on the occasion of the Diet, in the Conference at Ratisbon, and in the Augsburg Interim, the Catholics had evinced a disposition to make concessions. The Emperor, Ferdinand I., recommended conciliatory measures to the Council of Trent in 1562; and, failing in his purpose, he encouraged the theologians near him, in particular George Cassander, by their writings and personal intercourse with leading Protestants, in different countries, to labor for the reconciliation of the two contending parties. The position of Erasmus, that the creed should be confined to fundamental articles, and that no agreement should be required on matters of less moment, was substantially taken by most of the advocates of reunion. Cassander proposed to go back to the Scriptures, and to the Church of the first five centuries. Calixtus adopted the same principle. Irenical movements of this character are specially interesting from the part that was taken in them, by two of the ablest men in the Protestant body, Grotius and Leibnitz. The latitudinarian tendency of Erasmus, and the conciliatory spirit and opinions of Melancthon once more found strong representatives. The persecution which Grotius suffered at the hands of his Protestant brethren, the Calvinists of Holland; his observation of the rigid attachment of the Protestant sects to minor peculiarities of doctrine, and their bitter theological strife among themselves; his sorrow at the distracted condition of Europe in the early part of the seventeenth century, and at the calamities resulting from the wars of religion, inclined him to set a high value upon the restoration of ecclesiastical unity. His intercourse with moderate and enlightened Catholics in France confirmed this disposition. The differences among Christians appeared to him small in comparison with the points on which they were united. The tendencies of thought peculiar to him as a statesman, a scholar, and a theologian, conspired to make him an advocate of com

promise and union among ecclesiastical parties. It is not surprising that now he was charged with Socinianism, and now accused of being a Roman Catholic. He employed his vast erudition in the endeavor to soften Protestant antipathies to the Catholic Church and its doctrines. He wrote a treatise to prove that the Pope was called Antichrist through a misinterpretation of the Apocalypse. In this and in other publications, he assumed the position of an apologist for the Catholic theology.2 In his idealized interpretation, he finds it possible even to accept transubstantiation; he does not consider the use of images in worship absolutely unlawful, though he regrets the abuses connected with it; he thinks that the invocation of saints and prayers for the dead are not inadmissible; and finds great advantages in episcopal government, and in the primacy of the Pope. Even the interference of the Popes with the election of Emperors, has a ground in the fact that the Popes may be considered the representatives of the Roman people. Grotius gives a place to tradition in the exegesis of Scripture. His real position is, that the propositions on which all Christians can unite, are to be ascertained by a universal council, composed of all parties, and that the conclusions

1 Grotii Opera (Basel, 1732), iv. 457 seq.

3

2 Votum pro Pace eccl. contra examen A. Riveti, Ibid., p. 653, Via ad Pacem eccl., Ibid., p. 535, etc.

3 He denies the universal validity of the Decalogue under the new dispensation. He appeals to the commandment respecting the Sabbath, which Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Zwingle, and the other Reformers, united in denying to be so far obligatory that the observance of one day in seven is, on the ground of it, required of Christians. Calvin, Institutes, ii. 8, 29, 34. Luther, Catechis mus major, in Hase, Libri Symbolici, p. 424. Melancthon, Loci Communes, (Erlangen, 1828), pp. 123, 124. Zwingle thinks it better to mow, cut, hew, or to do other necessary work which the season demands, after divine worship, than to be idle; "for the believer is above the Sabbath." Werke, i. 317. Such work is recommended in the acts of the Synod of Homberg, in Hesse, on the same grounds. Hassenkamp, Leben F. Lamberts, p. 42. The Puritans asserted the perpetual validity of the fourth commandment, only that the day is changed by divine authority. On the history of the observance of Sunday, see Hesse, Bampton Lectures (1860). Hallam, Const. Hist., ch. vii.

of such a council are trustworthy. The canon of Vincent of Lerins that what is accepted always, everywhere, and by all, is Catholic truth is laid hold of by Grotius to serve as a basis for his scheme of comprehension and latitudinarian orthodoxy.1

In the latter part of the seventeenth century, Spinola, another theologian from the Court of Vienna, who had been a Franciscan General in Spain, signalized himself by a pacific undertaking similar to that of Cassander. In the course of his labors at the Hanoverian court, in behalf of syncretism, as the projected union of the diverse religious bodies was termed, he had much intercourse with the Lutheran theologian, Molanus; and a correspondence arose between Molanus, and, afterwards, Leibnitz, on the one side, and Bossuet on the other.2 Leibnitz conducted a long correspondence also, much of which relates to the same subject, with the Landgrave Ernest, of HesseRheinfels, who had gone over to the Catholic Church, in 1652. The position taken by Leibnitz closely resembles that of Grotius. Each brought vast stores of learning, and marvelous outlay of philosophical acuteness to the task of harmonizing conflicting dogmas. Leibnitz found the dogma of transubstantiation harder to deal with than any other article of the opposing creed; but in the alembic of his subtle criticism, discordant opinions were made to assume a likeness to one another. He lays great stress on the foundations of religion, and declares that the question whether the love of God is necessary for salvation, is incomparably more important than the question whether the substance of the bread remains in the Eucharist, or the question whether souls must be purified before

1 That Grotius died, as he had lived, in the Protestant Church, is proved, if proof were necessary, by the narrative of the Lutheran clergyman who attended him in his last hours. See Bayle's Dictionary, art. "Grotius;" and Luden, Hugo Grotius nach seinen Schicksalen u. Schriften (Berlin, 1806), p. 338 seq. 2 Von Rommel, Leibnitz u. Landgraf Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels. Ein ungedruckter Briefwechsel, etc. 2 vols. (Frankfort, 1847).

On the part taken by Leibnitz, see Hering, ii. 276 seq.

LEIBNITZ AND BOSSUET.

485

being admitted to the vision of God. The questions in dispute between Rome and Augsburg he affirms to be of less consequence than the points in debate between the Jansenists and their opponents, within the pale of the Catholic Church. He went so far as to admit the rightful primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and he professed himself to stand in an inward connection, though not in external union, with the Roman Church. But in reply to pressing invitations to conform outwardly to this Church, he declined, on the ground that within its fold he could not hold in peace his philosophical opinions, with which, in reality, the Church had no right to meddle; he denied that he was a schismatic, therefore, by his own fault, and maintained the same ground in respect to Luther and the Protestants generally. The Church universal, according to Leibnitz, ever holds and is authorized to teach the essentials of religion; but it is not authorized to go beyond this limit. In case it does so, and thus invades the rights of conscience, an individual, or a body of individuals, are not injured by excommunication; and, when they find themselves, without their fault, in this position, their ministry and their administration of the sacraments become valid and acceptable to God. His remedy for the divisions of Christendom, was a general council, in which all parties should appear, and by which their common faith should be defined; everything else being left to the free judgment of individuals, and of national churches. The point on which Leibnitz and Bossuet could not unite, was the authority of the Council of Trent. Bossuet asserted that the Catholic Church could make explanations, but no retractions; and that the creed of Trent could not be altered. Leibnitz did not allow that the Tridentine Council is an ocu

2 Ibid., p. 19.

8 Ibid., ii. 365.

1 Von Rommel. ii. 367. 4 It is interesting to notice that Dr. Pusey's recent argument for union, An Eirenicon, etc. (1866), was met by Archbishop Manning with the same demand

menical body; and he objected to some of its determinations: for example, to those relating to marriage.1 The outbreaking of the Jansenist persecution, and the tyranny and persecuting policy of Louis XIV., dashed in pieces whatever hopes of union sanguine persons may have been led to entertain, in consequence of these conferences between Protestant and Catholic leaders.

for the acknowledgment of the Tridentine Council. But the representations of Roman Catholic theology by men like Bossuet and Möhler must be read with the recollection that there is a stricter orthodoxy than is found in them.

1 Leibnitz wrote "a theological system" about the year 1684, which purports to be from the hand of a Catholic. His design was to exhibit that moderate type of Catholicism which must be offered on the Catholic side as a basis of negotiations for reunion. In regard to his own position he says, in a letter to T. Burnet, in 1705: “On a eu la même opinion de moi [as of Grotius], lorsque j'ai expliqué en bonne part certaines opinions des docteurs de l'Église Romaine contre les accusations outrées de nos gens. Mais quand on a voulu passer plus avant et me faire accroire, que je devais donc me ranger chez eux, je leur ai bien montré que j'en étais fort éloigné." See Niedner, Kirchengsch., p. 818. On the Eucharist, Leibnitz writes: "Quant à moi (puisque vous en demandez mon sentiment, Monsieur), je me tiens à la Confession d'Augsbourg, qui met une présence réelle du corps de Jesus Christ, et reconnoit quelque chose de mystérieux dans ce Sacrament." Letter to M. Pelisson (without date). Leibnitzii Opera, ed. Dutens, i. 718.