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
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
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
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
Victor an Authour of the Twelfth Century In the last the Bishop of Condom doth expunge this Opinion which doth not only shew too much uncertainty touching the ground of such a religious Worship but a kind of incompatibility to address Prayers to Saints if it may be supposed that those Prayers be not at all understood 5. In the First Edition speaking of Images he drops these words that the Church of Rome doth not so much honour the image of an Apostle or Martyr as she doth honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the image This imports that properly there is no honour rendred unto the Image it self or that there is but very little given unto it as they usually tell us in common discourse but this doth not speakfull enough according to the Roman Pontifical and according to the Council of Trent and much less according to the general practice of the Romish Church Therefore it is that in the second Edition the Bishop of Condom expresses himself more strongly When we do honour the image of an Apostle or Martyr Page 32. our intention is not so much to honour the image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the image 6. In the First Edition concluding the Article of the worship of Saints Page 33. There is nothing saith he more unjust than to say that the Church doth make all devotion to consist in worshipping Saints because on the contrary she doth not impose any obligation on particular persons to apply themselves to that practice He adds We have already observed the words of the Council of Trent which is content to term it good and useful without teaching that it is necessary or that it is commanded So that it plainly enough appears that the Church condemns none but such as separate through disrespect or a spirit of dissension and revolving This doth intimate plainly that a man may very well omit the worship of Saints because the Church doth not impose any obligation 〈◊〉 practise iâ— and that the only condemns such as reject it through a spirit of scorn and dissension In the Last Edition the Bishop of Condom reforms all this Article on the one hand he strikes out these two Propositions that the Church doth not impose any obligation to practise the worship of Saints and that the worship of Saints is not a practise necessary nor commanded as if he no more intended to speak the same thing or at least that he would not speak it so plainly or absolutely as he had done but leave it more undetermined and on the other hand whereas he had said the Church condemns only those that reject this practice through disrespect or a spirit of dissention he puts by disrespect or by errour By which means supposing that we are in an errour as the Church of Rome doth suppose this Last Edition returns us under the curse from which we were freed by the First Page 47. 7. In the First concluding what he had said of Justification he adds that it was needless to know more to be a sound Christian which doth ease and free Religion from a great many nice distinctions from Decisions Canons and Anathema's of the Council in regard the Bishop of Condom laies aside all these Doctrines thinking those he hath touched to be sufficient In the Last he changeth this opinion into another quite different he only saith that this Doctrine is enough to shew Christians that they ought to refer unto God through Jesus Christ the glory of their salvation so it is that the Bishop of Condom doth often charge what follows without regarding what went before from whence one may judge what can be the sincerity of his arguing or to be plain from the same propositions he draws very different conclusions 8. In the First he saith Page 5â— that the Church hath alwayes acknowledged the two different wayes of obtaining remission of sins which he proceeds to explain and the First by the pardon which God gives us of them the other by another grace and another absolution which the Church grants in form of judgment by imposing upon us works of penance In the second he finds that it is not in his power to shew that the Church hath at all times taught this Last manner of applying the remission of sins which makes him to curtail this proposition Page 56. 9. In the First being about to finish the Article of Indulgences he concludes that this matter relates principally unto Discipline which words are very remarkable because both parties do agree that matters of Discipline may be taken away or changed according to the circumstances of times and places In the Last he saith not any more that it is the matter of indulgences which relates unto Discipline but only the manner of dispensing them â—2 63 10. In the First he saith upon the Sacraments that they confer grace by virtue of the external action done upon us In the Last he joins unto the action the words that are pronounced â—e 65 11. In the First speaking of confirmation he saith that all Christian Churches have retained this custom ever since the Apostles dayes accompanying the imposition of hands with the holy Chrisme In the Last he hath supprest these words since the Apostles dayes as if they had been said through inadvertency Page 74 in the First Edition but in stead of this expression accompanying the imposition of hands with holy Chrisme which gave to understand that the use of Chrisme was joined unto the imposition of hands from the time of the Apostles he hath put making use also of holy Chrisme having very well perceived without doubt that at the least the use of Chrisme was not brought in till a long time after the imposition of hands and that it is not near of so ancient a date as the Apostles days 12. In the First P. 76 85 92 96 30. upon the Eucharist he speaks of our Belief in several places as if we believed a real presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and this under the pretext that we say that we really partake of the Body of Jesus Christ All his consequences are grounded upon this supposition In the Last he plainly doth perceive that this supposition was easily destroyed by a bare disavowing it on our parts because never any of us have said that we believed the real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This is the reason that in the Last Edition speaking of what we believe he useth every where the terms participation or of real communion in stead of that of real presence which he used every where in the First which is very different because the one doth give way to suppose that the Body of Jesus Christ must come down from Heaven into the Sacrament to be present therein and we say onely that by Faith we lift our hearts to Heaven where he is and that it is so
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
all those that have been baptised as they have said in express termes of the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Supper Goe and Baptise c. and Doe this in remembrance of me And the gift of miracles by the imposition of hands being ceased so many Ages past This is the Opinion of some French Protestants at present but as to the perpetual expediency of such imposition of hands as our English Church uses in Confirmation while not made a Sacrament See the first Reformers whom the Reformed French most follow Calvin on Hebr. 6. And in his Institut lib. 4. c. 19. Sect. 4 and 13. And Theod. Bez. on Hebr. 6. Diodat on the same it cannot be seen why nor how at this time they should make an institution of that which was onely an extraordinary practice and a practice in a word which depended upon a gift that is ceased The Church of Rome following the natural inclination of men which carries them not onely unto an imitation or emulation but a desire to surpass one another hath miscarried almost every where in this regard that of the least occasions she hath made pretexts to establish Worships or Ceremonies as if she had nothing to doe but to frame a Religion of all the usages or of all the actions ordinary or extraordinary of our Lord and of his Apostles Our Lord being tempted of the Devil did fast Fourty dayes in the Wilderness to convince the World that he was truly God-man It must be from hence that the Church of Rome also by degrees is come to make particular Fasts not onely from time to time as was practised at the beginning of Christianity but even a Lent entire of Fourty days We find that once or twice the Apostles healed the sick using a kind of anointing from hence there must be made a Sacrament of Extreme Unction of which we shall speak hereafter And here because there are found some examples of an imposition of hands which wrought miracles they have also by degrees made a grand Establishment of Ceremonies called Confirmation and when once this Establishment was atchieved the Council made a true Sacrament and a Law of this Ceremony charging perpetually Religion and mens consciences with a yoke that neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear The same is also to be said against the Sacrament of Pennance Pennance and Sacramental Confession and of Sacramental Confession On the one hand the Prophets and Apostles seeing men in Idolatry in Errour or in Sin said unto them Repent ye or doe pennance for it is the same thing Amend and be converted unto the Lord which is an-ordinary exhortation in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament And on the other our Lord Jesus Christ sending his Disciples after the Resurrection to preach the Gospel breathing upon them said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins soever ye remit Joh. 2â— 22 they are remitted and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained This Interpretaâ—â—on is â—tely the opinion Calvin and his followers This imports evidently no more but the Power and Commission which Jesus Christ gave them in general before he left them to announce pardon of sins unto those who believed the Gospel and on the contrary to announce the Judgments of God against those who rejected their Doctrine For it sufficiently appears that these words of Jesus Christs did not exclude the Apostles inspection into the manners of men but on the contrary charged them with the conduct of the Churches and it is evident by the occasions on which our Saviour spake them and by all other circumstances of time and place that on those occasions our Lord had regard principally unto the preaching of the Gospel In the mean while behold here the use which the Church of Rome hath made of this Doctrine or the consequence that she hath drawn from it We do believe saith the Bishop of Condom that it hath pleased Jesus Christ that those who have submitted themselves unto the authority of the Church by Bapptism and who have since violated the Laws of the Gospel should come to undergo the judgment of the same Church at the Tribunal of Pennance where she exercises the power which is given unto her of remitting or retaining of sins We believe that it hath pleased Jesus Christ c. but upon what ground Every one sees what resemblance there is of the repentance whereto the Prophets and Apostles exhorted the people and of the power the Apostles had to announce Remission of sins in preaching the Gospel unto this Tribunal of Pennance which is not imploid formally in preaching to the people or in bringing men to receive the Doctrine of the Gospel or to repent and be converted to God I say not formally but in subjecting every Believer in particular to go to declare all his mortal sins by name one after another with all their aggravating circumstances to crave for them pardon or absolution of the Priest and to undergo all those satisfactory pains of Prayers by number of Fasts of Pilgrimages and the like of which we have spoken before and all this under pain of cursing and eternal damnation against those who being able to make this confession Dall de Paen. Satisfact c. shall fail to make it Our Bookes are full of very solid reasons which plainly prove two things the one that this Doctrine very far from being grounded upon those words of the Scripture which have been alledged is directly contrary to the Word of God and that it is injurious to his Wisedome to his Goodness and to the merits of the Death which Jesus Christ hath suffered for us as hath been already made appear upon the matter of Justification and of Satisfactions whereof the pennance confession of the Church of Rome is only a dependent Dall de Confess Morin in his Comment Hist of Penn. 4. The other that this pretended Sacrament of Repentance of auricular Confession and Absolution are things unknown in the First ages of Christianity as the Roman Catholick Doctors accord and besides very different from the Pennance and Satisfactions spoken of in the Fathers It will be needless here to report all the reasons Beatus Rhenanus upon Tertullians Book of Repentance because they may be seen in the places where this matter is treated of expresly neither will it agree with the design we proposed to be brief and attemperate as much as might be to the desire and manner of the Bishop of Condom There shall onely be here made a short reflexion as well upon the First Canons of the Council as upon what the Bishop of Condom hath set forth whereby it may be easily judged of all the rest In the first place is it not a strange thing that the Council doth oblige all to believe as an article of Faith under pain of Excommunication and Damnation that Confession Absolution and Satisfaction as they speak are not onely a necessary
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
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
as well as we and yet it is the onely thing in our Doctrine which humane understanding cannot well comprehend Here where there are depths of difficulties the Bishop of Condom will not perceive any at all his reason shall not at all molest him and though there is no dispute of what God can do for God can do what he pleaseth but of the meaning of his words onely without looking unto his will which are the onely rule of our Faith as well as of our actions the Bishop of Condom will tell us mysteriously that his Faith is attentive unto this infinite power which is onely properly the object of our Admiration and of our Adoration What the Bishop of Condom speaks touching Transubstantiation may be reduced unto four distinct assertions which yet shall onely be touched as we pass because this is a pure controversie which is throughly treated of in all our Books The first is pa. 123. that the appearance of bread and wine ought to continue in the Sacrament the second that the Church of Rome doth not therein acknowledge any other substance but that of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ into which the bread and the wine are changed and this is it saith he Ibid. pa. 124. which is called Transubstantiation The Bishop of Condom had abstained from this term of Transubstantiation in the first Impression of his Treatise having onely put it as a title in the Margin to note the Article or the matter of Controversie which he treats of in that place neither did he formally say upon this Article that the bread and the wine were changed into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but he adds both the one and the other in the latter The third Doctrine is That the reality doth not hinder but that the Eucharist may be a sign as to what it hath exteriour and sensible that in the contrary the sign doth necessarily carry the reality with it The fourth and last that the presence of the body being certified by this sign they of the Roman Church make no scruple to pay it their adorations As to the first of these Assertions because it was agreeable Pa. 12. saith the Bishop of Condom that the senses should perceive nothing in this mystery of Faith it was not necessary that any thing should be changed relating to them in the bread and wine in the Eucharist The Bishop of Condom onely says that it was agreeable and yet he doth but say so without proving it He looks upon it as a thing established and that onely because elsewhere he hath glanced on this in passage that it was agreeable that God should give us his flesh and bloud wrapped up under a strange form to exercise saith he pag. 84. our Faith in this Mystery and to take away the horrour of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud in their proper form But what a reason is this to establish such a Doctrine as this To exercise our Faith in this Mystery There is nothing so strange which might not be made pass under such indefinite pretexts of conveniency or agreeableness as if the Mystery of the Sacrament had not sufficient matter besides to exercise our Faith without supposing the change of the bread and wine into the proper flesh and proper bloud of our Saviour against the formal testimony of all our senses The flesh and bloud say they would induce horrour if we were to eat them in kind and it is certain that the very thought onely of eating humane flesh doth naturally produce this effect but it hath been already elsewhere touched that the coverings as they speak may lessen his horrour but not intirely take it away And if the Church of Rome be at last accustomed unto this notion it is but onely in tract of time and in favour of that mystical and figurative expression in St. John Cap. 6. who faith to eat the flesh of Christ instead of saying to believe in him unto which mystical expression the Church of Rome hath made the â—â—teral sense to succeed But Lastly the difficulty is not to prove that the appearances of bread and wine do remain or to shew a reason why they remain but to shew that there is nothing else but the appearances that remains for in the first place Jesus Christ and the Apostle St. Paul who is his instrument say that after the benediction it is bread and wine and in the Apostles times and in the first times after the Apostles there was nothing spoken of but only bread and wine And in fine God having given unto us our senses to know all corporal things which are their true object and which depend on their jurisdiction their testimony being the foundation of almost all Notions and the proof which Jesus Christ made use of to establish the truth of his humanity and of his Resurrection can the Bishop of Condom that will understand all conceive that God intended that in an act of Religion which he established to help our weakness and unbelief in presenting figures or outward objects to our senses can he conceive I say that God intended that there should be in this act of Religion a perpetual and manifest contradiction betwixt the testimony of our senses and our Faith that Faith should continually tell us that what we see and touch are onely false appearances of bread and wine and that on the contrary our senses should continually tell us that they be truly bread and wine pa. 123. Faith saith the Bishop of Condom attentive to the word of him who doth what he pleaseth acknowledgeth not here any other substance but that which is designed by the same word This is the Bishop of Condom's second assertion which is as it were the support of the former But it hath been already touched that the matter in hand is not to know whether Jesus Christ be true in what he saith or whether he be able to do what he saith it were the heighth of impiety to doubt of the one or the other The onely point in hand is touching the sense of what he hath spoken This may here again be called giving the change through favour of the profound regard which ought to be had for the great authority and power of our Lord. But is not Faith attentive unto the word of him which saith Joh. 6.41 10.11 15.5 8 12 10.7.4 14. Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11. I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the good Shepherd I am the Vine the Light the Gate a Fountain of living water c. and who in the institution of the Sacrament it self saith bread and the fruit of the vine and who saith Drink ye all of it and do this holy Ceremony in remembrance of him until he come as the Apostle speaks And yet for all that the Faith of the Church of Rome doth not stop at the sound of these words but she taketh the sense either in
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
of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did onely speak to his Disciples and that that did not concern the people but they have at last sufficiently seen that it was needful to seek other excuses because that there as well as almost in all other places the Disciples did represent the body of the faithful and that Jesus Christ saying that his bloud was shed for many he intended that all those for whom it was shed should have part in this Sacrament Behold here what the Bishop of Condom puts in the place of it Jesus Christ saith he being really present in the Sacrament the grace and blessing is not tyed unto the sensible forms but unto the proper substance of his flesh which is living and quickning because of the Divinity which is united unto it Therefore it is that all those who believe the Reality ought not to be troubled to communicate under one kind onely because they thereby receive all that is essential to this Sacrament with a fulness so much the more certain in that the separation of the body and bloud not being real as it hath been said there is received intirely and without division him that onely is able to satisfie us We need onely to observe at the first view how these expressions are wrapped up to discern how wide this Doctrine is from the simplicity of the Gospel the Bishop of Condom would say in a word that the body is not without the bloud and that he that believes he receives the body ought to believe that he receives the bloud also under one and the same form by reason of what they call concomitance that is to say that the bloud doth accompany the body But in the first place this is constantly to suppose what is in question to wit that the body of Jesus Christ is really under the form of bread and by consequence the reasons which we have against the Doctrine of the Real presence do directly oppose this particular doctrine of taking away the Cup. 2. Who hath given this right to the Roman Church to seek for reasons to take away so considerable a part of the Institution of our Lord 3. And to conclude what ground hath the Bishop of Condom to conclude as he doth that the separation of the body and bloud is not real for our Lord doth separate them in the Institution he saith of the bread apart that it is his body broken for us and of the wine apart that it is his bloud shed for us and he also commands severally that we eat of the bread and drink of the Cup. The Bishop of Condom saith without any more ado that the separation of the body and bloud is not real and if any would know how he proves it he adds coldly pa. 132. as it was said That is elsewhere upon occasion then also he insinuated by the way that this separation is mystical and figurative without giving the least reason for it any more than he doth here and it is enough according to him to make this separation not to be real that he insinuate it without more ado with an as it hath been said Nevertheless if the bread and wine be really made the body and bloud of our Lord according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome by what reason can one part of the Institution be taken to be real and the other part pretended to be mystical and figurative Or rather if the separation of the body and bloud be onely in the mystery and figure wherefore will they not also grant that the bread and the wine also is but the mystery and the figure of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ for there is no more reason for the one than for the other Our Saviour hath said this is my body which was broken for you if these words this is my body ought to be understood in a proper and real sense there cannot any good reason be given wherefore these other words that follow to wit which is broken for you ought not also be taken in the same sense as those that went before but that the first should be understood in a proper sense and they that follow in a mystical and figurative sense is unreasonable For as our Saviour said that the bread is his body he saith that this body is broken it is the same Lord speaks that is in a word if it must be understood that the bread is really made the body of Jesus Christ it cannot be understood but that it is also made his body really broken I mean his dead body and his body really separated from his bloud So that what way soever we take the Doctrine of the Church of Rome it manifestly contradicts it self for either the bread is not really the body of Jesus Christ or if it be his body it is his body broken and in a state of death which cannot be said without impiety because our Lord is risen from the dead and death hath no more dominion over him And Lastly suppose that his proper body were in the Sacrament in a state of death and separate from his bloud this separation being real it could not be said as saith the Bishop of Condom that the Sacrament is received fully and without division under one kind onely nor by consequence that the Cup ought to be taken away The Bishop of Condom not being able to justifie this retrenchment uses two reasons to endeavour to make it indureable The first is that it is not at all through contempt that the Church reduces the Faithful to one kind onely but on the contrary that it is to hinder the irreverencies that the confusion and negligence of the people had caused in the last Ages reserving unto her self the re-establishment of the Communion under both kinds according as it should be most useful for increasing of peace and unity But is not this in some sort to say that our Saviour did not foresee these Irreverencies when he commanded we should all drink of the Cup or that foreseeing them he was so far from preventing them that he authorised them by this Commandment These Irreverencies were much more to be feared in the Apostles times and in the first Ages of Christianity than in the time when this innovation was made for in the first times the Christians were persecuted they communicated as they could from house to house and communicated at the holding the Feasts which they called Feasts of Charity The Apostle complains of disorders committed in those Feasts saying 1 Cor. 11.20 that was not to eat the Supper of the Lord and yet the Apostle never thought of taking away the Cup because of these Irreverencies They must be very much prejudicate who see not the true reason why neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostle nor the Church during the space of above a thousand years ever thought of taking away the Cup and that yet the Church of Rome at last be thought her self to take it away The
Bishop of Condom gives this reason himself unawares in effect saith he the taking away the Cup or the communion under one kind is a consequence of Transubstantiation Before Transubstantiation was believed there was a great regard had for the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but the Irreverencies were not of the same consequence nor so scandalous as they have been since it was caught that the bread and the wine are no longer the same which they are seen to be but that they are the proper body and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ for it is well known that it is onely since Transubstantiation hath passed into an Article of Faith that the Cup also hath been taken away Therefore also whatever hopes the Bishop of Condom seems to give that the Communion under the Form of the wine may be re-establisht for the benefit of peace and re-union in all appearance we are to a wait a long time this re-establishment if it be at all to be expected whilst the Doctrine of Transubstantiation shall subsist The benefit of re-union which hinderd not but that the Council of Trent did elude this re-establishment in a time when it was demanded with so much instance will never in all likelihood prevail against the inconvenience of Irreverencie which will alwayes continue that is to say it will alwayes be a great scandal ever and anon to see spilt that which is believed to be the proper bloud of the Lord and the simple reflexion which may be made on this consequence may alone be capable to open at last the eyes of the people upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self The other consideration which the Bishop of Condom brings for the taking away the Cup is this that he saith our own Synods have not judged that in the Lords Supper we ought to deny the bread unto those who by a natural aversion cannot suffer the smell or taste of wine and that by consequence the communion under both kinds is not essential unto the Sacrament and that it is in the power of the Church to give therein onely one But who sees not the extreme difference that there is betwixt this useage of our Churches and that which the Church of Rome ordains and practises and that there can no good consequence be drawn from the one unto the other Our Synods are so far from allowing to themselves the authority of taking away any thing from the Institution of our Saviour or of making any the least change therein that they have kept themselves so religiously to his words as to have made it a question whether the bread should be given unto them who onely through this natural aversion which they cannot overcome forbear to take the sign of the wine and they give not the bread it self but in the manner which the Bishop of Condom reports causing them who cannot drink wine to make a protestation that it is not through disrespect and obliging them to put the Cup to their lips to avoid scandal The Church of Rome on the contrary takes away the Cup from whole Nations that desire it reseraving his advantage to the Clergy lone or to Princes or other considerable persons whom she thinks good to gratifie and all this apparently as a new means to increase and confirm her authority over Princes and people THE SIXTH PART Behold now at length the Question of the Eucharist dispatcht we leave it unto those who are pleased to take the pains of reading this Answer to make reflexion themselves what the importance of the thing requires I was unwilling to have insisted so long time upon it but this Article alone makes us the moyety of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise it was impossible to clear all and to be shorter We shall make a speedier dispatch with the three points which remain to wit Tradition the authority of the Church and the authority of the Pope as well because they are general matters upon which there are express Volumes as also because the Bishop of Condom himself passeth very lightly over the Questions of Tradition and of the authority of the Pope and that Lastly â—t is known that these three Questions will be treated of throughly by a better hand in a Work which will â—hortly be published and particularly the Question of the Church which is the chiefest upon which in a manner depend the two others We will confine our selves here to examine in a few words what the Bishop of Condom layes down upon each of these three Articles and we are perswaded that we cannot betâ—er confirm our Doctrine in opposition unto that of the Church of Rome than by shewing how weak â—nd vain are the reasons of a person â—f so much address and reputation as â—t is In the first place as to Tradition XVIII The Word writen and unwritten The Bishop of Condom here again â—akes an indirect advantage in â—he expressions in calling it as he â—oth the unwritten Word a name â—hat prejudges the Question by the â—hing it self which is in question He â—ntends to suppose thereby that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which we admit not at all are nothing else but the very Doctrine of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles as well as the Holy Scriptures with this onely difference that the one was put into Paper by the Evangelists and by the Apostles and that the other was committed to the memory of the first faithful from whom the Church of Rome pretends that they have been delivered from hand to hand unto our Age and by consequence that we ought to receive Traditions with the same Faith and submission as the Scriptures for so it is that the Bishop of Condom gives us to understand in two places pa. 159 160. Sess 4 c. Can. Script and that the Council of Trent it self decides it in proper terms Now we have no thoughts of denying that what our Lord and his Apostles said by word of mouth ought to be of the same authority as that which the same Apostles afterwards left in writing that is not at all the question but we say that our Lord having put it into the hearts of the Evangelists and of the Apostles to write the Gospel which they preached these holy Doctours being immediately directed by the Holy Spirit have not done the thing imperfectly or by halves that by consequence at the least they did not omit any thing essential unto Christian Religion and that Lastly their writings do contain all that is necessary for the Service of God and for the rule of our manners St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17 as yet regarding principally the Scripture of the Old Testament said unto Timothy that the Scripture is proper for instruction Mat. 1â— 3.9 for correction for reproofe that the man of God may be perfect and accomplisht unto every good work By greater reason both the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament being conjoined are able to do
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
of our communion are the onely persons nay the first that have neither spoken nor written nor again and again exclaimed against the abuses and enterprises of the Court of Rome The Liberties of the Gallicane Church the quarrels of our Kings with the Popes the concordates the Remonstrances of Bishops the Acts of Parliaments the decrees of the Colledge of Sorbon the appeals unto Councils Finally the Writings of a great number of Catholicks even in these last times clearly enough shew that we are not the onely men nor the first nor the last which have cryed down the excessive authority of Popes Let us proceed now to the second accusation which is that after having decryed this authority we have been constrained to establish it amongst our selves We have no mind to say that there is not any Order established amongst us but the Bishop pretends that we give this infallibility authority unto our Synods which we will not acknowledge neither in the persons of Popes nor in the Assemblies of Councils and he means the same afterwards that we have given it even to excess and with a kind of abandoning our right To this purpose he reports in the first place an Act of the Synod at Charenton in 1644. upon the case of those who were called Independants Secondly an Article of our discipline in the title of Consistories Thirdly the Form of Letters Missive which are given to those who are deputed to go to the Synods which was drawn up a the Synod held at Vitre in 1617. Fourthly and Lastly a resolution that was taken at the Synod of St. Faith in 1578 upon occasion of an overture of accommodation which was proposed betwixt those of our communion and those of the confession of Ausburg which are called Lutherans This is yet another passage of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise wherein he useth his utmost endeavours and where he hopes to finde the greatest advantage When he treats of his own belief that is soon passed over he saith but a word in clouded terms he scarce proves any thing and makes himself no objection and if haply it be taken notice of that he useth to do so he will say that it is because he makes onely a bare exposition and that he hath proposed to himself neither to speak all nor to prove what he speaks But when once or twice he is come unto some points of those of Christian Religion where there seems to be some difficulty in our doctrine as well as in that of the Church of Rome then it is that he displayes all the subtilty of his arguring then it is that he enlarges and insults over us as if we onely could hang down our heads This is the part of a feeble Enemy which keeps himself inclosed and onely makes some small sally at certain times The first difficulty which the Bishop of Condom here creates us is no difficulty The Synod in 1644. doth censure the Independants because they would not acknowledge the authority of Assemblies and Synods and it gives the same reason which is cited by the Bishop of Condom that this proceeding is so prejudicial to the State as well as to the Church that it opens the door unto Irregularities and extravagancies that it takes away the means of remedy and that in fine if it might have place it would produce as many Religions as there are parishâ—s or particular Assemblies This plainly imports that in the communion of our Churches we love Order and that we acknowledge the authority of Assemblies and Synods as a means conform to the practice established by our Saviour and by the Apostles and very proper to preserve the purity of Faith and to maintain unity But this implies not any wise that we have attributed a kind of infallibility or a soveraign and absolute authority unto our Synods such as the Church of Rome attributes unto Popes and unto Councils which is the onely thing in question It is as if one should say that in acknowledging the just authority of Magistrates for maintaining of Laws and the service of the Prince we did allow that the Magistrates are above the Laws or have right to give what Orders they please how contrary soever those Orders may appear to be against the service of the common Master so that at no time and in no case the people might forbear the observance of these Orders to continue faithful unto their Soveraign The Independants fault was not in that they admitted of nothing but the Word of God to be a rule of Faith they did not absolutely reject Synods themselves for afterwards in 1653. they held an Assembly numerous enough in London where they composed their confession of Faith Their fault was chiefly in this regard in that they would not submit to have amongst them a constant and permanent rule of having conferences and Synods whereby they kept the door open unto all sorts of confusion as well in State as Church voluntarily depriving themselves of one of the best outward means which God hath given to men to prevent corruption and Schisms But saith the Bishop of Condom it is principally in matter of Faith that the Synod would establish a dependance inasmuch as the greatest inconveniency that it observes whereinto the Faithful might fall by independency is this very point that Schisms might be formed or as many Religions arise as there were parishes But if this consequence were good it might also be said that Faith and Religion do depend on the civil Magistrate because if the people were not restrained by the authority of the Magistrate they would live each according to their own fancy even in matters of Religion it self Faith and discipline mutually hold hands Faith works a love of order and discipline order and discipline serve to keep up the purity of Faith But they are nevertheless things very different and it cannot be said for all this that Faith depends upon order or upon the Orderers whether they be civil or Ecclesiastical To conclude we do not at all deny but that even in matters of Faith we ought to depend upon the guidance of Synods and of Pastours on the contrary we do recommend teachableness deference and submission the Question even here is but of the more or less The point in hand is to know whether the Popes or Councils be infallible and by consequence whether we ought to depend blindly on their power so that at no time nor in any case we may refuse to submit to their Bulls and to their Decrees and we have made evident that there have been many times and occasions upon which the Church of Rome her self hath not wholly received all the Bulls nor all the Decrees of Popes or of Councils The second thing that the Bishop of Condom objects against us in this case is that Article of our Discipline where it is said that the Consistories should endeavour to appease the differences which may arise upon any point of Doctrine and Discipline
admit us also But the Church of Rome doth not so take it she concludes why do you not come unto us though the sequel of the Argument doth not admit of it However the case stands piety and charity require that Christians should be moderate if it appears that we are more moderate herein than our first Reformers it is not that we do presume to have more piety nor more charity than they but it is that commonly divisions are fiercer in their first beginning than in process of time and greater betwixt persons that are nearer than betwixt those who are at the greatest distance This very thing that they of our communion seemed to have more heat against the Lutherans upon the particular point of the Reality is a sign that they were the better united one with the other in all the other points We pretend not wholly to excuse this heat nor the other failings unto which the first Reformers might be subject We have a customary saying amongst us that we canonize not any Wherefore without equalling them unto the Apostles unless it be for what there was humane in the one and the other might it not be said of our Reformers what the Apostles themselves said of themselves that they were men subject to like passions with us All the World knows what is usually said upon this subject that Paul and Barnabas those blessed Apostles were so sharp in words to each other that they came even to a provocation and a quarrel for the Scripture term amounts to so much and that it must needs be that they parted asunder And if the Example of Saints which the Gentlemen of the Roman Church have canonized themselves affect them more it is known how Stephen Bishop of Rome did excommunicate St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage Firmil Ep. ad Cypria Hieron Ep. ad Theoph. Alex. Cum. oper Theoph. how St. Jerome was incensed against St. Chrysostome and many other Examples of discord amongst great persons But not to instance so far back in the Ages past we have seen in our dayes how far contention hath proceeded betwixt persons esteemed the most pious and eminent of the Roman Church upon points of Doctrine The circumstances of the times wherein our Reformers lived and their temper if any please may possibly in some measure excuse the too much heat wherewith it may be thought they defended themselves whether against the Church of Rome or against their own Brethren if it be supposed in the main that their intentions were upright and sincere as also the like temper and other circumstances may excuse the heat which hath appeared betwixt these two parties if it be granted upon the main that this heat was a right zeal After all it is but upon the sole point of the Transubstantiation of the Gentlemen of the Roman Church the Consubstantiation of the Lutherans that some of ours may have said that the Doctrine of the former is more consistent that is to say that if the Reality of the presence must be believed it would seem here is more reason according to the speculations of the School to believe that this presence is effected by the way of change of one substance into another than by the way of impanation or by the co-existence of two substances of the Body of Jesus Christ and of the Sacraments one with the other and that supposing that the Body of Jesus Christ was really present there would be more reason to adore him in the Sacrament it self than not to adore him there at all But upon the whole these indeed are onely speculations of the Schools and private Opinions and as these consequences of the Lutherans taking them aright are onely consequences which no wayes engage those who onely admit the Lutherans into their communion so it plainly appears that when the heat of dispute leaves the mind in an entire liberty in this regard we have been able to admit them into our communion without its being any reason that we should pass unto that of the Church of Rome which joins unto Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass private Masses the adoration of the Host and the taking away of the Cup as inseparable consequences of this Doctrine not to speak again here of the Service in an unknown Tongue and the other worships and practices which separate us from her However the case stands in this regard this being the state of things betwixt us and the Lutherans it is evident that our Churches entring into conference with them exposed not themselves unto any essential alteration in our confession of Faith so far were they from putting it into the hands of Compromissaries whether we regard the thing it self or the form of the power which they gave unto their Deputies for as to the thing when any difference is treated of the power which is given how ample soever it be regards onely the difference it self and extends not it self unto other things which are not in dispute For Example when Princes give power to their Ministers to make Treaties of peace and of alliance we do not say that they put in compromiss the fundamental Laws of their Kingdoms There was so little to be feared on our side in our reconciliation with the Lutherans that it was seen we made no difficulty to admit them into our communion assoon as some amongst them desired it of us And as to what concerned the power it self that could not expose us any thing the more for besides what hath been said of the state of our difference with the Lutherans the Synod knew before hand the plain state and foundation upon which the reconciliation was to be made that is to say in a manner the very sense and form in which it was judged that a confession of Faith might be made that might be common with us and the Lutherans It is well known that on such occasions the power is relative and as it were restrained unto the memoires and instructions which are given to the Deputies If it falls out that they abuse it they who gave it are acquitted upon their disapproving what they have done the shame of the disapprovement falls properly upon them there is no blame at the most but onely of the bad choice that was made of their ministry In a word what removes all difficulty in this regard is that these sorts of accords howsoever the Deputies conclude must be approved and ratified by those who granted the power before it can be said that they have truly consented If the project of this reconciliation had further succeeded and that a Form of confession had been agreed upon it had been necessary according to the practice of our Discipline that all that had been accorded by the Deputies at the conference should have been sent and communicated to our Provincial Synods to the end that the Deputies of Provincial Synods might afterwards have met in a National Synod there all would have been maturely considered with a