.
.
A Discourse concerning Fundamental Articles in Religion
in which a method is laid down for the more effectual uniting of Protestants
and promoting a more general toleration amongst them,
being the entire dissertation of a late book, entitled,
Nubes Testium, dedicated to His Grace
the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
.
Jean-Alphonse Turretin
.
London:
Printed by J. Darby, for A. Bell, A. Bettesworth, F. Fayram,
J. Pemberton, C. Rivington, J. Hooke, F. Clay, J. Battley, E. Symon
1720
Price One Shilling.
.
.
[The original Latin work, Nubes Testium, was published in 1719.
The table of contents, some subtitles, and outlines have been added.
This transcription is public domain.]
.
.
Table of Contents
Intro
1. What fundamentals are. Some distinctions
2. Some articles are fundamental, some not
3. False marks of fundamentals
4. Principles to distinguish fundamentals
5. Number of fundamentals cannot be determined
6. Communion cannot be maintained with those differing in fundamentals
7. Church communion ought to be had among those not differing in fundamentals
8. A fundamental difference from the Church of Rome
9. A difference not fundamental with Lutherans (on the Supper, Christ’s Person and Predestination)
10. Advices to promote this agreement
Scriptures 35
Testimonies from Church History 90
.
The Preface
[by the 1700’s translator]
The following treatise of fundamental articles was written in Latin by the present Mr. Turretin, professor of divinity at Geneva, so well known for his great learning and moderation. The great applause this piece has met with in the learned world, together with the desire of some friends, prevailed with me to translate it into English. In the original it is prefixed to a large collection of testimonies from various writers, which are brought to support and illustrate the doctrine here laid down; and from these, which make up far the greatest part of the book, the whole is entitled, Nubes Testium, i.e. “A Cloud of Witnesses”.
The first part of those testimonies, which are taken from Scripture, are very plain and full to the purpose for which they are designed; and worthy the serious consideration of every Christian: for which reason, they are added at the end of this translation, for the benefit of the English reader.
The rest are all human, and produced for the sake of those who are more apt to be determined by such authorities, than by reasoning and argument; and seem to be added to prevent the imputation of novelty, rashness, or partiality, by which some might otherwise be apt to be affrighted themselves, or to terrify others. They are taken from as great divines as any that have appeared through the several ages of Christianity, and are divided into four classes.
The first contains the sentiments of some of the most eminent, as well as most ancient fathers of the Church; and also of the principal Reformers, who have laid down the same characters of fundamentals as are given in this discourse.
The second contains such as are taken from Luther, and several Lutheran divines, herein they express a great desire of union and concord with their Reformed brethren, and earnestly press and plead for it.
The third contains some passages taken out of Zwingli, Calvin, and their followers, wherein they also express a mutual desire of union with their Lutheran brethren, and equally urge it upon them. Yet our Author complains under each class, that for the most part, men have not been so uniform and consistent with such expressions as might be wished; but produces them as testimonies extorted by the force of truth, which has darted into men’s minds with irresistible light, when they have calmly and impartially considered these things.
The fourth contains some authentic acts of synods and conferences which have been held in diverse places, and sometimes with success. These he offers as instances to show the possibility of the thing, that what has been accomplished in some places, may be so in others; and that it is not from any defect in the scheme laid down, that such a union is not universal.
But though these testimonies may be of considerable use, and be read with pleasure, by those who are acquainted with the authors themselves, yet one can hardly think they would be of any great advantage, or afford much entertainment to English readers, who are not acquainted with the authors, but must take up with such short quotations from them. As the argument therefore is entire of itself without them, the translation of them was judged needless.
The subject here treat of is indeed nice and curious, yet handled with great skill and sagacity: nor is it of less importance to allay the heats and animosities of all parties; to put an end to vain and unprofitable disputes, and to engage all Christians to exercise meekness, gentleness and forbearance, which are essential to Christian piety, whatever denominations men choose to pass under.
The reader likewise from hence will see the irreconcileableness of Popery to the true spirit of Christianity, fairly stated; and easily conclude that a coalition between Papists and Protestants is impossible and absurd. On the other hand, the differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists are represented in such a light, that one can’t but be pleased to see so plain and easy a way opened for the reconciling and uniting them; and be induced to hope that each side will be forward to advance so good a work, which were it happily effected, would exceedingly strengthen the Protestant interest abroad.
From whence also one may see reason to conclude, that it is not impossible, no, nor very difficult, to compose the differences among Protestants here in Great Britain, and to unite the various parties amongst us in love and affection to each other; since the disagreement of most of these, either from the established Church, or from each other, is light and inconsiderable, in comparison of the great and substantial points of Christianity, wherein they agree: so that if men of power and interest would impartially stand up for liberty; if they would reprove such as rail at and abuse others merely for differing from them; and if Christians were everywhere taught charity and forbearance towards their brethren of different sentiments; no disagreement in opinions, ceremonies or modes of worship could hinder such a union as would be the glory of the Protestant interest at home.
As the former was the more immediate design of the author in writing this discourse, so the latter of the translator: and God grant it may effectually serve the ends of love, peace and union among Protestants, wherever it comes.
.
.
A Discourse concerning Fundamental Articles in Religion
.
Introduction
.
The subject of fundamental articles being as weighty and important as any in religion; either that our notions herein may be just and right, and that we may be able to distinguish what is of the essence of religion from things which are not essential, nor of equal importance; or that we may know how to carry it with a pious and Christian moderation, towards those who differ from us in things which are not necessary; and not venture to condemn them, to exclude them our communion, or, as is usual with many, to send them to the very pit of destruction: that we may treat of it as briefly and clearly as possible, we shall divide this discourse into the following heads:
1. We shall show what is commonly understood by fundamental articles, and such as are not fundamental.
2. That there is really such a distinction.
3. We shall reject some false marks of fundamentals, and such as will not hold.
4. We shall produce those which to us seem the best and fittest.
5. We shall consider whether it be possible to fix a certain and determinate number of fundamental articles.
6. How we ought to carry it towards those who differ from us in fundamentals.
7. How we should behave towards such who differ from us in things not fundamental.
8. We shall bring an instance of a fundamental difference in our separation from the Church of Rome.
9. An instance of a difference not fundamental in the differences among Protestants.
10. We shall offer some pacific and healing advices which may be useful to promote union among Christians, leaving them to the consideration of all good men and lovers of peace.
.
Chapter 1
What we are to understand by fundamental articles, and such as are not fundamental. Some distinctions are also premised to prepare the way for the following treatise.
.
Outline
Intro
1. Different stages of revelation history
2. State, conditions, capacities and circumstances of men different
3. Ignorance vs. direct denial
4. Denying a fundamental vs. adding that which destroys it
5. Can be saved though don’t know or mistake in some fundamentals; may be forgiven
6. Ordinary vs. extraordinary ways in which God acts
.
.
Fundamental articles¹ are those principles of religion which so relate to the essence and foundation of it, and are of so great importance, that without them religion cannot stand, or at least will be destitute of a chief and necessary part. Thus, There is a God, is a fundamental article, nay the first of all; for take away the existence of God, and all religion must needs fall to the ground. In like manner, God is a beneficent Being, and will certainly reward his worshippers, is also a fundamental article; for take away the goodness and munificence of God, and by far the greatest motive to piety and virtue is destroyed: and therefore the apostle teaches us that “he who comes to God,” i.e. worships Him in any wise, “must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him.” (Heb. 11:6)
¹ Here we take fundamental articles to be the same with things necessary to be known; and don’t see any reason why Mr. J. La Placette, though otherwise a very learned and judicious divine, should distinguish them as he has done, in his Tract on Divine Faith, new edition, book 4, contrary to the common method, and without any sufficient grounds as far as we can discern. That judicious person seems to carry the metaphor of a foundation too far, and labors too much to find different senses where things are really the same, or at least are dependent on each other.
And since religion, if we are wholly destitute of it, or at least if we are deficient in any principal part of it, cannot yield us its proper fruits, which are, to render us acceptable to God, and to bring us to eternal salvation; therefore fundamental articles are such as are necessary to be known and believed, in order to obtain the favor of God, and the salvation of our souls.
Again, since religion with all its essential parts is the bond of Church communion, hence we may conclude that fundamental articles are such as are necessary to be professed, in order to hold communion with any particular person, or with any religious society; for it would be absurd to admit any into such a society who did either directly deny or in effect destroy the essentials, or as one may call them, the very vitals of religion.
These are the commonly received notions that are by the generality of divines fixed to the name of fundamental articles. Some indeed, the better to distinguish them, make two sorts; fundamentals with respect to things, or to religion itself; and fundamentals with respect to persons. Others make three sorts, and divide them into things necessary to salvation, things necessary to religion, and things necessary to the Church.
But though these distinctions may sometimes be well grounded, and have their use, as we shall see afterwards; yet for the most part, and in the ordinary course of affairs, they all center in one point, and signify only the different properties and consequences of fundamental articles. For those which are fundamental with respect to things, or to religion itself, are also fundamental with respect to such persons, to whom religion is duly proposed, and who are endued with sufficient capacities to understand and receive it: so that without them, in the ordinary course of affairs, such persons cannot be entitled to the favor of God, nor obtain salvation, nor be accounted true and sound members of the Church. Nor indeed can it better be known what is essential in religion, or what is requisite in order to admit a person into Church communion, any other way than from those places of Scripture where the terms of salvation are laid down, as will be more fully shown in the sequel of this discourse. Therefore passing by these, let us rather premise some other distinctions more pertinent to the present purpose.
1. Since the revelations which have been granted us by God, have been very different; some whereof have been more clear and full than others, as is evident by considering the revelation which is purely from nature, the revelation granted to the patriarchs, the revelation delivered by Moses, and lastly the Christian revelation, in like manner, fundamental articles must be understood to differ according to the difference of these revelations. But our design is principally to treat of the Christian revelation, and consequently of such articles as do, or do not, belong to the essence of Christianity.
2. As the revelations made by God have been various, so the state and conditions in which he has placed men have been so likewise; the capacities, the endowments, and the circumstances which have been allotted to them, have varied almost infinitely: all which things, must necessarily be regarded, and allowed their due weight, in describing fundamental articles.
3. We must also observe that persons may offend against some points of religion two ways: either by mere ignorance, or by a direct denial or opposition: and both these may take their rise from different causes, and be attended with different circumstances and effects; some whereof may be more criminal, and others more innocent.
4. Persons also may err fundamentally two ways; either by expressly denying something that is fundamental, or by joining something to the foundation, that does really destroy it. In the former manner they stumbled at the foundation who denied the Resurrection, of whom St. Paul speaks (1 Cor. 15); and in the latter, those teachers of the Galatians, whom the same apostle does so sharply rebuke in his epistle.
5. When we say that fundamental articles are such as are necessary to be known and believed , in order to obtain salvation, we would not be so understood, as if we though that none who are ignorant of any one of these articles, or mistake concerning it, can possibly arrive at salvation: For as in crimes and evil actions, so likewise in ignorance and mistakes, there is a twofold remedy; the one on our part, which is repentance, either general or particular; the other on God’s part, mercy and forgiveness” by means whereof, as we may hope for pardon of the greatest crimes; so it can’t be denied but we may also of the most grievous errors.
6. This whole matter may be considered in a double respect; either as it relates to the ordinary course in which things generally proceed, and which God has made known in his Word; or to those extraordinary ways in which God may, and it can hardly be doubted but He oftentimes does act. But here we only speak of the ordinary way, and leave the other to the wisdom and good pleasure of God.
These things being premised in the general, the use whereof will appear in what follows; we are next to show that this distinction of truths and errors into fundamental and not fundamental is not a vain and empty distinction.
.
.
Chapter 2
That there really are in religion some articles fundamental, and others not fundamental.
.
Outline
Intro
1. From the nature of the thing
2. From Scripture
This distinction has been allowed in all ages, by all parties
.
.
That there are really some articles in religion fundamental, and others not fundamental, may be demonstrated two way; from the nature of the thing, and from Scripture.
1. From the nature of the thing.
And truly unless we will allow this distinction, we must say one of these two things; either that no truths in religion are fundamental, and necessary to be known; or that all are so: neither of which can be allowed.
That no truths are necessary to be known, none but an atheist can venture to affirm; and they who own the Being of a God, can do no less sure, than grant that the knowledge of Him is necessary. The subjects of any kingdom or State cannot be ignorant without blame that there is a prince, or some civil magistrate under whom they live, and whom they are bound to obey. Nay, further, they ought to have a knowledge of the laws of that kingdom or State; for everyone knows that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But now, how much more necessary is it for us to know, as well as we are able, the Lord of the universe and the laws that are given us by Him? And if it be necessary to know Him, who is Lord of all, then it cannot but be displeasing to Him, for us to entertain dishonorable notions of him, or to charge him with the most detestable crimes, to place him upon a level with the meanest of creatures, and to pay Him a worship that consists of wickedness or cruelty. Neither is it to be thought, that in doing thus, we can possibly be innocent and free from blame. And since all this might be said, though we had no [special] revelation, how much more are these things necessary to be known now we have one, wherein God has manifested the certain knowledge of Himself and appointed certain worship to be paid Him?
But on the other hand, that all truths of religion are fundamental, and necessary to be known, is so absurd an imagination, that no man who seriously considers, can admit of it; for who can suppose that God does necessarily require all truths of religion, without exception, to be known of every individual man; and consequently that all these truths are equally to be esteemed and regarded by us? Who can imagine that all truths which depend upon chronology, geography, criticism; that all proper names in Scripture, and that all circumstances, even of the minutest events, which concern religion, are necessary to be known? Certainly the design of religion is not to exercise the wit and understandings of men, nor to burden and overwhelm their memories with so vast a number of all sorts of truths; but to implant in their minds the fear and love of God, and excite them to certain duties. Those truths therefore, that tend most to this end, are certainly of the greatest importance; and they that have little or no tendency hereunto are undoubtedly of less moment, and so by no means to be accounted necessary.
Again, they who say all truths of religion are fundamental, and necessary to be known in order to obtain salvation, must either be tormented with endless doubts and perplexities, or imagine themselves to be infallible, so as certainly to know all truths without exception, and be sure, that they don’t err in the least point. And what man in his wits can possibly pretend to this?
Finally, he who says all truths of religion are fundamental, and all errors damnable, ought to prove it: but the thing will admit of no sort of proof; nay, on the contrary, the goodness and wisdom of god do most directly oppose such an assertion. Since therefore it cannot be affirmed on the one hand, that no truths are fundamental, nor on the other, that all are so; hence it follows that a difference must be made between truths that are fundamental, and truths that are not fundamental.
2. This is also evident from Scripture.
For it can’t be denied but the apostle does make a plain distinction between the foundation, and things built upon the foundation (1 Cor. 3:10-12), and proceeds to show that things built upon the foundation are of two sorts: some of them are good and profitable to men; these he calls “gold, silver, precious stones”: others are useless, and really hurtful, such as vain and idle disputes, rash and hasty conclusions, and ceremonies that lead to superstition; which he calls “wood, hay and stubble”. The former will stand and abide the fiery trial, i.e. the judgment of God: but the latter shall be burnt up; yet the authors or promoters of such things, may be saved themselves, “though so as by fire,” i.e. not without difficulty.
In like manner, the apostle distinguishes between things wherein Christians agree, and according to which they ought to walk; and things wherein good men may differ, without any prejudice to piety or mutual love. “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded;” (Phil. 3:15-16) namely, with regard to what he had before laid down concerning the privileges and ceremonies of the Law.
“But if in any thing you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you: Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing;”
or be affected in the same manner, and preserve peace and union among ourselves.
And accordingly the apostles, in many places of Scripture, teach us that some things are of so great moment that he who errs in them, and departs from the doctrine of christ, is not only to be sharply rebuked, but to be removed from the communion of the Church (Gal. 1:8; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Jn. 10). And these important points are signified to us by various appellations in Scripture; they are called, “the foundation,” “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,” “the first principleso of the oracles of God,” “wholesome doctrine,” “the form of sound words,” “the Word of truth,” “the doctrine which is according to godliness,” etc.
And so on the contrary, in other places (Rom. 14-15), we are told that there are some things in which persons who do err, ought nevertheless to be borne with as brethren; of which we shall speak more hereafter.
Neither is this distinction of the points of religion a new thing, or a notion peculiar to us; but has been allowed in all ages, and by divines of all parties.
The Jews undoubtedly had their fundamental truths, as appears from the writings of their rabbis. So Moses Maimonides, the most learned of them, entitles the first book of his treatise called, The Strong Hand, thus, “Of the Foundations of the Law,” and begins it with these words, “The Foundation of Foundations, and the Pillar of Wisdom, is to know that there is one First Being, which gave being to all others.”
And among the ancient fathers of the Church, nothing was more common than to use those words, “the principles,” “the elements,” “the necessary things,” to signify the primary and fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. This is what Tertullian means by “the rule of Faith, the only immoveable and unchangeable rule, which it is sufficient for a man to know, though he knows no more.” (Of the Veiling of a Virgin, ch. 1) And from these primary articles, wherein “the foundation of all catholic doctrine did consist,” they distinguished “the lesser questions of the divine law,” concerning which, persons might have different sentiments, without destroying the unity of Faith (Vincentius Lirinensis). And Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, etc. give testimonies concerning this matter, which would be too tedious to recite.
Hence also creeds and confessions of faith, and then catechisms took their rise, which contained the first principles of religion, such as it was thought proper for catechumens, or beginners to profess their belief of. And in the first ages these things were short and plain: but afterwards, through the dissensions that arose in the Church, they were exceedingly multiplied and enlarged; insomuch that Hilary complained that “confessions were framed at every one’s pleasure.”
The Papists do carefully distinguish questions which are “of the Faith,” from questions which are “not of the Faith;” and pretend that the power of determining the former lies in their Church; and therefore that she may increase or diminish the number of articles of faith at pleasure. And besides an implicit faith, by which persons are bound to believe whatever the Church believes, they say that some things are also to be believed explicitly; and accordingly dispute among themselves about these articles of Faith, which are to be believed explicitly, some making them more, some fewer; but others say that the number of them cannot be determined. All which things do plainly show that though they don’t use the same terms as we do, yet they don’t reject or condemn the common distinction of fundamentals and things no fundamental.
Lastly, this distinction is so obvious among Protestant divines of different parties, and has been so generally received amongst them, that it would be needless to mention any.
Therefore without any further confirmation of this famous distinction, let us see what are the marks or criterions by which we may be able to distinguish fundamentals from things which are not fundamental. And we shall first of all separate the false marks, and then offer some rules which appear to us more just.
.
.
Chapter 3
False marks of fundamental articles rejected.
.
Outline
1. Papists: all things which the Church determines become articles of Faith
2. Whatever Scripture delivers is fundamental
3. From the analogy of Faith
4. Which have been received by all Christians in all ages
5. Nothing but to obey the divine precepts and trust in the promises
6. The Apostles’ Creed
.
.
1. The opinion of the Papists here first presents itself, who pretend that all things which their Church determines “as of the Faith,” do immediately become articles of Faith; and consequently that the Church may by her determinations and decrees, increase the number of them at pleasure.
But this notion is easily destroyed.
For, first, such an authority was never granted by God to any assembly of men, nor to any private teachers whatever.
Secondly, the apostles themselves confess that they had “no dominion” over the Faith of Christians, and that they “delivered nothing to them but what they had received of the Lord (2 Cor. 1:24).
Thirdly, all Christians are commanded to examine whatever their pastors teach them, to “beware of false prophets,” to “try all things,” to “hold fast that which is good”; and “if an angel from heaven,” or the apostles themselves, “should preach any other gospel, to pronounce them accursed.” (1 Cor. 15:3; Mt. 7:15; 1 Thess. 5:21; Gal. 1:8-9) So that pastors of the Church have no power to add even the least point to the Christian Faith, much less increase the number of its articles at pleasure.
Fourthly, the Church herself, or her pastors, are so far from having a power of altering them, or adding to their number, that the true Church and true pastors thereof, can no otherwise be distinguished from others, than by considering whether they hold the foundation or depart from it.
This mark therefore, which the Papists bring, is altogether precarious, nay, tyrannical and antichristian; for tis certainly the greatest tyranny and most unsufferable pride to assume a power of determining what is necessary to be known in order to salvation, and in a matter of so great consequence, to add to the Word of God.
2. Others are of opinion that whatever is delivered in Scripture is upon that very account fundamental: and to this purpose they urge the words of St. Paul, “Whatsoever things were written beforetime, were written for our instruction;” (Rom. 15:4) and also those, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Tim. 3:16)
But as has been already observed, who can imagine that all things found in Scripture of whatever sort, as proper names of men, places, animals, plants, etc. and all circumstances of the most minute actions, are so necessary to be known, that none can be saved without the knowledge of them? The words of the apostle carry no such meaning: for the sense of those places is not that each sentence, word, or syllable of Scripture does contain something in them of the utmost consequence to Christianity, and so that all these are necessary to be known: But only that the doctrine contained in that Book, and the principal things delivered there, are to be for our instruction above all other things; and that whatever is necessary for our instruction, exhortation or correction is fully contained in it. Yea, the apostle does largely show in another place that we ought “to bear the infirmities of the weak.” (Rom. 14:4 and all the 14th chapter)
And those words, “for whatsoever things were written, etc.” are added for no other purpose, but to show us that by the instructions of Scripture we are to learn a Christian meekness and forbearance; which very thing does prove that disagreement in matters of less importance, although they are things contained in Scripture, ought not to be accounted fundamental.
3. Another mark which many make use of to distinguish fundamentals from such as are not so, is taken from what they call “the analogy of Faith,” or, which is the same thing, systems of divinity, in which some take one method, and some another.
We shall only bring an instance or two out of them, to illustrate this matter.
Some therefore talk after this manner: those things which contain the causes of salvation are for that very reason necessary to be known, in order to salvation; but say these men, in the causes of salvation, three things are to be distinctly considered: the design, the purchase, and the application of it. The design is laid in God’s eternal predestination; the purchase is made through the merits and satisfaction of Christ, and the application by the power and operation of the Holy Spirit: and then they proceed to infer that not only these things themselves, but all questions appertaining to them, are necessary to be known in order to salvation.
Others argue thus; Christ is the foundation, according to that of the apostles, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:11) But say they, in Christ there are several things to be distinctly considered; as, his Person, twofold nature, different states [of humiliation and exaltation], his offices, benefits, etc. to which heads it is very plain that innumerable questions, if not all in divinity may easily be referred.
But they who argue in this manner, though they say nothing but what is true, and indeed of very great moment, yet their mistake lies in this; they confound what was necessary to be done in order to procure salvation, with what is necessary to be known: which two things are very different; as is plain, by considering the case of infants, of persons that are deaf, or distracted, and of the patriarchs in the Old Testament. the thing may be illustrated by a similitude taken from our food: every one knows that abundance of things are requisite to the digestion and separation of our food; and yet nobody ever said that these things were necessary to be known, in order to receive nourishment from it.
Hitherto we have rejected those marks which to us seem faulty, by containing too much. There are others no less faulty, for requiring too little: From these therefore the next mark is taken, viz.
4. Those things only are fundamental which have been received by all Christians and in all ages.
If this rule be right, I fear it will utterly destroy all fundamentals at once; for from the very times of the apostles, there have been teachers who have called themselves Christians, and yet have attempted to overthrow some of the principal and most necessary things in Christianity.
Thus some have denied the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15; 2 Tim. 2:18), and some that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:3); some have affirmed that the ceremonies of the Law are necessary to salvation, and others have even denied the necessity of good works; as is evident from many places in the epistles: So that many of the teachers of those times, even of those who called themselves Christians, are said to be “antichrists,” “liars,” “false prophets,” “denying the Lord that bought them.” And everyone knows that not long after, there arose many pestilent sects among Christians, as the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Manichees, who impudently denied some doctrines of the utmost importance, as the unity of God, the necessity of good works, and of suffering martyrdom in defense of the truth when called to it.
If this rule therefore, which we now oppose, be true, it will hardly leave anything at all that is fundamental.
5. Some limit the foundation of religion within such narrow bounds that they allow nothing to be a fundamental but to obey the divine precepts and to trust in the promises of the gospel; which is another mark that we reject.
We own indeed that obedience is the end, and therefore a principal part of religion; for as Christ told his disciples, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them;” (Jn. 13:17) and St. Paul testifies that “The end of the commandment is charity;” (1 Tim. 1:5) and St. James, “Pure religion and undefiled is to visit the fatherless and widows, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (Jm. 1:27)
But if we would speak accurately, we cannot say that the whole essence of religion does consist in obedience and trust in God, and in nothing else: for there must be some truths known by the light of nature, and others revealed by God, upon which our obedience and trust must be founded; which do therefore make part of the foundation, according as St. Paul teaches us in that forecited place, “He that comes to God, must believe that He is, etc.” (Heb. 11:6) And Christ, “This is eternal life to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” (Jn. 17:3)
6. Some will have the Apostles’ Creed, as it is commonly called, to be the standard and measure of fundamentals.
And we don’t deny but this hypothesis comes the nearest to truth, of which more hereafter; yet for some reasons we cannot entirely acquiesce in this opinion. For:
First, it is agreed among learned men, that this creed was not composed by the apostles, but long after their time, and that the copies of it differed in some articles; there is therefore no reason why so much authority should be given to a human composure, though ever so ancient and venerable, as that the terms of salvation should be thought to depend upon it.
Secondly, neither does everything inserted into this creed seem to be of so great importance that a man cannot be saved without the knowledge thereof. Thus, if a person should be ignorant of what is there said of Christ’s descent into Hell, of the name of Pontius Pilate and some other things which were put in, in opposition to some errors that are now out of date, it cannot be thought that his salvation would be hazarded hereby.
Thirdly, on the other hand, there are some things no less necessary to be known than to be done, which yet are wanting in this creed, viz. those principles of religion which direct and inform our practice.
Therefore passing by these and such like criterions, which are not founded upon sufficient reason, we shall endeavor to produce some rules which seem to be better grounded, and may more safely be depended upon.
.
Chapter 4
Some principles laid down by which we may be able to distinguish fundamental articles from those which are not fundamental.
.
Outline
1. Not anything but what is clearly revealed unto us, having necessary abilities
2. The Lord of life and death alone determines what is necessary to believe for salvation
3. That which follows by necessary consequence from what is expressly declared to be necessary
4. Are plain, adapted to common capacities and free from subtle distinctions
5. Are few in number
6. Are repeated and inculcated in Scripture
7. Are principles of piety
8. Modes and circumstances of fundamentals are not
9. May err by expressly denying, or by adding what weakens or overturns
10. We ought to beware the smallest errors, but use caution, charity and meekness with others
.
.
1. Our first principle is this that we are not under a necessary obligation to know or believe any truth but what is clearly revealed unto us, and for the belief of which God has indued us with necessary abilities.
This is a principle of most undoubted, for who can conceive that a most righteous God, who has the tenderest concern for his creatures, should require them to believe any thing which He has not revealed to them, and that clearly too, or which they are under a natural incapacity of believing? It is reported indeed of Caligula, among other horrible cruelties, that he ordered his laws to be writ in such small characters, and to be hung up at so great a distance, that it was almost, if not altogether impossible to read them; and this he contrived on purpose that a great number of offenders might fall into his hands. But far be it from us to ascribe such a cruel and injurious way of proceeding to the best and most righteous Being.
From this principle we may draw an inference which is of very considerable weight, viz. that fundamental articles are not the same to all men, but differ according to the different degrees of revelation, and according to the different capacities and circumstances of men. The reason is plain: for since God has made very different revelations of Himself, and has given very different capacities to men, and has placed them in stations and circumstances that most widely differ; it is therefore impossible that all men should be obliged to the same measure of knowledge, or the same standard of Faith.
2. Our second principle is this, that He alone who is the Lord of life and death, that is, God, has power to determine what is necessary to be believed in order to obtain salvation, and what error shall certainly exclude men from it.
This also is a very plain principle, and none who seriously consider it, can call it into question; for who, I pray, has the least pretensions to settle the terms of life and death, but that only lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy? (Jm. 4:12) From whence the apostle makes this demand, “Who art thou that judgest another?” (compare Rom. 14:10)
But since God has made known his will two ways, by the light of nature and by [special] revelation, nothing therefore ought to be reckoned a fundamental, but what God has determined to be so, one of these two ways.
And the light of nature discovers but very few things in this matter; little more than what the apostle takes notice of as a thing sufficiently known thereby, that “He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. (Heb. 11:6) And should a man be well established in these two principles, and the things which are plainly connected with them, and sincerely endeavor to know the will of God, and to put in practice what he did know; I very much question whether such a one could remain ignorant of any principle which can be proved necessary from the light of nature.
But revelation goes further, and enjoins some points to be believed as things necessary to salvation, and dissuades us from believing others upon pain of damnation. It tells us that “eternal life” is placed in the knowledge of certain truths; that he who believes them, “does please God,” “is blessed,” and “shall be saved,” etc. but he who does not believe them, shall be damned, “cannot please God,” “is yet in his sins,” and “the wrath of God abides upon him”: from which places we may conclude that these are fundamental articles, and necessary to be known of all to whom the gospel is preached, and who are endued with sufficient faculties to receive it.
3. But besides those points which are expressly, and in so many words declared to be necessary, those things likewise which flow from these principles by plain and necessary consequence, must be added to the catalogue of fundamentals or things necessary.
For plain and necessary consequences are of the same nature with their principles; they are to be ranked with them, and allowed to be of equal importance; nay, they are as it were contained in them, and properly speaking, do not differ from them. Thus, upon granting the Being of God, the chief attributes of the Deity do so plainly and necessarily result from it, that they can’t but be thought to be of equal moment with the principle itself.
But let it be observed that we speak only of plain and necessary consequences: for it would be very unreasonable to rank doubtful, or obscure, or remote consequnces with the principles themselves, and to show an equal regard to them; for at this rate, all things would be put upon the same bottom, and there would be no end of fundamental articles.
And this seems to us the true and only way, by which we may clearly and safely distinguish fundamental articles from others, viz. by the discovery of the divine will, and the declarations of God Himself, either in express words, or by plain and necessary consequence; for, as has been already observed, who shall pretend to settle the terms of salvation and damnation? Who shall pretend to make laws concerning these things, but He, and He alone who has power to save and power to destroy? And therefore they who impose upon Christians things as fundamental, which God has not revealed, or which are doubtful and obscure, as the Church of Rome does, and others who follow her steps; these, whoever they are, act tyrannically, and in an impious manner arrogantly claim that authority to themselves which belongs to God only.
But though this be the chief, if not the only mark of fundamental articles, yet that we may more easily and certainly distinguish them, we shall subjoin some other principles.
4. Fundamentals are plain, adapted to common capacities, and free from all the subtle and intricate distinctions of the schools.
The reason is evident; for since religion does equally concern all men, and is no less designed for common people than for the learned, yea, it may be more; whatever therefore does exceed the capacity of the vulgar, is upon that account not to be reckoned fundamental or necessary. Religion certainly differs from scholastic niceties as much as any thing: The Scripture was given by poor plain men, and it is given to such. Christ gives thanks, that “these things were hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes,” and St. Paul tells us that there were “not many wise” among the Corinthians; by which he diligently admonishes us to distinguish carefully the doctrines of Heaven from the wisdom of the world. So that, to use the words of Hilary, “The faith lies in great plainness of speech; for God does not all us to happiness by difficult and knotty questions, nor does He persuade us by various turns of oratory and eloquence. Eternity lies in a plain and narrow compass; to believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and to confess that He is Lord.” (On the Trinity, bk. 10, at the end)
5. Fundamentals are few in number.
This principle is founded upon the same reason as the former; for the minds of common people would be as much confounded by a multitude as by the difficulty of articles: Therefore is has pleased divine goodness to comprise them in a narrow compass; that, as St. Augustine says:
“the plainness of them might suit the simplicit of the hearers; that the shortness of them might be accommodated to their memories, and that the fulness of them might make amends for their want of learning.”
And so Casaubon, in the name of king James I of Great Britain, writes thus, “The king thinks it very right, in the explication of things simply necessary to salvation, to say that the number of them is not great.” (Casaubon, Epistle to Carinal Perron)
6. Fundamentals are very often and [in] various ways repeated and inculcated in Scripture.
This is a rule that we infer from the goodness and condescension of god: for since Scripture is given for this end only, to make us wise to salvation, it can’t be doubted but those things that chiefly tend hereunto, are frequently proposed in Scripture, and strongly urged upon us: In any other sciences, honest and skillful masters do not use to pass over slightly and hastily the first principles; but frequently repeat and inculcate them, till they find they are clearly understood, and have taken fast root in the minds of their scholars. And who can doubt but God, the supreme and infinitely wise instructor of men, does use the like caution and prudence in giving them his heavenly precepts?
7. Fundamentals are principles of piety; that is, they don’t only not contradict the practice of godliness, but on the contrary, are useful and even necessary to promote it.
And truly the end of religion is nothing else but to make us holy. This is the design of the whole gospel; herein the mysteries, the precepts, the promises, and threatenings of it do all center: upon which account the Gospel is called, “the mystery of godliness,” a “doctrine which is according to godliness;” and we are assured that nothing else will avail us but “the new creature,” or “obedience to the commandments of God.” Hence then it follows that whatsoever is of no use to promote godliness, for that very reason is not a fundamental truth; and on the other hand, that whatever destroys godliness, or is inconsistent therewith, is a fundamental error.
But let it be observed, we don’t say that whatever may conduce to godliness is therefore a fundamental; for there are many things which may be pious, or at least have the appearance of piety, that are not at all essential to Christianity; nay, and if thoroughly examined into, some of them would not be found true, of which sort are the many fables and figments of men’s brains, which the experience of all ages abundantly shows.
8. A thing may often be fundamental itself, though the mode and circumstances of it are not so.
This follows from the foregoing principles; for when a thing is only revealed to us in general, and enjoined us by God as necessary, then the thing itself only is to be accounted a fundamental without its mode and circumstances, which are not revealed with equal evidence, or the like marks of necessity. And indeed there are very few things, especially in divinity, the mode and circumstances of which we can thoroughly understand. If therefore the mode and circumstances, the causes and adjuncts of a thing, are to be accounted fundamental, it will follow that abundance of things, of which we can have no clear perceptions, and which do far exceed our capacities, are nevertheless fundamental, contrary to what has been observed in principles one and four [above].
9. Persons may err fundamentally two ways: not only by expressly denying a thing that is fundamental, but also by adding to, or building something upon the foundation that does really weaken and overturn it.
This principle we have already treated of, chapter 1, and the reason of it is evident: for ’tis not sufficient to acknowledge fundamental truths with our lips, if we actually overturn them by positions or actions contrary to them. Thus, what can it sifnify for a man to profess that God only is to be worshipped, if at the same time he does actually worship creatures, as saints and angels, images, crosses, etc. after the manner of the heathens themselves?
10. To these principles, which seem to contribute not a little towards a right distinguishing of fundamentals, let us only add one more, which may serve as a rule to manage and form our judgments, both of ourselves and others, namely:
With respect to ourselves, our safest way is to beware and guard against all, even the smallest errors, as if they were fundamental; and to make the utmost progress in the knowledge of divine truths; but with regard to others, we ought to pronounce nothing but with the utmost caution, the greatest charity and meekness.
For as prudence directs men to use the greatest care and diligence in providing for their own safety; so on the contrary, Christian charity will not suffer a man to condemn others and charge them with damnable errors till he is compelled to it by the irresistible evidence of the thing itself and of the oracles of God; and then not without unwillingness and great reluctance.
.
.
Chapter 5
Whether the exact number of fundamental articles can be determined? [No]
.
Outline
Intro
1. Because they are not the same to all men
2. Because they are sometimes fewer and general, sometimes more numerous and particular, by different conceptions
3. Because it may be often justly questioned whether any teaching ought to be fundamental, or derived from some Scripture or doctrine
4. The exact pitch of virtue or how many sorts of duties are necessarily required for salvation can’t be certainly determined
5. These things can be illustrated from other arts and sciences
How can a Christian conscience be easy
.
.
This question is a very perplexed one, yet ought not to be wholly omitted by us, viz. Whether the exact and precise number of fundamental articles can be determined.
We doubt not, but those articles may be sufficiently distinguished by everyone for his own private use and instruction; and accordingly have laid down rules in the foregoing chapter, which will help us to a knowledge of them: But to reduce them to a certain and definite number, so as to be able to say there are neither more nor less, is more than we, together with all Protestant divines, think to be either necessary or possible, for the following reasons:
1. Because these articles are not the same to all men.
Some were fundamental under the Old Testament, others are so under the New. Some are fundamental to those who have the use of their senses and reason; others to infants, children, deaf persons and those of a weak understanding. Some are fundamental to those who enjoy a perfect liberty of hearing the Word of God; others are so to multitudes in the world from whom the gospel is in a great measure hid, as thousands of peasants inhabiting the villages of Spain and Portugal. Some are fundamental to beginners, and as it were children in Christ; others to persons of a greater proficiency, such as those Jews ought to have been, whom the apostle reproves for their dulness in learning. (Heb. 5:12) So that as it would be absurd to expect that one common garment should suit all statures, or the same portion of food all appetites, or the same degrees of labor all artists, so it is impossible to fix a certain number of articles necessary to be known of all men.
2. Because these articles are sometimes fewer and more general, sometimes more numerous and particular, which depends upon the different method of conceiving and distinguishing things.
Thus in Scripture we find things necessary to salvation are sometimes reduced to a single head, sometimes to two, sometimes to more. In one place we are told that nothing is necessary to be known by us “but Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2); in another, that “eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, Jesus Christ whom He has sent.” (Jn. 17:3) Sometimes all things are referred to Christ’s resurrection alone; at other times only to his “coming in the flesh”. Sometimes “faith” alone is required; at other times “faith and repentance”: sometimes “faith that works by love,” sometimes “a new creature,” and sometimes the whole Law is said to be fulfilled in “charity” only. All which sufficiently shows that things necessary to salvation are sometimes reduced to fewer heads, and at other times divided into more; and therefore can’t be fixed to a certain number, which shall always necessarily remain the same.
3. Because it may oftentimes be justly questioned whether any particular doctrine ought to be placed among fundamentals, as a consequence drawn from an important place of Scripture, or a particular exposition of some general doctrine.
Examples might be brought from moral subjects. Thus many difficult questions have been started about usury, lying, gaming, of the measure we ought to observe in giving alms, and many other such things. And if so many difficulties arise about subjects of a practical nature, how should it be otherwise in matters that are speculative? And who, but a person of consummate assurance, would venture to determine the exact weight and importance of each of these questions, and to settle their precise bounds with respect to our salvation or damnation?
4. As it can’t certainly be determined what is the exact pitch of virtue, or just how many sorts of duties, what number of good works, pious discourses, almsdeeds, etc. are necessarily required of every man that he may be saved, so neither can such weak and imperfect creatures as we are, without the utmost arrogance, pretend to determine precisely what degrees of knowledge are absolutely requisite hereunto.
Let them tell us what are the farthest lengths allowable in these things; let them mark out the exact bounds of things necessary and unnecessary, who can comprehend the divine perfections and know the utmost limits of the justice and mercy of God. For our part, we freely own it is far above our reach to do it. And here, to use the words of the famous Witsius, “Sometimes,” says he:
“divine grace does join the elect to Christ by a very slender thread; and yet the brightest flames of love to God and the most sincere desires to please Him may be kindled in those souls that have but a very poor knowledge of articles of Faith. And who is he, that without the determinations of God, can himself exactly determine that least single point in each article, by which the divine Tribunal is indispensably obliged to proceed?” (Exercitations on the Apostles’ Creed, II, sect. 15)
5. What has been said concerning religion and the necessary articles of it may be illustrated from other arts and sciences.
Who, for instance, ever told us precisely how many truths are necessary to be known to get a man a reputation in logic or mathematics, or law? Or who has ever determined the precise quantity of food, and no more, that is necessary to support life? And yet there is no great danger of our being starved for want of this knowledge. Or who has every told us how many sorts of food, and how many sorts of poisons there are in the world? And yet without knowing it, we may take our food safely enough, and sufficiently guard against being poisoned. And why may not the same judgment be allowed concerning saving truths and poisonous errors?
.
But perhaps some will say, how can the conscience of a Christian be easy, without being satisfied in this inquiry, How many truths precisely he ought to know that he may be saved? I’ll answer in a word: Let a man but sincerely love truth, and seek it heartily, begging help from God, and making use of those who are capable of giving him light, and let him not omit or neglect any proper means that he may make continual progress in teh ways of truth and holiness, and such a one may certainly conclude that God will not be wanting to him, nor suffer him to continue ignorant of anything necessary for him to know: Or if he is ignorant of any matter, or does err and mistake in some things, God will graciously pardon him, even as a father does his children.
.
.
Chapter 6
Church communion cannot be maintained between those who differ in fundamentals.
.
Outline
Intro
Scriptures
.
.
We are now to consider how we ought to carry it, either towards those who differ from us in fundamentals [in this chapter], or towards those who differ in things not fundamental [in chapter 7].
As to the former, there is no doubt but that all just and proper means ought to be used with them, to convince them of their errors, and to bring them to a sound mind; but if these prove ineffectual, and we cannot converse with them, without apparent danger of being infected ourselves, we ought not only to abstain from the private conversation of such persons, but also from their Church communion.
There are several express commands in Scripture to this purpose, besides many weighty reasons, which might be brought to confirm it. Among other places of Scripture, these are very evident:
“Though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8-9)
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness? and what concord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has he that believes with an infidel? or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15)
These words are indeed primarily meant of unbelievers and heathen idolaters; but yet they may equally be understood of those who imitate the heathen in their idolatry and superstition.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark those which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17)
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing; from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3-5)
“An heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” (Tit. 3:10)
“If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him godspeed; for he that bids him godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 Jn. 10-11)
“And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, ‘Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.'” (Rev. 18:4)
And there are several weighty reasons which might be brought to confirm this matter: from the nature of the Church, from the regard we owe to God, from the decency and order of divine worship, from the care we ought to take of our own souls, from the obligation we are under to do all we can towards recovering the erroneous, and to give a good example to others: But these things we can but barely mention, consistent with our designed brevity.
.
.
Chapter 7
Church Communion ought to be maintained and mutual forbearance practiced among those who differ not in fundamentals
.
Outline
Intro
Rom. 14-15
1 Cor. 8 & 13
Galatians
Phil. 3-4
Eph. 4; Col. 3
5 Scriptural reasons for forbearance
Necessary reasons for forbearance:
1. Duty to cultivate communion with all Christ’s disciples
2. Fundamentals are of so great importance that all other things are not considerable enough to separate or disturb their peace
3. Without this forbearance it is impossible that any peace or unity should continue long in the Church
4. We are to break communion for every diverse opinion or for some only; and which should those be but fundamentals?
5. We believe those who differ from us in things not fundamental are odious to God or we do not. If God accepts them as children, why should we not?
6. We believe all things in religion are fully known or we believe there may be some improvements of knowledge
7. Lack of this forbearance does not remove differences, but only makes persons conceal them and tempts to hypocrisy
8. Toleration is the greatest friend to truth and the contrary its greatest enemy
9. Gentleness and forbearance is the most likely method to bring those that err to acknowledge the truth, and the contrary method to hinder
10. From lack of this forbearance arises hatred, strife, quarrels and schisms
11. Christians which are taken up in these controversies are obliged to neglect several important things
12. Lack of this forbearance makes Christian sects to forget and give up the common interest
13. These differences and animosities give great offense
14. Those against tolerating non-fundamental errors must think themselves infallible
15. If indulgence ought to be allowed to moral vices of a lesser nature, why not to errors of equal degree?
16. God examples admirable forbearance with men’s infirmities
17. Christ’s example enforces this forbearance
18. The infallible apostles exampled this forbearance
19. Early Church fathers exampled this forbearance
20. Divines of latter times agree, e.g. Wirtzius and Aretius
2 objections to this forbeance answered
.
.
The case is much otherwise with respect to those who differ only in points not fundamental. It were indeed greatly to be desired that there was no disagreement at all among Christians, and that the truths of God were equally discovered and known of all men: but since this is never to be expected, because of the variety of men’s minds, the different methods of education, and the frailty of human understanding, that which comes the nearest to it, is, That we should endeavor to secure the essence of religion, and then patiently bear with one another in all the rest; and that persons who differ in things not fundamental, should regard each other as brethren, and maintain Church communion together, and show a Christian forbearance on all sides. To this purpose there are plain texts of Scripture, and many other arguments of the greatest force.
And among other places of Scripture where such forbearance is enjoined, ch. 14 and part of 15 of the epistle to the Romans, deserve our greatest regard: where the apostle, taking occasion from the differences that arose among the primitive Christians, about the ceremonies of the Law, and the distinctions of meats and days, commands that the weak in Faith, i.e. those who had not right sentiments of these things, should nevertheless be received by the rest as brethren, and admitted as true members of the Church, not despised nor condemned, but their infirmities tolerated. (Rom. 14:1, 3-4, 10; 15:1) And that he might bring the Roman Christians to such a temper, he argues with them so affectionately, so strongly and copiously, and draws such odious consequences from the contrary practice (showing them that hereby the authority of God Himself would be invaded, that “those for whom Christ died, would be destroyed,” and that “the work of God would be destroyed, etc.”), as plainly shows how much he had this at heart, and that this forbearance of disagreeing parties ought to be ranked among the first and most important duties of the Christian religion.
And not only in that place, but in several parts of his epistles, he earnestly recommends the same duty. Thus in ch. 8, vv. 9-10 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, discoursing of things sacrificed to idols, he shows that Christians who had not right sentiments, ought not only to be patiently borne with, but that others ought to accommodate themselves to their weakness; and testifies of himself that this was his own practice:
“For though I am free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more: and unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law; that I might gain them that are under the Law; to them that are without the Law, as without Law; to the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Cor. 9:20-22)
And in the following verses he signifies that he was obliged thus to act, in order to his being partaker of the heavenly reward. Whence it follows, that let a man be ever so religious, and take ever so much pains in preaching the Gospel, yet if at the same time he wants [lacks] this gentleness and forbearance towards his brethren who differ from him, he can neither be accepted of God, nor obtain salvation at last.
And who that reads that excellent commendation of charity, with which the whole 13th chapter of that epistle is taken up, can choose but be excited to practice this duty of forbearance? Some of the chief characters there given of charity are that it “suffers long, that it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Cor. 13:4, 7) And if this description be given with respect to the vices of men, and their defects in goodness, its certainly no less applicable to errors, especially to light ones, and such as do not at all affect the foundation of religion.
It is true indeed, the apostle in his epistle to the Galatians, is very severe against some false teachers; which yet does not weaken, but really confirm the necessity of this forbearance and toleration. For those teachers were themselves against tolerating others, and would have the ceremonies of the Law imposed upon all Christians, as things necessary to salvation; by which means the Christian faith would have been greatly corrupted. And at the same time that he so sharply inveighs against these teachers, he is very large in recommending charity and forbearance, even in so freat a diversity of opinions as this was; and commands that “they who were overtaken in a fault, should be restored in the spirit of meekness;” (Gal. 5:13-15) and that “they should bear one another’s burdens.” (Gal. 6:1-2)
And at last, when he had told them that the essence of Christianity did not consist in circumcision, or uncircumcision, i.e. in observing or omitting the ceremonies of the Law, but “in the new creature,” i.e. in true and real holiness; he adds these words, wherein he most affectionately desires, as well as commands, a mutual forbearance among persons who differ in things not fundamental; “and as many as walk according to this rule,” i.e. that agree in the essentials of Christianity, and form their lives according to this rule, “Peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:15-16) If therefore the apostle does pray for peace, and promises mercy to such persons, is it not unreasonable to condemn them, to send them to the pit of Hell, or to exclude them the communion of the Church?
But there is no place where this forbearance or toleration of persons disagreeing only in things not fundamental, is more plainly enjoined than that which as been already cited out of the epistle to the Philippians, where every one may see that the apostle would have Christians “walk by the same rule in things whereto they have attained,” that is, in fundamentals; and “to mind the same thing; but if in any thing they were otherwise minded, to wait” till God should please “to reveal it to those” who were in an error, and bring them to a more perfect knowledge of the truth; yet in the mean time holding fast the bond of Christian fellowship and charity with one another. In like manner, that pathetic exhortation to love and unity, which we have in the beginning of the second chapter of the same epistle, is given for the same end. And lastly, the apostle enjoins it upon Christians, “to let their moderation be known unto all men,” (Phil. 4:5) i.e. their meekness and gentleness in bearing the infirmities and deficiencies of others.
And no doubt these exhortations “to forbear one another with all lowliness and meekness, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to speak the truth in love, to put away all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil-speaking, and to put on bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, that so they might forbear one another, and forgive one another (Eph. 4:2-3, 15, 31-32; Col. 3:12-13); no doubt I say, but these, and such like exhortations, of which all the epistles are full, were principally designed to lay the heats and contentions between the Judaizing and other Christians, with which the Churches of those times were greatly molested; the proper remedy for which, if we regard the apostles, was nothing else but mutual forbearance, which Christians ought to exercise when differing from one another.
And if we turn out thoughts to the following circumstances, we shall plainly perceive of how great weight these things are to recommend the like forbearance among Christians in these days:
1. The apostles were infallible, and if they would not attempt to compose these differences by exerting their authority, but chose to recommend forbearance on both sides, how much more should we take the like course, who have not the least pretences to infallibility?
2. The dispute was not about a trifle, but a very weighty affair, even the difference between the Law and the Gospel; a thing that did not consist in mere speculation, but had a great influence both upon practice and worship. Alas! How many trivial controversies in comparison of this do sour the minds of Christians in these days?
3. Both sides were furnished with very considerable arguments, the one a Law given by God, the other the defense of Christian liberty.
4. St. Paul himself, who so strenuously urged this forbearance, had before such a flaming zeal for the Law, that he was even mad for it.
5. Lastly, these precepts of forbearance were given after the vision from Heaven to Peter, and after the apostolic synod; so that these controversies had been sufficiently determined already, by this vision, and by the decree of the apostles. Whoever therefore shall seriously consider these circumstances, and weigh them impartially, can’t surely but conclude that these apostolical precepts of forbearance, if they had any weight in their times, ought to have much more in our times, and in the present controversies.
In short, wherever Christ and his apostles recommend charity, meekness, or the love of peace; and on the contrary dissuade us from contentions, quarrels and schisms, etc. in all those places, it is most certain this forbearance is enjoined us. But that the necessity of it may more clearly appear, we shall add to these testimonies of Scripture, some reasons of very great weight, which we shall but just mention, and leave the fuller explication of them to the judicious and pious reader.
1. It is our duty to cultivate communion with all the disciples of Christ; for Christ will have all his disciples to be one (Jn. 17:11, 21-23), and the Church is represented as “one Body,” in several places of Scripture: Therefore communion ought to be maintained with all those whom we don’t know to be unworthy the name of Christians: And certainly they can’t be accounted unworthy of it, who hold all the fundamentals, and differ from us only in things which are not fundamental.
2. Those things wherein Christians do agree, who are united in fundamentals, are things of so great importance, and dignity, that all other things are not considerable enough to disturb their peace, and to separate them from one another. This argument the apostle pursues with a great deal of life and spirit, in the epistle to the Ephesians; and nothing, I think, can more effectually press this duty of forbearance, than what he there says: “I,” says the apostle:
“the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:1-3)
For, adds he:
“There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one baptism; one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Eph. 4:4-6)
If persons agree with us in such things as these, and are impressed with the weight and importance of them as they ought to be, we shall be injurious to ourselves, and reflect dishonor upon Christ, if we refuse to own and esteem them as brethren.
3. Without this forbearance, which we recommend, it is impossible that any peace or unity should continue long in the Church: For there are but two ways of obtaining peace, either by uniformity of opinion, or by exercising forbearance towards those who err in smaller matters. The former is an impracticable thing; for such is the variety of men’s minds, their education and capacities so different, and things themselves do often appear in such different views, that for all persons to have just the same sentiments in all points, is a thing utterly to be despaired of: It has never yet been seen from the first beginnings of the Church, unto the present times, nor ever will to the world’s end. We must therefore have recourse to forbearance of those who err in lesser matters, as ever we desire to see the Church enjoy peace and tranquility.
4. Either we are to break off communion for all, and every diversity of opinion; or for some only. No one will say the former; for at this rate, there would be as many Churches and sects in the world as there are private Christians. But if for some only, what other bounds or distinction can be settled than this, that those things which belong to the essence and foundation of religion should be inviolably adhered unto, but that things which do not concern the foundation should be left as matters of forebearance?
5. Either we believe that those who differ from us in things not fundamental are odious to God and shall be damned, or we do not: And certainly it would discover a very bitter spirit, and the utmost rashness to judge the former; but if we believe the latter, Why should we hate and reject them? If we believe that God does accept them as children, why should not we regard them as children, why should not we regard them as brethren? If we believe they will praise God with us in Heaven, why should we be unwilling that they should worship Him with us on earth?
6. Either we believe that all things in religion are at present fully made known, and that there is no room left for any further discoveries; or we believe that there may be some improvements of knowledge, and that its possible some amendments may be made to the common received opinions. To say the former would be exceeding rash, and a supposition not consistent with the state of human affairs; nay, such a piece of intolerable pride as has always met with indignation from men truly learned; for “now we know but in part,” and “prophesy in part,” as the apostle says [1 Cor. 13]. If therefore improvements may yet be made, we ought by all means to bear patiently with those that offer us any thing new; for otherwise we suppress all improvements, and stifle the gift of prophesy, and bring in sloth and barbarity; for who will attempt any thing of this kind, when it becomes dangerous to do it?
7. The want of this forbearance does not really remove differences of opinion, but only makes persons who differ from the received notions to conceal their sentiments, yea, and very often to speak contrary to the sense of their minds; which is such a reproach to good men, and especially to ministers of the Gospel, as can never be sufficiently lamented. But it will be said that this is their fault who do so; and undoubtedly it is: but yet they can never be thought innocent, who, by vigorous severities, lay such strong temptations before men to hypocrisy.
8. Toleration is the greatest friend to truth, and the contrary its greatest enemy; for if the strong will not bear with the weak, neither will the weak bear with the strong; for every man counts himself strong, and thus all will come to condemn, and to execute one another: by which means truth itself will be banished out of many parts of the world. On the contrary, if toleration did everywhere prevail, truth would have its full scope, and easily gain ground, by the force of its own arguments.
9. Gentleness and forbearance is the most likely method to bring those that err to an acknowledgement of the truth, and the contrary method no less likely to hinder both their instruction and amendment: For by condemning and banishing them [from] our communion, we make them to hate us, and to suspect everything whatever we offer to them; but if we deal gently with them, and cease not to own them as brethren, they will regard us as their friends, and more readily and impartially consider what we propose for their conviction.
10. From want of this forbearance arise hatred, strife, quarrels and schisms in Churches and universities, and tumults in civil society. Perhaps it may be said that schisms are more likely to arise from the toleration of different opinions; but if the thing be duly considered, it will appear that all these evils have arisen not from toleration or forbearance, which is in itself a meek and harmless thing, but from a contrary spirit, which if once laid aside, persons might at any time entertain different sentiments, and yet preserve a hearty love for one another.
11. Private Christians, but especially ministers, who are engaged and taken up in these controversies, are obliged to neglect several things, wherein their labor might be employed to much better purpose, and where it is more needed; but especially the life of religion does greatly suffer and ecay by this means.
12. Want of this forbearance does make the different sects of Christians forget to stand up for one another, and so to disregard and even give up the common interest. Therefore the Emperor Julian, that he might engage Christians in their mutual destruction, sent for the chief heads of the different sects, and set them on quarrelling together; knowing well enough, as Ammianus Marcellinus testifies, “That no savage beasts are more cruel to men, than most Christians are to others.” (bk. 22, ch. 5) And surely no one can be ignorant, how much the Protestant cause has been weakened by intestine divisions.
13. These differences and animosities give great offense: Wicked men take occasion from them to scoff at Christianity, and say that Christians have no such thing as certainty in what they believe; but are continually quarelling and tearing one another to pieces upon controversies of every kind. It is sufficiently known with what boast and insult a late skeptic attacked the various schemes concerning predestination and made use of the too great rigor with which that argument is generally treated.
14. They who are against tolerating errors, which are not fundamental, must think themselves infallible: for if they thought themselves liable to err, they would also think that they stood as much in need of forbearance as other persons; and therefore would readily allow the same privilege to others, and say with the poet, “This freedom too we mutually allow.” (Horace, Art of Poetry, verse 11)
15. If indulgence ought to be allowed to faults and crimes of a lesser nature (which none will deny), why not also to errors of equal degree? What! are moral vices and crimes of a less heinous and offensive nature, than inaccurate notions about things sublime and obscure, which sometimes only reside in the understanding without having any evil influence upon practice?
16. Besides, the necessity of this forbearance is confirmed from the example of God Himself, who does with such admirable patience and goodness, bear with the infirmities of men, and who has manifested remarkable gentleness and forbearace in all his revelations and dispensations. When he accommodated Himself to the gross notions of the Jews, and treated and argued with them after the manner of men, what was this but the most gracious condescension in bearing with their childish notions, till He had brought them to more manly thoughts? And every considerate person will find more instances than one of this nature in the Christian revelation.
17. This forbearance is also enforced by the example of Christ. How many errors did He bear with, in his apostles and disciples, until the Spirit descended like fire upon them, and purged them away; as their errors about the nature of his kingdom, about his death, ceremonies, the calling of the gentiles, etc. The apostles in amny cases had but little faith; and yet with admirable gentleness and patience He bears with their weak faith.
18. This forbearance is also recommended to us from the example of the apostles, who, though they were infallible, as we have seen before, yet exercised forbearance themselves, and enjoined the practice of it upon others.
19. And herein they were imitated by their successors, the fathers of the primitive Church, at least by the best and wisest of them, whose many differences of opinions and rites did not disturb the peace of the Churches; as particularly Socrates has shown. (Ecclesiastical History, bk. 5, ch. 22) And therefore if any arose, who too rigorously condemned their brethren and refused them communion, as Victor about the observation of Easter, and Stephen in the dispute concerning the baptism of heretics, others stood up and opposed such unchristian attempts, and never scrupled to rebuke them sharply for such things. I confess persecution gained ground, with other evils that sprung up in the Church, till at last anathemas and excommunications were thundered out for the merest trifles, without end; and what innumerable evils arose from hence, everyone knows: But Christ never gave his disciples any such instructions; and the first and best teachers of Christianity took no such methods.
Lastly, to add no more, the divines of latter times, who have justly been reputed men of learning and wisdom, do all agree with us in this matter. I shall only mention two out of abundance, the one of Zurich, the other of Bern. The former is the famous John Wirtzius, who in the middle of the last century, was professor of divinity in the University of Zurich. He says,
“The foundation of the fellowship and communion of saints upon earth is the one God and Father, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism; and consequently, a consent and agreement in fundamental articles of faith. So that where this foundation is not, or where this agreement in fundamental articles is wanting, there cannot be that fellowship and communion of saints which we make profession of in the Apostles’ Creed; but the words of St. John do then take place, ‘If any come unto you, and bring not this doctrine, etc.’ But where the unity of the foundation, and of Christian Faith does stand firm and unshaken, there is a communion and fellowship of saints, and there it ought to be, and to continue firm, and not at all be shaken, by a disagreement in this or the other point, which do not directly overturn the foundation; as also in rites and ceremonies: for as all differences do not utterly destroy the Church, but only those that overturn the foundation of Faith; in like manner all differences do not dissolve the fellowship and communion of saints, but only those that directly shake and weaken the foundation of Faith, in whole or in part.” Theological Disquisition on the Communion of the Saints, sect. 61-62, 67, 70
And presently after:
“In short, agreement in fundamentals, or doctrines necessary to salvation, is requisite to the communion of saints; also in things not fundamental, in difficult questions, nay, even in rites and ceremonies, agreement would be amiable and greatly to be desired. But in this imperfect state, and in so great a variety of particular churches, of the customs of places, and of human capacities, it is not to be expected; yet the communion of saints may continue firm, as long as their consent in fundamentals does so continue.”
Whence he concludes that the Reformed Churches may, and ought to come to a union among themselves.
The other is also a man of great note, Benedictus Aretius, a divine of Bern, who lived at the age of the Reformation. He speaking of the unity of the Church, tells us that “it consists in an agreement in the chief articles of true religion, notwithstanding diversity of gifts;” and repeats it again, that “the unity of the Church consists in an agreement in the chief articles of Faith;” and goes on thus:
“We call those the chief articles of Faith, which are necessary to salvation, and which are expressly contained in the [Apostles’] Creed. To come to an agreement in these, is what we call union; in other things, where persons can’t come to an agreement, diversity of opinions must be allowed:
Yea further, we may freely own our ignorance in these matters, as Augustine says, ‘It is no reproach to a Christian to confess his ignorance in abundance of cases;’ which makes against those who insist upon universal consent, even in the most minute questions, and unless a person will subscribe to every point, are prepared with their thunderbolts, heresies, sects, excommunications, nay prisons and death.
It were easy to produce proper instances hereof, if there was need; but we know this was never the method approved of by the true Church, only some malignant spirits have kindled such flames that they might obtain the preeminence. But let them consider what an absurd and impossible thing they require; for there never was so perfect and finished a genius in the world, to whose judgment all learned men could see reason to subscribe, and to conform their own private sentiments.
2. And the diversity of gifts seems to speak the same thing; for what if I have not that light that you have, or you that I have, or neither of us what a third has, shall we therefore go to persecute one another for our different apprehensions of things? No! Religion allows no such thing.
3. But if we examine the thing more thoroughly, this diversity of opinions sometimes has its advantages; for hereby men’s abilities are excited, the reason of things is more duly considered, Scripture is more carefully examined and compared with itself, arguments are more impartially weighed, and posterity comes to understand and believe what at first was thought to be absurd.” Part 3 of Theological Problems, chapter on the Concord of the Church
Thus excellently well does he argue.
But we are not insensible that several things may be objected against this forbearance of persons who disagree with each other, that we have been pleading for; which yet may so easily be confuted from what has been already said, that we need not stay particularly to answer them. We shall only observe two things in the general:
One is, that whatever is objected against toleration, or forebearance, is objected also against Scripture itself; and particularly; and particularly against the apostle Paul, who so earnestly maintained and recommended it to us.
The other is, that if any inconveniencies should happen to attend such a toleration, or forbearance, let it be remembered, there are more and greater by far that attend the contrary; which is not an ungrounded assertion, but abundantly confirmed by the experience of all ages; as all who are acquainted with the state of the Church in ancient or latter times, will readily own.
.
Chapter 8
An instance of a fundamental difference in our separation from the Church of Rome.
.
Outline
5 contextual points about Romanism and fundamentals
Separation from is Rome fundamental as:
1. She requires to believe articles of Faith which we believe are false and contradictory
2. She makes the supreme rule of Faith the herself, not Scripture
3. Her worship, which we count sinful, she enjoins upon pain of great temporal punishments and excommunication
4. Her government’s tyranny is so great, we can by no means submit to such an intolerable and antichristian yoke
.
.
That [which] has been hitherto said has been mostly in generals: we will now briefly propose an instance of a fundamental difference [in this chapter], and another of a difference not fundamental [in chapter 9]; both which we shall take from the neighboring and most considerable societies of Christians in the world. And hereby the use and application of the rules which we have ladid down, will be made to appear.
There is not a more flagrant instance of the former anywhere to be met with than in our separation from the Church of Rome, which before we go about to explain, there needs a few things to be cleared.
First, to form a right judgment of the Romish religion, we are not to regard the sentiments of this, or that private man, or of this or that private doctor; but we are to regard public acts, decrees of councils, which in their account have the authority of law, [and] the constant usage of their Church, which has never been condemned, but carefully enjoined and applauded.
Secondly, it must be owned, the Papists do admit all the fundamental points of the Christian religion, but yet by another way, which has been already taken notice of, do effectually strike at the foundation itself, by adding to, or building such things upon the foundation, as do loosen and in a great measure destroy it.
Thirdly, yet all the errors of the Papists are not of the same consequence; some indeed are tolerable, but others cannot by any menas be borne with.
Fourthly, we must also distinguish between different times: for some things might very well be borne with, at a time when there was less light, and errors were not so thoroughly established, and a greater liberty was allowed men to differ; which things at another time, and in other circumstances, would be perfectly intolerable after greater light had shined forth and greater advantages were given to discover the truth; and after those things, which formerly were left free and undetermined, were passed into the form of a law.
Fifthly, we must make a great difference between our judging of them, and our judging of things; and indeed the best way is to pass no judgment at all upon men, but to leave them to the judgment of god, unless we have uncontestable evidence to go by: But we are allowed to judge freely of things, of doctrines, of worship and discipline from the Word of God.
These things being premised, we shall briefly offer the following arguments to show that our dissent from the Church of Rome is fundamental, and consequently that we can have no communion with her, as matters now stand.
1. Since they require us to believe, and to profess, and that as articles of our Faith, things which we do not believe, which we know to be false, yea, which we are fully persuaded are absurd and contradictory; certainly we can’t with a safe conscience communicate with them, but must be hypocrites in a matter which of all other is the most weighty and important, and in which persons cannot dissemble without incurring the greatest guilt.
Thus they require us to believe transubstantiation, though we know it is attended with endless absurdities and contradictions. They require us to believe Purgatory, and the interst and intercession of their saints in Heaven, besides many other things, which at least are doubtful, nay, and some of them plainly false, and contrary to Scripture.
Let a man but read the Confession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, which is drawn up according to the determinations of the Council of Trent, and joined to its decrees, and he will presently see that all who differe from it are condemned, anathematized and consequently that they cannot live in that communion without the most detestable hypocrisy.
But it may be said, all persons are not obliged to believe these things; it is sufficient only to submit to the Church. But besides many reasons against submitting to the Church, which we shall see hereafter, all they that do so submit, are by that very act bound to submit to all the decrees of their councils, and consequently to those doctrines of which we have been speaking.
It will be replied that the Council of Trent has not been received in all places, namely in France.
But first, in those very places where the decrees of the Council concerning discipline are not admitted, as in France, yet their decrees concerning matters of Faith are, which are the things we are now speaking of.
Secondly, most of those things which were determined in the Council of Trent had been determined before in the some preceding councils, as the worship of images in the Second Council of Nicea, and transubstantiation in the Council of Lateran in the year 1215.
2. Another insuperable reason why we cannot hold communion with them, is the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the supreme rule, or the supreme judge of controversies of Faith.
If any thing is important or fundamental in religion, this is undoubtedly so, viz. What is the rule of Faith: Who is the supreme judge in religious matters: Where is the supreme authority lodged, which ought to determine and regulate all our belief. There, if anywhere, we may apply the words of Lucretius:
“In building, if the line
be not exact and straight, the rule decline,
or level false, how vain is the design?
For if anything is admitted as a rule of Faith, which is fallacious, and liable to mistake, a door is hereby opened for all errors, and the greatest absurdities; but such is the rule, such the judge, and such the principle which the Church of Rome holds, when she makes the Church, meaning herself, the infallible rule of Faith and the supreme judge of controversies, to whom all are bound to submit.
Now, lest they should say we reject this principle without giving any reason, we shall briefly offer two or three things only which seem to be unexceptionable. And:
(1) If any proof is valid that a person is not infallible, this undoubtedly is so; if it be certain that he has actually erred, and that in a very gross and palpable manner, and very often too; but especially if he has decreed those things which are absurd, impossible and imply many plain contradictions: But the Church of Rome did so decree in the case of transubstantiation; and consequently this instance alone is sufficient utterly to overthrow that principle.
(2) There is no need of taking any great pains to overthrow the Popish rule of Faith; we may sit still, and at a distance behold them opposing one another: For if the church is infallible, this infallibility must reside either in the Pope, or in councils, or in Pope and councils both together. But the Gallican Church has abundantly shown that the Pope is not infallible and the Itallians on the other hand have as plainly shown that councils are not. And each side frequently reject the decrees of Pope and councils together; so that we may hold our peace, and be quiet, and they themselves will destroy one another, and sufficiently demonstrate the defect of their own rule.
And that these intestine divisions amongst them are not a light and trivial matter, is abundantly evident from innumerable other quarrels which have been carried on with great warmth in former times; but especially from the present dispute about the constitution Unigenitus: For great part of the Gallican Church does charge the Pope in their public writings with greivous errors in matters of Faith, and moral principles, and in matters of discipline too. On the other hand, the Pope takes frequent occasion to anathematize those that oppose him: Some bishops take part with the Pope, others are against him, and it is not yet known what will be the issue of so wam a contention. Now, what madness and folly would it be for us to involve ourselves in controversies of so great importance about the most important question of all other, viz. the rule of Faith; wherein, to speak the truth, both sides seem to conquer in attacking their adversary’s cause, and both to be conquered, when they come to state and defend their own?
(3) We have yet greater reason to reject their rule when we consider that it destroys all certainty of Faith; and necessarily introduces skepticism: for that we may be certain of the authority of the Church, it must be discovered to us, either by the light of nature, or by Scripture, or by the determinations of the Church herself.
But it can’t be known by the light of nature; for there is no such principle in nature that there is an infallible Church: nor from Scripture, as may be inferred from their own confession; for they say that the authority and sense of Scripture itself does depend upon the Church and cannot be known but by her assistance; and those texts that are brought to prove this matter are very foreign to the purpose.
Nor lastly can it be known from the Church herself: For to say that we are to believe the Church because the Church has so determined, is ridiculously to take for granted what ought to be proved.
Nor is it sufficient to know that there is a Church, yea an infallible one; but we ought to know which and where that is, and by whom she makes known her mind. Concerning which things, we have already shown how greatly they differ and contradict one another.
And if we were certain thus far, we ought to know further, in what things the Church cannot err; whether in matters of fact, as well as in matters of right; and in matters of discipline, as well as of doctine.
Moreover, we ought to know all that is necessary to make the determinations of the Church valid, that they may have the force of a law: If they are Popes’ bulls, when they are to be esteemed authoritative, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra [“from the chair”]: If they are the decrees of councils, we ought to be informed when they are lawfully assembled, who are the true members that ought to be present, what is the due form of proceeding, and when they are truly General Councils, etc. which things make the Popish rule of Faith the most uncertain thing in the world: And hence everyone may see what reason we have to reject it.
3. But one of the principle reasons which make us call our difference with the Papists a fundamental one, is taken from the business of worship, which is not only very different from, but such as can never be reconciled and brought to the same form with ours.
For that worship which is used in the Church of Rome, and which she enjoins upon pain of excommunication, and for the neglect of which she inflicts the greatest temporal punishments, the same we count sinful, unlawful, contrary to the Word of God, and full of superstition and idolatry; as the adoration of the host, images, relics and angels and all such like fooleries.
We don’t now enter into the debate whether we herein mistake or not: this however is certain, that as long as we are of this mind, we can’t possibly join with a Church that ordains such worship: for as the apostle says in a like case, “What communion has light with darkness? or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:14-16) From whence he immediately draws this inference in the words of the prophet, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch no unclean thing, says the Lord.”
The force of which reasoning will be increased by the following observations, which we shall only mention:
First, this difference is not speculative, but altogether practcal; for the whole affair of divine worship turns upon it, and therefore nothing can be of greater weight and importance than this matter.
Secondly, the design of Christianity, nay the very essence and foundation of it, is to reclaim mankind from the worship of creatures, and things which by nature are not God, to the worship of the only true God. Whence it appears to be most intolerable presumption in those who, contrary hereunto, attempt to call us off from the true God to the worship of creatures and dumb idols.
Thirdly, however this worship may be palliated and speciously defended, yet it is so evident in fact, and the practice of it so publicly allowed of, that it cannot be called into question.
Fourthly, this argument is as plain as can be; nothing can be more evident and obvious to the capacity of everyone; there is no need of acuteness and sagacity to discern it. The rule of God’s Word is very plain on the one hand, and the contrary practice is as obvious on the other.
4. As their errors in doctrine are exceeding gross, and their superstitions in worship not to be borne with, so the tyranny of their government is so great, that we can by no means submit to such an intolerable and antichristian yoke.
For here we see the Papal monarchy obtained by mere usurpation, laws enacted in perfect opposition to the laws of Christ, dispensations from the divine law readily granted, as in the case of marriages, and absolutions from oaths indulged to kings and princes with the utmost perfidiousness, and to the subversion of all society, such a heap of laws about ceremonies as does effectually bring us back again to Judaism and heathenism, Christian liberty entirely abolished, anathemas denounced against those who differ from them even in the most trifling things, as in the number of the sacraments. Lastly, fines and imprisonments, gibbets, stakes, the Inquisition, with the like wholesome severities: All which give us such an abbhorrence of the Popish communion that as long as the authority of the Pope continues, we can never think of submitting to his discipline, or of leaving our lives and the comfort of them, our Faith and conscience, at his mercy.
In a word, let them shake off the Popish yoke, which the Papists themselves begin to be sufficiently sensible is intolerable: Let no violence be ever offered to conscience; let all men judge of religion from the Word of God only; let every thing that savors of idolatry be banished from their worship, and then we shall not be backward, but readily concert measures towards a reconciliation and union with them.
.
Chapter 9
An instance of a difference not fundamental in the disagreement between Protestants, viz. the Lutherans, and those that are called the Reformed. That their differences are not so great but that they easily may and ought to agree with and tolerate each other.
.
Outline
3 qualifications of Protestant forbearance
Agreements between the Reformed and Lutherans
Smaller differences
Principal controversies
1. Supper
2. Communication of Christ’s properties
3. Predestination
14 considerations for forbearance in these
Union obliges necessarily by conscience and prudence
Reply to objection that union is impossible
.
.
We have seen an instance of a fundamental difference; but the difference of those who have agreed in shaking off the Papal yoke is quite of another nature; some of whom, for distinction sake are called Lutherans, and others Reformed. And whosever calmly and impartially considers the differences amongst them, will easily perceive that they are by no means such as should hinder mutual forbearance and Christian harmony, which has been always greatly wanted, but is more especially necessary to both sides in the present juncture.
And that we may make our way the more easy, we shall premise three things:
First, we don’t mean that persons should be required to change their opinions which as it would be unjust to insist upon, so it would be impossible to accomplish; but only that those who entertain different sentiments should bear with one another, which to persons of piety and moderation ought not to be reckoned any great difficulty.
Secondly, we are not in the matter to regard the too rigid determinations, or the imprudent writings and expressions, or the odd opinions of particular persons, but only public records, or confessions by princes or Churches, which whatever authority they may have, yet in the opinion of Protestants are not infallible, but are to be judged of by the rule of Scripture.
Thirdly, the opinions of each side are never to be confounded with the consequences of them, whether they be truly or falsely deduced; and consequences ought never to be charged upon any who do not own them, but it may be [they] abhor them, unless the case be so plain and palpable and so universally acknowledged that no one who owns the principle can possibly deny the consequence.
These things being premised, let us see in short how far Protestants agree with one another, and in comparison hereof, how small their disagreement is; whence it will appear how easy, yea how reasonably and necessary it is for them to come to that forbearance and unity of which we speak.
How considerable and important their agreement is may be understood by comparing together their confessions of faith; yea, it is very evident by considering the Augsburg Confession alone, which both sides [the Lutherans and the Reformed] receive and acknowledge.
Both sides agree that the Word of God contained in the Scriptures is the only rule of Faith, by which rule all human traditions and sanctions are to be judged of; that the only God is the object of all religious worship worship, and that the least show of devotion is not to be paid to angels, or saints, to crosses, or relics, or to any images of wood, or stone, or the like. Both sides place all their hope of pardon and salvation in Christ alone; in his merits and promises. Both agree that the benefits purchased by Christ, and consequently eternal salvation, are not to be obtained but by faith and repentance, and that not by a dead faith, but such as works by love, and by repentance, that is sincere, and demonstrated by a life of good works. Both solemnize the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, according to the command of Christ, without those many inventions of men, by which these holy mysteries have been greatly abused and corrupted; and so conform themselves to the wholesome institution of Christ by which his love is raitifed to us. Both acknowledge that prayers and praises, thanksgivings and almsdeeds, that our bodies, and even our whole selves, are the true offerings and sacrifices which we are to present unto God, and renounce that unbloody sacrifice which others have added, as impious and absurd. Both believe that there are but two ends of all men, eternal glory and eternal misery; and reject that middle state of Purgatory, which some, contrary to the Word of God, have devised merely to support their avarice and supersition.
And in short, all the principles of the Christian Faith, without exception, are received in common on both sides, together with an abhorrence of the errors and superstitions of Popery. Nor indeed can it be imagined how persons who seriously consider these things and are suitably affected with the importance of them, can be satisfied to break the bond of fellowship, and refrain from worshipping God together, upon account of some few and trivial differences about things that are obscure.
Such is their agreement; in comparison of which, as is now evident, and may easily be proved, their disagreement is small and inconsiderable. We shall not stay here to take notice of some small differences in ritual matters, as about the use of tapers, images, confession, and exorcism in baptism, etc. which are not the same everywhere, and ought to be no obstacle to a hearty union; for every Church may enjoy its own particular usages, and the observation of these things be left at liberty, and not be obliged to a constant invariable form herein, as is acknowledged in the confessions of both sides: nor shall we touch upon some less differences in matters of opinion, which are either disputes about words only, or peculiar tenets of private divines rather than of whole Churches; or it may be only consequences drawn from some principles, which are by no means to be charged on the Churches themselves.
All these things we shall pass over for the present, briefly give our judgment, and that with freedom and a desire to promote peace, concerning three principal controversies only, which seem to be all that are of any moment and which alone use to be regarded in this matter:
The first question therefore is, whether the body of Christ be truly and substantially present in the eucharist?
Though this at first sight may seem to be a controversy of very great moement, yet if we look more narrowly into it, and consider what is granted on both sides, we shall have different apprehensions of it: For both sides grant that the bread and wine are truly present, and continue all the time of the celebration; and therefore are not converted or transubstantiated into the body of Christ. On the other hand, both sides agree that Christ is truly present, yea that his body and blood are truly exhibited, and are so far present as the nature of a sacrament requires. They both agree that the body and blood of Christ are not present in a gross and sensible manner, so as to be included in that place; that they are not present after the manner of bodies, but after the manner of spirits, or in a spiritual manner; yea are no more nor less present than as the nature and end of a sacrament require, and therefore only in a sacramental manner, which is an expression admitted and used on both sides.
Further, both sides equally condemn the abuses and superstitions of the Church of Rome, as transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, withholding the cup from the laity, the procession, elevation and adoration of the host. Finally, both sides are fully satisfied that bodily eating, such as is performed by good and bad men alike, does not avail us to salvation, but only that which is performed by faith. To which purpose one might bring a plain testimony from Luther (in his Shorter Catechism), and a no less remarkable one from Brentius (in his Syngrammate of the Suevs and in his exegesis of John), which for brevity’s sake we omit.
What difference does not remain? not any concerning the presence itself: for both sides confess, if we would speak accurately, that the body of Christ is only so far present at the nature and end of the sacrament require: all the difference therefore is concerning the manner of his presence, one side contenting themselves with believing such a sort of presence as is plain and easy to be conceived, and agreeable to the style of Scripture; the other imagining that Christ is present in some wonderful and incomprehensible manner, which to the former seems to be of no manner of use, and attended with unsurmountable difficulties, and therefore they cannot admit of it.
This is the whole subject of difference; and what there is in this that affects the foundation of faith in the least, we cannot see, or what should hinder such persons from bearing with one another, till God grant greater light to those who are under a mistake in the matter.
Neither is there any greater weight in that other question which arises out of the former, concerning the Person of Christ: Whether the divine perfections, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, and the like, are communicated to his human nature.
For each side owns all that is important in this matter, viz. the two natures of Christ, and the union of both, to be without any change, or division, or mixture of either; that the properties of both natures are ascribed to Christ; and finally, that this mystery of godliness, concerning “God manifest in the flesh,” is a thing very sublime, far above the comprehension of men.
Other things which remain doubtful, are so obscure in themselves, and come to little more than a debate about words, that it must be a very hard case, as that excellent man and divine, [the Lutheran] John Lewis Fabricius has observed, and proceed from great want of charity, if persons, who don’t exactly agree in such things, can’t regard each other as brethren notwithstanding.
There remains a third controversy, concerning predestination:
A matter that was never brought into dispute in Luther’s time, nor many years after, but seems to have broke out first in the quarrel between Zanchi and Marbachius, about the year 1561. However, Zanchi did not deny a general will in God to save all men if they believed, as may be seen in his writings (Depuls. Calumn.); neither did he teach anything more rigid, about election and reprobation, than Luther himself has done (in the Book on the Enslaved Will and in others in places). This controversy afterwards increased, and is now reckoned by most persons to be the chief of all.
But though some branches of it may be greatly magnified, as those questions which are concerning universal and particular grace, whether election depends upon foreseen faith, whether the grace of God be resistible or irresistible, and whether believers may fall from grace or not; yet those who diligently consider the matter, will see that upon the whole there is a great agreement between them; and that such as are herein mistaken (though we do not now enquire who they are) may nevertheless be very good Christians.
For both sides agree:
First, that God is the Author of every good thing; but that all evil comes from ourselves.
Secondly, that man is a free agent, worthy of honor or reproach, and inexcusable whenever he sins against God.
Thirdly, that every man who believes and repents, is readily accepted of God; and that it is very pleasing to Him for anyone thus to believe and repent.
Fourthly, that all who perish, do so through their own fault; that God is not at all wanting to them, or anyway accessary hereunto; and therefore, that their destruction is no way to be charged upon Him.
Fifthly, that nothing comes to pass in time, but what was determined or permitted to be in the eternal decrees of God.
Sixthly, that God did by one most simple act thus decree all things.
Seventhly, that God will render to every man according to his works, and proceed in the Judgment of all with the greatest equity, wisdom and clemency.
And lastly, that in all these questions concerning the ways and counsels of God, there are many things which are far above our comprehension, many things, the reasons and manner of which we cannot account for. And here both sides are ready to cry out in the words of the apostle, “O the depths, etc.” and acknowledge that they are very well adapted to this controversy.
To all which, if we add the following things:
First, that Luther has spoken as harshly of these things, if not more so, than any of the Reformed.
Secondly, that Melanchthon, who had far more moderate sentiments in these things, and whom the Lutherans do now follow, did nevertheless maintain great friendship with both Luther and Calvin as long as they lived.
Thirdly, that many of the Reformed divines, as Bullinger, that great man and superintendant of Zurich, did plainly approach to Melanchthon’s judgment (for which reason we has said to Melanchthonize).
Fourhtly, that a great part of the Reformed at present, namely, almost all the English bishops, the divines of Brandenburg, and many others, do either agree with the Lutherans in these points, or come very near them.
Fifthly, that those of the Reformed that are most rigid in their notions of predestination, abhor every impious consequence that mayb ededuced from thence, and follow after holiness themselves, and urge it upon others as much as any.
If all these things were considered and duly weighed by a pious and peaceable mind, it would appear that arguous and sublime questions about predestination ought by no means to separate men in affection from one another, and to hinder love and concord; but every man should enjoy his own opinions without raising jealousies, and molesting others, upon such matters: much less would one expect that the communion of the Church, and the common rights of Christians should be suspended upon so perplexed and obscure a point.
What has been said concerning the small importance of such controversies, and the reasonableness of exercising forbearance in these things, will receive further confirmation by observing what follows, which we shall but mention and leave to the pious and peaceable Christian to consider and enlarge upon:
First, that all these questions reside in the understanding only, and have little or no influence upon our worship and practice: for which reason we easily may, and certainly ought to bear with one another’s different sentiments.
Secondly, that they are things above common capacities, and indeed little more than scholastic questions.
Thirdly, there are many Christians on both sides, who, it may be, have never heard of these disputes, or understand very little of them, or are mistaken about them, or who are doubtful, and never could assent either way; and whether these are to be debarred the hope of salvation, or to be excluded from the communion of the Church, we desire our Lutheran brethren calmly to consider.
Fourthly, the dispute is not so much about things themselves, as the mode and circumstances of them; as has been already observed.
Fifthly, these questions do not so much concern good men as bad, i.e. the admission of persons unworthy [to the Supper, whether they eat of Christ’s flesh or not], and God’s decrees concerning the reprobate. Why should not we therefore pass by them, and make it our business to be found in the number of the faithful?
Sixthly, both sides design well; therefore if they do not merit praise, they ought however to be excused.
Seventhly, too much of human frailty has been very visible in these disputes already, preposterous zeal, intemperate anger, and too plain instances of ambition and vain-glory. These passions have too much prevailed, and it is high time now to allay and suppress them.
Eightly, there are exceeding great and almost insuperable difficulties on both sides, especially about the doctrine of predestination.
Ninthly, the controversy about predestination has been debated in all ages, in all places, and by persons of all persuasions.
Tenthly, there have been great and considerable men on both sides: men that we cannot easily condemn, and should be loth to reject from our communion, such as St. Chrysostom and the fathers of the first ages on one side, and St. Augustine, with a vast number of followers on the other. Should these men be raised, and live again in our day, how readily should we embrace them? at least we could not think of casting them out of the Church and debarring them the offices of it.
Eleventhly, we may learn wisdom in this matter from our very adversaries, the Papists, who, though they are generally very rigid, and the greatest enemies to toleration, yet in this very affair, and in things of greater moment too, bear with one another’s different sentiments, and retain both parties in their communion.
Twelfthly, the questions which are now the matter of debate, were quite left out of the Augsburg Confession, as was acknowledged by divines of both sides in the conference at Leipzig.
Thirteenthly, there are many other differences of opinion, not only of equal importance, but far greater, which yet are patiently borne with on both sides; and why should not the like moderation be used in these?
Lastly, to add no more, I would only ask one thing: Can it be anywhere shown that God, “the only Lawgiver,” and “who alone has power to save and to destroy,” has ever determined that those doctrines, which are controverted among Protestants, are necessary to be known, in one or other determinate sense, in order to salvation? or that the opposite errors do exclude men from salvation? To say that He has, would show great rashness, and betray a mind blinded with party-zeal. But if the great Judge of the world has determined no such thing, what arrogance is it for such as we to desire to be thought more righteous and more rigid than God Himself?
Hitherto, therefore, it has been plainly shown that there is so great an agreement among Protestants, and that their disagreement is so inconsiderable, that they may very well exercise mutual forbearance, and enter into a hearty union with one another. But we shall go a step further, and venture to assert that this is not a matter left to our liberty, but of the utmost necessity and most strict obligation, whether we regard conscience or prudence.
And first, with regard to conscience: For if this disagreement does not hinder, but persons who do so differ may be good Christians and true members of the Church, communion must necessarily be held with them; which if we deny, we are guilty of violating the great law of charity, and of rending asunder the Body of Christ: For Christ has declared that all his disciples should be one; and St. Paul directs that the “unity of the Spirit be kept in the bond of peace;” as we have endeavored to show [in] chapter 7 by a great number and force of arguments. But no one has pressed this matter more strongly, as far as it concerns the controversies that are among Protestants, than the most pious and great lover of peace, Samuel Werenfels, to whose excellent treatise (General Considerations on the Rule to Unite the Protestant Churches) we refer the Reader.
But such a union is no less necessary from the laws of prudence than from the obligations of duty and conscience: For who can be ignorant how many evils have sprung up from the violation of it? What hatred, strife and wars; what a pernicious custom of endless debates and slander; what lots of time; what a visible decay of piety and charity; what a hindrenace to Reformation; and what triumphs of the Papists and other adversaries; when all the good effects, contrary to these evils, might be procured by the agreement we have been recommending?
However, lest anyone should pretend that what we have been proposing is indeed an excellent and laudable design, and greatly to be desired, but no more likely ever to be accomplished than squaring the circle, or finding the Philosopher’s Stone: This difficulty, though it be not altogether imaginary, yet we shall remove it in a few words, viz. For what hinders but that which has formerly and elsewhere been often accomplished, if not in all Churches, nor perhaps upon a lasting foundation, yet in many places, and at diverse times, may be effected again; nay, and become universal?
There are several known instances of such a union which are before everyone’s eyes, viz. at Marburg, 1529, at Wittenburg, 1536, at Sendomir, and other places of Poland and Bohemia, 1570, and the following years at Leipzig, 1631, at Charenton the same year; at Cassel, 1661, and at Koningsberg in Prussia not long since. To these we may add many acts of the diets in Germany, from the beginning of the Reformation, even to the present times, in which the Reformed have been acknowledged as brethren of the Augsburg Confession, and are still so accounted. To all which may be added innumerable writings of princes and states, Churches and universities, as likewise pious and moderate men on both sides, who have endeavored to persuade to such a union, to promote and recommend it, and laid down proper methods to effect it.
And the famous and learned Christopher Matthew Pfafius, a divine of Turbingen, has very lately professed himself to be of the number of such pious persons, and lovers of peace, with great honor, and the applause of all good men (for as to any small difference that remains, it is not worthy to be regarded), who declares:
“That the coalition of Protestants has hitherto been prevented, not through any defect in the thing itself, but through the faults of men.” (Dissertation on Fundamental Articles)
And elsewhere he judiciously examines into the importance of those controversies that are among Protestants, and shows they are not fundamental. (Institutes of Theology, Dogmatic & Moral [1719])
.
.
Chapter 10
Some advices are offered to promote this agreement and forbearance.
.
Outline
Advices towards forebearance:
1. Preserve in mind a true and just sense of Christianity continually, i.e. real virtue
2. Importance of all doctrines ought to be carefully examined by God’s
Word and prudence
3. Our consent ought to be withheld in obscure and doubtful matters
4. Do not forget that Scripture is the only rule of our Faith
5. Remember we are very liable to err; be ready to receive further light
6. Disputed questions of Protestants surmounting common people’s capacities and not contributing to piety ought not to be referred to common people
7. Questions disputed in schools ought to be shown not to be fundamental and gone about with modesty and humility
8. In intricate questions Scripture’s very words ought to be used as much as possible and not scholastic notions and terms
9. Moderation should be uniform towards all men in all places
10. Endeavor further measures of piety, and the same in others, rather than unprofitable questions
11. Keep before our eyes “to love one another,” especially towards dissenting brethren
12. We should join in the Lord’s Supper
13. Those of all callings ought to instill meekness in others unto pleasant and peaceable fruit in righteouness]
.
.
That [which] remains is only to add some short advices which may be of use towards effecting this agreement and forbearance; which we shall submit to the examination of all pious readers and lovers of peace.
1. It is necessary for all to preserve a true and just sense of Christianity continually in mind; not such as is made up of some obscure notions or scholastic niceties, but which consists in the new creature, i.e. in true piety and real virtue.
2. The importance of all doctrines and controversies ought to be carefully examined by the Word of God, and by the laws of prudence; that a mountain may not be made of a more-hill, nor hay and stubble be made the foundation of Christianity.
3. When matters are really obscure and doubtful, our assent ought to be withheld; we should not be wise above what is written, but use caution and sobriety, according to the measure of light which God has granted us.
4. It is to be desired that we may never suffer that first and truly fundamental principle of the Reformation, that the Holy Scripture is the only rule of our Faith, to be forgotten; and consequently that we may never subject our Faith to any assemblies of men, or to any human decisions, whatever authority or learning they be possessed of; but that we may try all things, whatever they may be, by the rule of God’s Word.
5. We ought always to bear in mind that we ourselves are very liable to err; and so we shall not be too tenacious of the opinions we have formerly entertained, but be always ready to receive further light, and hearken to the admonitions of others.
6. All those questions that are disputed among Protestants, which surmount the capacities of common people, and contribute nothing towards promoting piety, or holiness, ought never to be referred to them [the common people].
7. And when such questions are disputed in schools, it ought to be with the utmost modesty and humility; and at the same time it ought to be shown that these things do not belong to the foundation of Faith.
8. In such questions, and all that are equally intricate, the very words of Scripture ought to be used, as much as possible, and the notions and terms of the schoolmen ought with equal care to be avoided; by which method we shall proceed with greater safety to ourselves, we shall stop the mouths of gainsayers, and make the way to the union of the Church more plain and easy to all.
9. Our moderation should be uniform towards all men and in all places alike; that it may not be objected to us that we are disposed to peaceable measures without fellow Christians aborad, but rigid and morose towards those with whom we live.
10. Let us continually endeavor to obtain further measures of piety and holiness, and to grow confirmed therein; and also to instill the same into others, which is the crown of all; by which means we shall find no time for vain and unprofitable questions, “which minister nothing to edification.”
11. We ought to have that fundamental precept of Christ our Lord always before our eyes, whereby he has so strictly enjoined all his disciples “to love one another,” and to put it into practice towards our dissenting brethren. For we must not imagine that these little diversities of opinion among us are a sufficient excuse for the breach of charity.
12. Our charity must not be shown by speaking and acting in a private manner only; but when occasion offers, and our brethren consent, we should readily join with them at the holy communion. For why should not this solemn commemoration of our Lord’s death, and this peculiar expression of Christian charity, be left in common to all, who agree with us in the principal parts of Christianity, though they differ in some minute and circumstantial articles.
Lastly, as it is incumbent upon us to behave ourselves in such a manner, so we ought in our several stations, and according to the influence we have, both by our words and actions, to instil the same spirit of meekness into others. Let princes, magistrates and ministers do each their part, and then we may hope that these seeds of moderation and forbearance, being watered by the dew of Heaven, will happily spring up and bring forth the most pleasant fruit, to the glory of God, the edification and union of the Church, and our own eternal salvation, according to that of the apostle, “The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.” (Jm. 3:18) Amen, Amen.
.
Testimonies of Scripture [KJV]
by which what has been said concerning fundamental articles, and exercising forbearance towards our brethren who differ from us is further confirmed and illustrated.
.
Moses
Dt. 29:29 “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
.
Christ
Mt. 7:1 “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
Lk. 12:48 “But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
Jn. 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Mt. 27:19-20 “When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.”
.
Peter
Acts 2:37-38 “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
.
Philip
Acts 8:36 “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?'”
.
Paul
Rom. 2:12 “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;”
Rom. 10:6 & 9 “But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)… That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Rom. 10:14 “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
Rom. 14:1 “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”
Rom. 14:4 “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.”
Rom. 14:13 “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
Rom. 14:17 “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
1 Cor. 1:12-13 “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Cor. 2:11-13 “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
1 Cor. 8:1-3 “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.”
1 Cor. 8:8-9 “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.”
1 Cor. 8:12 “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”
1 Cor. 13:1-2 “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
1 Cor. 13:4-6 “Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;”
1 Cor. 13:9-10 & 12-13 “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away… For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
Gal. 6:15-16 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
Eph. 4:1-6 “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Eph. 4:15 “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:”
Phil. 3:15-16 “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.”
2 Tim. 2:22-25 “Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;”
Heb. 5:12 & 14 “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat…. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Heb. 6:1-2 “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”
.
James
Jm. 3:13 “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.”
Jm. 4:12 “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”
.
John
1 Jn. 3:23 “And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”
1 Jn. 4:7-8 “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.”
1 Jn. 4:12-13 “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.”
1 Jn. 4:15-16 “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
.
Testimonies from Church History
[This Latin section (with some French) was not included or translated in the 1700’s edition.
Common English translations have been used where available;
the rest has been translated by ChatGPT-5.]
.
Order of
Polycarp & Anicetus
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Cyprian
Firmillian
Constantine
Eusebius
Athanasius
Nazianzen
Hilary
Augustine
Leo III
Lyons
.
Erasmus
Luther
Melanchthon
Oecolampadius
Calvin
Bucer
Vermigli
King James I
Junius
Pareus
Calixtus
Matthew
Du Moulin
Mestrezat
Claude
Heidegger
Spanheim
Witsius
La Placette
Pufendorf
Strimesius
Werenfels
Cyprianus
Buddeus
Pfaff
.
Lutherans for Concord with the Reformed 10
Luther
Melanchthon
Suevs
Brentius
German Princes
Calixtus
Matthaus
Pufendorf
Seckendorf
Pfaffius
Reformed for Concord with the Lutherans 34
Zwingli
Oecolampadius
Bucer
Calvin
Confession of the 4 Cities
Helvetic Confession
French Confession
Anglican Church
Orthodox Consensus (Zwingli & Calvin)
Pastors & Professors of Zurich
Pastors of Bern to Geneva
Pastors & Professors of Basil to Geneva
Bullinger
Beza, Farel, French & Swiss Churches
King A. Borbonius of Navarre
King Henry IV of France
Du Moulin
Davenant
Joseph Hall
Swiss Magistrate & Dury
Swiss Churches & Academy
Church & Academy of Geneva
Stuckius
Wirtzius
Hottingerus
Heidegger
F. Turretin
Pictet
Pastors & Professors of Geneva
King Frederick I of Prussia
Burnet
Jablonski
Wake
Pastors & Professors of Geneva
.
Synods, Colloquies & Councils for Lutheran & Reformed Concord 8
Colloquium of Marburg
Concord of Wittenburg
Consensus of Sandomirez
Colloquium of Leipzig
Synod of Charenton
Decree of the Evangelicals of Frankfurt
Colloquium of Cassell
Concord of Regiomontana
.
Early & Medieval Church
Polycarp of Smyrna & the Roman Bishop Anicetus Latin
in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 5, ch. 24, “The Disagreement in Asia”
16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.
18. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.
.
Irenaeus, Polycrates, Victor, Asiatic Churches Latin
in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 5, ch. 24, “The Disagreement in Asia”
9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:
12. For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.
13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.
14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:
Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which you now rule. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.
.
Irenaeus Latin
Against Heresies, bk. 1, ch. 10
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ”every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.
For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little, diminish it.
3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things:
which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason “God has concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all;” and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that “this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption;” and proclaim in what sense [God] says, “That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved; and in what sense He says that “more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband.”
For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: “Oh! the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!”… the catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.
.
Tertullian Latin
Of the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 1
The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immoveable and irreformable; the rule, to wit, of believing in:
One only God omnipotent, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised again the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at the right (hand) of the Father, destined to come to judge quick and dead through the resurrection of the flesh as well (as of the spirit).
This law of faith being constant, the other succeeding points of discipline and conversation admit the “novelty” of correction; the grace of God, to wit, operating and advancing even to the end.
.
On the Prescription of Heretics
Now, with regard to this rule of faith — that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend — it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that”
There is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified. He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh.
This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.
.
So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may seek and discuss as much as you please, and give full rein to your curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang in doubt, or to be shrouded in obscurity. You have at hand, no doubt, some learned brother gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class, some one of your close acquaintance who is curious like yourself; although with yourself, a seeker, he will, after all, be quite aware that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know. “Thy faith,” He says, “has saved you,” not, observe, your skill in the Scriptures.
Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation. Skill, however, consists in curious art, having for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack. Let such curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let them either relinquish their noisiness, or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things.
.
Cyprian Latin
Epistle 73, to Jubaianus
We have written you this brief reply according to our humble ability, dearest brother, prescribing to no one, and passing no judgment that would hinder any bishop from doing what he thinks proper, since each possesses the free authority of his own decision. For our part, so far as lies in us, we do not contend with our colleagues and fellow-bishops on account of the heretics, with whom we maintain divine concord and the peace of the Lord; especially since the Apostle also says: ‘But if anyone appears to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.’ We preserve with patient and steadfast mind the love owed among us, the honor of our college, the bond of faith, and the concord of the priesthood.
.
Prologue of the Council of Carthage, On the Baptism of Heretics
It remains that each of us should state what he thinks concerning this very matter—judging no one, and removing no one from the right of communion if he should think differently. For none of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to any necessity of obedience; since every bishop, by the liberty and authority of his own power, has his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both to appoint us to the government of His Church and to judge concerning our conduct.
.
Firmilian of Caesarea to Cyprian Latin
Among his epistles
But that those who are at Rome do not in all things observe what has been handed down from the beginning, and that they vainly claim the authority of the apostles, anyone may know from this alone: that with regard to the celebration of the Paschal days, and concerning many other sacraments of the divine worship, one may observe among them certain variations, and that not everything is observed there in the same manner as in Jerusalem. And similarly in very many other provinces many things vary because of the differences of places and names; nor, however, has there ever on this account been any departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This is what Stephen has now dared to do, breaking against you the peace which his predecessors always maintained with you in mutual love and honor.
* * * * *
For what quarrels and dissensions you have prepared throughout the churches of the whole world! And what a great sin you have heaped up for yourself, when you tore yourself away from so many flocks! For you have cut yourself off—do not deceive yourself. For he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all can be separated from you, you have separated only yourself from all. Nor were you willing to be instructed according to the rule of truth and peace, nor by the precepts of the Apostle, who exhorts and says: ‘I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling wherewith you have been called, with all lowliness of mind and meekness, with patience bearing with one another in love, making every effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit,’ etc. How diligently Stephen has fulfilled these salutary commands and admonitions of the Apostle—maintaining lowliness of mind and meekness in the first place! For what is more humble or more gentle than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each of them through various forms of discord—now with the Easterners (as you also well know), now with you who are in the south, and so on?
.
Constantine the Great Latin
Epistle to Alexander and the Arius, in Eusebius, On the Life of Constantine, bk. 2, ch. 69 and Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 1, ch. 7
I undestand, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, [bishop] Alexander [who was orthodox], demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the divine law [writings], or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on what ought never to have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, and the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved the unity of the one body.
Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree of forbearance, and receive the advice which your fellow-servant righteously gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, or to reply to them when propounded. For those points of discussion which are enjoined by the authority of no law, but rather suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused leisure, even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly intrusted to the general ear.
For how very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one were fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again, in dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as these, can secure himself against a dangerous declension from the truth? It is incumbent therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable, through the feebleness of our natural faculties, to give a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness of our hearers’ understandings disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people be reduced to the alternative either of blasphemy or schism.
.
Eusebius of Caesarea Latin
Life of Constantine, bk. 2, ch. 73
In this manner the pious emperor [Constantine] endeavored by means of the foregoing letter to promote the peace of the Church of God. And the excellent man to whom it was intrusted [Hosius of Corduba] performed his part not merely by communicating the letter itself, but also by seconding the views of him who sent it; for he was, as I have said, in all respects a person of pious character.
The evil, however, was greater than could be remedied by a single letter, insomuch that the acrimony of the contending parties continually increased, and the effects of the mischief extended to all the Eastern provinces. These things jealousy and some evil spirit who looked with an envious eye on the prosperity of the Church, wrought.
.
Athanasius Latin
in Gregory Nazianzus, Orations, Oration 21, On the Praise of Athanasius, sect. 35-36
35… Yet this point I will add to what has been said, as it seems to me especially wonderful, and cannot with impunity be passed over in a time so fertile in disagreements as this. For his action, if we take note of him, will affoid instruction even to the men of this day.
For as, in the case of one and the same quantity of water, there is separated from it, not only the residue which is left behind by the hand when drawing it, but also those drops, once contained in the hand, which trickle out through the fingers; so also there is a separation between us and, not only those who hold aloof in their impiety, but also those who are most pious, and that both in regard to such doctrines as are of small consequence (a matter of less moment) and also in regard to expressions intended to bear the same meaning.
We use in an orthodox sense the terms one “Essence” and three “Hypostases” [Persons], the one to denote the nature of the Godhead, the other the properties of the Three; the Italians mean the same, but, owing to the scantiness of their vocabulary, and its poverty of terms, they are unable to distinguish between Essence and Hypostases, and therefore introduce the term “Persons,” to avoid being understood to assert three Essences. The result, were it not piteous, would be laughable. This sliglit difiference of sound was taken to indicate a difference of faith.
Then, Sabellianism [that God is one Person manifested in three ways] was suspected in the doctrine of Three Persons, Arianism [that Christ is a creature] in that of [the teaching that there are] Three Hypostases, both being the offspring of a contentious spirit. And then, from the gradual but constant growth of irritation (the unfailing result of contentiousness) there was a danger of the whole world being torn asunder in the strife about syllables.
Seeing and hearing this, our blessed one, true man of God and great steward of souls as he was, felt it inconsistent with his duty to overlook so absurd and unreasonable a rending of the word, and applied his medicine to the disease. In what manner? He conferred in his gentle and sympathetic way with both parties, and after he had carefully weighed the meaning of their expressions, and found that they had the same sense, and were in nowise different in doctrine, by permitting each party to use its own terms, he bound them together in unity of action.
36. This in itself was more profitable than the long course of labours and teaching on which all writers enlarge, for in it somewhat of ambition mingled, and consequently, perhaps, somewhat of novelty in expressions. This again was of more value than his many vigils and acts of discipline, the advantage of which is limited to those who perform them. This was worthy of our hero’s famous banishments and flights…
.
Gregory Nazianzen Latin
Orations, Oration 32, “On discipline in theological discourse”
[Need to translate]
.
Hilary of Poitiers Latin
On the Trinity
bk. 2, sect. 1
1. Believers have always found their satisfaction in that divine utterance which our ears heard recited from the Gospel at the moment when that power, which is its attestation, was bestowed upon us: “Go now and leach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” [Mt. 28:19-20]
What element in the mystery of man’s salvation is not included in those words? What is forgotten, what left in darkness? All is full, as from the divine fulness; perfect, as from the divine perfection. The passage contains the exact words to be used, the essential acts, the sequence of processes, an insight into the divine nature. He bade them baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that is with confession of the Creator and of the Only-begotten, and of the Gift.
.
bk. 10, sect. 70
Piety consists in rejecting doubt, righteousness in believing, salvation in confessing. Trifle not with ambiguities, be not stirred up to vain babblings, do not debate in any way the powers of God, or impose limits upon His might, cease searching again and again for the causes of unsearchable mysteries: confess rather that Jesus is the Lord, and believe that God raised Him from the dead; herein is salvation.
What folly is it to depreciate the nature and character of Christ, when this alone is salvation, to know that He is the Lord. Again, what an error of human vanity to quarrel about His resurrection, when it is enough for eternal life to believe that God raised Him up. In simplicity then is faith, in faith righteousness, and in confession true godliness. For God does not call us to the blessed life through arduous investigations. He does not tempt us with the varied arts of rhetoric. The way to eternity is plain and easy; believe that Jesus was raised from the dead by God and confess that He is the Lord.
.
To Emperor Constantius II (Constantius Augustus)
It is exceedingly perilous for us, and even pitiable, that there now exist as many creeds as there are wills; that we have as many doctrines as manners; and that as many causes of blasphemies spring up as there are vices—since either creeds are written just as we choose, or are understood just as we choose. And although, according to the one God, and the one Lord, and the one baptism, the faith also ought to be one, we fall away from that faith which alone is such; and while many forms of faith arise, they have begun to exist to this end—that no faith at all may remain. For we are all conscious among ourselves that after the council of Nicaea nothing else has been done but the writing of new creeds. While there is strife over words, while the dispute is about novelties, while ambiguity furnishes occasion, while there is complaint concerning authors, while there is contention about parties, while agreement is difficult, and while each begins to be anathema to the other, by now scarcely anyone is a Christian.
.
Augustine Latin
On Baptism, against the Donatists, bk. 2
But this is one effect of the soundness of peace, that when any doubtful points are long under investigation, and when, on account of the difficulty of arriving at the truth, they produce difference of opinion in the course of brotherly disputation, till men at last arrive at the unalloyed truth; yet the bond of unity remains, lest in the part that is cut away there should be found the incurable wound of deadly error.
.
And so it is that often something is imperfectly revealed to the more learned, that their patient and humble charity, from which proceeds the greater fruit, may be proved, either in the way in which they preserve unity, when they hold different opinions on matters of comparative obscurity, or in the temper with which tey receive the truth, when they learn that it has been declared to be contrary to what they thought. And of these two we have a manifestation in the blessed Cyprian of the one, viz., of the way in which he preserved unity with those from wom he differed in opinion. For he says, “Judging no one nor depriving anyone of the right of communion if he differ from us.”…
For we are but men; and it is therefore a temptation incident to men that we should hold views at variance with the truth on any point. But to come through too great love for our own opinion, or through jealousy of our betters, even to the sacrilege of dividing the communion of the Church, and of founding heresy or schism, is a presumption worthy of the devil. But never in any point to entertain an opinion at variance with the truth is perfection found only in the angels. Since then we are men, yet forasmuch as in hope we are angels, whose equals we shall be in the resurrection, at any rate, so long as we are wanting in the perfection of angels, let us at least be without the presumption of the devil.
Accordingly the apostle says, “There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man.” [1 Cor. 10:13] It is therefore part of man’s nature to be sometimes wrong. Wherefore he says in another place, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” [Phil. 3:15] But to whom does He reveal it when it is His will (be it in this life or in the life to come), save to those who walk in the way of peace, and stray not aside into any schism?
.
On Ps. 33, Exposition 2, Discourse 2, sect. 29
Let us lament them, brethren, as though our brethren. Will they, nill they, our brethren they are. Then will they cease to be our brethren, when they shall cease to say, “Our Father”…
Let them say, ‘Why seek ye us? what would ye with us?’ Let us answer, ‘Ye are our brethren.’ Let them say, ‘Depart from us, we have no concern with you.’ We certainly have concern with you: we confess one Christ: in one body, under one Head, we ought to be…
Therefore, brethren, we adjure you by the very bowels of that love, by whose milk we are nourished, by whose bread we are strengthened, even by Christ our Lord, by his mercy I adjure you (for it is time that we should show toward them great charity, abundant mercy in praying God for them… for the weak, for the carnally wise… yet for our brethren, celebrating the same sacraments, though not with us, yet the same; responding the same ‘Amen,’ though not with us, yet the same; for them pour forth the marrow of your charity unto God.
.
On Ps. 34, Discourse 2, sect. 7
Therefore bring quickly whom ye can, by exhorting, by transporting, by beseeching, by disputing, by rendering a reason, with meekness, with gentleness. Bring them quickly unto love; that if they magnify the Lord, they may magnify Him in one. The party of Donatus seem indeed unto themselves to magnify the Lord; why does the whole world offend them? Let us, brethren, say unto them, ‘O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name in one.’ Wherefore would ye magnify the Lord in separation? He is One; wherefore would ye make two peoples of God? Wherefore would ye rend the Body of Christ?
Bishop of Rome, Leo III Latin
In the Collatio with the Legates of Charlemagne (809)
Legates: Since indeed, as you say, that which must be most certainly believed is to be held immovably by believing, and by holding it is, whenever necessary, to be most steadfastly defended—must it not be taught to those who do not know it, and to those who do know it, be confirmed, that we may hold it the more attentively?
Pope: It is so.
Legates: If this is so, if anyone should not know this, or should not so believe it, can he be saved?
Pope: Whoever is able, with more subtle understanding, to reach this, and to know it, or, knowing it, is unwilling so to believe, cannot be saved. For there are many things—of which this is one (he speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit)—which are loftier mysteries and more subtle sacraments of the holy faith, and many are able to reach the inquiry into them; but many, indeed, are unable, being hindered either by the smallness of their age or by the quality of their understanding. And therefore, as we have said before: whoever is able and is unwilling, cannot be saved.
.
Church of Lyons Latin
Censure of the Synod of Quierzy (Carisiacum) (854)
Let there be among us concerning this matter (Predestination) such pious caution and moderation, that due honor may be maintained toward the holy Fathers; and that if anyone chooses to rest in any one of those opinions which on this subject have been set forth by them, we may not judge him to be a heretic. Rather let us avoid the evil of contention, by which even opinions that are peaceful and ecclesiastical may be made heretical by the one who wishes to be contentious.
Therefore, in matters such as these let us restrain ourselves with wholesome moderation: so that we may neither dare to despise [the Fathers], nor attempt to affirm anything as though it were necessary. Let us always be mindful of that apostolic statement: ‘But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.’ Let us therefore read peacefully, and understand—so far as the Lord grants—the teachings of ecclesiastical men; and let us not fight for some doctors against others, since they themselves, being at peace among themselves, each abounded in his own understanding: one indeed in this way, another in that.
Let us await in faithfulness and humility what the Apostle promises, saying: ‘And if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.’ For whoever does not govern what he thinks in a calm and peaceful manner, but is at once ready for contentions, dissensions, and scandals—even if he does not hold a heretical opinion—most certainly has a heretical disposition.
If these good men also, who framed this definition, had been willing to preserve this moderation of piety, they would have passed over this matter more profitably in silence, and would have allowed each to think concerning it according to his own faith, and according to the authority to which he thought he should more readily assent; and once the quarrel of so long and harmful a contention had ceased among them, the peace and unity of the Church of Christ would have been restored.
.
Post-Reformation
Desiderius Erasmus Latin
Preface to Hilary
The ancients speculated very sparingly about divine matters, nor did they dare to pronounce anything concerning them which had not been plainly set forth in those writings whose authority is sacred to us. … With what face shall we seek pardon, we who raise so many curious—indeed, I should say impious—questions concerning matters far removed from our nature; who define so many things that could, without danger to salvation, either be unknown or left in uncertainty? Will he not have fellowship with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit who does not know how to unfold, by the rules of philosophy, what distinguishes the Father from the Son, what distinguishes the Holy Spirit from both; or what difference there is between the Son’s birth from the Father and the Spirit’s procession? …
But the things that we investigate, the things that we define, are sometimes neither delivered in the sacred writings—so that if they cannot be comprehended, they ought at least to be believed—nor can they be proved by any adequate arguments, nor be grasped by thought, nor even be shadowed forth by the use of likenesses, such as they are or can be. In searching into these matters, when the most gifted minds have long labored with the greatest effort, this at last is the final advance—that they understand that they know nothing. And they contribute so little to the piety of life that nowhere has that saying of Paul more place: ‘Knowledge puffs up, but charity builds up.’
What arrogance, what quarrels, what tumults, what divisions of the world do we see bursting forth from this ignorant knowledge of such matters? And while our life is so fleeting, in the meantime we neglect those things without which no one can have any hope of obtaining salvation. Unless I forgive my brother what he has sinned against me, God will not forgive what I have committed against Him. Unless I have a pure heart, I shall not see God. This, therefore, ought to be pursued with all our efforts, this meditated on, this urged—that I cleanse my mind from malice, from envy, from hatred, from pride, from avarice, from lust.
You will not be condemned if you do not know whether the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son has one principle or two; but you will surely not escape destruction if you do not meanwhile take care to have the fruits of the Spirit, which are: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, long-suffering, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity. To these, therefore, must the principal concern of our study be directed.
Not that I think the investigation either of philosophy, divided into its three parts, or of matters beyond the world, is to be condemned entirely—provided there is a happy talent, and provided there is no rashness in defining, no obstinacy, no plague of discord, no stubborn desire for victory. The sum of our religion is peace and unanimity. This can scarcely stand unless we define as few things as we can, and leave to each person free judgment in many matters; because the obscurity of many questions is great, and this disease is almost innate to the human intellect—that as soon as a matter is called into controversy, men do not know how to yield; and once the dispute has grown hot, that seems to each the truest which he has rashly undertaken to defend.
* * * * *
Formerly faith consisted more in the life than in the profession of articles. Soon necessity warned that articles should be prescribed—but few, and marked by apostolic sobriety. Afterwards the wickedness of heretics drove the Church to a more exact examination of the divine volumes; obstinacy compelled that certain points be defined by the authority of synods. At length the creed began to exist in writings rather than in hearts; and there were almost as many faiths as men.
The articles increased, but sincerity decreased; contention boiled up, charity grew cold. The doctrine of Christ, which formerly knew nothing of logomachy, began to depend upon the defenses of philosophy—this was the first step of the Church sliding toward worse things. Wealth increased, and power was added. And then the authority of emperors, mixed into this business, did not much promote the sincerity of faith.
At last the matter was brought down to sophistical disputes; myriads of articles burst forth. From there it came to terrors and threats. And while life forsakes us, while faith is more on the lips than in the heart, while that solid knowledge of the sacred writings fails us, nevertheless we drive men by tortures to this—that they believe what they do not believe, that they love what they do not love, and understand what they do not understand. What is forced cannot be sincere; nor is anything acceptable to Christ unless it is voluntary.
.
On Matthew, ch. 9
Truly gentle is the yoke of Christ, and the burden light, if only nothing were imposed besides what He Himself has laid upon us, by human little enactments. Beyond mutual love He prescribes nothing; nor is there anything so bitter that love does not season it and sweeten it. Whatever accords with nature is borne easily. But nothing agrees more fully with human nature than the philosophy of Christ, which does almost nothing else than restore fallen nature to its own innocence and sincerity. Yet just as among the Jews the Law—which was in itself burdensome—was made heavier by human ordinances, so one must take continual care lest the Law of Christ—which in itself is gentle and light—be rendered burdensome and harsh by the additions of human constitutions and dogmas. These creep in at first in such a way that they are either disregarded as trifling, or—commended under the appearance of piety—are readily embraced by persons of good character, though not sufficiently prudent. Once accepted, they gradually swell and increase, until, grown to an immense size, they oppress and overwhelm even the unwilling: whether by the support of custom (whose tyranny is violent), or by the authority of rulers, who abuse what was rashly accepted for their own advantage and cling to it tenaciously.
How pure, how simple is the faith handed down to us by Christ? How similar to this is the Creed, whether produced by the apostles themselves or by apostolic men? To this the Church afterward added much, torn and vexed by the dissensions of heretics; and although some of these additions could have been omitted without loss to the faith, yet many still seemed relevant to the matter. Already there were as many creeds as men—no better a safeguard of good faith than when, in legal contracts, business is conducted by lengthy and wordy bonds, which, though employed to exclude evasions, generally produce the more evasions the more carefully they are written. Finally the matter has been brought gradually to such a point that certain positions of the scholastics—what they call ‘articles’—or certain new things devised by insignificant little men out of vanity, whether opinions or dreams, are made nearly equal to the articles of the apostolic faith. And in these neither the different schools, nor even the masters of the same school, agree among themselves; nor are they consistent among themselves, but change with time. Yet they first crept in so that they were held merely as probable opinions in the schools. Soon, having passed beyond the walls of the schools, they burst into books and even into public sermons. And it often happens that what the rashness of defining once brings forth in any fashion, the stubbornness of defending confirms and enlarges. But most things of this kind are such that it is impious for a human being to make determinations concerning them—such as the matters about which we philosophize concerning the nature of the divine essence and the distinction of persons. If these are employed only so far as to draw our minds away from sordid thoughts to loftier ones, the study is not to be disapproved. But if, in order that we may with arrogance pronounce upon matters which far surpass the grasp of the human intellect, and boast among the people of a knowledge of things which even the angels do not adequately understand, to me this seems neither pious nor useful.
Closely related are the things we pronounce concerning the nature of the mysteries, as though fetched down from heaven; when it would more conduce to piety to extract from these mysteries what leads to holiness of life. But this rashness of pronouncing, having arisen among the ancients, has now advanced farther than can be borne. There are those who weave for us some frigid syllogism, and from a passage barely understood, or from some human little ordinance, produce an article of faith. And by these we are judged Christians or not Christians—although they have not the least relation to Christian piety.
Already how public, how simple was the doctrine of Christ, of the apostles, and of the apostolic fathers; how encumbered, thorny—one might say dark—it has now become, partly by the admixture of human laws and disciplines, partly by the dreams and little inventions of ambitious men, after the profession of sacred theology began to become a kind of stage-play and theatrical affair. A whole lifetime is not enough for the labyrinths of questions and useless subtleties.
.
Martin Luther Latin
Letter to the People of Strasbourg
Therefore I wish this principle to be firmly impressed upon all of you—that you should look to yourselves, abiding in this one question: what it is that makes a person a Christian. And do not allow any other question to be regarded as equal to this one. If anyone brings something forward into discussion, immediately ask him: ‘Come now, friend, do these things also make a man a Christian?’ If he replies, ‘No,’ then set all those things aside; and do not at once seize upon them and embrace them with clenched teeth as though they were the chief article of the Christian life.
.
Letter to the People of Antwerp
For this reason I desire and beseech you, Brothers, to turn away from the spirit that vexes and assaults you with that lofty question concerning the hidden will of God, saying to it: ‘Do you think it is too little that God has wished us to be aware of His manifest will expressed in His commandments? Why then do you make fools of us by leading us into that which it is wicked—and indeed forbidden—to know, which is also impossible to understand, and in which you, madman, stumble and wander in blindness equally with us? How these things come to pass we consider to be matters to be entrusted to God. It is enough for us to know that God detests sins. Whoever, however, consents to sins must be dismissed. A servant ought not curiously to explore the secrets of his master—much less to know them—but to carry out what the master commands. Much less is it permissible for a miserable creature to scrutinize the mysteries of its Creator, namely the divine majesty.
You see now, my excellent friends, what the Devil’s efforts are, what his plans, what his restless schemes for innovation, by which he strives to occupy and hold the minds of fickle men with articles that are unnecessary, useless, and impossible to know, turning them aside from the true way. Therefore, see to it that you embrace what is useful to know, necessary for you, and commanded by God—setting aside foolish trifles that do not edify and that produce nothing so much as quarrels, according to the counsel of the wise man: ‘What is beyond your capacity, do not inquire,’ but remain in the things that have been commanded you by God. A whole lifetime is required to learn Christ rightly and to know His commandments, even if one attends to no other matters.
.
Philip Melanchthon Latin
The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon, tr. Charles L. Hill (Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944), “Common Topics or Theological Outlines”, pp. 66-69
Moreover, these are for the most part, the principal heads of theological science:
God, Unity, Trinity, Creation, Man, the strength of man, The fruit of grace, Faith, Hope, Charity, Predestination, Sin, The fruit of sin, vices, Punishments, Law, Promises, Renewl through Christ, Grace, Sacramental tokens, The estates of men, Civil offices, Bishops, Condemnation, Blessedness
As certain of these are straighway incomprehensible, so on the contrary, there are some that Christ has willed the entire company of Christians to know fully. The mysteries of divinity we have the more rightly adored than investigated. On the other hand, they cannot be put to test without danger, because not rarely holy men indeed have attempted to do so. And too, the most High God clothed his Son with flesh, in order to incite us from the contemplation of his majesty, to the contemplation of the flesh and indeed our own fragility.
Thus Paul writes in 1 Cor. 1:21, that God wills to be known without doubt by a new method, through the method of the “foolishness of preaching,” since he could not be known in his wisdom through wisdom. Accordingly, then, there is no reason why we should put much labor on the greatest topics such as, God, on the Unity and Trinity of God, on the great mystery of Creation, and on the mode of the Incarnation. I ask you, what did the Scholastic theologians gain so many years ago, when they busied themselves with these topics alone? Did they not, as Paul says, become vain in their disquisitions, while joking a whole lifetime about universals, formalities, connotations and I know not what other meaningless words? And moreover, their folloy might have gone unnoticed had not their foolish disputations for a time obscured to us the Gospel and the Benefits of Christ.
Now if I should like to be a clever person in a matter that is unnecessary, I could easily tear down whatever arguments for the dogmas of faith they have produced. And how many of them would seem to make for sure heresies more rightly than for catholic dogmas!
Whoever is ignorant of the remaining topics such as the power of sin, the law and grace, I do not see how I may call him a Christian. For by them is Christ properly known, if indeed this is to know Christ, to wit, to know his benefits and not as they teach, to perceive his natures and the mode of his incarnation. Unless one knows why Christ took upon Himself human flesh and was crucified, what advantage would accrue from having learned his life’s history? Or on the other hand, is it of no consequence for a physician to have become acquainted with the kinds, colors and properties of plants, in order to know their native power? Accordingly it behooves us to become acquainted with Christ who has been given as a remedy for us, or to use the language of Scripture, “for our salvation,” in some other way than that exhibited by the Scholastics.
Precisely this is Christian knowledge, to know what the law demands, whence you may seek the power to discharge the injunctions of the law, whence you may seek pardon for sin, how you may arouse a wavering mind against the Devil, the flesh and the world, and finally how you may console a dejected conscience. Of course the Scholastics teach such things, do they not? In the epistle to the Romans, when he drew up a compendium of Christian doctrine, did Paul the author philosophize about the mysteries of the Trinity, the mode of the incarnation or about “creation active and passive?” On the contrary, what does Paul do? He reasons most certainly about the Law, Sin, and Grace. Topics, I say, on which alone the knowledge of Christ depends. How frequently Paul testifies to the faithful that he wishes for the rich knowledge of Christ! For he foresaw that it would come to pass that with respect to the remaining salutary topics, we would turn our minds from Christ unto the frigid disputations of others.
.
Johannes Oecolampadius Latin
Letter to the Inhabitants of Swabia (Germany)
Error can be forgiven, provided that faith in Christ is present. But discord we shall not expiate, not even if we shed our blood. For God loves those who dwell together in unity, and He is in the midst of them.
.
John Calvin Latin
Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 1, sect. 12
12… Nay, even in the administration of Word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from Its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord?
The words of the apostle are, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you,” (Phil. 3:15) Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all, or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation.
.
Martin Bucer Latin
Letter to the Academy of Marburg
But in this age, that most destructive Satan—ancient disturber of holy concord—rages, and, what is the one thing most to be lamented, he has so seized and bewitched the minds of many men otherwise by no means evil, that whatever of doctrines has once pleased them, whatever it may be, they do not doubt at all that they have received it either from a more divine revelation or from the infallible tradition of the Scriptures.
Hence they straightway, as though full of the Spirit of Christ, lament as destitute of the Spirit whoever do not at once receive the same things; and as for those who even oppose these doctrines, they immediately pronounce them to be driven by the enemy of the Spirit of truth—since “no one speaking in the Holy Spirit says ‘Anathema to Jesus.’”
For they think that Christ Himself and the whole [Christian religion] is trampled underfoot the moment that you condemn, even in the slightest degree, any of those things which they believe to be true—no regard whatsoever being had to the matter about which the disagreement is, or how far a certain ignorance may nevertheless allow for a definite faith in Christ and for a sincere pursuit of innocence.
This bewitchment of the ancient deceiver, if—may God avert the omen—it should prevail, we shall have as many Churches as heads. For there lives no one here without error, and there is no one to whom, even in sacred matters, something does not often seem true which is farthest removed from the truth. But whoever’s heart is possessed by the fear of God will neither himself embrace under the name of sacred doctrine, nor teach others, anything which he is not persuaded is true and has proceeded from God.
If, then, you are willing immediately to judge destitute of the Spirit of Christ whoever does not think the same, and an enemy of the truth whoever has resolved to refute what he judges to be false—whom, I ask, will you at last acknowledge as a brother? For I have never seen even one pair of men who in all respects think the same, even in sacred things…
Surely if the matter stands thus—that a brother is to be rejected on account of any attack upon the truth whatsoever—then they ought by no means to have been treated as brothers who so manifestly withstood the truth which blessed Paul and the other apostles handed down concerning the free use of the ceremonies of Moses, and—which without doubt they commended with singular diligence. For just as they themselves fled whatever they thought to be against the Law of God, being deterred by religious fear, so they would also have turned others away from that, since they were brothers and were moved by the fear of God; and thus they must have opposed the truth of Christ—and indeed that truth by the denial of which one denies that Christ alone is the complete Savior of those who believe in Him.
But Paul, aware of human weakness and how much ignorance possesses all mortals, and certain that all who are endowed with the fear of God are sons of God, by no means wished those to be held as enemies of the truth which they were not yet able to recognize, even if, being unaware, they not only failed to receive it but also, according to the sincerity which they had and their religious reverence for the Law of God, opposed it. They acknowledged Christ indeed as the one and complete Savior; but they did not see what was contrary to this faith in believing at the same time that the ceremonies of Moses—as prescribed by God—must necessarily be observed in their own time, just as God arranges all things by fixed junctures of times, and just as they would themselves eventually see this.
Therefore, since it was in no creature’s power to persuade them of this truth—God delaying his own teaching—nothing could be done more salutarily concerning them than what Paul commanded, namely that they should be acknowledged as brothers and not at all vexed with contentious disputations…
Thus now we also, in this troubled age in which not only the doctrine of the sacraments but so many other matters likewise are disputed even among those whose fruits abundantly show that they are held by no small zeal for God, ought to act in the same way: that is, above all to consider whether one is bound by the religion of Christ, whether the fear of God has breathed upon him. For whoever have obtained this possess that beginning of wisdom, that vein of life, by which they will at last certainly attain to all things proper to the sons of God.
Why then should we disdain to acknowledge as brothers those whom we see that God has chosen into the number of his sons? Where they seem to err, why do we not think that we perhaps stumble in that very place in which we imagine that they do? For no one errs knowingly, and no one, however holy, is free from error.
Then, even if we are fully persuaded that we ourselves are in no way subject to error, why do we not acknowledge that those who are weak in faith must be received by us, and that the stronger we seem to ourselves, the more we ought to take care for the weak? Nor are these others any except those who have indeed devoted themselves to Christ, yet stick in certain things which—just as, according to the judgment regarding those who clung so stubbornly to the ceremonies of Moses, we have just said—are wholly opposed to the faith of Christ, even if they themselves cannot at present see this, nor will see it before the Spirit of God removes the veil which now covers their minds.
Christ the Savior Himself said that he lives in eternal life who has believed in Him; and this faith has its own fruits—diligent love in service to the brethren, joy, peace, gentleness, kindness, goodness, truth and faithfulness in conduct, meekness, and self-control. Wherever these shine forth, there Christ truly is, because these things are as little to be expected from the old man as grapes from thorns.
Therefore, those who confess the Lord Jesus Christ—which no one can do seriously except in the Holy Spirit—and who are intent upon innocence and upon the desire to benefit all, which desire belongs only to the sons of God—these, as they are undoubtedly moved by the Spirit of Christ whose they are, so if we do not acknowledge them as brothers, we truly reject Christ in them…
Yet it must be determined how far those who differ in doctrines of Christian teaching are to be granted the right of holy communion and fraternity preserved.
Certainly blessed Paul relates that he “handed over Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan,” [1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 4:14] although they were blasphemers; but at the end of the same epistle he commands separation also from those who follow a different doctrine and do not adhere to the sound words of our Lord Jesus. [1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3] And the presbyter John wrote:
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor say greeting to him,” etc.
Since therefore from apostolic tradition it is clear that certain persons who differ in doctrine are altogether to be rejected and avoided, and again that certain others are to be received and held in the place of brothers, one must consider what diversity of doctrine breaks the Christian bond of peace, and what does not.
This Paul, as in all things, teaches excellently. For in the First [Letter] to Timothy, chapter 1, after he had commanded him to warn certain persons not to follow a different doctrine which gave no edification [1 Tim. 1:3-4], he immediately added: “Now the end of the commandment is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith.” [v. 5] By which he taught plainly enough wherein the approved and genuine doctrine of our religion is to be placed and recognized—namely, in love that is alien to fraud in conscience and to deceit in faith, which love is altogether inimitable by all destitute of the Spirit of Christ. Therefore, whoever displays this love in such manner that his life does not disprove it is clearly to be regarded as a member of Christ, whatever errors he may be subject to, and is worthy of being cherished by the duties of Christian brotherhood. Thus in chapter 6, after he had set forth the doctrines of faith in Christ along with the commands of genuine love, he wrote in this manner: “These things teach and exhort…” [v. 2]
How then will these people justify their judgment before Him who commanded these things through Paul—these people who dare immediately to hand over to Satan, and, as far as lies in them, to cast out of the kingdom of God, men who are truly good, who knowingly resist no sound doctrine, who listen with ready minds to every admonition in which the Spirit of God breathes and his Word is expressed—men who reject only a few things, and these of no great moment, which they cannot yet recognize as having proceeded from God?
.
Peter Martyr Vermigli Latin
On 1 Corinthians, ch. 10, verse 11
It is a pitiable thing that, although we have so many clear and open statements in the sacred writings concerning faith, hope, love, and the duties of the other virtues—things in which there is nothing obscure—we altogether leave these neglected, and wish, with such great superstition, to pursue matters which are uncertain and contribute less to salvation. This the Devil is intent upon: that men should labor strenuously in endless and useless questions, while casting aside those things which are necessary to be kept.
.
King James I of Great Britain
as reported by Isaac Casaubon, Epistle 710, to Cardinal Perron Latin
But the King judges it to be most truly written, in the explanation of [the Greek phrase] “the things simply necessary,” that the number of things absolutely necessary for salvation is not great. Therefore His Majesty considers that there will be no shorter way to enter into concord than if the necessary things are carefully separated from the non-necessary, and that every effort be expended so that agreement may be reached concerning the necessary; in the non-necessary, room should be given to Christian liberty.
The King calls those things “simply necessary” which either the Word of God expressly commands to be believed or done, or which the ancient Church drew out from the Word of God by necessary consequence. But the things which, apart from the Word of God, have been received into the use of the Church by human institution—although piously and prudently, according to the circumstances of the time—His Majesty considers can be changed, softened, or antiquated; and what Pius II said concerning clerical celibacy, that although it had once been rightly enacted, it would now be better abolished, the King believes that this, in general, may be applied to most ecclesiastical observances introduced apart from the Word of God.
If, for deciding the controversies of the present day, this distinction were applied, and divine law were candidly separated from positive law, it appears that there would not be, among pious and moderate men, a long or bitter contention concerning those things which are absolutely necessary. For these things are few, as we just said, and are approved almost equally by all who claim to be called Christians. And the Most Serene King considers this distinction to be of such great weight for diminishing the controversies which today so greatly trouble the Church of God, that he judges it the duty of all who are devoted to peace to explain, teach, and press this distinction with the utmost diligence.
.
Francis Junius Latin
Eirenicum, pt. 2, on Psalm 133
Therefore I can hardly express my astonishment at the audacity—or rather the madness—of those men who esteem so lightly this right of kinship, established by God Himself, founded upon divine power and constituted by means that are altogether divine, that they judge others not to be their brothers; or even if, in general terms, they acknowledge that we are brothers to one another, yet when it comes to particulars—this or that individual, this or that church—they think that such a person or such a church has nothing at all in common with them in respect of fellowship and brotherhood.
But now—good God—what do I hear? A man cannot abolish the obligation of nature; nor can one man, by any private or individual act of his own, remove a human bond of kinship. And shall that bond which the divine institution of grace has established be dissolved at the will of man? O pitiable madness! Whoever allows himself to be carried away into such a state must, of necessity, already have torn himself away from God and from Christ before he can, even in thought, tear another away. For who hates his own flesh? What member devotes its efforts to mutilating its own body? He is no longer of the body of Christ who plans to cut off a member of Christ.
And yet this disease (if I may speak so) is epidemic in our age: in which we are, nearly all of us, most daring in noticing, weighing, judging, condemning and exploding the deeds of our brethren, and in insolently deposing them; nor do we hesitate to assail men, churches, whole regions and authorities appointed by God with curses and anathemas, as though by some sovereign right—merely because they do not agree with us in all things, although they hold the mind of Christ.
Our union remains, my brother, it remains; but the estrangement is yours (for which I feel pity). If you are willing to estrange yourself from me, you cannot avoid first estranging yourself from Christ, in whom we are brothers. I neither will nor can do this; for Christ has joined me to Himself as a brother, and has made me a brother to you.
If you break the bond of brotherhood, I shall knit it again; if you unsew it, I shall labor to mend it; if you overturn it, I shall raise it anew; if you deny it, Christ affirms it—and I with Christ. If you will not listen, yet good men hear, and the Lord hears, before whom I grieve from the heart over your powerlessness. Led by mercy, I shall bear whatever I cannot cure; but in bearing it, I shall carefully maintain these two things: first, that I steadfastly await from the Lord the healing of this wretched infirmity of yours; second, that I myself watch for just opportunities to assist you in love and to lift you up again, if perchance God may at some time be pleased to use this my endeavor for your salvation.
For why should we not bear with those who are disturbed in mind—even in matters of religion—just as readily as we bear with those whom anger, hatred or other such passions have driven out of the state of a sound mind? If such things arise among brothers, they are nonetheless brothers, and do not cease to be such. I shall therefore act unjustly if, because you deny that you are my brother, or deny the duty of a brother, I fall into the same fault. I am unwilling to heap my own wrongdoing upon your folly; but whatever wisdom I have received from the Lord, that I intend to preserve unimpaired, and by duty to procure your restoration—or at least, if nothing else, to testify before God and men to the obligation which is mine.
What then do we suppose, poor wretches that we are? What do we imagine, when with such loftiness of brow we thrust one another out, as with a pitchfork, and apply a kind of censor’s rod indiscriminately to these and to those, as though we alone possessed the nose for judgment, or as though Christ had transferred to us this faculty, to be abused according to the caprice of our own spirits? Let such things indeed be done by the grooms of Satan; but it is not fitting for the sheep of Christ—least of all for pastors. Rather, let us yield to Christ, who most graciously admits both us and them into the communion of His body and Spirit.
.
David Pareus Latin
Irenicum
ch. 4
The first question will be: Which articles are fundamental, that is, in which heads of faith does the foundation of salvation truly consist?
Here there must prudently be distinguished the articles of the catholic faith—which no Christian of adult age, whether learned or unlearned, may, without loss of salvation, either be ignorant of or fail to believe—from other questions that come into controversy among some theologians because of differing understandings of some particular passage of Scripture; and also from scholastic or ecclesiastical conclusions, the knowledge and assent of which, one way or the other, are indeed necessary for theologians for the sake of the scientific character of their theological profession, and for transmitting or defending a fuller knowledge of divine matters, but which can be unknown by Christians in general without danger to salvation.
For most of these either do not touch fundamental articles directly, or not even indirectly; rather, they are such that they will not benefit those who know them, if they do not possess true faith in Christ, nor will they harm those who are ignorant of them, if they truly believe in Christ.
For I would venture to affirm that the greater part of both the ancient heresies and the present dissensions in the Church has arisen, and still arises, chiefly from this: that councils, bishops, and doctors of the Church, without any distinction, have put forth whatever doctrines of the schools and whatever opinions of the chairs as articles of the catholic faith, and have imposed them upon consciences as to be believed with the same necessity for salvation; and that from every discrepancy in the interpretation of the Scriptures they have far too easily fashioned heresies or schisms.
.
ch. 29
A foundation, properly speaking, is that which is laid in the lowest place beneath for the support of a building, and without which the house cannot stand. Thus the foundation of our faith and salvation will be that which all Christians must strictly believe as necessary for salvation, and without faith in which none obtain salvation.
This foundation, in one word, is Jesus Christ, according to the apostle, etc. But the foundation of the prophets and apostles is the sum of the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, etc. In the Church the “elements of the Christian faith,” containing the sum of the Law and the Gospel, are accustomed to be so called; and all these appear able to be reduced to four heads:
The first head is the Decalogue, etc. The second is the Apostles’ Creed, etc. The third is the Lord’s Prayer, etc. The fourth, finally, is concerning the sacraments, etc.
In these heads, in our judgment indeed—if one should speak popularly—the foundation of the Christian faith and salvation, taken in the widest sense, consists. For he who shall have held these by faith and shall have practiced them will undoubtedly be saved, although he may be ignorant of the remaining debates of the theologians…
Yet in these very heads we have freely conceded that some distinction may exist. For some things are more or less necessary to salvation than others.
.
Georg Calixtus Latin
Of the Judge of Theological Controversies, sect. 1 & 3
Let it be far from us, therefore, to hate, avoid or abhor any Christian who has not ceased to be a Christian, who has not ceased to be a son of God, and therefore is our brother, and together with us a member of the body of Christ and a co-heir of eternal salvation. Far be it, I say, that we should abominate the fellowship of anyone whom Christ has received into communion. Far be it that to him to whom He will say, “Come, blessed of my Father,” we should say, “Depart, cursed Satan…”
For not every error concerning matters of religion casts a person down from the state of grace or deprives him of the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom; otherwise scarcely anyone could hope for salvation.
.
Among his last words, he is said to have spoken these things, according to the report concerning his death:
I desire to die under the Head, Christ, and in the faith of the truly catholic Church, and in the love of all who sincerely worship and love God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I will not condemn one who errs in non-necessary questions, and I trust that God will grant forgiveness to me also, if in such things I have erred, as might have happened.
.
Johann Matthaus Latin
in The Northern Olive-Branch, Berry 8, section 6
The principal point of all the counsels that can be given on this subject is that, setting aside the multitude of so many disputable and less necessary doctrines, one should return to the few, the certain, and the necessary—namely, to the first apostolic simplicity, afterward conveyed into the Church by continual tradition. This, indeed, must be sought in the words of Christ and his apostles, and especially in his own clear and plain statements. And from these, to be sure, are drawn those necessary, plain, certain, and catholic doctrines which the whole of Christianity everywhere has perpetually— that is, from the very times of the apostles down to our own—believed and continues to believe, by a continuous public consent. Such are the doctrines contained in the Apostles’ Creed, the commonly received testimony of Christians, which, according to ancient and excellent custom, is required of everyone to be initiated into the rites of Christ.
“But there are controversies even about the meaning of this very Creed,” you will say. There are, I admit; but almost all of them have been raised and fostered only by overly curious scholastic-theologians and theologian-philosophers, who, in practicing this sacred discipline without the restraint of modesty (for here I am not speaking of upright theologians), everywhere have but one pursuit: to generate questions from questions, consequences from consequences, and finally disputes from disputes, without measure and without end. And thus, lest material for contention be lacking anywhere, they bring into the explanation of the Creed almost the whole of theoretical theology—which today is vast and spread across many volumes—and along with it an immense array of controversies, labor that I will not call harmful, but certainly not necessary. For without these knots of questions, good Christians, by the grace of God, are able sufficiently to understand the Creed.
.
Pierre Du Moulin Latin
The Novelty of Popery… tr. Peter Du Moulin (London: White, 1662)
For those necessary things are so clearly set down in Scripture that there is no need of interpretation to understand them sufficiently to be saved. Scripture teaches us that:
God has created the world, that Jesus Christ is dead for us, and that He is risen again. Scripture commands us to love God with all our heart and our neighbour like ourselves. Scripture forbids us to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, etc.
To understand these things, is there any need to find an infallible interpreter? Now I say that the things that are thus clear in Scripture are sufficient to salvation.
.
bk. 1
ch. 1, p. 2
For the faith of the faithful is content with a few articles, wherein the substance of piety consists, which are set down in the Scripture in such clear terms that they need no interpretation.
.
ch. 52, p. 153
7. I add that the whole service of God consists in two points, well-doing and well-believing: Of the first we have a summary in the Law, of the second in the Symbol [Apostles’ Creed]. Many persons are come to salvation with less knowledge than that: Jonah did not propound all these things to the Ninevites, to whose conversion nevertheless Christ bears witness, Mt. 12.
.
Jean Mestrezat Latin
Tract on the Church (1649), bk. 1, ch. 1
“The Gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ and his apostles, presented in its simplicity and without so many additional things, provides sufficient knowledge to convert a man to God and thereby to place him within His Church. It was this simplicity of doctrine, received with an honest heart, that incorporated in a single day into the Church those three thousand souls of whom we spoke above, as is reported in Acts, ch. 2.
Now, they would have needed—not one day, but several months, indeed several years—to know all the controversies that both pagans and Jews raised against the Christians, and to have the solution to all the arguments and all the objections made on the points concerning the incarnation of Jesus Christ, his divinity, and that of the Holy Spirit, the expiation of sins, and the satisfaction of the justice of God by His blood, the resurrection of the dead, and the immortality of the soul, which were contested by the Sadducees and others.
The eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia could not (according to the cardinal’s reckoning) have entered the Church and received baptism through knowledge of the Faith in the space of a few hours, upon the preaching of St. Philip, as he did. For it is said that Philip, having found the eunuch reading a passage from Isaiah, announced to him, beginning from that text. Now to announce Jesus is to announce Christian doctrine. And how many years, on this reckoning, would have been required for catechumens to be introduced into the Church, since they could not enter the Church except through knowledge of the doctrine?
Thus the matter here concerns a knowledge sufficient for salvation, which consists in a measure of light of which the simple and the lowly are capable in a short time. The matter here is not to form a doctor of theology, but a Christian; not to ascend a chair of the schools and of controversies, but to learn the Law of God, which gives wisdom to the simple; and not so much to dispute against all errors, as to learn to combat one’s vices through the knowledge of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the declaration of the apostle, who proposed to himself nothing else (1 Cor. 2).
Therefore this measure of knowledge was restricted by the Church of the first centuries to the understanding of the Apostles’ Creed, which the Church required for receiving someone into the Church and for administering baptism. And although this measure of knowledge is perhaps not sufficient to convince others, it is sufficient to sanctify the one in whom it is found and to edify him in Jesus Christ. Moreover (just as what is straight makes known of itself what is crooked), the simplicity of the doctrine of the Gospel contained in this Creed suffices to cause one to reject everything that is not conformable to it, and consequently to avoid errors, insofar as is necessary for salvation.”
.
Jean Claude Latin
Defense of the Reformation, pt. 2, ch. 9
Nous disons seulement, que ce que l’Ecriture contient d’une maniere proportionnee a l’intelligence de tout le monde, touchant la Foi et les moeurs, suffit pour le salut, moyennant que d’ailleurs on n’ait pas des erreurs qui en empechent l’esset. Or cette proposition n’a pas besoin d’etre prouvee par des textes de l’Ecriture. Elle se prouve assez, tant par la nature meme des choses que l’Ecriture enseigne clairement, que par les lunieres du sens commun, et par les premieres notions de la conscience. Car ces premieres notions dictent a tous les Chretiens, qu’encore que Dieu soit libre en la dispensation de sa vocation, il est pourtant sincere envers tous ceux a qui sa vocation est adressi[?]e, et qu’y ayant entre seux-la des foibles, aussi bien que des forts, des simples aussi bien que des Scavans, il faut necessairement en conclurre, qu’il n’a pas voulu rendre son salut inaccessible, ou impossible aux plus simples, pourvu que de bonne foi ils s’y appliquent selon leur vocation.
Ibid
Mais quant a la seconde maniere en laquelle l’Ecriture est la regle de l’Foi, savoir, pour former la foi dans un degre de simple suffisance pour le salut, par les choses essentielles qu’eele contient clairement, je dis qu’a cet egard son usage est decharge de toutes ces longueurs, et de toutes ces difficultez, et accommose a la portee des plus simples, ne supposant qu’autant de bon sens, et de bonne conscience, que Dieu donne aux plus petits de ses enfans.
Ibid
Je dis, enfin, qu’il n’est pas necessaire que les plus simples consultent les Interpretes de l’Ecriture, pour s’assurer de son veritable sens; car les objets de leur foi y sont si clairement expliquez, ils y sont proposez en tant de lieux, ils y sont si bien liez les uns avec les autres, ils y sont d’une maniere qui pourvoit si bien a tout ce qui est necessaire pour l’instruction de l’esprit, pour la consolation de la conscience, et pour la sanctification de l’ame, qu’avec la grace de Dieu qui les accompagne dans ses Elus, ils n’ont besoin que de leur simple presence pour s’insinuer et s’affermir dans les coeurs, et pour y fomer une veritable foi.
.
Johann Heidegger Latin
Dissertation on the Foundation of Salvation, sect. 71
Tertio denique animadvertendum, eum, qui immunis est ab errore fundamentali theoretico, in errorem fundamentalem practicum cadere posse, si videlicet charitate destitutus damnet et occidat eos, quos Deus damnatos et occisos non vult. et deterior sane multum est conditio illius Ecclesiae, quae aureae suae superaedificationis splendore, (nedum inani fortassis imagine et fallaci specie) adeo inflatur et intumescit, ut, charitate neglecta, aequanimitate deposita, calcata Christi lege, ecclesias in fundamento orthodoxas, propter inaedificatas fundamento falsarum opinionum stipulas, superciliose contemnat, haereseos insimulet, fastidiose rejiciat, orcoque adjudicet, quam illarum ecclesiarum, quae fundamentum retinentes, licet scientia inferiores, et in fide infirmae sint, charitate tamen invicta pollent; Beatique adeo Cypriani vestigiis insistunt, etc.
.
Frederic Spanheim Latin
Chapters on the Fundamentals of the Faith, Disputation 1, sec. 2, 4, 6
Difficultatis causae in fundamentalibus definiendis, aut qualiscunque dissensionis, sunt generales aliae, aliae speciales. Generales sunt:
1. Ex parte humani intellectus; ejus scilicet angustiae, et partiale donum prophetandi. Ita diversus concipiendi modus, pro ingeniorum diversitate, hinc et res explicandi, easque vel diffundendi in plura capita, vel in pauciora coarctandi, etc.
2. Ex parte voluntatis, Charitatis nempe defectus, et studium immodicum partium, et praejudiciorum vel opinionum tenax animus. Quo sit, ut quaelibet veritas saepe cum credendi necessitate, aut quilibet dissensus cum dissensu fundamentali, tempere nimis confundatur. Unde schismata, quae dividant Christi inconfutilem togam, ac corpus illius dilacerent, oriri in Ecclesia subinde necesse est…
Si excedimus, ut pro fundamentalibus et necessariis obtrudantur, quae minime talia; jam via salutis arctatur plus justo, conscientiae praeter jura libertatis adstringuntur, et a communione sive Christi, sive Ecclesiae, illi fortasse prohibentur, quos admissos oportuit…
Quinto difficilius longe est designare illud minimum, in Fidei negotio a quo salus aeterna dependeat: adeoque divinae misericordiae modum quemdam statuere, ac terminos praefigere, dum sunt miserationes ejus abyssus. Quod et a Theologi instituto alienum esse debet. Ita subjectorum diversitas intercedit, quominus par sit credendorum omnium ratio aut modus in ordine ad omnes et singulos. Sunt enim alii infantes, adultiores alii; hinc in aliis uberior, rudior in aliis cognitio suffecerit, uti suo loco demonstrandum.
.
Same, Disputation 10, sect. 8
Ac saepe id sibi dari negotii censet Theologus, ut damnet de Fide dissentientes, quem iniquioris judicii, et spretae Caritatis, et talenti pessime collocati, Christus ipse damnabit.
.
Herman Witsius Latin
Sacred Dissertations on what is Commonly Called the Apostles’ Creed, tr. Donald Fraser (1681; Glasgow, 1823), vol. 1, Dissertation 2
The command of God, indeed, lays an indispensable obligation upon all men, to make every possible effort to attain a most clear, distinct and assured knowledge of divine truth. It cannot, however, be questioned that the Deity, in his unbounded goodness, receives many to the abodes of bliss, whose knowledge even of the principal articles is very indistinct, and such as they are hardly capable of expressing in their own words.
.
It does not become us to ascend into the tribunal of God, and to pronounce concerning our neighbor for how small a defect of knowledge, or for how inconsiderable an error, he must be excluded from heaven.
.
The Character of a True Theologian
Oration on the Modest Theologian
Caeterum quandoquidem in sacris nostris non omnia aeuqe cuivis obvia, nonnulla etiam ob prisci temporis sermonisque ignorantiam obscuriuscule proposita, alia denique ex ipsa rerum natura a multorum perceptione remota sunt, modestiae est ita in eorum expositione versari, ut nihil temere definias, nihil superciliose praescribas, sed potius quid tibi, omnibus expensis, probabilissiumum et verosimillimum videatur, verecunde profitearis, relicta prudentioribus dissentiendi libertate.
Enimvero nihil indecentius, nihil a Christianismi genio, et Novi Testamenti libertate magis alienum est, quam unum aliquem (vel aliquos) exsurgere, qui se supra fratres suos, aeque pretiosae fides consortes efferat, eosque, in caeritum tabulas relatos, ad suorum verborum formulam adigat. Quod utique procul repulsum esse debet ab homine sui non ignaro, et quid sibi desit, quoties erraverit, tum etiam quum minime se errare crederet, tam aliunde, quam ex quotidianis profectibus suis experto. Christianae Fidei doctores quotquot sumus, fratres sumus, ad unius magistri, Christi, pedes ex aequo adfidentes.
Rebellis in magistrum est, et fundamentales Scholae leges proterviter conculcat, quisquis sibi imperium arrogat in condiscipulos. Isti autem imperio, sive unius, sive plurium in eandem tyrannidem consentientium, sponte se submittere, isti jugo colla subdere, isti cippo crura dare, non generosa modestia, sed abjecta pusillanimitas, et indigna res libertate Batava (Christiana) est. Ferreum istum, qui volet, calceum ignarus induat: ad meum certe pedem non facit , non faciet.
.
Idem Vir celeberrimus hoc symbolo creberrime utebatur, illudque amicorum albis vulgo inscribebat.
In necessariis unitas,
In non necessariis libertas,
In omnibus prudentia et caritas.
.
Jean La Placette Latin
Tract on the Divine Faith, bk. 4, ch. 10
Il y en a deux autres (Caracteres des veritez necessaires) que je crois de plus grand usage. L’un est, la declaration expresse de l’Ecriture, qui fait entendre nettement et distinctement la necessite de quelques unes de ces Veritez. L’autre est, l’impossibilite visible qu’il y a a remplir de certains devoirs, que l’Ecriture nous represente comme indispensables, si on ne connoit de certaines veritez, qui en sont en quelque sorte les fondemens.
.
Ibid. Ch. 13
Les veritez necessaires ont trois qualitez. La premiere, qu’elles ne sont pas en fort grand nombre. Le seconde, qu’elles sont aisees a entendre, et ne demandent pas une penetration extraordinaire; et la troisieme qu’elles se trouvent par tout, dans les livres saints, et se presentent, si je l’ose dire, a chaque page. Ainsi il est moralement impossible qu’un homme qui s’applique avec quelque soin a s’instruire, non seulement en ignore aucune, mais enore n’aille beaucoup au dela.
.
Samuel Pufendorf Latin
Jus Feciale Divinum, sect. 15
Id apud omnes, puto, in confesso est, non quamvis erroneam opinionem esse exitiabilem, et cum periculo salutis conjunctam, sed eam tantum, quae fundamentum fidei salvificae evertit. Nam postquam a primaeva simpicitate Fidei Christianae discessum est, multis libido subiit ejusdem mysteria, submissa veneratione adoranda, in materiam subtilitati ingeniorum exercendae convertere, ac in modos, queis divinae sapientiae ac potentiae sese placuit exserere, curiose inquirere; tum circa quae rationem qualemcumque sibi invenisse visi[?] sunt, velut palmaria Fidei capita, aliis obtrudere, ac dissentientes heterodoxiae arguere. Igitur postquam in tam vastam molem theologica disciplina intumuit, ac tanto quaestionum, in utramque partem disceptari solitarum, proventu luxuriari coepit, jam palmaria quaestio in eo vertitur, quaenam quaestiones fundamentum fidei tangant, quaenam extra illud cadant? Id enim ante omnia prius definiendum fuerit, si circa conciliandos ejusmodi dissidentes operae pretium fieri debeat. Nam uti cum iis, qui circa fundamentum fidei errant, quandiu eum errorem mordicus defendunt, frustra de pace ecclesiastica agitur; ita si quorum sententia circa fidei fundamentum recte se habeat, ac dissensio tantum circa quaestiones innoxias supersit, eos, hanc ob causam, a communione ac fraternitate excludere, Caritati, Christianis tantopere commendatae, quam maxime repugnat…
Quia porro maxima in eo difficultas vertitur, utrum aliqua queastio controversa ad fundamentum Fidei spectet, an minus, quod isthoc a quibusdam latius porrigatur, a quibusdam arctiore limite circumscribatur, nec idem oedem modo ab omnibus deducatur; judicaverim plurimum ad abolendam controversiarum segetem facturum, si quis ea dogmata, circa quae utrinque convenitur, in plenum nec hiulcum aut mutilum systema theologiae, ex iisdem principiis, probe concatenata serie, a capite ad calcem, extruere conetur.
Quorum enim dogmata in ejusmodi systema redigi possint, iis, quo minus in unam ecclesiam particularem coalescere queant, quid obstet nihil video, modo indignos Christianis affectus eliminare velint. Ubi si maxime quaedam quaestiones controversea supersint, cum tamen eaedem velut extra systema cadant, ipsum Fidei fundamentum tangere haud sunt censendae, eoque nec sufficere, ut ideo concordia et communio abrumpatur, aut abrupta maneat.
Ac si istae quaestiones nullo modo componi queant, praestiterit plane ab istis abstrahi, easque velut superfluas et unutiles, quin noxias, ac litigiis causam praebentes, e theologia proscribi. Sermo autem nobis est de justo systemate, et quo omnia, quae perfectos Christianos nosse par est, contineantur, quodque adeo omnes articulos complectatur, qui catenam fidei absolvunt. Nam aliud est quaerere, quinam articuli ad salutem sufficiant catechumeno, puero, aut e rudi plebecula homini, quibus multa ignorare impune licet, modo, in Salvatorem mundi fiduciam reponant, nec positivum errorem foveant huic fiduciae adversum. Sic Latro in cruce, plurimique simplices, et quondam qui, inter primam Christi confessionem e martyrum constantia conceptam, ad supplicium abrepti fuerunt, salute positi sunt, quos totam Fidei oeconomiam intellexisse nemo dixerit. Unde et arbitramur, plurimos etiam in corruptissimis Christianorum sectis salvari, qui profunditates Satanae non intelligunt, decepti, non deceptores, quibus simplex in salvatorem mundi fiducia palmarium religionis caput est.
.
Samuel Strimesius Latin
Theologus Francofurti ad Viadrum celeberrimus, Dissert. De Pace Ecclesiastica, ch. 7
Turpissimum enim est, nec micam Theologiae Christianae habet, a communione nostra illum arcere velle, eaque indignum judicare, qui omnibus, tum ad fidem, tum ad salutem, necessariis instructus, in arctissima, cum ipso Deo, Christo, et sanctis triumphantibus pariter atque militantibus universis, communione vivit. Talem si quae ecclesia communione sua expellit, nae ista Antichristi vestigia legit, et Antichristianismi perquam semet suspectam reddit. Nobis extra salutis fundamentalia, nulla fidei, nec extra fidei fundamentalia, ecclesiasticae communionis ulla reliqua sunt; cuncta autem in sacra scriptura, et salutis, et fidei, communionis denique ecclesiasticae fundamento unico atque adaequato, non tantum qua rem et materiam proposita, sed et qua modum formamque definita, notaque sua characteristica designata, qua ab omnibus minus-fundamentalibus discriminantur, dum vel expressis verbis, vel saltem per obviam cuivis consequentiam, ad salutem, vel creditu, vel factu necessaria perhibentur: Qualia sunt in specie, quae de fide in Christum, unicum inter Deum et hominem Mediatorem, et de sanctimonia vitae, verbo, de fide per charitatem efficaci, brevi totius Christianismi, certe fundamentalium omnium, compendio perfectissimo, his similibusque formulis aedifferuntur [or edisseruntur?]; Qui credit in Filium, habet vitam aeternam, etc. Extra haec, in Scriptura sacra indelebili Fundamentalium charactere insignita, alia ad salutem, eoque ad fidem et communionem ecclesiasticam necessaria nulla, nec ut talia a quoquam, sive publica, sive privata authoritate, injungenda sunt. Etsi enim conciliis integrum maneat de ordine, ritibus, atque regimine ecclesiae, disponere; Pastoribus item et evangelii ministris incumbat, in sacris plura scire quam vulgus tenet; tamen nec istis fundamentalia alia condere licet, quam in Scriptura condita sunt, nec his convenit plura fundamentalia credere, quam a Spiritu sancto tradita, a Christianis, cujusvis ordinis, seu doctoribus, seu auditoribus, credita olim sunt…
Hujusmodi autem Articulis admissis omnibus, in reliquis dogmatibus, atro carbone a Spiritu sancto haud notatis, liberum cuivis pio maneat judicium. Neque enim magis opinionum, quam rituum varietate fidei unitas dissolvitur; nec ob multiplex hominum ingenium captumque, ob varia eorum praejudica, ob varium educationis modum, ob lumen, cum rationis, tum gratiae divinae, differenti mensura ipsis impertitum, ob vim facultatemque veritates theologicas apprehendendi, de iisdem judicandi, alias ex aliis colligendi confirmandique, diversissimam, aliaque infinita, opinionum diversitatem necessario invehentia, et vel ipsos Christi apostolos in diversum trahere apta nataque, a quoquam sperandum est, ut Christiani in singulis religionis suae apicibus ex asse conveniant. Praesertim, cum Deo ipsis visum fuerit, hanc nobis tolerantiae atque moderationis nostrae Christianae, earumque exercitii materiam longe amplissimam his in terris haudquaquam eripere, quin ista superstite pacem dictitare sectandam cum iis, qui invocant Dominum de corde puro, etc.
.
Samuel Werenfels Latin
Theologus Basileensis, Dissert. Pro plebis judicio, ch. 3
“Cuilibet Christiano necessarium statuimus, ut rectum ferat judicium de iis, quae, ut Augustinus loquitur, continent fidem moresque vivendi; de articulis, ut loqui solemus, ad salutem necessariis, id est, sine quorum cognitione actus fidei aliaque officia praestari nequeunt, quae Deus a quolibet salvando requirit. Haec vero dogmata, nec numero multae sunt, nec in Scriptura S. Detectu difficilia. Hac enim potius ratione Deus consuluit plebi, Christianam Religionem simplicem et facilem reddendo, ejusque captui attemperando, quam exigendo aliquid a plebe, quod supra captum ejus est, ut postea succurreret huic ejus infirmitati, erigendo in Ecclesia cathedram infallibilem, cui omnes tuto se possent submittere. Dico, dogmata necessaria numero non esse multa. Neque enim excellentia fidei tam consistit in rerum creditarum multitudine, et cognitionis amplitudine, quam in Fidei firmitate et efficacia. Quod manifeste docent omnia eorum exempla, quorum ipse Christus et apostoli fidem tantopere depraedicant. Sane Philippus ex Aethiope baptizando non quaerit, quantam cognitionem acquisiverit [or acquifiverit?], et quam multa credat; sed num paucos articulos, neque enim multos tam brevi tempore discere poterat, credat ex toto corde. Brevissimaque Fidei confessione contentus, protinus illum ad baptismum admittit. Quem morem ab apostolis accepisse, dubitare vix licet. Quomodo enim alias tam paucorum hominum ministerio tam brevi tempore tot in orbe exstitissent Christiani, plane ut uno die tria millia ad Christianam fidem fuerint conversa, si nemo sine ampla cognitione Christianus esse possent? Secutis etiam proxime saeculis magnam adhuc Christianae fidei fuisse simplicitatem, norunt, qui scripta illorum temporum legunt, et vel antiquissima fidei symbola satis superque docent. Non multa credere, sed pauca firmiter et constanter credere, his convenienter vivere, et pro iis mori, haec tum temporis Christianum faciebant. Et cui tandem bono Deus exigeret a plebeio homine, ut plura credat, quam capere potest? Cur posceret, ut assentiatur dogmatibus, quae, cum ipsi proponuntur, nomina quidem audit, ut loquitur Gregorius de Valentia, rem vero ipsam mente comprehendere nequit?…
Usque adeone gratum est Deo, ut quis credat propositionem, quae quid significet, nescit? Haeccine fides opera producet, per charitatem efficax erit, cor purgabit, mundum vincet, hominem in vita sanctificabit, et in morte consolabitur?
.
Ernst Cyprianus Latin
Theologus Gothanus praestantissimus, praefatione in Concordantias Schmidii
Multi nostrae aetatis Theologi de incremento Rei Christianae sua vigilantia procurato magnopere gloriantur. Sed qui potest singularis Christianismi profectus locum habere sine confidentiori veritatis tuendae proposito, sine Caritate concordiaeque studio sincero? Non commemorabimus artes, quibus conatus suos interdum constabiliunt, si non illaudabiles, certe haudquaquam divinas. Illud autem cogitare velim Doctissimos viros, cum in ipsa consiliorum suorum quasi sede haud raro contra praecipua et Christianae at Naturalis Religionis fundamenta bonosque mores proterve disputata (nescio quo metu) aut dissimulari, aut frigidissime improbari, Fratres autem, circa conclusiones quasdam, ut ipsi quidem docent, non adeo necessarias creditu, dissentientes, haud secus ac barbaros, vel tigres potius et ursos, efferata immanitate impugnari certum sit; non posse non homines vel mitissimos, ac ipsos etiam principes, tandem vereri, ne suam, quam Dei gloriam, cariorem habeant; cum praesertim hujuscemodi discordia firmari adversariorum opes, veritatis autem propagationem numium quantum impediri animadvertant.
.
Idem, Praef. In Analecta Grotio de Ver. Rel. Christ. Adjuncta
Credibile est igitur, publicae saluti bene consulturos divinae voluntatis interpretes, qui longe petitas Doctorum sententias corrigere, aut, nullo interdum ad mores usu, suas aliis, velint nolint, obtrudere gestiunt, si corruptos depravatosque multorum in Aulis viventium mores reformarent, iisdemque persuasum irent, animos esse sempiternos; Deum, scelerum testem ac vindicem, gesti muneris rationem olim exacturum; naturam omnes homines aequali dignitate progenuisse; etc….
Verum haec obiter monere visum est, ut docerem, contemptis et abjectis honesti regulis, acerbas de rebus parvis disputationes, nec tributi levamentum, nec morum decus orbi Christiano allaturas.
.
Johann Buddeus Latin
Theologi Jenensis Celeberrimus, Praef. Ad Dissertat. Theolog.
Scandala, quae quis falsa doctrina praebet, non in minimis pono. At, fingere scandala, ubi nulla sunt, vel levissimum in rebus ad fundamentum Fidei non spectantibus dissensum pro scandalo venditare, nefas puto. Immo hi ipsi scandalum saepius maximum praebent, suarum itidem actionum rationem coram tribunali Servatoris reddituri.
.
Christoph Pfaff Latin
Theologus Tubingensis praestantissimus, Dissert. Thet. De Fidei Christianae articulis Fundamentalibus, Obs. I.
Articulos Fidei necessarios creditu atque fundamentales definire, jus Divinae majestatis proprium est atque reservatum. Hinc nullam dogma pro articula Fidei Fundamentali venditandum est, nisi quod necessarium creditu esse ipse Deus in Sacro Codice, sive expressis verbis, sive per legitimam consequentiam, declaraverit. Nota. At vero, si solius divinae autoritatis hoc est, Articulos Fidei condere, profecto summae temeritatis res est, quemlibet, a nobis qui dissenserit, orco addicere, aut res dubias atque obscuras, quae et ad fundamentum Fidei haud pertinent, tanquam tales, Christianis imponere, atque anathematismis in eosdem furere.
.
Ibid.
Quod enim nosmet ipsos spectat, tutissimum est, quemvis errorem, tanquam mortem nobis iste adferret, vitare. Ast, ubi de aliis pronunciandum est, in mitiorem partem utique ut descendamus, ipsum Domini exemplum nos jubet, qui apostolus suos in Articulis Fundamentalibus errantes, hactenus toleravit, donec major ipsorum oculis lux allaberetur.
.
Observation 2
Ad articulum Fidei Fundamentalem pertinet I. Ut in Tabulis sanctioribus creditu cognituque necessarius esse haud obscure affirmetur. II. Ut evidenter in iisdem expressus conspiciatur. III. Ut a quovis homine, indocto quoque et illiterato capi possit, etc. Nota. Et hinc conspicere est, omnes eos articulos, qui in meris abstractionibus scholasticis consistunt, et absque terminis philosophicis, quos vulgus haud capit, proponi nequeunt, fundamentum fidei haud tangere. Unde recte, si unqum, Samuel de Pufendorf, in Jure FEcial. Div. Sive, de Consensu et Dissensu Protestantium, ubi et systema exhibuit, in quod omnes Protestantes consentire possint, in hanc sententiam p. 233, fatur: In articulis Fidei tutius est simplicitatem sequi, quam ingenio consectandis argutiis indulgere. Quod cum ita sit, pessime fecere, qui philosophicam subtilitatem scholasticasque ideas, ad religionis placita enarranda, perverso instituto, attulerunt…
Sed ais, omnino scholasticis rerum explicationibus indulgendum esse, tum ut Haereticorum strophis obvies, tum ut quae obscura sunt, maxime mysteria, luce tua dones. at quod primum attinet, vereor, ut his argmis technas male sapientium jugules etc. Etenim si scholasticum in campum processerimus, ubi ligneis utraque pars armis militat, non fieri aliter potest, quam ut pugnantes ambo acie ita excedant, ut, licet utrinque plagae accipiantur, tamen (supponimus homines eadem, ex utraque parte, eruditione et facundia pollentes) vincat nullus: quod et observavit vir judiciosissimus St. a Pufendorf, in Jure Fec. Div. Sect. 9, pp. 33-34. Arma militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia, adeoque nec scholastica, sed spiritualia, et consistunt, non in subtilibus humanae sapientiae sermonibus, sed in demonstratione Spiritus, 1 Cor. 2:4; 2 Cor. 10:4. Hinc et disputationibus res Christiana parum hactenus promota fuit…
Quod vero porro dicitur, mysteriis hac terminorum adinventione diem affundi posse, id virorum Doctissimorum pace negamus, arbitramurque, eos, quod et nuper in Primit. Tubing. Pt. 2, p. 27, affirmavimus, non ex fumo lucem, sed ex fulgore potius fumum dare…
Quidni potius hic in [Greek:] Bathos, Paulinum [Greek:] paraxupteis[?], qui nosti, data opera Deum scientiae nostrae mysteria quod attinet, limites posuisse, quos migrare nefas sit, alterique aevo theoriam reservasse, huic praxin injunxisse, quam quae spectant essata [or effata?] sanctiora omnia clarissima sunt.
.
Observation 8
Quorum dissensus fundamentalis est, illi iisdem sacris uti nequeunt. At quorum dissensus non est fundamentalis, illi eandem communionem ecclesiasticam constituere, non modo possunt, sed etiam tenentur. Nota. Canon iste nonnisi ab iis, qui inimici pacis sunt, atque litium amantes, negari potest. Queis vero omnibus velimus dici id, quod Demophilo dixit Theodosius; Si pacem et concordiam fugis, te quoque ex Ecclesius fugere jubeo, apud Socratem, in Hist. Eccl. Lib. V, cap. 17, quod et apostoli monitum est, Haereticos, sive sectarios homines, esse fugiendos, tit. III. 10. Unde et Haeresis, hoc est sectae studium, inter opera carnis refertur, Gal. V:20. Id quod velim utique probe ut ponderent, qui nullum Fratrum dissensum ferunt.
.
Observation 9
Non datur ulla particularis Ecclesia, quae, in Articulis minus necessariis, se haud falli subinde, firmiter asseverare possit; certumque profecto hoc est, Thrasonismis hic vulgum nimis indulgere. quia, si apostolus affirmat, scientiam nostram imperfectam esse, seque ipsummet, qui et divino praecipuoque lumine collustratus erat, nondum consummatum esse, quid est, quod nos dicamus, Saturati sumus, divites sumus, regnamus, privilegiumque infallibilitatis nobis arrogemus, quod in Ecclesia Romana detestamur?
.
Observation 10
Hinc non absque ratione nuper scripsimus, Prudentia rem esse, ut de se quavis Ecclesia[e?] modeste, de altera, quantum id fieri quidem, salva veritate, possit, mitius sentiat, unaque alteram suo jure, prout id in Rebuspublicis liberis fieri soleat, penitus frui permittat. Ex quo perspicere est, longe absurdissimae rem operae esse, si una in alteram anathematismis exsecrationibusque saeviat. Quin et excommunicationibus severioribus dirisque in eos, qui bona fide errant, agere, atque, vi admota, aliam ipsis fidem injungere, inconsulti zeli pessimus est effectus.
.
Lutherans for Concord with the Reformed
Martin Luther Latin
Epistle to the Helvetians
Magnificentissimis ac Prudentissimis Dominis Coss. Senatui ac Populo Urbium Tiguri, Bernae, Baileae, Schaffusii, Sangalli, Mulhusii et Bielae, Dominis suis reverenter colendis.
Gratiam et pacem in Christo, Domino ac Salvatore nostro. Diuturniorem responsioni meae, ad Literas vestras Smalcaldam missas, interposui moram; quam equidem excusarem, sed spero minus hoc apud vos esse necessarium, ut quos non fugiat, quanta mihi viribus exhausto seni quotidie incumbant onera: quae tanta sunt, ut etiam vi quadam memet ipsum et hominibus et negotiis suffurando, tandem ad hance responsionem absolvendam accesserim.
Literas vero vestras ex morbo recreatus perlegi: Et primo quidem summo affectus sum gaudio, quod vidi, vos, seposita omni priori acerbitate, atque inter nos et Concionatores vestros obortis suspicionibus, concordiam serio amplecti et promovere, animum induxisse. Deus omnis concordiae ac dilectionis auctor, coeptum hoc opus pie ac salutariter perficiat, sicuti scriptum est; Cum placuerint Domino via hominis, inimicos quoque ejus convertet ad pacem, Prov. 16. Certum vero est, haud facile, et absque cicatrice sanari tantum dissidium non posse. Erunt enim tam hoc quam illo loco, quibus concordia displicitura, imo suspecta etiam futura est. Si vero utrinque serio rem agamus, diligenterque instemus, Deus Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi sua gratia nobis aderit, ut ipso tempore offensiones apud alios tollantur, et turbata aqua paulatim subsidat.
Amanter itaque M. V. rogo, serio dent operam, quo tam apud vos, quam apud vestros, vociferatores illi, qui adversus hanc nostram concordiam debacchantur, a suis clamoribus abstineant, populumque simpliciter doceant, et hoc totum concordiae negotium illis curandum relinquant, qui ad hoc vocati et idonei sunt, neque illud impediant: ut et nos vicissim, tam in scriptis, quam in concionibus, tranquillitati et moderationi operam dabimus, et ab ejusmodi clamoribus adversus vestros temperabimus, ne ullam impediendae concordiae occasionem praebeamus: quam et nos ex animo videre cupimus, ejusque promotionem Domino vovimus. Nam certe satis abunde fuit hactenus clamorum, et digladiationum, si iis aliquid promoveri debuisset.
In primis vero id oratos vos velim, ut de me vobis omnia ea polliceamini et statuatis, quae de eo, qui et ex animo erga hoc negotium sit affectus, et in quo nihil eorum (quantum quidem in me erit) quae ad concordiam promovendam faciant, desiderari queat. Hoc Deus ipse novit, quem in animam meam testem appello. Nam dissidium hoc neque me, neque alium quemquam juvit, sed damni multum multis attulit; ut nihil inde unquam utilitatis et boni sperari, vel olim potuerit, vel deinceps possit.
Ad vestros itaque ut veniam Articulos, in primo, de Ministerio verbi, nihil desidero: etc….
Et si quid in hoc capite ex mutuis, vel vestris, vel meis scriptis, non satis intelligatur (una siquidem lingua, unove loquendi modo omnes uti nequimus) Capito et Bucerus omnia perspicue ac plane mitigabunt, et quam fieri potest, omnium optime declarabunt. Id quod omnino mihi de ipsis spondeo atque polliceor; ut et huc usque deprehendere aliter non potui, quam ipsos hac in parte officium sedulo diligenterque fecisse.
Similiter quoque in Articulo secundo de baptismo, nullam video diversitatem, etc.
Teritus Articulus, de Sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis Christi; neque nos unquam docuimus, nec etiam nunc docemus, quod Christus coelitus a dextera Dei, visibiliter aut invisibiliter descendat vel ascendat. Fidei Articulo constanter insistimus, qui talis est; Ascendit ad coelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei, unde venturus est, etc. Qua vero ratione et modo Domini Corpus et Sanguis in Coena nobis offeratur, cum videlicet juxta ipsius verbum convenitur, et ipsius celebratur institutio, divinae potentiae commendamus et relinquimus. Nullius hic, vel ascensas, vel descensus, mentionem facimus, sed verbis Domini simpliciter inhaeremus, quae sunt, Hoc est Corpus meum, Hic est sanguis meus. Verum (uti supra etiam dictum est) si hic nondum plene nos mutuo intellexerimus, illud nunc commodissimum ac utilissimum sit, ut nos nobis invicem amicos praebeamus, et optima quaeque de nobis invicem speremus, donec multis contentionibus turbata aqua paulatim subsidat, etc.
Bucerus quoque et Capito his in rebus omnibus consulere facile poterunt, dummodo animis mutuo conjunctis omnem offensionem remittamus, Spiritui Sancto locum relinquamus, et in pia ac fraterna concordia perficienda elaboremus. Ad nos certe, et nominatim meam personam quod attinet, omni offensione remissa, summa fide, benevolentia, atque amore vos complectar. Utut enim nos, qui concordiam serio urgemus, summa quaeque conemur, praeclaro tamen Dei auxilio consilioque indigemus. Satan enim tam nostri, quam concordiae odio flagrans, suos quosdam facile inventurus est, qui tantum non scrupulos, sed trabes ac rupes, objicient, ut non necesse sit, nos etiam mutuis offensionibus ac suspicionibus indulgere; Quin potius animos manusque invicem porrigamus, et pari etiam fide atque constantia perseveremus, ne posteriora aliquando prioribus deteriora evadant.
De excommunicatione aut clavibus non memini unquam certamen aut dissidium aliquod inter nos exortum esse: in quo capite vestras ecclesias etiam rectius ac melius quam nostras constitutas esse crediderim. Si igitur reliqua talia sint, qualia optamus et volumus, concordia, hac in parte, Dei beneficio, nullas moras aut impedimenta experietur. Amen.
Haec in praesentia ad literas vestras brevissime respondere volui, quae ut in bonam accipiatis partem, amanter rogo atque oro. Cerebrum enim meum tanta cogitationum et occupationum mole quotidie obruitur, ut singulas res non ita tractare aut eloqui possim, ac si una aut altera solummodo mihi incumberet. His M. V. Omnes una cum vestris, Deo omnis misericordiae et consolationis autori, commendo: qui sui Spiritus gratia efficiat, ut corda nostra in dilectione bonoque proposito conglutinentur, omnesque humanae ac diabolicae malitiae et suspicionum spumae ac scoriae expurgentur: ad laudem et gloriam sanctissimi nominis sui, multarum animarum salutem, Diaboli vero et Papae, omniumque eum sectantur, perniciem. Amen. Prima Decem. Anno 1537.
.
Another Epistle to the same
Amplissimi, ac Prudentissimi viri, domini et amici colendi, redditae mihi sunt vestrae 4. Nonarum Maii datae Literae, ex quibus non sine singulari animi voluptate vidi, omnium vestrum mentes ad concordiam jungendam promtas atque paratas esse. Ex meis quoque de hoc negotio scriptis, invicem id quoque vobis auditu pergratum fuisse intellexi, quod apud nos non statuitur ascensus et descensus Christi in Sacramento, et nihilosecius, vera corporis et sanguinis Christi sub pane et vino praesentia, ac sumtio, asseritur. Si quae autem per epistolam explicari satis dilucide non potuerunt, spero Bucerum et Capitonem ea omnia coram melius declaraturos esse. Id enim ut facerent rogavi, totumque negotium ipsis commisi. Cumque nullum mihi sit dubium, plebeculam verstram admodum esse piam, et boni rectique percupientem, multum certe ea re exhilaror, in eam que spem erigor, ut si qua adhuc subsit remora, etiam illam, moderate et commode cum simplicioribus agendo, superari posse; et prorsus persuasum habeo, Dominum sua gratia nobis affuturum esse, ut, omnibus suspicionibus sublatis, constans aliqua concordia inter nos coalescat. Amen.
Si quos autem, scriptis ipsorum permotus, suspectos adhuc habeam, Bucero totum illud retuli, et quoad ejus fieri ulla ratione potest, feram ipsos, et in bonorum numero tantisper eos censebo, donec ipso tempore etiam adducantur. Proinde rogo atque oro, ut quemadmodum coepistis, porro etiam omni studio in id incumbatis, ut pium hoc opus, propter Ecclesiae pacem et tranquillitatem susceptum, ad optatum finem perducatur. Id quod vos summa voluntate facturos esse, plane mihi spondeo atque polliceor. Deus, omnis misericordiae Pater, diviti et opulenta sui Spiritus gratia, in hoc opere ad ipsius gloriam inchoato vos confirmet atque conservet, per filium suum dilectum Dom. Nostrum Jesum Christum; Amen. Die Jovis post Joh. Bapt. Anno 1538,
[????????????????]
.
Idem, Praef. In Confessionem Fidei Fratrum Bohemorum, sive Valdensium; quos tamen constat, et in articulo de Coena Domini, et in variis ritibus, a Luthero dissensisse
Sed nunc prodeunt non paulo cultiores et liberiores, ne dicam etiam illustriores et meliores, ut sperem non ingratos neque inamabiles fore omnibus vere Christianis, ita ut et gratias nos agere oporteat quam maximas Deo et Patri Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui secundum divitias gloriae suae jussit e tenebris splendescere lumen hoc Verbi sui, quo denuo in nobis destrueret mortem, et illuminaret vitam; et gratulari tum illis, tum nobis, quod qui inter nos ipsos quoque longe abfuimus, destructo nunc intersticio suspicionis, qua nobis mutuo haeretici videbamur, facti sumus prope, et reducti simul sumus in unum ovile sub unum illum pastorem et episcopum animarum nostrarum, qui est benedictus in saecula. Amen.
Quod si quae differentiae in hac eorum confessione occurrent, de ritibus et ceremoniis, vel de coelibatu, meminerimus nunquam fuisse, neque potuisse omnium ecclesiarum omnes ritus et observationes esse aequales vel easdem. Id enim non permittunt hominum, regionum, temporum rationes et varietates, modo salva sit doctrina Fidei et morum…
Commendo igitur in Domino omnibus piis et hanc confessionem fratrum, in qua videbunt clare, quanta injuria hactenus a Papistis fuerint damnati et vexati.
.
Idem, Defens. [Greek:] tou retou verborum coenae.
Hic stant verba illa, et clare et expedite sonant, quod Christus suum corpus dat ad comedendum, cum panem porrigit. Nos etiam super hoc immobiles consistimus, firmissime credimus, et diserte sic docemus, quod in Coena Dominica vere Christi Corpus accipiatur et comedatur. Quomodo autem hoc fiat, et quomodo sit in pane, id ingenue fatemur nos ignorare, nec quidem scire debemus. Verbo Dei credere tenemur, modum vero praescribere, et metam figere, id nobis omnino est in erdictum. Panem cernimus oculis, auribus vero audimus Corpus Christi adesse.
.
Idem, in his Smaller Catechism
Quaest. Quid prodest sic comedisse et bibisse? Resp. Id indicant haec verba, Pro vobis datur; item, Effunditur in remissionem peccatorum. In hoc enim Sacramento, Remissio peccatorum, Vita et aeterna Beatitudo nobis per illa verba donantur: Remissionem enim peccatorum Vita et Beatitudo necessario comitantur.
Quaest. Quomodo potest illa corporalis manducatio tantas res conficere? Resp. Edere et bibere, sine dubio, ista nunquam poterunt. Sed verba haec, Pro vobis datur, item, Effunditur in remissionem peccatorum. Haec enim verba sunt potissima hujus sacramenti pars, et ceu caput, quibus qui credit, ille[?] omnia ea consequitur, quae promittunt, nempe remissionem peccatorum.
.
Idem, Postilla in Festo Corp. Christi, Joann. VI
‘Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus.’ Hoc edere et bibere aliud nihil est, quam credere in Dominum Christum, qui carnem et sanguinem meo nomine impendit, quo me a peccato, morte, satana, inferno, et omni infortunio assereret…
Quo circa haec esitatio corde peragitur, non ore; esus [ejus?] cordis non fallit, sed manducatio oris fallit; comestio, quae ore sit, finem habet, altera autem aeternum durat. Siquidem cor fide in Christum continenter pascitur et alitur…
Caetreum quod hic germanus hujus evangelii sensus sit, videlicet quod de spiritali esu et potu intelligendum sit, verba urgent quae dominus in fine hujus capitis dicit: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam. Verba quae ego loquor, spiritus et vita sunt. Quibus verbis Christus significat, corporalem esum et potum nihil prodesse: sed credere hanc carnem Filium Dei esse, qui mera gratia de coelo descendit, et pro me sanguinem suum fudit, hoc prodest, et vitam dat. Proinde Filii Dei carnem esse, et sanguinem ejus bibere, ut dictum, aliud nihil est, quam credere suam carnem pro me traditam, et sanguinem suum pro me fusum; et quod in meum commodum devicerit peccatum, mortem, Satanam, inferos, et omne malum. Ex tali fide postea ingens in ipsum fiducia incessit, et ferocula quaedam animositas contra omne infortunium, ut in posterum nihil quicquam mihi formidini sit, neque peccatum, neque mors, cacodaemon, aut inferi: quandoquidem sciam illa, omniae dominum pedibus suis subjecisse, et in meam gratiam triumphasse. Hoc spiritalis et non carnalis manducatio efficit. Spiritalis et intima esitatio, quae corde sit, efficax est; non externa, quae in sacramento sit. Etiam atque etiam cave, ne sufficere credas, si extrinsecus corpore et sanguine Christi pascaris in sacramento. Quemadmodum non satis est, si equo pictam avenam adponas, ut inde pascatur, et pro vera avena habeat: hac certe non pascitur, sed veram avenam habere vult. Non dissimiliter et hic sit. quanquam sacramentum verus cibus sit; verum qui illum corde non accipit per fidem, huic nihil prodest: siquidem neminem justum aut fidentem facit, sed requirit ut jam antea justus et fide praeditus sit. quapropter si creditur, Christum verum Filium Dei esse, de coelo descendisse, et sanguinem suum fudisse, tum quod me salvum, justum, et vivum fecerit, satur sum, et hoc cibi rite accepi. Sic ego in illum cibum mutor, et vicissim cibus in me mutatur, uti cum corporeo cibo agitur. Hoc ipsum dominus innuit, quum inquit: Qui edit meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in illo. Siquidem quum in Christum credo, tum demum vere carne ejus vescor, et sanguinem ejus bibo; in eo maneo, et in unam placentam cum eo coalesco. Quid autem est in Christo manere, et unum libum cum eo esse? Nihil aliud, quam quod omnia ejus bona habeo, quae ipse possidet, ejus justitiam, sapientiam, vitam, et omne genus virtutum: haec mea sunt, hisce ego uti possum, non secus [fecus?] ac privis bonis…
Est igitur haec totius hujus evangelii summa: Si ex corde et serio credis, Christum hominem factum peccata tua in se transtulisse, infernum devicisse, mortem jugulasse, omnia quae te laedere possunt absorpsisse, teque Deo Patri reconciliasse, carnem ejus edis, etc sanguinem ejus bibis, unde vitam aeternam habes.
.
Idem, Postilla in Feria Quarta Pentec. Joan. VI
Patet igitur jam, qui fidem habet huic coelesti pani Christo, carni et sanguini, de quo hic loquitur, data ei esse, ut proprium quiddam, et ea ut re propria utatur, hic jam voluntatem Dei perfecit, et de hoc coelesti pane edit. Sicut Augustinus ait; Quid paras es? Crede, et manducasti.
.
Idem in MS. Quod exstat in Collegio Corporis Christi, Cantabrig.
…Nam et ego hoc dissidium vellem (testis est mihi Christus meus) redemptum non uno corpore et sanguine meo: Sed quid faciam? Ipsi forte conscientia bona capti sunt in alteram sententiam. Feramus igitur eos. Si sinceri sunt, liberabit eos Christus Dominus. Ego contra captus sum bona certe conscientia (nisi ipse mihi sim ignotus) in meam sententiam. Ferant et me, si non possunt mihi accedere.
.
Philip Melanchthon Latin
animus pacificus, et ardentissimum concordiae studium, in vulgus ita nota sunt, ut probatione non indigeant. Non possumus tamen, quin insignia quaedam loca speciminis loco proferamus.
In scripto de Dissensionibus Ecclesiasticis, ad Virum nobiliss. Guliel. Bellaium Langaeum, Regis Galliae in Germania Legatum, an. 1534 cap. De Missa.
Ego quid hic consulam, nescio, cum adhuc inter nostros sint dissensiones de Coena Domini. Bucerus moderationem quandam Zuinglianae sententiae proposuit. Ea moderatio mihi quidem non displicuit, sed culpa hujus turbulenti saeculi factum est hactenus, quo minus nostri de tota re prosus inter se convenerint: sed annituntur modo aliqui, ut solida inter nos concordia constituatur, praesertim cum hoc dissidium maxime deterreat ab evangelio exteras nationes. Christus adjuvet nos et redigat ecclesiam suam in piam et justam concordiam.
.
Idem, Epist. Ad D. Benedictum, caeterosque Fratres Waldenses in Bohemia; anno 1535
Gratia et pax, etc. Existimo, Vir Eximie, Fratres tuos in hoc nostro congressu, in multis rebus melius meam sententiam cognovisse et perspexisse quam olim: ego quoque videor mihi res vestras percepisse. Quare cum de praecipuis Articulis Doctrinae Christianae inter nos constet, complectamur nos mutua amore. Neque dissimilitudo et varietas rituum et caeremoniarum disjungere deget mentes nostras. Saepe Paulus concionatur de caeremoniis, et prohibet Christianos dissidere propter varietatem rituum et ceremoniarum, quamvis mundus vehementer propter ceremonias pugnet.
Severius exercitium, seu disciplina in ecclesiis vestris profecto non male mihi placet. Utinam in Ecclesiis nostris quoque paulo severior possit obtineri. De meo animo erga vos ita sentiatis, me vehementer optare, ut hi, qui Evangelium amant, et nomen Christi glorificari capiunt, mutua charitate sese prosequantur, atque ita doctrinam suam communibus studiis ad gloriam Christi referant, ne se ipsos mutuis et domesticis odiis seu discordiis perdant, praesertim propter illas res, de quibus tumultuari non est necesse.
.
Idem, Epist. Ad Bullingerum.
Fortassis priusquam hae meae Literae ad te perferentut [perferentur?], accipies atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum [Greek] peri deipnou kuriakou, instaurat. Nunquam majore impetu hanc causam egit. Desino igitur sperare ecclesiarum pacem. Tollent cristas inimici nostri, qui defendunt [Greek:] eidola, Monachorum, ac rursus ecclesiae nostrae distrahentur. Qua ex re ingentem capio dolorem. Nam privato periculo, quod nunc mihi impendet, etsi non est leve, tamen tantum non moveor, quantum ecclesiarum nostrarum, et literatorum distractionibus.
.
Idem, alia Epist. Ad Eundem.
Nos tamen reliqui foveamus consensum et animorum conjunctionem inter nos, nec magis divelli nostras ecclesias sinamus. Non tam, inquit Basilius, sinistrae opus est dextra, quam ecclesiae concordia docentium. Facilius accendi et retineri onorum studia, et majore gravitate disciplina qualiscunque defendi potest, si doctores et in docendo consentient, et inter se benevolentia mutua conjuncti erunt. Ideo quantum possum, astringere nostram conjunctionem, non dissipare velim. Haec simplici animo et candide scribo, teque rogo, ut de voluntate tua rescribas.
.
Idem, Epist. Ad Vitum Theodorum.
Scio me rideri a multis, et facile fero. Sed vellem, et illos, et alios introspicere meum cor: si tantum lachrymarum fundere possem, quantum undarum noster Albis pleno vehit alveo, non posset exhauriri meus dolor, ortus ex hac dissensione, etc.
.
Idem, in Judicio de Controversia Heidelbergae in negotio Coenae Dominicae excitata, anno 1559
Non difficile, sed periculosum est respondere. Dicam tamen quae nunc de controversia illius loci monere possum, et oro filium dei, ut et consilia et eventus gubernet. Non dubium est, de controversia coenae ingentia certamina et bella in toto orbe terrarum secutura esse; quia mundus dat poenas idololatriae et aliorum peccatorum. Ideo petamus, ut filius dei nos doceat et gubernet. Cum autem ubique multi sint infirmi, et nondum instituti in doctrina ecclesiae, imo confirmati in erroribus, necesse est initio habere rationem infirmorum. Probo igitur consilium illustrissimi electoris, quod rixantibus utrinque mandavit silentium, ne distractio fiat in tenera ecclesia, et infirmi turbentur in illo loco et vicinia; et optarim rixatores in utraque parte abesse.
Secundo, remotis contentiosis, prodest reliquos de una forma verborum convenire. Et in hac controversia optimum esset retinere verba Pauli; Panis quem frangimus [Greek:] koinonia esti tou somatou. Et copiose de fructu Coenae dicendum est, ut invitentur homines ad amorem hujus pignoris, et crebrum usum. Et vocabulum koinonia declarandum est. Non dicit mutari naturam panis, ut papistae dicunt. Non dicit, ut Bremenses, panem esse substantiale corpus Christi. Non dicit, ut Hesshusius, panem esse verum corpus Christi; sed esse koinonian, id es, hoc quo sit consociatio cum corpore Christi, quae sit in usu, et quidem non sine cogitatione, ut quum mures panem rodunt. Acerrime pugnant Papistae, et eorum similes, ut dicatur corpus Christi extra sumptionem inclusum esse speciebus panis, aut pani, et postulant adorationem…
Sarcerius jubet delapsas particulas colligi, et erasa terra comburi. Cum Wormatiae essemus ante biennium, quaestio mittebatur ad nos ex aula quadam; An corpus Christi descendat in ventrem? Talibus prodigiosis quaestionibus rejectis, utilius esset retineri formam verborum Pauli, et de fructu recte doceri homines. Potest inspici forma verborum Coenae in Examine Megalpurgensi, ubi et commonefactio est de fructu Coenae. Adest Filius Dei in ministerio evangelii, et ibi certo est efficax in credentibus, ac adest non propter panem, sed propter hominem, sicut inquit, Manete in me, et ego in vobis. Item, Ego sum in Patre meo, et vos in me, et ego in vobis. Et in his veris consolationibus facit nos sibi membra, et testatur, se corpora nostra vivificaturum esse. Sic declarant Veteres Coenam Domini. Sed hanc veram et simplicem doctrinam de fructu, nominant quidam cothurnos; et postulat dici, An corpus sit in pane, aut speciebus panis?
Quasi vero sacramentum propter panem, et illam papisticam adorationem institutum sit. Postea fingunt, quomodo includant pani: Alii conversionem, alii transsubstantiationem, alii ubiquitatem excogitarunt. Haec portentosa [spelling?] omnia ignota sunt eruditae Vetustati: Negat Hesshusius se assentiri Origeni, qui panem et vinum nominat [Greek:] sumbola tou somatou kai aimatou. Rejicit contumeliose Clementem Alexandrinum. Pronuntiabit eodem modo de Augustino, ambrosio, prospero, Dionysio, Tertulliano, Beda, Basilio, Nazianzeno, qui nominat [Greek:] oontitukon soma, Theodoreto, qui ait de pane, [Greek:] phusin ou metabaloon. Quae est igitur tanta authoritas Hesshusii, ut ipsi potius assentiamur, quam tot veteribus Scriptoribus? etc….
Ac maneo in hac sententia, contentiones utrinque prohibendas esse, et forma verborum una et simili utendum esse. Si quibus haec non placent, nec volunt ad communionem accedere, his permittatur ut suo judicio utantur, modo non fiant distractiones in populo. Oro autem Filium Dei, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, sedentem ad dexteram aeterni Patris, et colligentem ecclesiam voce evangelii, ut nos doceat, gubernet, et protegat. Opto etiam, ut aliquando in pia synodo de omnibus controversiis horum temporum deliberetur.
.
Lectis pacificis illis Lutheri et Melanchthonis literis, fidem haud agre impetrabit narratio, quam ex testibus fide dignis non pauci referunt, atque inter alios Hospinianus, Hist. Sacram. Ad annum 1546.
Multi verba Lutheri urgent, quae calor disputationis [Greek:] philonikois exprimere solet…
dissimulantes, aut, nescientes forsan, ut aequum est de tantis viris credere, illa quae valedicturus collegio theologico, priusquam proficisceretur in patriam, in qua mortuus est, dixit domino philoppo Melanchtoni, et quae is multis exposuit, quaeque probari possunt testibus omni exceptione majoribus, videlicet, quod sponte, non rogatus, in haec verba prorupit: Mi Philippe, fateor in negotio de sacramento, nimium esse factum. Et cum Philippus respondisset: Ergo, mi Domine doctor, ut consulatur ecclesiae, edamus lene aliquod scriptum, in quo sententiam nostram clare explicemus, Lutherus subjecit; Mi Philippe, Ego de hac re quoque sollicite cogitavi: Sed sic redderem totam doctrinam suspectam. Itaque hoc optimo Deo committam; Agite vos etiam aliquid post mortem meam. Haec ex ore Philippi excepta sunt.
De Melanchthonis sententia, sic Calvinus ad Farellum scripsit, mense Martio 1539
Cum Philippo fuit mihi multis de rebus colloquium: De causa concordiae ad eum prius scripseram, ut bonis viris de ipsorum sententia certo possemus testari. Miseram ergo paucos articulos, quibus summam rei breviter perstrinxeram. Iis sine controversia ipse quidem assentitur: sed fatetur esse in illa parte nonnullos, qui crassius aliquid requirant: atque id tanta pervicacia, dicam tyrannide, ut diu in periculo fuerit, qoud eum videbant a suo sensu nonihil alienum. Quanquam autem non putat constare solidam consensionem, optat tamen ut haec concordia, qualiscunque est, foveatur, donec in unitatem suae veritatis nos dominus utrinque adduxerit. De ipso nihil dubita, quin penitus nobiscum sentiat.
.
The Suevs & Johannes Brenz Latin
Syngramma Suevorum, cujus auctor censetur Joh. Brentius
Non opinamur quemquam tam impie sentire, qui neget fidem sanguinem bibere, et carnem Christi edere. Sic enim ait Joan. VI: Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Cujus? Fidei. Nam Fides edit carnem Christi, et bibit sanguinem ejus, dum credit. Jam si fides edat carnem, et bibat sanguinem, consectaneum est carnem et sanguinem fidei praesentia esse: siquidem, si non essent praesentia, non possent edi aut bibi, aut, si mavis, credi: quando quidem Deum ipsum edere, hoc est, credere, nemo potest, nisi cui Deus fuerit praesens. Impiis absens est et infidelibus, proinde nec illi Deum edunt, hoc est, in Deum non credunt. Breviter, fides ut habet Deum praesentem, si credat, habere oportet corpus et sanguinem praesentia. Quis autem fidei Deum praesentem facit (non enim de ea nunc praesentia loquimur, quo Deus omnia implet, sed qua piis adest) nisi verbum?…
Porro quum verbum Deum cum omnibus suis bonis fidei praesentem offerat, cur verbum idem non faceret in corpore et sanguine Christi? quando haec nostra sunt dona, et his emortis, peccati, inferni, adeoque Satanae faucibus erepti sumus. Johannes ait, Sanguis Jesu Christi mundat nos ab omni peccato. Si igitur sanguis nos emundat, oportet sanguinem nobis praesentem esse, siquidem res absens non emundat…
Quid autem sanguinem nobis adferat, nisi verbum, non videmus. Fides, inquis, sanguinem offert nobis. Sed unde fides sanguinem accipit, nisi a verbo? Fides enim non est fides, nisi in Verbum directa sit. Verbum Fidei objectum est, Verbum Fidei offert, quidquid accipit, aut credit…
Fides rem longissime pro mundi captu positam, sibi praesentissimam facit, et videt…
Quum corpus Christi carne nos edere adseveramus, licebit interim ut a tua humanitate impetremus, ne aliter quam candida interpretatione accipias. Nam edimus corpus et bibimus sanguinem carne, non ut corpus Christi atteramus et frangamus, ut est in revocatione Berengarii, sed panem ipsum, qua panis est, tractamus, frangimus, edimus, et dentibus atterimus. Corpus atem accipimus, qua verbum accipimus, Hoc est corpus meum; ut pulcerrime quidam dixit, quod edimus, intrat ventrem: quod credimus, intrat mentem.
.
Johannes Brenz Latin
Exegesis in John 6
Non quaerimus, an panis substantia mutetur in corporis substantiam, ut praeter accidentia, quae sic vocant, nihil remaneat in pane; nec quaerimus, an in pane ita carnaliter corpus subsistat, quaemadmodum ratio humana in pane corpusculum quoddam imaginari solet…
Itaque hoc solum quaerimus, an pane et vino coenae dominicae distribuantur et donentur fidei nostrae corpus et sanguis Christi. Hoc si comprobatum fuerit, manifestum dein erit, quare panis dicatur vere esse corpus Christi, et vinum vere esse sanguis, non duntaxat significare. Primum igitur neminem opinor tam deploratae fidei esse, qui eat inficias corpus et sanguinem Christi nostra esse dona. Nam si nobis per Christum donata est vita, si donata est Remissio peccatorum, quomodo non et corpus et sanguis donata nobis essent?…
Quod si corpus et sanguis dona sunt, pro ratione igitur donorum distribuuntur fidei nostrae. At dona Dei dantur nobis credentibus per verbum, et verbi sacramenta. Proinde ut corpus Christi nobis per verbum communicatur, ita et communicatur nobis pane coenae per verbum; et ut sanguis nobis per verbum donatur, ita et nobis vino coenae per verbum donatur…
Caro et sanguis sunt vere cibus et potus spirituales: proinde ut per verbum, ita etiam per sacramentum, fidei offeruntur et dantus corpus ac sanguis, ut habeat externus homo sua externa, panem, et vinum: internus vero sua interna et spiritualia, corpus et sanguinem in mysterio donata…
Corporis os accipit panem et vinum sensu, praeter panem et vinum enim aliud non sentit; os fidei accipit suo etiam sensu corpus et sanguinem; ut corpus habeat in sacramento corporalia signa, et fides spiritualia, hoc est, rem ipsam et veritatem…
Quum satis manifestum fuerit, quod corpus et sanguis fidei nostrae distribuantur per panem et vinum coenae, videamus nunc, qua ratione panis dicatur esse corpus, et vinum ese sanguis, non duntaxat significare seu adumbrare. Nam panem non esse ideo corpus, quod mutetur in corpus, ut papistae somniant; aut quod in pane subsistat corpusculum quoddam, supra dictum est. Restat igitur, ut ideo dicatur Corpus Christi esse, quia per panem fidei nostrae distribuitur corpus. Ita et de vino dicendum erit: ideo enim vinum sanguis est, quia per vinum fidei nostrae sanguis donatur…
Panis jam corpus esse dicitur, non quia solum significant (sic enim abesset corpus) sed quia instrumentum et medium factum est, quo vere et praesenter fidei nostrae corpus donatur ac distribuitur…
In coena verbo suo per panem dispensavit corpus suum fidei apostolorum, non corporalis carnis sensui. Proinde non erat opus, ut apostolorum os et gula praesentiam corporis in pane sentirent, nec necessarium fuit, ut panis mutaretur sensibiliter in corpus, sed satis erat corpus fide sentire.
.
German Princes Latin
Electores, Principes, Comites, Barones, et senatus civitatum Germaniae, qui libro Concordiae subscripserunt, eumque suo nomine edi curarunt; in Praefatione libri illius
Sic ut nequaquam consilium et institutum nostrum sit, eos homines, qui ex quadam animi simplicitate errant, nec tamen blasphemi in veritatem doctrinae coelestis sunt, multo vero minus totas ecclesias, quae vel sub romano imperio, vel alibi sunt, damnare. Quin potius mens atque animus noster fuerit, hac ratione fanaticas opiniones, et earundem pervicaces Doctores et blasphemos duntaxat (quos in ditionibus, ecclesiis, et scholis nostris nequaquam tolerandos judicamus) palam reprehendere et damnare: quod illi errores expresso verbo dei repugnent, et quidem ita, ut cum eo conciliari nequeant. Deinde etiam eam ob causam hoc suscepimus, ut pii omnes de his diligenter vitandis, monerentur. Nequaquam enim dubitamus, multos pios et minime malos homines, in iis etiam ecclesiis, quae hactenus non per omnia nobiscum senserunt, reperiri, qui simplicitatem quandam suam sequantur, et negocium quidem ipsum non probe intelligant, sed blasphemias, quae contra sacram coenam (quemadmodum ea in ecclesiis nostris secundum institutionem Christi dispensatur, et juxta verba testamenti ipsius magna bonorum omnium consensione docetur) evomuntur, nullo modo probant…
Quamobrem hoc nostro scripto, coram Deo et tota ecclesia testamur, nobis propositum nunquam fuisse, hac pia conciliationis formula molestiam aut periculum creare piis, qui persecutionem hodie patiuntur. (Loquuntur de Gallis et Belgis Reformatiis) Quemadmodum enim Christiana caritate moti, in societatem doloris cum eis dudum venimus: ita a persecutiove et gravissima turannide, quae in miseros illos maxima exercetur, abhorremus; eamque ex animo detestamur.
.
Georg Calixtus Latin
Judge of Controveries, sect. 2
Quu itaque quaeritur de amicitia, reconciliatione, sive unione inter nos et Calvinianos, qui appellantur, redintegranda, considerandum omnio erit, num sint illi adhuc in statu verorum Christianorum, Filiorum Dei et haeredum salutis; an eo, sive per errores capitales, sive per nonnulla sibi familiaria et in usum recepta crimina exciderint, ut genuini Christiani, Dei Filii, Christi membra, et cohaeredes regni coelestis haberi jam non possint. Nam si posterius verum fuerit, recte fecerimus, si eos res sibi suas habere jusserimus, nostraque societate et communione excluserimus, non tamen interim seposita cura, quam errantibus in viam reducendis impendere Christianos decet. Sin ita non est, non poterit Deo placere vel probari, quod eos odimus et fugimus, et cum iis societatem inire vel coloere nolumus. Nempe, si eos ille ut filios agnoscit, nos ut fratres amare debemus: si ille ad consortium regni sui admittit, nos commercio societatis nostrae excludere non decet, neque hic in terris aversari, cum quibus in Coelis aeternum conversabimur.
.
Ibid. Sect. 11-12, 36
Hisce paemissis, ad negotium reconciliationis, et belli, quod inter Lutheranos et Calvinianos (liceat nunc ita appellare) aperto quasi Marte geritur, sive sopiendi, sive mitigandi, aliquanto propius accedamus, et a controversia de aeterna praedestinatione, sive electione, initium faciamus. Principio ponimus, Deum ab homine non requirere, ut aeternum illud praedestinationis sive electionis decretum intelligendo penetret, et exact capiat, sed servari posse hominem, modo ordinem, per quem in tempore ad salutem Deus nos perducit, sequatur et servet, caetera de decreto in aeternitate factor minime sollicitus: nempe Evangelium audiat et admittat, in Christum credat, desideriis carnis repugnet et obsequium subtrahat…
36. In has materia perquam difficili et perplexa, cujusque exquisitam enodationem sub poena amittendae aeternae salutis Deus a nemine exifit, qui ita versantur, ut ab una parte Deum peccati et exitii auctorem non faciant, ab altera necessitatem gratiae agnoscant, etiamsi in caeteris nonnullis accuratius explicandis, et inter sese combinandis, utpote ab imbecilli ate captus nostri remotioribus, dissideant; se nihilo minus invicem mutua ae quanimitate et caritate, ut Christianos decet tolerare et amare et possunt et debent.
.
Sect. 37
Transeamus ad doctrinam de unione personali duarum in Christo naturarum. Credit autem utraque pars unum et eumdem esse verum Deum et verum hominem, unam, inquam, esse personam, quae et Deus sit et homo; sive et divina constet natura et humana secundum hypostasin unitis, ita ut verissime et realissime de Deo enunciari possit ac debeat, quod sit homo, sit natus, passus, crucifixus, mortuus; et rursus de hoc ipso homine, quod, sit Deus, aeternus, immensus, creator coeli et terrae: quodque uni huic et eidem personae divina competent ratione divinae, et humana ratione humanae naturae, utraque videlicet per unam personalitatem inconfuse, inconversibiliter, indivulse, et inseparatbiliter unita. Plura nosse vel credere, quod hunc articulum attinet, ab homine Deus, ut ad sui commercium, fruitionem et aeternam gloriam eum admittat, non requirit: Qui itaque nos ab eo, ut ad nostram amicitiam et Societatem eum admittamus, plura requiramus? Imo, quomodo salva caritate, quam Deo et Proximo, et salvo, quod divinis mandatis debemus, obsequio, odisse et rejicere possumus eum, quem Deus amat et admittit? Non tantum tribuamus nostris speculationibus, subtilitatibus, et sequelis, quas fundamento, quale modo expositum fuit, inaedificamus, saepe, sicut sunt humana, fallacibus, ut omnes, qui de earum certitudine et veritate ambigant, communione, tum fidelium in terris, tum beatorum in coelis, excludamus. Non hanc nobis potestatem fecit Deus, non hoc nostri voluit esse libitus et arbitrii: nec placere ei poterit vel probari, si indebitam et illicitam usurpermus.
.
Sect. 39
Superest quaestio, de dotibus et sublimitate humanae naturae, sive per ipsam unionem personalem, sive per insequutam exaltationem, glorificationem et sessionem ad Dei dexteram, collatis, ita ut de ea in absstracto, quemadmodum locuuntur, enunciari possint. Majores esse, quam ut humana mens capere, vel lingua effari queat, omnes fatentur. Et si adsequi non possumus, quid scrutamur? Quare acquiescere nolumus, nisi distinctam, id est, perfectam cognitionem adepti, ejus rei, quam distincte, sive perfecte, a nobis cognosci non posse, ipse fatemur?…
Cur nosmet ipsos perpelxitatibus et difficultatibus involvimus, a quibus nos Deus immunes esse voluit? Experimento constare possit, si de hisce boni Christiani et fideles, quos in gratia Dei esse, et viam salutis recte et feliciter ambulare, nemo dubitet, interrogentur, plurimos, imo plerosque, nihil plane responsuros, et, an affirmare, vel negare debeant, ignoraturos: aut, si quid respondere conentur, vix unquam, quod ad scopum collimet, prolaturos. Fixum autem esto et firmum, propter quam ignorantiam vel errorem Deus neminem sua gratia aut coelo excludit, nos quoque caritatem, et societatem, et Christiana officia subtrahere nemini debere. Qui Dei sunt amici, nostri etiam sunto; ne ipsi ejus, cujus amicos, contra quam fieri vult, odimus, amici esse desinamus.
.
Sect. 49
Nunc ad ipsam illam controversiam, quae primam Schismati causam praebuit, et perpetuum, nisi Deus avertat, fomentum praebitura videtur, et cujus ideo potissima ratio habenda fuerit, accedamus. Sacramentum Eucharistiae multis et tetris abusibus ac superstitionibus hactenus apud pontificios deformatum erat, ut vix aliud reglionis caput parem calamitatem expertum. Panem benedictum ab usu remortum, quod nihil nisi ipsissimum Christi corpus esse crederent, adorabant, et vulgo adorandum proponebant: quin ut sacrificium propitiatorium (vocabulo hoc stricte et in formali significatione accepto) habebant et offerebant: atque adeo missas, ut vocant, solitarias, communicantium expertes frequentissime celebrabant: raro autem, adhibitis communicantibus. Hisce erroribus et pravitatibus abolendis intenti erant primi reformationis duces et auctores. Quod omnino restum erat. Quae est autem humani ingenii imbecillitas, quomodo id recte fieret, non omnes in istis initiis aeuqe providebant. Alii igitur huc prolapsi sunt, ut existimarent abusus, quos diximus, aboleri plane non posse, quamdiu corpus domini in eucharistia praesens esse crederetur. Necesse erat abusus aboleri. Praesentiam itaque eam negare similiter necesse fore sibi persuadebant.
.
Sect. 85
Caeterum… qui ex hisce difficultatibus eluctari, et verittem praesentiae corporis et sanguinis domini in eucharistia videre et adsequi nondum possunt, gratia dei et salute non magis excident, quam qui ne usu ipsius eucharistiae potiantur, per impedimenta, quae amoliri nequeunt, prohibentur. Quam prope ad sententiam Zuinglianam accesserint Suevi in suo Syngrammate, et Brentius in Exegesi ad Johannem, pridem exposuimus: quos tamen propterea nemo gehennae adjudicat. Dices, sententiam illi mutarunt. Sed illos ne tum quidem, quum ita sentirent, et priusquam aliter loqui inciperent, circa annum videlicet 1527., extra Dei gratiam et in statu damnationis fuisse, facile quisquam affirmaverit. Ne simus et in statu damnationis fuisse, facile quisquam affirmaverit. Ne simus duriores in alios, quam sumus in nosmet ipsos aut nostros. Waldenses sive picardos bohemiae et moraviae praesentiam veri corporis in eucharistia negasse notum est. De iis tamen benigne sentit et loquitur Lutherus, Praefatione, quam a se editae confessioni eorum praemisit, anno 1533.
.
Sect. 87
Se enim nonobstantibus controversiis nostris, et erroribus, quos altera pars alteri impingit, alii alios, ut Christiani Christianos, habeamus et tractemus, nec aliter quam per humanam mentis difficultatibus superatae imbecillitatem errare statuamus, aetque ita depositis odiis, quae animos e statu suo dimovere, et veri cognitionem vehementer impedire solent, placide inter nos conferamus et in veritatem inquiramus; spes est non modica, eam utrinque, adminiculante divina gratia, quae mansuetis opem ferre amat, tandem inventum iri, et dissensiones tolli ac componi, aut saltem minui posse. Si vero in mutuis odiis, et detestationibus, et exsecrationibus pergimus, oculi mentis obnubilabuntur, et neque veritatem neque concordiam cernere poterunt.
.
Johann Matthaus Latin
Joh. Matthiae, Episc. Stregn.
Epist. Ad Regem Sueciae.
Inter protestantes autem pacem et concordiam ecclesiasticam redintegrandi viam, nostro quidem saeculo, non adeo difficilem et arduam esse arbitrantur omnes tam theologi quam politici, quicunque rem absque praejudicio saniore mente contuentur. Nec desunt illi suo officio, in promovendo et stabiliendo, quantum in ipsis est, negotio tam pio, tam pulchro, et Reipubl. Christianae tam salutari et necessario. Nam et principes illustrissimi, et praesules vigilantissimi, et doctores piissimi, verbis et factis vehementiam istam nimiam nonnullorum hominum, in disputationibus et contentionibus de rebus dubiis et abstrusis, ac minus necessariis, aversantur, et quantum possunt retundunt, et pacem ecclesiasticam, pacis politicae matrem, pacis aeternae anteambulonem, multis modis restaurare satagunt. Et ne longius procedam, habes in polonia, rex serenissime, in Borussia, et vicinis provinciis, viros evangelicos quam plurimos, moderatione insignes et eruditione probator, qui scriptis et vocibus pacificis amice et sincere compellare solent zelotas alios et intemperantiores, eosque ad pacis, charitatis, benevolentiae et amoris leges dandas et accipiendas descendere, per viscera atque miserationes domini nostri Jesu Christi, orare, et obtestari.
Imo spirat universus prope orbis evangelicus sacarum litium pertaesus, dissidiorum ecclesiasticorum, turpissime per europam tot annis ecclesiam dei vexantium, compositionem. Nec unquam sanior pars mundi ab hoc opere victa desistet, donec turbae ecclesiasticae et litigia in rebus sacris aut prorsus confilescant, aut ad evangelii cursum, ad florentem ecclesiae conditionem, ad dei gloriam et totius orbis bonum, ringentibus frustra ingeniis rixosis, pacatiora, quod deus clementer concedat, evadant omnia. In Te autem,* Rex Clementissime, omnium oculi hoc nostro aevo sunt conversi; Te Caput, et velut Angelum caeterorum principum, aspicit jam et veneratur universa protestantium cohors: Tuum consilium, patrocinium et auxilium implorat: Te primum et ultimum, sanandis suis vulneribus in tempore nunc opportuno a Deo datum esse, certo sibi persuadet. Tibique divina providentia tot provincias cessisse et tot populos religionibus inter se discordes subactos esse credit, ut sub Tuo Celsissimo Auspicio, cura et prudentia, per veritatis et pacis vinculum in unum coalescant. Agnoscit quidem vulnera sua ecclesia Orthodoxa: Agnoscit et dolet distractiones suas in partes, sed tamen agnoscit haec omnia sanabilia esse, si modo sub Tuo Augustissimo imperio conveniens adhibeatur medicina, convocatis in principio, loco commodo, paucis numero Theologis, eruditione justa, eloquentia pia, prudentiaque simplici conspicuis, et moderatione ingenii ac honestate vitae insignibus, qui, ad normam verbi divini, amicis placidisque inter se collationibus, negotium illud pacificatorium in timore domini aggrediantur, et seclusis ac sepositis dubiarum et inutilium quaestionum spinis, quibus nullum non religionis caput hodie, a nonnullis gravatur (quas tamen priora et meliora saecula aut ignorarunt, aut sapienti consilio devitarunt) absque rixis et litibus veritatem eam, quae secundum pietatem est, pia et sincera mente, quaerant, et unanimi consensu approbent. De successu operis et optato eventu dubitare non sinunt severissima Dei praecepta de Charitate Christiana, inter omnes colenda, ejusdemque divina vaticinia, de felici, tranquilla et gloriosa ecclesiae conditione, sub ultimis his temporibus mundi, ubique in sacris literis obvia. Hoc autem commodi exinde in ecclesiam redundabit, ut cum illi, qui a Religione evangelica alieni sunt, quibus nunc per nostras discordias opprobrio exponitur, ne de illa discenda recipiendaque vel cogitationem suscipiant (quis enim sibi persuaderi patiatur, ut ad eos accedat, quos inter se in factiones videt esse divisos?) cum gaudio et exultatione ex variis mundi plagis ad unitatem et veritatem accurrant.
Imo ipsi Judaei, qui jam horrent ad veritatem Novi Testamenti accedere, quamprimum intellexerint nobis inter nos, de doctrina inde deprompta, convenire, absque ulla tergiversatione juxta prophetias de isto populo factas, nobiscum convenient? In statum vero civilem quam multiplices provenient fructus, si extinguatur incendium illud religionis evangelicum, utrique jam parti perniciosum, longum esset recensere.
Ita enim protestantes, mutuo veritatis et charitatis vinculo juncti, junctis quoque viribus et armins, feliciore contra hostes communes successu, pugnabunt, juxta vetus illud, Concrodia res parvae crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur. Docet ipsa experientia, quam perniciosum et exitiale sit malum, in ipsis rebuspubl. Discordia civium, adeoque nec magis tolerandum quam membrorum in corpore humano inter se dissidium. Certe non fert Dux belli suos milites, nec navis Gubernator Nautas, nec Dominus servos, animis et operis discordes: nisi enim Capiti suo sese praebeant morigeros, et conjunctis viribus, alii aliis subserviant, nunquam quae suscipiunt probe succedent, aut ad optatum finem perducentur. Et quemadmodum Navis, cujus latera, prora puppisque, et Domus, cujus fundamenta, parietes, trabes, tectum et caeterae partes, minus firmas et fixas habent juncturas, quavis tempestate et procella concutiuntur, percelluntur, et tandem ruunt; ita jure nos existimare oportet politiam nostram infirmari, subrui, et funditus subverti, si singula membra inferiora non se regenda et dirigenda submittant capiti, si non suo quaeque loco sociorum et conservorum commodis sese applicent, et mutuo et subordinato consensu auxilia…
* Utinam id sibi dictum existimens hodierni Reges, atque Magnates, qui puriorem Fidem profitentur.
.
p. 73
.
Samuel Pufendorf Latin
.
Veit Seckendorf Latin
.
Christoph Pfaff Latin
.
Reformed for Concord with the Lutherans
Ulrich Zwingli Latin
.
Johannes Oecolampadius Latin
.
Martin Bucer Latin
.
John Calvin Latin
.
Confession of the Four Cities Latin
.
Helvetic Confession Latin
.
The French Confession Latin
.
Anglican Church Latin
.
The Orthodox Consensus (Zwingli & Calvin) Latin
.
Pastors & Professors of Zurich Latin
.
Pastors of Bern to Geneva Latin
.
Pastors & Professors of Basil to Geneva Latin
.
Henry Bullinger Latin
.
Beza, Farel, French & Swiss Churches Latin
.
King A. Borbonius of Navarre Latin
.
King Henry IV of France Latin
.
Pierre Du Moulin Latin
.
John Davenant Latin
.
Joseph Hall Latin
.
Swiss Magistrate & John Dury Latin
.
Swiss Churches & Academy Latin
.
Church & Academy of Geneva Latin
.
Johann Rudolf Stuckius Latin
.
Johann Wirz Latin
.
Johann Hottinger Latin
.
Johann Heidegger Latin
.
Francis Turretin Latin
.
Benedict Pictet Latin
.
Pastors & Professors of Geneva Latin
.
King Frederick I of Prussia Latin
.
Gilbert Burnet Latin
.
Daniel Jablonski Latin
.
William Wake Latin
.
Pastors & Professors of Geneva Latin
.
Authentic Acts of Synods, Colloquies & Councils advancing Concord between the Lutherans & Reformed
Colloquium of Marburg Latin
.
Concord of Wittenburg Latin
.
Consensus of Sandomirez Latin
.
Colloquium of Leipzig Latin
.
Synod of Charenton Latin
.
Decree of the Evangelicals of Frankfurt Latin
.
Colloquium of Cassell Latin
.
Concord of Regiomontana Latin
.
.
The End
.
.
.
Related Pages
.