the figure of the words themselves or in the occasion and in the nature of the things The Bishop of Condom had before alledged the same reason and almost in the same terms upon the point of the reality and in effect suppose that these words this is my body may be taken in a literal sense they could not be at all alledged for more than the real presence but that nothing advantageth the particular Doctrine of Transubstantiation For these words do not give the least intimation that the substance of bread and wine vanish or that they be changed into the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but onely that the bread and wine of which our Saviour spoke were his body and bloud in the sense which our Saviour himself intended Those of the Confession of Ausburg have this common with the Roman Church that they also understand our Saviours words in a literal sense for a real presence but in regard of the manner of this presence which according to them is the impanation or consubstantiation as they speak that is to say that the two several substances that of bread and that of the body of Jesus Christ are in the Sacrament they take their argument as well from the name of bread and wine which the Scripture gives unto the sign after the consecration as from the other Topicks whether of Scripture or of the senses and right reason Further Transubstantiation being a Doctrine different from the real Presence which adds something unto it and which regards properly the manner of this Presence which thing is the reason also that the Bishop of Condom makes it an Article distinct it is necessary that the Bishop of Condom should seek other reasons for this Doctrine than these words This is my body or that he should say that he finds Transubstantiation in these very words by this consequence which he draws thence that the bread cannot be made the body of Jesus Christ but by this onely way of changing one substance into another in which cases he abandons his principle acknowledging that his Faith is not any longer so attentive to the words of our Saviour as not to call his reason to its assistance to help him to comprehend not the power nor the authority of him that speaks but the import and intire sense of his words And in this case things being brought to this point behold here a way open to dispute We have right to examine whether the Bishop of Condom draws his consequence well or ill When it is said the Bishop of Condom we mean the Church of Rome and therefore it may yet be truly said here as well as upon all the other Articles that the Bishop of Condom's Treatise being very far from putting an end unto disputes and objections onely gives us occasion to make new ones upon the most important points of Faith The third Assertion of the Bishop of Condom's upon this Article is that the reality of the Eucharist doth not hinder the Eucharist's being a sign But this is again to change the terms of the Question The Question is properly Whether if the Sacrament being the sign of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ that doth not hinder its being together the sign and the thing signified This is the reason also that the Bishop of Condom perceiving that he did not proceed directly to the purpose afterwards changes the proposition and changes it so Strongly on the other side that he resolves the sign to be a sign of such nature as to be so far from excluding the reality that it necessarily carries it with it the reason is this saith he that Jesus Christ having said this is my body this is a sign that he is present We confess we find it difficult to understand this arguing of the Bishop of Condom's How can he say that the bread and the wine which are the signs here in question are signs of such nature that they are so far from excluding the presence of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as necessarily to carry it with them for this proposition hath no foundation in the nature of bread and wine And for the reason which the Bishop of Condom adds that Jesus Christ having said this is my body is a sign that he is present is it not onely to play with words and to make therewith but an empty sound and vain amusement This here again is called giving the change and to prove the Question by the thing it self in question The Question is Whether the bread and wine are together the signs of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ and the body and bloud of Jesus Christ themselves We say that signs Symbols Seals and Pledges are not the things themselves whereof they are the signs Symbols Seals and Pledges and nothing is more conformable unto nature and unto reason The Bishop of Condom saith that the bread and the wine being the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as to what they have inward this hinders not but that they may be signs as to what they have outward and sensible but this is onely to say what is in question and how doth he prove it This speech this is my body is a sign that he is present but here we treat of the signs of bread and wine and this speech it self is not the sign that you would have it to be but onely by giving it the literal sense which you give it and this literal sense alone makes our first and principal question The fourth and last Assertion of the Bishop of Condom upon the Article of Transubstantiation is touching the adoration of the Host This Assertion is without doubt the most fundamenâ—al and most important point that separates us from the Church of Rome because it is not onely a doctrine but 〈◊〉 worship and a practice wherein â—he question is Whether we are to â—dore or not to adore In which behalf we cannot mistake without falâ—ing into impiety or into Idolatry Nevertheless the Bishop of Condom â—â—sseth swifter than lightning over â—his point without giving himself the â—ouble to confirm it by any proof All that he saith is pa. 126. that the presence of 〈◊〉 adorable an object being certified by the 〈◊〉 we scruple not at all saith he to pay 〈◊〉 ouâ— adorations This proposition is conceived in so equivocal a manner â—hat the adoration may refer to the â—â—esence to the object or to the sign 〈◊〉 self He intends without doubt the â—bject believed present under the sign But why not scruple at all for these â—igns do not now certifie any thing â—ut what they certified in the times of the Apostles themselves and in all â—he following times of the purest Christianity Yet it is certain that there is not one word of it in the relation of the institution of the Sacrament which shews that the Apostles did prostrate themselves in receiving of it nor that they shewed any mark of adoration Neither
disputes It will easily appear whether the Church of Rome hath hath kept her self within the bounds which it is said that she hath prescribed her self if she hath always exactly followed the steps of those which went before her and if in fine what is here said of her temper and moderation be not onely rather the ordinary stile of those who make profession of submitting themselves unto Laws even when they openly trample them under foot The third proposition particularly regards the authority and infallibility of Synods or Councils The Bishop of Condom saith that it is the part of Pastours assembled to decide controversies and the Faithful to receive their decisions without examining them we all agree to the former part of this proposition and we believe also that the way of Synodal Assemblies is the most universal outward means and the most effectual that God makes use of to keep mens minds united in one onely Belief But as we cannot agree to the infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes unto them so neither can we accord that the Faithful are obliged blindly to receive their decisions without examining them John 5.39 Mat. 7.15 Acts 20.29 1 Thes 5.21 Act. 17.11 The Apostles themselves did not demand so blind a submission to their own Doctrine on the contrary they advised that men would compare it with the Scripture that they would distinguish the Wolf from the Shepherd that they would examine all and retain that which was good and those of Berea were commended for that after having heard the Apostles they compared their Sermons with the Scriptures If it be said that this might take place as to the Doctrine of each Apostle in particular and not as to what had been decided by all the Apostles as that which the Bishop of Condom alledgeth out of the 15th of the Acts when the Apostles being assembled upon the controversie which was raised touching the ceremonies of the Law they pronounced these remarkable works It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us c. And that afterwards St. Paul and Silas went through the Cities teaching believers to keep the Ordinances of the Apostles In the first place the Bishop of Condom would do well to put some difference betwixt those holy men which had received the Holy Ghost immediately in form of fiery tongues and the Fathers of the latter Councils of Constance and of Trent of whom the very Romish Catholick Authours observe the passion the motives and the humane interest that inspirited them 2. We see that though the Apostles were fully perswaded of their authority as St. Paul speaks particularly of himself yet they are very far from thundring out Anathema's for the least matters as the Council hath done at every word against all those that will not admit even of meer School-distinctions and Figures of Rhetorick We see the Apostles found their judgment upon the Holy Scriptures and having concluded upon it they onely say with the greatest sweetness in the World If you do these things you will do well 3. Nor were they at all concerned even in this dispute about essential points of Faith but onely about ceremonies of the Law which were already silently abrogated by the Gospel which the Apostles would maintain but for a time to give the Synagogue an honourable burial and to maintain union betwixt the Jewes and the other people which had newly embraced the Doctrine of the Gospel In summe very soon after St. Paul himself preached that people might eat indifferently of all sorts of meat and it is known that in process of time the usage established by this Ordinance of the Apostles was insensibly abolished 4. It doth not appear that the Apostles did publish their decision with an absolute injunction to obey it but they sent Paul Barnabas and Silas to instruct the Faithful to keep this Ordinance that is to say in all likelihood to shew them the motives and grounds thereof which doth not import that it was forbid them to examine it Lastly we may retort against the Gentlemen of the Roman Church what the Bishop of Condom afterwards objects against us which is that their practice agrees not at all with their Maxims for it is not true that they believe the Councils to be infallible in all things nor that they alwayes receive all their decisions either with examining them or without examining them For example they have not held to those of the Councils whereof we have spoken which forbad the worshipping of Images and the decisions of those Councils have not hindred but that other Councils have ordained the contrary It is known that the Gallican Church hath not yet to this day received all the decisions of the Council of Trent as to points that regard Ecclesiastical Order and discipline which notwithstanding are much more of humane Jurisdiction than the very matters of Faith The fourth and last proposition of the Bishop of Condom's touching the authority of the Church is that wherein he objects against us that this authority is so necessary that after having decried it we have been obliged to establish it in the very matters of Faith it self This proposition contains two accusations which destroy each the other that which makes them the less credible The one is that we have decryed the authority of the Church the other that we have established it without any bounds In summe nothing is worse grounded than the first of these accusations for it is not true that we ever denyed that Order should be observed in the Church nor that we have ever written or spoken against the just authority of those whom God calls to be Pastours and Governours of the Faithful Our confession of Faith our discipline the Acts of our Synods in a word all that the Bishop of Condom himself â—eports which is what is most ancient and most authentick amongst â—s since the Reformation manifestly destroyes this accusation and the Bishop of Condom doth not alledge any thing which shews the contrary Our Doctours have preached and written against the excessive authority of the Court of Rome against the Soveraignty which we believe the Popes have generally usurped over Bishops which yet have the same â—haracter and the same dignity as â—hey have over all the Clergy over the people over the Councils and â—ver Princes themselves under preâ—ence of the spiritual Sword We â—ould have spoken against the absolute power that Popes attribute to themselves of assembling or not assembling Councils because that Ecclesiastical History gives us assurance that in the first and best Ages of Christianity it was the Emperours that assembled them In fine we could have again exclaimed against the abuse of Indulgences and in a word against all those points whereby the manner of the Government of the Church is become so widely different from that wherein it was governed by the Apostles and St. Peter himself of whom the Popes style themselves successours but in all these very things those
that we partake of Jesus Christ very really indeed but spiritually nevertheless the Bishop of Condom correcting the term of real presence which he imputed unto us leaves the same consequences which he had seemed upon this Idea prejudging that the belief of the real participation ought to have the same effect as if we believed the presence it self This is called to take away the Foundation and leave the Building in the air or at best but to underprop it by putting in some other support in the place of the Foundation 13. In the First among the many consequences that he draws from our believing a real participation after having said that it must needs be that besides the spiritual communion of the Body of Christ c. we must admit of a real communion of the Body of the same Saviour Pag. 100. he concludes that the Church of Rome would be satisfied would we make this confession which is of very great consequence because that this conclusion doth free us from Transubstantiation and shelter the Lutherans that believe the reality In the latter some other consideration made the Bishop of Condom stifle this opinion pa. 112. and put another altogether different in the place they will never saith he explain this truth in any the least solid manner if they do not return unto the opinion of the Church pag. 109 14. In the First the word Transubstantiation is seen in the Margin in form of a title or article as well as in the Last to mark out the matter of Controversie treated of in that place but throughout the Exposition there is nothing in any place of the Article nor the term of Transubstantiation nor this Proposition that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ In the latter pag 124 after these words the true Body and the true Bloud of Jesus Christ he hath added into which the Bread and the Wine are changed which is that that is called Transubstantiation pag. 115. 15. In the First speaking of the Mass he concludes onely that it may reasonably be called a Sacrifice which implies also that one may safely forbear giving it that name In the latter he changeth this conclusion into another far different for he affirms strongly that there is nothing wanting in the Mass to be a true Sacrifice which yet are two consequences very different to be drawn from one Doctrine that is to say that what the Bishop of Condom proposes in this place for the proving that the Mass is a true Sacrifice doth prove no more than that it may reasonably be called by this name 16. In the First p 132 treating of the belief of them who are called Lutherans the Bishop of Condom speaketh generally of the whole Party that they reject the adoration of the Sacrament which is true In the latter pag. 148. he reduces this general Proposition unto a particular one which destroyes the former for he onely saith that some Lutherans reject the adoration without the appearance of any ground which should oblige him to the making such restriction 17. In the First pag. 113. he draws this consequence from the Doctrine of the real presence that he that can endure the reality which saith he is the most important and most difficult point may easily digest the rest In the latter he bethought himself that this rest comprehends Transubstantiation Adoration the Sacrifice of the Mass and the taking away the Cup and that they are not things so easily believed wherefore he speaks a little slacker that enduring the reality we ought also to endure the rest pag. 165. 18. In the First touching the authority of the Holy Chair he saith that their profession of Faith doth oblige them to acknowledge the Church of Rome as Mistriss and to tender true obedience unto the Pope as Sovereign In the latter he wraps up this Soveraign power in more general terms which conclude nothing positively we acknowledge saith he this Sovereignty speaking of St. Peter in his Successors unto whom is due for this reason the submission and obedience that the holy Councils and Fathers have alwayes taught 19. Upon the same point he saith in the First Edition that the rights of pretensions of the Popes which the Reformed Ministers are alwayes alledging to make that power odious are not of the Catholick Faith nor at all set down in the Profession of Faith In the latter he saith in more indefinite termes that as to those matters of which there is dispute in the Schools c. it is not at all necessary to speak thereof seeing they are not â—f the Catholick Faith 20. To conclude pag. 518. in the First Edition the Bishop of Condom drawing to the conclusion of his Treatise saith that the Fundamentals of Salvation are the adoration of one only God Father Son and Holy Ghost and a belief in one Saviour c. In the Latter he recalls this so absolute Proposition plainly seeing that the allowing this Maxime is to acknowledge that it is us properly who have the fundamentals of Salvation for our Doctrine reduces it self unto these two Heads and we have nothing contrary unto them neither in reality nor in appearance I pass over some other alterations that are less considerable especially if looked on each apart but all together do sufficiently speak the trouble the Bishop of Condom had to put his Treatise into the condition it is now in The only thing to be added in this regard is that though it may plainly be perceived that the Bishop of Condom proposed to himself two principal ends in his Treatise the one to insinuate the Doctrine of the Church of Rome diminishing as much as he could what she holds that is most violently offensive the other to oppose ours principally upon two points in which he believed he could have put us unto great difficulties namely the reality of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the authority of the Church nevertheless it appears that it is only upon the positive Doctrine of the Roman Church that the Bishop of Condom hath stagger'd that he hath touched and retouched withdrawn diminished or added and finally that he hath made all the alterations above mentioned Now from whence could proceed this kind of variation in an Exposition of Faith for it is known how well the Bishop of Condom is qualified and the great clearness and readiness he hath in expressing himself It cannot be said but that he understood perfectly not only the grounds of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome but of ours also four yeares past when his Manuscript Copy was dispersed amongst us or ten moneths since when he caused his Treatise to be printed the first time as well as he knows it at this present Therefore it must needs be that these difficulties do proceed from the very nature of the Opinions that he laies down which have no certain foundation which
all its parts he tells us not one Word which says that God hath thus ordained it as if Religion were only an human Discipline and that God would be honoured and served according to our thoughts Deut 12 32 Is 1 12 Mâ—t 5.9 and not after his own institution Look into the Decrees of the Council the Catechism made by its authority the Commandments of the Church of Rome they never tell us upon this matter no more than on many others God Wills we Pray unto Saints or God bids we Pray unto Saints but the Church doth teach or the Council doth teach the Council Ordains and pronounceth Anathema This stile is very different from that of the Prophets and Apostles the former begins and almost ever ends Thus saith the Lord Exod. 5.1 1 Câ—â— 23 â—1 and the others We have received of the Lord what we haâ—e also delivered unto you It will be said that the Church of Rome and the Council of Trent are the Instruments of God and that it is God himself which speaketh by their mouth But this is to say a thing that is in question and very much in question this is to multiply questions whereas the Bishop of Condom pretends to diminish them The truth is that neither the Church of Rome noâ— the Council of Trent nor the Bishop of Condom who explains their Doctrinâ— are able to find one single passage it all the Scripture of the Old and new Testament which says that God wills the invocation of Saints nay what is far from that we do alledge in this case a great number which say the contrary The First thing which the Church of Rome doth teach is that is profitable to call upon the Saints and it is certain that as to this part the Council doth speak in these terms The Bishop of Condom doth a Little more sweetten the matter in adding that the Council is content to teach the Faithful that this practice is good and useful for them without saying any thing more and that so the meaning of the Church is to condemn those who reject this practise through scorn or errour This doth manifestly enough declare that those which are already in the Roman Communion might very well abstain from all Invocation of the Saints doing it with good intention as for example not to Pray but unto God alone or not believe the invocation of Saints to be absolutely necessary provided they do not despise nor condemn it that is to say that the Bishops are obliged to Preach the Invocation of Saints as the Council doth very expresly ordain that we are bound to hearken unto them and believe also what they teach but not to do what they teach From whence it appears to be a strange Doctrin and a Communion very extraordinary if it be true that some may practice a Religious Worship and others may refuse it This doth sufficiently make evident that our belief and our practise is safe and that we do follow the securer Way in that regard for if this Worship be but useful if the Council is contented also to teach it so without saying any farther we who openly profess that we do not reject it through scorn but only through the belief which we have that we ought not to address our vows and Prayers but to God only in appearance are not in any danger of incurring Gods displeasure in that behalf especially having neither Commâ—ndment as to this matter nor example in his word to oblige us therâ—uâ—â—◠〈◊〉 whereas the Church of Rome may well fear the jealousie of God if it be true as we believe that this Worship is contrary to his Will And it is Likely that we who reject this Worship because we are perswaded that God alone should be invoked are in as much safety at Least as those who are in the Roman Communion who have their Liberty to forbear it for it is a much less fault in Religion not to do a thing when one thinks it not to be good than not to do it when one believes it to be good and useful But on the other side how shall we reconcile the expressions of the Council of Trent and of the Bishop of Condom either with the profession of Faith which the Roman Catechism doth prescribe by authority of the said Council or with the opinions of the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church and with the general practice of all those of their Communion For the profession of Faith doth say in express terms not that it is good and useful to pray unto the Saints but purely and simply that we ought to Pray unto the Answ Answ to the repl of the King of Great Britain Page 872 Saints pronouncing Anathema against all those which do not receive this Doctrine And the Cardinal Du Peron of whom every one knows how his judgment is followed in the Roman Church saith in express Terms that the invocation of Saints is not onely useful and lawful but that it is necessary though by a conditional necessity which he doth not explain clearly However he pretends to prove this necessity by the authority of St. Ambrose and St. Hilary In sum how can it be said of such a Religious Worship as this that it is but useful as if in Religion all true Worship were not a true duty and by consequence a thing necessary especially a Worship which it is seen doth take up above half the time of the Ceremonies and services of the Roman Religion And when the Bishops have orders as in the matter now in hand In primis Counc Trent Sess 26. de invoc c. to teach above all things that the Saints who Reign with our Lord Jesus Christ do pray for us and that it is good and useful to render unto them a Religious honour and to fly unto their aid and succour is not this to say that we ought to do it But if any amongst them would forbear in this matter either because they do not think it absolutely necessary or because they will not address their Prayers unto any but God himself how can they assist at all the publick services where Saints are every hour called upon without saying Amen as others do or without being as it were a Sect separate in the midst of those of their Communion It is therefore most certain that these sorts of expressions of the Bishop of Condom are only sweetnings in terms to draw us unto a Religious service which he knows we believe to be truly evil It is but for the present the Gentlemen of the Roman Church give us to understand that if we would joyn with them we should not pray unto the Saints if we pleased but when once men are engaged we call to witness those who desert us if they do not oblige them to swear amongst other things that men ought to pray unto Saints as it is contained in the profession of Faith made by thâ— Council However it be useful or necessary
in Pag. 71 72. reality they partake not any way of the grace of Redemption and so dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ The onely pronouncing of this sentence against the Infants of Believers causes a kind of horrour mingled with a tender and just compassion for these poor Innocents for they are looked on as such though they are tainted with Original sin and the Church of Rome calls them Innocents and Martyrs which Herod caused to be slain and celebrates a Feast unto their memory Now this very sense of horrour and pity which such condemnation it self excites in our spirits being natural and reasonable it is a sign there is no condemnation You condemn them because they cannot supply the want of Baptism by acts of Faith as do the adult persons whom you save without Baptism but it is for that very reason that you ought not to condemn them The Roman Church is well contented that the Faith of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the Church should supply the want of Faith in Infants even then when they receive Baptism It is the Godfather that speaking for the Child saith that he demands to be baptised that he renounces the Devil that he Believes in God and in a word that makes the whole Confession of Faith which we make in the Creed Wherefore then will she not yield that this same Faith of the Godfathers and of the Church may supply the place to Infants of those desires or vows which adult persons have for Baptism or of those acts of Faith which are in stead of Baptism There is no more reason for one than for the other if the Fathers or Godfathers speaking for the Infant may say I believe in God the Father Almighty c. they may as well say for him too I do promise and vow to be baptised if death or want of means do not hinder Dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ But why will you have these Children to dy in Adam seeing they are born of Christian Parents that they dy in their arms in the midst of vows and prayers which are made to God for them Gen. 17.7 God is the Father of Abraham and of his posterity our Father and the Father of our Children And the Children of Believers are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 that is to say they are Children of the Promise as the Scripture speaks or they are born in the Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and by consequence they should not be excluded from the benefit of his Death which is common to them with their Fathers under a pretence that they are not of age to declare that they accept of this benefit as in the World the Children that are born in Cities or in Countries have a share in the Rights and Priviledges of the Cities and Countries which they are born and in the benefits of Treaties of Peace and Friendship which are made betwixt the Princes though the Children be not in a condition of ability to testifie that they do submit unto those Treaties You have a veneration for the Relicks of Saints because they are parts of the living members of Jesus Christ this is the reason which the Council gives as it hath elsewhere been said But after all these are onely of the bones dead parts of those living members yet without scruple you condemn these poor little Infants which are as much parts of Saints and living and animated parts And further do you believe that all Infants departed since Adam before the institution of Baptism or of Circumcision which was the Figure of Baptism for example the Children of Abel or of Noah under the Law of Nature do you believe I say that as it may be said they dyed truly in Adam so that they had no part in Jesus Christ Or that God who substituted some other meanes of Salvation for those Infants in the place of Baptism or of Circumcision cannot and will not also even yet at this day supply the necessitated default of Baptism by his grace How is it that those of the Church of Rome who find so much difficulty to comprehend the eternal Decree of God according unto which though we are all children of Adam God hath chosen some and passed by others without as we can conceive any other reasons but his good pleasure how is it I say that these Gentlemen find no difficulty to believe that the Infants of the Faithful should be so intirely excluded from the common Redemption without any other reason save that they are children of Adam as the Fathers themselves also were whom God called unto Salvation To conclude what can there be more convincing against this absolute necessity of Baptism than this other necessity of the intention of the Priest who administers the Sacrament For if on the one hand there can be no Salvation without Baptism and on the other the effect of Baptism depend on the intention of him who baptiseth not onely the Salvation of Infants who have not been baptised but the Salvation even of those who dye soon after Baptism before they come to age depends then absolutely on the Priest which is equally inconsistent with the Justice the Power the Wisedom and the Goodnesse of God The onely or the principal authority that the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome do alledge for the belief of a Doctrine so dangerous as is this absolute necessity of Baptism is a passage of our Saviours in St. John's Gospel speaking to Nicodemus Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This passage is like another of our Saviours near the same place Joh. 6 53. If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud you have no life in you and it is true that upon these two passages taken according to the letter some of the fathers have grounded themselves as well for the necessity of administring the Eucharist unto Infants as for the necessity of Baptism But if the Church of Rome hath in process of time justly acknowledged that the necessity of the Eucharist unto Infants was a gross errour that this Sacrament ought not to be given unto Infants wherefore is it that she doth not also acknowledge that this necessity of Baptism may be as much an errour If they believe that this last passage ought not to be understood of the Eucharist or at least that it ought not to be understood according to the letter of all sorts of persons indifferently but onely of such as have age and meanes necessary to partake of the Eucharist why do they pass a judgment so contrary touching the other Why will they not also admit it ought to be understood likewise of regeneration or of a spiritual washing under the figure or expression of water and of the Spirit which is joyned unto the water As that place which saith Ye shall be baptized
some corporal or pecuniary pennances imposed upon them Therefore also it hath often been observed in our Churches that the least regular persons are most subject to forsake our Communion because that whilest they continue in their sin amongst us they find nothing that may assure them of the pardon and absolution which they hope for of a Confessor And if it be true that the Confessors or Directors of conscience as they are termed often give wise counsels it is but too true also that the Counsellors themselves very often take occasion thereby to corrupt themselves or to insinuate themselves in all publick affairs of State or in the particular affairs of private Families and History is but too full of the Evils which have hapned unto the publick and to particular persons The very consolation also which they give Sinners in pronouncing their absolution doth turn into security and to conclude as hath already been openly declared upon another subject it cannot be made appear that they who live in the practice of auricular Confession are better people than those who confess themselves chiefly unto God The Council here joines Extreme Unction unto Repentance Extreme Vnction There is this difference betwixt the precedent Article and this that this latter is nothing near of so great consequence This is nothing in a manner but an useless ceremony and an evil custom whereof the errour may be tolerable in it self if it were not of dangerous influence in introducing into Religion lesser matters which might by little and little turn away the soul and heart from solid piety We might upon better grounds call this ceremony a Sacrament than Pennance Marriage or Orders which follow this because at least the Oyl may there hold the place of a visible Sign as the Council and the Bishop of Condom doe not fail to give to understand But after all this pretended Sacrament hath this common with pennance and the others which we admit not as Sacraments that the Institution made by the Church of Rome herein is onely founded upon some custom practised on particular occasions which are now ceased St. James speaking of the virtue of Prayer saith and that onely once in concluding his Epistle Is any sick amongst you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with Oyl in the name of the Lord And the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him The Roman Catechism cannot deny but that these words have allusion unto what was said before of the Apostles who being departed from our Saviour preached that men should repent S. Mark cap. 6.12 13. that they cast out many Devils anointing with Oyl many that were sick healed them because indeed the Apostles and their Disciples who had the gift of Miracles did then heal many either by anointing them or onely by laying their hands upon them which caused also that one of the greatest men of the Church of Rome speaking more fully than the Catechism doth openly acknowledge that these words of St. James are to be understood of an anointing exercised by the Disciples of Jesus Christ upon the Sick Cardinal Cajetan upon S. Jam. 5. such as is related in the Gospel and not of the Extreme Unction which is practised in the Roman Church In the mean time this is all the Foundation or all the pretext which the Council and the Bishop of Condom have for the instituting of such a Sacrament What is worst of all is that the Church of Rome doth not doe the thing it self according to the words and the intention of St. James St. James testifies that it was to heal the Sick and which is very remarkable the other words of the Evangelist unto which these of St. James allude as the Roman Catechisme doth agree speak onely indeed of healing the Sick unto which it is true that St. James adds that if the Sick hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him which is principally to be understood of those sins that may have drawn the chastisement of sickness upon the sick person The Roman Church doth on the contrary make Extreme Unction to be a Sacrament of Remission of sins as Baptism and regards little or nothing the health of the body acknowledging that it hath not now the miraculous gift of healing the sick Therefore also it is that whereas St. James speaks of the sick in general in what estate soever they be the Church of Rome doth for the most part understand that they must be at the extremity before this Unction be carried unto them and she never gives it unto little children This is as much as to say that in all things even of the least moment she must invent or add something of her own if it were but onely to shew her authority The Bishop of Condom speaks onely one word here of Marriage and he saith nothing but what we would very easily consent unto We acknowledge as he doth that Marriage is one of the most sacred Bands of civil Society but we do not agree with the Church of Rome that Marriage is a true Sacrament nor that it should not be permitted unto them that are in Orders as they speak to marry as if there ought to be a kind of incompatibility betwixt two divers Sacraments of the Gospel neither Lastly do we agree unto many other maxime of the Church of Rome touching Marriage whereof we do not find any track in Scripture nor in the practice of the ancient Church But seeing the Bishop of Condom enters not upon these Questions we will forbear speaking of them here We will onely observe that the Council could not better set forth the reasons that it had to make so many Decrees and so many Canons touching Marriage which is nevertheless naturally a civil contract than by the first and the last of these same Canons which comprehend all the rest The first doth pronounce Anathema against all those who do not believe that Marriage is a true Sacrament and the last against all those who will not believe that all causes concerning Marriage do belong to the Church that is to say that these two Canons were made the one for the other Every one at the first sight may see the great consequences of this Doctrine and the great advantages which do arise unto the Court of Rome whether it be for the authority in examination of Matrimonial causes or for the income of Dispensations It was necessary that the Church of Rome might take cognisance of causes Matrimonial for the great advantages which accrue unto her thereby and to bring it to pass that she might have cognizance of them it was necessary to make Marriage a Sacrament as also she would have had cognizance of all other civil affairs under pretext of the Oath which was inserted in contracts if the just jealousie of the Parliaments of
all this The same Scripture of the New Testament speaks in divers places against Traditions without ever intimating that there were some good which were to be distinguished from the bad and in one onely place which is that whereof the Bishop of Condom makes mention Mar. 7.8 9 13. Colos 2.8 2 Thes 2.15 the Apostle exhorting the Thessalonians to hold fast the Traditions which they had received of him whether it were by mouth when he was present with them or by Epistle which he had since writ to them sayes not one word which intimates that the things which he had taught them by mouth were different from those which he had written unto them but he gives to understand all along that it was one and the same Gospel which he preached unto all to them who were present by voice and to them that were absent by writing In summe whosoever will take the pains with any attention to read St. Paul's Two Epistles to the Thessalonians where he speaks unto them of the instructions which he gave them and of the manner of his having preached the Gospel unto them shall find there nothing at all no more than in the Gospel it self which hath the least resemblance to prayer for the dead to Purgatory to the invocation of Saints to the adoration of Images nor in fine to any of the Traditions which are in question betwixt the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome and us It were an easie matter here De Doct. Christ li. 2. c. 9. li. 3. cont lit Petili c. 6. Hieron ad Hel. vi pa. 315 366. Chrysos Hono. 3. in 2. ad Cor. to strengthen our selves with the Testimony of St. Austin and of several other Fathers to prove what we have said that the Scripture doth contain all that is necessary either for the Service of God or for the rule of our actions but besides that this were to engage in a particular Controversie touching the judgment of the Fathers which is not the design of this Answer we think that amongst Christians it were in some fort to prejudice the Dignity and Divinity of this same Holy Scripture to doubt that its proper light were not sufficient to make known its perfection Onely let us see what the Bishop of Condom produces for the unwritten Word Jesus Christ saith he having founded his Church upon preaching pa. 158. the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity and when thereto the Scriptures of the New Testament were added this Word did not thereby lose its authority We must observe here at first that this is to speak in some sort improperly to say that Jesus Christ founded the Church upon preaching and not rather by preaching Preaching is a means and not a foundation the means may cease the foundation ought to be durable And no more is it true that the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity It is the Scripture it self of the Old Testament which was the first and the eldest rule and the foundation of the Faith of Christians It is the Old Testament that not onely contains the Commandments of the Law which is the permanent and unchangeable rule of our Duty as well towards God as towards men but likewise all the figures all the promises and all the prophesies touching the Messias the time and the place of his Birth and all the circumstances of his death The Gospel as all the world knows is not the abrogating but the fulfilling of the Law therefore it is that we see that Jesus Christ and the Apostles grounded their preaching upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament Jesus Christ continually refers the Jews to the Law and to the Testimony It is written saith he in your Law c. Joh. 5.39 46. Rom. 1. Search the Scriptures diligently for in them ye think ye have eternal life And the Apostle St. Paul to the Romans Paul a servant of Jesus Christ c. separated unto the Gospel c. which was promised by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning his Son Jesus Christ c. who was made of the seed of David according to the Flesh and so he begins his very Epistle to the Hebrews God who at sundry times spake unto the Fathers by the prophets c. In fine his first Chapter and the whole Epistle is nothing else but one citation of Exodus of Chronicles of Samuel Job Psalms and the other Books of the Old Testament It is besides a very improper manner of speaking to say that when the Scriptures of the New Testament were joyned unto the unwritten Word this word for all that did not thereby lose its authority as if the Doctrine of the Gospel such as we have it now in writing were an accessary or were a thing different from that unto which they pretend it was joined or that that which was not written were more considerable than that which we have in the Sacred Books for this expression of the Bishop of Condom's that the Scriptures were joyned to the unwritten word suggests all these imaginations in stead of saying the thing properly as it is He should have said that the unwritten Word having been put into writing or the Scripture of the New Testament having succeeded preaching this Divine Word not onely not lost its authority but on the contrary was corroborated in that it doth not any longer depend on the memory nor the will of men naturally subject unto Errour For upon the main the Bishop of Condom pretends that the Holy Scripture contains onely the lesser part of Christian Religion and that on the contrary Tradition doth contain the principal part At least his pretence is that there may be some particular Doctrines which are not to be had but by Tradition which ought not for their not being in Scripture therefore to lose their authority As for any thing else the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome are so little firm to their principle of Tradition or at least they so well acknowledge that Tradition cannot go equal with Scripture though the Council hath been pleased to determine the contrary that when they are pressed touching particular Traditions which are in question betwixt them and us there is scarce one but they endeavour to support by the authority of Scripture whether it be by interpreting it in their sense or by the consequences which they draw thence When they treat of Tradition in general they maintain it with excess comparing it to Scripture as if it went through all Religion and when they treat of their Doctrines in particular they would make the World believe that there is scarce any one amongst them which is not founded on the very Scripture But if we would know nevertheless how the Bishop of Condom proves that the particular ponits of Tradition are the very Doctrine of the Apostles unwritten it may be at first we would believe that he had in hand some Authour either of the age of the
authority of the Church of Rome which they pretend cannot err Behold therefore the Bishop of Condom's argument overthrown in all its parts seeing that the Maxime which he layes down is not true which is that all the Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the first beginning cannot be shewn proceed from the Apostles and that the application which he doth make is less true which is that all the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embrac'd by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning and by consequence this conclusion whether it be of the Bishop of Condom or of the Council of Trent far from being true and orthodox is a very strange principle that we ought to receive the Traditions even those which do separate us from the Church of Rome with the same respect and the same submission as the Holy Scripture XIX The authority of the Church After Tradition follows the authority of the Church The Bishop of Condom doth not clearly explain wherein this authority consists nor what he understands by the Church which should have this authority whether this authority should have any bounds or whether it should have none or whether it be the Pope with the Council or without the Council or the Council alone in which this authority doth reside for we also have our Churches and our Governours and we believe that we should not onely keep order but all that doth conduce for the maintaining of unity and concord and the Question here as elsewhere is oftentimes but of the more or less What the Bishop of Condom sayes in this case is reducible to four principal propositions The first that it cannot be but by the authority of the Church that we receive the whole body of the Holy Scriptures The second that it is of the Church that we learn Tradition and by Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures The third that it is the Church and her Pastours assembled which should determine controversies that divide the Faithful and that when once they have resolved any matter we ought to submit unto their decisions without examining anew that which they have resolved The fourth and last that this authority is so necessary that after having denied it we have been forced to establish it amongst us by our discipline by the Acts of our Synods and by our practice in things pertaining to Faith it self As to the first we agree with the Bishop of Condom that the Christian Church is the Guardian of the Scriptures and that as she hath received the Law and the Prophets from the Jewish Church so it is from the Chirstian Church that the Faithful receive all the Scriptures as well of the Old as of the New Testament We even acknowledge that the authority of the Church is a lawful reason which at first makes us look upon the Scripture as a revelation from Heaven but we do deny not onely that it is meerly by the authority of the Church but that it is principally by her authority that we receive the Scripture as the Divine Word The Scripture is full of Testimonies which it self gives of its Divinity and of the efficacious power which it hath upon hearts by the operation of the Holy Ghost It is indeed somewhat injurious to this the Divinity of the Scripture and to its efficacy and somewhat contradictory when it is contended that a matter Divine should not be received but by dependance upon an humane authority It is as if one would say that it is yet at this day onely by the authority of the Jewish Church that Christians have received the whole body of the Scriptures of the Old Testament because it is by her hand that we have received them though upon the whole the authority of this peopel chosen of God may be a reasonable ground of the Divinity of the Scriptures Truth hath its proper character even in humane matters which makes us acknowledge it for its self when once it is set before our eyes and not for the authority of those who propose it to us By greater reason Heavenly truths like the Sun manifest themselves by their proper splendour 'T is a common speech upon this subject that a man asleep being told the Sun is up presently believes it is day upon what is told him but when once he sees it is day he believes it not any longer because he was told so but because he sees it and he doth not so much as dream any longer that it was told him so The Gentlemen of the Church of Rome will not agree that it is as clear that the Scripture is the Word of God as it is clear that it is day when the Sun is above our Horizon and this is it which the Bishop of Condom gives to understand in terms positive enough when he speaks of us that whatever we say he believes that it is principally the authority of the Church pag. 16. that determines us to reverence as Divine Books the Song of Songs which hath so few sensible marks of prophetical inspiration the Epistle of St. James which Luther rejected and that of St. Jude which might be suspected by reason of some Apocryphal Books which are therein alledged But how dare any man rebate or decry as I may so speak the brightness and force of the Word of God Why sayes he absolutely that the Song of Songs hath so few marks of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit And to what end here again proposes he scruples against this Song and against the two Epistles of St. James and St. Jude which we look upon both in the one and the other communion as sacred Books and that without so much as alledging the reasons which have determined as well the Church of Rome as ours to receive these Writings as Canoniâ—al For will any say that if these Writings had not had any character of Divinity the sole approbation of the Church of Rome could give them 〈◊〉 light which they had not of themselves For our parts 2 Tim. 3.16 we say with the Apostle that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and if all men do not look upon them in the same manner or with the same sentiments it is not the fault of the Scripture but it is the effect of the variety and weakness of the humane spirit and the wise and free dispensation of the Spirit of God which bloweth where it will and as it will An evident proof that it is not the authority of the Church of Rome which determines those of our communion to reverence the Scriptures and these three Books particularly as Canonical but that it is their own proper character and the grace which we believe that God gives us to acknowledge this character is that 't is well known there are some others as Tobie Judith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus and the two first Books of Maccabees c. which the Church of Rome receives as Canonical which
we receive not as such and that on the contrary we do receive the Epistle of St. James which the Lutherans receive not at least all of them as we do whatever conformity there may be in other things betwixt them and us Again as a proof that it is not the authority of the Jewish Church which determines the one or the other of us to receive the Scriptures of the Old Testament as Canonical we may take this that at this time the Jewes not receiving for such all that the Church of Rome receiveth she doth not think her self bound to acquiesce in their judgement The Bishop of Condom's second proposition touching the authority of the Church depends in a manner wholly on the former for he saith that as we receive the Scriptures from the hands of the Church so we learn Tradition of her and by means of Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures In good time Let the Church then be the Guardian of Tradition as she is of the Scriptures and let her make use of Tradition either for order and discipline to facilitate the understanding of Scripture but let her not make thereof a title to impose upon us Worships or Doctrines which do not accord with the Scriptures or to make the sense of the Scripture to depend absolutely upon the interpretation of the Church as in receiving the Old Testament from the Jewes the Church did not tye her self blindly to receive their Traditions which overthrow the Law nor their interpretation when it doth not accord with the true sense of the Prophets Errour as vice is for the most part in the extremes we owe respect teachableness and submission unto all those whom God sets over us to instruct us this is not contested but this is no reason to change this submission into a voluntary blindness Faith being a gift of God we ought not to change nor force the use of the exteriour means which God employes to work it in our hearts but we ought to use them according to his intention with a spirit of sweetness and of charity to perswade and not to constrain Otherwise a blind submission in matter of Faith is not submission but a spirit of servitude very unworthy of the liberty of the children of God and to require such a submission by what name soever it be called is to make an outward society of bodies of interest and appearance and not at all a true communion of spirit and of judgement pa 162. pa. 165. The Church saith the Bishop of Condom doth profess that she saith nothing now of her self that she inventeth not any thing anew in points of Doctrine and elsewhere very far from intending to render her self mistriss of her Faith as her Adversaries accuse her she hath done what she can to bind her self and that the means of innovation may be taken away seeing she not onely submits to the Scripture but to banish for ever those arbitrary interpretations which make mens thoughts to pass for Scripture she hath bound her self to understand them as to what regards Faith and manners according to the sense of the holy Fathers from which she professeth never to depart declaring in all the Councils and in all the professions of Faith which she hath published that she receives not any Doctrine which is not conformable unto the tradition of all the foregoing Ages The Bishop of Condom doth well to say that the Church of Rome professes that she invents not any thing for where be the Innovatours which do not profess the same thing But upon the main is it true that the latter Councils have alwayes exactly followed the Doctrine of the Fathers or of the very preceding Councils for not to speak of Transubstantiation of worshipping the Hoste and of private Masses which according to us are Doctrines and Worships unknown at least in the eight first Ages because the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do not agree to it it hath already been made appear in another place that the worshipping of Images was forbidden by the Councils of Eliberis of Constantinople and of Francfort and that the same Worship has been established or maintained by the authority of the second Council of Nice and in the last place by that of Trent It bath also been shewed upon the Article of Purgatory that that Doctrine with all its consequences was put in the place of the opinion which many of the Fathers of the first Ages had that after death the souls did sleep or did refresh themselves in a place separate from Heaven The case is the same as to Auricular confesssion and of Indulgences which have succeeded to the practice of publick pennance and generally as to all the Doctrines and all the practice of which we find no footsteps in the Fathers of the three first Ages nor in the first Councils and which we pretend to have been added at several times unto the Doctrine and Institution of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles And here to instance yet in two examples of alteration in Doctrine and practice which are quite out of all question Hath not the Council of Trent which is that the Bishop of Condom takes for the rule of his Exposition abrogated the doctrine and use of giving the Sacrament unto little children of which we have already spoken Hath it not also declared in express terms for confirming the taking away the cup which was before ordained by the Council of Constance that therein little weight could be laid on the Fathers for it is to no purpose so the Council decides to alledge the sixth of St. John for the communion under both kinds Sess 21. de com cap. 2. what way soever saith the Council it be understood according to the sundry interpretations of the holy Fathers We will not here examine whether all these divers changes are for the better or worse because it hath been already done heretofore and because we treat not here of the right but onely of the matter of fact which the Bishop of Condom hath averred to wit that the Church of Rome hath bound her self that she hath taken away the means of innovating that she submits her self through all to the sense of the Holy Fathers and that she doth not receive any Doctrine which is not conformable unto that of precedent Ages To conclude these Expositions seem to intimate that the Church of Rome is not so well assured of her infallibility but that it hath been acknowledged she had need to be secured against her self by tying up her hands and taking away the means of Innovation And nevertheless if we will be a little informed by themselves what hath been the success of all this precaution Let the Doctrines of the last five or six centuries be onely compared in general with the Doctrines and practices of the three first and even with the following Ages the Council of Trent with them that went before it without having any regard if they please to our
of our communion are the onely persons nay the first that have neither spoken nor written nor again and again exclaimed against the abuses and enterprises of the Court of Rome The Liberties of the Gallicane Church the quarrels of our Kings with the Popes the concordates the Remonstrances of Bishops the Acts of Parliaments the decrees of the Colledge of Sorbon the appeals unto Councils Finally the Writings of a great number of Catholicks even in these last times clearly enough shew that we are not the onely men nor the first nor the last which have cryed down the excessive authority of Popes Let us proceed now to the second accusation which is that after having decryed this authority we have been constrained to establish it amongst our selves We have no mind to say that there is not any Order established amongst us but the Bishop pretends that we give this infallibility authority unto our Synods which we will not acknowledge neither in the persons of Popes nor in the Assemblies of Councils and he means the same afterwards that we have given it even to excess and with a kind of abandoning our right To this purpose he reports in the first place an Act of the Synod at Charenton in 1644. upon the case of those who were called Independants Secondly an Article of our discipline in the title of Consistories Thirdly the Form of Letters Missive which are given to those who are deputed to go to the Synods which was drawn up a the Synod held at Vitre in 1617. Fourthly and Lastly a resolution that was taken at the Synod of St. Faith in 1578 upon occasion of an overture of accommodation which was proposed betwixt those of our communion and those of the confession of Ausburg which are called Lutherans This is yet another passage of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise wherein he useth his utmost endeavours and where he hopes to finde the greatest advantage When he treats of his own belief that is soon passed over he saith but a word in clouded terms he scarce proves any thing and makes himself no objection and if haply it be taken notice of that he useth to do so he will say that it is because he makes onely a bare exposition and that he hath proposed to himself neither to speak all nor to prove what he speaks But when once or twice he is come unto some points of those of Christian Religion where there seems to be some difficulty in our doctrine as well as in that of the Church of Rome then it is that he displayes all the subtilty of his arguring then it is that he enlarges and insults over us as if we onely could hang down our heads This is the part of a feeble Enemy which keeps himself inclosed and onely makes some small sally at certain times The first difficulty which the Bishop of Condom here creates us is no difficulty The Synod in 1644. doth censure the Independants because they would not acknowledge the authority of Assemblies and Synods and it gives the same reason which is cited by the Bishop of Condom that this proceeding is so prejudicial to the State as well as to the Church that it opens the door unto Irregularities and extravagancies that it takes away the means of remedy and that in fine if it might have place it would produce as many Religions as there are parishâ—s or particular Assemblies This plainly imports that in the communion of our Churches we love Order and that we acknowledge the authority of Assemblies and Synods as a means conform to the practice established by our Saviour and by the Apostles and very proper to preserve the purity of Faith and to maintain unity But this implies not any wise that we have attributed a kind of infallibility or a soveraign and absolute authority unto our Synods such as the Church of Rome attributes unto Popes and unto Councils which is the onely thing in question It is as if one should say that in acknowledging the just authority of Magistrates for maintaining of Laws and the service of the Prince we did allow that the Magistrates are above the Laws or have right to give what Orders they please how contrary soever those Orders may appear to be against the service of the common Master so that at no time and in no case the people might forbear the observance of these Orders to continue faithful unto their Soveraign The Independants fault was not in that they admitted of nothing but the Word of God to be a rule of Faith they did not absolutely reject Synods themselves for afterwards in 1653. they held an Assembly numerous enough in London where they composed their confession of Faith Their fault was chiefly in this regard in that they would not submit to have amongst them a constant and permanent rule of having conferences and Synods whereby they kept the door open unto all sorts of confusion as well in State as Church voluntarily depriving themselves of one of the best outward means which God hath given to men to prevent corruption and Schisms But saith the Bishop of Condom it is principally in matter of Faith that the Synod would establish a dependance inasmuch as the greatest inconveniency that it observes whereinto the Faithful might fall by independency is this very point that Schisms might be formed or as many Religions arise as there were parishes But if this consequence were good it might also be said that Faith and Religion do depend on the civil Magistrate because if the people were not restrained by the authority of the Magistrate they would live each according to their own fancy even in matters of Religion it self Faith and discipline mutually hold hands Faith works a love of order and discipline order and discipline serve to keep up the purity of Faith But they are nevertheless things very different and it cannot be said for all this that Faith depends upon order or upon the Orderers whether they be civil or Ecclesiastical To conclude we do not at all deny but that even in matters of Faith we ought to depend upon the guidance of Synods and of Pastours on the contrary we do recommend teachableness deference and submission the Question even here is but of the more or less The point in hand is to know whether the Popes or Councils be infallible and by consequence whether we ought to depend blindly on their power so that at no time nor in any case we may refuse to submit to their Bulls and to their Decrees and we have made evident that there have been many times and occasions upon which the Church of Rome her self hath not wholly received all the Bulls nor all the Decrees of Popes or of Councils The second thing that the Bishop of Condom objects against us in this case is that Article of our Discipline where it is said that the Consistories should endeavour to appease the differences which may arise upon any point of Doctrine and Discipline
full liberty of advice and suppose that it had been found that the Deputies had yielded unto something at the conference against the judgement of our Churches it would not onely have been disapproved but blamed and censured If on the contrary it had been found that they had done their duty as it ought to be presumed they would that the Form of confession whereupon they had agreed had contained all the essential fundamental Articles of what is believed amongst us and that there had been no Article in this Form of confession which had destroyed our fundamental Articles in this case we should have praised God for so full and happy a re-union The Synod would have approved and ratified it they would have framed an Act that should have contained the motives the grounds and principal reasons of their decree and the Deputies of Provinces would have been enjoined to obtain also the final acquiescence of the Churches by their silence Let it now be judged whether there be any thing in all this that in the least tends to establish that infallibility and absolute dominion which the Church of Rome attributes either to Popes or Councils which is the onely thing here in question whether there be the least pretext to accuse us as the Bishop of Condom doth of a feigned niceness and of an abandoning of our Belief or whether this be not a trick of expression not so equitable as should be to cast a foul insinuation on a great body without any ground XXI The authority of the Pope and Episcopacy There now remains onely for finishing this Answer to the Bishop of Condom's Treatise that we speak a word in particular touching the authority of the Pope and of Episcopacy This is again one of those places where the Bishop of Condom is as it were upon thorns In the first Impression of his Treatise after having said as in passage that God had instituted the Primacy of St. Peter pa. 165 to preserve unity he adds This is the reason that our confession of Faith obliges us to acknowledge the Church of Rome as the Mother and Mistress Magistram of all other Churches and to render a perfect obedience to the Soveraign High Priest Successour of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ And it is true that the profession of Faith made by Pius the IV. in execution of the Decree of the Council doth contain the same thing in so many words But in the second Edition the Bishop of Condom recalls what there was strongliest spoke in the former to wit these terms of Mistress Soveraign Vicar of Jesus Christ and perfect obedience which is due unto him whether it be that he would not engage to maintain these expressions in the extent of them or whether he was loath to anger us or in fine for some other reason that he had Now behold what he has put in stead of what he took away We acknowledge New Edition 〈…〉 saith he this same Primacy speaking of that of St. Peter which we have said that he supposed in the Successours of the Prince of the Apostles unto whom is due for this reason the submission and obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have alwayes taught So that in stead of explaining to us the Doctrine of the Council as he promised he would do by his Exposition for all the instruction and all the light he 'l give us he remits us to the Fathers and Councils and keeps himself yet in terms more general more obscure and more doubtful than the profession of Faith of the very Council it self It is true the Bishop of Condom here again covers his silence with this pretext that as to things which are disputed of in the Schools though the Ministers incessantly alledge them to render this power of the Pope odious it is not necessary to speak of them because saith he they are not of the Catholick Faitb But in all likelihood by these things which are disputed the Bishop of Condom here onely means the abuse of dispensations and of Indulgences the power of deposing Kings and to absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance and such other matters as are truly odious but for those things which precisely regard the submission that the Popes pretend due whether in matters of Faith or of Government Ecclesiastical though they are disputed as well out of the Schools as in the Schools if the Bishop of Condom avers that they are no more of the Catholick Faith we demand no more herein it may be said that the greatest part of the authority of the Popes contains nothing of great moment As to what remains it were easie to shew in this place that the Fathers and Councils unto whom the Bishop of Condom refers us have not alwayes taught that the Church of Rome was to be acknowledged as the mother and mistress of all others nor the Bishop of Rome as Soveraign High Priest sole Head and onely Successour of the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ nor that in this quality the submission and obedience which he at this day claims of all the World is due unto him Those who are but the least verst in History and judge without prejudice do well know Dist 22. ca. Constantinopolitanae that 't is onely the preheminence of the City of Rome once the chief City of the World and the Seat of the Empire which hath given occasion to the exalting the Holy Chair as they speak not onely above other Episcopal Chairs but above Kings and Emperours themselves It might also be shewed very clearly by the Scripture that the very pretended Primacy of St. Peter upon which the Authority of the Pope is grounded is not it self founded upon any thing for St. Peter had no more but his function of an Apostle like the rest It is said in the Eighth of the Acts that the Apostles which were in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria a passage which doth not intimate Gal. 2.9 Gal. 2.11 that St. Peter did attribute to himself any dominion over his Fellow Labourers The others are called pillars of the Church as well as he St. Paul saith himself that he withstood him to the face and if it were true that St. Peter had some primacy amongst the Apostles either because of his age or of his zeal as indeed it appears he spake first on several occasions who sees not that it can be at most but a primacy of order and rank in his own person such as there must needs be in all Assemblies and which would make no more for the Bishop of Rome than for those of Jerusalem and in general for all the Bishops and Pastours of the Church but this is also one of those Controversies upon which there are whole Volumes written and the Bishop of Condom passing so lightly over this matter as he does this is not a place neither to search deeplier into it We have onely to add for a conclusion
that there is very little or scarce a jot of this usage nor of the mention thereof found in the first times of the Christian Church It is well known that the Fathers of the first three or four Centuries and some of the fifth it self had several Errours touching the state of souls after death which process of time hath taken away some having believed that the souls did abide in a place of refreshing near Heaven or under Heaven until the Day of Judgment Others that they did sleep and that they should arise the first time with their bodies to reign a thousand years upon earth with Jesus Christ and finally at the day of Judgement and of the last Resurrection all that were raised should pass as it were through a Sea of Fire which should purifie and cleanse them But never any of them did believe a place where the souls should suffer after the death of the body pains in some sort like those of Hell except for continuance as the Church of Rome teaches No more did the ancient Jews believe it neither do the Greeks yet at this day believe it though they pray for the dead after the same manner as the Fathers now mentioned did Dial. lib. 4. ca. 39 40 51 55. It may be made appear here that this Doctrine is onely an imitation of that of the Pagans and that even Pope Gregory himself who is the first that put this Doctrine in credit speakes in the same sense and the same terms as Virgil saying that the souls are purged some in the Fire others fann'd in the Air others washed and cleansed in Rivers and in Ice and lastly others in Baths and Stoves but we onely design to touch things here as in passe Indulgences If the Doctrine of Satisfactions and of Purgatory be evil that of Indulgences doth fall of it self because this as it is taught in the Church of Rome is but as consequent and dependant on the other If God hath not subjected us unto Works of Satisfaction and unto temporal punishments unto which the Church of Rome would subject us there is no need of her dispensations and we have no business to examine if she hath any power herein Few persons are ignorant of the great difference that there is betwixt the Indulgence which was formerly used unto publick penitents and the pardons which Popes give as well for the dead as for the living and we have shewed by the very confession of themselves of the Roman Church that this Doctrine is not grounded upon any authority in Scripture and that there is not found any practice nor mention of it in the five or six first Centuries Also every one knowes what interest the Court of Rome hath to maintain as well Purgatory as the power of the Keys as the Council speaks the great authority and immense riches which this Doctrine hath brought unto it and that it brings unto it daily the cases reserved unto the Holy See the Table of Sins rated Sess 25. de Indulg more or less according to the nature of Sins Lastly the crying abuses are too visible whereof the Council it self has been constrained to order a Reformation They are it may be something less in France where people have their eyes more open but they are so great in Spain beyond the Mountains and in the very place which is termed the Center of Religion that the sober persons of their Communion cannot forbear condemning of them This is what we had to say of Justification and of the Doctrines which depend upon it It may be believed that this may suffice to shew that the questions which separate us from the Roman Church upon this point are not of so small consequence as the Bishop of Condom would insinuate but that on the contrary herein is concerned the purest and if it may be spoken the most Christian part of Religion as hath been proved throughout upon this Article and that to conclude the Bishop of Condom doth not make any controversies to cease except perhaps in regard of those things which he hath suppressed and upon this particular point of Satisfactions upon which the Council of Trent Bellarmine and in a word the doctrine and general practice of the Roman Church formally take away what the Bishop of Condom would grant us THE FOVRTH PART The Process of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise IX The Sacraments in general doth call us to the matter of the Sacraments We will but little insist as neither doth he upon the name the number and the efficacy of the Sacraments in general and in like sort upon the greatest part of what he calls Sacraments in particular because the difficulties upon these points are not in reality so hotly agitated as the Bishop of Condom himself saith It may be believed that the time and patience of them who shall take the paines to read this Answer will be better imployed upon the matter of the Eucharist and upon the other articles which concern Tradition and the authority of the Pope which are more important and upon which we have most controversie In the first place as to the name of Sacraments Greg. in cap. 16. â—ib Reg. Tertul. de praesc c. Lib. 10 50. Tra. 80. 〈◊〉 Joan. Accedit verbum ad elementuÌ„ fit SacrameÌ„tum it were a thing indifferent to give them one name rather than another if we were agreed of the things or if the names would not by consequence draw in the things themselves The name of Sacrament may be taken in a double sense the one general and extensive to signifie any sacred act or ceremony as it is often taken in the Fathers the other proper less extensive as St. Augustine defines it in his Book of the City of God when he calls it a visible sign of an invisible grace the blessing of the Word being joyned as he saith elsewhere unto the matter of the outward Elements In the first sense they may if they please make not onely seven Sacraments Pierre de Damien Ser. 69. pa. 168. but twelve if they will as a Catholick Doctour did before the Council The Bishop of Condom doth in some sort accommodate himself unto this general sense when he uses this expression that in his communion there are received seven Signs or sacred Ceremonies The difficulty is that the Council being herein less equitable than the Bishop of Condom hath in this as well as in the matter of Justification made Articles of Faith of many particular Opinions which are nothing to the Essence of Sacraments which are good for nothing at all but for the Schools For the Council will have us expresly to believe not only seven Signs or sacred Ceremonies in a general sense but seven true Sacraments properly so called as it speaks and that we believe neither more nor less under pain of Anathema however it is plainly to be seen that at least in the ceremonies of Marriage of Pennance
as well as we and yet it is the onely thing in our Doctrine which humane understanding cannot well comprehend Here where there are depths of difficulties the Bishop of Condom will not perceive any at all his reason shall not at all molest him and though there is no dispute of what God can do for God can do what he pleaseth but of the meaning of his words onely without looking unto his will which are the onely rule of our Faith as well as of our actions the Bishop of Condom will tell us mysteriously that his Faith is attentive unto this infinite power which is onely properly the object of our Admiration and of our Adoration What the Bishop of Condom speaks touching Transubstantiation may be reduced unto four distinct assertions which yet shall onely be touched as we pass because this is a pure controversie which is throughly treated of in all our Books The first is pa. 123. that the appearance of bread and wine ought to continue in the Sacrament the second that the Church of Rome doth not therein acknowledge any other substance but that of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ into which the bread and the wine are changed and this is it saith he Ibid. pa. 124. which is called Transubstantiation The Bishop of Condom had abstained from this term of Transubstantiation in the first Impression of his Treatise having onely put it as a title in the Margin to note the Article or the matter of Controversie which he treats of in that place neither did he formally say upon this Article that the bread and the wine were changed into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but he adds both the one and the other in the latter The third Doctrine is That the reality doth not hinder but that the Eucharist may be a sign as to what it hath exteriour and sensible that in the contrary the sign doth necessarily carry the reality with it The fourth and last that the presence of the body being certified by this sign they of the Roman Church make no scruple to pay it their adorations As to the first of these Assertions because it was agreeable Pa. 12. saith the Bishop of Condom that the senses should perceive nothing in this mystery of Faith it was not necessary that any thing should be changed relating to them in the bread and wine in the Eucharist The Bishop of Condom onely says that it was agreeable and yet he doth but say so without proving it He looks upon it as a thing established and that onely because elsewhere he hath glanced on this in passage that it was agreeable that God should give us his flesh and bloud wrapped up under a strange form to exercise saith he pag. 84. our Faith in this Mystery and to take away the horrour of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud in their proper form But what a reason is this to establish such a Doctrine as this To exercise our Faith in this Mystery There is nothing so strange which might not be made pass under such indefinite pretexts of conveniency or agreeableness as if the Mystery of the Sacrament had not sufficient matter besides to exercise our Faith without supposing the change of the bread and wine into the proper flesh and proper bloud of our Saviour against the formal testimony of all our senses The flesh and bloud say they would induce horrour if we were to eat them in kind and it is certain that the very thought onely of eating humane flesh doth naturally produce this effect but it hath been already elsewhere touched that the coverings as they speak may lessen his horrour but not intirely take it away And if the Church of Rome be at last accustomed unto this notion it is but onely in tract of time and in favour of that mystical and figurative expression in St. John Cap. 6. who faith to eat the flesh of Christ instead of saying to believe in him unto which mystical expression the Church of Rome hath made the â—â—teral sense to succeed But Lastly the difficulty is not to prove that the appearances of bread and wine do remain or to shew a reason why they remain but to shew that there is nothing else but the appearances that remains for in the first place Jesus Christ and the Apostle St. Paul who is his instrument say that after the benediction it is bread and wine and in the Apostles times and in the first times after the Apostles there was nothing spoken of but only bread and wine And in fine God having given unto us our senses to know all corporal things which are their true object and which depend on their jurisdiction their testimony being the foundation of almost all Notions and the proof which Jesus Christ made use of to establish the truth of his humanity and of his Resurrection can the Bishop of Condom that will understand all conceive that God intended that in an act of Religion which he established to help our weakness and unbelief in presenting figures or outward objects to our senses can he conceive I say that God intended that there should be in this act of Religion a perpetual and manifest contradiction betwixt the testimony of our senses and our Faith that Faith should continually tell us that what we see and touch are onely false appearances of bread and wine and that on the contrary our senses should continually tell us that they be truly bread and wine pa. 123. Faith saith the Bishop of Condom attentive to the word of him who doth what he pleaseth acknowledgeth not here any other substance but that which is designed by the same word This is the Bishop of Condom's second assertion which is as it were the support of the former But it hath been already touched that the matter in hand is not to know whether Jesus Christ be true in what he saith or whether he be able to do what he saith it were the heighth of impiety to doubt of the one or the other The onely point in hand is touching the sense of what he hath spoken This may here again be called giving the change through favour of the profound regard which ought to be had for the great authority and power of our Lord. But is not Faith attentive unto the word of him which saith Joh. 6.41 10.11 15.5 8 12 10.7.4 14. Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11. I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the good Shepherd I am the Vine the Light the Gate a Fountain of living water c. and who in the institution of the Sacrament it self saith bread and the fruit of the vine and who saith Drink ye all of it and do this holy Ceremony in remembrance of him until he come as the Apostle speaks And yet for all that the Faith of the Church of Rome doth not stop at the sound of these words but she taketh the sense either in
and that in case of appeal unto a National Synod the full and final resolution should be there made by the Word of God unto which if the Gainsayers should refuse to acquiesce from point to point with an express disowning of their errours they should be cut off from the Church From whence the Bishop of Condom draws this consequence that we do not attribute the authority of this last judgment to the Word of God taken in it self independently upon the interpretation of the Church because the appeal of indifferent persons was received who had in their judgment applied that very word The difficulty is here onely as it may be seen upon the more or less of the authority which should be attributed unto the judgment of Synods or of Popes and of Councils Neither this rule nor the consequence which the Bishop of Condom draws from it speak any thing but what we have already all along acknowledged that order and dependance is requisite and that Pastours and Synods are appointed to govern the Church to teach the Word of God and to promote the understanding of it But this infers not at all that we attribute infallibility unto our Pastours nor to our Synods as the Church of Rome doth to Popes and Councils nor that the people are obliged to receive their decisions without examining them or to give a blind obedience unto them The Article sayes that those who have any scruple shall be heard in the Synod with all holy freedom and that the scruple or difficulty shall be there resolved by the Word of God It is not possible to find a temper more just and equitable to retain on the one side particular persons in a just moderation and to leave to God and his Word the supreme and absolute authority over our consciences It may be that this moderation it self is not without some inconvenience and that it would seem that the opinion of the infallibility of Popes or of Councils and the soveraign and absolute authority that is attributed unto them are as a strong rampire to retain the people within bounds But in the first place an inconvenience in a Government is no sufficient reason that another should be good and just if it be not so of it self 2. Where is there any order and form of Government either in Church or State but that there is some inconvenience There is much more without comparison in attributing infallibility and an absolute dominion unto Popes and to Councils because when it so happens that Popes or Councils fall into any errour as it ought to be supposed in this part of the Question that it may so happen and as we are convinced by experience that it hath happened diversetimes the evil is almost without remedy Errour hath the force of authentick and irrevocable Law it renders it self more general more durable and by consequence more difficult to be reformed and when once the guides are blind then there will be a necessity to fly to particular persons unto whom God giveth sufficient light strength and courage to take the part of the Truth But that it might not be said that this is onely a supposition accommodated unto the particular case of the Reformation of our Fathers it is known how hard it was to root out Arrianism when it was supported by the authority of the Episcopal chair of Rome and of the Council of Arimini that it is principally unto the zeal and courage of St. Athanasius that the glory of restoring Christianity in its purity is due and that in fine if God had not made use of this holy man and of others that seconded him the Arrians might have fortified themselues so that they might have mastered the Councils and Truth might have groaned longer than it did under the oppression of those Hereticks 3. In fine it is not absolutely true neither upon the whole that the infallibility and authority which is attributed to Popes and Councils is either a stronger or a surer means to restrain the people than is the temperament of our Discipline For experience shews that for more than an Age since our Churches of France have been governed by this order there hath never been any difference amongst us either in doctrine or in discipline which hath not been decided without any trouble whereas it might be said that the excessive authority of Popes and of Councils far from hindring of division hath very much contributed unto the divisions of the East against the West and of the West against it self which are the two Schisms the most considerable and unfortunate that could fall out in the Church The sincere persons of the Church of Rome do acknowledge yet to this day that it is the too great heighth with which the Popes and the Council of Trent did affect to make Articles of Faith of all that was disputed in the very Schools and to anathematize those that would not receive those Doctrines that hath put an obstruction well nigh inuincible to the peace and re-union of Christians And not long since again amongst Roman Catholicks we have seen that the authority of Popes supported by that of Princes has scarce been able in some way to hinder that the differences which had stirred up so much eagerness upon points of Doctrine and Discipline had not caused yet greater scandal But after all we daily see that this authority of the Pope hath onely the power to change the outward appearances but the unity of minds is wanting so true is it that it is onely the knowledge of Faith and charity which are the solid grounds of an holy union of hearts and of thoughts The Bishop of Condom doth yet make a third difficulty upon the form of the Letters which we give unto our Deputies when we send them to the Synods The Form is conceived in these terms which are reported by the Bishop of Condom We promise in the presence of God to submit our selves to all that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy Assembly to obey and execute it to the best of our power being perswaded that God will reside there and will direct you by his Holy Spirit in all truth and justice by the Rule of his Word Every one at the first light perceiveth that as this Form is conceived it is so far from supposing that the Synod cannot err or from attributing an absolute authority unto it and independent upon Scripture that it doth precisely suppose the contrary It cannot be sufficiently wondred at how the Bishop of Condom could have so much mistaken himself herein as he hath done for he thinks that there is something more in it than in those two other places of our discipline and of the Synod of Charenton which he had reported to shew that we yield a blind submission unto our Synods His reason is because there is submission given unto what shall be resolved in the Synod before it be known that it hath spoken according to the Scripture