System of Theology (1686)

Abstract

An ecumenical project for reuniting the Protestant and Catholic Churches without violence to conscience: distinguishing errors that subvert the foundations of faith from those tolerable out of Christian charity, reserving the controversies to the judgement of a legitimate council. Irenic theology in the service of religious peace.

Testo originale inglese · Delphi Classics, 2025 · pubblico dominio

APPENDIX.

UPON THE METHOD OF RE-UNITING THE PROTESTANT AND ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES; COMMITTED TO PAPER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO INDIVIDUAL OPINION, BY A THEOLOGIAN SINCERELY ATTACHED TO THE CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG, AND, BY CONSENT OF HIS SUPERIORS, PRIVATELY COMMUNICATED TO THE ILLUSTRIOUS AND REVEREND LORD JAMES BENIGNE, BISHOP OF MEAUX, A PRELATE OF DISTINGUISHED WORTH, NOT LESS EMINENT FOR LEARNING THAN MODERATION, TO THE END THAT THEY BE EXAMINED IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD, BUT WITHOUT BEING FOR THE PRESENT MADE PUBLIC.

PROPOSITION.

The re-union of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches is not only possible, but further, is so recommended to each and every Christian by its advantages, both temporal and spiritual, that they are bound upon every fitting occasion, and in every suitable place and time, to contribute, each according to his ability, his own portion to the same, prescribed as it is by divine, natural law, and by express decree in the councils of the empire.

EXPLANATION.

I speak of such a re-union as may take place without violence to the conscience, or prejudice to the reputation, of either party, and so as to leave untouched the principles and hypotheses of both Churches. For since we are commanded in the Scriptures to love and cultivate peace and truth, that is to say, such peace as may not be repugnant to the truth, far be it from us that, for the sake of obtaining peace and concord in the Church, either party should determine or admit any thing in opposition to conscience, and thus call “light darkness, or darkness light;” but rather let each contend for truth in all things, and in every way reject whatever may be judged to border upon error. But this profession of truth or acknowledgment of error, as the case may be, must so be regulated that no scandal, much less contempt of religion, ensue for the infirm, and that the authority, reputation, and honour of the bishops and doctors of either Church shall suffer no prejudice therefrom; which would be the case if either party were obliged to recant its alleged errors, or, in the method of reconciliation, to admit any thing contrary to the received hypotheses of its Church. Indeed it is plain from the very nature of the case that nothing should be assumed as granted upon both sides which is denied by either, and that the domineering claim for retractation of errors is not even entitled to a thought; but that, on the contrary, the attention of the parties should be exclusively devoted to a lucid exposition, a suitable declaration, or a temperate softening down of the controverted dogmas; and that, should all these fail, or should they be out of place in any particular controversy, they should abstain from recrimination and invective, and reserve the controverted matters for the judgment of a legitimate council. We may hence infer it to be not only expedient, but in its own way lawful, that such errors as do not directly go to subvert the foundations of faith, if they cannot be conveniently and quietly removed, should in the beginning be connived at, and mutually tolerated in weak brethren, according to the laws of Christian charity. In this we are fortified by the example of the Apostles, who, notwithstanding that they knew it to be erroneous in the newly-converted Jews to insist, even under the New Law, upon abstinence from blood and things strangled, nevertheless, because they felt that there was nothing the Jewish neophytes would not do rather than abandon the practice, not only wisely abstained from denouncing the error, but, for the sake of introducing uniformity as far as possible, by a law passed in the Council of Jerusalem, ordained that the Gentiles should observe the same rule as the Jews. Neither is it to be required from the parties, that, even although a preliminary re-union in the substantial articles should have taken place, either of them should at once subscribe to the opinions of the other in every particular. For perhaps it is not possible, nor is it even strictly necessary, that the general body, whether of our own brethren or of the Catholics, should be hurried from one extreme to the other suddenly and, as it were, in a moment, since Christ and the Apostles, as is manifest from the Gospel history and the Acts of the Apostles, delivered their doctrines not altogether and at once, but by successive degrees.

POSTULATES.

To the attaining the end, therefore, which we have in view, we need only premise six conditions, no one of which is of such a nature that the Roman Church may not, as a tender mother, graciously allow it to her ancient children.

FIRST POSTULATE.

The first is, “That the Supreme Pontiff should consent to hold as true members of the Christian Church, such Protestants as, under fair conditions, to be explained more at large below, are prepared to submit to the ecclesiastical hierarchy and to a legitimate Council, notwithstanding their persuasion that, henceforth and for ever, Communion must be celebrated under both species by their adherents.”

In order that the extreme and indispensable necessity of this condition may be presented more clearly, and that Roman Catholics may see that the demand of Communion under both kinds is not groundlessly put forward by Protestants, as well as that this demand is reconcilable with the possibility of union, we have to prove —

First. By what an insuperable argument we are convinced that we cannot, with safe conscience, communicate under one kind.

Secondly. How, notwithstanding this opinion of Protestants, it is competent for the Supreme Pontiff, without disturbing any of the hypotheses of his own Church, to receive them into the bosom of the Roman Church, and allow them to retain their custom of communicating under both kinds.

The first is thus proved. Whoever are convinced that the use of the cup as well as of the bread is enjoined by Christ, such persons, if they do not wish to communicate against their conscience, are unquestionably bound to communicate under both kinds. But Protestants are convinced that the use of the cup as well as of the bread was enjoined by Christ. Therefore Protestants, if they do not wish to communicate against their consciences, are bound to communicate under both kinds.

Before we approach the proof of the minor, in order to put the question on a proper footing, we must premise that the word precept is understood in a twofold sense:

First, in so far as it commands a thing “in itself and in its own substance,” by prescribing how the thing commanded, that is to say, the act which is the object of the law or precept, is to be done when it is reduced to action. The schoolmen say that such precepts regard the specification of the act. Under these may be classed, for instance, the law of marriage-contracts, by virtue of which two persons are indissolubly united into one flesh. This law does not simply command matrimony, otherwise no one could live in celibacy without sin; but it commands matrimony “in itself and in its own substance” by prescribing how the man and woman are to be joined when they wish to enter into matrimony. To take a woman to wife, therefore, is matter of free will; nor does the law of matrimony oblige every man; but if a man wish to marry, it prescribes that he proceed in this way and in no other, namely, that he take one wife and no more, or, in the words of the Scripture, that “they he two in one flesh;” that, once married, he shall continue bound to his wife by an indissoluble tie, and shall remain “one flesh” with her; and therefore shall not be at liberty to repudiate her and to marry another, except in the case of adultery, &c. Such also is the provision of the civil law about the seven witnesses and the other solemnities required for the validity of a will — whereby no one is commanded to make a will, but the form is prescribed according to which a will must be framed in order to its being considered valid and lawful.

Secondly, in so far as it commands that a certain act be done, or prohibits that it be done, and in this way has for its object, not the act itself, but the exercise of the act, in which sense the schoolmen say that precepts regard not the specification of the act, but its exercise.

Suarez insists upon this distinction of precepts in the following words: “It must be borne in mind that in some cases laws regard the performance of an action, and that such laws oblige to the particular act which they prescribe; such, for example, is the law of almsgiving: and that in other cases the law has reference only to the ‘specification of the act,’ or the manner thereof, in which case, although the law does not oblige to the performance of the act, nevertheless it obliges that, if the act take place, such or such a method be observed; of this character, for instance, is the law of prayer, which, although it does not oblige us to pray at every time, obliges, nevertheless, that if we pray, the act of prayer shall be performed with attention” (De Legibus, b. i. c. 1.)

From which principles it is manifest, that when it is disputed between ourselves and the Romanists, whether communion under both kinds was commanded by Christ, the question is to be understood of the precept, not as it regards the exercise, but as it regards the specification of the act.

It is to be remarked, moreover, that as regards the specification of the act, two things are requisite for the precept: first, the determination or sanction of the thing itself considered in itself and in its substance. Thus, in the civil code, for the law which regards the framing of a valid and lawful will, it is requisite to determine the number of witnesses and the other solemnities which belong to the substance of a valid will.

Secondly. It is required that this determination emanate from the will of the superior, which obliges the agent, if he wish to reduce to action the thing regulated by law, and if be mean it to be valid, to do it in conformity with the law made by his superior. Thus, when any one has a mind to make a will, he is obliged to observe the determinate number of witnesses and the other prescribed solemnities, and if these be not observed, or be overlooked or neglected, the will is invalid. Another reason inducing this obligation is the will of the superior by whom the observance of these solemnities has been prescribed.

Beyond these two things, none of the schoolmen have ever noticed any thing as requisite to the precept which regards “the specification of an act.”

So much being premised, Protestants, in proof of the minor proposition above mentioned, urge the imperative words of Christ: “Take ye and eat, this is my Body which is given for you; take ye and drink, this is my Blood which is shed for you.”

Roman Catholics maintain the negative, and, against our proof of the minor proposition, allege that Communion under both kinds was instituted, but was not commanded by Christ. And here we cannot deny that there is some difference between a precept regarding the exercise of an act, and institution. But the case is different with the precept regarding the specification of an act. It is for us, therefore, to prove that between the precept regarding the specification of an act — that, namely, which prescribes merely in what way the thing is to be done — and institution, there is no difference. Which is thus proved:

Whatsoever has all the requisites of a precept considered in relation to the specification of an act, either is such a precept or is equivalent to such a precept. But institution has all the essential requisites of a precept considered in relation to the specification of an act. Therefore institution is either such a precept or equivalent to it.

The major proposition is evident from the terms.

The minor is proved from the definition, and the requisites of the precept considered in relation to the specification of an act.

For according to the definition adduced above, such a precept prescribes the thing in itself and its own substance, by prescribing how the thing commanded should be done, if it be reduced to action. Now to every institution the same is required.

To such a precept it is requisite —

1. That there be a determination or sanction of the thing itself, considered in itself and in its own substance.

2. That this determination emanate from the will of the superior, obliging the agent, if he wish to reduce to action the thing regulated by law, and mean that it should be valid, to do it in conformity with the law made by his superior. Now the like is required in every institution.

This is plain from the induction of all the examples, insomuch that no other example exists or can exist in nature; that is to say, such is the nature of every institution, that when the thing instituted is to be reduced to action, that act must be in conformity with the institution; or if it be not so, even should there be no other precept affecting the same thing, the act in question, by the very fact of its non-conformity to the institution, is to be considered faulty and culpable; which can be proved even by the example of Christ himself, who, in his reply to the question of the Pharisees, whether a man should be allowed to repudiate his wife for any cause whatever, appeals to the institution of marriage, and proves that such a proceeding is nowise lawful, from the fact of God’s so instituting marriage that husband and wife shall be two in one flesh. And he thence infers, that the Jewish custom of repudiating wives at will was not only unlawful, but that a man committed adultery who repudiated his wife and married another, except in case of adultery. Now this argument of Christ would have been inconclusive, if institution had not the force of precept, considered in relation to the specification of the act, and did not entail an obligation of such nature, that, when the thing has once been instituted, whosoever, for instance, wishes to enter into matrimony, must do so conformably to the nature of its institution; and, once married, must be and continue “one flesh” with his wife in a bond indissoluble unless by death or adultery.

Thus, also, if any one wishes to take on himself the office of pastor and to teach the word of God in the Church, and undertake the administration of sacraments, he is bound to accept and discharge that office agreeably to the institution of our Saviour. Whoever, in like manner, wishes to undertake and perform the office of a magistrate, must do so conformably to its institution: and the same holds in every institution whatsoever; so that no example to the contrary has ever been alleged, nor, from the nature of things, can any exist.

It follows, therefore, that every institution imports, or is in fact of equal effect with, or equivalent to, a precept of the specification of the act by which the thing instituted is reduced to action or to use. And such is the force of this truth, that it has won the assent of the learned Jesuit, Francis Suarez, who elaborately proves that “every institution of Christ has the force, not merely of an affirmative precept, in the sense that any one wishing to do the thing instituted must do it conformably to the institution, but furthermore of a negative precept; so that, if the thing cannot be done as it is prescribed, it had better be omitted than done in any other way.” (Tert. Pars S. Thom. Disp. xliii. § iv. Conclus, iv.)

Whence we argue as follows for Communion under both kinds: —

To whomsoever it is commanded by Christ that they partake of the sacrament of his Supper according to his institution, to the same is it commanded that they communicate under both kinds. But a precept is given to each and all Christians that they partake of the sacrament of his Supper according to his institution. Therefore command is given to each and all Christians that they communicate under both kinds.

Having now proved the necessity of this postulate, it remains to be proved, in the second place, that it is compatible with the possibility of union, and that in demanding it, nothing is required of the Apostolic See which it is beyond its authority and power to concede; that is to say, the Supreme Pontiff can, without derogating from the principles and hypotheses of his Church, allow Protestants to retain their custom of communicating under both kinds.

Now it is admitted on both sides, that the Pope can, out of the authority reserved to him by the Council of Trent, grant to whomsoever he thinks fit the perpetual and irrevocable use of the cup, provided only this dispensation tends to the advantage of the Christian religion. And the thing, in point of fact, has been already granted by the Roman Pontiff, when, without much difficulty, he allowed the use of the cup to the Bohemians, who were in rebellion upon this subject.

SECOND POSTULATE.

The second condition is, that the Pontiff should be satisfied not to force upon Protestant Churches what are called private Masses, or those Masses in which the priest alone communicates. This condition is sought, not because Protestants conceive such a mode of communicating to be simply unlawful, since, even in their own churches, their pastors sometimes, in cases of necessity, themselves receive the Lord’s Supper without any one else being present; nor because, after the preliminary union, they would forbid their brethren to assist at the private Masses of the Catholics; but for the following reasons: —

1. Because they are convinced that the Eucharist should ordinarily, as far as possible (always excepting cases of necessity), be celebrated after the form which Christ has instituted, and which is described in the Gospel; namely, that, besides the priest, there be present others to whom the Body and Blood of Christ can be distributed with the blessed bread and wine.

2. Because it is notorious that great abuses were introduced into the Church by means of those private Masses, of which abuses, about the beginning of the Reformation, not only the Protestants of Germany, but many of the Roman Catholics also complained, in the Centum Gravamina; and that by no means as a matter of form.

3. Because in most Protestant churches there remains not a vestige of the numberless altars intended for such private use; much less have the foundations or trusts devoted by the pious faithful of Christ to such purposes been able to escape the hands of the harpies: all those properties being at present either wasted or applied to other purposes, in part sacred, in part profane.

THIRD POSTULATE.

That the Pope should consent to leave unproscribed and free from all censure, to the aforementioned Churches, their doctrines touching the justification of the sinner before God; viz. that the adult who wishes to become a partaker of Divine Grace, and to obtain remission of sin, and eternal salvation, should acknowledge his sins, repent sincerely of them, and rely, not upon any merits of his own, but solely upon the death and merits of Christ, with a hope and confidence of obtaining the forgiveness of his sins and life everlasting; and should thenceforth abstain from sin and devote himself to holiness, that is to say, to good works, “without which no man shall see God.”

There appears to be no reason why the Roman Pontiff should not leave this doctrine free to members of our profession; especially since, after half a century of contest, the more acute on both sides have discovered that hitherto the dispute has been like the olden contests of the Andabatæ; [Gladiators who fought with their eyes shut.] that between both opinions there is no real difference, but that the contest is purely one of words; and that the controversy, like a saw, has been drawn hither and thither, the quarrel regarding not the matter itself, but the various acceptations of the terms employed. It is true the Catholics usually place the formal notion of justification in the infusion of sanctifying grace, whereas the Protestants maintain that the word ‘justification’ should be understood in a forensic sense, and as signifying nothing more than the non-imputation of sin in consideration of the merits of Christ. The storms which this difference of opinion has excited in the Church are too well known to require mention; but Calixtus and Horneius, on the side of the Helmstadt theologians, and subsequently, the brothers Adrian and Peter von Walenburch, the Fratres Wallenburgenses, as they are called, and more lately the Capuchin Denis of Werle, in his Via Pacis, published some five years ago with the consent and approbation of his superiors, have all observed that this controversy could be brought to an end by a favourable explanation of the terms.

For, if the term justification be understood in so wide a sense as to embrace the idea of sanctification or renovation, and the denomination be thus borrowed from the more noble act of renovation, they hold that the notion of justification in this extended sense may properly be placed in the infusion of sanctifying grace; but that, if justification be strictly interpreted — that is to say, in the sense of justification in so far as it is distinguished in its formal essence from the act of renovation (with which it is nevertheless simultaneous) — under such circumstances it does not consist in the aforesaid infusion, but in the sole nonimputation of sin.

FOURTH POSTULATE.

The fourth condition is, that the Pope be pleased to permit to the Protestant pastors the right of marriage, and even of a second marriage upon the death of their wives, until a council shall have decided upon the latter case. In which instance, again, nothing is asked of the Sovereign Pontiff which it is not in his power to grant. For, according to the common opinion, the celibacy of the clergy is not enjoined by positive Divine law, but by human, and is therefore, so to speak, liable to abrogation at the hands of those who made the law. We have in addition the authority of the Council of Florence, by which permission to marry is given among the united Greeks even to priests.

FIFTH POSTULATE.

The fifth is, that the Pope be pleased to confirm and hold for valid the ordinations hitherto performed by Protestants; and to do this in a way which will be acceptable on both sides, will not prejudice either party, and will be calculated to set the faithful at rest, as far as can be done, touching the administration of the sacraments. For as to the future ordinations, which after the preliminary union must be performed according to the Roman rite, there shall be no question. And here we would have it distinctly understood that we are anxious about the sanction of these ordinations, not for the sake of our own brethren, none of whom entertain a doubt upon the subject, but solely on account of the Roman Catholics, who, without such confirmation, would call into doubt the validity of the sacraments received at our hands after the preliminary union. Whence it is plain that the decision of this article could not be postponed to the meeting of the future Council.

SIXTH POSTULATE.

The sixth is, that the Sovereign Pontiff shall so deal with the Protestant Electors, Princes, Counts, and other States of the Roman Empire, agreeably to the right and authority which in virtue of the Treaty of Passau and the Peace of Westphalia they have, or claim to have, over the clergy and the affairs of religion, that the said temporal lords may not oppose themselves to these religious efforts for union, but may rather be gently induced to promote a design so salutary. And that the Sovereign Pontiff can effect such, and even greater things, is sufficiently apparent from the concordats between the Roman and the French Churches, and from the principles now maintained by the doctors of the Sorbonne, and amongst them by M. Lewis Elias Dupin, in his historical Dissertations upon the Ancient Discipline of the Church, which are no less remarkable for their learning than for their candour.

Should the Roman Pontiff deign to concede these demands, the Protestants who think with us promise on their part:

1. That as the Bishop of Rome holds the first place or primary rank and dignity amongst all the bishops of the Christian world, and consequently in the Universal Church, and possesses besides by ecclesiastical law, in the Western or Latin Church, the primacy and patriarchal privileges, they will, therefore, esteem and reverence the Sovereign Pontiff as Supreme Patriarch or First Bishop of the entire Church, and will pay him due homage in spiritual matters.

2. That they will treat the Roman Catholics as brethren in Christ, notwithstanding their adherence to Communion under one kind and other hitherto controverted articles, until the decision of a legitimate council.

3. That the priests will be subject to their bishops, and the bishops to their archbishops, and so on, according to the established hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Now that Catholics, though communicating under one kind, may be considered as brethren by Protestants who hold Communion under both kinds to be enjoined by Christ, is shewn by two arguments.

1. Because the error of Roman Catholics concerning this article is supposed to be, up to the present, involuntary and invincible. Now such an error, when it concerns a non-fundamental article of faith, can nowise be considered damnable: as is thus proved.

When involuntary deprivation of the whole does not entail damnation, neither does an involuntary and invincible error about a part. But the involuntary deprivation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist does not entail damnation; therefore neither does an involuntary and hitherto invincible error about a part of the Sacrament of the Eucharist cause damnation. Now, an error which is not damnable cannot have for object a fundamental article of faith. But, &c. Therefore, &c.

2. Because, in every case where two divine precepts clash, so that the one cannot be observed without the violation of the other, it is sufficient if that one be observed which is more excellent in itself, and whose observance is more necessary. The celebration of the Sabbath, for instance, which, under the New Testament, has given way to the Sunday, is prescribed in the decalogue, and its violation prohibited. Now it is certain that the works of charity towards one’s neighbour are prescribed not only by the divine, but also by the natural law. Supposing, therefore, that my neighbour is in some extreme calamity, and that he must be freed by me upon the Lord’s day, and that, by the consequent journey and neglect of religious duties, the Sabbath must be violated, — I say that, in such a case, the violation of this first precept is not sinful, because charity to one’s neighbour is the more excellent work, and the law enjoining it the more necessary. To apply this to the matter in hand. It is supposed, according to the opinion of Protestants, that Communion under both kinds is commanded by Christ; but, in the opinion of both sides, unity of faith and concord in the Church are commanded, and schism is forbidden as the most grievous evil against Christian charity. The Pope, therefore, according to the supposition that Communion, under one kind, or under both, is left to the decision of the Church, can indulge Protestants with Communion under both kinds; he can also extend to Catholics inhabiting the same country with us the privilege of communicating under both kinds: and thus the actual union of the churches might be commenced. But, on the contrary, in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, for instance, by reason of the exceeding difficulties and the disturbance of the whole religion of Christ which it would occasion, the Pope cannot introduce Communion under both kinds.

It is asked, therefore, what are Protestants to do in this matter? Are they so to act that schism is to be caused, or to be perpetuated? or are the Roman Catholics to be considered as brethren in Christ, although they deny Communion under both kinds to be commanded by him, and although the Roman Pontiff be unable to introduce it into all the provinces of Christendom? I say they must take the latter alternative; because the preservation of unity in the Church and the removal of schism is enjoined by Christ: and this it has, even in our opinion, in common with Communion under both kinds. Now it cannot be denied that the precept of maintaining unity is the more excellent of the two, and that, if both cannot be observed together, the more necessary one should be followed, and toleration should be extended to the error regarding the other. Now the paramount necessity pf observing Christian charity, to which schism is diametrically opposed, is clearly taught by St. Paul (1 Cor. xiii.) throughout almost an entire chapter.

ON THE COURSE TO BE PURSUED.

A secret and honourable understanding being come to on both sides, the Electors, Dukes, Princes, and other States of the Germanic Empire, Romanists as well as Protestants, shall be invited by the Roman Emperor each to send to the Congress one or two doctors equally respectable for learning and moderation, to confer upon the union of the churches. And in this matter it is self-evident that no deputy should be sent by the temporal lords to this congress, unless such as shall have been privately agreed upon this method of acting, or shall be of like sentiments with those who are so agreed.

In this congress, or conference, setting aside the aforesaid preliminary postulates and private stipulations, they shall proceed to examine the questions, concerning which the opposite parties are not clearly or fully agreed. These, it will appear, are by no means of one kind, much less are they all of equal importance. They may, however, be conveniently distributed into three classes.

FIRST CLASS.

To the first class shall belong those controversies which regard equivocal expressions or diversely received terms — as for instance, Whether the Sacrament of the Altar, or the Eucharist, he a Sacrifice? In deciding which, it is to be observed that there exists no dispute between us and the Roman Catholics as to whether the Eucharist can be called a sacrifice, which is admitted on both sides; but whether it he a sacrifice, properly or improperly so called. Now this, as is plain from the terms, is a controversy about the mode of speaking; since each party takes its peculiar definition of sacrifice for the foundation of its own opinion. By the Protestants, and even by Cardinal Bellarmine, the term ‘sacrifice,’ conformably to the phraseology of the Old Testament, from which the doctrine of sacrifices is to be drawn, is properly applied to a living thing when, by God’s precept, the animal or animated substance is destroyed by slaying in honour of God. In this sense, the Roman Church denies the Eucharist to be strictly a sacrifice; holding, in common with us, very properly, that the sacrifice in question is completed without a new shedding of blood and a new slaying of the victim, — in one word, and that an ecclesiastical one, that it is an unbloody sacrifice. So far is she from affirming that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the proper and rigorous sense, according to our definition and that of Bellarmine. On the other hand, when the Romans style the Eucharist a sacrifice properly so called, they adopt that expression either to distinguish it from sacrifices still more improperly so termed, as, for instance, sacrifices of the lips, of the heart, “sacrifices of jubilation,” &c.; or else with reference to the matter of a sacrifice properly so called; for, in the Eucharist, numerically the same sacrifice which was delivered up for us, and numerically the same blood which was shed for us, are really, nay most really, present, and are given and drunk by the communicants; not in faith merely, but by the mouth of the body, though not in a carnal or Capharnaïtic way, but still truly; and thus under this title also the Eucharist merits the name of a sacrifice properly so called. Now, according to this definition of the Romanists, Protestants might allow the Eucharist to be a sacrifice properly so called. From which it is plainer than the noon-day that the debate does not regard the matter itself, but merely the words; and that both parties are agreed in this — namely, that Christ is not slain anew in the Eucharist, but that He is present therein notwithstanding, and that his Body is truly eaten; that thus there is instituted a commemoration or representation of the sacrifice which was once offered for us on the Cross, but which cannot be again offered in the same manner; and that, according to the different acceptations of the word, it may be said to be a “sacrifice properly so called,” or a “sacrifice improperly so called.” Matthew Galen, a Catholic writer, in his 13th Catechesis (page 422, Lyons edition), well observes: “We can thus admit that our sacrifice is not a sacrifice properly and rigorously so called, but is notwithstanding perfectly entitled to the name of sacrifice, as being an imitation or representation of that first sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered to his Father.” I shall add, ex abundantly a further motive, but without prejudice to the sentiments of others, and always deferring to the decisions of the more learned, that the holy Fathers, in various places, and amongst them Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Cyprian, have not hesitated to call the Eucharist, the one, a most true and singular sacrifice, the other, a sacrifice full of God, to be revered, tremendous, and most sacred, It might, perhaps, further be granted, that the Eucharist is not only a sacrifice commemorative of that bloody sacrifice in which Christ once offered Himself for us upon the cross to God the Father, and in this sense, according to the definition of the Protestants, a sacrifice “improperly so called but that it is moreover a certain incomprehensible offering of the Body of Christ once delivered for us to death: and, in this sense, a true sacrifice, or if you wish so to speak, a “sacrifice properly so called.” St. Gregory of Nyssa says expressly, in his first Sermon upon the Resurrection of Christ: “By a mysterious kind of sacrifice, which cannot be discerned by man, He offers himself a host for us and immolates the victim, being at once, in his own person, the Priest and that Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. But when did He perform this? When He gave his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk by the assembled disciples, then He openly declared that the sacrifice of the Lamb was accomplished; for the body of the victim is not yet to be eaten if it have life in it. Wherefore, when He gave his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk by his disciples, the body was immolated in a secret and invisible way, as it pleased the power of Him who was accomplishing sacrifices upon the mystery of himself.” St. Jerome says: “The oblation of the Church, which the Lord taught should be offered over the universal world, has been reputed a pure sacrifice by God, and is acceptable to Him. There are offerings in the Old Covenant, and offerings in the New, — sacrifices amongst the people — sacrifices in the church; but the kind only is changed, since it is offered now, not by slaves but by free men.” St. Augustine: “Instead of all the sacrifices and oblations,” (meaning of the Old Testament,) “now, in the New Testament, his Body is offered and administered to those partaking of it.”

The second Council of Nice says: “Nowhere has the Lord, nowhere have the Apostles, called the unbloody sacrifice an image, but the Body itself, and the Blood itself.”

Nicholas Cabasilas, in the explanation of the Liturgy (c. xxxii.), writes: “It is not the figure of a sacrifice, nor the image of blood, but real immolation and sacrifice.”

If Protestants were satisfied henceforward to speak thus, in unison with the holy Fathers, I do not see any thing remaining which should retard peace, as far as this point is concerned.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

There is a dispute between Roman Catholics and Protestants, Whether an intention is requisite to the validity of a sacrament. The Fathers of Trent maintain the affirmative under pain of anathema, and this anathema, from the beginning of the Reformation to the present time, has met with vigorous opposition on the part of the Protestants. In my humble judgment, the controversy will at once be decided if the terms be honestly explained and the matter set in its proper light. I say therefore, with Becanus, that the minister’s intention regarding the sacrament may be threefold:

First, an intention of pronouncing the words of institution and performing the external act.

Secondly, an intention of celebrating the sacrament, or, at least, a confused intention of doing that which the Church does or intends. And this intention, as Becanus rightly teaches, may be either, first, actual; that is to say, when any one celebrating a sacrament at the same time actually thinks of celebrating the sacrament: or, secondly, habitual; that is, when one has acquired by repeated acts a readiness for celebrating the sacrament, such as might be found in those asleep: or, thirdly, virtual; when, from absence of mind, the actual intention is not present at the moment, but had been present, and the operation takes place in virtue thereof.

Thirdly, an intention of communicating the fruit or effect of the sacrament. Becanus concludes, that between us and the Romanists there is no difference concerning the third kind of intention, namely, that of imparting the fruit and effect, but merely about the first two.

From these premisses the Jesuit whom I have cited infers:

1. That a habitual intention is not sufficient for the validity of the sacrament; that, however, an actual intention is not necessarily required; and that a virtual intention — not only of performing the external act, but of completing the sacrament itself, or, at least, a confused intention of doing that which the Church does, or Christ instituted, is required and insufficient.

2. That an express intention of imparting the fruit of the sacrament is not indispensable to its validity.

Now according to this explanation, it is manifest that the dispute does not regard the matter itself, but merely the word; and that when Protestants deny that the intention of the minister is required for the validity of the sacrament, they refer to the intention of conferring the fruit and effect, which, according to the doctrine of Becanus, the Roman Catholics, as well as we, deny to be requisite; whereas, the latter, who insist upon the intention of the minister for the validity of the sacrament, speak simply of an actual, or at least virtual intention, of performing the external act, or doing what the Church does in such a case. That such an intention is required for the validity of the sacrament, Protestants are perfectly free to grant to the Roman Church.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

There is a question between us, Whether the sacraments of the New Testament are two or seven in number? I say, that this also is a dispute about a word, arising from the different definitions of a sacrament in general.

If we understand by the word ‘sacrament’ any thing sacred, instituted in honour of God, according to the idea of St. Augustine, we shall have not seven, but, possibly, six hundred sacraments. If we take the term ‘sacrament’ in a somewhat more limited sense, but not quite so rigorously as when it is applied to Baptism and the Eucharist, there is no question that the remaining five may properly be called sacraments. The question is not, therefore, whether the five which the Roman Catholics add to our two can be called sacraments. For who can deny this in the various senses which are attached to the word by those who variously define it? But the question is, whether they are sacraments in the most rigorous sense of the term; that is, whether they are such sacraments as Baptism and the Eucharist; or, to speak more clearly, whether every thing essentially necessary to Baptism and the Eucharist be found in the sacraments of Matrimony, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction, and the others. Now, in Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar are required: 1. The word of institution; namely, that it should have been instituted by Christ in the time of the New Testament. 2. The word of promise; namely, that it should have annexed to it a promise of sanctifying grace. 3. That it should have a symbol, or external element: which conditions no Catholic will say are required in Matrimony, for instance; inasmuch as it neither was established during the time of the New Testament, but commenced from the beginning of the world; nor was instituted (taking the word in its essential signification) specially by Christ, the second Person of the Divinity, but by God; nor has any external element, and far less any accompanying promise of justifying grace.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

Another question between the parties is, Whether sins are truly taken away by justification. The dispute is easily determined, once the case is properly stated, and the terms employed in discussing the subject duly explained. For it will appear that, on the one hand, there is something in sin which is taken away through justification, according to the admission of the Catholics, and that, on the other, Protestants by no means believe the opposite doctrine, which they are said to maintain.

In order that we may understand this the more clearly, it is to be observed that sins are of two kinds, actual and habitual; and that in each two things are to be considered, the material and the formal.

The material of actual sins consists in the past act of sinning or the past omission of some act prescribed by the law; the formal of actual sins is the guilt and liability to punishment, resulting from the past act of sinning or omission of an act prescribed by the law, rendering man a sinner, and causing him to incur the guilt and punishment resulting from the same before God.

Habitual sins are original sin and the vicious habit contracted by evil doing: the material of which is the habitual propensity to evil; the formal, as before, the guilt of the sin, and the liability to punishment resulting therefrom.

The question, then, as to whether sins are truly taken away by justification, may be understood as referring either to the formal or to the material of sin. If it be understood of the material, Protestants take the negative side of the question. And, as far as actual sins are concerned, it is plain that the material of these sins is not removed by justification. For this material consists, as we have said, in the act of sinning which is past, or the past omission of an act prescribed by the law; in which two things are to be considered: first, the act itself committed in opposition to the law; and, secondly, its relation to the sinner, which causes it to be said that he has sinned. If, therefore, actual sins are removed, as to their material, by justification, either the previous act is taken away, or the relation of this act to the sinner; so that it will be true to say of him who sinned that he has not sinned. But neither can be said. Not the first; because the previous act, by the bare circumstance of being passed, has ceased to be, and therefore can no longer have any real existence capable of being taken away by justification. The past omission of an act is no real being, but a negation, whose existence cannot be taken away by justification, inasmuch as it has none. Nor can the second be said; for, if the relation of the sinful act to the sinner be taken away by justification, it would follow, that he who had sinned should be considered not to have sinned, and what had been done not to have been done. Thus, for instance, the same man should have fornicated and not fornicated, which is a manifest contradiction. And in this the Roman Catholics, I think, will agree with us.

With regard to habitual sin, its material, namely, the habitual propensity to evil, is broken, crucified, mortified, and subdued in the man justified, so that sin cannot reign any longer in his mortal body. However, during this mortal life it is not thoroughly removed, it is not extirpated, but, to a certain extent, remains after justification; for which reason it was St. Paul, although justified, complains so much of sin “that dwelleth in him.”

And when this propensity to evil is broken and lessened in man, this takes place in consequence not of justification, but of regeneration and renovation.

So far, therefore, Catholic and Protestant manifestly agree as to the material of sin. If we consider the formal of sin, that is, the guilt and liability to punishment, the state of the question here is, whether the guilt of sin and liability to punishment are removed from the man justified; or whether, in justification, he ceases to be guilty or subject to punishment before God?

The question being so stated, we unite with the Catholics in adopting the affirmative; and hold that sins, whether actual or habitual, as far as regards the formal, or guilt and liability to punishment, are truly and entirely removed in justification by remission, condonation, and non-imputation. To this extent again, therefore, parties are agreed. But, as to expressions used by some Protestant theologians, namely, that sin is not taken away in justification, but remains; these are to be understood of original sin, and especially of evil concupiscence, which, they maintain, continues in the regenerated, not formally but materially; that is, so far as regards the habitual propensity to evil, but without dominion.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

It is well known what tragedies have been excited in the Church by the proposition which our Luther introduced into the Sacred Scriptures, viz. that “faith alone justifies; although the proposition is not his own, and the doctrine might even be drawn from many other phrases found in Scripture, and admitted by the Church. We are justified, according to the Scripture, “by faith “through faith.” Properly speaking, however, it is not faith, but God, that justifies us. Now He has one internal impelling cause of this his justification; namely, his own grace and mercy; one principal external impelling cause, namely, the merits of Christ; and one secondary external impelling cause, namely, faith. When, therefore, it is said faith justifies, the meaning of the proposition is this: on the part of man, faith is the secondary external impelling cause, moving God to our justification. Whether faith in this sense alone justifies, is the matter in dispute between the parties. Now I think, that if by the word ‘alone’ the other impelling causes of justification be not excluded — as, for instance, the grace of God and merits of Christ — if we say that the word alone (sola) is not to be confounded with solitary (solitaria), that is to say, dead faith, or faith destitute of good works, or at least of the purpose of doing good, — I think, I say, that in this case the dispute is wellnigh ended. For the meaning will then resolve itself into this: on the part of God, grace and the merits of Christ are the impelling cause of our justification; but, on the part of man, neither hope nor charity, nor any other good work, confer justification proximately and immediately: but in this sense faith alone (not, however, solitary), that is to say, such faith as worketh by charity, is the external impelling cause of our justification; — that faith, namely, in virtue of which man believes that Christ, by suffering and dying, paid the most ample satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, with an assurance that he shall obtain grace and the forgiveness of his sins from God on account of that satisfaction; a faith, moreover, which is not dead but living, and which works by charity, and manifests itself in action whenever the occasion arises.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

Another question is, Whether a man can he sure of his justification and of his final perseverance? Protestants assert both; nor do I think Roman Catholics will dissent from them, if the questions receive due explanation. It is admitted on both sides, that we are justified by faith. A man, therefore, who believes, and knows that he believes, can be absolutely certain of his faith, and consequently of his salvation. None of our divines, however, teach that a man can be as sure of his salvation and perseverance, as of his justification. For of the latter he can have an absolute certainty, but of his perseverance and salvation, a conditional certainty only; — that is to say, if a man make right use of the means of persevering in faith, does not reject them, and assiduously begs the assistance of God by devout prayers — which he is able to do in virtue of the grace conferred upon him — then he is conditionally certain of his salvation. If this perseverance endure to the end of his life, he is then sure of his salvation also. About an hundred and twenty years ago, Martin Eisengrein, licentiate in theology and president of Ingolstadt, a moderate Catholic writer, endeavoured to soften down the thirteenth canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, in reference to this matter, in his curious and comprehensive German work, entitled, “A moderate Declaration of the Articles of the Christian Faith, necessary in the present state of things,” printed at Ingolstadt in the year 1568; where, amongst other things, he speaks thus in the fifth paragraph: “I say it in plain German — I also know what I say to be true and built upon good foundations — however the thirteenth canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent may sound in your ears, this is not its meaning; this is not the decision of the Council; this is not the doctrine of the Church, and never was, that a ‘Christian never can he sure of his salvation and justification,’&c.”

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

It has long been sharply canvassed, Whether it he possible to fulfil the law contained in the Decalogue? The question, however, has not been argued upon the merits, but has turned upon the manner of speaking; and therefore it may be decided without any difficulty. The Protestant opinion, if rightly explained, is this: Of the compacts entered into by God with man, one is legal, and the other evangelical: in virtue of the legal covenant, our first parents, being endowed with the Divine image, were obliged to fulfil the law with the utmost exactness; that is, they were obliged not only to abstain from all sins directly against conscience, but to guard against any concupiscence whatsoever, even indeliberate (in actu primo), or against all those indeliberate evil motions which the schoolmen call primo-primi. By virtue of the Gospel covenant, since man, deprived by his fall of the Divine image, cannot fulfil the law in this way, God requires of him nothing more than that he shall believe in Christ with true and living faith, and shall abstain from mortal sins, or from all that is contrary to conscience. But with regard to venial sins, or concupiscence considered in actu primo, or other indeliberate evil motions, God, in virtue of the evangelical compact, promised that He would not hold the regenerated man guilty of them, provided he begged forgiveness daily and took other similar precautions. When, therefore, it is asked, “whether the regenerated man can and ought to fulfil the law?” I answer, that no one, after the fall of man, is bound to fulfil, or is capable of fulfilling, the law, in the same degree of perfection as the first men were bound to do in virtue of the legal covenant; and if the Decalogue be enforced to the rigour of this legal covenant, I say that no one is bound to its observance, as being a thing impossible. But every regenerated man is obliged to observe the law, in so far as it is exacted of him by the Gospel covenant; and to such extent also has the regenerated man the power to observe the law of the Decalogue by the aid of grace, ‘provided only he use his utmost diligence. If the question be so explained, it does not appear what more the Roman Church need look for in the Protestant declaration. Father Dionysius, in his Way of Peace, truly says: “With regard to the possibility of fulfilling the law, there exists in fact and in truth no difference of opinion (between the Protestants and Catholics). Since Protestants teach that many justified by inherent justice, and possessing the aid of Divine grace, can so far observe and perform the commands of God as not to lose his grace and friendship, or consummate the sin to which he is inclined by concupiscence; but that he is not so perfectly and strictly free from all sin as to avoid every venial sin. Catholics acknowledge likewise that it is our duty to keep the commandments of God and avoid all sin; but they say it is impossible to do so during one’s entire life, or for any long time, without a special privilege. (See St. Thomas, 1a 2ae quest, xix. art. 8.) Nay more, the Council of Trent, Sess. vi. can. 23, visits with anathema any one who says that the justified man can, during his whole life, avoid all sins, even venial, without special privilege from God. Protestants should therefore be satisfied when Catholics teach that the just man cannot so perfectly keep the commandments as not to transgress them somewhat by sinning venially from time to time; and it should be enough for Catholics that it is only in this sense Protestants say the just man cannot keep the commandments of God.”

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

There is a question, Whether indeliberate motions (primo-primi), concupiscence “in actu primo” and other sins esteemed venial by us, are against the law of God? The aforesaid Capuchin, whose words we quote, has put an end to this controversy. “Some Catholics say that venial sins are not against the law, in the sense that they are not against the intention of the law; for they are not against the law, in so far as it obliges under pain of losing the grace and friendship of God and incurring His exterminating wrath. This is the first and largest extension of the law. But they are against the law, in so far as it obliges to avoid the smallest offence of God and his chastening wrath, which is its second extension; and they are also against the law so far as it requires to be observed with such exactness as to please God by doing and suffering even out of pure love for him, which is its third extension. Considered in the first extension, the just man can walk in the law without offence by the grace of God; considered in the second and third, no one, how just soever, can walk therein save by the special privilege of Almighty God, without transgressing by turning aside, although continuing to walk within its limits, as explained in the first sense, and therefore not simply walking and acting against the law, but only under a certain respect. Those, then, who deny that venial sins are against the law, keep in view the first extension of the law; and those who affirm it, the second. And since we are agreed upon the substance, as Gerson says, in his Treatise on the Spiritual Life of the Soul (Lect. v.), it is idle to dispute about words with obstinate animosity.”

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

There is another question, Whether the good works of the just are in themselves perfectly good and free from all taint of sin? Protestants deny this; and perhaps so do Catholics, if the thing be rightly explained: for the good works of the justified are said to be imperfect in relation to their imperfect fulfilment of the law. Because, inasmuch as, after the fall of man, no one can fulfil the law as perfectly as he was bound to do by virtue of the legal compact, it is self-evident that the good works of the just must be of such a character as always to fall short of perfection. But, as for those who thence infer that Protestants consider the good works of the just to be mere iniquity and sins; let them know that Protestants consider any such propositions utterly false, although some Protestants, who thought upon these matters more correctly than they expressed themselves, may have adopted those propositions.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

It is also asked, Whether the works of the regenerated are ‘pleasing to God? And here again there is no substantial difference between us. In order to shew this, it is to be observed that the proposed question admits of a twofold sense; first, whether the good works of the regenerated, considered in themselves, are pleasing to God? Secondly, whether, taken in conjunction with the faith of the doers, or regard being had to all the circumstances, they are pleasing to God? To the question understood in the first sense, answer is to be made, that the good works of the regenerated are not simply and absolutely pleasing to God, because they are not simply or absolutely good, and have their imperfections annexed to them; but that they are pleasing to God notwithstanding, inasmuch as they are conformable to the law; and whatever is conformable to the Divine law is good, and whatever is good pleases God. But if the question be understood in the latter sense, the answer is, that the works of the regenerated are pleasing to God absolutely and simply. For although, considered in themselves, they are imperfect, and although these inherent imperfections cannot be pleasing to God, nevertheless, because they proceed from faith in Christ, and are performed by those who are in Christ Jesus and “in whom there is no condemnation,” these inherent imperfections are excused in the agents, in consideration of Christ and of his merit which they lay hold on by faith; and therefore their works are pleasing to God simply and absolutely, in the same way as if they were altogether and in every respect perfect, on account of the merit of Christ laid hold on by true faith.

Many other such controversies might be adduced; but these few will suffice as a specimen. For the adjustment of questions of this class there is no need of a new council, general or provincial, but merely that they be discussed by a few unprejudiced, learned, and moderate divines of both sides; and the different acceptation of the terms being seen, the matter can be brought to a conclusion without much trouble in the proposed conference.

SECOND CLASS.

To the second class belong questions, controverted, indeed, but of such a character that the opposite opinions are tolerated in either of the Churches. In such instances, for peace-sake, that opinion should be adopted on both sides which the entire body of one of the Churches and a portion of the other maintain.

FIRST EXAMPLE.

The entire Roman Church approves of prayers for the dead; a part of the Protestant Churches, following the guidance of the Apology of the Confession of Augsburg, has determined them to be lawful; a portion actually does pray for the dead. There are some Protestants, however, by whom this intercession for the dead is not approved. For the sake, therefore, of restoring peace, the Protestants in the proposed congress shall be solicited to consent that their entire Church approve of prayers for the dead.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

A portion of the Roman Church holds the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; a portion disallows it. The entire Church of the Protestants, while admitting the blessed Mary to be most holy and full of grace, has decided that she was conceived in original sin; therefore, for the sake of peace and concord, the Catholics in the aforesaid meeting shall be invited to give the suffrage of their entire Church to the latter opinion.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

Concerning the merit of good works, there are two celebrated opinions in the Roman Church; one of Vasquez and his followers, the other of Scotus and all the Scotists. Scotus, the “subtle doctor,” teaches, that the works of the regenerated are not meritorious of themselves, nor intrinsically, but that whatever merit they have is derived from God’s acceptance, and their ordination to reward. Vasquez and his adherents maintain, that the good works of the just do of themselves, without any compact or favour of acceptance, condignly merit eternal life, and that no additional dignity accrues to them from the merits or person of Christ, which they should not otherwise have from the fact of their being done by the grace of God; and further that, although there be a Divine promise attached to the works of the just, yet neither it, nor any other compact or favour, appertains in any way to the principle of the merit. In order to the establishment of peace between the parties, the Roman Catholics must be invited to embrace the opinion of the Scotists — (and how eminent are their schools, how numerous, how celebrated!) — which opinion substantially agrees with that of the Protestants. For Scotus and his companions deny that good works are properly and condignly meritorious; and decide, on the other hand, that they can be called meritorious, only in that loose and extended sense in which one is said to merit who receives any thing from another, although it be gratuitously, and from the mere liberality or free remission of the other. And in this sense the holy Fathers taught that good works are meritorious, and Protestants are perfectly prepared to grant the same; — as Vasquez well observes, when he writes, that Scotus and the others who adopt his opinion agree with the Lutherans in holding, that before the divine promise and acceptance our good works give no title to life everlasting; because the Scotists and Lutherans alike, in reference to works good in themselves, ascribe all the worth of our works to the favour of God and acceptance through the merits of Christ, and also because they take from works the true and perfect principle of our merit, and ascribe the entire virtue of merit to the works of Christ only.” Let this be compared with what the Capuchin Father, Dionysius, teaches in the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of the second chapter of his Way of Peace, which I have already more than once quoted with honour, and it will appear manifest that, in the controversy regarding the merits of works, there is almost no difference between Catholics and Protestants. The second article of the above-cited author has this title: “Protestants say that good works merit the aid of actual grace and the increase of habitual grace;’ the third article, “Protestants teach that good works truly merit degrees of heavenly glory the fourth article, that “Protestants teach that we may entertain some confidence from good works the fifth article, “It is not improbable that the first degree of glory does not fall within the compass of merit the sixth article, “The good works of the just, in themselves and on account of themselves, are not strictly and condignly meritorious.” In fine, the doctrine of the brothers von Walenburch, on the merit of works, is of the same tenor: That although, as regards the grace of justification and the substance of celestial glory, there is no merit, yet there is as regards the accident or increase, or, as they say, as regards the second degree of this glory; giving the name of merit in its broadest sense to every act which, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, is produced by man justified, and to which, although it has no intrinsic worth and no proportion to the reward or to eternal glory, such reward is nevertheless mercifully promised, and is truly and properly attained.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

The entire Roman Church teaches that good works are necessary to salvation. This some Protestants maintain, others deny. Those who deny it, entertain a concealed fear lest too much should be attributed to good works on the score of justification. But the meaning of those who affirm it amounts to this — that good works are necessary to salvation, not in virtue of their efficacy, but because their presence is indispensable to salvation; not as a cause, strictly speaking, of salvation, either principal or instrumental, but as a condition sine quâ non. For St. Paul expressly says, Without holiness, that is, without good works, no one shall see God. Whence it may be argued, That without which no one shall see God, — in other words, without which no one shall be saved, — is necessary in some way to serving God, or obtaining everlasting salvation; but without good works no one shall see God; therefore, &c.

Compare with this the doctrine of the Capuchin in the passage already quoted.

The Protestants are therefore to be invited to unite in adopting the Catholic view upon this point.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

The entire Protestant Church is averse to the adoration of the Host, through fear of idolatry, not indeed formal, but at all events material. In the Roman Church, some teach that the adoration in the Eucharist has for its object the presence of Christ; some, the presence of the Host. The Catholics, therefore, in the imperial congress, must be invited to make no difficulty of consenting that the object of adoration shall be determined to be, Christ present in the Eucharist.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

The dogma of the Ubiquity of the Body of Christ is denied by the Roman Church and several Protestants. Some Protestants maintain it. Such Protestants, therefore, are to be invited in the assembly to give up the ubiquity, and to consent to adopt the opinion of many brethren of their own confession and of the entire Roman Church.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

The Churches of the Protestants objected to have the Vulgate Version forced upon them for authority. They likewise condemn the canon of the Council of Trent upon the subject. Andrada, the celebrated commentator on that Council, Salmeron, Serrarius, Simeon de Muis, Conti, Giulio Ruggieri, and others, have given it a mild interpretation of the canon.

Simeon de Muis, in his work upon the Hebrew Editions [p. 41], says, “The holy Council of Trent does not disparage the Hebrew edition, when, in its fourth session, it decrees that the old and Vulgate edition is to be considered authentic; for in that place it compares the Vulgate with other Latin editions, not with the Hebrew.”

Andrada, in the fourth book of his Defensio Fidei, holds, a That the Fathers of the Council, in pronouncing the Vulgate edition authentic, meant nothing more than that it was without any taint of error from which a dogma pernicious to faith or morals might be inferred; but that they did not so approve the Vulgate in every particular, as to exclude any hesitation or doubt as to whether the translator may have rightly rendered the Scripture.” And he further declares, that he “was so informed by Andrew Vega, Cardinal of Santa Croce, who was afterwards Pope, under the name of Marcellus, and took part in the Council.”

Conti (lib. v. Polit, cap. xxiv. prop. 13,) says, quoting from Serrarius, that “the Latin Version was approved in such a sense, as not to interfere with the authority of the Greek and Hebrew; and that the authority adjudged by the Council of Trent to the Vulgate was restricted to it as a translation, and with these modifications, that it was correct, or rather, most correct, and that it has, at least, nothing repugnant to truth, faith, and good morals.”

Serrarius, in his Prolegomena (chap. xix. quæst. 12), says, “It is sufficiently plain, that a pure fountain must have some advantage over any stream issuing therefrom, how pure soever it may be; for a version is said to be authentic when it is considered to agree with the original Giulio Ruggieri, Secretary Apostolic, in the 14th chap, of his Book upon the Canonical Scriptures, asks, “What pious man is there whose ears could endure to hear that the Hebrew edition, dictated by the Holy Ghost in the very words we read, written by the Prophets, restored by Esdras, cited and explained by Christ, from which all other editions have emanated, as from their parent and fountain, according to which corrections are made, and discrepancies occurring through the fault of editors removed, was now discarded?”

Many more such writers might be quoted, and especially Simon, in several passages of his Critical History of the Old Testament; and if the rest of Catholics agree with these, the controversy as to the authenticity of the Vulgate is entirely decided.

So much for the controversies of the second class, in the discussion of which we are surely warranted in expecting, as we earnestly desire, condescension such as we ask from the theologians of both sides, provided they be men of moderation and zealous for ecclesiastical union.

THIRD CLASS.

To the third class belong those questions at issue between us and the Catholics, which cannot be decided either by the explanaciscan order. The Cardinal of Santa vini, one of the legates of Paul III.

Croce, who became Pope under the at the Council, name of Marcellus, was Marcello Certion of equivocal terms, or by the condescension applicable to questions of the second class, inasmuch as the opinions of the parties appear to be diametrically opposite. As for example —

The Invocation of Saints.

The Worship of Images and Relics.

Transubstantiation.

The Permanence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist beyond the time of actual use.

Purgatory.

The Carrying about of the Host.

The Enumeration of Sins in Auricular Confession.

The Number of the Canonical Books.

The Integrity of the Sacred Scriptures, and the dogma concerning Oral Tradition thereon depending.

The Judge of Controversies.

The Celebration of Mass in the Latin tongue.

The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff by Divine Right.

The Marks of the Church.

The Weekly and Lenten Fasts.

Monastic vows.

The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongues.

Indulgences.

The Difference between Bishops and Priests as of Divine right.

And, what should have held the first place, the Council of Trent itself, and the anathemas pronounced by it, the examination of which, once the preliminary union shall have been secured, may, after the example of the Council of Basil and others, be again referred to the renewed decision of a general council.

The decision of these and such other articles, and especially of such as cannot be allowed to remain undecided without scandal to either party or injury to the Christian commonwealth, and without which a firm and enduring ecclesiastical union cannot be obtained, and certainly cannot be maintained, should either be entrusted to certain arbitrators chosen upon both sides, men conspicuous for learning, judgment, piety, and moderation, or referred to a council. This method of conference by arbitrators met the approval of both parties after the publication of the Confession of Augsburg, and was commenced at Augsburg in the thirtieth year of the last century; and the result was a considerable degree of unanimity upon no small number of subjects, and those not amongst the least important. So much so, that, in writing of this discussion or conference, David Chytræus says, in his Saxon Chronicle [book xiii,], that “never from the beginning of these contests in Germany did the opposite religious parties seem to approximate so closely, or do they ever seem likely, till the end of time, to approach more near.” And whatever authority attaches to the judgment or the prediction of the historian on this point, one thing is certain, that out of twenty-one articles of the Confession of Augsburg, fifteen were in a short time settled, the decision of three reserved to a general council, and there were but three upon which a manifest disagreement continued.

If any one have a mind to try what decision can be come to in one or two articles of the third class, to me it is nowise doubtful that a great many of them may be set at rest by an accommodating explanation. Let us now see whether the case be really so.

The main dispute will, as it appears to me, include the dogmas of purgatory, invocation of the saints, worship of images, monastic vows, sacred traditions, unwritten word of God, transubstantiation, the primacy of the Pope, so far as he claims such jurisdiction as of divine right, and his infallibility.

We shall therefore try whether, without prejudice to the opinions of any individual, a portion of the aforesaid controversies may not be brought to a close without the aid of a council, by accommodating explanations. I say, therefore,

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, That this question of the mode of the Presence, as far as those Protestants are concerned who admit the real presence and the oral eating of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, is of very little importance; and that by Luther at least, provided there were no danger of idolatry, the error was considered trivial, and the subject was regarded as belonging to the class of sophistical questions. As regards the question itself, Protestants allow that by consecration some change takes place in the elements of the Eucharist; but they usually maintain that this change is merely accidental, so that the substance of the bread is not changed; but, from common and ordinary bread, it becomes a sacred bread, bread devoted to this most sacred use, a bread which, in its actual use, is the communication of the body of Christ. Amongst Protestants, M. Drejer, Professor of Königsburg, admits, in a certain sense, a substantial change. I do not myself adopt this opinion; but I think I should say nothing against the analogy of faith in supposing that, by virtue of the words of institution, some mysterious change takes place in the Lord’s Supper, by which, in a manner inscrutable to us, this proposition, so frequently affirmed by the holy Fathers, becomes true, namely, “The Bread is the Body of Christ.” Roman Catholics are therefore to be invited, for peace-sake, in the proposed convention, to abstract from the mode of transubstantiation in the Eucharist, and to be satisfied to say with us, that this mode is incomprehensible and inexplicable, but of such a character that, by means of some hidden and wonderful change, the bread becomes the Body of Christ; and on the other hand, those Protestants to whom this may appear new, must be invited to imitate the first Reformers in waiving all objection to such propositions as, the Bread is the Body of Christ, the Wine is the Blood of Christ; and to reflect besides, that these propositions were of old so universally considered true, that scarce one of the early doctors of the Church is to be found who has not taken delight in these or similar expressions concerning the Eucharist.

OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

With regard to the invocation of saints also, the danger alleged by Protestants will disappear, if the Romanists publicly protest that they put no trust in departed saints beyond what they repose in those living friends whose intercession they implore; and that their prayers, all and each, in whatsoever words or form conceived, are to be taken in no other than an intercessional sense. So that, for instance, when they say, “Holy Mary, free me in the hour of death!” they mean, “Holy Mary, intercede for me with your Son, that He may free me in the hour of death!” If, in addition, the Romanists would teach their brethren, that the invocation of saints is not strictly prescribed by the Council of Trent, but that it is left to each one’s discretion whether he address his prayers direct to God or through the saints; that we need not invoke the saints at random and without necessity; but that it is to be done especially on those occasions when, on account of some grievous sin, a man, in his apprehension of the wrath of God and his sense of humility, dares not raise his eyes or direct his prayers immediately to God; that moreover, prayer directly addressed to God is far more efficacious than any to departed saints; and that the most perfect prayer of all is that which, as far as can be, leaves every creature out of view, and dwells in the depth of the divine attributes.

Indeed, if the thing be so explained, I do not see what more need be required in those prayers, unless perhaps this; that, since we are uncertain whether every saint in particular is acquainted with our special need, the assurance of our being heard must always be doubtful. Whether the doubt can be removed by adopting the form, “Holy Mary, if thou knowest my misery, pray for me.” let others decide: I suspend my judgment. We venture meanwhile to anticipate with earnestness that the stronger forms of addressing the saints, which are as displeasing to moderate Catholics as to us, will be given up; we mean such as are to be found in the “Psalter of Mary,” the “Novena of St. Anthony,” and other monastic formularies. It should be enough for Protestants, however, that these forms, in whatever way they are expressed, are understood to imply intercession merely. And should this interpretation chance to appear to any of our brethren to be somewhat forced, I pray them to reflect that such methods of speaking and such explanations are not unusual in common life. Suppose, for instance, a thief or robber thrown into prison should address the prime minister of the king or prince in these words: “Free me from the misery of this dungeon “Remove from me the sentence of death;” the thief or robber in question knows very well that the prime minister of the king or prince has no such power, but that it rests with the king or prince alone to do so; and therefore his prayer is, in effect, no other than that the minister should intercede with the king to liberate him from prison or save him from death.

OF THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES.

With regard to the worship of images, we shall also come to an understanding easily enough, if those excesses which even more moderate Catholics condemn in their fellows be moderated. In truth, it is plain that images have no intrinsic virtues, and that therefore they are neither to be adored, nor ought men to pray before them, unless in so far as they be considered visible and striking methods of bringing to mind the recollection of Christ or heavenly things. That some Roman Catholics, chiefly in Italy, Bavaria, and the hereditary provinces of the Roman Emperor, do pay to images, especially those which are considered miraculous, a sinful worship, is too notorious to appear to admit of contradiction. Should any one, therefore, be anxious to worship or invoke God in presence of an image, let him observe the same moderation as did the Israelites of old, who contemplated the brazen serpent with a certain reverence, yet so as to make God, and not the image, the object of their faith. And let all such excess of ceremonies be avoided, as is calculated to suggest, if not to the learned and prudent, at least to the more simple people, an idolatrous idea, or one akin to idolatry, as though some divine virtue existed in the image.

OF PURGATORY.

I can discover nothing which can or should be said on the part of the Protestants in congress on this subject. However, if the question be allowed, as St. Augustine treated it, to stand a problem in the schools, and if no one be obliged to adopt the affirmative or negative, I cannot perceive what injury should result to the Church. For my own part, I should have no objection to anyone wishing this doctrine to be received as a problem.

OF THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE AS OF DIVINE RIGHT.

That, after the preliminary reconciliation, the primacy may and can be allowed by Protestants to the Roman Pontiff, so far as he is entitled to it by the canons or of ecclesiastical right, we have shewn above. But whether the Pope be head of the Church by divine right, and, moreover, infallible, either in council or out of council, are questions of a higher range. Indeed, if the doctrine which the writer already quoted, Lewis Elias Dupin, Doctor of the Sorbonne, has most learnedly advanced in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh dissertations of the work above cited, could meet the approval of ultramontane Catholics, as it does of Protestants, I should say that the whole affair was settled, or at least, that the Protestants fully agree with the French Church.

OF THE MONASTIC STATE AND VOWS.

Concerning the monastic state and vows, in the proposed conference, it will be easy to come to an agreement, as there still remain monasteries among the Protestants, in which the canonical hours may be sung, and the Breviary read, just as is done, for instance, among the Cistercians, with the exception of the collects or little prayers addressed to deceased saints; and in which the fasts and distinction of meat can be observed, and celibacy, hospitality, the rule of St. Benedict, and other things savouring of the ancient institution, may be practised. Nor can any Protestant, with reason, condemn even the vow of obedience. As to the vow of poverty, whereby monks, who are entirely their own masters, renounce their property without prejudice to the right of any third person, it is plain that such a matter is indifferent in itself, and therefore cannot be unlawful. The only question is in reference to the vow of chastity, inasmuch as no one can bind himself by vow to what is impossible. Celibacy may indeed (as it is faithfully practised in some Protestant monasteries) be promised, not by vow but by oath. That, however, must be in what is called a “composite sense so that, as long as one means to continue a monk or member of a monastery, he shall be bound to live in celibacy; but if he either cannot, or will not, do so, he may withdraw, should he think fit, and return to the world at his own peril.

OF TRADITION.

Concerning traditions, or the unwritten word of God, how many contests have we not had in the Church! Yet it is, notwithstanding, a matter easily settled, provided we say that the controversy between us and the Catholics is, not whether there be traditions, but whether the Church has thence received any new article of faith necessary to be believed under pain of forfeiting eternal happiness, which article is not to be found in Scripture, either in so many words or by fair deduction. Protestants deny the latter, not the former; and the more moderate amongst them allow, not only that we owe the Holy Scriptures to tradition, but that the genuine and orthodox meaning of Scripture in the fundamental articles — not to speak of many other things enumerated by Calixtus, for instance, and Horneius, and Chemnitz, of our own religion — are only to be known from tradition. In sooth, those Protestants who, besides the Apostles’ creed and that of St. Athanasius, admit the first five general councils, together with the synods of Orange and Milevis, and the consent of the primitive Church, at least during the first five centuries, if not longer, as secondary principles in theology — in such sort that the fundamental articles are not to be explained otherwise than they were by the unanimous consent of the learned in those ages, — such Protestants will have very little matter of dispute with the Roman Church on the score of tradition.

So much on these questions by way of specimen, in order that it may appear how easily many controversies might be adjusted by explanations or moderate views, provided neither party should make the opinion of his Church a point of honour, or place an obstacle in the way of such pious efforts by a zeal not according to knowledge.

OF THE COUNCIL.

Should any thing remain undetermined by the arbitrators, recourse must be had to a Council, which 1. Should be legitimately convened by the Sovereign Pontiff, and should be of as general a character as circumstances will permit.

2. The said Council should not appeal to the decrees of the Council of Trent, or of other Councils in which the dogmas of the Protestants have been condemned under anathema; neither 3. Should this Council be convened without certain previous stipulations, and the previous fulfilment of every thing which, in this or any similar plan, may be laid down as necessary to be fulfilled and agreed upon; as for example.

i. The acceptance of the postulates by a laudable condescension [συγχαταβασιν] on the part of the Sovereign Pontiff; in which consists the removal of the six most important obstacles by which the peace of the Church has been hitherto impeded, and by which, unless they be removed in this or some similar way, it will be impeded to the end of time. ii. A previous congress, to be appointed by the Emperor, and a successful termination of its sessions. iii. The admission of Protestants into the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding the difference which may still subsist respecting Communion under both kinds, and the questions which may be left to be determined in the future Council. iv. In the said Council every thing should be done according to the canons, and especially no one should be suffered to vote except a Bishop. Whence it is plain that, before its celebration and immediately after the preliminary union, for the sake of perfect uniformity with the Romanists and full assurance of the reconciliation which has taken place, it is necessary that his Holiness should confirm, and recognise as true Bishops, all Protestant Superintendents, who shall be summoned, together with the Roman Catholic Bishops, to this General Council, and shall sit and vote freely in the same, not as a party, but co-ordinately with the Roman Catholic Bishops, as competent judges.

v. Such a Council should have for basis and rule the sacred canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the consensus of the ancient and primitive Church during at least the first five centuries, and also the consensus of the present patriarchal sees, as far as the circumstances of the times will allow its being ascertained. vi. In such a Council the disputation should be carried on by doctors, and the bishops should decide by plurality of votes; attending, however, beyond all things, to the excellent admonition of St. Augustine, in his book Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, c. 1: “Let every kind of arrogance be laid aside by both parties; let no one say he has already discovered the truth; let it be sought in the same way as if it were unknown to both. For thus the inquiry shall be made with concord and diligence, if the truth be not, with rash presumption, believed to be discovered and known.” vii. After the close of the Council and the publication of the canons, both parties shall be bound to acquiesce in the decisions therein adopted: he who shall do otherwise, must suffer the penalties adjudged by the canons.

CONCLUSION.

From these premises follows the demonstration of the proposition with which we commenced, —

If the Sovereign Pontiff be willing and able to grant to the Protestants these six preliminary postulates:

If, in the imperial Congress, the controversies of the first class, which regard the mode of speech, be decided:

If in this Congress, in all controversies of the second class, each Church will embrace that doctrine which is held by a portion of its own members, and by all the members of the other:

If questions of the third class can be brought to a close either by modifications on the part of the arbitrators, or by the decision of a general Council:

It follows that a re-union of the Protestant and Catholic Churches is possible, without prejudice to the principles, hypotheses, and reputation of either.

Now, from what we have already proved, the antecedent is true; Therefore the consequence is true. Which was to be proved.

“Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind towards one another according to Jesus Christ, that with one mind and with one mouth we may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. xv. 6, 7.)

“May the same sanctify us in His truth by His Holy Spirit. His speech is truth. Amen.”

Written at Hanover, in the months of November and December 1691.

DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FORMERLY AT ALTDORF, AND NOW AT HELMSTADT,

THAT THERE IS NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG AND THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, AND THAT SALVATION IS ATTAINABLE IN THE LATTER AS WELL AS IN THE FORMER. PUT FORTH ON OCCASION OF A PROJECTED MARRIAGE BETWEEN A CATHOLIC KING AND AN EVANGELICAL PRINCESS. A.D. 1707.

THE question, “Whether a princess professing the Evangelical-Protestant religion can, with a safe conscience, in consideration of intermarriage with a Catholic king, embrace the Homan Catholic faith?” cannot be well and solidly resolved without first satisfactorily resolving the question, whether Roman Catholics are in error upon the fundamentals of faith and the essentials of salvation; or, what is the same thing, “whether the creed of the Roman Catholic Church be so constituted as to render it possible to hold therein the true faith and to attain salvation.”

To the latter question it is impossible to return a negative answer, and that for three reasons.

I. First, because the Roman Catholics are agreed with us in the fundamental grounds of faith and practice, or hold the doctrines which are essential to the Christian profession.

For, in our view, the fundamental grounds of Christian faith and practice consist in the belief in God the Father who created us; in God the Son, the Saviour and promised Messiah, who has redeemed us from sin, death, the devil, and hell; and in the Holy Ghost, who enlightens and sanctifies us; in the Ten Commandments, which teach us our duty to God, to our neighbours, and to ourselves; in the knowledge of the Lord’s Prayer, or Our Father, which teaches us how to pray; in the use of the Sacraments of holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, conformably to the institution and precept of Christ; to which is added the Office of the Keys, which we believe to have been entrusted to the Apostles and their successors; that is to say, we believe that power has been granted by Christ to the ministers of the Church to declare to the penitent the merciful remission of their sins, and to the impenitent the wrath and vengeance of God, and thus to loose the sins of the former, and to retain those of the latter; and, in accordance with this institution, we occasionally approach the confessional and confess our sins, in order to be absolved therefrom.

Whosoever believes and practises this, possesses the fundamentals of faith and of salvation, and thus may obtain eternal happiness. Upon this foundation must the learned, as well as the unlearned, live and die, if he would be a Christian and child of God, and an heir of the kingdom of heaven.

Now all this is found in the Lesser Catechism; for it is an abridgment of the Christian doctrine as laid down in the books of the prophets and apostles, and consists of six parts, viz. the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the words of Christ our Lord on Baptism, on the holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the calling and office of the keys. Now this Catechism, or abridgment of Christian doctrine, is not confined to us Protestants alone: the Roman Catholics have it also, and in common with us; and if they wish to instruct any one in Christian faith and practice, they impress upon him these very articles, and teach him, in precisely the same way, what he must believe and practise, if he would be a Christian and attain to salvation; as may be seen in the Roman Catechism, and in those of Canisius, Volusius, and others, as well as in the recent reprint of the Hildesheim Catechism.

Whence it is that the authors of the Confession of Augsburg declare in their preface, that “all Roman Catholics and Protestants live and strive under one Christ;” and in the end of the twenty-first article, that “our (the Protestant) doctrine (as may be seen from the works of the Fathers) is not opposed to the common faith of the Christian Church, nay, even of the Roman Church.” The Apology for the Confession, in the article on justification, says, that it should not readily be believed that the Roman Church holds every thing that the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, or individual theologians and monks have held, maintained, and taught; “that the knowledge of Christ has, at all times, been preserved by some pious persons in the Roman Church that “we do not accuse all (Roman Catholics), for we hold that there have always been in the monasteries pious and upright individuals, who have kept aloof from the traditions of men, and refused to assent to the creed of the hypocrites who were among their number.” Luther, too, confesses “that there is under the papacy much Christian goodness, yea, all Christian goodness.” He has a similar admission also in the sixth volume; and in the seventh he declares that he “holds as dear brethren and members of the Christian Church, all those who confess with him (as do the Roman Catholics) that Christ was sent by the Father, that He has reconciled us to Him by His death, and has purchased salvation for us.” And Philip Melancthon confesses, that “those who hold the fundamentals of faith have been, are, and will be, the Church of God, although some of them may have had more, and others, less, light.”

II. Secondly, because under the papacy there has been a true Church; that is to say, a certain assembly of men who hear the word of God and use the sacraments established by Christ. For if there were not, or had not been, under the papacy, a true Church, it would follow that all who are, or at any time have been attached to the Roman Catholic Church, must be hopelessly damned; a conclusion which none of our divines has ever advanced in speaking or in writing. Nay further, Luther argues, from the very fact that the true Church did subsist under the papacy, that the Pope is Antichrist — a position which is nevertheless highly questionable; — writing in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, that where the essentials of the word of God and the sacraments dwell, there is a holy Church, even though Antichrist should rule therein.

So also in the Epitome Examinis Philipp. Melancthonis, the question “Whether there was a true Church under the papacy?” is answered, “Yes, most assuredly. For it is notorious, that under the papal rule there still were preserved the word of God and the articles derived therefrom, — the doctrine of the Catechism: viz. the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the doctrine of Baptism, the portions of the gospels and epistles for Sundays, from which the elect learned the fundamentals of Christian truth, and either despised human traditions, or were struck down in the contest with corruption and death.”

The author of this Epitome is John Säubert, formerly chief preacher at Nürnberg, and highly esteemed by Duke Augustus, of glorious memory. It is compiled from the De Locis Theologicis of Hafen-Refler, the celebrated divine of Tübingen, a book of approved orthodoxy, and in common use throughout Sweden, both in the schools and the universities.

III. Thirdly, because the Roman Catholics, as well as we, believe and confess, both with the heart and with the lips, in their public writings and their teaching from the pulpit, that in no other is there salvation, no other name is there given to men, whereby they may be saved, but the name of Jesus; and that man is justified in God’s sight, not by the works of the law, nor by the merit of works, but by the grace and mercy of God, and the satisfaction of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, of whom the Catholic Church (as the late pious and upright Abbot of Gytzburg writes in the preface of his Compendium Regulae Fidei Catholicae) teaches, and has always taught, that, from the beginning of the world, no one has been, or can be, saved, but through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and men; and that no other name under heaven has been given to men whereby they can be saved. And on the feast of the Nativity of our Lord the entire Church sings —

“This ever-blest recurring dayIts witness bears, that all alone,From Thy own Father’s bosom, forth,To save the world, Thou earnest down.”

The Council of Trent calls Him “our only Redeemer and Saviour;” and, in another place, declares that God has appointed Him the “Propitiator, through faith in His Blood, for our sins; and not only for ours, but for those of the whole world” (Sess. vi. ch. 2, On Justification). And again, “if men born of Adam be not born again in Christ, they never can obtain justification; because this regeneration is gratuitously imparted to them through the merits of His Passion, whereby they are justified: for which benefit the Apostle directs us always to give thanks to God the Father, who has made us capable of the inheritance of the saints in light, and rescued us from the power of darkness, and established us in the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins.”

The Christian Assembly of Trier, moreover, teaches that the “beginning of justification in adults flows by a purely gratuitous mercy from God in Christ that is “from his vocation, whereby they are called without consideration of any merit of their own; that “none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification;” and that “we must hold, as of faith, that sin neither is forgiven, nor was ever forgiven, except through the gratuitous mercy of God and for Christ’s sake.”

Our own Doctors also, as Flavius, Hunnius, J. Gerhard, G. Calixtus, and many others, are compelled to admit that in the book entitled Hortulus Animae, and in the Rituals of Maintz, Trier, Cologne, and other Churches, the dying Christian is exhorted and sustained, not by the consideration of his own merits, nor of any other false means of salvation, but solely by trust in Christ, partly through prayers and instructions, partly through special questions addressed to this end. I shall give but a single example from the Ritual of Maintz, printed in 1599. In this ritual there is an instruction for the dying, and for those who have received Extreme Unction, in which, among other things, it is said, “Thy own merits, nay, even the merits of the whole human race, are insufficient to form a title to eternal happiness; and since our own works and our own merits are inadequate, we must throw ourselves upon the merits of Christ our common Saviour, whom God, out of His divine charity, has given to the world. On this gracious and merciful God must thou place thy reliance; be of good heart and fear not, but keep a firm hope and undoubting confidence.” And, after the Unction has been received, “If thou wilt place thy trust in the good God, who is merciful and full of clemency, and in His grace, and wilt strive and fight bravely against all the assaults of sin and the devil, and wilt discard all temptation of doubt, the Almighty God will easily hide thy sins in the many and precious merits of Jesus Christ; in Him, thy Saviour, thou shalt be delivered from sin and damnation, and thy soul shall be securely established in happiness.” And in the Hildesheim Catechism, the sick and dying man says in his prayer, “Even though I were to lead a better life for the future, yet if Thou, O Lord, hast ordained that I am to die now, I prefer rather to die now, in accordance with Thy holy will, and forego all the good works, than live longer.” Among the questions, too, which are addressed to the dying man, are the following: “Dost thou desire that our Lord should shew thee mercy, and not justice; and that, above all things, He should deal with thee, not according to thy merits, but according to His own infinite justice?” Answer: “Yes,” “Dost thou believe that for thee there is no hope of happiness, save through His holy, precious, and bitter death alone?” Answer: “Yes.”

Hence, having now shewn that the fundamentals of faith exist in the Roman Catholic Church, and that it is possible within its pale to maintain the true Faith, to lead a Christian life, and to die happily, we are enabled with propriety to reply in the affirmative to the main question, “Whether an Evangelical-Protestant princess, in consideration of intermarriage with a Catholic king, may with a safe conscience embrace the Catholic religion?” She may do so: especially when it is considered:

(1.) That she neither herself sought this alliance, nor caused it to be sought on her behalf, but that it has unquestionably been offered to her in the designs of God’s holy providence.

(2.) That the alliance may be beneficial and salutary, not alone to her native duchy, but also to the Protestant religion, and perhaps to the project of Church union so long and anxiously desired.

It must be stipulated, however, that she shall not be required to abjure her former religion, and that no wide range of controversies or disputes shall be proposed to her as articles of faith; but that she shall be instructed with all possible brevity and simplicity, and most especially in those principles which are of indispensable necessity and connected with salvation — viz. renunciation of self, daily repentance, humility towards God, condescension and tenderness for the poor, imitation of the example of Christ, and the love of God and of her neighbour. Regarding which the pious J. Streder, in the first book of his True Christianity, writes with great discernment “That purity of doctrine, and the light of the knowledge of God, never dwells with those who live in the devil, in darkness, pride, avarice, and sensuality.”

“For how,” he asks, “could pure and divine faith subsist where the manner of life is so impure and ungodly? Purity of doctrine and impurity of life never can be associated together, and have no community with each other; and, if we would maintain purity of faith, we must change our habits, abandon the unchristian life, follow the Lord Christ, and awake from sin. So will Christ enlighten us with the light of true faith. Wherefore, he who walketh not in Christ’s footsteps, in His love, in humility, meekness, patience, and the fear of God, must necessarily be led astray. If we but lived in Christ, if we walked in charity and humility, and directed all our diligence and all our theological lore to the learning how we shall mortify the flesh and live in Christ, how Adam shall die and Christ live in us, how we shall subdue ourselves and the demon of the flesh, and overcome the world, there would no longer be so many angry controversies regarding faith, and all heresies would fall to the ground of their own accord.”

And this doctrine certainly accords with that of Thomas à Kempis, of Taulerus, of Ruspröck, of the author of the German Theology, and other pious and divinely enlightened men among the Roman Catholics.

However, against the answer which we have given, various objections may be proposed and urged. For example, the following:

FIRST OBJECTION.

“The Roman Catholic doctrine contains errors subversive of the foundations of faith.”

ANSWER.

Yes, in the minds of those who believe them to be such, and subscribe to them against the dictates of conscience. But we hold with Hust, that every error is not heretical.

SECOND OBJECTION.

“They receive human traditions, and require the people to admit them.”

ANSWER.

They teach that divine apostolic traditions, that is to say, doctrines which are not contained in Scripture, but which Christ propounded to the Apostles, are to be received with the same respect as the written word of God. And we ourselves admit the same; so that there only remains the question, whether this or that particular doctrine is a divine or apostolic tradition. But on the subject of human traditions, they teach nothing but what we ourselves hold.

THIRD OBJECTION.

“They require the invocation of the Saints, whereas God alone is to be invoked.”

ANSWER.

In the Council of Trent there is not a word which implies obligation; but simply a declaration that “it is good and useful.” And hence no individual Roman Catholic is bound to invoke the saints, unless he attends a procession, or takes a part in the public church in the litany of the Saints. And these invocations do not imply any thing more than a prayer for their intercession on our behalf — a practice received by both the Greek and the Latin Churches for fourteen hundred years, without being thought to trench upon the honour due to God.

FOURTH OBJECTION.

“They enjoin a belief in purgatory, which is entirely without warrant in the word of God.”

ANSWER.

In so far as purgatory signifies a purgation of departed souls from the sins which still cling to them, many of the ancient doctors of the Church have held that doctrine.

FIFTH OBJECTION.

“The celebration of the Mass, from the multiplication of strange ceremonies, has become ridiculous and offensive.”

ANSWER.

To those who do not understand the signification of those rites and ceremonies; but there is not one of them which has not a good signification. On this subject, the Hildesheim Catechism, as well as many other works, may be consulted. Besides, the Mass, according to their view, is a commemoration of the bitter Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.

SIXTH OBJECTION.

“They deprive the laity of the consecrated chalice.”

ANSWER.

Just as man’s unbelief does not destroy the faith and promise of God, so neither can the withdrawal of the consecrated chalice from the laity, in which they have themselves no share, be imputed to them; on the contrary, we must hold that if they approach the Holy Supper with penitent and believing hearts, they receive the Body and Blood of Christ no less than ourselves.

SEVENTH OBJECTION.

“It is required that one should believe in seven Sacraments, whereas there are but two.”

ANSWER.

According to the acceptation of the word “Sacrament” (which it should be remembered is not found in Holy Scripture), there are numbered in the Apology of the Confession of Augsburg, in one place two, and in another three; that is, if absolution be reckoned in the number. And, at all events, the Roman Catholics themselves allow that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two most excellent and principal.

Should any other objections be proposed, we are prepared, with all due respect, to reply to them either verbally or in writing, as well as to supply any such further explanations of the above, as may chance to be desired. Nevertheless, it must be confessed, that the discussion of the controversies between us and Roman Catholics is but ill adapted for a princess, whose duty it is to adhere to the simple principles of faith, which are also the best; and that it belongs rather to theologians, among whom there have been found several on both sides, whose eyes God, in His saving grace, has opened to see that the difference between the two religions is not so great as it is commonly represented. And it is well worthy of observation that the upright and learned Philip Melancthon, in his Judicium de Moderandis Controversiis, addressed to King Francis in the sixth year after publication of the Confession of Augsburg, admits that it is so. “Finally,” says he, “the adjustment of all controversies between the Papists and us is easy; and I hope that all pious and God-fearing hearts may be able to agree in them all.”

Pray God that it be so; and that the present work tend to the glory of His Name, and to the temporal and eternal welfare of both the high personages and their royal and princely houses, for the sake of Christ our common Saviour. Amen.

III

[AS THE ORIGINAL of these very important documents has never been published in England, I think it right to subjoin the extracts from them which Dr. Guhrauer has inserted in the Appendix of his edition of Leibnitz’s German Works. There are two distinct drafts. The first is very short.]

Ce que V. A. S. répliqué dans sa lettre à ce que j’avais écrit touchant la Transsubstantiation, me fait connoître combien il est difficile de satisfaire même les personnes les plus équitables et les plus éclaircies, quand on n’entre pas tout à fait à point nommé dans leurs sentimens et pensées. Souvent de très bonnes pensées out été empêchées, parceque des personnes bien intentionnées, et qui avaient un même but, se sentirent contraires en ce qu’ils n’étaient pas d’accord sur les moyens dont il se fallait servir, quoique ces moyens en effet fussent bons et compatibles entre eux. La même chose arrive ici touchant le point de la paix de l’Eglise. V. A. S. s’étant appliquée à l’établir sur l’antiquité et sur la méthode compendieuse de l’autorité d’une église visible, ne semble point approuver qu’on entre dans le détail des controverses, et me reproche que je m’éloigne par-la des vrais principes. Pour moi, je peux dire d’avoir étudié l’antiquité, et d’estimer infiniment une tradition de l’Eglise Catholique. J’ai cru néanmoins qu’il serait important, non pas en effet pour tout le monde, mais pour ceux qui y semblent propres, d’y joindre une discussion exacte des matières, pour n’avoir rien à se reprocher, et pour agir avec toute la sincérité et toute l’exactitude possibles, sans déguisement et sans dissimulation.

[The second enters more into the motives of the writer. It contains a distinct allusion to the contemplated work.]

J’ai eu l’honneur de connoître particulièrement ce Monsieur Arnaud quand j’étais à Paris; il avait aussi la bonté de faire quelque estime de moi, et quand je partis de Paris pour me rendre à Hanovre, il me donna une lettre pour un Capucin d’ici, qui lui avait demandé quelque chose touchant la créance des Grecs en matière de Transsubstantiation, où il avait mis à mon louange des expressions qui m’auraient empêché de porter ces lettres, si je les avais lues; mais je ne l’appris qu’à Hanovre que Monsieur Arnaud avait écrit qu’il ne me manquait que la vraie religion pour être véritablement un des grands hommes de ce siècle. Mais comme je n’ai jamais affecté une grande réputation, et que j’ai plutôt tâché de couvrir mon nom quand j’ai publié quelque chose (comme lorsque le livre de Caesarinus Furstenerius fut imprimé par ordre du feu Prince), il n’a aussi jamais tenu à moi d’être du côté de la vérité. Et ce qui m’avait le plus détourné des sentimens de l’Eglise Romaine, c’était (car à présent je ne parle pas de la pratique) principalement les difficultés qui se trouvaient dans la Transsubstantiation, et les démonstrations que je crois d’avoir sur les matières approchantes de la grâce, j’ai toujours tâché de me satisfaire, et peu s’en faut, que je n’aie pas réussi entièrement. Mais ces matières demandant des méditations exactes sur la partie la plus profonde des métaphysiques, la facilité, qu’il y a de se tromper là dessus, avant que d’avoir rangé ses raisonnements d’une manière rigoureuse à la façon d’un calcul, m’en empêche de former un jugement définitif. Monsieur Arnaud, qui entend parfaitement la philosophie moderne, et qui parait Cartésien, n’a jamais osé toucher cette corde, ou répondre aux difficultés presqu’invincibles qui semblent combattre la Transsubstantiation; peut-être parce-qu’il croyait que son explication serait condamnée quand elle paroîtrait. De sorte que voici comme je crois qu’il faudrait faire pour aller sûrement en ces matières: savoir, il faudrait qu’un homme méditatif qui n est pas éloigné de la réunion, composât une Exposition de la Foi, un peu plus particularisée que celle de Monsieur de Condom, où il tâcherait de s’expliquer, le plus exactement et le plus sincèrement possibles, sur les articles disputés, évitant les équivoques et les termes de la chicane scolastique, et ne parlant que par des expressions naturelles. Et il soumettrait cette explication au jugement de quelques savans évêques des plus modérés (du parti de l’Eglise Romaine), dissimulant et son nom et son parti. Et pour les faire juger d’autant plus favorablement, il ne demanderait point s’ils sont de son sentiment, mais seulement s’ils tiennent son sentiment pour tolérable dans leur Eglise.

V. A. S. me dira qu’il ne faut pas tant de façons, et on peut être de la communion de Rome sans entrer dans ce détail. Je réponds distinguendo: une personne qui n’a pas approfondi ces matières, et n’a pas dessein de les approfondir, est aisée à satisfaire. Mais celui qui a médité sur les choses doit aller sincere-merit, et s’il soupçonne que certains de ses sentimens pourraient être condamnés, il se doit expliquer de bonne heure. Autrement il se pourrait exposer à des conjonctures fâcheuses, si quelque jour on le voulait faire avouer des choses qu’il ne saurait approuver. Ce qu’il arriva à Galileo, qu’on força à abjurer le mouvement de la terre.

Personne ne pourrait en ce cas faire obtenir sous mains une approbation de cette nature que V. A. S. Et pour mieux dresser une telle exposition, il faudrait la concilier avec V. A. même. Mais sois que cela réussisse ou non, celui qui fait le sien pour n’être point dans le schisme, est en effet dans l’Eglise, au moins in foro interno, suivant l’expression de V. A. S. que je trouve excellente. Je crois cependant que l’approbation des évêques suffirait, et que celle de Rome ne serait point si nécessaire. Peut-être pourtant qu’on le pourrait espérer, si on s’y prenait comme il faut, et je sais qu’il y a des personnes à Rome qui y pourraient servir. Mais on ne saurait bien espérer quelque chose de cette nature sans une grande application.

Je ne sais si V. A. S. a vû M. l’Evêque de Tina, autrement ce Père Royan, qui a été dans nos cours il n’y a pas long-temps, pour proposer des voies d’accommodement en matière de religion, et ce qu’elle en juge.

Il me semble que V. A. S. n’a pas pris mon sens touchant ce que j’avais écrit à l’égard d’une exposition raisonnable des matières de foi, qui fisse voir qu’il n’y a pas de contradiction. Cela ne déroge point à l’autorité d’une tradition perpétuelle de l’Eglise Romaine. Car ceux qui tiennent que quelque dogme de l’Eglise Romaine implique contradiction, tiendront aussi que l’Eglise ne les a pas enseignés, et se croiront en droit de donner aux passages de la Sainte Ecriture et de SS. Pères une explication, qui selon eux évité l’absurdité, outre que les Pères parlent souvent assez obscurément et assez variablement sur les articles qui n’étaient pas agités de leur temps, par exemple St. Augustin.