A. D. 1524. Zuric to the deputation. To this address of the cantons the council of Zuric returned a full and firm reply. "For five years past," they said, "their present Answer of ministers had officiated among them. At first, indeed, their doctrine had appeared to them novel, because they had heard nothing of the kind before but, when they came to understand that the scope of it was simply this-to exhibit Jesus Christ as the author and finisher of our salvation, who had shed his precious blood for the sins of the world, and alone delivered wretched mortals from eternal death, and is the only mediator between God and man; they could not but embrace such glad tidings with ardent zeal. That great had been the harmony and consent among those who received the doctrine of Christ in ancient times, and they hoped to see the like again among such as should apply their minds to it without regard to human traditions, which had no foundation in the word of God. That if Luther or any other taught this doctrine he did well; but that his name ought not to be imposed upon them, as if they had received the doctrine merely because he taught it for this would be a malicious aspersion, derogatory to the honour of the word of God. That, though they confined their adoration to Christ, and made him their only resource, yet they offered no injury or disrespect to Mary and the saints. That there was now so much light diffused through their city, that most of their people read and diligently searched the holy scriptures for themselves; nor could their ministers misrepresent the sacred writings which were in the hands of all: that schism and heresy, therefore, could not be objected to them, but might more justly be charged upon XVI. CHAP. those, who, for the sake of their own gain and aggrandizement, turned the word of God to what sense they pleased. That error was imputed to them; but none was pointed out, or proved against them. That the bishops of Constance, Basle, and Coire, and some universities also, had been repeatedly solicited to shew them their errors; but that to the present hour nothing of the sort had been done. That, as to what the bishops said, of its not being lawful for them to make the scriptures so common, it was supported by no sufficient reason: they were referred only to fathers and councils; but their wish was to hear, not what men had decreed, but what Christ willed and commanded. That their ministers gave no cause for divisions in the state such a proceeding was rather to be attributed to those, who, for their own interest, had taught contrary to the word of God. That all the existing discords arose from those persons who feared the loss of their accustomed profits. That many vices had indeed been introduced (in these later times), which were unknown to their ancestors, but that their teachers reproved them, exhorting men to the fear of God; and, if numbers were not reformed by their doctrine, this was THE FAULT, NOT OF THE SEED SOWN, BUT OF THE GROUND INTO WHICH IT FELL.1 That certainly within their territories such a degree of 1 See the parable of the Sower. The remark here made is very pertinent and important, and is directly applicable in reply to a thousand charges both from Romanists and from other quarters. Most of the arguments which the Romancatholic Dr. Milner displays, with so much confidence, against the sufficiency of holy Scripture, (in his "End of Controversy,") drawn from the fact of its not having actually preserved mankind from error, are in reality only proofs of the weakness, waywardness, and corruption of our common nature—dis luxury and intemperance was not to be seen as prevailed elsewhere; and their people now entered not, as formerly, into those hired military services which were productive of unnumbered evils. That, as to the eating of flesh and eggs in lent, though it was not unlawful, and had not been prohibited by Christ, they had passed a law to restrain the rashness of the people, and prevent the offence occasioned by it. That, with respect to marriage, God was the author of it, and he allowed it to all; and they could not fight against him by prohibiting what he had instituted. That S. Paul, in enumerating the qualifications of a minister of the church, had even mentioned his being the husband of one wife. That it seemed to them just, that the goods of convents and colleges of regulars should be applied to the use of the poor-which was their original design; and not be employed in pampering persons who did not need them: yet, in order that no one might have just cause of complaint, they had allowed the present possessors to enjoy them for their lives. That the (costly) ornamenting of churches was no part of the worship of God, but that the relief of the poor and miserable was highly acceptable to him and Christ's command to the rich young man was, not to hang up his wealth in churches for a shew, but to sell that he had, and give to the poor. That they did not despise, but on the contrary highly esteemed, the order of the priesthood, when priests did their duty, and taught the people aright: but that, as for the crowds eases no where more apparent than in those who thus insult others for labouring under them.-The light shines, but the eye is "not single." The rays of the sun are pure, but the jaundiced eye discolours them. A. D. 1524. XVI. of idle priests, who do no good to the community, but much harm, they doubted not that gradually to diminish their number would be a service well-pleasing to God. That whether their chantings and prayers were pleasing to him might well be doubted, since most of them understood not the words they used, and did it only for hire. That what was the worth of auricular confession, or the recounting of sins to a priest, they would not take upon them to determine; but the confession with which true penitents betook themselves to Christ must be esteemed not only useful but indispensable. That the usual mode of making satisfaction for sins (so gainful to the priesthood,) appeared to involve much error and impiety; and that the true way for men to repent and make satisfaction was, to reform their lives. That the order of monks was a mere human institution. That they highly reverenced the sacraments which had God for their author, and would suffer no one to treat them with contempt; but that these holy ordinances ought to be administered according to the divine appointment; and that the Lord's supper was not to be converted into an offering or sacrifice for sin. That the council was extremely glad to hear from the cantons that they wished to see the pope's rapine, extortion, and exorbitant power abolished; but that there was no better way of accomplishing this desirable object, than to follow in all things the word of God; for, so long as the laws and decrees of the church were in force, no relief 1 The very term, "making satisfaction," should have been avoided: but, when the whole is taken together, it is obvious that nothing really objectionable was intended. from its encroachments could be expected: the parts, they were ready to contribute not only A. D. 1524. We can be at no loss to divine "whose hand Remarks. had been with " the council of Zuric in this reply. They were accustomed to avail themselves of the advice of Zwingle on all such occasions; and we may conclude that we here read his sentiments, if not his words. On this account we have been the more willing to give 1 Sleidan, 69-72. (lib. iv.) Ru. i. 208-211. Gerd. i. 296-301. 1 |