Chapter II. That the Teaching of the Pretended Reformers Contradicts Reason.*

I HAVE put off the showing of the absurdities which are in the doctrine of our adversaries to the end of the treatise on the rules of faith, these absurdities being a consequence of their believing without rule and sailing without compass. And [put off showing] that they have not the efficacy of the doctrine of Catholicism; for not only are they not Catholics, but cannot be, effecting the destruction of the body of Our Lord, instead of acquiring new members for it.

When Luther, in his preface to his " Defence of the articles condemned by Leo," says that the Scriptures are very easy, intelligible and clear to each one, and that any one can see the truth there and discern amongst varying opinion which is the true which the false, is he not, I pray, going against the personal experience of everybody? And when you have taken in this nonsense do you not know that the contrary is evident? I know no man so learned as to dare swear that he knows the true sense, I do not say of the whole Scripture but of some part of it; indeed I have never found one among you who understood the sense of one whole chapter.

• In a detached note the Saint says: " A chapter must be composed on simplicity of faith and humility in believing." See Preface. [Tr.]

When Calvin,* or Bucer,t denies that we have any liberty in our will, not only for supernatural actions but even for natural ones and in merely human matters, does he not attack natural reason and all philosophy (as Calvin indeed confesses) and, at the same time, the experience both of yourselves, if you speak frankly, and of all the rest of men?

And when Luther says J that believing, hoping, loving are not operations and actions of our will, but simple passions outside the activity of the will, does he not ruin at one stroke all believing, hoping, and loving, changing them into being believed, being hoped in, and being loved, besides contradicting the heart of man which knows well that by the grace of God itself believes, loves, and hopes?

Also when Luther says§ that infants in Baptism nave the use of their understanding and reason, and when the synod of Wittenberg says || that infants in Baptism have movements and inclinations like to the movements of faith and charity, and this without understanding: — is not this to mock God, nature, and experience?

And when it is said that " in sinning we are incited, pushed, necessitated by the will, ordinance, decree, and predestination of God," — is this not to blaspheme against all reason, and against the majesty of the supreme goodness? Such is the fine theology of

• histit, 1. i. c. xvi., 1. ii. cc. ii., iv, t De Concord., art. de lib. arbitr.

X Operat in Psalm.

§ Apud Cochl., ann. 1523.

Ii Ann. 1536. L. 3: Misceli. tract.

ART. VIII. c. II.] The Rule of Faith, 331

Zwingle, Calvin, and Beza.* " But," says Beaa, " you will say that they could not resist the will of God, that is, the decree; I acknowledge it: but as they could not so they would not: they could not wish otherwise, I own, as to the event and working {energiam), but yet the will of Adam was not forced." Goodness of God, I call you as my witness! You have pushed me to do evil; you have so decreed, ordained, and willed; I could not act otherwise, I could not will otherwise, — what fault of mine is there? 0 God of my heart! chastise my will, if it is able not to will evil and wills to will it; but if it cannot help willing evil, and thou art the cause of its impossibility, what fault of mine can there be? If this is not contrary to reason, I protest that there is no reason in the world.

The law of God is impossible, according to Calvin and the others: t what follows, except that Our Lord is a tyrant who commands impossible things? If it is impossible, why is it commanded?

Works, good as ever they may be, rather deserve hell than Paradise: shall then the justice of God, which will give to every one according to his works, give to every one hell?

This is enough, but the absurdity of absurdities, and the most horrible unreason of all is this: that while holding that the whole Church may have erred for a thousand years in the understanding of the Word of God, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin can guarantee that they understand it aright: this absurdity is greater when

• Zw. de prud. 5, 6: Calv. Jnstit. I. 17, 18; de Praed.; Instruct, contra Lib.; Beza contra Castal.

• Calv. mU. Sess. 6, cone. Tr.: Luther de lib. Chrut.

a mere wretched minister (ministrot), while preaching as a word of God that all the visible Church has erred, that Calvin and all men can err, dares to pick and choose amongst the interpretations of the Scripture that one which pleases him, and to certify and maintain it as the Word of God: and you yourselves carry the absurdity still further when, having heard that everybody may err in matter of religion — even the whole Church — without trying to find for yourselves some other religion amongst a thousand sects, which all boast of rightly understanding the Word of God, and rightly preaching it, you believe so obstinately in the minister who preaches to you, that you will hear no more? If everybody can err in the understanding of the Scripture, why not you and your minister? I wonder that you do not always walk trembling and shaking: I wonder how you can live with so much assurance in the doctrine which you follow, as if you could not err, and yet you hold as certain that every one has erred and can err.

The Gospel soars far above all the most elevated reasonings of nature; it never goes against them, never injures them nor dissolves them: but these fancies of your evangelists obscure and destroy the light of nature.

ART. VIII. 0. iiL] The Rule of Faith. 333