall soon see the diversity of them. In course of time they were not less fruitful in different confessions of faith than the Lutherans, and have appeared no less embarrassed, no less uncertain, in the defence of the figurative, than the others in that of the literal sense.

96 THE HISTOKY OF [BOOK

This Is what may justly surprise us ; for it would seem that a doctrine so easy to be understood, according to human reason, as is that of the Sacramentarians, should afford no embarrassment to those who undertook to explain it. But it is because the words of Jesus Christ naturally make an impression of reality on the mind * which all the refined subtilties of the figurative sense are not able to destroy. As, therefore, the greatest part of those who opposed it, could not divest themselves of this entirely ; and, on the other hand, were desirous to please the Lutherans, who retained it, we must not be surprised, that, with their figurative interpretations, they mingle so many expressions which savour of the reality ; nor that, having left the true idea of the real presence taught them by the Church, they were so pressed to please themselves with the terms they had chosen, in order to retain some image of it.

— The indefinite and ambiguous expressions of the Confession of Strasburg, on the article of the Lord's Supper.

This was the cause which introduced those ecruivocations, we shall see, into their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith. Bucer, the great architect of all these subtilties, gave a slight specimen of them in the Strasburg Confession ; for though unwilling to make use of the same terms as the Lutherans to explain the real presence, he affects to say nothing that might be expressly contrary to it, and expresses himself in words ambiguous enough to bear that sense. Thus he speaks, or rather makes those of Strasburg and the others to speak : <e When Christians repeat the supper, which Jesus Christ made before his death, in that manner he instituted it, he gives to them, by the sacraments, his true body and blood to eat and drink truly, to be the food and drink of souls *."

In reality, they say not with the Lutherans, " That this body, and this blood, are truly given with the bread and wine ;" and yet less, " that they are truly and substantially given;" Bucer, as yet, had not proceeded so far ; but he says nothing contrary to it, and nothing, in fact, which a Lutheran, and even a Catholic might not approve. We all consenting to this, "that the true body and true blood of our Lord are given to us to eat and drink truly," not for the food of bodies, but, as Bucer said, for the food of souls. So this confession kept itself within general expressions ; and even when it says, " We truly eat and drink the true body

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 97 and true blood of our Lord," it seems to exclude eating and drinking by faith ; which, indeed, is no more than a metaphorical eating and drinking : so much were they afraid of acknowledging that the body and blood are only spiritually given, and of inserting into a confession of faith, what to Christians was so great a novelty. For although the Eucharist, as well as the other mysteries of our salvation, had a spiritual effect for its end, it had, like the other mysteries, that which was accomplished in the body for its foundation. — Jesus Christ was to be born, to die, to be spiritually risen again in the faithful ; yet he was also to be born, to die, and to rise again really, and according to the flesh. In the same manner, we were to partake spiritually of his sacrifice ; yet also we were corporally to receive the flesh of this victim, and to eat of it indeed. We were to be united spiritually to the heavenly spouse ; yet his body which he gave to us in the Eucharist, in order to a mutual possession of ours, was to be the pledge and seal, as well as the foundation of this spiritual union; and this divine marriage, as well as the ordinary ones, though in a far different way", was to unite minds by uniting bodies. To speak therefore of the spiritual union was, in reality, to explain the last end of this mystery ; but to that intent, the corporal union, on which the other was grounded, ought not to have been forgotten. At least, since it was that which separated the churches, they ought, in a confession of faith, to have spoken distinctly for or against it, — a course which Bucer had not sufficient resolution to pursue.

— The progress of these same ambiguities, and the remarkable effect they had on those towns that subscribed to them.

He was fully sensible he should be reproved for his silence; and to obviate the objection, after having said in general, " That we truly eat and drink the true body and true blood of our Lord, for the food of our souls," he makes those of Strasburg say, " that keeping themselves at a distance from all dispute, and all curious and superfluous enquiry, they call back the mind to that only which profits ; and which by our Saviour was alone regarded, namely, that, feeding on him, we may live in him, and by him : * " as if explaining the principal end proposed by our Saviour were sufficient, without speaking one way or the other of the Real Presence, which the Lutherans, as well as Catholics, granted to be the means.

Conf. Argent, c. 18. dc Ccena. Synt, Gen. part 1. p. 195. VOL. I. II

98 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK

Having declared these things, they conclude,, by protesting u that they are calumniated when they are accused of changing the words of Jesus Christ, and mutilating them by human interpretations, 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 the sense of the words, without hesitating in any way ; finally, by receiving the sacraments for the food of their souls."

Who condemns not, with them, superfluous refinements, human inventions, false comments on the words of our Lord ? What Christian does not profess to adhere closely to the sense of these divine words ? But since this sense had been the subject of disputation 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, which is rejected by all parties ? and who sees not, that a confession of faith requires decisions more clear and more precise ? Certainly, were we to judge of Bucer's sentiments, and those of his brethren, by this Confession of Faith only, and knew not from other sources that they were not favourable to the Real and Substantial Presence, we might believe they were not, at least, 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 contrary, by lengthened discourses and tedious circumlocution, discovered the secret of saying nothing distinctly on the subject of discussion.

From thence an odd effect followed : namely, that of the four towns which had united themselves by this common confession of faith, and had all embi-aced, at that time, sentiments contrary to the Lutherans, three, namely, Strasburg, Memingen, and Lindau, without scruple, a short time afterwards, went over to the doctrine of the Real Presence : so well had Bticer succeeded by his ambiguous discourses in rendering their minds pliant, so that they could easily turn to any side.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 99

— The Confession of Faith of Zuinglius very clear and free from all equivocation.

Zuinglius dealt more frankly. In the Confession of Faith which he sent to Augsburg, and which received the approbation of all the Swiss, he declared plainly, " That the body of Jesus Christ, after his ascension, was no where else but in Heaven ; nay, could 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 essence⁷."

To defend this doctrine, he wrote a letter to the Emperor and the Protestant Princes, where he establishes this difference between him and his adversaries ; that these would have " a natural and substantial body, and he a sacramental body f." He is uniform in the use of the same language ; and in another Confession of Faith, which, at the same time, he directs to Francis the First, he explains, " This is my body,1' " of a symbolical, mystical, and sacramental body ; of a bod)' by denomination and signification ;" " in the same manner," says he, " as a queen, shewing amongst her jewels her nuptial ring, says readily, ' This is my king, that is, this is the ring of the king my husband, wherewith he hath espoused me.]:' " I know not of any queen that ever used such an odd phrase ; 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 of the sacraments in this, " that they assist the contemplation of faith; that the)' 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,1' 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, O Lord ;' Jesus Christ must not be eaten in this carnal and gross way : a faithful and religious soul eats his true body sacramentally and spiritually." Sacramentally, that is to say, in sign ; spiritually, that is, by the contemplation of faith, which represents to us Jesus Christ suffering, and shews us he is wholly ours.

— The state of the question appears clearly in the Confession of Zuinglius.

It is not our business here to complain, that he calls our manducation gross and carnal, though so much elevated above the senses ; nor that he would raise a horror of it, as a cruel and bloody object. These are the usual reproaches which those of 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, that 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 substantial presence ; and this it is which separated the Sacramentarians from Catholics and Lutherans.

— What reason there was for making use of the word Substance in the Eucharist ; that it is the same which made it necessary in the Trinity.

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 word " 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 the 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 the mystery of the Eucharist. Before the subtilties of heretics had confounded the true sense of these words of our Saviour, " I and my Father are one⁸," 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 only a unity of concord, of thought, of affection, it was deemed expedient to banish these pernicious equivocal terms by establishing consubstantiality — namely, the unity of substance. This term, which was not in scripture, was judged necessary to the right understanding of it, and keeping at a distance the dangerous

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 101 interpretations of those who adulterated the 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 heretics, and of preserving that natural and primitive scripture sense, which would immediately have made impression on the mind, were not the ideas confused by prejudice or false subtilties.

It is easy to apply this to the subject of the Eucharist. Had the natural and just sense, without refinement, been preserved of these words, " This is my body, this is my blood,-" we should have thought we had sufficiently explained a real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, by saying, that what he there gives is his body and blood ; but since it has been said that Jesus Christ was then present in figure only, or by his spirit, or by his virtue, or by faith, then to remove all ambiguity it was believed necessary to say, that the body of our Lord was given to us in its proper and true substance, or, what comes to the same, that he was reallv and substantially present. It is this which gave rise to the term Transubstantiation, just as natural to express a change of substance, as that of consubstantial was to express a unity of substance.

— The Lutherans had the same reason as we to make use of the word Substance ; Zuinglius never used it, nor Bucer at the commencement.

For the same reason, the Lutherans, who acknowledge the reality without the change of substance, when they rejected the term Transubstantiation, retained that of " the true and substantial presence," as we have seen in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession ; and these terms were chosen to fix the natural sense of these words, " This 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 are one," and these other, the " word was God."

Accordingly, we do not find that Zuinglius, who first reduced to form the opinion of the figurative sense, and explained it in the frankest manner, ever employed the word substance. On the contrary, he perpetually excluded " the maiiduoation,1' as well as the taibbtantial" presence," in order that he might leave nothing but a figurative manducation, that is, " In spirit and by faith⁹."

Bucer, although more inclined to ambiguous expressions, did not, at the beginning, make use of the word substance, or communion and substantial presence, but was content not to condemn these terms, and confined himself only to the general expressions which we have seen. Such was the first state of the Sacramentarian controversy, into which Bucer's subtilties introduced afterwards such a number of unseasonable variations as we shall be obliged to relate in the sequel. For the present it is sufficient to have pointed at the cause.

— Of the doctrine of Justification ; that there is no difficulty in it after what has been said on it in the Confession of Augsburg and in the Apology.

The question of justification, in which that of free will was contained, seemed to Protestants of a far different importance, for which reason they twice demand of the emperor, in the Apology, a particular attention to this subject, as being the most important of the whole gospel, and that also on which they have laboured most-j¹⁰. But I hope it will soon be discovered they have laboured in vain, to say nothing more, and that in this dispute there is much more of misunderstanding than real difficulty.

— That the doctrine of Luther on Free Will is retracted in the Confession of Augsburg.

And first, we must remove from this dispute the question of free 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 : — li That free will is to be acknowledged in all men that have the use of reason, not for the things 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^;." Melancthon added to it in the Apology, " with respect to the exterior works of God's law¹¹." These are two truths already which admit of no discussion ; one, that there is a free will ; and the other, that of itself it can do nothing in works that are truly Christian.

% Conf. Aug. Art. xviii. Apol. ad cund. Art. § Apol.ad euud. Art.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 103

— A word in the Augsburg Confession which tended to

Semi- Pelagian ism .

There was, moreover, a word, in that passage we have just seen of the Augsburg Confession 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 things of God," a restriction which seems to insinuate it can at " least 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 article¹² explained how " the will of the wicked was the cause of sin ;" 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 Luther.

— All the reproaches made to Catholics founded on calumnies ; the first calumny on gratuitous Justification.

But what is most remarkable, with respect to the other points of Christian grace in the Confession of Augsburg is this, that it everywhere supposes errors in the Catholic Church, which errors were always detested by her ; so that they seemed rather to have sought a subject for quarrelling than reforming, and the thing will appear manifest upon expounding historically the belief of the one and the other.

In the Confession of Augsburg and in the Apology, they grounded themselves much on the remission 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 themselves the honour of this doctrine, as if they had brought it back again into the Church, and reproached Catholics, " that they believed they obtained the forgiveness of their sins by their own works ; that they believed they could merit it 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 they taught no other justice than that of reason ; that we could draw near to God by our proper works, independently of the

104 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK propitiation of Jesus Christ, and that we had dreamt of a justification without speaking one word of him¹³ ; which they repeat incessantly, to conclude as often, "That we had buried Jesus Christ."

— They attributed to Catholics two propositions that were contradictory : " ex opere operato," what it means.

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 operato,' as they speak in schools, without any good disposition^. " How could the Lutherans imagine, that 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 ought to dispose ourselves for baptism, for penance, and for communion, declaring even in express terms, " that' the reception of grace is voluntary:" and, on the other side, it teaches, that the forgiveness of sins is purely gratuitous ; and that all which prepares us for it, either proximately or remotely, from 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 Godj.

— According to the Lutheran doctrine, the Sacraments operate " ex opere operato."

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 the merit of Jesus Christ, together with the efficacy of his blood, displays itself, the Lutherans 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 sacrament they are made the children of God §." Is not this an acknowledgment of the force of the sacrament, of itself and by its own action effectual, " ex opere operato," in children ? For I do not find that the Lutherans consider themselves bound to maintain with Luther, that children brought to baptism, produce therein an act of faith. They must then necessarily say f Conf. Aug. Ait. xiii., etc. J Sess. G. cap. v. vi. 14. Sess. xiii. 7. Sess. xiv. 4. Sess. vi. 7. Ibid. cap. viii, ibid, cap. v. vi. Can, 1, 2, 3. Sess. xiv. 4. 5 Art. ix.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 105 with us, that the sacrament, by which they become regenerated, operates by its own proper virtue.

If it be objected, that amongst us the sacrament has the same efficacy in the adult, and operates in them '¹⁴ ex opere operato," it is easy to comprehend that this is not admitted to exclude the necessary good dispositions in them, but only to shew that what God works in us, when he sanctifies 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 merits of Jesus Christ.

— That according to the Council of Trent, the remission of sins is -purely gratuitous.

There is no merit therefore of 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; since the Council of Trent equally acknowledged, u that we are said to be justified gratuitously, because all that precedes justification, whether faith or works, cannot merit this grace ;" conformably to what the Apostle says, " if it be grace, it is not therefore works, otherwise grace is no longer grace¹⁵."

Here then is the remission of sins, and justification gratuitously and without merit, established in as express terms in the Catholic Church as it could possibly have been done in the Confession of Augsburg.

— The second calumny on the Merit of Works ; thai it is acknowledged in the Augsburg Confession, and by Luther, in the same sense as it is in the Church.

If after 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, — the Confession of Augsburg agrees Avith us in this, seeing that in the Geneva edition printed after that of Wittemberg, which was made under the inspection of Luther and Melancthon, we read that " the new obedience is reputed a justice, and merits rewards." And yet more expressly, that " although far distant from the perfection of the law, it is a justice, and merits rewards." And a little after, that

106 THE HfSTOllY OP [BOOK.

" good works are worthy of great praises, that they are necessary, and that they merit recompenses *."

Afterwards, explaining these words of the Gospel, '* Whosoever hath, to him shall be given," it says, " that our action must be joined to God's gifts, which it preserves in us; and that it merits their increase f;" and praises this saying of St. Austin, " that charity, when it is exercised, merits the increase of charity." Here then is our co-operation necessary in express terms, and its merit confirmed by the Confession of Augsburg. Therefore they thus conclude this article: " thereby good men may understand what true good works are, and how they please God, and how they are meritorious J." Merit cannot be better established, nor more inculcated ; nor does the Council of Trent insist further on this matter.

All this was taken from Luther, and from the grounds of his sentiments ; for in his commentary on the epistle to the Galatians, he writes, that " where he speaks of justifying faith, he means that which works by charity ; for," says he, iX faith merits that the Holy Ghost be given us§." He had just said, that with this Holy Ghost all virtues are given us, and it was thus he explained justification in that famous commentary : it was printed at Wittemberg, in 1553; so that twenty years after Luther had commenced the Reformation, nothing as yet was found in merit that deserved correction.

— The Apology 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. There Melancthon makes new efforts to explain the subject of justification, as his letters testify, where he thus teaches, " that there are rewards proposed and promised to the good works of the faithful, and that they are 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 ||." 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 often done already, that although justification and life eternal

% Page 22. § Comment, in Ep. ad Gal. t. v. 243.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 10?

appertain to faith, good works, however, merit other corporaland spiritual rewards, and different degrees of rewards, according to what St. Paul says, ' that each one shall be rewarded according to his labour :' for gospel justice being occupied about the promise of grace, gratuitously receives justification and life ; but the fulfilling of the law, which proceeds as the result of faith, is occupied about the law itself; and then the recompense, continues he, is offered, not gratuitously, but according to works, and it is due; and accordingly those who merit this reward are justified before they fulfil the law*."

Thus the merit of works is constantly recognised by those of the Augsburg Confession as a thing comprised in the notion of a reward, there being nothing indeed more naturally united than merit on one side, when reward is promised and proposed on the other.

And verily, what they reprehend in Catholics is not their admission of merit, which is also asserted by them, but is, says the Apology, " that, as often as merit is spoken of, they transfer it from other rewards to justification -J*." If, then, we acknowledge no merit but what follows and not precedes justification, the difficulty will be removed ; and it is the very thing was done at Trent by this decision, " that we are said to be gratuitously justified, because not any of those things, whether faith, or works, which precede justification, can merit it J." 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 ||."

— Melancthon is inconsistent with himself in the Apology, when he there denies that good works merit eternal life.

As to the augmentation of grace, it was agreed to at Augsburg, as already seen ; and for life eternal, true it is, Melancthon 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, M Those whom he hath justified, he hath glorified also *." 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 life everlasting in the next t ;v 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, nothing is more merited than eternal life, though, in other respects, nothing more gratuitous, according to that excellent doctrine of St. Augustine, " Life eternal is due to the merits of good works ; but the merits unto which it is due are gratuitously given us by our Lord Jesus Christ."

— That there is something in eternal life which falls not under merit.

It is also true, that what prevents Melancthon from absolutely holding 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 surprized by death the 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 merited, in the sense expressed by the Augsburg Confession.

— Variations of the Lutherans in that which they curtailed in the 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 ? Can they, by this act, prevent this confession of faith from having been printed at Wittemberg, under the eyes of Luther and Melancthon, with no contradiction from any of the party, and with all the passages we have cited l 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,

I: Aug. ep. 105, mini. 194. N. 19. De Coinp, el Grat. cap. lo. N.41.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 109 whilst they themselves leave it as entire in the Apology, as they have caused it to be printed in their Book of Concord ? Is it not certain the Apology was presented to Charles V. by the same princes and in the same diet as the Confession of Augsburg * ? But what is still more remarkable, it was presented, as the Lutherans confess, "in order to preserve its true and proper sense t ;" for so it is worded in an authentic writing, 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 of Rome on this head.

— Three other calumnies against the Church — The fulfilling of the law acknowledged in the Apology in the same sense as in the Church.

I foresee, however, it may be said they have not approved the 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 life, which they will not allow that we admit. Here, will it be said, are three characters by which the doctrine of the Confession of Augsburg and Apology will stand separated eternally 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 J." There is even an express chapter in the Apology which bears this title : " Of love and the fulfilling of the Law¹⁶." 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, after one is justified, he satisfies the law of God in full rigour ; since, on the contrary, we are taught bv the Council of Trent that we are dailv under the necessity of saying, "Forgive us our trespasses ||." So that, however

X Rom. xiii. JO. § Apol, 83. lb. p. 137. || Scss. vi. c. 11.

]10 THE HISTORY OF [BOOK 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.

— The merit ofCondignity.

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 justification, that is, after 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 worthy¹⁷." But the Council of Trent has clearly explained that all this worthiness proceeds from grace ; and the Catholics have declared it to the Lutherans ever since the time of the Augsburg Confession, as appears from the history of David Chytraeus, and from that of George Cselestin, both Lutheran authors f. Both these historians give an account of the confutation of the 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."

— The merit of Congruity.

With regard 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 §; and forgiveness promised by Jesus Christ himself to "those who forgive their brethren ||."

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. Ill

The Apology answers here, that Jesus Christ does not add " By doing alms, or by forgiving, one merits forgiveness, ex opere operato, in virtue of this action, but in virtue of faith * ." But who pretends otherwise ? 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 f ?" Or who ever thought that these good works, and the faith which produces them, merited forgiveness of sins ex opere operato, and were capable of operating it of themselves ? 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 divine, all-powerful, and effectual of itself; and nothing but a calumny, or gross ignorance, could suppose that in Catholic doctrine, good works wrought, after 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.

— The Mediation of Jesus Christ always necessary.

But although God looks with another eye on sinners already 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 J," of giving eternal life to our good works, without which we could not promise ourselvesTsohigh a recompense. Thus, when in the Confession of Augsburg, and the Apology §, it is everywhere objected against us, that after justification we believe we have no further need of Jesus Christ's mediation, we cannot be more visibly calum-

% Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. c. 16. § Apol. Resp.adArg. p. 127,¹⁸¹⁹ niated ; 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.

— How the merits of Jesus Christ appertain to us ; and how they are imputed 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 themselves, 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 favourably as if we ourselves had satisfied his justice ? 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 often, " that by it they are communicated to us," and without it none can be justified *.

— Justification, regeneration, sanctification, renovation, how in substance they are all the same grace.

What Catholics, together with this council, understand, when, not satisfied with the simple imputation of the merits of Jesus Christ, they permit not that alone to be relied 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, visits us, renovates 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

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 1 1-3 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 Protestant doctrine is placed, were born after 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 justifying faith : " True faith is the work of God in us, by which we are renovated, and born 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^." 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 that 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 the Lutherans then had coincide with ours.

— Satisfactory works acknowledged in the Apology, and Monks reckoned among the Saints.

It seems as if they had separated farther on satisfactory works, and the austerities of a religious life ; for they reject them frequently as contrary to the doctrine of gratuitous justification. But, in reality, 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 beingcensured, is judged worthy of the saints, " because," say²⁰²¹ they, " it prevented them not from believing themselves justified by faith for the love of Jesus Christ²²." A sentiment far removed from the excesses which we at this day witness in the new reformation, where they blush not to condemn St. Bernard, and rank St. Francis in the list of fools. True it is, after having placed these great 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 t." But the calumny is manifest, since the religious now-a-days still believe, as did those of old, together with the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent, that 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, that 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 they mitigate pains ; that they merit that we should be assisted against the perils of sin and death J." What prevents their saying as much of fasting and other mortifications ? And all this, well understood, is nothing in substance, but what is taught by all Catholics.

— The necessity of baptism, and the amissibility of justice taught in the Confession of Augsburg.

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 never lost, and, what is a consequence of this, that 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 the anabaptists who assert children may be saved without baptism, and out of the Church of Jesus Christ §."

" That they condemn the same anabaptists, who deny the Holy Ghost may be lost after a man is once justified ||„"

*' That those who fall into mortal sin are not just ; that we ought to resist evil inclinations ; that those who, contrary to

% Ibid. p. 136, § Art. ix. p. 12. j| Art. xi. p. 13.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 115

God's commandment, obey them, and act contrary to their conscience, are unjust, and have neither the Holy Ghost, nor faith, nor confidence in the divine mercy *."

— The inconsistencies of certainty, and of special faith, are not removed by the Augsburg Confession.

One will be astonished to see so many articles of importance decided in the Augsburg Confession conformably to our sentiments ; 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 acknowledged 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, and sincerely penitent, that is, sincei'ely contrite, sincerely afflicted for their sins, sincerely converted. Let this sincere repentance 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 selflove ; nor whether the sin I believe rooted out of my heart, reign not there more securely than ever, as it escapes my sight. It is to no purpose to say with the Apology, " that faith is incompatible with mortal siirf l" now I have faith ; therefore, I have not mortal sin. For it is 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 assui'ed that I have not mortal sin j it is what we have proved by

■ Art. vi. p. 12. Cap.de bon.Oper.p.21. f Apol.Cap.de Justif. 71—81.

the doctrine of Luther * : 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 ?" Now, it maybe said in the same manner, Who believes as he ought ? Who believes sufficiently to be justified before God ? And what follows in the Apology confirms this doubt; for it proceeds, il 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 f I" Therefore, you doubt frequently of your own proper faith. How, then, are you assured 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.

— That, conformably to the principles of Lutherans themselves, the uncertainty acknowledged by the Catholics should 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 lostj. 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 is annexed. Yet he hopes, however, for this blessed inheritance. In this sweet hope he lives happy, according to St. Paul, "rejoicing in hope²³." Therefore, exclusive of this last assurance, which prohibits all kind of doubt, one may enjoy as much repose as the state of this life permits.

% Conf. Aug. Art. vi. 11, Cap. de Bon. Operib. pp. 12, 13, 21. § Rom. xii. 12.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 117

— What is the true repose of Conscience in Justification, and what certainty is received therein.

Hence is seen what must be done in order to the acceptance of the promise, and the application of it ; it is to believe, readily, that the grace of Christian justice, and, consequently, life 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 the end, and who, according to the Lutherans, were not less justified than the elect themselves, evidently establishes the contrary. Here, then, in a few words, is the whole doctrine of justification. Although, to nourish humility in our hearts, 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, together with a profound adoration of this his impenetrable secret.

— The Confession of Strasburg explains Justification like the Church of Rome.

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 bv imputation, or of the recpaired certainty thereof. On the contrary, it defines justification to be that by which, " of unjust we become just, and of wicked good and upright²⁴," 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 fulfilling of the whole law, conformably to the doctrine of St. Paulf:" 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

118 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK 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 necessary the 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 Confession. But, although this be the foundation of merit, Bucer spoke not a word of it there ; though, elsewhere, he makes no difficulty of acknowledging it in the sense of St. Augustin, which is that of the Church.

— Of Merit, according to Bucer.

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 his 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 life ; 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 life, which in another respect, however, is a favour, because these good works, to which a recompense is given, are the gifts of God²⁵." 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, the 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 of merits : we reject them not in any way, and even acknowledge that eternal life is merited according to this saying of our Saviour, ' He that shall leave off all for the love of me, shall have a hundred-fold in this life, and, hereafter, life everlastingf."

III.} THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 119

— Bucer undertakes to defend the Prayers of the Church, and shews 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 intreated in that way, is intreated of God and not of the Saints, and, moreover, is intreated through Jesus Christ, by this all those who make this prayer acknowledge that all the merits of the Saints are gifts 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 generations²⁶." Thus Bucer disputed for the Catholic Church in 1546, at the Conference of Ratisbon ; and, indeed, these prayers were made by the greatest men of the Church, ajid in the most enlightened ages; and St. Augustin himself, however great an enemy he was to presumptuous merit, acknowledged, however, that the merits of the Saints were useful to us, when he said; et 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 prayersf ." 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 Augsburg on the Love of God.

I cannot here omit an odd doctrine of the Augsburg Confession on justification ; namely, that not only the love of God was not necessary for it, but necessarily supposes it already

12Q THE HISTORY OF [BOOK accomplished. 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 everywhere — " That it is impossible to love God, if, previously, one be not assured of forgiveness obtained²⁷."

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 the 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 all 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 thel 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 f," namely, as the gracious being who gratuitously justifies the impious. This love, so happily commenced, moves him to detest his crimes ; he receives the 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.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 121

— Another error in the Lutheran Justification.

But here is a new finesse of the Lutheran justification. St. Augustin, after St. Paul, establishes, that one of the differences of Christian justice from that of the law, is, that the justice of the law is built on the spirit of fear and terror ; whereas, Christian justice is inspired by the spirit of affection 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 consist 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, finally, they accuse us of maintaining a justice by its own proper 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 this life.

I believe it now appears how necessary it was to give a clear idea of the Lutheran justification from the Confession of Augsburg and Apology, because, as this exposition has fully discovered that in an article which is considered by the Lutherans as the masterpiece of their Reformation, after all nothing has been done except to calumniate us in some points, to justify us in others, and even in those, when some dispute may still remain, evidently to leave us the advantage.

— The Lutherans acknowledge the Sacrament of Penance, and Sacramental Absolution.

Besides this principal article, there are others in the Augsburg Confession or A pology of the highest importance : for example, that " particular absolution ought to be retained in confession ; that to reject it as 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 the²⁸ sight of God²⁹." As to their reproaching us with maintaining that (t this 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.

— Confession, with the necessity of enumerating Sins.

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, e Who is there that knoweth his sins f V " For sins that are not 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 differ 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 J.1' And, the better to discover the Lutheran conformity with us in the administration of this sacrament, it will not be irrelevant to consider the absolution, which, as the same Luther, in the same place, sets it down, the confessor gives the penitent, after confession, in these terms : — " Do you not believe that my forgiveness is that of God ?" Yes ! answers the penitent. " And I,³⁰ 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 the Holy Ghost³¹."

— The Seven Sacraments.

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 not, f Conf. Aug. art. xi. cap. de Conf. J Cat. Min. Concord, p. 378.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 123 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 him³² ;" but the thing was, perhaps, that Luther had no opinion of this epistle, though the 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 -j-.'1

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 J ; or that one of the fruits of Christian matrimony were not to provide that the children born in it be named saints, as destined to sanctity§.

But the Apology, at bottom, seems not much to oppose our doctrine concerning the number of the sacraments, " provided," it says, " this sentiment, which predominates throughout the 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, scarce any difficulty would remain about it.

— Monastic Vows, and that of Continency.

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^I." Modesty would be offended should 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 life he says he led without reproach, during the whole time of his celibacy, and to the forty-fifth year of his age. Be this as it may, all is softened in the Apology, since not only St. Antony and St. Bernard, but also St. Dominic and St. Francis, are there numbered among the saints 3 and all that is required from their disciples is, that, after 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 head³³.

— St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Bonaventure, placed by Luther amongst the Saints ; his strange doubt regarding the Salvation of St. Thomas of Aquin.

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 everywhere 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 fervour of spirit. He carries down his praises as far as Gerson, the same that, in the Council of Constance, had condemned Wickliff and John Huss, and calls him " a great man in every respecty." 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, unless it were that this saint was a Dominican, and Luther could not forget the sharp disputes he had held with that order. Whatever it might be, " he knows not (so he says) if Thomas be damned or savedj :" though, doubtless, he made no other kind of vows than the other religious, had said no other mass, and had taught no other faith.

— The Lutheran Mass.

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 them of abolishing the mass." — " It is celebrated (say they) amongst us with extreme reverence, and in it are preserved almost all the ordinary ceremonies^" In reality, when, in 1523, Luther reformed the f Thess. 1522. t. i. p. 377, adv. Paris Theologast. t. ii.p. 193, de abrog. Miss. priv. primo Tract. Ibid. 258, 259, de Vot, Mon. Ibid. 271, 278. J Prcef. adv. Latom. Ibid. 243. § Cap. de Miss.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 125 mass, and drew up his formula³⁴, scarcely anything was altered by him that struck the eyes of the people. The Introit was there retained, the Kyrie, 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, — (i 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 ornaments and sacerdotal garments, and great care was taken to retain them, as appeared from their practice, and the conferences then held-f." 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 solemn oblation^.1' 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, without communicants, were objected to, " which were abolished (said they) because they were scarcely ever celebrated but for lucre³⁵ ;" so that, on considering merely the terms of the Confession, one would have said that nothing except the abuse was the object of attack.

— 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 oft" from 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 ; that the canon of the Greeks differed from that of the Latins — 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

% Conf. Aug. cap. tie Miss. ibid. § Ibid.

126 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK 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 gifts before they were distributed ; and this is what they changed in practice, without daring to acknowledge as much in the public Confession.

— What was invented in order to render the Oblation in the Mass odious.

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 that Catholics admitted the mass for no other reason than to extinguish piety.

In the Confession of Augsburg the)^ 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 # ;" 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 f," 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, t{ That never had such a thing been heard among them J." But the people were to be made believe that these wretched Catholics were even ignorant of the first elements of Christianity.

— The Prayer and Oblation for the Dead.

Now, whereas the faithful, at all times, had the oblation made for the dead deeply impi'essed 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 acknow- f Conf. Aug. iu tit. Cone. cap. de Miss. % Chyt, Hist. Conf.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 127 ledge 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 Supper for the dead, in virtue of the action, ex opere operato³⁶." Here every thing abounds with artifice: for, in the first place, whilst they say they do not prevent this prayer, they had it cut off from the canon, and by so doing defaced a practice as ancient as the Church. Secondly, the objection spoke of the oblation, 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.

— The Lutherans reject the doctrine of Aerius, contrary to Prayer for the Dead.

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 itf." Thus is an imposition practised upon the ignorant. If it were not the intention of the Lutherans to maintain Aerius, why do they maintain this particular dogma, which this Arian heretic had added to the Arian heresy — l< That we ought not to pray or offer up oblations for the dead | ?" This is what St. Augustin relates of Aerius after 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, they ought to replace in the Liturgy, not only prayer, but also the oblation for the dead.

— How the Oblation of the Eucharist is profitable to the ichole world.

But here is the great subject of complaint in the Apology : namely, say they, that St. Epiphanius, by condemning

128 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK

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 pain, provided they put no obstacle thereto." To hear them speak, one would say, that 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? 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 is profitable to them like prayer, which certainly we should never offer for the most obdurate sinners, did we not suppose it could obtain 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, however, 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 doctrine to sordid gain, Protestants know very well the Church did not approve 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 hear³⁷:" 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 touching the exterior ; in changing the interior, even what was most ancient, without apprising the people of the alteration ; in accusing Catholics 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.

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 129

— A horrible calumny, grounded 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 thoughts³⁸ 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 devised 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 t." It is unnecessary to justify the Church from these abominable excesses. But to remove all doubt that this was literally Catholic doctrine, " We speak not now," added they, " of popular abuses ; we speak of the opinion of doctors." And a little after, " 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." After imputing such excesses to us, they say gravely, " We invent nothing ; they state in the indulgences that the merits of the saints are applied to us j." 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.

— 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 proceeded to images. They honoured them, and believed there was a certain virtue in them, as the magicians make us believe there is in the images of the constellations when they are made at a certain time³⁹."

Ibid. § Ibid. 229.

VOL. I. K

130 THE HISTORY OP [BOOK

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 century *." The people were not yet accustomed to despise the authority of the ancient church ; and the Reformation, as yet 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, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, in a word, all the Fathers of this so venerable an age, have, with the invocation of saints, set up, in the new idolatry, the reign of Antichrist f .

— The Lutherans durst not reject the authority of the Church of Rome.

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 J." 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 everywhere the same §."

In another edition are read these words : "We despise

NOT THE CONSENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1101⁴⁰ will We maintain the impious and seditious opinions she has condemned ; for it is not irregular passions, but the authority of

Conf, Aug. Art. xxi, edit. Gen. p. 22. § Apol, Resp. ad Arg. p. 141., &c,

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 131

God's word, and of the ancient Church, that has moved us to embrace this doctrine, in order to increase the glory of God, and provide far the advantage of pious souls in the Universal Church *."

Also in the Apology, after the 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. Augustine, 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 "f :" whereby particular opinions were manifestly distinguished from the received and constant doctrine, with which they professed not to interfere.

GO. — Memorable words of Luther, acknowledging the true Church in the Communion of Rome.

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 uj)on 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 Antichrist 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

% Tr, de Missa, t. vii. p. 236 ct seq,

K 2⁴¹⁴² ordination of pastors, comfort in the agony of death ; the image of the crucifix, and at the same time the remembrance of the death and passion of Jesus Christ : the Psalter, Lord's Prayer, the Symbol, the Decalogue, and many pious canticles in Latin and high Dutch." 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 for 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, with the Elector his master, kneeling before a crucifix.

v 61. — 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 Catholics and Protestants were disputing it at Augsburg. " Eckius believed, said he, that communion under one or both kinds should be held for indifferent. Which I would not allow ; and yet I excused those who hitherto, through error, had received but one ; for they exclaimed, we condemned the whole church f ."

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

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 133 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 ? But no other method 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 Christ never to abandon her 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 during the captivity of Babylon, when she had it not in her power *."

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. Lest 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 Apology.

All this but little coincided with the eighth 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 f ." 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.⁴³⁴⁴

— The body of the Lutherans submit themselves in the Augsburg Confession to the judgment of the General Council.

The difficulty in condemning the doctrine of the church was not less pressing, and this was the reason that the Protestants durst not acknowledge, that their confession of faith Was opposite to the Church of Rome, or that they had withdrawn themselves from her. They endeavoured to have it believed, as we 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 V. " 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 these terms : " If matters of religion cannot be amicably arranged with our parties, we offer in all 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 appeal⁴⁵.1' When they spoke in this manner, it was not their intention to give the emperor authority to pronounce on the articles of faith : but upon appealing to the council, 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

III.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 135 acknowledgment of the inviolable authority of the church. All then submitted to it, and whatever might be done before her decision arrived, was all 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 dailv. After 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 illusory, as will be seen hereafter.

— The conclusion of this matter : how useful it ought to be in reclaiming the 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 conformable 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 labouring 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 occasion⁴⁶." Thus did they patch up this famous Confession of Faith, which is the foundation of the Protestant religion ; and thus were the dogmas therein treated. Melancthon was not permitted to soften matters as he wished :-. — " I changed something," says he, tf every day, and changed again, and should have changed much more if our companions would have suffered mef." " But/' proceeded he, " they are concerned at nothing ;" the meaning was, as he explained it everywhere, that, without 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 to him, that he knew not how to assuage this proud spirit ; some-

136?" THE HISTORY OF [BOOK times he was carried against Melancthon " into such a passion, that he even refused to read his letter⁴⁷." Express messengers were sent, to him in vain ; they returned without an answer; and under these restraints the unfortunate Melancthon, who did all he could to check the impetuosity of his master, and of the party, always weeping and sighing, wrote the Confession of Augsburg.

IV.] THE VARIATIONS, ETC. 137

Chyt. Hist. Confess. Aug. ↩
PivT.f. Apol. in Lib. Concord, p. 48. Act. Smal. ibid., 356. Epi 57 1. Solid Repet. ibid., 633, 726. ↩
Concord, p. 728. f Conf. Aug. art. 10. ↩
Conf. Aug. art. 10. Syntagm. Gen. 2 part, p. 13. ↩
Conf, Aug. art. 10, in lib. Concord, p. 13. ↩
Apol. Conf. Aug. Cone. p. 157. ↩
Solid. RepLt. + Hospin. part 2. p. 94, 132. 173. ↩
John x. 30. ↩
Ep. ad Cses. et Princ. Prot. t Ad Art. iv. de Justif. p. 60. dc poen. p. 161. ↩
Art. xix. ibid. ↩
Conf. Art', xx. Apol. Cap. de Justif. Cone. p. 61. Ibid. pp. 62, 74, 102, 103. ↩
Cone, Triil. Sess. vi. cap. 8. ↩
Art. vi. Synt. Gen. p. 12. Ibid. p. 20. cap. de Bon. Oper. f Ibid. p. 21. ↩
Apol. Conf, Aug. ad Art, iv. v. vi. Resp, ad Object. Concord, p. 96. ↩
Resp. ad Object. Con. p. 137. f Apol. Conf. Aug. p. 137. + Sess. vi. cap. 8. $ Ibid. cap. 9. || Ibid. cap. 16. et Can. 32. ↩
Apol. Conf. Aug. 137. + In Loci.s Comm. cap. de Justif. Mat. xix. 29. ↩
Praif.Apol. Cone. p. 48. f Solid, repet. Cone C>33. ↩
Apoc. iii. •f Chyt. Hist. Conf. Aug. post Conf. Georg. Coel. Hist. Conf. Aug. Aug. t.iii. » ;|; Dan. iv. § 1 Peter iv. 8. || Luke vi. 37. ↩
Rcsp. ad Arg. t Heb. xi. 6. ↩
Sess. vi.c, 3—7. ↩
Solid. Repet. Cone p. 686. Epit. artic Hud. 183. t Prsef. in Epist. ad Rom. I. v. f. 97, 98. % Cap. de Justif. Cone. pp. 68, 71, 72,73, 74, 82. Cap. de Dilect. 83. VOL. I. I ↩
Apol. Resp. ad Arg, vi, 99, De Vot. Monast. 281, f Apol. ibid. ↩
Sup. Book I. f Apol. Cap. de Justif. 91. ↩
See before; Book ii. f Conl'. Argent, cap, iii. el iv. ↩
Disp. Lips. an. 1539. f Resp. ad Abrinc. ↩
Disp. Ratisb. t Lib. xx, contra Fausl. Manich. 21. ↩
Art. v. 20. cap. de bon. Oper, Svnt, Gen, ii, 2nd part, Apol. cap. de Justif. p. 81. ↩
Se^s, vi, cap. 6. ↩
Art. xi. xii. xxii. Gen. p. 21. Apol. de Pcenit. p. 167, 200, 201. ↩
Ibid. p. 380. |] Apol. cap. de Num. Sac. ad art. 13. p. 200 et seq. ↩
James v. 18. f De C. Babyl.t.xi.86. j 1 Tim. ii. 15. ↩
1 Cor. vii. 14, || Apol. p. 203. % Ep. ad Vol. t. vii. p. 505, ↩
Apol. resp. ad Arg. p. 99. De Vot. Mon. p. 281. ↩
Form. Miss. t. ii. -j- Chyt. Hist. Conf. Aug. ↩
Consult Lut. apud Chyt. Hist. Aug. Conf. tit. de Cauone, ↩
Conf. Aug. edit. Gen. cap. de Miss. p. 25, Apol, cap. de Sacram. et Sacrif; et de Vocab. Miss. p. 269. ↩
Apol. c, de Voc, Miss, p, 274. f IM, % Aug. Lib, de Hcer, 53. Ep. Heer. 75, ↩
Cliyt. Hist. Conf. Cath. c. de Miss. Cone. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 6. ↩
Ad Ait. xxi. c. de Invoc. SS. p. 225. f Ad Art. xxi. cap. de Invoc. ↩
Ad Art. xxi. cap. de Invoc. ↩
Dall. de Cult. Satin. Josep. Mida in Comment, ap. Jur. Ace. de Prop.. ↩
Edit, Gen, Art. xxi. p. 22. f Apol. Resp. ad Arg. p. 141. ↩
Cap. de utriusque Spe?ie? p. 235. f MsLlib. i. Kp. 15. ↩
Resp. Luth. ad Mel. t. ii. ; Sleid. lib. vii. p. 112. f Ccmf, Aug. Art. vii. ↩
Praef. Conf. Aug. Concord, p. 8. ↩
Lib. i. Ep.2. t Lib. iv. Ep. 95. } Ibid. ↩
Lib. i. Ep. 6. ↩

Chapter 5 of 18

Book III. From the year 1529 to the year 1530

Conf. Argent, c. 18. dc Ccena. Synt, Gen. part 1. p. 195. VOL. I. II

Footnotes