Chapter XVIII: Appendix: II (1)

REFERRED TO IN PAGE 188.

ON THE REUNION OF CHRISTIANS.

The attempts, made at different times for the re-union of Christians, are the subject of a learned and interesting work, published at Paris, with the title of "_Histoire critique des projéts formés depuis trois cents ans pour la Reunion des communions Chretiennes, par M. Tabaraud, ancien Prétre de L'Oratoire, Paris_, 1824." An excellent sketch of these attempts had been previously given by _Doctor Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History, Cent. XVI. Ch. III. sect. 3. part 2. c. 1. and Cent. XVII. Cha. I. sect. 2. p_. 1. To these publications the reader is referred:--the present Essay may be found to contain,

I. A general view of the attempts made after the Reformation, to
unite the Lutheran and Calvinist churches:

II. Some account of the Attempts made at different times by the
sovereigns of France for the conversion of their protestant subjects:

III. The correspondence of Bossuet and Leibniz, under the auspices of
Lewis the Fourteenth, for the reunion of the Lutheran Churches to the
Church of Rome:

IV. Some account of an attempt made in the reign of George the First,
to reunite the Church of England to the Church of Rome:

V. And some general remarks on the Reunion of Christians.

I.

_Attempts made to unite the Lutheran, and Calvinist Churches._

The great division of Protestant Churches is, into the Lutheran, and Calvinist communions. The Abbé Tabaraud relates in the work, which we have just cited, not fewer than fifteen different attempts to effect a reunion of their churches. In reading his account and that given by Mosheim of these attempts, the writer thinks that, on each side, there was something to commend and something to blame. It seems to him, that the Lutherans deserve credit for the open and explicit manner, in which, on these occasions, they propounded the tenets of their creed to the Calvinists; that the conduct of the Calvinists was more liberal and conciliating; but that, on the other hand, the conduct of the Lutherans towards the Calvinists, was generally repulsive, and sometimes deserving a much harsher name; while the conduct of the Calvinists, was sometimes chargeable, with ambiguity.

"It was deplorable," says Mosheim, (Cent. xvii. sect. 2. part 2.
art. 3.) "to see two churches, which had discovered, an equal
degree of pious zeal, and fortitude, in throwing off the despotic
yoke of Rome, divided among themselves, and living in discords,
that were highly detrimental, to the interests of religion, and the
well-being of society. Hence, several eminent divines, and leading
men, both among the Lutherans, and Calvinists, sought anxiously,
after some method, of uniting the two churches, though divided in
their opinions, in the bonds of Christian charity, and
ecclesiastical communion. A competent knowledge, of human nature,
and human passions, was sufficient, to persuade these wise, and
pacific mediators, that a perfect uniformity in religious opinions,
was not practicable, and that it would be entirely extravagant, to
imagine that any of these communities, could ever be brought, to
embrace universally, and without limitation, the doctrines of the
other. They made it, therefore, their principal business, to
persuade those, whose spirits were inflamed with the heat of
controversy, that the points in debate between the two churches,
were not essential, to true religion;--that the fundamental
doctrines, of Christianity, were received, and professed, in both
communions; and that the difference of opinion, between the
contending parties, turned, either upon points of an abstruse, and
incomprehensible nature, or upon matters of indifference, which
neither tended, to make mankind wiser, or better, and in which the
interests of genuine piety, were in no wise concerned. Those, who
viewed things in this point of light, were obliged to acknowledge,
that the diversity of opinions, between the two churches, was by no
means, a sufficient reason, for their separation; and that of
consequence, they were called, by the dictates of that gospel,
which they both professed, to live, not only in the mutual
exercise, of Christian charity, but also to enter, into the
fraternal bonds, of church communion. The greatest part, of the
reformed doctors, seemed disposed, to acknowledge, that the errors
of the Lutherans, were not, of a momentous nature, nor of a
pernicious tendency; and that the fundamental doctrines of
Christianity, had not undergone, any remarkable alteration, in that
communion; and thus, on their side, an important step, was made,
towards peace, and union, between the two churches. But the
greatest part of the Lutheran doctors declared, that they could not
form, a like judgment, with respect, to the doctrine, of the
Reformed churches; they maintained tenaciously, the importance of
the points, which divided the two communions, and affirmed, that a
considerable part of the controversy turned upon the fundamental
principles, of all religion, and virtue. It is not at all
surprising, that this steadiness and constancy of the Lutherans,
was branded by the opposite party, with the epithets, of morose
obstinacy, supercilious arrogance, and such like odious
denominations. The Lutherans, were not behind hand with their
adversaries, in acrimony, of style; they recriminated with
vehemence, and charged their accusers with instances of misconduct,
different in kind, but equally condemnable. They reproached them
with having dealt disingenuously, by disguising, under ambiguous
expressions, the real doctrine of the Reformed churches; they
observed further, that their adversaries, notwithstanding their
consummate prudence and circumspection, gave plain proofs, on many
occasions, that their propensity to a reconciliation, between the
two churches, arose from views of private interest, rather than
from a zeal for the public good."

It is observable that Mosheim applies these observations to a late stage of the reformation, when much of its first violence had subsided.

The nearest approach[080] to a reunion, between any Protestant churches, seems to be that, which took place at Sendomer, in the year 1570.

II.

_Attempts for a Reunion of the Calvinist Churches to the See of Rome._

Having thus summarily noticed, the unsuccessful attempts, to effect an union, between the Lutheran, and Calvinist churches, we proceed to a similar summary mention of the attempts, equally unsuccessful, to effect the reunion of the Calvinists, to the church of Rome, which were made,

1st, during the reign of Henry the Fourth:

2dly, during the reign of Lewis the Thirteenth: and

3dly, during the reign of Lewis the Fourteenth:

4thly, we shall afterwards notice, the Revocation of the edict of Nantes, and the complete restoration of the protestants of France, to their civil rights, in the reign of Lewis the Eighteenth.

II. 1.

An attempt to reunite the Calvinists to the church of Rome was made at the celebrated Conference held at Poissi in 1561. In the work which we have cited, the Abbé Tabaraud gives a short and clear account of this conference. It failed of success, and a long civil war of religion ensued. It was closed by the conversion of _Henry the Fourth_ to the Roman Catholic religion. He was no sooner quietly seated on the throne, than he conceived the arduous, but certainly noble project of pacifying the religious contests of the world. It appears that he was induced to entertain hopes of the success of this measure, by the assurances given him by the Calvinist ministers, when his change of religion, was in agitation, that salvation might be obtained in the church of Rome; and from his expectation of finding a spirit of conciliation, and concession, in the see of Rome.

"I have heard, from persons of distinction," says Grotius[081],
"that Henry the Fourth declared that he had great hopes of
procuring for the King of England, and the other protestant
princes, who were his allies, conditions, which they could not
honorably refuse, if they had any real wish of returning to the
unity of the church; and that he had once an intention of employing
bishops of his own kingdom on this project; but that this project
failed by his death."

It is said, that with these views he had sent for _Isaac Casaubon_, a protestant divine of equal learning and moderation, and appointed him his librarian; and that he intended confidentially employing him in preparing means for the success of the measure, and smoothing the obstacles which might impede its progress. Grotius[082] mentions, as a saying of Casaubon, that "the catholics of France had a juster way of thinking than the ministers of Charenton:" these were the most rigid of the French Hugonot ministers. It is observable that the French government always considered the Hugonots of a much more refractory disposition than the Lutherans.

II. 2.

The pacific views of Henry the Fourth, were terminated by his decease. The capture of la Rochelle by the arms of _Lewis the XIIIth_, was a fatal blow to the political consequence of the Protestant party in France. Cardinal Richelieu immediately set on foot a project, for the general conversion, of the body: two persons, of very different characters, were employed by him, in this measure; Father Joseph, a capuchin friar, the confident, of all the cardinal's political and private schemes, and Father P. Dulaurens, an oratorian, who lived in retirement, wholly absorbed in the exercises of religion. They began the work of reunion by holding frequent conferences, on an amicable footing, with several of the protestant ministers; and it was resolved, that, with the permission of the pope, and the authority of the king, an assembly, should be convened, of ecclesiastics of each communion. Father Dulaurens, recommended that the intended communications with the ministers, should not take place, till they reached, the capital; but, the cardinal, thought it more advisable, that the ministers, should be separately informed, of the project, before they left the provinces. It was accordingly communicated to them, and favourably received, by the ministers, of Languedoc, and Normandy, but met with an unfavourable reception, from the ministers of Sedan. It was resolved, that the assembly, should meet, and begin their deliberations, with the differences in the opinions, of the two churches, respecting the Sacraments. Father Dulaurens recommended, that for some time, at least, the Bible, even in the Calvinist version, of Olivétan, should be the only book appealed to, on either side, as authority: but the Cardinal insisted, on a resort to tradition. Grotius mentions that in several articles, (as communion under both kinds, and the invocation of saints), the Cardinal was willing, that concessions, should be made to the Protestants; and suggested, that, as a medium, to reconcile them to the Pope, a patriarchate should be established, in France, and he himself, be the first patriarch[083].

Notwithstanding the general loftiness, and overbearing nature, of his manners, it appears, particularly from M. de Rullhiêres[084] (6.) that the Cardinal, acted on this occasion, with great moderation, and recommended to his royal master, a similar line of moderation, in all his conduct, towards his Protestant subjects.

II. 3.

The Cardinal's project, was suspended, by his decease; and resumed, under _Lewis the Fourteenth_. In 1662, a plan, drawn up by M. le Blanc de Beaulieu, a professor of Divinity, at Sedan, singularly esteemed, both by the Roman Catholics, and Protestants, by which the essential articles, in dispute, were reduced to a small number, was adopted, by the Court, to serve as the basis of discussion. It was resolved, that different synods of Protestant ministers, should be convened; that these, should be composed, of ministers of known moderation, and pacific views, and the articles, drawn up by M. le Blanc de Beaulieu, presented to them. Three years were employed, in negotiations for effecting this project: several ministers in the lower Languedoc, and the Isle of France, expressed themselves, in terms favourable, to the measure, but the synod of Charenton, took the alarm, and the project, was abandoned.

The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, a measure equally unwise, and unjust, too soon followed. It is more to be attributed, to his ministers and advisers, than to Lewis the Fourteenth himself. From the _Eclaircissemens Historiques_ of M. de Rullhiêres, and the life of Bossuet, by M. Baussét[085], it seems evident, that Lewis the Fourteenth, had been induced, to believe, that the number of Protestants was much smaller; that the conversions of them, would be much more rapid, general, and sincere; and that the measures, for hastening their conversion, would be much less violent than they really were. It is also due, to the monarch, to add, that from the authors, whom we have cited, it is evident, that when he began to perceive the true state, of the transaction, though from false principles of honour, and policy, he would not revoke the edict, he wished it not to be put into great activity, and checked the forwardness, of the Intendants general in its execution.

It is whimsical, (if on so serious a subject such a word may be used), that the dragonâde, or employment of the dragoon troops, in forcing the conversion, of the Hugonots, was owing to the wish of Louvois, the minister, of Lewis the Fourteenth, to become himself, a missionary. Observing how much the apparent success, of the missionaries, recommended them, to Lewis the Fourteenth, he began to consider them as dangerous rivals for the favour of his royal master, and determined, therefore, to become himself, a principal performer. With this view, he instituted the dragoon missions, and thus brought a material part, of the work of conversion, into the war department.

II. 4.

The death of Lewis, and the known disposition of the Regent, appeared to the Protestant party, in France, to afford a proper opportunity of recovering their rights. Duclos, in his _Mémoires secréts sur les regnes de Louis XIV. et de Louis XV_., says, that the Regent himself wished to restore the Protestants, to their civil rights, but was dissuaded by his council. Still, he seldom permitted the edicts against them to be executed; and speaking generally, the Protestants seem to have suffered no active persecution in any part of the reign of Lewis, the XVth. One intolerable grievance, however, they unquestionably suffered in every part of it. Their religious principles did not permit them to be married by a Roman Catholic priest, in the manner prescribed by the law of the state, and that law did not recognize the legal validity of a marriage, celebrated in any other form. The consequence was, that in the eye of the law, the marriage of Protestants was a mere concubinage, and the offspring of it illegitimate. To his immortal honour, _Lewis the XVIth_, by his edict of the 17th of November, 1787, accorded to all his Non-catholic subjects the full and complete enjoyment of all the rights of his Roman-catholic subjects. On a division in the Parliament, this edict was registered by a majority of 96 votes against 16.

The persecution of the Hugonots in consequence of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, was condemned by the greatest men in France. M. d'Aguesseau, the father of the celebrated chancellor, resigned his office of Intendant of Languedoc rather than remain a witness of it: his son repeatedly mentions it with abhorrence. Fénélon, Flechier, and Bossuet,[086] confessedly the ornaments of the Gallican church, lamented it. To the utmost of their power, they prevented the execution of the edict, and lessened its severities, when they could not prevent them. Most sincerely lamenting and condemning the outrages committed by the Roman Catholics against the Protestants at Nismes, as violations of the law of God and man, but doubting of the nature and extent, which some have attributed to them, the writer of these pages begs leave to refer to the sermon preached on them by the Reverend James Archer, a Roman Catholic priest, and printed for Booker, in Bond-street, by the desire of two Roman Catholic congregations, as expressing the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, and of all real christians on heretics and the persecution of heretics.

III.

_The Correspondence of Bossuet and Leibniz, under the auspices of Lewis the XIVth, for the Reunion of the Lutheran Protestants to the Roman Catholic Church._

This correspondence forms one of the most interesting events in the life of Bossuet; the letters, of which it consists, and the other written documents, which relate to it, are highly interesting. We shall attempt to present our readers with a short account--

1st. Of the circumstances which led to this correspondence;

2ndly. Of the Project of Reunion, delivered by Molanus, a Lutheran
Divine, and Bossuet's sentiments on that Project;

3dly. Of the intervention of Leibniz in the negotiation; and

4thly. Of the Project suggested by Bossuet, and the principal
reasons, by which he contended for its reception.

III. 1.

It appears that, towards the 17th century, the Emperor Leopold, and several sovereign princes in Germany, conceived a project of re-uniting the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches. The Duke of Brunswick, who had recently embraced the Roman Catholic religion, and published his _Fifty Reasons for his conversion_, (once a popular work of controversy), and the Duke of Hanover, the father of the first prince of the illustrious house, which now fills the throne of England, were the original promoters of the attempt. It was generally approved; and the mention of it at the Diet of the Empire was favourably received. Some communications upon it took place between the Emperor and the ducal Princes: and with all their knowledge, several conferences were held upon the subject, between certain distinguished Roman Catholic and Protestant Divines. In these, the Bishop of Neustadt, and Molanus, the Abbot of Lokkum, took the lead. The first had been consecrated Bishop of Tina in Bosnia, then under the dominion of the Turks, with Ordinary Jurisdiction over some parts of the Turkish territories. His conduct had recommended him to Innocent the XIth, and that pope had directed him to visit the Protestant states in Germany, and inform him of their actual dispositions in respect to the Church of Rome. In consequence of this mission, he became known to the Emperor, who appointed him to the See of Neustadt, in the neighbourhood of Vienna. Molanus, was Director of the Protestant Churches and Consistories of Hanover. Both were admirably calculated for the office intended them, on this occasion. Each possessed the confidence of his own party, and was esteemed by the other; each was profoundly versed in the matters in dispute; each possessed good sense, moderation, and conciliating manners; and each had the success of the business at heart, with a fixed purpose, that nothing, but a real difference on some essential article of doctrine, should frustrate the project.

The effect of the first conferences was so promising, that the Emperor and the two Princes resolved, that they should be conducted in a manner more regular, and more likely to bring the object of them to a conclusion. With this view, the business was formally entrusted by both the princes to Molanus alone, and the Emperor published a rescript, dated the 20th March, 1691, by which he gave the Bishop of Neustadt full authority to treat, on all matters of religion, with the states, communities, and individuals of the empire, reserving to the ecclesiastical and imperial powers, their right to confirm the acts of the Bishop, as they should judge adviseable. Under these auspicious circumstances, the conference between the Bishop of Neustadt and Molanus began.

But, before the events which we have mentioned took place, a correspondence on the subject of a general reunion between Catholics and Protestants had been carried on for some time, between Pelisson and Leibniz. The former held a considerable rank among the French writers, who adorned the reign of Lewis the Fourteenth; the latter was eminently distinguished in the literary world. In the exact sciences, he was inferior to Newton alone; in metaphysics, he had no superior; in general learning, he had scarcely a rival. He had recommended himself to the Brunswick family, by three volumes, which he had recently published, on the Antiquities of that illustrious House; and was then engaged in the investigation of its Italian descent, and early German shoots. The result of it, under the title of _Origines Guelphicæ_, was published, after his decease, by Scheidius, and is considered to be a perfect model of genealogical history. He was also thoroughly conversant in the theological disputes of the times; and in all the questions of dogma, or history, which enter into them.

His correspondence with Pelisson, came to the knowledge of Louisa, Princess Palatine, and Abbess of Maubrusson. She was a daughter of Frederick, the Elector, and Count Palatine of the Rhine, and a sister, of the Duchess of Hanover. In early life, she had been converted to the Roman Catholic religion, and had the conversion of her sister, very much at heart. With this view, she sent to her, the correspondence between Leibniz and Pelisson, and received from her an account of what was passing, between the Bishop of Neustadt, and Molanus. Both the ladies were anxious, to promote the measure, and that Bossuet should take in it, the leading part, on the side of the Catholics. This was mentioned to Lewis the Fourteenth, and had his approbation. The Emperor and both the Princes, by all of whom Bossuet, was personally esteemed, equally approved of it, and it was finally settled that Bossuet and Leibniz, should be joined, to the Bishops of Neustadt, and Molanus, and that the correspondence with Bossuet, should pass through the hands of Madame de Brinon, who acted, as secretary to the Abbess of Maubrusson, and is celebrated, by the writers of the times, for her wit and dexterity in business. Thus the matter assumed, a still more regular form, and much was expected from the acknowledged talents, learning, and moderation of the actors in it, and their patrons.

III. 2.

The conferences between the Bishop of Neustadt, and Molanus continued for seven months, and ended in their agreeing on 12 articles, to serve for the basis of the discussion, on the terms of the reunion.

The Bishop of Neustadt, communicated these articles to Bossuet. He seems, to have approved of them generally, but to have thought, that some alteration in them, was adviseable. This being mentioned to Molanus, he published his _Cogitationes Privatæ_, a profound and conciliating dissertation. Without entering into any discussion, on the points in dispute, between the churches, he suggested in it a kind of truce, during which, there should be ecclesiastical communion between them: the Lutherans, were to acknowledge the Pope, as the first of Bishops, in order, and dignity: the Church of Rome, was to receive the Lutherans, as her children, without exacting from them, any retractation of their alledged errors, or any renunciation, of the articles in their creed, condemned by the Council of Trent. The anathemas of that council, were to be suspended, and a general council was to be convened, in which the Protestants were to have a deliberative voice: the sentence of that council, was to be definitive, and, in the mean time, the members of each party, were to treat the members of the other, as brethren, whose errors, however great they might appear, were to be tolerated, from motives of peace, and in consideration, of their engagements to abandon them, if the council should pronounce against them. To show the probability of a final accommodation, Molanus notices, in his Dissertation, several points, in which one party imputed to the other errors, not justly chargeable on them; several, on which they disputed, merely for want of rightly understanding each other; and several, in which the dispute was of words only.

It appears that the Bishop of Neustadt, communicated this dissertation, to Bossuet, and that Bossuet was delighted, with the good sense, candour, and true spirit of conciliation, which it displayed. In his letters he frequently mentions the author, and always in terms, Of the highest praise. His own language was equally moderate and conciliating.

"The Council of Trent," he says in one of his letters,
"is our stay; but we shall not use it to prejudice the cause. This
would be, to take for granted, what is in dispute between us. We
shall deal more fairly with our opponents. We shall make the
council serve, for a statement, and explanation, of our doctrines.
Thus, we shall come to an explanation, on those points, in which
either of us imputes to the other, what he does not believe, and in
which we dispute, only because we misconceive each other. This may
lead us far; for _the Abbot of Lokkum, has actually conciliated the
points so essential, of Justification, and the Eucharist: nothing
is wanting in him, on that side, but that he should be avowed. Why
should we not hope to conclude, in the same manner, disputes, less
difficult, and of less importance? Cela se peut pousser si avant,
que M. l'Abbé de Lokkum, a concilié, actuellement les points si
essentiels, de la justification, et du sacrifice de l'Eucharistie,
et il ne lui manque de ce coté la, que de se faire avouer. Pourquoi
ne pas espérer de finir, par les mêmes moyens, des disputes, moins
difficiles, et moins importantes?"_

With these rational and conciliatory dispositions, Bossuet, and Molanus, proceeded. But, after this stage of the business, Molanus disappears, and Leibniz comes on the scene.

III. 3.

A Letter, written by Bossuet to M^me de Brinon, having been communicated by her to Leibniz, opened the correspondence between him and Bossuet. In that letter, Bossuet declared explicitly, that the Church of Rome, was ready, to make concessions, on points of discipline, and to explain doctrines, but would make no concession in respect to defined articles of faith; and, in particular, would make no such concession, in respect to any which had been defined by the Council of Trent. Leibniz's Letter to M^me de Brinon, in answer to this communication, is very important. He expresses himself in these terms;

"The Bishop of Meaux says,

"1st. That the Project delivered to the Bishop of Neustadt, does not
appear to him quite sufficient;

"2dly. That it is, nevertheless, very useful, as every thing must
have its beginning:

"3dly. That Rome will never relax from any point of doctrine,
defined by the church, and cannot capitulate, in respect to any
such article;

"4thly. That the doctrine, defined in the Council of Trent, is
received in and out of France by all Roman Catholics;

"5thly, That satisfaction may be given to Protestants, in respect to
certain points of discipline, or in the way of explanation, and
that this had been already done in an useful manner, in some
points, mentioned in the Project of the Bishop of Neustadt.

"These are the material propositions, in the letter of the Bishop of
Meaux, and I believe all these propositions true. Neither the
Bishop of Neustadt, nor those who negotiated with them, make any
opposition to them. There is nothing in them, which is not
conformable to the sentiments of those persons. The third of them
in particular, which might be thought, an obstacle, to these
Projects of Accommodation, could not be unknown to them; one may
even say, that they built on it."

It seems difficult to deny, that, in this stage of the business, much had been gained to the cause of reunion. The parties were come to a complete understanding on the important articles of Justification, and the Eucharist; and it was admitted, both by Leibniz, and Molanus, that, in their view of the concern, an accommodation might be effected, between the Roman Catholic, and Lutheran churches, though the former, retained all her defined doctrines, and, in particular, all her doctrines, defined by the Council of Trent. The question then was, what should be done in respect to the remaining articles in difference between the churches? It is to be wished, that it had been left to Bossuet, and Molanus, to settle them, in the way of amicable explanation, in which they had settled, the two important articles, which we have mentioned. It is evident, from the passages, which we have cited, from Bossuet, that it was his wish, that the business should proceed on that plan, and that he had hopes of its success. Unfortunately, the business took, another direction: Leibniz proclaimed, that after every possible explanation should be given, the Lutheran church would, still retain, some articles, contrary to the defined doctrines, of the Church of Rome, and anathematized, by the Council of Trent. To remove the final effect of this objection, Leibniz held out Molanus's first project, that the Lutherans should express a general acquiescence, in the authority of the church, and promise obedience, to the decisions of a General Council, to be called, for the purpose of pronouncing, on these points; and that, in consequence of these advances, on their part, the anathemas of the Council of Trent, should be suspended, and the Lutherans received, provisionally, within the pale, of the Catholic church. To bring over Bossuet to this plan, he exerted great eloquence, and displayed, no common learning.

III. 4.

But the eloquence, and learning, of Leibniz, were without effect. In language, equally temperate and firm, Bossuet, adhered to his text, that in matters of discipline, or any other matter, distinct from faith, the Church of Rome, would show the utmost indulgence to the Lutherans; but that, on articles of faith, and specifically, on those propounded by the Council of Trent, there could be no compromise. This, however, he confined to articles of faith alone: and even on articles of faith, he wished to consult the feelings of Protestants, as much as possible. He offered them every fair explanation of the tenets of the council; he required from them no retractation, of their own tenets:

"Molanus," he says, "will not allow retractation to be mentioned.
It may be dispensed with; it will be sufficient, that the parties
acknowledge, the truth, by way of declaration or explanation. To
this, the Symbolical Books, give a clear opening, as appears by the
passages, which have been produced from them, and will appear, by
other passages, which may be produced from them."

If Bossuet was thus considerate, in what regarded faith, it will easily be supposed, how indulgent his sentiments were, in respect to all, that merely regarded discipline. A complete confession of faith, being once obtained from the Lutherans, he was willing, to allow them, if they required it, communion under both kinds; that their Bishops, should retain their Sees; and that, where there was no Bishop, and the whole body of the people, was Protestant, under the care, of a superintendant, _that_ superintendant, should be consecrated their Bishop; that, where there was a Catholic Bishop, and a considerable part of the diocese, was Lutheran, the superintendant, should be consecrated priest, and invested with rank, and office, that the Lutheran ministers, should be consecrated priests; that provision should be made for their support; that such of their bishops, and ministers, as were married, might retain their wives, and that the consciences of those, who held possessions of the church, should be quieted, except in respect, to hospitals, whose possessions he thought, could not conscientiously be withheld, from the poor objects of their foundations; and that every other arrangement should be made, by the church and state, which would be agreeable, to the feelings, and prejudices, of their new brethren.

Such were the advances made by Bossuet; and much discussion on them, took place, between him, and Leibniz. It continued ten years. They are very learned, and a scholar will read them with delight; but, unfortunately, they rather retarded, than promoted, their object. The real business ended, when Molanus quitted the scene. We shall close this article, with the following extract from the last letter but one, written by Bossuet, on the subject. It is addressed to Leibniz, and bears date the 12th August, 1701, ten years, after his first letter, on it was written:

"Among the divines of the Confession of Augsburg, I always placed
M. Molanus, in the first rank, as a man, whose learning, candour
and moderation made him one of the persons, the most capable I have
known, of advancing the NOBLE PROJECT OF REUNION. In a letter,
which I wrote to him some years ago, by the Count Balati, I assured
him, that, if he could obtain, the general consent of his party, to
what he calls, his Private Thoughts, _Cogitationes Privatæ_, I
promised myself, that, by joining to them, the remarks, which I
sent to him, on the Confession of Augsburg, and the other Symbolic
writings of the Protestants, the work of the Reunion would be
perfected, in all its most difficult and most essential points; so
that well disposed persons might, in a short time, bring it to a
conclusion."

The passage is so important, that it is proper to present it to the reader in Bossuet's own words.

"Parmi les Théologiens de la Confession d'Ausbourg, j'ai toujours
mis, au premier rang, M. l'Abbé de Lokkum, comme un homme, dont le
sçavoir, la candeur, et la modération le rendolent un des plus
capables, que je connusse, pour avancer CE BEAU DESSEIN. Cela est
si véritable, que j'ai cru devoir assurer ce docte Abbé, dans la
réponse que je luis fis, il y a dejà, plusieurs années, par M. le
Comte Balati, que s'il pouvoit faire passer ce qu'il appelle ses
Pensées Particulières _Cogitationes Privatæ_, à un consentement
suffisent, je me promettois qu'en y joignant les remarques, que je
lui envoyois, sur la Confession d'Ausbourg, et les autres écrits
Symboliques des Protestans, l'ouvrage de la Réunion seroit achevé
dans ses parties les plus difficiles et les plus essentielles; en
sorte qu'il ne faudroit à des personnes bien disposées, que très
peu de tems pour la conclure[087]."

Dom. de Foris, the Benedictine Editor of the new edition of the works of Bossuet and the Abbé Racine, _Abrégé de l'Histoire Ecclésiastique_[088] are very severe in their censures of the conduct of Leibniz in the negotiations for the Reunion, and attribute its failure to his presumption and duplicity. To the writer of these pages, it appears clear, that Leibniz was sincere in his wishes for the reunion; and that, if he occasioned its failure, it was unintentionally. While the business was in the hands of Bossuet, and Molanus, it was a treaty, not for the reunion of the Roman Catholic church, and all Protestant churches, but for the reunion of the Roman Catholic church, and the Lutheran church; and to this, Molanus's endeavours to reconcile differences, were directed. Leibniz, whose principles in religion, were much wider, than those of Molanus, seems to have wished, that the negotiation should be placed, on a broader basis, and extended to a reunion of the church of Rome, with every denomination of Christians. This gave the negotiation a different direction, and in a great measure, undid what had been, so happily begun. We have seen, that, to the very last, Bossuet, called out for Molanus, and entertained great hopes, that, if the matter were left to Molanus, and him, the noble Project of Reunion, would be crowned with success. There is no part of Bossuet's literary or active life, in which he appears to greater advantage, or in a more amiable light, than on this occasion.

IV.

_Attempt in the reign of Lewis the XV. to effect an union between the Church of Rome and the Church of England._

Of all Protestant churches, the national church of England most nearly resembles the church of Rome. It has retained much of the dogma, and much of the discipline of Roman Catholics. Down to the sub-deacon it has retained the whole of their hierarchy; and, like them, has its deans, rural deans, chapters, prebends, archdeacons, rectors, and vicars; a liturgy, taken in a great measure, from the Roman Catholic liturgy; and composed like that, of Psalms, Canticles, the three creeds, litanies, epistles, gospels, prayers, and responses. Both churches have the sacraments of baptism, and the eucharist, the absolution of the sick, the burial service, the sign of the cross in baptism, the reservation of confirmation, and order to bishops, the difference of episcopal, and sacerdotal dress, feasts, and fasts. Without adopting all the general councils of the church of Rome, the church of England has adopted the first four of them; and, without acknowledging the authority of the other councils, or the authority of the early fathers, the English divines of the established church, allow them to be entitled, to a high degree of respect.[089] On the important article of the eucharist, the language, of the Thirty-nine Articles, sounds very like, the doctrine of the church of Rome.

At the time, of which we are speaking, the doctrines of the high church, which are generally considered to incline to those of the Roman Catholics, more than the doctrines of the low church, were in their zenith; and in France, where the ultramontane principles on the power of the Pope had always been discountenanced, the disputes of Jansenism were supposed to reduce it very low. On each side, therefore, the time was thought favourable to the project of Reunion.

It was also favourable to it, that, a few years before this time, an event had taken place, which naturally tended to put both sides into good humour.

On the occasion of the marriage of the Princess Christina of Wolfenbuttell, a Lutheran, with the archduke of Austria, her court consulted the faculty of theology of the University of Helmstadt, on the question,

"Whether a Protestant Princess, destined to marry a catholic
prince, could, without wounding her conscience, embrace the Roman
Catholic religion?" The faculty replied, that, "it could not answer
the proposed question, in a solid manner, without having previously
decided, whether the catholics were, or were not engaged in errors,
that were fundamental, and opposed to salvation; or, (which was the
same thing), whether the state of the catholic church was such,
that persons might practise in it, the true worship of God, and
arrive at salvation." This question the divines of Helmstadt,
discussed at length; and concluded in these terms: "After having
shown, that the foundation of religion, subsists in the Roman
Catholic religion, so that a person may be orthodox in it, live
well in it, die well in it, and obtain salvation in it, the
discussion of the proposed question, is easy. We are, therefore, of
opinion, that the most Serene Princess of Wolfenbuttell, may, in
favour of her marriage, embrace the catholic religion."

This opinion is dated the 28th of April 1707, and was printed in the same year at Cologne. The Journalists of Trevoux inserted both the original and a French translation of it in their journal of May, 1708.

Under these circumstances, the correspondence in question took place. It began, in 1718, through Doctor Beauvoir, chaplain to Lord Stair, his Britannic majesty's ambassador at Paris. Some conversation, on the reunion of the two churches, having taken place, between Doctor Dupin, and him, he acquainted the archbishop of Canterbury, with the subject of them. This communication, produced some compliments from the archbishop, to Dr. Dupin, and these, led the latter, to address, to his grace, a letter, in which he mentioned generally, that, on some points in dispute, the supposed difference between the two communions was reconcileable. The correspondence getting wind, Doctor Piers, pronounced a discourse in the Sorbonne, in which he earnestly exhorted his colleagues, to promote the reunion, by revising those articles, of doctrine, and discipline, which protestants branded with the name of papal tyranny; and contended, that, by proscribing the ultramontane doctrines, the first step to the reunion would be made. The discourse, was communicated to Dr. Wake: in his answer, he pressed Dr. Dupin, for a more explicit declaration, on the leading points, in controversy.

In compliance with this requisition, Doctor Dupin drew up his _Commonitorium_, and communicated it, to several persons of distinction, both in the state, and church of France. He discussed in it, the Thirty-nine Articles, as they regarded doctrine, morality, and discipline. He insisted on the necessity of tradition, to interpret the scriptures, and to establish the canonicity of the books, of the Old and New Testament. He insisted on the infallibility, of the church, in faith, and morals; he contended, that the sacrifice of the mass, was not a simple sacrament, but a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross.

The word Transubstantiation, he seemed willing to give up, if the Roman Catholic doctrine, intended to be expressed by it, were retained. He proposed, that communion under both kinds, or under bread alone, should be left, to the discretion of the different churches, and consented, that persons in holy orders should retain their state, with such provisions, as would place the validity of their ordination, beyond exception. The marriage of priests, in the countries, in which such marriages were allowed, and the recitation of the divine service in the vulgar tongue, he allowed; and intimated that no difficulty would be found in the ultimate settlement of the doctrine, respecting purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of saints, relics, or images. He seems to have thought, that the Pope can exercise, no immediate jurisdiction, within the dioceses of bishops, and that his primacy invested him, with no more than a general conservation, of the deposit of the faith, a right to enforce, the observance of the sacred canons, and the general maintenance of discipline. He allowed, in general terms, that there was little substantially wrong, in the discipline of the Church of England; he deprecated all discussion, on the original merit of reformation, and he professed to see no use in the Pope's intervention, till the basis of the negotiation, should be settled.

The answer of the archbishop, was not very explicit. It is evident from it, that he thought, the quarrels on Jansenism, had alienated the Jansenists and their adherents, from the Pope, much more, than they had done, in reality. He was willing to concede, to the Pope, a primacy of rank and honour, but would by no means allow him, a primacy of jurisdiction, or any primacy, by divine right. On the other points, he seemed to have thought, that they might come to an agreement, on what they should declare, to be the fundamental doctrine of the churches, and adopt, on every other point of doctrine, a general system, of christian toleration.

The correspondence, which is very interesting, may be seen, in the last volume of the English translation, of Doctor Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. To facilitate, the accomplishment of the object of it, Doctor Courayer, published his celebrated treatise, on _the Validity of English Ordinations_.

Both Dr. Wake, and Dr. Dupin. were censured, by the members of their respective communions, for the parts, which they had taken, in this business. Several rigid members of the English Church, and even some foreign protestants, blamed Dr. Wake, for what they termed, his too great concessions. In France, the worst of motives, were imputed to Dr. Dupin, and his associates; they were accused, of making unjustifiable sacrifices, in order to form an union, between the Jansenists, and the members of the English Church. Even the regent, took the alarm: he ordered Dr. Dupin, to discontinue the correspondence, and to leave all the papers, respecting it, with the minister. This was done, but the most important of them, have been printed, in the interesting and extensively circulated publication, which has been mentioned.

V.

_Miscellaneous Remarks on the Reunion of Christians._

It does not appear, that subsequently to the communications, between Archbishop Wake, and Dr. Dupin, any attempts for a general, or partial reunion of christians, were made in the last century: but, early in the present, _Napoleon_, conceived the project, of effecting, such a reunion. He is said, to have particularly had in view, the catholicizing, as it was termed, the northern part, of Germany. To forward his design, many works were published: one of them, the _Essai sur l'Unité des Cultes_, of M. Bonald, is written, with great ingenuity. That Essay, and several others by the same author, were inserted in the _Ambigu_ of Peltier, and deserve the attention, of every reader. Though they contain some things, to which a Roman Catholic writer, would object, they are evidently written, by a Roman Catholic pen.

The first point to be considered, by those, who meditate the project of reunion, is, its practicability--those, who are disposed, to contend for the affirmative, will observe, the number of important articles, of Christian Faith, in which, all Christians, are agreed, and the proportionally small number of those, in which, any Christians disagree.

All Christians believe,

1st. That there is one God;

2d. That he is a Being, of infinite perfection;

3d. That he directs all things, by his providence;

4th. That it is our duty to love him, with all our hearts, and our
neighbour, as ourselves;

5th. That it is our duty, to repent, of the sins we commit;

6th. That God, pardons the truly penitent;

7th. That there is a future state, of rewards, and punishments,
when all mankind shall be judged, according to their works;

8th. That God, sent his Son, into the world, to be its saviour, the
author of eternal salvation, to all, that obey him;

9th. That he is the true Messiah;

10th. That he taught, worked miracles, suffered, died, and rose
again, as is related in the four gospels;

11th. That he will hereafter, make a second appearance on the
earth, raise all mankind from the dead, judge the world in
righteousness, bestow eternal life on the virtuous, and punish the
workers of iniquity.

In the belief of these articles, all Christians, the Roman Catholic, all the Oriental churches, all the members of the Church of England, all Lutherans, Calvinists, Socinians, and Unitarians, are agreed. In addition to these, each division, and subdivision of Christians, has its own tenets. Now, let each settle among its own members, what are the articles of belief, peculiar to them, which, in their cool deliberate judgment, they consider as _absolutely necessary_ that a person should believe, to be a member of the church of Christ; let these articles be divested of all foreign matter, and expressed in perspicuous, exact, and unequivocal terms; and, above all, let each distinction of Christians, earnestly wish, to find an agreement, between themselves and their fellow Christians:--the result of a discussion conducted on this plan, would most assuredly be, to convince all Christians, that the essential articles of religious credence, in which there is, a real difference among Christians, are not so numerous, as the verbal disputes, and extraneous matter, in which controversy is too often involved, make them generally thought.

Still,--some articles will remain, the belief of which, one denomination of Christians, will consider to be the obligation of every Christian, and which other Christian denominations, will condemn. On some of those, a _speedy_ reunion of Christians is not to be expected: but, to use the language of Mr. _Vansittart_, in His excellent letter to the reverend Dr. Marsh and John Coker, Esq.,

"There is an inferior degree of Reunion, more within our prospect,
and yet perhaps as perfect as human infirmity allows us to hope
for; wherein, though all differences of opinion, should not be
extinguished, yet they may be refined, from all party prejudices,
and interested views, so softened by the spirit of charity, and
mutual concession, and so controuled by agreement, on the leading
principles, and zeal, for the general interests of christianity,
that no sect, or persuasion, should be tempted to make religion,
subservient to secular views, or to employ political power, to the
prejudice of others.--The existence of Dissent, will, perhaps, be
inseparable from religious freedom, so long, as the mind of man, is
liable to error: but it is not unreasonable to hope, that
hostility, may cease, though perfect agreement, cannot be established.
IF WE CANNOT RECONCILE ALL OPINIONS, LET US RECONCILE ALL HEARTS."

These pages, cannot be closed better, than by these golden words!!!

FINIS.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES.

[Footnote 001: Tom. xi. p. 1. 200.]

[Footnote 002: De Institutiones Clericorum, L. iii. c. xviii. &c.]

[Footnote 003: In his "Recueil des Ecrits pour servir d'eclaircissement de l'histoire de France, 2 vol. Paris 1798."]

[Footnote 004: "Roswede, or Aroswethe, a nun in the monastery of Gardersheim, lived in the reigns of Otho II. and III. towards the end of the tenth century. She composed many works in prose and verse. In 1501, some of her poems, on the Martyrdom of St. Denys, the Blessed Virgin, St. Ann, &c. were printed at Nuremburgh. Her verses in praise of Otto II. would be tolerable, if they were not Leonines: there are in them some errors of prosody." Bib. Univers. et Histor. Vol. ii. p. 46.]

[Footnote 005: For a fuller account of Feudal and Civil Jurisprudence, the writer of these pages begs leave to refer to his work, entitled, "HORÆ JURIDICÆ SUBSECIVÆ, being a connected series of Notes respecting the Geography, Chronology, and Literary History of the principal Codes and original Documents of the Grecian, Roman, Feudal, and Canon Law." 1 vol. 8vo.]

[Footnote 006: It is entitled, "_Martiani Minei Felicis Capellæ Carthaginiensis, Viri Procunsularis, Satyricon, in quo de Nuptiis Philologiæ et Mecurii libri duo, & de septem artibus liberalibus libri singulares. Omnes, et emendati et Notis sive Februis Hug. Grotii illustrati. Ex Officina Plantiniana, Apud Christophorum Raphelingium Academiæ Lugduno-Bat. Typographum_ M. D. C." [Transcriber's note: Apostrophic date 1600] The Dedication to the Prince of Condé follows: then, Encomiastic Verses by Scaliger, and Tiliabrogus. The two works are then inserted, with an address to the reader, Errata, and Various Readings. Afterwards, _Hugeiani Grotii Februa[007] in Satyricon Martiani Capellæ:_ this contains his notes. They are preceded by an Engraving of Grotius. Round it, is written, "_Anno_ M. D. C." [Transcriber's note: Apostrophic date 1600] Hora Ruit.[008] Æt.xv. Under the engraving the following verses are printed,

"_Quem sibi quindenis_ ASTRÆA _sacravit ab annis,
Talis,_ HUGEIANI GROTII _ora fero_."]

[Footnote 007: "Corrections"--or more literarily, "Purifications".]

[Footnote 008: These words were used by Grotius for his motto.]

[Footnote 009: Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina, Lib iii. c. 15. In 1794, John Adam Goez published the "Treatise on the Marriage of Philology and Mercury" separately, in a duodecimo volume: he mentions, in the preface, an edition of it by Walthard. It is on the authority of Goez that we have assigned the age of Capella to the third century: others place him in a much later period.]

[Footnote 010: Montucla. Histoire des Mathematiques, Vol.ii. p.657.]

[Footnote 011: Vol. 9. p. 147. ii. 1.]

[Footnote 012: A similar exclusive claim in respect to the Indian seas, under the grant of Pope Alexander VI., was set up by the Portuguese; similar claims to the Ligustic and Adriatic seas, have been and still continue to be made by the Genoese and Venetians. Those, who seek for information on the subject, should consult the _Dissertation of Bynkershook de Dominio Maris_, and note 61 to the recent edition of Sir Edward Coke's Commentary upon Littleton.]

[Footnote 013: "Mais, dites vous, dans ce tems même, le jeune Pison pouvolt avoir dix ans: Grotius faisoit bien des vers a cet âge. Je le sçais, mais les Grotius sont ils bien commune! combien d'enfans trouveres vous de dix ans, qui ayent nonseulement assez du feu pour faire des vers, mais encore assez de jugement pour en juger sainement." Gibbon's Posthumous Works, 8vo. vol. i. p. 520.--"Salmasius," says Mr. Gibbon in another part of the same entertaining publication, (vol. v. p. 209), "had read as much as Grotius; but their different modes of reading had made the one an enlighten'd philosopher; and the other, to speak plainly, a pedant puffed up with an useless erudition."]

[Footnote 014: Bentivoglio, Histoire des Guerres de Flandres, l, xxviii.]

[Footnote 015: _Bella plusquam civilia._ Lucan.]

[Footnote 016: Those who wish to obtain a clear, concise, and exact notion of Calvinism and Arminianism, will usefully peruse the account of them in Mr. Evans's "_Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World_." The thirteenth Edition is now before us, and we believe that it has been often since reprinted.]

[Footnote 017: Mosheim's Ecc. Hist. Cent. xvi, ch. 2. § 3. part 2.]

[Footnote 018: Chalmer's Biographical Dictionary, Title "Arminius."]

[Footnote 019: A short and clear account of Arminianism is given by Le Clere, in his Bibliotheque ancienne et moderne, Vol. II. Art. 3. p. 123.]

[Footnote 020: The best discussion of this subject, which has fallen into the hands of the writer, is Bourduloué's Sermon _sur la Predestination_.]

[Footnote 021: English Translation of Burigni's Life of Grotius, pp. 43, 44, 45.]

[Footnote 022: Vol. i.]

[Footnote 023: _Letters from and to Sir Dudley Carleton, during his Embassy in Holland, from January 1615-16[**Modern presentation.] to December 1620. London, 1757, p. 84_,--Sir Dudley Carleton's Letters abound with harsh expressions respecting Grotius. The Editor of this correspondence has inserted (p. 415) a letter from Grotius to Dr. Lancelot Andrews, written from the Castle at Louvestein. "This letter," says the Editor, "which was never printed before, deserves a place here, not only for its elegance and spirit, and its connection with the subject of the work, but likewise in justice to the memory of the great writer, as it contains his own justification of his conduct, which may be compared with the less favourable accounts of it in the preceding letters of Sir Dudley Carleton. The original is extant among the manuscripts in the library of the late Sir Hans Sloane, bart. now part of the British Museum."--"Utinam," says Grotius in this letter, "D. Carleton mihi esset plus æquior; cui mitigando propinqui mei operam dant. Sed partium, studia mire homines obcæcant."]