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
Church I most firmly admit and embrace Likewise I admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our Holy Mother the Church ever did and doth hold to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures neither will I receive or interpret it but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I profess also that there are seven true and proper Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord 〈◊〉 Christ and necessary 〈…〉 Mankind though not 〈…〉 person to wit Baptism 〈…〉 the Eucharist Pennance Extream Vnction Holy Order and Matrimony and that they do confer grace And of these â—â—â—t Baptism Confirmation and Order without Sacrilidge cannot be repeated The received and approved rites also of the Catholick Church in the Solemn administration of all the foresaid Sacraments I do receive and admit I do embrace and receive all and every points and point touching original sin and justification which have been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent I do in like manner profess that there is in the Mass offered up to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist after Consecration there is truly really and substantially the body and bloud together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that the whole Substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ and the whole substance of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantion I acknowledge likewise that under one kind onely all and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is taken I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful In Like manner that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be Venerated and called upon and that they offer up Prayers to God for us and that their Reliques are to be had in veneration I do most stedfastly affirm that the images of Christ and of the Mother of God alwayes a Virgin are to be had and kept and that due honour and veneration is to be given to them That the Power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and that the use of them is most wholesom to Christian People I do acknowledge that the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church iâ— Mother and Mistress of all Churches I do promise and swear true obedience to the Pope of Rome Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ I do likewise without doubting receive and profess all other matters that are delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and the Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Council of Trent and I do likewise together condemn reject and Anathematize all things contrary and all whatsoever Heresies condemned rejected and Anathematized by the Church Here they lay their hand on the Gospels I the same N. do promise vow and swear that as far as lies in me I will take care that this self same true Catholick Faith out of which no man can be saved which at present of my own accord I profess and truly hold by Gods help be most constantly held and confest by me whole and inviolate to the Last breath of my Life and that the same be held taught and Preached by all that are under me or those the care of whom shall in my charge belong to me So God help me and these Gods Holy Gospels We will farther that these present Letters be read in our Apostolick Chancery according to the accustomed manner and to the end they may be the more easily known unto all that they be Registred in the Rolls thereof and that they be Printed And let no person whatsoever dare to infringe this declaration of our Will and commandment or by bold presumption to offend against it And if any one shall presume to attempt it let him know that he incurs the indignation of Almighty God and of his Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul Dated at Rome at St. Peters the Thirteenth day of November in the year of the incarnanation of our Lord 1564. And of our Popedome the Fift Fed. Cardinal Caesius Cae. Glorierius The Stationer hath in his hands the Attestation of Messieurs Claude de l'Angle Daillé and Allix shewing that they have seen this Answer and that they have not found any thing in it contrary to their Religion AN ANSVVER UNTO THE BOOK OF MONSIEUR The Bishop of CONDOM Monsieur the Bishop of Condom has too much justice to take ill the answering his Book Design of this Trea tise On the contrary he seemeth rather to invite us to the same in terms sufficiently express Page 187 And besides it is well known that defence is a natural and favourable right especially when it concerns a thing so dear as the interest of truth and Religion ought to be Page 187 He onely desires that in case aâ— one answer his Treatise he would not undertake to refute the Doctrine which 〈◊〉 contains Page 188 nor examin the different way that the Catholick Divines have used 〈◊〉 establish the Doctrine of the Council 〈◊〉 Trent nor the several consequences the particular Doctors have drawn thence Page 3. being things that are not necessarilâ— nor universally received Page 189 but that 〈◊〉 would chiefly hold himself to three things to prove that the Faith of the Churcâ— of Rome is not faithfully laid down iâ— his Book as he believes it is or thaâ— he would shew that this expositioâ— doth Leave all objections in their force and all the difficulties whole and intire or Lastly that it be made precisely appear wherein his Doctrine so explained doth overthrow the foundation of Faith Of these three things we will leave the first to be examined by those of his own communion because that is more properly their business and right than ours It belongs to them principally to consider if they would not be well contented and if it would not be very advantageous to them to reduce their belief in all matters of Controversie unto what is explained in that Treatise and to Lay aside all the consequences which their other Doctors have drawn from the Council of Trent and the means they have made use of to establish them as things that are not necessary and which nevertheless do clog Religion or do at Least in part hinder a matter which is so desireable as the uniformity of Worship and belief amongst Christians should be We will content our selves to observe by the Way several places where the Bishop of Condom uses an Art that is distant not onely from the Common belief of the Doctors of the Church of Rome and of the general practice of all the people of his Communion but also from the terms and the Doctrine it self of the very Council to the end it may be discerned wherein consist the sweetnings that the Bishop
with the Holy Ghost and with Fire is also taken for a Spiritual Purification under the figure of Fire And so much the rather because the occasion it self on which Jesus Christ speaks thus to Nicodemus is but indeed a particular occasion where there is not the least appearance that our Saviour had any thoughts neither expresly nor by consequence to establish the necessity of Baptism The second thing wherein the Bishop of Condom here recedes from his natural equity is this that he would take a false and indirect advantage against us by what he saith That the Lutherans do believe with the Church of Rome the absolute necessity of Baptism for Infants and that never any man before Calvin dared openly to call in question this truth it was so strongly imprinted in the minds of the Faithful For in the first place the Council it self doth not impose this necessity so absolutely as doth the Bishop of Condom it saith not so positively as doth the Bishop of Condom that Infants have not any part in the Redemption of Jesus Christ or with Jesus Christ The Council doth not condemn those who say that Baptism is not altogether necessary to Salvation Sess 7. de Bapt. Can. 5. Si quis dixerit Baptismum liberum esse hoc est non necessarium ad salutem Anathema sit Heming in via vitae Calixt de Bapt. Coâ—â— Dieter de Bapt. and if it did that would not infer an absolute necessity It condemns onely those who would have Baptism indifferent or unnecessary as the Council it self explains it which is very much different from this necessity that the Bishop of Condom makes so absolute And it is much to be admired that he who is naturally inclined to sweetness and who seemes to remit somewhat upon other Questions doth on the contrary discover more severity upon this point which yet is one of the most favourable Further if he oppose the Lutherans to us as bâ—ing of a contrary judgement to ours in this point besides that the Bishop of Condom ought not to impute unto the whole body of the Lutherans what is constantly rejected by the most eminent Divines of their Communion we will alledge produce against him the Ethiopians and Christians of St. Thomas which are very ancient Churches where at this day they do not baptise their Children upon any account * Males 4â— days Females 80 days after until whole months after their birth Not to speak any thing here of the Testimony of Tertullian who advised to defer Baptism until years of discretion nor of Gregory Nazianzen of St. Ambrose of St. Austin of Paulin Bishop of Nole and many others which were not baptised till far gone in age As for Calvin's part to whom the Bishop of Condom imputes it to have been the first that denied this absolute necessity it is very easie to shew the Bishop of Condom how much he is mistaken in this matter not oâ—ely by what we have just now alledged of those Christian Churches of Tertullian and of others who were named but also by Hinemar Archbishop of Reims in the Ninth Age and since by Catharin Gerson Gabriel Biel Cardinal Cajetan Tilman de Sigebert Cassander and many others that were Roman-Catholicks who have all denied this necessity before Calvin For Hinâ—mar did teach In Ep. 55. cap. 482. pa. 572. that the Faith of Fathers and of Godfathers might serve for Infants by the grace of God whose Spirit bloweth where it listeth and all the others have also expresly declared themselves for the possibility of the Salvation of Infants departed without Baptism To conclude the Bishop of Condom doth here again recede from his natural equity when he saith in terms too severe Pag. 73. That the pretended Reformers are not afraid voluntarily to let their children dye like children of infidels without bearing any badge of Christianity and without having received any grace if their death doth precede the day of their publick Assembly We are very far from suffering willingly our Children to dye without Baptism contrary to what he says nothing is more against our wills for though we do not believe that Baptism is necessary unto salvation by an absolute necessity such as is that of the Bishop of Condom's no more than the participating of the Eucharist yet we find very great comfort in celebrating the Sacraments and suffer not that they be slighted or neglected We do what we can possible to supply the want of ordinary Assemblies by condescending to them who demand this comfort with greater importunity But it is also true that we do not believe for all that that the grace and goodness of God is tyed unto sensible things nor unto the outward Acts that is to say to the words that are pronounced and unto the exteriour action that is done upon us as it hath been before set forth and we not onely believe that God can but that he will supply this defect by the operation of that Holy Spirit which bloweth where it listeth as Hinemar cites it out of the Gospel To conclude we believe as the Prophets that God is the Father of our Children as the Apostles that the Children of Believers are holy as we have already observed and that so to be born and dye in Christianity is not to dye in Adam or out of the Covenant of Jesus Christ As for Confirmation Confirmation we do not onely not believe it to be altogether necessary but we cannot believe it to be a true Sacrament instituted by God and so far are we from being a-one in this Opinion as the Bishop of Condom alledgeth that we can make good the quite contrary by the Testimony of Authours even of his own Communion Zaga Zabo Alvares Guido Carme Soto Armachanus Gouvea Jarric lib. 6. c. 9 12. to wit the Eastern Churches had not nor to this day have for the most part any knowledge of Chrisme or of the Confirmation of the Roman Church Amongst the Greeks themselves who have a kind of Chrisme it is the Priest and not the Bishop that gives it with Baptism as making it a part of Baptism and by consequence on the contrary there is none but the Church of Rome alone who have made Confirmation to be a particular Sacrament It is true that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and his Apostles who had the gift of miracles laid their hands sometimes upon the sick sometimes upon the Baptised and sometimes upon them whom they sent to preach the Gospel at the same time communicating unto them extraordinary and miraculous graces But besides that there is not to speak properly any imposition of hands in the Confirmation used in the Roman Church which might ground it upon this practice of the Apostles and that the use of Chrisme that is to say of Oyl with Balm is a thing unknown in the First Ages we find not that either Jesus Christ or the Apostles ever said Go lay your hands upon
Hu. Menard in Conc. regular pa. 564. Cardinal Cajetan in his commentary upon the Epistle of Saint James Doctours of the Roman Church do agree They exhort us unto reconciliation they in effect reconcile us They exhort us generally to restore the Goods we do unjustly retain and those who are honest and sufficient do thereupon really restore them 6. Even in health it self we are invited to have recourse to the wholesome advice and consolations of our Pastours and Guides and those under their charge who are afflicted with any considerable perplexity whether as to Faith or as to any great sinnes whereunto they find themselves inclined are to have recourse unto them and so really have 7. To conclude upon occasion of any publick sins which moved us to enter upon this subject when any one hath committed any crime or notorious sin whether it be for that he was born according to us in a bad Religion or that he has been so weak as to forsake the true Religion or that he is convinced to have sinned against the Commandments of the First or second Table or to have given scandal to his Neighbour he is summoned or he comes first of his own accord before the Assembly of Ministers and Elders where he makes a particular confession of his sins he is then severely censured according to the quality of his sin and at the same time prayers are made with him and for him to obtain of God forgiveness of his sin If his sin be great he is interdicted the communion of the Holy Sacraments to humble him if he hath scandalized the whole Church he is then enjoined to make a publick confession before the whole congregation and when all this is done and that he hath given evidences of his Repentance the Ministers of the Church announce also unto him the remission of his sins but always under the condition of Faith Repentance and a true amendment of life In this manner is it that the power which Jesus Christ hath given unto his Ministers is exercised amongst us which is what we call the Discipline of our Churches thus far is it tht we extend it in this regard and not any farther to set up a Tribunal for our Guides wherein they should exercise an absolute dominion over the consciences of men Those who are but the least versed in Ecclesiastical History may easily see if this be not as meerly as can be the ancient usage of the Church whether for ordinary Sinners or publick Offenders except it be that the corruption of the times hath caused but too great a relaxation of the rigour of this Discipline which thing is the cause that the censures and punishments are nothing near so grievous and so long as they were and as there was a necessity they should be at the first establishing of Christianity for the better perswading the people of the Holiness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ In which behalf the Gentlemen of the Roman Church are so far from having any thing to reproach us of that they very well know they have not any resemblance of this publick pennance of the Ancients as hath been shewed we have for they have changed all into this other kind of Pennance or into this private confession to the Priest even of sins which are most notorious and which give most scandal But this private confession adds the Bishop of Condom is so necessary a curb of licentiousness so fruitful a spring of wise Counsels so sensible a consolation of troubled souls when Absolution is not onely declared unto them in general terms as the Ministers practice but that they are effectually absolved by the authority of Jesus Christ after a particular examination and with cognisance of the cause that we cannot believe that our Adversaries can behold the so great benefits hereof without regret for the loss of them and without some shame of a Reformation that hath taken away a practice so wholesome and holy This is the second conceipt in which it was said that the Bishop of Condom had wrapt up himâ—elf In the first place it was just now shewed that it is not true that we have taken away this practice nor lost the benefits and fruites of the Counsels and comforts which may be thence expected we have taken away the Evil which is almost alwayes in the abuse and excess of the best things wherefore God be praised we have no cause of regret nor shame in this regard If the Priest or the Minister were our absolute Judge if it were so with him that he had truly the right or power to condemn or to absolve us it were to be acknowledged in this case we ought to render him an exact account of all the circumstances of our lives but it is God alone who is the true Judge who knowes our hearts and our most secret thoughts even when we say nothing unto him of them And as to what concerns the benefits and fruits of Confession which the Bishop of Condom thought fit onely to touch in general terms as we are sincere as there are but few Doctrines so bad that have not some good in them in some regard we ingenuously acknowledge that private confession of sins may sometimes produce some good effects either to cause restitutions to be made of what is unjustly detained or to beget a greater shame in sinners for their miscarriages and sins therefore also it hath been shewed that we are very far from condemning or rejecting all sorts of Confessions We onely say that we cannot sustain with good conscience this Tribunal or rather this Yoke which is imposed upon conscience it self this Article of Faith and this absolute necessity to tell all a mans sins by particulars without which the Roman Church is so bold as to teach that the Faithful cannot obtain pardon of their sins whatever bitter sorrow they feel for them and whatever firm belief they have in the death of our Saviour for even this also the Council of Trent teacheth Sess 14 de Sacram Paeniâ— cap. 6. can 4. In summe in exchange of what benefits may accrue by the Sacramental Confession of the Roman Church we call to witness the sincere persons of her communion if it be not true that this Confession is also the original of infinite Evils If any shall not be pleased to agree hereunto we have the experience of all times on this matter and the testimony of their * Cassand Art 11. of his Consult Beatus Rhen. in his Preface upon Tertullian's Book of Repentance own Authours some of whom doe openly enough acknowledge that things are come to that pass that auricular Confession such as is practised in the Church of Rame cannot any longer be of any good use In plain truth instead of being only a curb unto licentiousness men accustome themselves to sin upon the confidence they have that their sins shall be blotted out by this ordinary and easie way of Confession or by
pretends that these expressions do suppose the real presence and that they cannot concord but by admitting the Doctrine of the real presence which comes all to one thing and that it is by these expressions that our Reformers themselves approached unto the Church of Rome It is in this part of his Treatise that he hath laboured most and conceived with greatest care as being the place where there seemed to be most advantage but which at the bottom is nothing else but an heap of plausible pretexts and unjust consequences and almost throughout playing upon words The first of his Objections is upon this expression of our Catechism where we say that we do make no doubt â—t that Jesus Christ makes us partaâ—s of his proper substance by uniting us 〈◊〉 himself in the same life and upon this other passage of our Confession of Faith where it is said to the same effect that Jesus Christ doth nourish and â—ivifie us with the proper substance of his body and of his bloud It is a certain truth that the Scripture never makes use of this term of Substance upon the subject of the Eucharist The first Fathers of the Church did not use it neither There are onely some ancient Doctours which have used it in divers senses sometimes to express the matter or the essence it self of the things and oftentimes also to signifie the virtue Sunday 50. and in the form of administring of Baptism Our Catechism it self speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism saith indifferently in two places the substance and the virtue of Baptism to signifie the efficacy of it Not any of the first Ages have said that Jesus Christ did give us the substance of his body and bloud but some less ancient have said that he nourished and vivified us by his substance or that he gave us a living substance meaning a quickning virtue alluding unto that mystical expression I am the living bread Joh. 6. this bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the World When the Authours of our Confession of Faith and of our Catechism used these sorts of expressions amongst many others it plainly appears that they were not constrained so to do to conform themselves unto the Scripture nor to the ancient Fathers of the Church who used them not at all but they did it doubtless to accommodate themselves therein to the use which the latter times had brought in and to shew in different terms the truth of this spiritual Communion which we believe we have with Jesus Christ so as they explain it in the same place And we will make no scruple here to add that it is not simply the words of institution of the Lords Supper which oblige us to speak in such effectual terms because it is evident that the first aim of the words of institution is to recommend the commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ And it is also on one hand the Tenour of the Gospel in general which doth throughout inculcate a most intimate communion of the faithful with Jesus Christ saying that we are flesh of his flesh Ephâ— and bone of his bone and on the other hand it is the nature of this Sacrament which joyned to this divine Word not onely sets forth this union in a most express manner but also gives us a lively feeling of it strengthens and confirms it by the grace with which God is pleased to accompany an action so holy But that which is communicated according to its proper substance saith the Bishop of Condom Pa. 104. ought to be really present and it is not possible to make understood that a body which is onely spiritually communicated unto us and by Faith can be really communicated unto us and in its proper substance But the reason why we cannot make you understand it is the prejudice which you will not lay aside upon this subject of the Eucharist to wit that there is no real union nor participation if it be not Physical that is to say if two bodies or two substances be not joyned or be not both together in one place which yet is a manifest errour As if for example when we acquire an inheritance though we are distant from it it might not be said that not onely the fruits and the Revenue belong unto us but that the propriety the body the substance of the Land in fine all that belongs to it is ours Besides our Catechism had already answered unto the Bishop of Condom's Objection in the Article which immediately follows that which he objects to us The Minister demands Sunday 53. How can it he that Jesus Christ makes us partakers of his proper substance to unite us unto himself seeing his body is in Heaven and we upon Earth It is saith the Child by the incomprehensible power of the Holy Ghost which joyneth things that are asunder by the distance of place And * Art 36. our Confession of Faith saith the same thing and in the same terms Would the Bishop of Condom dispute that the Holy Ghost cannot effect a real and true union of us with Jesus Christ when we partake of the Lords Supper notwithstanding the distance that there is betwixt him and us And who saith a true and real union with Jesus Christ saith he any thing less than to be made partaker of or to be nourished and vivified with his substance Doth either the Bishop of Condom himself better understand or is it possible that he should make better understood the manner wherein he doth believe that the bread and the wine are transubstantiated into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ by the operation of the same spirit of God insomuch that the bread doth cease to be bread and that the body of our Divine Saviour his proper body which is sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father is nevertheless upon Earth in a thousand places at once after the manner of a spirit in less room than a point doth take up In fine is it possible to make better understood this other manner which he believes that this holy body which onely passeth through his stomach doth unite or rather is not united with his proper body and soul The second Objection which the Bishop of Condom here makes against us is upon another expression of our Catechism Sunday 52. where it is said that though Jesus Christ be truly communicated unto us by Baptism and by the Gospel it is onely in part and not fully whence the Bishop of Condom infers that Jesus Christ is fully given unto us in the Lords Supper and that there is an exceeding difference betwixt receiving in part and receiving fully Granting this see whereunto his Argumentation amounts If in the Lords Supper Pa. 106. Jesus Christ is fully received and in Baptism and in the Gospel but in part then the manner in which he is received in the Lords Supper is different from that in which he is
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
that we are so far from abolishing the Episcopal Government which was in force in the Apostles times as the Bishop of Condom imputes to us that our Churches maintaining as they do an holy Union betwixt themselves living in a great deal of simplicity under the governance of our Pastours and Synods are a true Image of the ancient Churches of Jerusalem of Corinth of Ephesus of Galatia of the Colossians of the Thessalonians and of Rome it self all founded by the Apostles affecting not at all any superiority one over the other but all being equal amongst themselves united by the Bonds of the same Faith and of the same charity under the governance of the same Apostles and under one sole Spiritual Head Jesus Christ The word Bishop as it is known signifies onely an Overseer and no more than that of a Pastour or Minister the Apostles are indifferently termed one and the other It is known that in Germany and England the name of Bishops is retained and a kind of Hierarchy which we do not disapprove of being moderate as it is And in fine God is our witness that we love peace and union as the Bishop of Condom de-fsires but a true union of hearts and judgements with knowledge and as God himself hath commanded that we should love Peace with Truth FINIS A TABLE Of the chief Points THE FIRST PART I. THE Design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise page 50. II. The Bishop of Condom 's first general proposition that those of the pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth embrace all the Fundamental points of Christian Religion page 58. III. The Bishop of Condom's second general proposition That the Church of Rome doth teach that Religious Worship is terminated on God only pag. 69. SECOND PART IV. Of Invocation of Saints pag. 67. V. Of Images and Relicks pag. 109. THIRD PART VI. Of Justification pag. 134. VII Of the merit of VVorks pag. 153. VIII Of satisfaction Purgatory and Indulgences pag. 156. FOURTH PART IX Of the Sacraments pag. 171. Baptism pag. 179. Confirmation pag. 191. Pennance and Sacramental Confession pag. 195. Extreme Vnction pag. 213. Marriage pag. 217. Orders pag. 219. FIFTH PART X. Of the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the manner in which the Church of Rome understands these words This is my Body pag. 221 XI An Explication of these words Do this in remembrance of me pa. 249. XII The Exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of the Doctrine of those of the Reformed Religion upon the Reality pag. 261. XIII Of Transubstantiation of Adoration and in what sense it is that the Bishop of Condom saith that the Eucharist is a Sign pag. 308. XIV Of the Sacrifice of the Mass p. 324. XV. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews pag. 327. XVI The Bishop of Condom's reflexion upon the precedent Doctrine pa. 332. XVII The Communion under both kinds pa. 55. SIXTH PART XVIII Of Tradition or the VVord written and the VVord unwritten pag 355. XIX Of the Authority of the Church pag. 370 XX. The judgment of those of the P. R. Rel. upon the Authority of the Church pag. 389 XXI Of the Authority of the Holy Chair and of Episcopacy pa. 426. FINIS A Note on line 17. pag 38. Because the Roman Creed doth not use genitum twice but unigenitum natum I did not think fit to render genitum and natum bâ—th by one English word nor yet to render ex patre natum born of the Father for we say in the Apostles Creed born of the Virgin Mary nor proceeding from the Father that being said properly of the Holy Ghost I therefore have said brought forth Against which if any take exception I declare let the Roman Church mean what She will by Natum I mean the same by brought forth For I meant to express her Latin words by English ones as strictly answering as I could Indeed in so great a mystery all language must needs be improper Errata insigniora Pag 11. l 23. dele that P. 25. l. 12. it lege them P. 32. l. 11. d. that P. 89. l. 5. leg that it is p. 132. l. penult fasten lege soften p. 138. l. 28. leg The errour p 157. l. 11. for leg before p. 158. l 21. del not p 182. l. ult lege in which p. 274. l 4. leg this death p 279. l 20. And it is also leg But it is
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
Pius the Fourth which doth contain the confirmation of the Council of Trent and gives it all its authority That Bull expresly forbids all sorts of persons of what order or dignity soever they are in the Church the Pope onely excepted to explain the decrees of the Council in whatsoever manner or under whatsoever pretext it may be and doth before hand make void all such explications After this let any one tell us what foundation may be had for what the Bishop of Condom hath explained of these decrees how to be assured that some person of his Communion will not stand up and think he may say of him what he hath said of others that herein he is but a particular Doctor that we ought onely to rest upon the proper terms of the Council or at farthest of the Pope who hath reserved unto himself the explication and that in the mean time they will abate nothing of the decrees of the same Council nor of the opinions received in the Chairs and Universities nor of the general practice what abuse soever be pretended in it However it be We may observe as we pass that the Bishop of Condom doth here silently acknowledge that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome all cleared and all decided 〈◊〉 it was by the Council of Trent is noâ— for all so clear but that it hath yâ—â— need of farther explication which 〈◊〉 most true as to the very ground 〈◊〉 it and they have for this same reasoâ— designedly put their several decrees iâ— general and ambiguous terms to givâ— in appearance the greater satisfaction to people It will now be seen by thâ— sequel if the Bishop of Condom himselâ— will speak plainer on these doubtfâ—â—â— points if he will not contain himself still in general terms or if he will not wholy pass over those points here in silence In the mean time what will become of us The Holy Scripture say they is obscure it appertains unto the Church to explain it according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers the Fathers have their obscurities everyone draws them to their side it will require many years to examin them and it will not be easie to form an unanimous sense They add it belongs to the Council to determin that by their decrees but in these very decrees there are things very ambiguous and that may receive a double and a triple sense the Bishop of Condom doth present us an exposition which he saith is faithful In good time but another Prelate or a Doctor of Sorbon will say that the Bishop of Condom is not sufficiently authorised for that or that he hath need himself to be explained and in the mean while those who are afraid of offending God by a Religious observance of anything which is not God and who desire nothing but to Worship the true God purely according to his Word shall abide as it were suspended betwixt all these uncertainties and shall not be able to yield any acquiescency unto these Lively beams where with this Divine Word hath replenished their Souls This is what the design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise would Lead us unto But let us proceed unto the Treatise it self and let us see if this exposition such as it is will produce the two effects it promises which are to cause all disputes to vanish or to reduce them unâ—â—â— such terms as according to our owâ— principles have nothing in them whicâ— Wound the foundations of Faith II. The general proposition of the Bishop of Condom that they of the P. R. R. do confess that the Catholick Church do believe all the fundamental Articles of Chri stian Reli gion The Bishop of Condom begins witâ— this general proposition that those 〈◊〉 the Pretended reformed Religion 〈◊〉 avow that the Catholick Church dâ—â— receive all the fundamental Articles of 〈◊〉 Christian Religion here at first it maâ— be seen as also in the Title of thâ— Treatise that by the Catholick Churâ— the Bishop of Condom intends the Râ—mish Church It is an usage whicâ— the Gentlemen of the Romish Churcâ— very much more affect of Late thâ—â— they have been accustomed namely it seems to cover themselves with more authentick Title and to takâ— a kind of advantage in words aboâ—â— all other Christians that is to say thaâ— the name of the Roman Church anâ— the name of the Catholick Churcâ— doth not sufficiently to their mind mean the same thing the one dotâ— seem much more auspicious than thâ— other And moreover this same thinâ— makes evident that the Titles whicâ— Parties or Communions assume unto themselves according as they have more Lustre and Power are not always a certain proof that they do possess in reality what these Titles ascribe to them because it doth appear that in the midst of the dispute and in the very place where this Title of Catholick is in question one party doth claim it for himself in prejudice of all others These Gentlemen do herein like Princes who alway retain the Title of Countreys which they once possessed although they have Lost those Countreys several Ages past It is true that we our selves do some time give them the name of Roman Catholicks or this simply of Catholicks as well therein to accommodate our selves to the stream of the general use as for the advantage of peace being to Live amongst them according as also for these very considerations we give them the name of Fathers of Bishops of Prelates and others the Titles which they give unto themselves although the right by which they pretend to take them be yet in question and it may be the Word Catholick would not have been so urged here above all other if it did not in the beginning cause an ambiguity in the Bishop of Condom proposition which is that we do allow that the Catholick Church doth believe all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion for who is it that ever doubted a proposition conceived in those terms We allow in earnest that the Church truely Catholick and universal which we profess in the Apostles Creed which is the body 〈◊〉 the Elect of all Ages not onely always hath held and shall always hold all the fundamental points but that she never did nor ever shall hold any Capital Error which doth intirel 〈◊〉 destroy the foundations and this i 〈◊〉 what we cannot say of the Church o 〈◊〉 Rome We own that she doth receive the fundamental Articles as the Bishop of Condom doth alledge but we do say at the same time as he himself doth instance that she destroys the foundations by contrary Articles and we prove it not onely by the consequences which we draw from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as the Bishop of Condom avers onely because it pleaseth him so to do P. 8 but directly by the Doctrine it self which she teacheth and openly practices It is true that the Church of Rome doth teach that we ought to Worship one onely God Father Son and
Holy Ghost which is the first and most fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but at the very same instant She doth teach another Article which is quite contrary according to us when She saith that we ought to Worship and when she doth indeed Worship that which according to us is not God The Church of Rome receives as we do the first Commandment of the Law which forbids having any other God than the Mighty and Jealous God Yet at the same time She calleth upon the Saints which is a Religious worship by their own Confession and according to us it is a kind or part of that worship which we ought not to give but to God onely not to speak here of the excess which is seen in that worship The Church of Rome receives the second Commandment which doth particularly forbid the making Images of any thing that is in Heaven or in the Earth to worship them but at the same time She doth make Images of the very persons of the Trinity and of all the Saints Shee kneels down before them and doth serve them Religiously against the express terms of the Commandment and it is also well known to what excess She hath advanced this worship in the practice The Church of Rome receives as we do the Apostles Creed which is â—n Abridgment of the fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel for those who are well instructed in it and that do understand it in the full force of its expressions But therein it self we do agree no wise touching that which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose that the Church of Rome hath the pure and true understanding of the Creed We pretend that to believe in God the Creator and in Jesus Christ doth mean so to believe in God as to matter of Religion as not to have the Least confidence in any thing else and we believe that the Worshipping of Saints of Relicks of the Cross and of Images especially in the excess and inevitable abuse which follows however the matter is sweetned in disputation is a degree of a Religious confidence in the creature which thereby doth become sharer in what we owe only unto the Creator The Church of Rome with us believes that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven that he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father and that it is he who shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead but she believes at the same time that our Lord Jesus Christ is also every day corporally upon earth though in an invisible State and different from that estate he is in in Heaven Here it might be proved that in effect all these Doctrines of the Roman Church and several others are directly contrary to the fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel but that would be useless in this part of the question where it sufficeth to intimate that we do so believe what follows will shew the reasons which we have to believe so p. 9 a. 1 The Bishop of Condom doth here make the objection against us which is usually made against us touching the Lutherans that the consequences which we draw from their Doctrine do not hinder but that we admit them into our Communion although these consequences do seem to destroy the foundation But there is a great deal of difference betwixt the Lutherans and the Roman-Catholicks in reference unto us in effect we agree that always heed is not to be taken of the consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrin Doubtless we ought to distinguish the consequences contested by him that doth teach the Doctrine and which do not produce any effect in the intention nor Worship from those which are granted by the very persons which teach the Doctrin and which are followed by a sort of Worship which is thought to be evil It is true that Mr. Daille saith of the Lutherans as the Bishop of Condom doth instance that they have an opinion which according unto us doth infer as well as that of the Roman Church the destruction of the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ but it is also very certain that this consequence as Mr. Daille doth add cannot be without great injustice imputed unto them because they do formally deny it and that besides they have nothing in their Worship which doth establish or suppose this consequence This is the reason of this expression of Monsieur Dailles which hath been so urged of late times and which the Bishop of Condom doth here again urge that the opinion of the Lutherans has no venim in it which is notwithstanding a natural expressiâ—n and proper to the Subject for it imports nothing else but what is said bâ—fore that the Lutherans denying the consequences of their Doctrin and believing the humanity of Jesus Christ as it is certain they do their errour touching the Eucharist although it may be gross according unto us may nevertheless be charitably born with for the advantage of Peace and Union But as to the Church of Rome it is not onely by consequences but by a positive Doctrin and by a constant practice as we pretend whatsoever she saith that she doth not sufficiently acknowledge the Soveraignty which is due unto God nor the quality of Saviour and Mediator in our Lord Jesus Christ nor the superabundant fulness of his merits because it appears plainly unto us that she gives unto the creature the Worship which is onely due unto the Creator and that she doth make to concur the satisfactions and merits of men with the satisfaction and merit of Jesus Christ It cannot with justice be said that the Lutherans do not believe the humanity of Jesus Christ but it is no calumny to say that the Church of Rome doth Worship the host and that she doth give a Religious Worship to Saints to their relicks to Images and unto the Cross c. these are not consequences contested but positive Doctrin confirmed by practice The Bishop of Condom having a mind to cover the contrariety we conceive between the fundamental Articles which the Church of Rome holds and those other Worships that we reject passeth over here in silence what should have been spoken touching the adoration of the Host which point alone most openly shews this contrariety He thinks to reconcile all by his Second proposition III. Second proâ—â—ion general of the Bishop of Condom This the Catho Church doth teach that the Religious worshipping of Saints and Images c. terminates it self in God only Mat. 4.10 that the Church of Rome doth teach that all Religions worship ought to terminate it self on God We say more simply and more naturally that all Religious Worship ought to addresse it self unto God because indeed Religion should regard nothing but God and should have only him for its object All Religious Worship should begin with him continue in him and end on him This is it to which only all the Doctrin of the Old and New Testaments doth tend there cannot be shewed in
those Holy Originals neither Commandment nor example to the contrary Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God anâ— him onely shalt thou serve said our Saviour to the Devil that tempted him If Religion were onely an arbitrary Worship St. Aug. lib. 4. contr Faust cap. 11. de Genes cont Manich. li be a p. 1. and that to render it Lawful it were enough to refer all to God the Manichees which adored God the Father Son and Holy Ghost with a Sovereign Worship and who also Worshipped the Sun and Moon by reason of the residence they believed God made in those glorious bodies might have said that they did terminate all in God and in a Word there could be no false Worship superstion or evil action which may not be justified if it were enough to say that all did terminate in God Besides the Church of Rome doth but fairly say that She teacheth that the Worship of Saints ought to refer it self to or terminate it self on God the people will everlastingly terminate it on the Saints on their relicks and on their Images because the same reason which causeth that grosser minds cannot form to themselves any Idea of an Infinie and in visible God as he is doth also make them naturally to stop at Saints and creatures and that they rely more on things which they see or know than on that which they onely know imperfectly They will have as the Jews had Gods to march before them and at all times when Relicks and Images are set before the eyes of the people as is usual their eyes and their hearts far from being lifted up unto God will stop not onely at the saints themselves but at their Images and Relicks The Second Part. The Bishop of Condom doth here descend from the General Proposition touching the nature of Religious Worship Of the Invocation of Saints to the explication of particular Worships which do make part of the Articles of Faith whereunto he reduces the controversies He begins with the Invocation of Saints indeavouring also to sweeten and extenuate this worship of the Church of Rome as well in the Doctrine as in the practice and onely studies colourable means to insinuate his Doctrin in stead of following the natural order of things of the Doctrin it self that is to say instead of establishing before all things that the Invocation of Saints is a Lawful worship instituted by God and by consequence well pleasing in his eyes he indeavours to surprise mens minds by this other general proposition that those of the Pretended Reformed Religion being pressed by the force of the truth do begin to acknowledge that the Custom of Praying unto Saints and to honour their Relicks was established ever since the fourth Century he means that we do acknowledge that this worship did begin to be established at that time This is but a perverting of words for the Bishop of Condom knows very well that it is not now that we do begin to make this acknowledgement and that this acknowledgment is neither new nor forced nor particular to Monsieur Daille as the Bishop of Condom doth seem to take notice Clemnit Casaub â—ossias du Moulin c. Blondeâ— Chamier Bochard in a word all those who have treated throughly of this Subject have agreed upon the time in which Praying unto Saints begun to be introduced This trick of expression from the Biâ—hop of Condom is onely a short wâ—y to insinuate that there hath been a variation betwixt our authors and less sincerity at one time than at another which nevertheless hath not the least ground however his proposition shall be explained that it may not be mistaken It is true that we have always acknowledged that Praying unto Saints began to be practised towards the end of the Fourth Age but we never acknowledged neither do we yet acknowledge that it was an usage then established in the publick service of the Church nor is it true that it was authorised by any Council Onely if it be needful we make appear by convincing proofs not only that there is neither command nor example neither in the Old or New Testament for the Invocation of Saints but also that there is not the least mark in any of the authors of the fiâ—â—â— three Ages which are extant in sâ—ficiently great numbers Mr. Dâ—ille doth not accuse any the Fathers much less St. Augustiâ—â— to have changed the Doctrin in thâ— point from the former Ages for 〈◊〉 Austin hath declared himself the Leâ— of any for these sorts of Prayers 〈◊〉 Saints Mr. Daille doth only complaiâ— of this that they suffered them inseâ—sibly to be brought in upon bad priâ—ciples and doth accuse them of havâ—ing erred in this as the Church 〈◊〉 Rome doth acknowledge that theâ— have all erred in other things If thâ— Bishop of Condom pretend that thâ— is to abandon those great men under colour of acknowledging that the were men subject to errour the millenaries which do yet to this day expect a Kingdom for a Thousand year on earth under the immediate Government of Christ Jesus those whicâ— believe that Souls at their departurâ— out of this Life shall sleep until thâ— day of Judgement and Generally alâ— those that have followed or do yeâ— follow any one of these errours which appeared in the first Ages may as well say that we have abandoned those of the Fathers who followed or taught those matters and by consequence that they are not errors but Doctrines Lawfully established But it will appear very unlikely saith the Bishop of Condom that Mr. Daillé hath better understood the opinions of the Fathers of the three first Ages than those who have gathered as it may be said the succession of their Doctrin and he will be much less believed that the Fathers of the fourth Age where far from perceiving that there was any innovation brought in in their Worship this Minister on the contrary hath produced express texts by which they clearly shew that they pretend in praying to the Saints to have followed the example of those who went before them These kinds of discourses are very uncertain and are properly but Colours If the Bishop of Condom had taken the pains to have mentioned the texts he speaks of it would have been seen that there is not the least in any of them which shews clearly as he would have men believe that the Fathers of the fourth Age did pretenâ— that the invocation of Saints was it use in the three precedent Ages It is known to be the custom of those who have no good ground not Lawful right for what they do to seek to authorise themselves at leasâ— by examples as the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do at this present by the greatest part of their traditions But if it were true that some Author of the Fourth Age had written iâ— General terms that in Praying unto Saints in that Age they followed the example of those that had gone before them not
shewing the time when these examples appeared who seeâ— not that this might be referred unto the time immediatly going before in the same Age and would conclude nothing for the three first if nothing were â—o be found in those Ages Howsoeveâ— iâ— be we believe shall we be ablâ— to â—aâ—e appear that never any author of the Fourth Age hath alledged any text of the three former thâ— makes out that in those times they prayed unto Saints The Cardinal Du Perron In the reply unto the King of Great Britain answer 187â— Impress Pâ—aâ— whose art in turning all to his advantage is sufficiently known hath been forced to confess in proper terms that there is not to be found any footstep of the invocation of Saints in the Authors next to the Apostles Age seeking vain slâ—ights and evasions upon this matter Perez a Spanish Bishop Os Tradi pa 197â— more sincere goeth farther confessing that he found not that any Prayd unto Saints before the year 360. See then more than three Ages and aâ— half exempted from the pretensions of the Gentlemen of the Church oâ— Rom by their own confession and what can there be more convincing on the side of Tradition unto those which make if the rule of their Faith against such a worship as this which maks so great a part of the Roman Religion than not to find at all the least step of it in the whole course of 360 years the purest time of Christianity As to what the Bishop of Condom saith that it is not at all likely that Mr. Daille had better understood the opinion of the Fathers of the three first Ages then those of the fourth Age did understand them first it is not here the business to understand or not to understand the opinion of the Fathers of the three first Ages for none of their writings can be alledged which those of the fourth Age have understood iâ— one sense and Mr. Daille in another The onely business is to know iâ— there be any thing in those writings which sheweth that they Prayed unto Saints Mr. Daille affirms that he finds nothing at all Du Perrâ—â— and Perez speaking to the same effect as is already said and the authors of the Fourth Age say nothing contrary But if there were occasion to explain any of the Fathers of the three first Ages it would not possibly be so great a Paradox as the Bishop of Condom imagins to suppose that Mr. Daille has been able to understand them as well as most of the Fathers of the fourth age did understand them Those who amongst all his other works have read his books of the use of the fathers of the Novelty of Roman Traditions of the object of the worship of the Latins and upon the Epistles attributed to St. Ignatius where he had occasion to speak throughly of the Doctring of the three first Ages will acknowledge if they are in the least just and sincere that haply scarce any before him hath either more studied or better understood the Fathers than he and I may credible say here that if the veneration which is to be had for antient things be one day joyned unto the proper excellency of his works and unto the clear reputation in which he lived preached even unto a great age he will be esteemed in after times for one of the greatest most excellent Doctors which the Church ever had The Fathers of the Fourth age lived some in Europe others in Asia and some in Africk Printing not being then in use there was not the same facility to see all the Manuscripts of Forreign parts The Fathers had each their proper Lights and peculiar study of some of the writings of the preceding ages and of their own at this day those who have the time Wisdom Judgment and the knowledge of tongues which are necessary for the well understanding the Fathers may collect not onely all the Fathers works of the three first Ages but also the several Lights of the Fourth and also joyn unto those Lights those of all the following ages unto that wherein we Live day unto day uttereth Speech right unto night sheweth knowledge Who questions but at this time several places of the Holy Scriptures are better understood than they were in the First ages This dispute it self hath served to clear many truths which were not known until these Last times for instance several passages misunderstood by the Fathers which are now better understood in the one and in the other Communion than they were formerly and sundry errours whereinto it is agreed they were fallen from which praised be God we are now delivered Here it is that the Bishop of Condom comes at length to explain the belief of the Roman Church touching the invocation of Saints in particular what he saith may be reduced to this that the Church of Rome teacheth that it is useful to pray unto Saints and that she teacheth to pray unto them in a Spirit of Charity and Brotherly fellowship as we pray to our Brethren that are living upon earth that this Prayer unto Saints doth not any more derogate from the mediation of Jesus Christ than that which we make unto our Living Brethren that the Church of Rome makes a great deal of difference betwixt the Prayers which she addresâ—â—â— unto God and those which she makes unto Saints that unto God she saith have mercy upon us and to the Saints only Pray for us and that this is the sense unto which the Church reduceth all the Prayers unto Saints in whatsoever terms they be conceived that the Council teaching that it is good and useful to call upon the Saints in an humble maner and to fly unto their aid for obtaining benefits of God by his Son Jesus Christ the Bishop of Condom conceives not how we can say that this is to depart from our Lord Jesus Christ Afterwards he adds that the Church doth not offer unto God 〈◊〉 Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the honor of Saints but only so as to name them 〈◊〉 the faithful servants of God to render his thanks for their victory and to pray hiâ— to be inclined by their intercessions moâ—â— over that this is not to advance the creature above its condition to attribute 〈◊〉 them a knowledge of the desires and necessities of which we make sâ—cret â—â—quests unto them in as much as thâ— God hath not refused to reveal things 〈◊〉 come unto the Prophets though they seem to be more particularly reserved unâ—â— his own knowledge that Lastly thâ— Church doth not decide any thing upâ—â— the different meanes which God make use of in imparting this knowledge unâ—â— the Saints whether he doth it by the Ministry of Angels or by a particulâ—â— revelation or whether he discover all unto them in his infinite essence where a truth is comprised This is the sense and as near aâ— may be the Bishop of Condoms verâ— expressions whereby he would sweeten his Doctrines as much
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
denied that much is lost in the way by the fast hold which the people take upon the creature As to the last sweetning which the Bishop of Condom uses here for that particular worship which is given to Saints when they offer the sacrifice of the Mass that is Jesus Christ sacrificed in their honour he is pleased to say that this is nothing but nameing the Saints as faithful servants of God and praying God that he will become propitious through their intercession the meer expression of offering Jesus Christ sacrificed in honour of the Saints has somewhat in it so strange abhorring from the true Spirit of the Gospel that we cannot imagine how Christian ears could become accustomed to it and less yet how the Council of Trent could prevail with themselves to make a Doctrine or Decree of it We have a little more enlarged upon this point of the Invocation of Saints because it is one of the most essential parts of their Religion one on which the Bishop of Condom himself has most insisted we shall be more brief upon most of the others as being less important In the mean while it seems already apparent by this sole Article that the Bishop of Condom's Exposition hath nothing in it new but neat and delicate artifice and that in conclusion it takes not off any thing from the whole force of our principal objections nor from the number of important controversies and that his doctrine whatsoever artifice he uses in expressions overthrows all along according to us the foundations of the Faith Nay we know not whether there be not cause to fear that if on the one side he had removed some questions as it would seem to be his design by putting out of the way many doctrines practices of the Roman Churâ—â— yet he had not on the other given place to some new difficulties for that ofttimes these kinds of seeming sweetnings which are onely in some terms or in matters of small consequence do not at all satisfie a man and onely raise new doubts in stead of resolving the old The Bishop of Condom passes from the Invocation of Saints V. Of Images and Relicks to the particular Worship of Images and Relicks and as it seems does not approve all that is seen to be practised in this matter In the beginning he would that we judge of what nature the honour is which the Church of Rome outwardly gives unto Saints by the inward intentions she hath for them Page 30. ibid. The outward Worship saith he being established to testifie the inward intention of the souls But is not this in a manner to contradict himself and to overturn or confound the natural order of things for if the Worship be established to testifie the inward sentiments why will they have us to judge of the exteriour by the interiour whereas it is of the interiour that we should judge by the exteriour Or wherefore should it be that the exteriour answers so ill to the interiour and that notwithstandig there is nothing said of amendment But if the Bishop of Condom doth think that what he here declare unto us of the intention of the Româ— Church doth warrant him hencâ— forward to reduce the outward maid of Honour which she gives to Saintâ— unto what sense he thinks fit to giâ— it besides that it is not enough fâ— such a declaration to change thâ— common usage of expressions aâ— the natural meaning of Signs hâ— will they for instance that a Trâ— a Pagan the Americans the ignâ—rant amongst us who are not accâ—stomed unto these refinings of inteâ—tion and who judge of things one by the common use and by the common notions How will they I saâ— that all the World behold all thâ— great pomp of Religious Worshiâ— which is given to Saints to their Images and their Relicks so liâ— the honour that is to be given to Goâ— himself without taking this Worshâ—â— for a true mark of adoration and the Saints themselves for so many Gods The Council doth forbid saith the Bishop of Condom to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which there should be any reverence due to them or for which any honour should be required to them or confidence put in them and will that all refer to the Originals which they represent which doth distinguish the Church of Rome from Idolaters because very far from helieving as they that any Divinity resides in Images she attributes no virtue unto them but that of exciting the remembrance of the Originals Here is it notwithstanding and in what follows that the Bishop of Condom doth sweeten the terms as much as he thinks may be done it is not any longer to worship Images as is the common and ordinary sense of the principal Doctors who have written for this Worship and of the very second Council of Nice it self It is no longer to serve them as yet the very termes of the Council of Trent run but onely to honour them And it is true this is in appearance a step towards a reformation and a sign that men of wisedom and clearness such as the Bishop of Condom is are somewhat ashamed of the height whereunto they have advanced the Doctrine of this Worship But in the conclusion it is still notwithstanding this all one and the same thing because they still continue to give the same religious Service unto Images The Council of Trent doth pronounce Anathema against all those who reject this Worship by this means boldly condemning the ancient Council of Elibery that of Constantinople consisting of 338. Bishops That oâ— Francfort where there were 300 The Emperour Charlemaigne and the Churches of France and of Almaiâ— of that time and of a long time after Concil Trent Sess 25. de Invoc Sanct c. Remissiones Vetustissimum esse in Ecclesia Dei a sanctis Patribas comprobatum usum sanctorum Imaginum earum denique adoratio pluribus testimoniis comprobatur c Tho. p. 3 q. 25. Art 4. Bonav Cajet c. Pon. Ro. p. 3. ord ad vis par pag. 480. Pag. 33. Pag. 32. which all rejected the Worship of Images The Observations that are printed with the Text of the very Council of Trent it self pretend that it is an ancient and approved usage to have Images and to worship them these are the very words and they authorise this practice by the judgment of Thomas Aquinas of Bellarmine of Vasques and of a great number of the chief Doctors of the Roman Church It is also known that many of the same Doctours teach that it is a duty to worship the Cross and the Image of Jesus Christ with the Worship of Latry as they speak which yet is the Divine honour that is given to God himself It is seen with what devotion and zeal the people kneel before the Cross before Images and before Relicks how they greet them how they kiss them how they incense them how they fasten their eyes
and their hearts upon them The Bishop of Condom doth pass all this over by the word Honouring it is not any longer the Cross that is adored but he is adored before the Cross who did bear our sins upon the Tree The intention of the Church is not so much to honour the Apostle or Martyr as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image which doth shew nevertheless that the Image is honoured in it self and that unawares they speak of the presence of the Image as if it were animated Besides this is nothing else but the Doctrine of the Council of Trent it is the Council of Trent which teacheth which ordains which forbids and never any one word of God never the least Commandment nor the least Example of all the Holy Scripture of the Old or New Testament that is to say this is onely a Doctrine meerly humane So far is it from being true that God hath commanded this Worship or that he hath approved it that it hath already been shewed he hath expresly forbidden it and it may here be added that all the Commandments of the Law supposing great punishments against those who violate them this which forbids to make Images and to serve them is onely found accompanied with threatnings unto Childrens Children of them who shall make Images or serve them as if God foreseeing the narural inclination of men carrying them to this Worship would more particularly make them know his Jealousie and hold back this tendency or inclination by the terrour of his Judgments They think to avoid the meaning of the Commandment and to distinguish themselves from Pagan Idolaters in saying they do not adore the Images and that they believe not there is any Divinity or virtue in them as the Pagans did But doth the Council dare so to restrain and qualifie if it may be so said the express Commandments of God which not onely forbid to worship Images or to believe any virtue in them but absolutely to make them to worship to serve and to bow down before them for the terms of the Commandment have precisely all this The Bishop of Condom sayes elsewhere Pag. 80. upon the words of the institution of the Lords Supper that himself and those of his Communion do understand these words according to the letter and that none ought any more to ask Why they hold unto the literal sense than to ask of a Traveller why he follows the High-way and that it is those that have recourse unto a figurative sense and who follow crooked ways that should give an accompt of what they do Nevertheless the sense of the Old Testament is without comparison more literal than that of the New and all the World knows that the terms of a Law or a Commandment should be more express and in a more literal sense than those of a mystery because it behoveth necessarily that the Commandment be clear to the end that all those who are to keep it may plainly understand it whereas in Mysteries it is seen almost always that the wayes of speaking are mystical and as the word it self imports signifying something hid and figured Now let the Bishop of Condom tell us here why he doth not follow the letter of the Commandment which is so express wherefore he forsakes this High-way marked with Gods own finger to fly unto a forced or alienate sense It is further but an undue imputation touching Heathens Athenag in Apol. p. 17. St. Aug. in Psal 96. to say as he doth That they believed that their false Divinities did dwell in their Images the Pagans did not yield by any means that they worshipped wood and stone but onely the Originals which were represented by them They did also make a great difference betwixt the Worship which they gave unto the great Gods and those which they gave unto the less Divinities neither did they believe that their Gods were shut up in their Shrines or that they dwelt in them as the Bishop of Condom doth affirm and if it be found that any such thing hath been imputed unto them in the first Ages of Christianity it is onely but by reason that the Superstition of the people went much farther than the Opinions Maxims of their Philosophers or of their Priests and Arch-priests The Pagans believed that their Gods came sometimes upon earth but that they made their residence in the Heavens or in some places separated from the sight of men Pallas for example could not attend to be in the Palladium in Troy whilest she was in the Grecian Army conducting the Chariot of Diomedes and fighting against the Trojans themselves Arnob. adver Gent. li. 6. Maxim Tyr. Serm. 38. Exod. 32.4 5. The Pagans believed onely in general that there was fatality or virtue in the Images of their false Gods as in the Palladium the virtue of preserving the City of Troy and that these Gods did onely at some times give some extraordinary markes of their presence and of their power in their Images These things are too well known to be called in question No more did the Israelites acknowledge that they did worship the Brasen Serpent nor the Golden Calf nor that the Golden Calf was God himself but they looked upon it as an Image or a representation of that true God that had delivered them from the Bondage of Egypt Nevertheless the Pagans and the Israelites were both alike guilty of Idolatry by these two principal reasons the one that their false Worship whatever it was or whatever construction they gave it was condemned by God The other that though the clearest amongst the Heathens and amongst the Israelites did say in general that they did not worship neither the Images of false Gods nor the Brasen Serpent nor the Golden Calf the people nevertheless did not forbear to give a Religious Service unto those things to kneel before them to incense them and in some measure to fasten their trust and affections upon them The Roman Church doth not believe any Divinity in the Images it is true except haply some grosser Spirits which are capable of thinking any thing when they are kneeling before them and are possessed with the wonders that have been done by the Images But how can it so formally be said that the Church of Rome doth not believe that there is any virtue in them For she desires this very mâ—â—ter of God in consecrating of them that he would bless them that hâ— would accompany them with hiâ— power all those other points whicâ— are to be seen at large in the Româ— Pontifical The Books of the Româ— Church are full of the Virtues of thâ— Cross of the miraculous Images oâ— the Virgin and of the Saints arâ— of the Marks which the Saints do oâ—ten give of their presence and of theâ— power from whence also do proceed the Vows the Offerings tâ— Pilgrimages authorised by the Counciâ— and to conclude Memorias frequentari all those affectâ—
and that by consequence they acknowledge thereby in some sort that a Reformation is useful and necessary VI. Of justfication THE THIRD PART The method which the Bishop of Condom hath observed requires that after the Worship of Saints c. we examine his Doctrine concerning Justification the merit of Works of Satisfactions Purgatory and of Indulgences It is true as the Bishop of Condom saith that the Article of Justification is one of the chief things which gave occasion of reformation to our Fathers Very few are Ignorant what was the state of the Latin church at that time On one hand presented it selfe the Doctrin of the merit of works the necessity of satisfying Gods Justice in this life or endureing the fire of Purgatory after death to compleat what was wanting of this satisfaction on the other hand was to be seen an extraordinary irregulatity in the life and manners as well of the Clergy as of the people and by consequence no likelihood of salvation neither by works nor by those satisfactions and in fine there appeared no other Object before the eyes of men but Purgatory or Hell In this state of the Church the Pope opens the Treasures of his Indulgencies distributes his Agnus's his Beads and Reliques and prescribes certain numbers of Pater nosters and Ave Mary's of Stations of Visits of Churches of Pilgrimages Fasts Pennances of macerations and mortifications with which and with the help of Pardons Dispensations and Indulgences which were purchased at a dear rate those who had them were not onely justified themselves but helped to justifie others delivering souls out of Purgatory and acquiring for them a greater degree of blessednesse or an augmentation of glory as the Councill speaks Our Fathers did believe that there was an abuse in all these things and that this Doctrine which possessed the minds of the people and that made up the greatest part of their piety did overthrow the Foundation of Religion which doth essentially consist in placing our chiefest confidence in the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ and farther in serving God according to his will and not according to the commandments of men It is also true that since the Reformation the Church of Rome it self doth seem to be a little more reserved than she was before as well as to expressions in regard of her Doctrines as in regard of the practice and the very use of Indulgences and they are beholding to us for it which doth very much serve for the justification of our first Reformers but the abuses are yet too great in one and the other for the corrupting of piety and scandalizing of true Christians Those who onely consider the controversie of Justification at a distance or transiently without searching into the grounds and consequences will not it may be at first think it so important as it is but it is of so great moment what herein is the judgment of those who are well informed amongst us that as to the contrary we should not stick here to maintain that the difference of Belief which doth separate us from the Church of Rome as to this point is of so great consequence unto Religion that there is scarce any greater Let us therefore be permitted according to the liberty that Dispute doth require to deny here formally what the Bishop of Condom doth aver in something an uncertain manner That there are but few learned men of our side as he speaks but do confess that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome about this point and that this difficulty is not any longer considered as much material by the most intelligent persons amongst us The Bishop of Condom doth not cite one of those learned men nor one of those intelligent persons unto whom he imputes these sorts of Sentiments as the importance of the business doth require The Confession of Faith of our Churches which contains the General Belief of those of our Communion explains it self to the contrary upon this point as throughly as may be it confirms the very Doctrine which the first Reformers taught declaring in express terms That how little soever we swerve from this Foundation we can never finde any ease but that we shall be continually tossed with inquietude The Council of Trent it self acknowledged the importance of this Controversie First in that it takes notice of it from the first as one of the principal causes of the Schism and which did most deserve the care of the said Council And in the second place by the prodigious length of its Decree and by the vast number of its Canons and Anathema's much greater upon this point than upon any other In summe it may be said that it is not onely a principal point but it is one of them which are most such The others for the most part do onely regard some part of Religion Errour doth corrupt but that part and doth not influence the others if we may so speak The worshipping the Host for example is without doubt one of the most essential points in which it is impossible to finde any mean because the question is whether it ought to be worshiped or not worshipped which is the first and greatest Act of Religion Nevertheless this is but a particular point a capital errour indeed for them who are deceived in it but which doth nothing or changeth nothing in all the other Fundamental Points But who speaks of Justification speaks of the means of our Salvation that is to say the Mystery of our Redemption there is nothing more important than not to be deceived in the choice of such a matter because if a man fails to take the right way he falls from errour to errour and the very true essence of Religion is changed and altered This truth will plainly appear by the bare comparing of our Doctrine with that of the Church of Rome We do believe that our Justification doth alone consist herein that having deserved death Jesus Christ dyed for us and satisfied the Justice of God the Father for us who for the love of his Son pardoneth all our sins in general uniting us unto him by a true and lively faith and imputing his righteousness and obedience unto us that is to say the merit of his Death it self as though we had suffered it in our own persons We believe that it is God himself that doth beget and strengthen this Faith in our hearts by the inward operation of his Holy Spirit and by the outward Ministry of his Word and Sacraments as shall be explained in what follows upon the subject of the Sacraments that this Faith is not a dead or idle Faith but a living Faith and working by love and by all sorts of good works and that these works are very acceptable to God and necessary to Salvation as an inseparable consequent of that Faith which justifies us but that it is onely of pure Grace and by the alone merit of the death of Jâ—sus Christ that
these Gentlemen do in some sort salve the former of these inconveniences in declaring as they do that they do not attribute any merit unto Works but by virtue of the free promise which God hath made to reward them producing them himself in us by his grace and besides the moderate persons amongst them do not dissent but that these sorts of expressions of merit may very well be waved and that ours are more humble and more safe as also on our part we do not deny but that those of the Roman Church may be suffered in the sense wherein they now explain them And it may be this is it which the Bishop of Condom doth here understand when he saith that the Learned of our Communion do not believe some of our Disputes upon this point to be very material What is here most mysterious is that upon this expression that good Works do merit eternal life there are â—ounded two other Doctrines which are very evil The first is that they are not contented to command works that are truly good and commanded as to worship God onely to serve none but him to obey our Superiours and lastly to love God with all our hearts and our Neighbour as our selves which is the summe of the Law and of Christian Religion but they have brought in the practice of Vows of Abstinences of Pilgrimages Macerations and all those other Works which the Bishop of Condom doth call Pennances because in very deed God hath not required any of that nature The other evil Doctrine which proceeds from the merit of Works is that of Satisfaction of Purgatory and Indulgences for those who do these Works of Pennance believe they satisfie at least in some part the justice of God and therefore it is that they call them Satisfactions and those who do none of them believe themselves destin'd to the pains of Purgatory and have recourse unto Indulgences to deliver them VIII Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences The Doctrine of Satisfactions is in reality so evil according to us that it doth intirely vitiate all that is good in that of Justification and of good Works One would say that it were another Gospel a Discourse meerly humane the several parts whereof do so ill agree together Very far is the whole Article from being conform unto the Analogy of Faith Es 1.18 Psal 32.12 Ps 103.12 The Scripture reiterates unto us throughout that God doth pardon us our sins for his Son's sake that if our sins were redder than scarlet he makes them white as snow that he imputes them not unto us that he covers them that he blotteth them out that he separateth them from us as far as the East is from the West The Bishop of Condom saith on the contrary that God doth pardon our sins but upon such condition under such Law and with such reservation as he pleaseth that he confers an intire abolition of all sins committed for Baptism but as for those that are committed after Baptism God forced by our ingratitude changes the eternal pain into a temporal This is what the Council of Trent calls remitting the sin and retaining the punishment This is to say that God doth pardon and he doth not pardon or at least that he doth not fully pardon Our sins all blotted out as they are do nevertheless cry for vengeance It is not enough that Jesus Christ hath atoned for them nor that we repent and endeavour to amend and to keep the Commandments of God if together herewith we do not Works which the Bishop of Condom calls painful and laborious or if we suffer not temporal pains either in this life or after death This is what hath been already touched the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not onely injurious unto the mercy of God and unto the merit of the death of Jesus Christ by the conditions and restrictions which she presumes to bring thereunto but she contradicts her very self pulling down with one hand what she builds up with another On the one hand Jesus Christ hath fully payed the price of our ransome there is nothing wanting of this payment his justice is imputed unto us our sins are blotted out by his bloud In a word Jesus Christ hath fully satisfied for us And on the other hand Pag. 60 61. the justice of God and a certain way which he hath appointed will have us not to suffer our selves for our sins The Bishop of Condom would salve this contradiction by saying as he doth that these pains which God reserves are onely to keep us in our duty within the hands of Justice as he speaks and not to satisfie for our sins therefore it is that he makes a kind of protestation that if after the explication which he gives in that sense We shall object unto those of his Communion that they do prejudice unto the satisfactions of Jesus Christ that we must forget what he hath already told us that Jesus Christ has paid the full price of our ransom c. and that if we yet object to them that they believe they shall be able to satisfie of themselves as to some part of the pain which is due to their sins he may boldly say that the contrary doth appear by the Maxims which he hath established Unto which he adds for a conclusion That what they call satisfaction with the ancient Church is nothing AFTER ALL but an application of the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ It may plainly be seen by these last expressions of the Bishop of Condom's that he seemes to doe like the Dove which returned unto the Ark not knowing where to rest her foot AFTER ALL what they call satisfaction is nothing but the application of the satisfaction of Jesus Christ This expression hath something in it improper and incumbred because it cannot be any thing but Faith onely which is the hand of the Soul that can apply unto us the satisfaction of Jesus Christ by acts of love and reliance It cannot properly be said that any Workes done by us or that any pain that we suffer can be the application of the obedience which Jesus Christ rendred unto his Father and of the paines which he suffered for us The truth is that the Bishop of Condom after having defended as much as he could the opinions and the expressions of the Church of Rome will give to understand that AFTER ALL what they call satisfactions are not properly satisfactions that they themselves do not believe they can satisfie as they just now said more expresly and that in conclusion there is nothing really but the satisfaction of Jesus Christ which ought to be called by this name This Doctrine is sound and it is certain that it is in some sort to come unto us or rather to the truth of the Gospel but this is nothing in the main if the Doctrine of the Council of Trent be still allowed to stand that is to say if that be the Supreme
our Kings had not set some bounds to the enterprises of the Court of Rome As for Order or Orders for the Council sets down Seven under this name to wit the Priest the Deacon Order the Subdeacon the Acolyte the Exorcist the Reader and the Porter The Bishop of Condom speaks onely a word of Order in general as he hath done of Marriage to put it into the number of Sacraments It is true as he saith that we hold the ministry of the Word of God for a sacred thing taking the term in a general sense We practise the ceremony of Imposition of Hands as it was practised in the Apostles time but we cannot agree that Order or Orders are a true Sacrament as Baptism and the Eucharist as well for that in Orders there is no Element or Visible sign no more than in Marriage and in confession as also because it is in truth the nature of the Sacraments of the Gospel that the Sacraments ought to be common to all the Church and Orders are not It is in this point also the interest of Rome that made Orders a true Sacrament to the end she might withdraw all the great Body of the Roman Clergy from the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate and thereby make unto her self proper subjects of other Princes people in the midst of their States and Kingdoms as a particular Kingdom or Hierarchy apart not only distinct from the Temporal Monarchy but superiour and over-ruling Kings themselves Many things might be said upon this Article to shew principally that the Priesthood and the sacrificing of the Roman Church is an invention purely humane and that it hath no example nor any foundation in the Gospel for there can be no true Priesthood where there is not a true Sacrifice and in the following Discourse it shall be made appear that there is none such in the Mass But in this place we will be content to follow the Bishop of Condom who had no mind to engage in all these Questions whether it be that he deserts them tacitely by his silence or that he thought them to be fitter for the Schools than for publick edification or Lastly that he hastened to pass unto the matter of the Eucharist where he believed he might inlarge himself with less disadvantage THE FIFTH PART We are saith he now at last X. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real presence of the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament the manner how she understands these words This is my Body arrived at the Question of the Eucharist c. as if one should say after a great deal of bad way now we are gotten a little more at large On the whole there is this difference betwixt all these Questions of the worshipping of Saints of Images and Relicks of Satisfactions of Purgatory of Indulgences of the number and efficacy of the Sacraments whereof we have hitherto treated and this of the Eucharist whereon at present we enter that in all the others there is not to be found any Footstep of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament nor in the very First ages of Christianity whereas upon the question of the Eucharist the Roman Church pretends that she hath the Scripture it self on her side Therefore also it is that whereas the Bishop of Condom did but lightly pass over all the rest here saith he it will be necessary more amply to explain our Doctrine And here the better to accommodate our selves to the Bishop of Condom's method as we have done upon the other articles we will distinctly examine all the several Heads of which he makes so many Sections 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and how she understands these words THIS IS MY BODY 2. How she unâ—erstands these other words DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. 3. The Exposition which she makes of our belief as to the reality 4. Transubstantiation and Adoration and in what sense the Eucharist is a sign 5. The sacrifice of the Mass 6. What the Apostle teacheth in the Epistle to the Hebrews when he saith That Jesus Christ offered himself once 7. The reflexion which the Bishop of Condom makes upon this Doctrine 8. and Lastly The point of Communion under both kinds which the Bishop of Condom doth onely consider as a sequel or consequent of all the rest We will touch each of these Heads with as much brevity as shall be possible The Bishop of Condom begins with this proposition that the Real Presence is firmly established by these words of the institution of the Eucharist THIS IS MY BODY The reason which he gives thereof is because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter and here it is that he saith what hath been alledged elsewhere upon another subject that you must no more ask them wherefore they apply themselves to the literal sense than of a Traveller why he follows the High way Let any one judge of the sequel by the beginning The Question betwixt us is Whether the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament are truly and really the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ or whether they are so onely in the mystery That is to say whether the words of the institution This is my Body ought to be understood literally or figuratively whether they truly signifie a real presence as they speak or a presence mystical and of virtue for it is all one and the same thing The Bishop of Condom saith without any other pretext that the belief of the real presence is firmly established upon these words because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter that is it is so because I understand it so that is to say that he decides the question by the thing it self which is in question or that he doth give us his sense his will for a reason To have the liberty to speak as the Bishop of Condom doth we must lay it as a principle that there is nothing in the Scripture that one should not or at least that may not be taken literally Then might she take literally what our Saviour saith elsewhere John 6.35 19.5 that he is the bread of Heaven or that he is a vine and his Disciples are the branches and that none should be allowed to inquire how it might be The Bishop of Condom judging truly enough that this was not a proposition maintainable enters upon two other conceipts more reasonable On the one side he ingageth us to prove that the words of institution of the Eucharist ought to be taken in a Figurative sense On the other he engages to prove himself Pa. 80 that they ought to be taken according to the letter It is their part saith he who have recourse to Figurative senses to give a reason of what they do We
will therefore here set down some of the reasons which we have for the Figurative sense seeing that the Bishop of Condom doth require it of us and afterwards we will examine those which the Bishop of Condom doth alledge for the proper and literal sense In the First place whensoever any great of a Mystery and of a Sacrament 〈…〉 and the common use to take the â—â—pressions and the things themselves mystically and figuratively The very word it self Mystery doth lead us thereto otherwise it were no more a Mystery Let any examine generally all the Sacraments as well of the Old as the New Testament not one excepted no not the very ceremonies of the Roman Church it self where there is any visible sign as the Passover and Circumcision under the Law Baptism under the Gospel that which the Church of Rome doth call Confirmation and Extreme Unction through all will be found things and words which must be understood in a mystical and a Figurative sense But if it be demanded more particularly wherefore the Bread and the Wine are said to be the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ St. Austin and Theodoret Aug. Epist 23. ad Bonif. answer for us The First saith that it is because of the relation which the Sacraments have to the things whereof they are Sacraments and the latter to keep us from resting in the nature of the things that are seen Theodoret Dial 1. and that as Jesus Christ said that he was bread and a stock or vine so be honours the Symbols of bread and wine with the name of his Body and of his Bloud The force of these Testimonies is not here urged as to the maine Question they are onely alledged to give a reason of the use wherefore it is that the sign doth bear the name of the thing signified by a kind of mystical and Figurative way of speaking to elevate our spirits and our heartes above the Visible signs 2. We know in general that all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament is full of these sorts of Figurative expressions whether it was the Style of the Eastern Nations in those times as indeed it was or that God judged this Style the fittest to exercise our Faith We see that the First preaching of Jesus Christ is nothing else but a continued succession of Figures John 6.35 Joh. 15.3 every one knows those just now mentioned I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the vine The rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 Mat. 5.29 De Doctrin Christ lib. 3. cap. 6. If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and an infinite number of others Now if it be demanded of us how we can distinguish betwixt Figurative expressions and those which are proper and literal St. Austin here again answers for us that what seemes to offend good manners or the truth of Faith ought to be taken in a Figurative sense and yet more expresly that this which Jesus Christ saith that we must eat his body and drink his bloud appearing a wicked thing is therefore a Figure We press not still this passage as to the main Question we onely alledge it to make the reason which we have for the Figurative sense better apprehended 3. Finally what can there be more natural and more reasonable than to understand the Scripture by the Scripture it self the obscure places by them which are more plain those which have a double meaning by them which have but a single The Authour of the Book intituled Lawful Prejudices layes down this Maxim for the understanding of Books that when there is any passage which may admit of a double sense that must be taken which agrees best with the whole and which is the most reasonable There is but one passage onely in the Scripture which seems to favour the literal sense that the Church of Rome gives to these words This is my Body to wit that which we now spoke of If you eat not the flesh and drink the bloud of the Son of man you have no life in you and this very expression St. Austin notes ought to be understood Figuratively whereas there are a great number of others which say that Jesus Christ is no more with us but by the operation of the Holy Spirit The poor you shall have always with you Mat. 26.11 but me ye shall not have always And if I depart I will send the Comforter unto you and so many more Joh. 16. that make us daily say in the Creed he ascended into Heaven and from thence he shall come c. the very words of the Eucharist require that we do this in remembrance of him and to shew forth his Death till he come To be in Heaven corporally and upon Earth by representation are not two senses repugnant but not to be any more with us or to be corporally in Heaven and yet to be every day upon Earth in mens hands in his proper Body are two terms contradictory and incompatible It is therefore natural to take these words This is my body in a mystical and Figurative sense which alone doth perfectly agree with all the other passages of the Scripture It is well known that the Church of Rome doth suppose that there be two divers ways according unto which she pretends that the Body of Jesus Christ may be present in Heaven and upon Earth the one with his dimensions and his exteriour qualities such as he was seen upon Earth and it is after this manner that she will have it to be said that Jesus Christ is no more with us or that he is onely in Heaven the other without his dimensions and exteriour qualities as she pretends that he is under the covert of Bread and Wine But this is to answer here punctually the thing in question We formally deny this second manner of being bodily in a place it is not contested but that nature the senses reason far from teaching any such thing cry loudly against it It would therefore highly concern the Church of Rome upon the whole case to establish this second manner of being in a place by some passage the sense whereof were not at all in question and till that is done it may be truly said that the figurative sense of these words This is my Body is the true and genuine sense the first and the onely that presents it self unto the mind We might here add many other reasons as to the main to make appear that the Doctrine of the real presence is not onely above reason as the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but directly against reason and which in fine destroyes the testimony of the senses which nevertheless is it that our Lord made use of John 20.27 Theodoret Dial. 2. to prove unto Thâ—mas the truth of his presence as the Church also hath since done to prove that the Body of Jesus Christ was a true Humane body against the Eutychians but this would be
of his love and the price of our Redemption The Bishop of Condom very far from acknowledging that to call to remembrance as our Lord requires supposes his absence turns the thing to the clear contrary so as to infer that this very remembrance should be grounded upon the real presence To this purpose he here brings in again the comparison of the sacrifices As saith he the Jewes in eating the Peace-offerings did call to remembrance that they were offered for them so in eating the flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice we ought to call to remembrance that he dyed for us and from thence he passeth unto a kind of Rhetorical rapture upon the tender remembrance which the Tombs of the Fathers excite in the childrens hearts First as to what concerns the comparison we have already said that it is not a proof and that upon the whole case the relation there is of the Law to the Gospel is no reason that we should take all according to the letter in the Gospel as we do for the most part matters in the Law that on the contrary it is sufficient that our spiritual eating of the body of Jesus Christ answers unto the Oral eating of the sacrifices which were the Figure of his sacrifice But there is yet more in it the Bishop of Condom onely speaks of Peace-offerings and remembers not himself of what he himself had said of the sacrifice offered for sins which is the true Figure of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross May not his argument be returned back against himself that as the Jewes did not eat of this expiatory sacrifice and yet for all that failed not to remember that it was offered for their sins in like manner it is not necessary that we should eat the proper flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice to put us in remembrance of his death We have this advantage of the Jewes that they ate nothing instead of this sacrifice whereas we eat the holy Symbols which livelily represent unto us the body and bloud of Jesus Christ his body broken for us and his bloud poured out for the expiation of our sins Further what are our manners and our education that to put us in a tender remembrance of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ we must needs eat his proper flesh with our bodily mouth Or rather if it be true that the remembrance which is the thing in question be nothing else but an apprehension excited by the objects which affect the sense has the manner in which it is believed they eat this flesh in the Church of Rome any thing which doth more affect the senses than ours seeing that we eat it both one and the other under the same kindes or forms of bread and wine We will not here enquire whether it excite a real tenderness to conceive that we effectively eat the flesh which we love and adore or if on the contrary it be not by degrees that the Church of Rome it self is become accustomed unto this conceipt which of it self doth stir up contrary affections It will be onely needful to compare the manner how they administer the Sacraments in the Church of Rome with that wherein they administer them in our Churches to judge which of the two is most capable to entertain a true remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ The Church of Rome believes she holds the proper flesh of Jesus Christ under the sacred coverts of bread and wine as it were under a mystical Tomb or under dead signs but a living and vivifying flesh c. These be the terms of the Bishop of Condom which form a notion or Idea very perplext and contradictory as if we should say a dead body full of life and the fountain of life under the coverts of death Which is the very cause that this Idea being so confused is not without much difficulty received into the mind and that it there makes the less impression or at least doth not make so lively an impression onely of the death of Jesus Christ of which the main question here is whereas amongst us where we onely regard the bread broken and the wine poured out but as an image and representation of the body of Jesus Christ broken for us and his bloud shed for us This image doth give unto us a clear and distinct Idea of the death which Jesus Christ hath suffered for us which is properly the effect which our Lord would produce in the Sacrament In the Church of Rome the Priest that saith Mass or that consecrates often saith it alone most commonly very low and alwayes in Latine which is not at all the Language of the people The Consecration being done if he gives the Host for every one knows that there are infinite Masses without communicants he saith not unto them who do receive it that the body of Jesus Christ was broken for them which is properly what he ought to say unto them according to the words of our Saviour to imprint well in their minds the Idea of his death and to excite in their hearts a pure sense and such which becomes hearts engaged in love and acknowledgment of this Divine Saviour but it is onely said unto them by form of a Petition which is made for them the body of Jesus Christ keep or preserve their souls unto eternal life and though we do not here repeat this form of Petition to condemn it because it is good and of ancient use yet it may be said that it is a more self-interessed consideration which makes them not to reflect but onely upon their own profit and advantage and which is more the Priest sayes this it self in the same Latine Tongue which the greatest part doe not understand In very truth what sound remembrance or what true sense of love and thankfulness can this kind of setting forth the death of the Lord all in a low mumbling tone in general terms in a Language ill understood excite We speak of a sound remembrance of a love with understanding for as for an outward devotion or confused resentments of Holiness it is not denied but that the way of the Roman Church being full of pomp may excite as much as or more than ours which is more simple Amongst us to the end there may be no mistake in this matter behold in a few words what is our practice In the first place some dayes before the time appointed for administring the Sacrament there is an exhortation made to us to prepare our selves by acts of Repentance of Faith and of charity and by an holy life the day beâ—ing come after the usual exercises of devotion which consist in Prayers singing of Psalms and reading portions of the holy Scriptures most proper unto the subject there is ordinarily a Sermon made to us expresly upon the death of our Lord Jesus Christ or upon the Sacraments themselves The Sermon is followed with an excellent Prayer also upon the same subject
the Prayer being ended the Minister doth read unto us publickly with a loud voice the Liturgy of the Lords Supper which contains principally the manner wherein St. Paul relates that our Saviour did institute it with another exhortation well to prepare our hearts Lastly the Minister taking the bread and the wine saith with a loud voice The bread which we break is the body of Jesus Christ or the communion of the body of Jesus Christ The Cup which we bless is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was poured out for your sins Or the Cup which we bless is the communion of the bloud of Jesus Christ for either one or the other of these expressions are indifferently used the grace of God according to us not being tyed unto the words After which in distributing the Bread to the communicants the Minister saith again unto them to raise and awaken their zeal and their faith This is the body of Jesus Christ which was broken for you and in giving the Cup This is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was shed for your sins or some words to this sense And last of all when every one hath done communicating we conclude with thanksgiving in singing the song of Simeon and with the Blessing wherewith the Minister dismisseth the Assembly This particular account is onely for them who are misinformed of our practice We appeal here to the conscience of all sincere persons in the first place if it be not true that this manner of celebrating and of giving and receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not most conform unto what we see in the institution of our Lord and unto the practice of the Apostles and of the first and purest Ages of Christianity and without comparison more conform than that of the Church of Rome And in the second place which of these two manners of communicating is the most proper to excite and nourish true piety according to knowledge and a sincere remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ There remaines no more as to this point but to touch the Bishop of Condom's last consideration in which he saith That we do not deny the real communication of the substance of the Son of God in the Lords Supper so that there is a necessity that we should agree that the remembrance doth not exclude all manner of presence but only that which doth strike our senses We do not indeed say that remembrance excludes all manner of presence for on the contrary it is said of remembrance as it is of Faith that it makes things to be present that are at the greatest distance There is a moral presence and a mystical presence a presence of object of virtue as they speak which are not incompatible with remembrance For example the Heavens the Stars though almost at an infinite distance are in some sort present with us not onely because we see them but by the influences which they cast upon us We onely say that remembrance excludes a presence real personal and as it were physical local and immediate under the colours and exteriour appearances of Bread and Wine such as the Church of Rome teacheth of the Body of Jesus Christ in the hands of a Priest or in the mouth or stomach of the Communicants But because both here and elsewhere the Bishop of Condom grounds himself upon what he saith that at the same time that we deny this real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament we teach a real participation of his Body and that upon this occasion the Bishop of Condom here makes an express Article of the Exposition of our Belief upon the reality what we will say of our Doctrine upon this point shall serve for an answer unto all the consequences which he draws both here or elsewhere To remove at once XII An examination of the exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of our Doctrine of the Reality saith the Bishop of Condom the equivocations which the Calvinists use upon this matter and to make appear at the same time how near they are come unto us though I have undertaken onely to explain the Doctrine of the Church It will be expedient here to add the exposition of their Judgement Let us be permitted before we enter upon this Article to complain that the Bishop of Condom doth at the very first here begin to treat us in termes prohibited by the Edicts of our Kings at the same time also charging us with affected equivocations which in no wise agree with the simplicity of our Doctrine we are apt to think that it is the heat of dispute which hath here insensibly transported him beyond his natural equity and we would not at all concern our selves to take notice of these sorts of expressions especially in a time wherein we are accustomed unto more strict dealings if the least thing of this nature proceeding from a person of his dignity and for whom we have a great esteem were not more remarkable and of worse example than all the bitterest things that might be said by other persons This Article of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise though more copious is for all that obscure and intangled full of repetitions of digressions and of comparisons odious and besides his business which he makes of us to Socinians Arrians Nestorians Pelagians insulting over us upon words contrary to what appears manifestly to be our sense But we will leave the words and apply our selves to the things In the first place instead of giving a plain and intire Exposition of our Belief and afterwards drawing the consequences which he had a mind of he onely gives it by shreds and so perplext that it cannot be understood He onely reports here and there some of our Expressions separate from each other endeavouring therein to find some obscurity and afterwards he grounds upon this obscurity which himself hath made the equivocations and contradictions which he imputes unto us We need onely take notice what course he takes in the very entrance to make a judgment that he speaks after his own manner and not after ours Their Doctrine saith he hath two parts the one speaks onely of the figure of the body and bloud the other speaks onely of the reality of the body and bloud Divisions are wont to give order and to give light unto discourses but this on the contrary doth at first sight so little set forth our Doctrine that our people would not understand it The explication which follows is neither juster nor more natural Instead of laying down what we believe affirmatively he layes down indeed but onely the negative part of our Belief Wherefore we shall do better to explain our own Doctrine our selves in a few words with relation unto what the Bishop of Condom sayes hereof This shall be that plain Form of Doctrine which he saith we have not and shall serve for a general refutation of all that he hath produced We will not forbear answering afterwards
body of the Lord and the fruit of his death So all this consequence hath no foundation In summe wherefore will the Bishop of Condom have two different acts of Faith for uniting us to the body of Jesus Christ and having part in the fruit of his death when it is evident that all is done or might be done by one and the same act of Faith Or wherefore may we not even assert two divers acts of Faith if they be conceived severally by one of which we unite our selves to Jesus Christ himself and by the other unto the fruit of his death without any need to imagine for all this two different communions one spiritual by Faith and the other with the mouth of the body or real as the Bishop of Condom speaks Lord draw us after thee lift up our hearts unto thee come dwell in our hearts by the operation of thy Spirit Behold here an act of Faith which unites us to Jesus Christ if the Faith be such as it ought to be and this union of its self suffices to effect that we should also have part in the fruit of his death by this one act of Faith Lord impute to us thy righteousness and grant that being united unto thee by a true and lively Faith we may have a share in all thy benefits and in particular in the fruit of thy death Behold here nevertheless a second act of Faith which regards directly the part that we have in the fruit of his death The difference of these two acts of Faith properly will be onely in the distinction of the objects which Faith doth propose unto it self in the one it proposes the body of the Lord and in the other the fruit of his death and in one and the other there is a real communion with our Saviour but spiritually and by Faith But no man adds the Bishop of Condom 〈◊〉 112. can conceive what difference there is betwixt participating by Faith of the body of our Saviour and to participate by Faith of the fruit of his death This is now the second or third time that the Bishop of Condom will conceive all Let us see if he will be of the same mind upon the Article of Transubstantiation which follows immediately after this But after all how can he say that no man can conceive any difference betwixt participating by Faith of the body of the Lord and participating by Faith of the fruit of his death for the body of the Lord and the fruit of his death are evidently two different things and there is no one who cannot easily conceive that there is great difference betwixt partaking of the one and partaking of the other whether it be that it is done by one act of Faith or by two though besides the manner of partaking of one and the other be always the same to wit spiritually and by Faith Nevertheless it is here that the Bishop of Condom cryes out again in finishing this Article Who can but admire the force of truth c. And afterwards How ingenuously do the Calvinists confess unto us the truth they would have been strongly disposed to acknowledge the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament in figure onely and the participation of his Spirit onely in effect laying aside these great words of Participation of proper substance and many others which express a real presence and which onely cause perplexities c. Let the Bishop of Condom also in his turn ingenuously confess the truth he has been very strongly disposed and many other intelligent persons in the Church of Rome it may be will be so with him to confess that there is onely in the Eucharist a true and real communion of the body of Jesus Christ as we do acknowledge that that which we there have spiritual is very real laying aside that great word of Transubstantiation as he had laid it aside in the first Edition of his Treatise that of concomitance by virtue whereof the Cup was cut off from the communion and many others which imply manifest contradiction and which cause much more perplexity That which is truly admirable in this place is that the Church of Rome teacheth as we do a spiritual communion of the body of Jesus Christ and the Bishop of Condom himself said the very same but now in express terms that in the Lords Supper there is a communion pa. 112. by the which we partake spiritually of the body of our Saviour and of his spirit altogether in receiving the fruit of his death which is properly the result of our Doctrine and these words of participation and of substance with which the Bishop of Condom pleaseth himself and which he useth for all that himself signifie nothing more The onely difference that there is betwixt him and us is that we stop here and that he besides this spiritual communion of the body of our Lord supposes another real communion as he speaks that is with the mouth of the body which we cannot allow of Here in another prospect he insults over us as if there could not be any other communion of the body of our Lord but that onely which is had by the mouth of the body and that without admitting of that there can nothing be acknowledged in the Lords Supper but the figure of his body and a participation of the Spirit excluding thus this other spiritual communion of the very body of Jesus Christ which he but now confessed Let it be judged by this and by all the rest which hath been said as well of our opinions as of his way of arguing who it is that creates perplexities or that contradicts themselves whether it is the Bishop of Condom or us that use equivocations about words And Lastly if he hath so much subject of Triumph upon this Article as he seemed to imagine to himself XIII Of Tran. substantiation of Adoration and in what sense the Bishop of Condom saith that the Sacrament is a sign The Bishop of Condom will slide along more sweetly upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and upon the Adoration of the Host than he did in opposing our Doctrine There he attacqued and attacqued Adversaries as he calls them to whom they hardly give the liberty to defend themselves We may say any thing against them they will answer but by halfs Here he must defend himself and he hath against him Scripture reason evidence of the senses and the common notions of Christianity imprinted in conscience which are other kind of Adversaries more terrible speaking malgre opposition each in his order and speaking so loud as they put the ablest to silence The Bishop of Condom when he speaks of our Belief though all things be very simple in it is not satisfied if he cannot conceive even the very manner whereby the Holy Ghost doth really unite us unto Jesus Christ notwithstanding the great distance which there is betwixt us and him which nevertheless the Roman Church doth perpetually teach
doth it appear that after the death of our Saviour the same Apostles did adore the Sacrament Acts 2.46 It is onely very plainly said that they went breaking bread from house to house The Authours of the Office of the Holy Sacrament who have carefully collected all the passages of Ecclesiastical Doctours of the twelve first Centuries which they thought might favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament have caused to be printed in great letters all the passages where there is any word that seems to intimate that at any time or in any place the Sacrament was adored but they have neither found the word adore nor the thing signified by the word in the three first Ages and no more but the word onely in three or four places in all the following Ages until towards the Tenth Age. And which is more in those very places the adoration doth not relate unto the Sacrament but unto Jesus Christ believed â—o be in Heaven whence they cannot conclude a soveraign adoration of the Sacrament with greater reason than they grant we have when we alledge â—o the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome an infinite number of places where their Authors teach the adoration of Images If they will have it that in these places where their Authors speak of Images this term of Adoration doth not signifie a soveraign and absolute Adoration such as is given unto God but onely a veneration or relative honour as they speak why will they not allow that in those few places where those other Authours speak of the Sacrament the adoration whereof they speak may not also be an honour or â—eneration which is rendred unto the sacred Mysteries It is true as the Bishop of Condom affirms that the Church of Rome not acknowledging any other substance in the Sacrament but the body of Jesus Christ we do not wonder that those who are so perswaded pay it their adoration but from thence it self that they believe that adoration is a necessary consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that they doe not find this consequence neither in the Scripture nor in the practice of the Apostles and the times which are not in question there is much reason to admire that this same relation which the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do find betwixt these two Doctrines doth not at least give them some suspicion of them both or rather that it doth not at last incline them to reject both the one and the other XIV The Sacrifice of the Mass The same thing may be said of the Sacrifice of the Mass which the Bishop of Condom also regards onely as a consequence of the Real Presence and of Transubstantiation for there is nothing like it to be found in the Scriptures nor in the first Ages of Christianity In those first times they preached the Gospel and celebrated the Lords Supper in the very same simplicity wherein it was instituted but they said neither Low Mass nor High Mass nor Mass without communicants nor Mass unto such or â—uch an intention nor for all these particular ends for which Masses are â—aid at present nor Lastly the Mass â—n a Language not understood by the people At this time all this is practised in the Church of Rome and all the World knows that in this Church the Sacrifice of the Mass is as the principal and most important part of their Religion The propitiatory Sacrifices were distinguished from the Eucharistical Sacrifices Heb. 13.15 Psal 50.14 Psal 4.6 in that the former were to appease the Deity and to make expiâ—ation of sins by the bloud of the Offerings and the others to render thanks to God for blessings received or to â—rave others We do not deny but that the Lords Supper or the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice in a large and general sense as the Scripture saith a Sacrifice of prayer and a Sacrifice of praise and that Alms deeds 〈◊〉 a sacrifice but the Church of Rome which alwayes forceth things unto extreams will have the Mass to be a true sacrifice We think saith the Bishop of Condom that this oblation makes God become favourable pa. 130. and therefore it is that we call it propitiatory Thus it is that there needs but a thought and a word to make a propitiatory Sacrifice and in this sort Prayer it self wherein we offer our selves unto God and believe that we render God favourable unto us is a true propitiatory Sacrifice We will not here press what the Apostle sayes Heb. 9.22 that there is no true propitiation or remission of sins without effusion of bloud We will onely observe that it is a rule of Divine Right touching the Sacrifices that not onely the Sacrifices but the Altar it self is of greater dignity and of greater holiness than the oblation and that the oblation it self is sanctified by the Altar here they will have a Sacrifice where it is known that the man who is the Sacrificer Exod. 29.37 Mat. 23.18 19. is but a worm of the Earth the Altar a stone or Table made by mans hand and the offering the proper Son of God God himself If they who have read this part of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise would attentively cast their eyes at the same time upon those passages of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles which speak of the manner in which the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted and celebrated we are perswaded that if they never so little keep their minds free and in a condition to judge without prejudice they will find so little agreement of the one with the other that it may be said they are two Gospels But this will appear yet more particularly XV. The Epistle to the Hebrews if we rightly take the mind of the Apostle in the Epistle which he writ unto the Hebrews the force whereof the Bishop of Condom endeavours here also to elude To which purpose we need onely to follow the rule which the Bishop of Condom hath himself proposed to know whether 2 Doctrines are opposit which is to see if the propositions of the Apostle do sufficiently agree with those of the Bishop of Condom For expedition sake we will here mention onely two of the Apostles both which speak almost the same thing to see if the Doctrine of the Bishop of Condom be conform thereto St. Paul comparing the ceremonies and the figures of the Old Covenant with the truth which is found in Jesus Christ and designing to shew how the sacrifices of the Old Testament were abolished by the sacrifices of Jesus Christ he saith amongst other things Heb. 9. â—â— that Jesus Christ is not entred into places made with hands but that he is in Heaven where he appears for us before the face of God The Bishop of Condom teacheth on the contrary that Jesus Christ is every hour upon the altars made with hands and that it is there that he appears for us before the
Apostles themselves or at least of the following age which speaketh clearly and in express words we have received such or such a Doctrine from the mouth of the Apostles or we hold it from those who have received it themselves from the Apostles own mouth for who can doubt but that there should be at least some formal and express Testimony to establish by the sole authority of Tradition a Religious Worship or any Important Doctrine that should binde mens Consciences But in conclusion behold here what the Bishop of Condom gives us in stead of such a proof pa. 159 160. the certain sign saith he that a Tradition comes from the Apostles is when it is embraced by all the Christian Churches without possible finding out the beginning of it c. And a little after It not being possible adds he that a Doctrine received from the beginning of the Church can proceed from any other origin but that of the Apostles The Bishop of Condom indefinitely layes down this Maxim not daring to apply the same unto any of the Traditions of the Church of Rome as knowing that this character indefinite as it is doth not suit with them To judge rightly of his argument and of the consequence which he would draw from thence this is the order into which we ought to put his propositions It is impossible saith he that a Doctrine received from the beginning of the Church should proceed from any other origin but from the Apostles A Doctrine embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the beginning cannot be shewed is necessarily from the beginning of the Church Therefore such a Doctrine proceeds from the Apostles Now the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning therefore they proceed from the Apostles These are the Bishop of Condom's propositions in the order wherein they ought to be and in this order it is plainly evident that there is not one of them that is absolutely true or rather that is not false in the terms in which it is conceived In the first place this proposition is not true that it is not possible that a Doctrine received from the beginning oâ— the Church should come from any other origin but from the Apostles except it be shewed that it was then received gâ—nerally of all the Churches and that the Apostles did not oppose themselves against it for the Apostles themselves testifie that in their times the Mystery of iniquity began to work 2 Thes 2.7 1 Tim. 1.7 that there were false Teachers amongst the Christians and by consequence false Doctrines so that it was no way impossible that these same Doctrines were not followed or revived in after-times â—s were many Heresies which appeared in the first and second age of Christianity But the second proposition is yet less true that a Doctrine embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the beginning is not to be found should necessarily be from the beginning of the Church or that it should come from the Apostles which is the same thing in the Bishop of Condom's sense for those that make any reflexion upon the manner by which changes come in either in the Laws or Customs of States or in the Worship and Doctrines of Religion very well know that the time and original of these changes cannot always be shewn Much less therefore should it be said that these Establishments must necessarily be from the first foundation of these States or Religion Who could shew the Original of all the false Traditions of the Jewes Should it therefore be said that they were all from the beginning of the Jewish Church or the unwritten Word of Moses Amongst Christians themselves for example the use of giving the Sacrament unto little children was without doubt generally observed De pec in rit remi ii 1. ca. 20 24. Et l. 3. contr Julian c 4 Sâ—ss cap 4 because St. Austin openly has taught it as an Apostolical Tradition that it was absolutely necessary and that without it little children could not be saved The Council of Trent saith upon this subject that the Fathers which followed this custome ought to shew their reasons for it nevertheless it is one of those Doctrines whereof we cannot shew the beginning and for all that none dares to say at this time that it was received from the beginning of the Church or that it came from the Apostles otherwise the Council of Trent would not have dared to abrogate and abolish it as it hath done In fine the third proposition which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose in his Argument is yet less true than the two former namely that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which separate us from her communion are Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches without possible shewing the beginning thereof Can the Church of Rome shew any thing near this of any one of those Traditions which are in dispute betwixt us for example of Purgatory of the invocation of Saints of worshipping of Images of Relicks of the Cross of auricular confession of Indulgences of the Pope's Supremacy of private Masses of the adoration of the Host of the communion under one kind of religious Worship in an unknown Tongue or in fine of any of the particular Doctrines which separate us from the Roman Church For not to speak of the present time in which it is evidently known that there are many of the Christian Churches as well in the East as the West which do not embrace all the Doctrines of the Church of Rome it is also a thing most certain and notorious that it is not in the power of the Church of Rome to shew I will not say of all these Doctrines in general but of any one of them alone that it was embraced not onely in all times but scarcely at any time by all the Christian Churches On the contrary there are a great number of these Traditions of the Church of Rome whereof their first beginnings may precisely enough be shewn for example the worshipping of Saints and Images auricular confession the communion under one kind and many others and of all in general excepting that of praying for the dead whereof there is some mention to be found towards the latter end of the second Age. Our Authours have very solidly made appear that there is no footstep of them to be found in the three first Cajetan Thom. Pâ—râ—z Peron Beat. Rhen. Gab. Biel Roffen-Lombard c. Gab. Biel lect 57. upon the Canon of the Mass Quia sine du bio Ecclesia habet Spiritum sponsi sui Christi ideo non errans The most knowing of the Church of Rome themselves do not dissent as to the greatest number of Traditions as hath been noted before of worshipping of Saints of Images of confession of Purgatory and indulgences and they maintain not these sorts of Doctrines but by the general Maxime of the
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
somewhere what we are to understand by the Church It is a great name indeed and for which we have a true and sincere respect but is not this to abuse names and to neglect the things as those who cryed alwayes the Temple the Temple If they will have us to render submission let them tell us at least to whom we should render it The Question is to know in whom this infallibility and this absolute and supreme Authority resides of whom we should receive these final judgments without examining them Is it the Pope or the Council that is infallible and unto whom we must thus blindly submit The Pope either above the Council to approve of it and to give it all its authority or onely in the most eminent place of the Council for order amongst the Councils themselves Is it all the Councils together that are infallible and whose decisions we must follow or onely those Councils which have determined according to the allowance of the Roman Church Those of Constantinople and of Francfort which prohibit the worshipping of Images or the second Council of Nice which in express terms enjoins the adoration of them or in fine that of Trent which onely saith to serve and worship and give unto them the honour that is due And as to this Council of Trent it self ought we to take all together as they do in Spain in Italy and Germany or reject all which is contrary to the just Liberties of the Gallican Church as is done in France And in fine how can we be assured that the Spirit of God presided in some of their Sessions and not in all that they have erred in one point and that they are infallible in another These are not questions made at pleasure or School questions as the Bishop of Condom would insinuate to palliate the profound silence that he keeps upon all these things neither are they like many other questions really useless whereof nevertheless the Council hath made so many Articles of Faith These are important matters which ought not onely to be known for curiosities sake but which are to be practised and by consequence well understood to regulate our conscience The Bishop of Condom proposing to himself to make a compleat Exposition of his Belief one would think it had been more agreeable to his design to let us have understood it a little plainer and more openly than to have conceald all the difficulties throughout and onely endeavoured to create doubts upon some points of ours for the positive clear and sincere proposal of a Doctrine doth perswade it much better than do Disputes Let us return notwithstanding to what the Bishop of Condom imputes to us they saith he speaking of us upbraid to us our submission to the Church Yes a blind submission without examining any thing as the Bishop of Condom proposes or rather a slavery directly contrary to the Spirit of Christianity a submission in fine of body rather than of mind which tends to the plunging men into that gross ignorance from whence Christianity had delivered them for as to a free and voluntary submission and with knowledge such as the Scripture requires being very far from blaming it we teach it we preach it and God be praised we practise it But you your selves also saith the Bishop of Condom have this weakness and blind submission which you upbraid to us When persons are charged with Opinions which do openly contradict one another if the proof be not clear it destroys it self Now what is the Bishop of Condom's proof You have saith he put your Faith into the hands of four Ministers so far leaving it to them that you have given them full power to alter your confession of Faith These are the Bishop of Condom's words and not ours this is a commentary upon the decree of the Synod or a consequence which the Bishop of Condom draws thence aggravating the terms and not at all the sense nor expressions of the decree it self The decree gives power to agree and conclude upon all points which shall come under consideration and not to change the confession of Faith These are different terms and though it might be presumed that such reconciliations are never made without using some temper which may content mens minds on the one part and the other and that this overture of reconciliation was founded upon the project of some confession of Faith which was to be common yet to restrain some opinion which was not essentially necessary or even to change or sweeten some expression would not be to change a confession of Faith In all likelihood the Bishop of Condom will not disapprove of this design for therein lyes all the subtilty of his Exposition to sweeten what he can and to let alone what he cannot sweeten The difficulty is onely in keeping a mans self within just bounds not too much to weaken the sense in sweetning and not to loose too much by silence that is to say that men abandon not Worships or Doctrines which do visibly tend to the glory of God nor change the nature of a Doctrine by reducing it unto sweeter terms It belongs to the Bishop of Condom himself and to those who shall read his Treatise to judge whether he hath kept himself within these just bounds as it would have belonged unto our Churches to have judged whether their Deputies had kept themselves if it had happened that they had entred into conference with the Lutherans To conclude as it is princâ—pally upon the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that we have differed from the Lutherans so upon that it self we agree both they and us upon the foundation and admit not of any Article that destroys it according to the principles which are common to us with them It would seem that if the Lutherans could not intirely have accorded to our Doctrine they would have reduced theirs unto what the ablest amongst them do which is not to determine the manner how Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament VVe believe say they his presence and we feel therein his efficacy but we are ignorant here of the manner And in this case it may plainly be seen that they approached nearer unto us than we did to them in admitting them hereby to our communion without having made for all that on our part any essential alteration in our confession of Faith But some will say how comes it to pass that you speak here so moderately of the Lutherans Your first Reformers were not at all so reserved it is very well known how far the sharp words which they wrote one against another did proceed They whose institution you follow found that our Doctrine of Transubstantiation was more consequent than the real presence of the Lutherans and testified in some sort a greater aversion for that of the Lutherans than for ours Whence comes it then to pass that you have admitted them into your communion The consequence would conclude and why will you not
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
and Practices that aggrieve us are at best but private opinions that may be laid aside This is it they ordinarily discourse to us to make us inclinable to themselves and this is in particular the sense and Soul of the Bishop of Condoms Treatise more openly indeed and more expresly in the Manuscript Copy and what hath been cited of the first Edition but yet clearly enough in the second On the other side the profession of Faith declares in so many words that we must believe and receive all the traditions all the institutions all the customs of the Roman Church which doth comprise generally all that is known and that is not known It saith yet more expresly that we ought to pray unto Saints to Worship their relicks have Images of Jesus Christ of the Virgin and of all the Saints and render them the honour and the Worship due unto them admit of Seven true Sacraments and embrace all the Council of Trent hath said and decided touching justification and by consequence the merit of Works satisfactions Purgatory and all the Doctrine of Indulgences believe the conversion of all the substance of the Bread into the body of Jesus Christ and the conversion of all the substance of the Wine into his bloud which is called Transubstantiation and that all Jesus Christ is intirely received and the true Sacrament under the one and the other of the two species Lastly that we are to believe that the Church of Rome is the Mistress of all other Churches to swear intire obedience unto the Pope of Rome and generally to receive all other things whatsoever that are taught by the Councillâ— and particularly by the Council of Treâ—â— which doth comprise generally whâ—â— a man will all that is in dispute Tâ—â—â— is what is formally required of thâ—â—â— that present themselves before the Câ—rate the Bishop or the great peâ—tentiary now let all these Articles 〈◊〉 Faith be compared with the stile 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Condoms Treatise and afterwards Let it be maturely judged if this be one and the same Doctrine For our parts being very far from aggravating the difference there is betwixt the one and the other or from having a mind to make a greater distance betwixt us and the Church of Rome than there is indeed We believe that there is nothing more to be desired for the good of Christian Religion and by little and little to bring mens Spirits mutually nearer that that all those of the Roman Church generally would at least accommodate themselves freely openly unto these sort of sweetnings that the Bishop of Condom doth and that instead of heightning the differences that there may be between his exposition and the Doctrine which they commonly profess they would Write on the contrary in the same sense that he doth and clearer and fuller yet than he hath Written that Lastly they would all say at least as he doth that this is alone the true Doctrine of the Roman Church Religion at least would find it self discharged and freed of a great many Doctrines and practises which do nothing but burthen consciences this would be in sundry points as one of those insensible changes which have come into the Church but a change for the better and an happy beginning of Reformation that might have much more happy consequences The BULL of our moâ—… Holy Lord Lord PIUâ— by Divine Providencâ— Pope the IV. of thaâ— Name Touching thâ— Form of the Oath 〈◊〉 Profession of Faith Translated out of Latine PIUS Bishop Servant of the Seâ—vants of God ad perpetuam 〈◊〉 memoriam for a perpetual record THE duty of our Apostoliâ— Charge which lies upon 〈◊〉 requires that those things which the Lord Almighty for the prudent guidance of his Church has vouchsafed from Heaven to inspire in the Holy Fathers assembled in his Name we make hast to put in execution without delay for his praise and glory Whereâ— therefore according to the Order of the Council of Trent all whom it shall henceforth happen to be set over Cathedral or Superiour Churches or to be provided for by any dignities or Canonries of the same or any other whatsoever Ecclesiastical benefices having cure of Souls are bound to make publick profession of the Orthodox Faith and to engage and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Roman Church We willing also that the same be observed by all whosoever shall be disposed of in Monasteries Convents Religious houses or other places whatsoever of whatsoever Regular Orders even of the Military ones by whatsoever name or Title and to this purpose that what concerns our care may not be the least wanting to any that a profession of one and the same faith may be uniformly exibited by all and that one certain form of it may be known unto all do by power Apostolick strictly injoyn and command by the tenour of these presents that this very form annexed to these presents be published and that it be received and observed all the World over by those by whom according to the decrees of the said Council it does belong and by all other persons aforesaid and that under the penalties by the said Council enacted against offenders in this case the aforesaid Profession be Solemnly made according to this and no other form in this tenor IN. Do with firm Faith believe and profess all and every things and thing which are contained in the Symbol of Faith which the Holy Roman Church useth viz. Articles of Faith taken out of the Symbols of Nice and Con stantinople I believe in one God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the onely begotten Son of God and brought forth of his Father before all Ages God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made of the same substance with the Father by whom all things were made who for us men and our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and made man was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilat suffered and was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended into Heaven sitteth at the right hand of the Father and shall come again with Glory to judge both the quick and the dead of whose Kingdom there shall be no end And in the Holy Ghost the Lord and giver of Life who proceedeth from the Father and the Son who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified who spake by the Prophets And one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins and I look for the Resurrection of the dead and the Life of the World to come Amen The Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other observations Articles of Faith touching the matters in Cotroversie which the Romish Church hath added to the Antient and constitutions of the same
to proceed too far in the question What hath been here said which is onely taken from the nature of Sacraments the style of the Scripture may suffice to shew the Bishop of Condom that it is not without reason that we do understand these words This is my Body in a mystical and figurative sense let us now see what he will produce on his part for the proper and literal sense His discourse doth reduce it self unto two propositions the first is That it is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh and the other that there is no natural relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ and that our Saviour having onely said these words This is my Body without explaining them as he did ordinarily other figurative expressions the law of discourse as the Bishop of Condom speaks doth not permit that they should be taken otherwise than in a proper and literal sense As to the first touching our Saviours intention it is a good principle provided it be well established for Jesus Christ can do what he will what he wills is done as he wills and the Bishop of Condom hath no need to inlarge upon the power of God as he doth in what follows nor to seek for reasons why Jesus Christ would not give us his flesh in its very Form but under the covert of Bread that so we might not conceive an horrour at the eating it These are the common places of the first inventors of this Opinion and of all those who have followed them and yet nevertheless all this hath nothing of solidity because on the one hand we concern not our selves to examine whether God is able to do the thing but whether this thing is possible in it self or if it doth not imply a contradiction and on the other if it be matter of horrour to eat true humane flesh the covert may diminish this horrour but it cannot quite take it away especially if a man were certainly perswaded that he did truly eat humane flesh and besides that such flesh for the which he should have a tender veneration But to conclude how is it that the Bishop of Condom proves that this is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh As the Jewes did eat the victims which were offered for them Pag. 81 82 83 c. so saith he Jesus Christ our true sacrifice would that we should effectively eat his flesh c. The Jewes were forbidden to eat the sacrifice offered for sins to shew them that the true expiation was not made under the Law and for the same reason they were forbidden to eat bloud because the bloud was given for the atonement of souls but by a contrary reason Jesus Christ wills that we should eat his flesh to shew that the remission of sins is accomplished in the New Testament and that we should drink his bloud because it is poured out for our sins Thus it is that instead of giving us reasons the Bishop of Condom gives us onely comparisons relations agreeances as if it were not a known rule that comparisons and examples may serve well to illustrate things already proved but can never prove the things which are in question It is true that the sacrifices of the old Law were the figure of the sacrifice which our Lord Jesus Christ offered upon the Cross that is to say that as they offered up sacrifices which were types of Jesus Christ our true sacrifice to appease the wrath of God Jesus Christ offered up himself to reconcile us unto his Father This is the true accomplishment of the figures of the Law and the principal and true relation which there is betwixt the sacrifices of the Old New Testaments therefore also it is that our Saviour giving up the Ghost said these last and great words Joh. 19.30 It is finished The Apostle St. Paul which makes a parallel between the sacrifices of the Law and of Jesus Christ insists onely on this point that under the Law the sacrifices were to be reiterated every day whereas Jesus Christ offered himself onely once and we see not that the Holy Scriptures pursue any farther mystery in it To press further these sorts of relations and differences to make new doctrines and to bring all that is said of the sacrifices of the Old Testament to be said or denied of the sacrifice of the New this would be to make Articles of Faith Worships upon consequences wherein humane reason would have too much share But nevertheless if they will have it so that our Lord Jesus Christ intended there should be a relation betwixt all the circumstances of the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Eucharist which is the representation of the sacrifice that he himself offered upon the Cross we are so far from thinking that all the relations and all the differences which are to be found betwixt the one and the other should be understood according to the letter that we know the intention of the Gospel is opposed to the letter of the Law of Moses that whereas the Jewes under the Law did servilely and carnally ty themselves to outward and material actions it concerns Christians under the Gospel to take all spiritually and lift up their souls hearts unto Heaven Jo. 6.63 The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth The Jewes laid their hands upon the heads of their sacrifices and did eat of them to signifie the union which they had with them This is true we lay hold on Jesus Christ by Faith we eat him by Faith according to the speech of St. Austin Believe and thou hast eaten The Jewes did not eat the sin-offering nor did they ever eat of the bloud we eat the mystical body of our sacrifice and we drink his mystical bloud and as the expiation of our sins is actually made by his death upon the Cross so our Saviour sets before our eyes the sacred Symbols of his dead body as seals of his grace and of the remission of our sins See here how we might enlarge for our edification the relations and differences which we may find in this case betwixt the Old and New Testament betwixt the sacrifices of the Law and the divine sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ These considerations are right pious and conform to the spirit of the Gospel but as to the main that which is called a Doctrine and a Worship and an Article of Faith as is the eating of the proper flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ should not be founded upon relations and agreeances but upon a clear and positive revelation Pag. 84. But this eating saith the Bishop of Condom here ought to be as real as the expiation of sins is actual and effective under the new Covenant In the first place it must be observed here that the Bishop of Condom doth perpetually mistake himself upon the term of Real in the question of
those which he hath already accomplished for our Salvation Wherefore it is not to be wondred at if he gives unto every one of us the proper substance of his Flesh and of his Bloud he doth it to imprint in our hearts that it is for us that he took them and that it is for us that he offered them as a sacrifice And a little afterwards he adds Our adversaries have very well seen that simple figures and simple signs of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ would not satisfie Christistians accustomed to the bounty of a God which gives himself so really unto us therefore it is that they would not be accused to deny this real participation of Jesus Christ in their Sacrament Behold here the reason that he saith hath forced us to approach unto the Church of Rome but Christians are then either very ingrateful or very difficult to be contented if they are not satisfied that Jesus Christ died for them that these sacred signs assure them of it and that they serve them as an effectual and saving means to raise their hearts and their Faith unto Jesus Christ They have then the ears of their understanding close stopped if it be true that these sacred signes joyned unto the Word do not yet tell them plainly and loud enough that Jesus Christ became man for them that his body was broken for them and that lastly his bloud was poured out for the remission of their sins The Opinion which the Church of Rome adds that Jesus Christ is present being very far from better setting forth his death incumbers as I may so say the conception of it as hath been shewed before because it represents the body of Jesus Christ in a living state under dead signs and moreover the way of giving these signes in a language not understood or ill understood makes much less impression in the hearts than the way wherein it hath been shewed they are given amongst us But in fine where is the reason of this consequence The Love which Jesus Christ hath for us induced him to dye really for us therefore it is the part of this Love to give really unto us the proper substance of his flesh and of his bloud What bond or what necessary consequence is there of one and the other of these things From what time and in what place hath it been known or usual that it is a sign of love in any to give his proper flesh to eat to them whom he loves I do not say onely by morsels as some possibly may say the Capernaites understood the words of our Saviour but in any manner or under any coverts under which it may be put For although God doth testifie his Love unto us by incomprehensible effects though his ways are not our ways grace doth not for all that destroy nature his ways are above our ways and even contrary to what ours have of evil and irregularity but not at all to what they have that is good and right which proceeds from God himself What there is incomprehensible in the effects of his Love is nothing as to the manner as we may say but to the degree or rather the infinity of this Love it self For as to the other point we in some sort conceive all that this infinite Love makes him do for us by a comparison though very imperfect of what an intire Love doth make us doe one for another To pay for another is the true office of a Friend and to dye for another hath always passed for a true test of Love Joh. 15.13 Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his Friends To dye for an Enemy is a generosity that hath had no example amongst men before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ dyed for us who were originally his creatures but were become his enemies This is that which this Love hath in it incomprehensible and nevertheless this Love which was foretold by the prophets was accomplished in the time that was foretold But neither prophesie nor reason nor humane manners ever yet taught us that Jesus Christ should give us his real flesh to eat with the mouth of our body as a token of the Love that he hath for us and when Jesus Christ said unto his Disciples John 6. That he would give his flesh for the life of the world and that whosoever did not eat his flesh had no life in him seeing that this word offended many it doth not appear unto us that our Saviour condemned their surprise but onely that he presently explained this speech unto them and that he made them understand that they should receive it spiritually The Gentlemen of the Roman Church do always fall into this error that although they do not directly deny that the communion which we have with Jesus Christ by Faith is very real of its self sufficing to salvation as they do confess in particular of the communion which we have with him either by the Word or by Baptism nevertheless always when there is any mention of the Mystery of the Eucharist they have this impression reigning in their minds which overbears all others that Jesus Christ cannot give himself really unto them but when they believe that he gives his proper flesh to be eaten with the mouth of their body It is from this apprehension that the Bishop of Condom faith here again that Jesus Christ makes as tast his bounty by things as effectual as those which he accomplished for our salvation as if the Faith which he gives as and the communion which we have with him by his Spirit even out of the Eucharist were not all of these effectual things and as effectual as it is true that he dyed for us Let us now come unto the Objections which the Bishop of Condom makes against some of our expressions to prove that we are approached nearer unto the Church of Rome pa. 146. In the first place he seems to contradict himself for he says afterwards that the more we explain our selves the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we upon this Article the more contrary we find our selves one to another he gives also the reason for it which is that the more we consider the consequences of Transubstantiation the more we are discouraged with the difficulties which sense and reason discover in it This doth not import that we are approached nearer Besides there are very few persons who should hear him say that we are approached unto the Church of Rome but would believe that the reason is because some of our late Synods or some of our more famous modern Doctours had relaxed somewhat of our Doctrine either in the sense or in the expressions In the mean while there is nothing less than this All this accusation bears onely upon three diverse Expressions drawn from our Catechism which is as it is known the ancient explanation of our Doctrine The Bishop of Condom
The Bishop of Condom takes for an absolute power that which is onely a condition and a limitation to the power of the Synod Religion requires amongst us that we should presume God presides in these Assemblies and the rules of justice and decency yea even custom permit not that we should explain our selves otherwise But upon the whole every one sees that the sense of this Form is as if one should say we promise to submit our selves unto what you shall resolve if as we hope of you through the grace of God you take his Word and his truth for the rule of your thoughts and conduct and thereby make appear that it is indeed his Spirit that presides in your consultations and governs you and that you do not proceed by canvasing and Cabals or by humane motives and interests as the Roman Catholick Authours testifie it was done in the latter Councils of Constance and of Trent If it be saith the Bishop of Condom a perswasion founded upon an humane presumption can any man in conscience promise to submit himself to what shall be resolved And if this perswasion hath its foundation in a certain belief of the assistance of the Holy Spirit given unto the Church the Catholicks in this case demand no more We answer hereby that it is properly neither the one nor the other and that it is not worth the labour to make upon it a double-horned Argument for so we commonly call dilemma's this perswasion is a judgment of charity which makes us hope well of the intentions of those that are deputed unto these Assemblies and that is sufficient to warrant our promising to acquiesce unto what they resolve alwayes provided that they have Truth and the Word of God for the Rule of their consultations Upon which it is to be observed though it may be too long to insist upon what is so clear in it self that our Synods in the whole are made up onely of divers Deputies which have all of them their Letters in the same Form almost after the same manner as have they which are deputed unto the Provincial Estates so that things being equal amongst them it cannot be said that this condition and this limitation can wound the dignity or just authority of these Assemblies These Letters missive are properly nothing else but proxies or if the term please better in some measure resemble Letters and Commissions which Princes give to their Ambassadours or their Envoys the ordinary style whereof is that they have intire trust and confidence in the integrity fidelity and ability of them whom they send giving them full power c. Nevertheless with this condition understood all along that they govern themselves by their orders and instructions and that if they conform themselves thereunto whatsoever they shall conclude shall be confirmed The difference betwixt these sorts of Letters of deputation and proxies in matters of business and the Commissions of Princes is onely in the quality and style of them who speak Princes speak as Princes men of business like men of business and Churches in a style pious and Christian so that these Letters missive not onely give merely a limitted and conditional power but the resolutions themselves which are made by virtue of this power though conformable to the Scripture according to the condition expressed in the Letters pass not for authentical decrees till they are brought unto the Churches and the Churches have as it were ratified them by their acquiescence and when it falls out that any Church or any particular persons find any difficulties therein the business is remitted to further consideration in the following Synods because it is a constant principle of Christianity according to us that Faith is a firm perswasion and by consequence that mens minds must be cleared and rendred capable as far as may be of the truths which are taught that is to say made to taste the Doctrine with a certain sweetness and not have the belief imposed by constraint and absolute dominion What we have now said of these Letters missive serves for answer to the Bishop of Condom's last objection touching the resolution taken up at the Synod of St. Faith for there is throughout the same foundation or rather the same pretence The Bishop of Condom strains himself more on this matter than on the others and again insults over us here as if we were of bad Faith and of little accord amongst our selves Let us see what the matter is In the year 1578. there was an overture of reconciliation made betwixt those that are called Lutherans and our Churches of France by means of a Form of confession of Faith which was to be general and common unto all the Churches The Churches of this Kingdom were desired to depute good men authorised by the Church with power to treat accord and decide all the points of Doctrine and other things which might concern that Vnion Upon this proposition the Synod decreed that if the confession of Faith proposed were sent time enough it should be examined in each Provincial Synod and in the mean time the Synod deputed four Ministers with Letters and ample proxies of the Ministers and Elders and of Mounsieur the Vicount of Turenn and in case they should not have time enough to examine this confession of Faith in all the Provinces they remitted it unto the prudence of those Deputies to accord and conclude of all points which should come under deliberation whether of Doctrine or any thing else that might concern the good the union and the ease of all the Churches This is in summe the resolution of this Synod as the Bishop of Condom reports it and it is plain here that there is nothing that is not agreeable to reason and custome In the mean while he proceeds with a kind of admiration To this head doth the false squeamishness of the Gentlemen of the pretended reformed Religion come they have now thus and thus often upbraided to us as a weakness that submission which we have for the decrees of the Church which is nothing else say they but a society of men subject to errour and mean time they have not feared to commit their Faith into the hands of four men with so large abandoning their own judgment that they have given them full power to change the very confession of Faith which they propose at this day to all the Christian World and that as a confession of Faith which contains nothing but the pure Word of God and for which they have said at their presenting it to our Kings that an infinite number of persons were ready to shed their bloud To this head in fine is the Bishop of Condom's evil reflexion come they have saith he thus and thus often upbraided to us as a weakness the submission which we have for the decrees of the Church In the first place it had been just that the Bishop of Condom would have been pleased to have told us at least