that we partake of Jesus Christ very really indeed but spiritually nevertheless the Bishop of Condom correcting the term of real presence which he imputed unto us leaves the same consequences which he had seemed upon this Idea prejudging that the belief of the real participation ought to have the same effect as if we believed the presence it self This is called to take away the Foundation and leave the Building in the air or at best but to underprop it by putting in some other support in the place of the Foundation 13. In the First among the many consequences that he draws from our believing a real participation after having said that it must needs be that besides the spiritual communion of the Body of Christ c. we must admit of a real communion of the Body of the same Saviour Pag. 100. he concludes that the Church of Rome would be satisfied would we make this confession which is of very great consequence because that this conclusion doth free us from Transubstantiation and shelter the Lutherans that believe the reality In the latter some other consideration made the Bishop of Condom stifle this opinion pa. 112. and put another altogether different in the place they will never saith he explain this truth in any the least solid manner if they do not return unto the opinion of the Church pag. 109 14. In the First the word Transubstantiation is seen in the Margin in form of a title or article as well as in the Last to mark out the matter of Controversie treated of in that place but throughout the Exposition there is nothing in any place of the Article nor the term of Transubstantiation nor this Proposition that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ In the latter pag 124 after these words the true Body and the true Bloud of Jesus Christ he hath added into which the Bread and the Wine are changed which is that that is called Transubstantiation pag. 115. 15. In the First speaking of the Mass he concludes onely that it may reasonably be called a Sacrifice which implies also that one may safely forbear giving it that name In the latter he changeth this conclusion into another far different for he affirms strongly that there is nothing wanting in the Mass to be a true Sacrifice which yet are two consequences very different to be drawn from one Doctrine that is to say that what the Bishop of Condom proposes in this place for the proving that the Mass is a true Sacrifice doth prove no more than that it may reasonably be called by this name 16. In the First p 132 treating of the belief of them who are called Lutherans the Bishop of Condom speaketh generally of the whole Party that they reject the adoration of the Sacrament which is true In the latter pag. 148. he reduces this general Proposition unto a particular one which destroyes the former for he onely saith that some Lutherans reject the adoration without the appearance of any ground which should oblige him to the making such restriction 17. In the First pag. 113. he draws this consequence from the Doctrine of the real presence that he that can endure the reality which saith he is the most important and most difficult point may easily digest the rest In the latter he bethought himself that this rest comprehends Transubstantiation Adoration the Sacrifice of the Mass and the taking away the Cup and that they are not things so easily believed wherefore he speaks a little slacker that enduring the reality we ought also to endure the rest pag. 165. 18. In the First touching the authority of the Holy Chair he saith that their profession of Faith doth oblige them to acknowledge the Church of Rome as Mistriss and to tender true obedience unto the Pope as Sovereign In the latter he wraps up this Soveraign power in more general terms which conclude nothing positively we acknowledge saith he this Sovereignty speaking of St. Peter in his Successors unto whom is due for this reason the submission and obedience that the holy Councils and Fathers have alwayes taught 19. Upon the same point he saith in the First Edition that the rights of pretensions of the Popes which the Reformed Ministers are alwayes alledging to make that power odious are not of the Catholick Faith nor at all set down in the Profession of Faith In the latter he saith in more indefinite termes that as to those matters of which there is dispute in the Schools c. it is not at all necessary to speak thereof seeing they are not â—f the Catholick Faith 20. To conclude pag. 518. in the First Edition the Bishop of Condom drawing to the conclusion of his Treatise saith that the Fundamentals of Salvation are the adoration of one only God Father Son and Holy Ghost and a belief in one Saviour c. In the Latter he recalls this so absolute Proposition plainly seeing that the allowing this Maxime is to acknowledge that it is us properly who have the fundamentals of Salvation for our Doctrine reduces it self unto these two Heads and we have nothing contrary unto them neither in reality nor in appearance I pass over some other alterations that are less considerable especially if looked on each apart but all together do sufficiently speak the trouble the Bishop of Condom had to put his Treatise into the condition it is now in The only thing to be added in this regard is that though it may plainly be perceived that the Bishop of Condom proposed to himself two principal ends in his Treatise the one to insinuate the Doctrine of the Church of Rome diminishing as much as he could what she holds that is most violently offensive the other to oppose ours principally upon two points in which he believed he could have put us unto great difficulties namely the reality of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the authority of the Church nevertheless it appears that it is only upon the positive Doctrine of the Roman Church that the Bishop of Condom hath stagger'd that he hath touched and retouched withdrawn diminished or added and finally that he hath made all the alterations above mentioned Now from whence could proceed this kind of variation in an Exposition of Faith for it is known how well the Bishop of Condom is qualified and the great clearness and readiness he hath in expressing himself It cannot be said but that he understood perfectly not only the grounds of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome but of ours also four yeares past when his Manuscript Copy was dispersed amongst us or ten moneths since when he caused his Treatise to be printed the first time as well as he knows it at this present Therefore it must needs be that these difficulties do proceed from the very nature of the Opinions that he laies down which have no certain foundation which
and Practices that aggrieve us are at best but private opinions that may be laid aside This is it they ordinarily discourse to us to make us inclinable to themselves and this is in particular the sense and Soul of the Bishop of Condoms Treatise more openly indeed and more expresly in the Manuscript Copy and what hath been cited of the first Edition but yet clearly enough in the second On the other side the profession of Faith declares in so many words that we must believe and receive all the traditions all the institutions all the customs of the Roman Church which doth comprise generally all that is known and that is not known It saith yet more expresly that we ought to pray unto Saints to Worship their relicks have Images of Jesus Christ of the Virgin and of all the Saints and render them the honour and the Worship due unto them admit of Seven true Sacraments and embrace all the Council of Trent hath said and decided touching justification and by consequence the merit of Works satisfactions Purgatory and all the Doctrine of Indulgences believe the conversion of all the substance of the Bread into the body of Jesus Christ and the conversion of all the substance of the Wine into his bloud which is called Transubstantiation and that all Jesus Christ is intirely received and the true Sacrament under the one and the other of the two species Lastly that we are to believe that the Church of Rome is the Mistress of all other Churches to swear intire obedience unto the Pope of Rome and generally to receive all other things whatsoever that are taught by the Councillâ— and particularly by the Council of Treâ—â— which doth comprise generally whâ—â— a man will all that is in dispute Tâ—â—â— is what is formally required of thâ—â—â— that present themselves before the Câ—rate the Bishop or the great peâ—tentiary now let all these Articles 〈◊〉 Faith be compared with the stile 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Condoms Treatise and afterwards Let it be maturely judged if this be one and the same Doctrine For our parts being very far from aggravating the difference there is betwixt the one and the other or from having a mind to make a greater distance betwixt us and the Church of Rome than there is indeed We believe that there is nothing more to be desired for the good of Christian Religion and by little and little to bring mens Spirits mutually nearer that that all those of the Roman Church generally would at least accommodate themselves freely openly unto these sort of sweetnings that the Bishop of Condom doth and that instead of heightning the differences that there may be between his exposition and the Doctrine which they commonly profess they would Write on the contrary in the same sense that he doth and clearer and fuller yet than he hath Written that Lastly they would all say at least as he doth that this is alone the true Doctrine of the Roman Church Religion at least would find it self discharged and freed of a great many Doctrines and practises which do nothing but burthen consciences this would be in sundry points as one of those insensible changes which have come into the Church but a change for the better and an happy beginning of Reformation that might have much more happy consequences The BULL of our moâ—… Holy Lord Lord PIUâ— by Divine Providencâ— Pope the IV. of thaâ— Name Touching thâ— Form of the Oath 〈◊〉 Profession of Faith Translated out of Latine PIUS Bishop Servant of the Seâ—vants of God ad perpetuam 〈◊〉 memoriam for a perpetual record THE duty of our Apostoliâ— Charge which lies upon 〈◊〉 requires that those things which the Lord Almighty for the prudent guidance of his Church has vouchsafed from Heaven to inspire in the Holy Fathers assembled in his Name we make hast to put in execution without delay for his praise and glory Whereâ— therefore according to the Order of the Council of Trent all whom it shall henceforth happen to be set over Cathedral or Superiour Churches or to be provided for by any dignities or Canonries of the same or any other whatsoever Ecclesiastical benefices having cure of Souls are bound to make publick profession of the Orthodox Faith and to engage and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Roman Church We willing also that the same be observed by all whosoever shall be disposed of in Monasteries Convents Religious houses or other places whatsoever of whatsoever Regular Orders even of the Military ones by whatsoever name or Title and to this purpose that what concerns our care may not be the least wanting to any that a profession of one and the same faith may be uniformly exibited by all and that one certain form of it may be known unto all do by power Apostolick strictly injoyn and command by the tenour of these presents that this very form annexed to these presents be published and that it be received and observed all the World over by those by whom according to the decrees of the said Council it does belong and by all other persons aforesaid and that under the penalties by the said Council enacted against offenders in this case the aforesaid Profession be Solemnly made according to this and no other form in this tenor IN. Do with firm Faith believe and profess all and every things and thing which are contained in the Symbol of Faith which the Holy Roman Church useth viz. Articles of Faith taken out of the Symbols of Nice and Con stantinople I believe in one God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the onely begotten Son of God and brought forth of his Father before all Ages God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made of the same substance with the Father by whom all things were made who for us men and our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and made man was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilat suffered and was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended into Heaven sitteth at the right hand of the Father and shall come again with Glory to judge both the quick and the dead of whose Kingdom there shall be no end And in the Holy Ghost the Lord and giver of Life who proceedeth from the Father and the Son who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified who spake by the Prophets And one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins and I look for the Resurrection of the dead and the Life of the World to come Amen The Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other observations Articles of Faith touching the matters in Cotroversie which the Romish Church hath added to the Antient and constitutions of the same
all its parts he tells us not one Word which says that God hath thus ordained it as if Religion were only an human Discipline and that God would be honoured and served according to our thoughts Deut 12 32 Is 1 12 Mâ—t 5.9 and not after his own institution Look into the Decrees of the Council the Catechism made by its authority the Commandments of the Church of Rome they never tell us upon this matter no more than on many others God Wills we Pray unto Saints or God bids we Pray unto Saints but the Church doth teach or the Council doth teach the Council Ordains and pronounceth Anathema This stile is very different from that of the Prophets and Apostles the former begins and almost ever ends Thus saith the Lord Exod. 5.1 1 Câ—â— 23 â—1 and the others We have received of the Lord what we haâ—e also delivered unto you It will be said that the Church of Rome and the Council of Trent are the Instruments of God and that it is God himself which speaketh by their mouth But this is to say a thing that is in question and very much in question this is to multiply questions whereas the Bishop of Condom pretends to diminish them The truth is that neither the Church of Rome noâ— the Council of Trent nor the Bishop of Condom who explains their Doctrinâ— are able to find one single passage it all the Scripture of the Old and new Testament which says that God wills the invocation of Saints nay what is far from that we do alledge in this case a great number which say the contrary The First thing which the Church of Rome doth teach is that is profitable to call upon the Saints and it is certain that as to this part the Council doth speak in these terms The Bishop of Condom doth a Little more sweetten the matter in adding that the Council is content to teach the Faithful that this practice is good and useful for them without saying any thing more and that so the meaning of the Church is to condemn those who reject this practise through scorn or errour This doth manifestly enough declare that those which are already in the Roman Communion might very well abstain from all Invocation of the Saints doing it with good intention as for example not to Pray but unto God alone or not believe the invocation of Saints to be absolutely necessary provided they do not despise nor condemn it that is to say that the Bishops are obliged to Preach the Invocation of Saints as the Council doth very expresly ordain that we are bound to hearken unto them and believe also what they teach but not to do what they teach From whence it appears to be a strange Doctrin and a Communion very extraordinary if it be true that some may practice a Religious Worship and others may refuse it This doth sufficiently make evident that our belief and our practise is safe and that we do follow the securer Way in that regard for if this Worship be but useful if the Council is contented also to teach it so without saying any farther we who openly profess that we do not reject it through scorn but only through the belief which we have that we ought not to address our vows and Prayers but to God only in appearance are not in any danger of incurring Gods displeasure in that behalf especially having neither Commâ—ndment as to this matter nor example in his word to oblige us therâ—uâ—â—◠〈◊〉 whereas the Church of Rome may well fear the jealousie of God if it be true as we believe that this Worship is contrary to his Will And it is Likely that we who reject this Worship because we are perswaded that God alone should be invoked are in as much safety at Least as those who are in the Roman Communion who have their Liberty to forbear it for it is a much less fault in Religion not to do a thing when one thinks it not to be good than not to do it when one believes it to be good and useful But on the other side how shall we reconcile the expressions of the Council of Trent and of the Bishop of Condom either with the profession of Faith which the Roman Catechism doth prescribe by authority of the said Council or with the opinions of the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church and with the general practice of all those of their Communion For the profession of Faith doth say in express terms not that it is good and useful to pray unto the Saints but purely and simply that we ought to Pray unto the Answ Answ to the repl of the King of Great Britain Page 872 Saints pronouncing Anathema against all those which do not receive this Doctrine And the Cardinal Du Peron of whom every one knows how his judgment is followed in the Roman Church saith in express Terms that the invocation of Saints is not onely useful and lawful but that it is necessary though by a conditional necessity which he doth not explain clearly However he pretends to prove this necessity by the authority of St. Ambrose and St. Hilary In sum how can it be said of such a Religious Worship as this that it is but useful as if in Religion all true Worship were not a true duty and by consequence a thing necessary especially a Worship which it is seen doth take up above half the time of the Ceremonies and services of the Roman Religion And when the Bishops have orders as in the matter now in hand In primis Counc Trent Sess 26. de invoc c. to teach above all things that the Saints who Reign with our Lord Jesus Christ do pray for us and that it is good and useful to render unto them a Religious honour and to fly unto their aid and succour is not this to say that we ought to do it But if any amongst them would forbear in this matter either because they do not think it absolutely necessary or because they will not address their Prayers unto any but God himself how can they assist at all the publick services where Saints are every hour called upon without saying Amen as others do or without being as it were a Sect separate in the midst of those of their Communion It is therefore most certain that these sorts of expressions of the Bishop of Condom are only sweetnings in terms to draw us unto a Religious service which he knows we believe to be truly evil It is but for the present the Gentlemen of the Roman Church give us to understand that if we would joyn with them we should not pray unto the Saints if we pleased but when once men are engaged we call to witness those who desert us if they do not oblige them to swear amongst other things that men ought to pray unto Saints as it is contained in the profession of Faith made by thâ— Council However it be useful or necessary
in Pag. 71 72. reality they partake not any way of the grace of Redemption and so dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ The onely pronouncing of this sentence against the Infants of Believers causes a kind of horrour mingled with a tender and just compassion for these poor Innocents for they are looked on as such though they are tainted with Original sin and the Church of Rome calls them Innocents and Martyrs which Herod caused to be slain and celebrates a Feast unto their memory Now this very sense of horrour and pity which such condemnation it self excites in our spirits being natural and reasonable it is a sign there is no condemnation You condemn them because they cannot supply the want of Baptism by acts of Faith as do the adult persons whom you save without Baptism but it is for that very reason that you ought not to condemn them The Roman Church is well contented that the Faith of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the Church should supply the want of Faith in Infants even then when they receive Baptism It is the Godfather that speaking for the Child saith that he demands to be baptised that he renounces the Devil that he Believes in God and in a word that makes the whole Confession of Faith which we make in the Creed Wherefore then will she not yield that this same Faith of the Godfathers and of the Church may supply the place to Infants of those desires or vows which adult persons have for Baptism or of those acts of Faith which are in stead of Baptism There is no more reason for one than for the other if the Fathers or Godfathers speaking for the Infant may say I believe in God the Father Almighty c. they may as well say for him too I do promise and vow to be baptised if death or want of means do not hinder Dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ But why will you have these Children to dy in Adam seeing they are born of Christian Parents that they dy in their arms in the midst of vows and prayers which are made to God for them Gen. 17.7 God is the Father of Abraham and of his posterity our Father and the Father of our Children And the Children of Believers are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 that is to say they are Children of the Promise as the Scripture speaks or they are born in the Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and by consequence they should not be excluded from the benefit of his Death which is common to them with their Fathers under a pretence that they are not of age to declare that they accept of this benefit as in the World the Children that are born in Cities or in Countries have a share in the Rights and Priviledges of the Cities and Countries which they are born and in the benefits of Treaties of Peace and Friendship which are made betwixt the Princes though the Children be not in a condition of ability to testifie that they do submit unto those Treaties You have a veneration for the Relicks of Saints because they are parts of the living members of Jesus Christ this is the reason which the Council gives as it hath elsewhere been said But after all these are onely of the bones dead parts of those living members yet without scruple you condemn these poor little Infants which are as much parts of Saints and living and animated parts And further do you believe that all Infants departed since Adam before the institution of Baptism or of Circumcision which was the Figure of Baptism for example the Children of Abel or of Noah under the Law of Nature do you believe I say that as it may be said they dyed truly in Adam so that they had no part in Jesus Christ Or that God who substituted some other meanes of Salvation for those Infants in the place of Baptism or of Circumcision cannot and will not also even yet at this day supply the necessitated default of Baptism by his grace How is it that those of the Church of Rome who find so much difficulty to comprehend the eternal Decree of God according unto which though we are all children of Adam God hath chosen some and passed by others without as we can conceive any other reasons but his good pleasure how is it I say that these Gentlemen find no difficulty to believe that the Infants of the Faithful should be so intirely excluded from the common Redemption without any other reason save that they are children of Adam as the Fathers themselves also were whom God called unto Salvation To conclude what can there be more convincing against this absolute necessity of Baptism than this other necessity of the intention of the Priest who administers the Sacrament For if on the one hand there can be no Salvation without Baptism and on the other the effect of Baptism depend on the intention of him who baptiseth not onely the Salvation of Infants who have not been baptised but the Salvation even of those who dye soon after Baptism before they come to age depends then absolutely on the Priest which is equally inconsistent with the Justice the Power the Wisedom and the Goodnesse of God The onely or the principal authority that the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome do alledge for the belief of a Doctrine so dangerous as is this absolute necessity of Baptism is a passage of our Saviours in St. John's Gospel speaking to Nicodemus Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This passage is like another of our Saviours near the same place Joh. 6 53. If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud you have no life in you and it is true that upon these two passages taken according to the letter some of the fathers have grounded themselves as well for the necessity of administring the Eucharist unto Infants as for the necessity of Baptism But if the Church of Rome hath in process of time justly acknowledged that the necessity of the Eucharist unto Infants was a gross errour that this Sacrament ought not to be given unto Infants wherefore is it that she doth not also acknowledge that this necessity of Baptism may be as much an errour If they believe that this last passage ought not to be understood of the Eucharist or at least that it ought not to be understood according to the letter of all sorts of persons indifferently but onely of such as have age and meanes necessary to partake of the Eucharist why do they pass a judgment so contrary touching the other Why will they not also admit it ought to be understood likewise of regeneration or of a spiritual washing under the figure or expression of water and of the Spirit which is joyned unto the water As that place which saith Ye shall be baptized
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
are not consequent enough and which have not that perfect proportion that the several parts of a Doctrine ought to have one to the other A man believes as the Church believes because he believes the Church cannot err This is soon said but when he goes about to explain what the Church of Rome believes by what motives and upon what grounds she believes the mind unsatisfied knows not upon what to fix The light of reason draws one way authority draws the other a man speaks more or less than he would or otherwise than the Council of Trent or the Doctors or the general practice of the people would have him speak He writes he blots out he corrects endeavouring to satisfie all the world and after all he hath much ado to satisfie himself in what is tendred unto others However it is certain that there remains not now one word in the Bishop of Condom's Treatise which hath not been exactly scann'd and placed and therein it is without doubt that is comprised what may be most curiously and speciously spoken for the Church of Rome whether we regard the opinions whereunto the Bishop of Condom hath as it were confined himself or the terms he made choice of to insinuate his Doctrine and to wave the difficulties which created him most trouble His Treatise being otherwise short enough it is credible there could not be assigned a better manner of answering it than that which is followed which is not onely to alledge his opinions and the reasons upon which they are grounded but almost throughout the proper terms in which he conceived the one and the other Furthermore besides that this is a means to lay his Treatise plainly before the eies of those that might have forgotten part of it or that probably might not yet have read it the Bishop of Condom cannot in the least say that there was any design to conceal or cloak the sense and the force of his expressions and it will also be seen more exactly if the answer made unto him be just and sufficient The Answer explains it self from the beginning the particular end that is proposed and the order that is observed The reasons are also touched which may be given wherefore no inlargement particularly hath been made on the differences that there might be betwixt the Bishop of Condom's Expositions and the common doctrine of the Church of Rome It shalâ— onely be added in this regard that besides that this discourse must therâ— have been of greater length than iâ— was intended to be 't is known thaâ— there is a certain person of the Church of Rome which doth write againsâ— this very Exposition of the Bishop oâ— Condom's and what those of his communion will speak of their own belief will be much of greater weight and less suspected from their own mouth than from ours Yet it is easie to discern by reading the Bishop of Condom's Treatise in the condition wherein he hath put it in this second Edition that excepting what it may be seen he extenuates touching the worshipping Saints and Images touching the article of Satisfactions touching that of the Sacrifice of the Mass and touching the authority of Popes The difference there is betwixt his Exposition and and the common Doctrine of the Romish Church doth principally consist in that the Bishop of Condom doth wrap up some of the most difficult things in indefinite or general terms and doth suppress a great number of other Doctrines that are received and believed amongst those of their Communion as is taken notice of in the Answer But it is no less easie to foresee by the degree the Bishop of Condom holds with those of his perswasion that if there were a necessity that he should explain himself more particularly upon all these differences he would not fail in all likelyhood to give unto his expressions a sense that right or wrong should well agree with that of the Romish Church and as to those doctrines and practices which he seems to abandon he will say it may be also if every one did speak always as he thinks that his intent was not to abandon them altogether but only to withdraw them for a time from our sight to the end to engage those amongst us that would be inclinable to accommodate themselves to these first overtures Therefore to reduce this Answer unto something that may be less Subject unto contestation and of more certain use the matter chiefly contended for herein is to shew that the Doctrine of the Romish Church such as the Bishop of Condom doth represent it in this Second Edition of his Treatise doth nevertheless always overthrow the foundations of Salvation Notwithstanding to the end none may be wholy mistaken as to the difference there is betwixt the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and the Common Doctrin of the Romish Church besides what hath been said of this difference in several places of the answer it was thought convenient here to insert Word for Word the form of Confession of Faith by the Council which is as it were the Abridgement of the belief of the Romish Church Those that shall read this form with a little reflexion will easily judge whether the mind and intention of this confession be conform in all things unto the mind intention of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise and those of our Communion in particular when they shall be sollicited to change their Religion upon considerations like to these which are offered in this Treatise will at last see whether that which shall be proposed to them to ingage them is so agreeable in all points unto what they are made to promise and solemnly swear when once they are ingaged On one side it is told us that We shall not at all be obliged to call upon Saints if we are not willing provided that we do not condemn these that do call on them that what hath been hitherto called adoration or Worshipping of Images is nothing properly but an honour that is rendred unto the Originals and an help for instructing the people that works and satisfactions are but an application of the merits of Jesus Christ In like manner the Mass but an application of the Sacrifice of his death Transubstantiation but a word or expression that means nothing after all but the reality of the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament which we our selves do also believe as well as the Lutherans in receiving the same Sacrament although one and the other in a different manner that the Cup may be given to the people for the advantage of Peace that provided a precedency be allowed in the person of the Pope for order and unity's sake what farther rights he pretends unto are onely things controverted in the Schools but do not belong unto Faith and that that the Learned in the Gallican Church do yield unto Popes but little more Authority than we our selves would be willing they should allow them that to conclude all these other Doctrines
of Condom doth use and in what he comes near us But we will throughout perforâ— the two other principal things whicâ— the Bishop of Condom proposes whicâ— are to shew that in reality his exposition doth Leave all objections 〈◊〉 their force and all important dispute intire and that his Doctrine whaâ—ever Art he uses or whatsoever mâ—tigation he seemeth to use therein doth all along equally overthrow thâ— foundations of true Christianity We will perform both the one anâ— the other of these two things in plain manner according to the Bâ—shop of Condoms desire without it gageing very far in a new dispute anâ— it shall be done not onely with thâ— moderation which he himself give us a commendable example of bâ— with all the respect which we oughâ— to have for a person of so great meâ— as his We will onely reserve the Liberty which the interest of the cause anâ— the right of defence do necessarily require so as to say of a thing that iâ— is not true when it is not or of aâ— argument it is not right or that it iâ— captious when it is such indeed because otherwise it would not be possible to make known the truth without weakening of it We will then here examin with the greatest clearness and brevity that may be and in the same order which the Bishop of Condom would have observed the several Articles of his Treatise whereof he maketh so many Sections and to the end that those who give themselves the trouble of Reading this answer may find where to stop it shall be divided into Six parts though unequal according as matters have more or less extent The First shall treat concerning the design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise and touching two general propositions and as it were preliminaries which the Bishop of Condom Lays down Page 5 the one that we are agreed that the Church of Rome doth believe Page 12 and imbrace all the fundamental points of the Christian Religion the other that all the Religious Worship which she gives unto Saints Images or Relicks doth terminate in God onely The Second part shall treat of the worship of Saints Images and Relicks The Third of the matter of Justification with all its consequences the merit of works Satisfactions purgatory and Indulgences The Fourth of the Sacraments in general and particularly of the Sacraments of Baptism of Confirmation of Pennance of Sacramental Confession of extream unction of Marriage and of Order The Fifth of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in particular The Sixth and Last of Tradition of the authority of the Church of the authority of the Pope and of Episcopacy The First Part 1. The design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise Page 1 2 4. and 4. As for the Bishop of Condom's design he declares it himself in the beginning he did believe he saith that the matters which we made the Subject of our breach being now sufficiently cleared he could do nothing better nor more useful for us than to propose plainly unto us the opinions of the Church of Rome by explaining to us what she hath defined in the Council of Trent hoping that alone would cause sundry contests wholly to vanish and that those which remained would not appear according to our own principles of such weight as we would it should be believed they are and that according to our own principles they contain nothing that doth wound the foundations of Faith We have in the very entrance this advantage that the Bishop of Condom going about to make a plain draught as he speaks of the Catholick Doctrine in opposition unto ours lays hold on for a foundation a Council which is well known not to be acknowledged Catholick or Oecumenical a Council which above all other Councils is such wherein according to their own Catholick Authors there apeared visibly most of intrigue and of human interests a Council of which our France it self doth not receive all the decisions in matters of discipline and Government a Council to conclude whose decrees do to this day want explication In sum if the Bishop of Condom doth desire that men should speak what they think nothing is more frivolous than his design unless it be for those Doctrines and practises that are not very necessary Whereof he seems to desire to discharge his Religion for as to the other Which he calls the principal causes of our breach he saith himself that the matters of controversie are now cleared and it is certain that there is nothing but prejudice the weakness and the variety of the mind of man that doth hinder that all the World doth not so Judge Wherefore then is it that at this time they propose plainly the same things as if men heeded not at all instead of bringing of new Lights to overcome if it might be those human infirmities which do occasion diversity of opinions It is true that the Doctors and Preachers of the one side and the other do sometimes aggravate the things which they treat of Whether it be the things themselves or the consequences they draw from thence yet this doth not hinder but that it is very well known on both sides what is the substance of the belief of the one and the other in the principal points It is properly nothing but these Doctrines and these practises which the Bishop of Condom would have laid aside which are not so well known by all the World For example we do very well know what the Church of Rome doth commonly teach concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist touching the worshipping of Saints of the Cross of Images and of Relicks the Soveraignty of the Pope and all the other principal points which separate us from her communion we are sufficiently informed of what she doth profess to teach of what She receiveth and practiseth in all places upon these points it is onely the excess and abuse that are greater haply in some parts than in others wherein all the world doth not equally agree We believe we have solidly refuted all these principal Doctrines and all these Worships Universally received it behoved him therefore properly either to submit unto our reasons or to shew better and not put us of onely with a simple exposition It is not here put in question what power the Bishop of Condom hath to explain What the Church of Rome hath defined in the Council of Trent or to reduce the Doctrine unto the point to which he seems to have reduced it For our parts we do not in the least make any doubt but that Pastours may make probable expositions according to the motions of their conscience whether it be for instructing their Flocks or to bring back unto the truth such as have forsaken it for why should they not explain such Writings seeing they do every day explain that which is less clear in the Holy Scripture But as for the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome what will become of the Authentical Bull of
Pius the Fourth which doth contain the confirmation of the Council of Trent and gives it all its authority That Bull expresly forbids all sorts of persons of what order or dignity soever they are in the Church the Pope onely excepted to explain the decrees of the Council in whatsoever manner or under whatsoever pretext it may be and doth before hand make void all such explications After this let any one tell us what foundation may be had for what the Bishop of Condom hath explained of these decrees how to be assured that some person of his Communion will not stand up and think he may say of him what he hath said of others that herein he is but a particular Doctor that we ought onely to rest upon the proper terms of the Council or at farthest of the Pope who hath reserved unto himself the explication and that in the mean time they will abate nothing of the decrees of the same Council nor of the opinions received in the Chairs and Universities nor of the general practice what abuse soever be pretended in it However it be We may observe as we pass that the Bishop of Condom doth here silently acknowledge that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome all cleared and all decided 〈◊〉 it was by the Council of Trent is noâ— for all so clear but that it hath yâ—â— need of farther explication which 〈◊〉 most true as to the very ground 〈◊〉 it and they have for this same reasoâ— designedly put their several decrees iâ— general and ambiguous terms to givâ— in appearance the greater satisfaction to people It will now be seen by thâ— sequel if the Bishop of Condom himselâ— will speak plainer on these doubtfâ—â—â— points if he will not contain himself still in general terms or if he will not wholy pass over those points here in silence In the mean time what will become of us The Holy Scripture say they is obscure it appertains unto the Church to explain it according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers the Fathers have their obscurities everyone draws them to their side it will require many years to examin them and it will not be easie to form an unanimous sense They add it belongs to the Council to determin that by their decrees but in these very decrees there are things very ambiguous and that may receive a double and a triple sense the Bishop of Condom doth present us an exposition which he saith is faithful In good time but another Prelate or a Doctor of Sorbon will say that the Bishop of Condom is not sufficiently authorised for that or that he hath need himself to be explained and in the mean while those who are afraid of offending God by a Religious observance of anything which is not God and who desire nothing but to Worship the true God purely according to his Word shall abide as it were suspended betwixt all these uncertainties and shall not be able to yield any acquiescency unto these Lively beams where with this Divine Word hath replenished their Souls This is what the design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise would Lead us unto But let us proceed unto the Treatise it self and let us see if this exposition such as it is will produce the two effects it promises which are to cause all disputes to vanish or to reduce them unâ—â—â— such terms as according to our owâ— principles have nothing in them whicâ— Wound the foundations of Faith II. The general proposition of the Bishop of Condom that they of the P. R. R. do confess that the Catholick Church do believe all the fundamental Articles of Chri stian Reli gion The Bishop of Condom begins witâ— this general proposition that those 〈◊〉 the Pretended reformed Religion 〈◊〉 avow that the Catholick Church dâ—â— receive all the fundamental Articles of 〈◊〉 Christian Religion here at first it maâ— be seen as also in the Title of thâ— Treatise that by the Catholick Churâ— the Bishop of Condom intends the Râ—mish Church It is an usage whicâ— the Gentlemen of the Romish Churcâ— very much more affect of Late thâ—â— they have been accustomed namely it seems to cover themselves with more authentick Title and to takâ— a kind of advantage in words aboâ—â— all other Christians that is to say thaâ— the name of the Roman Church anâ— the name of the Catholick Churcâ— doth not sufficiently to their mind mean the same thing the one dotâ— seem much more auspicious than thâ— other And moreover this same thinâ— makes evident that the Titles whicâ— Parties or Communions assume unto themselves according as they have more Lustre and Power are not always a certain proof that they do possess in reality what these Titles ascribe to them because it doth appear that in the midst of the dispute and in the very place where this Title of Catholick is in question one party doth claim it for himself in prejudice of all others These Gentlemen do herein like Princes who alway retain the Title of Countreys which they once possessed although they have Lost those Countreys several Ages past It is true that we our selves do some time give them the name of Roman Catholicks or this simply of Catholicks as well therein to accommodate our selves to the stream of the general use as for the advantage of peace being to Live amongst them according as also for these very considerations we give them the name of Fathers of Bishops of Prelates and others the Titles which they give unto themselves although the right by which they pretend to take them be yet in question and it may be the Word Catholick would not have been so urged here above all other if it did not in the beginning cause an ambiguity in the Bishop of Condom proposition which is that we do allow that the Catholick Church doth believe all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion for who is it that ever doubted a proposition conceived in those terms We allow in earnest that the Church truely Catholick and universal which we profess in the Apostles Creed which is the body 〈◊〉 the Elect of all Ages not onely always hath held and shall always hold all the fundamental points but that she never did nor ever shall hold any Capital Error which doth intirel 〈◊〉 destroy the foundations and this i 〈◊〉 what we cannot say of the Church o 〈◊〉 Rome We own that she doth receive the fundamental Articles as the Bishop of Condom doth alledge but we do say at the same time as he himself doth instance that she destroys the foundations by contrary Articles and we prove it not onely by the consequences which we draw from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as the Bishop of Condom avers onely because it pleaseth him so to do P. 8 but directly by the Doctrine it self which she teacheth and openly practices It is true that the Church of Rome doth teach that we ought to Worship one onely God Father Son and
Holy Ghost which is the first and most fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but at the very same instant She doth teach another Article which is quite contrary according to us when She saith that we ought to Worship and when she doth indeed Worship that which according to us is not God The Church of Rome receives as we do the first Commandment of the Law which forbids having any other God than the Mighty and Jealous God Yet at the same time She calleth upon the Saints which is a Religious worship by their own Confession and according to us it is a kind or part of that worship which we ought not to give but to God onely not to speak here of the excess which is seen in that worship The Church of Rome receives the second Commandment which doth particularly forbid the making Images of any thing that is in Heaven or in the Earth to worship them but at the same time She doth make Images of the very persons of the Trinity and of all the Saints Shee kneels down before them and doth serve them Religiously against the express terms of the Commandment and it is also well known to what excess She hath advanced this worship in the practice The Church of Rome receives as we do the Apostles Creed which is â—n Abridgment of the fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel for those who are well instructed in it and that do understand it in the full force of its expressions But therein it self we do agree no wise touching that which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose that the Church of Rome hath the pure and true understanding of the Creed We pretend that to believe in God the Creator and in Jesus Christ doth mean so to believe in God as to matter of Religion as not to have the Least confidence in any thing else and we believe that the Worshipping of Saints of Relicks of the Cross and of Images especially in the excess and inevitable abuse which follows however the matter is sweetned in disputation is a degree of a Religious confidence in the creature which thereby doth become sharer in what we owe only unto the Creator The Church of Rome with us believes that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven that he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father and that it is he who shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead but she believes at the same time that our Lord Jesus Christ is also every day corporally upon earth though in an invisible State and different from that estate he is in in Heaven Here it might be proved that in effect all these Doctrines of the Roman Church and several others are directly contrary to the fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel but that would be useless in this part of the question where it sufficeth to intimate that we do so believe what follows will shew the reasons which we have to believe so p. 9 a. 1 The Bishop of Condom doth here make the objection against us which is usually made against us touching the Lutherans that the consequences which we draw from their Doctrine do not hinder but that we admit them into our Communion although these consequences do seem to destroy the foundation But there is a great deal of difference betwixt the Lutherans and the Roman-Catholicks in reference unto us in effect we agree that always heed is not to be taken of the consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrin Doubtless we ought to distinguish the consequences contested by him that doth teach the Doctrine and which do not produce any effect in the intention nor Worship from those which are granted by the very persons which teach the Doctrin and which are followed by a sort of Worship which is thought to be evil It is true that Mr. Daille saith of the Lutherans as the Bishop of Condom doth instance that they have an opinion which according unto us doth infer as well as that of the Roman Church the destruction of the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ but it is also very certain that this consequence as Mr. Daille doth add cannot be without great injustice imputed unto them because they do formally deny it and that besides they have nothing in their Worship which doth establish or suppose this consequence This is the reason of this expression of Monsieur Dailles which hath been so urged of late times and which the Bishop of Condom doth here again urge that the opinion of the Lutherans has no venim in it which is notwithstanding a natural expressiâ—n and proper to the Subject for it imports nothing else but what is said bâ—fore that the Lutherans denying the consequences of their Doctrin and believing the humanity of Jesus Christ as it is certain they do their errour touching the Eucharist although it may be gross according unto us may nevertheless be charitably born with for the advantage of Peace and Union But as to the Church of Rome it is not onely by consequences but by a positive Doctrin and by a constant practice as we pretend whatsoever she saith that she doth not sufficiently acknowledge the Soveraignty which is due unto God nor the quality of Saviour and Mediator in our Lord Jesus Christ nor the superabundant fulness of his merits because it appears plainly unto us that she gives unto the creature the Worship which is onely due unto the Creator and that she doth make to concur the satisfactions and merits of men with the satisfaction and merit of Jesus Christ It cannot with justice be said that the Lutherans do not believe the humanity of Jesus Christ but it is no calumny to say that the Church of Rome doth Worship the host and that she doth give a Religious Worship to Saints to their relicks to Images and unto the Cross c. these are not consequences contested but positive Doctrin confirmed by practice The Bishop of Condom having a mind to cover the contrariety we conceive between the fundamental Articles which the Church of Rome holds and those other Worships that we reject passeth over here in silence what should have been spoken touching the adoration of the Host which point alone most openly shews this contrariety He thinks to reconcile all by his Second proposition III. Second proâ—â—ion general of the Bishop of Condom This the Catho Church doth teach that the Religious worshipping of Saints and Images c. terminates it self in God only Mat. 4.10 that the Church of Rome doth teach that all Religions worship ought to terminate it self on God We say more simply and more naturally that all Religious Worship ought to addresse it self unto God because indeed Religion should regard nothing but God and should have only him for its object All Religious Worship should begin with him continue in him and end on him This is it to which only all the Doctrin of the Old and New Testaments doth tend there cannot be shewed in
those Holy Originals neither Commandment nor example to the contrary Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God anâ— him onely shalt thou serve said our Saviour to the Devil that tempted him If Religion were onely an arbitrary Worship St. Aug. lib. 4. contr Faust cap. 11. de Genes cont Manich. li be a p. 1. and that to render it Lawful it were enough to refer all to God the Manichees which adored God the Father Son and Holy Ghost with a Sovereign Worship and who also Worshipped the Sun and Moon by reason of the residence they believed God made in those glorious bodies might have said that they did terminate all in God and in a Word there could be no false Worship superstion or evil action which may not be justified if it were enough to say that all did terminate in God Besides the Church of Rome doth but fairly say that She teacheth that the Worship of Saints ought to refer it self to or terminate it self on God the people will everlastingly terminate it on the Saints on their relicks and on their Images because the same reason which causeth that grosser minds cannot form to themselves any Idea of an Infinie and in visible God as he is doth also make them naturally to stop at Saints and creatures and that they rely more on things which they see or know than on that which they onely know imperfectly They will have as the Jews had Gods to march before them and at all times when Relicks and Images are set before the eyes of the people as is usual their eyes and their hearts far from being lifted up unto God will stop not onely at the saints themselves but at their Images and Relicks The Second Part. The Bishop of Condom doth here descend from the General Proposition touching the nature of Religious Worship Of the Invocation of Saints to the explication of particular Worships which do make part of the Articles of Faith whereunto he reduces the controversies He begins with the Invocation of Saints indeavouring also to sweeten and extenuate this worship of the Church of Rome as well in the Doctrine as in the practice and onely studies colourable means to insinuate his Doctrin in stead of following the natural order of things of the Doctrin it self that is to say instead of establishing before all things that the Invocation of Saints is a Lawful worship instituted by God and by consequence well pleasing in his eyes he indeavours to surprise mens minds by this other general proposition that those of the Pretended Reformed Religion being pressed by the force of the truth do begin to acknowledge that the Custom of Praying unto Saints and to honour their Relicks was established ever since the fourth Century he means that we do acknowledge that this worship did begin to be established at that time This is but a perverting of words for the Bishop of Condom knows very well that it is not now that we do begin to make this acknowledgement and that this acknowledgment is neither new nor forced nor particular to Monsieur Daille as the Bishop of Condom doth seem to take notice Clemnit Casaub â—ossias du Moulin c. Blondeâ— Chamier Bochard in a word all those who have treated throughly of this Subject have agreed upon the time in which Praying unto Saints begun to be introduced This trick of expression from the Biâ—hop of Condom is onely a short wâ—y to insinuate that there hath been a variation betwixt our authors and less sincerity at one time than at another which nevertheless hath not the least ground however his proposition shall be explained that it may not be mistaken It is true that we have always acknowledged that Praying unto Saints began to be practised towards the end of the Fourth Age but we never acknowledged neither do we yet acknowledge that it was an usage then established in the publick service of the Church nor is it true that it was authorised by any Council Onely if it be needful we make appear by convincing proofs not only that there is neither command nor example neither in the Old or New Testament for the Invocation of Saints but also that there is not the least mark in any of the authors of the fiâ—â—â— three Ages which are extant in sâ—ficiently great numbers Mr. Dâ—ille doth not accuse any the Fathers much less St. Augustiâ—â— to have changed the Doctrin in thâ— point from the former Ages for 〈◊〉 Austin hath declared himself the Leâ— of any for these sorts of Prayers 〈◊〉 Saints Mr. Daille doth only complaiâ— of this that they suffered them inseâ—sibly to be brought in upon bad priâ—ciples and doth accuse them of havâ—ing erred in this as the Church 〈◊〉 Rome doth acknowledge that theâ— have all erred in other things If thâ— Bishop of Condom pretend that thâ— is to abandon those great men under colour of acknowledging that the were men subject to errour the millenaries which do yet to this day expect a Kingdom for a Thousand year on earth under the immediate Government of Christ Jesus those whicâ— believe that Souls at their departurâ— out of this Life shall sleep until thâ— day of Judgement and Generally alâ— those that have followed or do yeâ— follow any one of these errours which appeared in the first Ages may as well say that we have abandoned those of the Fathers who followed or taught those matters and by consequence that they are not errors but Doctrines Lawfully established But it will appear very unlikely saith the Bishop of Condom that Mr. Daillé hath better understood the opinions of the Fathers of the three first Ages than those who have gathered as it may be said the succession of their Doctrin and he will be much less believed that the Fathers of the fourth Age where far from perceiving that there was any innovation brought in in their Worship this Minister on the contrary hath produced express texts by which they clearly shew that they pretend in praying to the Saints to have followed the example of those who went before them These kinds of discourses are very uncertain and are properly but Colours If the Bishop of Condom had taken the pains to have mentioned the texts he speaks of it would have been seen that there is not the least in any of them which shews clearly as he would have men believe that the Fathers of the fourth Age did pretenâ— that the invocation of Saints was it use in the three precedent Ages It is known to be the custom of those who have no good ground not Lawful right for what they do to seek to authorise themselves at leasâ— by examples as the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do at this present by the greatest part of their traditions But if it were true that some Author of the Fourth Age had written iâ— General terms that in Praying unto Saints in that Age they followed the example of those that had gone before them not
denied that much is lost in the way by the fast hold which the people take upon the creature As to the last sweetning which the Bishop of Condom uses here for that particular worship which is given to Saints when they offer the sacrifice of the Mass that is Jesus Christ sacrificed in their honour he is pleased to say that this is nothing but nameing the Saints as faithful servants of God and praying God that he will become propitious through their intercession the meer expression of offering Jesus Christ sacrificed in honour of the Saints has somewhat in it so strange abhorring from the true Spirit of the Gospel that we cannot imagine how Christian ears could become accustomed to it and less yet how the Council of Trent could prevail with themselves to make a Doctrine or Decree of it We have a little more enlarged upon this point of the Invocation of Saints because it is one of the most essential parts of their Religion one on which the Bishop of Condom himself has most insisted we shall be more brief upon most of the others as being less important In the mean while it seems already apparent by this sole Article that the Bishop of Condom's Exposition hath nothing in it new but neat and delicate artifice and that in conclusion it takes not off any thing from the whole force of our principal objections nor from the number of important controversies and that his doctrine whatsoever artifice he uses in expressions overthrows all along according to us the foundations of the Faith Nay we know not whether there be not cause to fear that if on the one side he had removed some questions as it would seem to be his design by putting out of the way many doctrines practices of the Roman Churâ—â— yet he had not on the other given place to some new difficulties for that ofttimes these kinds of seeming sweetnings which are onely in some terms or in matters of small consequence do not at all satisfie a man and onely raise new doubts in stead of resolving the old The Bishop of Condom passes from the Invocation of Saints V. Of Images and Relicks to the particular Worship of Images and Relicks and as it seems does not approve all that is seen to be practised in this matter In the beginning he would that we judge of what nature the honour is which the Church of Rome outwardly gives unto Saints by the inward intentions she hath for them Page 30. ibid. The outward Worship saith he being established to testifie the inward intention of the souls But is not this in a manner to contradict himself and to overturn or confound the natural order of things for if the Worship be established to testifie the inward sentiments why will they have us to judge of the exteriour by the interiour whereas it is of the interiour that we should judge by the exteriour Or wherefore should it be that the exteriour answers so ill to the interiour and that notwithstandig there is nothing said of amendment But if the Bishop of Condom doth think that what he here declare unto us of the intention of the Româ— Church doth warrant him hencâ— forward to reduce the outward maid of Honour which she gives to Saintâ— unto what sense he thinks fit to giâ— it besides that it is not enough fâ— such a declaration to change thâ— common usage of expressions aâ— the natural meaning of Signs hâ— will they for instance that a Trâ— a Pagan the Americans the ignâ—rant amongst us who are not accâ—stomed unto these refinings of inteâ—tion and who judge of things one by the common use and by the common notions How will they I saâ— that all the World behold all thâ— great pomp of Religious Worshiâ— which is given to Saints to their Images and their Relicks so liâ— the honour that is to be given to Goâ— himself without taking this Worshâ—â— for a true mark of adoration and the Saints themselves for so many Gods The Council doth forbid saith the Bishop of Condom to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which there should be any reverence due to them or for which any honour should be required to them or confidence put in them and will that all refer to the Originals which they represent which doth distinguish the Church of Rome from Idolaters because very far from helieving as they that any Divinity resides in Images she attributes no virtue unto them but that of exciting the remembrance of the Originals Here is it notwithstanding and in what follows that the Bishop of Condom doth sweeten the terms as much as he thinks may be done it is not any longer to worship Images as is the common and ordinary sense of the principal Doctors who have written for this Worship and of the very second Council of Nice it self It is no longer to serve them as yet the very termes of the Council of Trent run but onely to honour them And it is true this is in appearance a step towards a reformation and a sign that men of wisedom and clearness such as the Bishop of Condom is are somewhat ashamed of the height whereunto they have advanced the Doctrine of this Worship But in the conclusion it is still notwithstanding this all one and the same thing because they still continue to give the same religious Service unto Images The Council of Trent doth pronounce Anathema against all those who reject this Worship by this means boldly condemning the ancient Council of Elibery that of Constantinople consisting of 338. Bishops That oâ— Francfort where there were 300 The Emperour Charlemaigne and the Churches of France and of Almaiâ— of that time and of a long time after Concil Trent Sess 25. de Invoc Sanct c. Remissiones Vetustissimum esse in Ecclesia Dei a sanctis Patribas comprobatum usum sanctorum Imaginum earum denique adoratio pluribus testimoniis comprobatur c Tho. p. 3 q. 25. Art 4. Bonav Cajet c. Pon. Ro. p. 3. ord ad vis par pag. 480. Pag. 33. Pag. 32. which all rejected the Worship of Images The Observations that are printed with the Text of the very Council of Trent it self pretend that it is an ancient and approved usage to have Images and to worship them these are the very words and they authorise this practice by the judgment of Thomas Aquinas of Bellarmine of Vasques and of a great number of the chief Doctors of the Roman Church It is also known that many of the same Doctours teach that it is a duty to worship the Cross and the Image of Jesus Christ with the Worship of Latry as they speak which yet is the Divine honour that is given to God himself It is seen with what devotion and zeal the people kneel before the Cross before Images and before Relicks how they greet them how they kiss them how they incense them how they fasten their eyes
and their hearts upon them The Bishop of Condom doth pass all this over by the word Honouring it is not any longer the Cross that is adored but he is adored before the Cross who did bear our sins upon the Tree The intention of the Church is not so much to honour the Apostle or Martyr as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image which doth shew nevertheless that the Image is honoured in it self and that unawares they speak of the presence of the Image as if it were animated Besides this is nothing else but the Doctrine of the Council of Trent it is the Council of Trent which teacheth which ordains which forbids and never any one word of God never the least Commandment nor the least Example of all the Holy Scripture of the Old or New Testament that is to say this is onely a Doctrine meerly humane So far is it from being true that God hath commanded this Worship or that he hath approved it that it hath already been shewed he hath expresly forbidden it and it may here be added that all the Commandments of the Law supposing great punishments against those who violate them this which forbids to make Images and to serve them is onely found accompanied with threatnings unto Childrens Children of them who shall make Images or serve them as if God foreseeing the narural inclination of men carrying them to this Worship would more particularly make them know his Jealousie and hold back this tendency or inclination by the terrour of his Judgments They think to avoid the meaning of the Commandment and to distinguish themselves from Pagan Idolaters in saying they do not adore the Images and that they believe not there is any Divinity or virtue in them as the Pagans did But doth the Council dare so to restrain and qualifie if it may be so said the express Commandments of God which not onely forbid to worship Images or to believe any virtue in them but absolutely to make them to worship to serve and to bow down before them for the terms of the Commandment have precisely all this The Bishop of Condom sayes elsewhere Pag. 80. upon the words of the institution of the Lords Supper that himself and those of his Communion do understand these words according to the letter and that none ought any more to ask Why they hold unto the literal sense than to ask of a Traveller why he follows the High-way and that it is those that have recourse unto a figurative sense and who follow crooked ways that should give an accompt of what they do Nevertheless the sense of the Old Testament is without comparison more literal than that of the New and all the World knows that the terms of a Law or a Commandment should be more express and in a more literal sense than those of a mystery because it behoveth necessarily that the Commandment be clear to the end that all those who are to keep it may plainly understand it whereas in Mysteries it is seen almost always that the wayes of speaking are mystical and as the word it self imports signifying something hid and figured Now let the Bishop of Condom tell us here why he doth not follow the letter of the Commandment which is so express wherefore he forsakes this High-way marked with Gods own finger to fly unto a forced or alienate sense It is further but an undue imputation touching Heathens Athenag in Apol. p. 17. St. Aug. in Psal 96. to say as he doth That they believed that their false Divinities did dwell in their Images the Pagans did not yield by any means that they worshipped wood and stone but onely the Originals which were represented by them They did also make a great difference betwixt the Worship which they gave unto the great Gods and those which they gave unto the less Divinities neither did they believe that their Gods were shut up in their Shrines or that they dwelt in them as the Bishop of Condom doth affirm and if it be found that any such thing hath been imputed unto them in the first Ages of Christianity it is onely but by reason that the Superstition of the people went much farther than the Opinions Maxims of their Philosophers or of their Priests and Arch-priests The Pagans believed that their Gods came sometimes upon earth but that they made their residence in the Heavens or in some places separated from the sight of men Pallas for example could not attend to be in the Palladium in Troy whilest she was in the Grecian Army conducting the Chariot of Diomedes and fighting against the Trojans themselves Arnob. adver Gent. li. 6. Maxim Tyr. Serm. 38. Exod. 32.4 5. The Pagans believed onely in general that there was fatality or virtue in the Images of their false Gods as in the Palladium the virtue of preserving the City of Troy and that these Gods did onely at some times give some extraordinary markes of their presence and of their power in their Images These things are too well known to be called in question No more did the Israelites acknowledge that they did worship the Brasen Serpent nor the Golden Calf nor that the Golden Calf was God himself but they looked upon it as an Image or a representation of that true God that had delivered them from the Bondage of Egypt Nevertheless the Pagans and the Israelites were both alike guilty of Idolatry by these two principal reasons the one that their false Worship whatever it was or whatever construction they gave it was condemned by God The other that though the clearest amongst the Heathens and amongst the Israelites did say in general that they did not worship neither the Images of false Gods nor the Brasen Serpent nor the Golden Calf the people nevertheless did not forbear to give a Religious Service unto those things to kneel before them to incense them and in some measure to fasten their trust and affections upon them The Roman Church doth not believe any Divinity in the Images it is true except haply some grosser Spirits which are capable of thinking any thing when they are kneeling before them and are possessed with the wonders that have been done by the Images But how can it so formally be said that the Church of Rome doth not believe that there is any virtue in them For she desires this very mâ—â—ter of God in consecrating of them that he would bless them that hâ— would accompany them with hiâ— power all those other points whicâ— are to be seen at large in the Româ— Pontifical The Books of the Româ— Church are full of the Virtues of thâ— Cross of the miraculous Images oâ— the Virgin and of the Saints arâ— of the Marks which the Saints do oâ—ten give of their presence and of theâ— power from whence also do proceed the Vows the Offerings tâ— Pilgrimages authorised by the Counciâ— and to conclude Memorias frequentari all those affectâ—
Devotions which are tyed more tâ— one place than another This is what hath been alreadâ— touched upon the Worship of Sainâ— in general The Church of Roâ— may as long as she pleases tell uâ— they put no confidence in Images and that they believe no other virtâ— in them but onely to stir up the remembrance of the Originals That 〈◊〉 not the question whether it must bâ— believed or not believed that there 〈◊〉 virtue in Images but whether a religious Worship ought to be given unto them The general practice of the people doth manifestly contradict this profession and the people do not onely fix their confidence upon Images but the experience of all Ages doth manifestly shew that it is impossible but that they should naturally incline thereto A publick mark of this confidence that the people do believe something more than humane in Images is that though the better sort of the Roman Church themselves condemn openly the excessiue Worship which is given unto many Images of the Blessed Virgin as for instance unto those which have been or are yet to be seen in the Streets at Paris In Goos-street near the Capuchins c St. Honore's street c At the Capuchins in St. Honore's street and unto others yet more famous in Forreign Parts whereunto the people do flock in great numbers yet we have seen one Image amongst others which they durst not remove out of the peoples sight but onely to transport it into the adjacent Chappel and it seemeth they much less dare take away the others because it is known that the hearts of the people are fastned untâ— them To omit that the Church of Româ— is so far from having contained hâ—â—self in the worshipping of Saints sincâ— the Council of Trent that it appeaâ— on the contrary That whereas the Council doth onely authorise in express terms the Image of Jesus Chriâ— as man of the Virgin and of thâ— Saints and at the farthest only somâ— representation of some History of thâ— Scripture or some action of the Dâ—vinity there is to be seen in sundrâ— places in the Churches Images sâ— up not onely of Angels in formeâ— young Children with wings buâ— also of God the Father in likeness oâ— an old man and of the Holy Ghosâ— in form of a Dove against what thâ— Apostle expresly says of those Deut. 4.12.15.16 Isa 40.18 Acts 17.29 whâ— change the glory of the immortal God into the likeness of a mortal man anâ— of Birds c. against the prohibition of the Law so often repeated and iâ— fine against the Judgment of thâ— second Council of Nice it self and 〈◊〉 the first and most zealous Patriots of Images who at the least would not that there should be any image made of the Trinity But what is yet most stange of all is that this usage is not onely established by the general practice of the Roman Church but also maintained expresly by the Catechism of the Roman Church which was made by the order and authority of the Council The onely thing that the same Catechism doth alledge to authorise Rom. Catech. part 3. de cultu Sanctorum in some sort the use of Images and the Worship given unto them is saith he that God did command that two Cherubims should be placed upon the Ark and that the brasen Serpent should be lifted up before the people True but you say it your selves God commanded it upon occasion and for reasons all particular which it is plain you cannot argue from except you had had some special order in this behalf The Cherubims were nothing else but a meer ornament for the propitiatory and were onely in the most Holy Place where none entred but onely the High Priest once a year and the brasen Serpent was onely a Type of Jesus Christ instituted by God to heal the Israelites of the bitings of the Serpents of the Wilderness as Jesus Christ doth heal us of the bitings of the old Serpent They did not kneel down before the Cherubims nor before the brasen Serpent they did not worship them at all Ezekias brake the brasen Serpent as soon as he saw that the people offered incense unto it and the Scripture doth expresly declare 2 Kings ch 18. that this was a matter acceptable to God We agree all of the one and the other Communion that the Gospel iâ— onely the accomplishment of the Law we have not yet at this day any other rule than the Jews either for our duties unto God or our duties unto men All the differencâ— there is betwixt the Jews and us iâ— that the figures of the Law have given place unto the truths of the Gospel in stead of sacrifices and ceremonies of the ancient Covenant we have Jesus Christ which hath offered himself upon the Cross and in stead of the Passeover and Circumcision the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper This is properly and onely the true Christian Religion why then should they adjoin hereto the Worship of Images which is nothing else but an imitation of Pagans and which laies an insuperable obstacle to the communion of the Jews and of the Turks who are half Jews Images Concil Trid. Sess 25. de invoc SS say they do serve to instruct the people in the mysteries of Religion and to maintain devotion and piety But in the first place as to instruction if they will own the truth the people is no where worse instructed in the true mysteries of Salvation than in those places where the Worship of Images is most urged as in Muscovia They have reason to say that Images are the Books of the ignorant that is a pernicious mean which the slothfulness or ignorance of those who ought to instruct the people themselves have substituted in the place of true and sound instructions Every one may see that our Reformed People who have no Images nor other exercise but our Prayers our singing of Psalms our Sermons the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the Sacraments administred in the same simplicity that our Lord did institute them are not less instructed than those of the Roman Church with their Images The Bishop of Condom knows as well as any man that in truth it is by preaching that there should be formed in the hearts of men the lively Images of Jesus Christ who died for us and if we will have them the Images of the life and death of holy men who have sealed the Truth with their bloud and the Holiness of their life And as to matter of devotion the same is also seen that the people which use Images and all the other ceremonies where with Religion is incumbred have it may be more of the outward appearances of zeal but not therefore a more solid piety towards God and on the contrary all their devotion is turned towards these outward things Concil Trid. Sess 25. de invoc Sanct. Populum Plebi indoctae and towards the Images themselves That is in a word
the Work of our Salvation though it should be onely for not having rejected it And though it seem at first sight that there is not in this point so great a difference betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us it will appear upon very iâ—â—le râ—flection made thereon that as to the Foundation this difference is very great as well upon the points of their Doctrine in this very matter as upon all the other points that proceed from it In the first place he busies himself more or less touching the sincerity and purity of thoughts which we ought to have not onely of the power of God but more particularly of his grace and infinite goodness which could make us without us and which will yet save us in some sense not onely without our selves as when he is found of them which seek him not but also often maugre our selves as when he doth touch the hearts of those which persecute his Church which in effect is what the Christian Religion hath more noble most essential and most admirable We have nothing upon this point but to compare our Sentiments with those of the Church of Rome to see which are most conformable unto this fair Idea of the great mercy of God which makes him to extend his benefits and compassions even unto those very persons who resist him 1. We attribute all unto God in the Work of our Salvation without desiring to take any thing unto our selves and albeit this very thing were true that we could pretend unto any small part yet upon the whole the errour may not be criminal It may on the contrary be esteemed profound humility and an acknowledgment of our nothingness whereas the Romish Church whatever protestation she makes that she also attributes all to God as we do sticks not nevertheless to attribute unto man a great part of the merit and honour of his Salvation 2. In ascribing all unto God as we do and in renouncing our selves we assure the quiet of conscience because thereby we put all the confidence of our Salvation in the goodness of God and in the merits of his Son's Death which is an unshakeable Foundation whereas the Church of Rome gives man an opinion of his own strength which on the one side cannot but diminish in some sort that intire confidence which he ought to have in the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and on the other side make him promise himself much from his Fasts and from his other good Works like the Pharisee in the Gospel and notwithstanding this he ceaseth not to be miserably perplexed in this life or at his death with fears of Purgatory or of Hell when he comes to perceive his weakness and to think that it was partly in his power to have saved himself 3. Our Belief doth very strictly ingage us by all the strongest bands of Love and Gratitude to Worship God and to serve him and to keep his Commandments with so much the more care and zeal as he saveth us by his pure grace overcoming the very opposition of our Will The Doctrine of the Gentlemen of the Roman Church doth also ingage them to the same Duty but it diminisheth much herein by supposing that they are something beholding unto their own natural strength and besides this it mingles with this duty motives of Hope of good and fear of evil which in their nature would not be amiss were it as easie as it is difficult to keep them within just moderation which nevertheless are always more of the dispensation of the Law than of the true Spirit of the Gospel The onely or the principal thing which is alledged against us upon this Article of Justification is that they pretend that our Doctrine referring as it doth our Salvation wholly to the mercy of God and to the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ which is imputed unto us it seems to put men at liberty or at least under a relaxation from good Works as if they had nothing to do on their part or that it ought to be indifferent unto them whether they did good or evil But we have already prevented this Objection by giving to understand that being very far from making the mercy of God an occasion of sin and negligence we say with David that there is mercy with God that he may be feared And besides though there be but too much of vice and sin in us as we do not presume that our manners are better than those of Roman Catholicks we can say for the defence of our Doctrine that it cannot be seen that we are much more wicked or extravagant than they whether the people or Clergy be regarded We on our side do yet oppose unto the Gentlemen of the Roman Church that their Belief doth produce two infallible evil effects it casts some into a presumption of their own merits from whence proceed Vows Abstinences Macerations and other the like practices which we believe superstitious and contrary to the Word of God and it precipitates others into despair by the resentment they have of their own weakness from whence proceeds their recourse unto Saints Purgatory Indulgences and all those other Doctrines and Practices which we believe to be contrary unto true piety It may therefore be seen by the bare comparing of our Doctrine with that of the Church of Rome which of the two doth most tend unto the glory of God and to form the most pure and disinteressed thoughts in our hearts and if in the end the difference which there is betwixt the one and the other doth not induce any very considerable change in Religion this will yet farther appear in examining other Doctrines which in some sort depend upon Justification The first VII The merit of Works in the Bishop of Condom's order is the merit of Works upon which we confess sincerely that the Bishop of Condom and those of the Roman Church who discover the purest sentiments of Free Grace speak almost every where as we do We agree with them in the principal which is that good Works are not only well pleasing unto God but necessary to Salvation Nor do we deny either one or the other that God doth crown his gifts and his graces and that according to his promises he doth freely reward those who serve him In summe it would seem that this Doctrine were sufficient to entertain in our hearts the true love of Righteousness and hatred of Sin and here it is properly that the dispute is onely touching words This term of merit Mereri which hath been introduced onely by an ill interpretation of the Latin hath indeed thus much of disgust that on the one hand it seems to make our weak endeavours to concur with the merit of the bloud of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to suppose some proportion betwixt our Works and eternal Life and on the other hand it puffs up that arrogancy unto which man is naturally too much inclined But
that there is very little or scarce a jot of this usage nor of the mention thereof found in the first times of the Christian Church It is well known that the Fathers of the first three or four Centuries and some of the fifth it self had several Errours touching the state of souls after death which process of time hath taken away some having believed that the souls did abide in a place of refreshing near Heaven or under Heaven until the Day of Judgment Others that they did sleep and that they should arise the first time with their bodies to reign a thousand years upon earth with Jesus Christ and finally at the day of Judgement and of the last Resurrection all that were raised should pass as it were through a Sea of Fire which should purifie and cleanse them But never any of them did believe a place where the souls should suffer after the death of the body pains in some sort like those of Hell except for continuance as the Church of Rome teaches No more did the ancient Jews believe it neither do the Greeks yet at this day believe it though they pray for the dead after the same manner as the Fathers now mentioned did Dial. lib. 4. ca. 39 40 51 55. It may be made appear here that this Doctrine is onely an imitation of that of the Pagans and that even Pope Gregory himself who is the first that put this Doctrine in credit speakes in the same sense and the same terms as Virgil saying that the souls are purged some in the Fire others fann'd in the Air others washed and cleansed in Rivers and in Ice and lastly others in Baths and Stoves but we onely design to touch things here as in passe Indulgences If the Doctrine of Satisfactions and of Purgatory be evil that of Indulgences doth fall of it self because this as it is taught in the Church of Rome is but as consequent and dependant on the other If God hath not subjected us unto Works of Satisfaction and unto temporal punishments unto which the Church of Rome would subject us there is no need of her dispensations and we have no business to examine if she hath any power herein Few persons are ignorant of the great difference that there is betwixt the Indulgence which was formerly used unto publick penitents and the pardons which Popes give as well for the dead as for the living and we have shewed by the very confession of themselves of the Roman Church that this Doctrine is not grounded upon any authority in Scripture and that there is not found any practice nor mention of it in the five or six first Centuries Also every one knowes what interest the Court of Rome hath to maintain as well Purgatory as the power of the Keys as the Council speaks the great authority and immense riches which this Doctrine hath brought unto it and that it brings unto it daily the cases reserved unto the Holy See the Table of Sins rated Sess 25. de Indulg more or less according to the nature of Sins Lastly the crying abuses are too visible whereof the Council it self has been constrained to order a Reformation They are it may be something less in France where people have their eyes more open but they are so great in Spain beyond the Mountains and in the very place which is termed the Center of Religion that the sober persons of their Communion cannot forbear condemning of them This is what we had to say of Justification and of the Doctrines which depend upon it It may be believed that this may suffice to shew that the questions which separate us from the Roman Church upon this point are not of so small consequence as the Bishop of Condom would insinuate but that on the contrary herein is concerned the purest and if it may be spoken the most Christian part of Religion as hath been proved throughout upon this Article and that to conclude the Bishop of Condom doth not make any controversies to cease except perhaps in regard of those things which he hath suppressed and upon this particular point of Satisfactions upon which the Council of Trent Bellarmine and in a word the doctrine and general practice of the Roman Church formally take away what the Bishop of Condom would grant us THE FOVRTH PART The Process of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise IX The Sacraments in general doth call us to the matter of the Sacraments We will but little insist as neither doth he upon the name the number and the efficacy of the Sacraments in general and in like sort upon the greatest part of what he calls Sacraments in particular because the difficulties upon these points are not in reality so hotly agitated as the Bishop of Condom himself saith It may be believed that the time and patience of them who shall take the paines to read this Answer will be better imployed upon the matter of the Eucharist and upon the other articles which concern Tradition and the authority of the Pope which are more important and upon which we have most controversie In the first place as to the name of Sacraments Greg. in cap. 16. â—ib Reg. Tertul. de praesc c. Lib. 10 50. Tra. 80. 〈◊〉 Joan. Accedit verbum ad elementuÌ„ fit SacrameÌ„tum it were a thing indifferent to give them one name rather than another if we were agreed of the things or if the names would not by consequence draw in the things themselves The name of Sacrament may be taken in a double sense the one general and extensive to signifie any sacred act or ceremony as it is often taken in the Fathers the other proper less extensive as St. Augustine defines it in his Book of the City of God when he calls it a visible sign of an invisible grace the blessing of the Word being joyned as he saith elsewhere unto the matter of the outward Elements In the first sense they may if they please make not onely seven Sacraments Pierre de Damien Ser. 69. pa. 168. but twelve if they will as a Catholick Doctour did before the Council The Bishop of Condom doth in some sort accommodate himself unto this general sense when he uses this expression that in his communion there are received seven Signs or sacred Ceremonies The difficulty is that the Council being herein less equitable than the Bishop of Condom hath in this as well as in the matter of Justification made Articles of Faith of many particular Opinions which are nothing to the Essence of Sacraments which are good for nothing at all but for the Schools For the Council will have us expresly to believe not only seven Signs or sacred Ceremonies in a general sense but seven true Sacraments properly so called as it speaks and that we believe neither more nor less under pain of Anathema however it is plainly to be seen that at least in the ceremonies of Marriage of Pennance
and Order which are three of these seven Sacraments there is nothing of a visible sign unto which the blessing can be joined as there ought to be to make true Sacraments according to the Doctrine of St. Augustine As to their Efficacy we agree with the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and with the Bishop of Condom in particular in that we acknowledge as they do that the Sacraments are not onely signes or seales of the grace of God but instruments or means which he accompanies with his power to confer that very grace But there is this difference which is very considerable betwixt them and us that they will have it that the Sacraments do confer grace by virtue of the words which are spoken and by the action which is outwardly performed upon us Pag. 69 70. provided that we put no obstacle by any evil disposition which is what the Council terms conferring grace ex opere operato as it is also the language of the School that is to say by the action or by the bare celebration of the Sacrament it self And as for us we believe in truth that God doth accompany the Sacraments with his power and that they confer grace when they are received with Faith but not that they do confer it of themselves or by the words which are pronounced and by the outward action done upon us if they be not received with a true Faith The Church of Rome doth believe that this virtue is as it were inherent or affixed to the Sacrament and to the outward action which is in it performed though neither the Council nor the Bishop of Condom believed themselves bound to explain whether it be a Moral or Physical virtue so that according to their Doctrine this iis not necessary it self to be in a good disposition that is to say to have Faith or at least to exercise the acts in receiving the Sacraments It will suffice not to be in an evil disposition and thereby not to interrupt the virtue of the Sacraments or not to put an obstacle thereto for neither the Council nor the Bishop of Condom require any thing else But as for us we hold unto the Word of God which doth teach us in several places that it is by Faith onely that we partake of these graces God not affixing his power meerly unto visible things Pa. 154 as the Bishop of Condom himself confesseth in another place We reject the Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point with so much the more reason for that besides that it is very evil in it self there may be observed several considerable abuses which proceed from it 1. First This Doctrine is very evil in it self in that it doth tye the grace of God unto outward things 2. In that it carries men to neglect the acts and habits of Faith and of other Christian virtues teaching them that the Sacraments alone regenerate and sanctifie them without ever troubling themselves so much as to bring any good disposition with them which is a Doctrine whereof the bare Exposition doth disgust those who are not accustomed unto it From whence also proceeds that in the Roman Church they make the greatest part of devotion and piety to consist in causing to be said a great number of Masses and of going often to confession as they speak because they are taught that the action of the Priest and the words which he pronounces have the virtue to confer grace provided onely that they put not any obstacle on their part 3. This opinion hath served to introduce or establish the Doctrine of the Real Presence such as it is taught in the Roman Church which we believe to be very bad as we shall shew hereafter 4. From thence also is plainly come the Opinion of the necessity of giving the Eucharist unto Infants which is an Errour that reigned a long time in the Church and this other Errour of the necessity of Baptism which yet doth raign at this day in the Church of Rome 5. The same Opinion doth also give occasion to several other very wicked and superstitious acts insomuch that there have been some people who have imployed the matter of the Sacraments for Charms and for other most mischievous uses 6. To conclude the Council makes this Opinion a principle to establish thereby many others which we reject and which together do corrupt very much the purity of Christianity So that it is evident that this matter of the Sacraments in general which at the first sight appeared not very considerable ceaseth not nevertheless to be of great importance by reason of the consectaries which it drawes after it for that this is the nature of Errour to be fruitful in productions It were much to be desired that for an intire clearing of what is most considerable upon this Article the Bishop of Condom would have been pleased to have told us something of his thoughts upon the several Doctrines of the Council which he passeth over in silence and amongst others upon that of the Eleventh Canon which requires that the Priest which administers the Sacrament have an intention to consecrate and to confer grace without which there is nothing effected It is known that there are men to be found so wicked as to sport themselves with the Holy Mysteries as indeed of them there be but too many Examples Let them tell us in this case what ought to be thought of all those unto whom these wicked Cheates do pretend to give the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist of Pennance and of Absolution c. As to some have they not adored what was not adorable as to the others are they not deprived altogether of the effect of Baptism or of Absolution and so of the other Sacraments And as to all the necessary consequents of this principal Doctrine doe they not clearly shew that the Doctrine it self is very evil The Bishop of Condom not saying any thing unto these controverted matters would be content that here and elsewhere where he deales after the same sort his silence should be taken for a tacit consent that all these Doctrines howsoever established by the Canons of the Council are at least of the number of those things which may be waved The Bishop of Condom reduces all the Questions touching Baptisme Baptism unto that of the necessity of this Sacrament for Infants and indeed that is the chiefest All that he says herein consists in three things upon which it may be said at first sight that this haply is one of those places of his Treatise wherein he doth most of all swerve from his natural equity In the first place he condemnes those poor small creatures in terms more formal and severe than the Council it self doth Infants saith he not being able to supply the want of Baptism by the acts of Faith of Hope and of Charity nor by desire or vow of receiving this Sacrament we believe that if they receive it not
with the Holy Ghost and with Fire is also taken for a Spiritual Purification under the figure of Fire And so much the rather because the occasion it self on which Jesus Christ speaks thus to Nicodemus is but indeed a particular occasion where there is not the least appearance that our Saviour had any thoughts neither expresly nor by consequence to establish the necessity of Baptism The second thing wherein the Bishop of Condom here recedes from his natural equity is this that he would take a false and indirect advantage against us by what he saith That the Lutherans do believe with the Church of Rome the absolute necessity of Baptism for Infants and that never any man before Calvin dared openly to call in question this truth it was so strongly imprinted in the minds of the Faithful For in the first place the Council it self doth not impose this necessity so absolutely as doth the Bishop of Condom it saith not so positively as doth the Bishop of Condom that Infants have not any part in the Redemption of Jesus Christ or with Jesus Christ The Council doth not condemn those who say that Baptism is not altogether necessary to Salvation Sess 7. de Bapt. Can. 5. Si quis dixerit Baptismum liberum esse hoc est non necessarium ad salutem Anathema sit Heming in via vitae Calixt de Bapt. Coâ—â— Dieter de Bapt. and if it did that would not infer an absolute necessity It condemns onely those who would have Baptism indifferent or unnecessary as the Council it self explains it which is very much different from this necessity that the Bishop of Condom makes so absolute And it is much to be admired that he who is naturally inclined to sweetness and who seemes to remit somewhat upon other Questions doth on the contrary discover more severity upon this point which yet is one of the most favourable Further if he oppose the Lutherans to us as bâ—ing of a contrary judgement to ours in this point besides that the Bishop of Condom ought not to impute unto the whole body of the Lutherans what is constantly rejected by the most eminent Divines of their Communion we will alledge produce against him the Ethiopians and Christians of St. Thomas which are very ancient Churches where at this day they do not baptise their Children upon any account * Males 4â— days Females 80 days after until whole months after their birth Not to speak any thing here of the Testimony of Tertullian who advised to defer Baptism until years of discretion nor of Gregory Nazianzen of St. Ambrose of St. Austin of Paulin Bishop of Nole and many others which were not baptised till far gone in age As for Calvin's part to whom the Bishop of Condom imputes it to have been the first that denied this absolute necessity it is very easie to shew the Bishop of Condom how much he is mistaken in this matter not oâ—ely by what we have just now alledged of those Christian Churches of Tertullian and of others who were named but also by Hinemar Archbishop of Reims in the Ninth Age and since by Catharin Gerson Gabriel Biel Cardinal Cajetan Tilman de Sigebert Cassander and many others that were Roman-Catholicks who have all denied this necessity before Calvin For Hinâ—mar did teach In Ep. 55. cap. 482. pa. 572. that the Faith of Fathers and of Godfathers might serve for Infants by the grace of God whose Spirit bloweth where it listeth and all the others have also expresly declared themselves for the possibility of the Salvation of Infants departed without Baptism To conclude the Bishop of Condom doth here again recede from his natural equity when he saith in terms too severe Pag. 73. That the pretended Reformers are not afraid voluntarily to let their children dye like children of infidels without bearing any badge of Christianity and without having received any grace if their death doth precede the day of their publick Assembly We are very far from suffering willingly our Children to dye without Baptism contrary to what he says nothing is more against our wills for though we do not believe that Baptism is necessary unto salvation by an absolute necessity such as is that of the Bishop of Condom's no more than the participating of the Eucharist yet we find very great comfort in celebrating the Sacraments and suffer not that they be slighted or neglected We do what we can possible to supply the want of ordinary Assemblies by condescending to them who demand this comfort with greater importunity But it is also true that we do not believe for all that that the grace and goodness of God is tyed unto sensible things nor unto the outward Acts that is to say to the words that are pronounced and unto the exteriour action that is done upon us as it hath been before set forth and we not onely believe that God can but that he will supply this defect by the operation of that Holy Spirit which bloweth where it listeth as Hinemar cites it out of the Gospel To conclude we believe as the Prophets that God is the Father of our Children as the Apostles that the Children of Believers are holy as we have already observed and that so to be born and dye in Christianity is not to dye in Adam or out of the Covenant of Jesus Christ As for Confirmation Confirmation we do not onely not believe it to be altogether necessary but we cannot believe it to be a true Sacrament instituted by God and so far are we from being a-one in this Opinion as the Bishop of Condom alledgeth that we can make good the quite contrary by the Testimony of Authours even of his own Communion Zaga Zabo Alvares Guido Carme Soto Armachanus Gouvea Jarric lib. 6. c. 9 12. to wit the Eastern Churches had not nor to this day have for the most part any knowledge of Chrisme or of the Confirmation of the Roman Church Amongst the Greeks themselves who have a kind of Chrisme it is the Priest and not the Bishop that gives it with Baptism as making it a part of Baptism and by consequence on the contrary there is none but the Church of Rome alone who have made Confirmation to be a particular Sacrament It is true that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and his Apostles who had the gift of miracles laid their hands sometimes upon the sick sometimes upon the Baptised and sometimes upon them whom they sent to preach the Gospel at the same time communicating unto them extraordinary and miraculous graces But besides that there is not to speak properly any imposition of hands in the Confirmation used in the Roman Church which might ground it upon this practice of the Apostles and that the use of Chrisme that is to say of Oyl with Balm is a thing unknown in the First Ages we find not that either Jesus Christ or the Apostles ever said Go lay your hands upon
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
means of Salvation or a sign and sacred Ceremony as the Bishop of Condom terms it but a true Sacrament properly so called as are Baptism and the Eucharist though it is plain that there is nothing properly here whereby the blessing of the Word might be joyned unto some visible sign which serves as matter according to the Doctrine of St. Austin 2. Is it not also an odd thing that the Council doth make articles of Faith of all these distinctions of Attrition Contrition and several others which at least ought to be left to the Schools and that because a certain Father speaking of Repentance after sin * St. Jerom compares it unto a Plank by which a man saves himself when the Vessel is cast away Sess 14. de Sacram Paenit Can. 2. the Council applying this comparison unto the Sacrament of Pennance and of Confession which nevertheless is quite another thing as hath been shewed thunders out an Anathema against all such who do not agree that Pennance is rightly called a second Plank after Shipwrack as it were canonising a Figure of Rhetorick Perhaps it may be said that the Council intended onely to define the thing it self but let them say herein what they will it doth not at all suit with the simplicity and gravity of the Subject nor with the honour and gravity of the Council it self and it cannot be but that this easiness in making articles of Faith of all things throwing out Anathema's on all hands must create offence in some and contempt in others To conclude if it be true as the Council it self hath once defined it touching all the Sacraments in general and here in particular touching this of Pennance that when the Priest hath no real intention to absolve the sinner or when he doth not make use of this Form of Absolution Ego te absolvo c. I absolve thee c which is the essential and necessary Form of this Sacrament in which principally consists all its virtue according to the same Council or where the Priest hath not power to absolve as in cases reserved unto the Bishop or unto the Pope himself in all these cases Confession is without any effect and the sinner without pardon of what nature then is this Doctrine or Religion which runs all along upon so uncertain principles which makes the grace of God and the salvation of men to depend still upon the villany giddiness errour or want of power of one man The Bishop of Condom hath almost throughout used an easie expedient to disentangle himself for either he saith nothing of all these Doctrines of the Council or he doth not engage himself to prove any thing of what he himself speaks to them if it be not sometimes when he thinks that the matter is favourable for him or that he may inlarge himself without the least danger Here he wraps himself up in two opinions which are little to the purpose keeping a profound silence upon all the rest The First is that the terms of the Commission which is given to the Ministers of the Church to remit sins are so general that they cannot without temerity be restrained unto publick sins c. This is a little obscure the Bishop of Condom seems to intimate that amongst us we do believe that the Ministers of the Church cannot give absolution but onely of publick sins because that amongst us there is none but sinners who have committed notorious sins that make a publick acknowledgment in the presence of the Assembly unto whom in this case the Ministers announce the pardon of their sins with the circumstances and coâ—tidions which according to custome relate thereto But yet for all that it is not true that we limit the power of announcing pardon of sins unto publick sins and because we have no better mean whether it be to refute the Doctrines of those of the Roman Church or to make them in love with our Doctrine than to make them rightly understand it it shall be explained here in a few words what is the practice of our Churches touching confession and remission of sins There are several occasions upon which we do confess our sins whether it be in publick or private and wherein our Pastours doe announce unto us forgiveness First in the publick Assemblies in our entrance upon our ordinary exercises we make unto God a general confession of our sins Every one makes a particular reflexion upon his own sins and upon them whereunto he finds himself most subject 2. In the Sermon we are again exhorted to confess our sins heartily to repent of them to be a better people on which condition God pardons us it is the main subject and perpetual conclusion of all our Sermons 3. In our Houses in our Closets we do again more particularly confess our sins in the presence of God and both on the one and the other of these occasions we believe that if we are truly penitent with a true and lively confidence in the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ and a stedfast resolution to live better for the time to come God vouchsafes us the grace of pardon and regeneration 4. Upon the particular occasions of communion in the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist in afflictions and upon the solemn occasions of Fasting we do make a more express and as we may so speak aggravated confession of our sins whether it be in publick prayers or in our own private reflexions and on these occasions again the Ministers in the name and in the authority of Jesus Christ in the very Quality of Ministers declare on the one hand the Judgments of God upon the impenitent and on the other supposing the Faith and repentance of the Sinners they announce unto us the remission of our sins 5. In our sicknesses and especially in those that are most dangerous we likewise more particularly confess our sins whether it be before our Pastours and Guides or before our Friends making also acknowledgment sometimes more particularly and freely of the infirmities and sins whereunto we are most subject Our Friends and our Pastours exhort us unto a lively sorrow for our faults and unto an intire trust in our Saviour and our Pastours in particular do exhort and comfort us If they see us in too great security or too little touched with the sense of our sins they declare unto us the severity of Gods Judgments against impenitent Sinners as on the contrary if they behold in us true motions of sorrow and repentance and a lively hope in the death of our Saviour they assure us that God will shew grace and mercy to us If we have any quarrel or animosities whether it be in sickness or health they say to us as St. James Confess your faults one to another for this is the true meaning of that passage and not the Sacramental confession as the sincere * Cardinal Aureolus in Compen elucid 5. upon this passage of Saint James
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
our Kings had not set some bounds to the enterprises of the Court of Rome As for Order or Orders for the Council sets down Seven under this name to wit the Priest the Deacon Order the Subdeacon the Acolyte the Exorcist the Reader and the Porter The Bishop of Condom speaks onely a word of Order in general as he hath done of Marriage to put it into the number of Sacraments It is true as he saith that we hold the ministry of the Word of God for a sacred thing taking the term in a general sense We practise the ceremony of Imposition of Hands as it was practised in the Apostles time but we cannot agree that Order or Orders are a true Sacrament as Baptism and the Eucharist as well for that in Orders there is no Element or Visible sign no more than in Marriage and in confession as also because it is in truth the nature of the Sacraments of the Gospel that the Sacraments ought to be common to all the Church and Orders are not It is in this point also the interest of Rome that made Orders a true Sacrament to the end she might withdraw all the great Body of the Roman Clergy from the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate and thereby make unto her self proper subjects of other Princes people in the midst of their States and Kingdoms as a particular Kingdom or Hierarchy apart not only distinct from the Temporal Monarchy but superiour and over-ruling Kings themselves Many things might be said upon this Article to shew principally that the Priesthood and the sacrificing of the Roman Church is an invention purely humane and that it hath no example nor any foundation in the Gospel for there can be no true Priesthood where there is not a true Sacrifice and in the following Discourse it shall be made appear that there is none such in the Mass But in this place we will be content to follow the Bishop of Condom who had no mind to engage in all these Questions whether it be that he deserts them tacitely by his silence or that he thought them to be fitter for the Schools than for publick edification or Lastly that he hastened to pass unto the matter of the Eucharist where he believed he might inlarge himself with less disadvantage THE FIFTH PART We are saith he now at last X. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real presence of the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament the manner how she understands these words This is my Body arrived at the Question of the Eucharist c. as if one should say after a great deal of bad way now we are gotten a little more at large On the whole there is this difference betwixt all these Questions of the worshipping of Saints of Images and Relicks of Satisfactions of Purgatory of Indulgences of the number and efficacy of the Sacraments whereof we have hitherto treated and this of the Eucharist whereon at present we enter that in all the others there is not to be found any Footstep of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament nor in the very First ages of Christianity whereas upon the question of the Eucharist the Roman Church pretends that she hath the Scripture it self on her side Therefore also it is that whereas the Bishop of Condom did but lightly pass over all the rest here saith he it will be necessary more amply to explain our Doctrine And here the better to accommodate our selves to the Bishop of Condom's method as we have done upon the other articles we will distinctly examine all the several Heads of which he makes so many Sections 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and how she understands these words THIS IS MY BODY 2. How she unâ—erstands these other words DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. 3. The Exposition which she makes of our belief as to the reality 4. Transubstantiation and Adoration and in what sense the Eucharist is a sign 5. The sacrifice of the Mass 6. What the Apostle teacheth in the Epistle to the Hebrews when he saith That Jesus Christ offered himself once 7. The reflexion which the Bishop of Condom makes upon this Doctrine 8. and Lastly The point of Communion under both kinds which the Bishop of Condom doth onely consider as a sequel or consequent of all the rest We will touch each of these Heads with as much brevity as shall be possible The Bishop of Condom begins with this proposition that the Real Presence is firmly established by these words of the institution of the Eucharist THIS IS MY BODY The reason which he gives thereof is because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter and here it is that he saith what hath been alledged elsewhere upon another subject that you must no more ask them wherefore they apply themselves to the literal sense than of a Traveller why he follows the High way Let any one judge of the sequel by the beginning The Question betwixt us is Whether the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament are truly and really the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ or whether they are so onely in the mystery That is to say whether the words of the institution This is my Body ought to be understood literally or figuratively whether they truly signifie a real presence as they speak or a presence mystical and of virtue for it is all one and the same thing The Bishop of Condom saith without any other pretext that the belief of the real presence is firmly established upon these words because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter that is it is so because I understand it so that is to say that he decides the question by the thing it self which is in question or that he doth give us his sense his will for a reason To have the liberty to speak as the Bishop of Condom doth we must lay it as a principle that there is nothing in the Scripture that one should not or at least that may not be taken literally Then might she take literally what our Saviour saith elsewhere John 6.35 19.5 that he is the bread of Heaven or that he is a vine and his Disciples are the branches and that none should be allowed to inquire how it might be The Bishop of Condom judging truly enough that this was not a proposition maintainable enters upon two other conceipts more reasonable On the one side he ingageth us to prove that the words of institution of the Eucharist ought to be taken in a Figurative sense On the other he engages to prove himself Pa. 80 that they ought to be taken according to the letter It is their part saith he who have recourse to Figurative senses to give a reason of what they do We
is wont to call Sacramental It is by virtue of these words alone that the consecration is made one would think that the others signifie nothing or that they be nothing in comparison of the former whereas if we rightly take the thing according to the end which it is plain our Lord proposed to himself in this Institution these first words are onely the introduction the vehicle or the foundation of all that follows as in arguing the first propositions are onely a leading unto the conclusion and are far less considerable than the conclusion it self The true essence the force virtue of the Sacrament is without doubt in the sense of these other terms 1 Cor. 11. Luk 22.19 which is broken for you do this and do it in remembrance of me and to shew forth my death until I come which is the sense in which St. Paul explicates these latter words of our Saviours for Jesus Christ gives his body 1 Coâ— 11. onely as it was broken for us and his bloud as poured out for our sins This is properly the Mystery of our salvation the expiation of our sins the accomplishment of the Law These are the words properly which make the true likeness betwixt the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Cross betwixt the Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament We ought to take them altogether to form a true Idea of this Mystery and it may be truly said that it is onely for not taking them altogether that the Church of Rome is fallen into all these errours which make us separate from her If instead of insisting so much as she doth upon these first words this is my body she had weighed a little more the following words which is broken for you she would doubtless have acknowledged that Jesus Christ having not yet suffered death when he spake them and nevertheless giving his body as broken and in a state of death his intention could not be that his proper body was really in the Sacrament and less yet that it was there in a state of life such as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome doth suppose it If instead of insisting so much as she doth upon the first words she had also weighed a little more those other do this in remembrance of me she would have also understood thereby that the sense of these words imports that Jesus Christ kept aloof from and did not at all put himself in the place of the bread and to conclude if she had a little better weighed these last words drink ye all of this instead of insisting onely upon the former she had never proceeded so far as to take away the cup in the Sacrament But to return to the point on which we are here principally concerned what hath been now said doth not onely shew the relation there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ but doth wholly overthrow the consequence of the Bishop of Condom's Argument to wit that Jesus Christ did not on this say any thing to explain himself as he was careful to doe in the other figures or in other parables For in the first place we know that Jesus Christ did not explain generally all the Figures he used whether it were that he would leave some exercise for our Faith and meditation or that he thought them sufficiently intelligible of themselves as we do pretend that this very passage is 2. If this Figure had not been so plainly intelligible of it self it hath been already shewed that Jesus Christ had prepared the Apostles to understand it having told them that these sorts of expressions were to be understood spiritually And to conclude John 6 63. how can it be said that Jesus Christ said nothing to explain himself If our Lord had said no more but these words this is my body as the Bishop of Condom onely frames his Argument upon these words it might seem somewhat less strange that they should dare to speak thus to us but Jesus Christ said all in the same breath this is my body which was broken for you doe this in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.24 Mat. 26.29 This is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for many I will not any more drink of this fruit of the vine c. And the Apostle St. Paul who very well understood the words of our Lord doth add 1 Cor. 11.26 that as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come What greater explication or rather what greater clearness can be desired in a Mystery to give to understand that Jesus Christ leaving his Apostles and speaking to them as it were his last Farewel left them this Sacrament as an earnest a memorial and a seal of the death which he suffered for them and for us XI The explication of those words Do this in remembrance of me The Bishop of Condom passing over the first words of the Institution This is my body to those which immediately follow Doe this in remembrance of me is no longer the Traveller that those follows the great High way I mean words he no longer understands the words of our Lord according to the letter The literal and natural sense of these last words altogether Do this in remembrance of me is this that we should do what Jesus Christ ordained to put us in remembrance of him for it is Jesus Christ that saith in remembrance of me But the Bishop of Condom somewhat detorts this sense and would have it that the intention of our Lord should be only to oblige us to remember his death under pretence that the Apostle concludes with these words that we shew forth the death of our Lord. It is not difficult to comprehend what this the Bishop of Condom's little detortion tends to namely that if this be the sense of those words Do this in remembrance of me we ought to call to remembrance the very person of Jesus Christ This sense leads us naturally to believe that the divine person that we ought to call to remembrance is not really present For according to the manner of usual conceiving and speaking amongst men to call to remembrance is properly of persons absent Otherwise supposing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as the Church of Rome supposeth the sense and the Idea which these words carry Do this in remembrance of me is this Eat my proper body to call your selves to remembrance of me in my presence or as if I were present which makes but an odd and inconsistent sense In the mean time neither the nature of the thing that is to say Jesus Christ who was now about to leave the Apostles nor his expressions at all suffer us to doubt but that he requires precisely these two things to wit to call our selves to remembrance of him by an act of love and acknowledgment and that we meditate also on his death as an effect
of his love and the price of our Redemption The Bishop of Condom very far from acknowledging that to call to remembrance as our Lord requires supposes his absence turns the thing to the clear contrary so as to infer that this very remembrance should be grounded upon the real presence To this purpose he here brings in again the comparison of the sacrifices As saith he the Jewes in eating the Peace-offerings did call to remembrance that they were offered for them so in eating the flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice we ought to call to remembrance that he dyed for us and from thence he passeth unto a kind of Rhetorical rapture upon the tender remembrance which the Tombs of the Fathers excite in the childrens hearts First as to what concerns the comparison we have already said that it is not a proof and that upon the whole case the relation there is of the Law to the Gospel is no reason that we should take all according to the letter in the Gospel as we do for the most part matters in the Law that on the contrary it is sufficient that our spiritual eating of the body of Jesus Christ answers unto the Oral eating of the sacrifices which were the Figure of his sacrifice But there is yet more in it the Bishop of Condom onely speaks of Peace-offerings and remembers not himself of what he himself had said of the sacrifice offered for sins which is the true Figure of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross May not his argument be returned back against himself that as the Jewes did not eat of this expiatory sacrifice and yet for all that failed not to remember that it was offered for their sins in like manner it is not necessary that we should eat the proper flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice to put us in remembrance of his death We have this advantage of the Jewes that they ate nothing instead of this sacrifice whereas we eat the holy Symbols which livelily represent unto us the body and bloud of Jesus Christ his body broken for us and his bloud poured out for the expiation of our sins Further what are our manners and our education that to put us in a tender remembrance of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ we must needs eat his proper flesh with our bodily mouth Or rather if it be true that the remembrance which is the thing in question be nothing else but an apprehension excited by the objects which affect the sense has the manner in which it is believed they eat this flesh in the Church of Rome any thing which doth more affect the senses than ours seeing that we eat it both one and the other under the same kindes or forms of bread and wine We will not here enquire whether it excite a real tenderness to conceive that we effectively eat the flesh which we love and adore or if on the contrary it be not by degrees that the Church of Rome it self is become accustomed unto this conceipt which of it self doth stir up contrary affections It will be onely needful to compare the manner how they administer the Sacraments in the Church of Rome with that wherein they administer them in our Churches to judge which of the two is most capable to entertain a true remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ The Church of Rome believes she holds the proper flesh of Jesus Christ under the sacred coverts of bread and wine as it were under a mystical Tomb or under dead signs but a living and vivifying flesh c. These be the terms of the Bishop of Condom which form a notion or Idea very perplext and contradictory as if we should say a dead body full of life and the fountain of life under the coverts of death Which is the very cause that this Idea being so confused is not without much difficulty received into the mind and that it there makes the less impression or at least doth not make so lively an impression onely of the death of Jesus Christ of which the main question here is whereas amongst us where we onely regard the bread broken and the wine poured out but as an image and representation of the body of Jesus Christ broken for us and his bloud shed for us This image doth give unto us a clear and distinct Idea of the death which Jesus Christ hath suffered for us which is properly the effect which our Lord would produce in the Sacrament In the Church of Rome the Priest that saith Mass or that consecrates often saith it alone most commonly very low and alwayes in Latine which is not at all the Language of the people The Consecration being done if he gives the Host for every one knows that there are infinite Masses without communicants he saith not unto them who do receive it that the body of Jesus Christ was broken for them which is properly what he ought to say unto them according to the words of our Saviour to imprint well in their minds the Idea of his death and to excite in their hearts a pure sense and such which becomes hearts engaged in love and acknowledgment of this Divine Saviour but it is onely said unto them by form of a Petition which is made for them the body of Jesus Christ keep or preserve their souls unto eternal life and though we do not here repeat this form of Petition to condemn it because it is good and of ancient use yet it may be said that it is a more self-interessed consideration which makes them not to reflect but onely upon their own profit and advantage and which is more the Priest sayes this it self in the same Latine Tongue which the greatest part doe not understand In very truth what sound remembrance or what true sense of love and thankfulness can this kind of setting forth the death of the Lord all in a low mumbling tone in general terms in a Language ill understood excite We speak of a sound remembrance of a love with understanding for as for an outward devotion or confused resentments of Holiness it is not denied but that the way of the Roman Church being full of pomp may excite as much as or more than ours which is more simple Amongst us to the end there may be no mistake in this matter behold in a few words what is our practice In the first place some dayes before the time appointed for administring the Sacrament there is an exhortation made to us to prepare our selves by acts of Repentance of Faith and of charity and by an holy life the day beâ—ing come after the usual exercises of devotion which consist in Prayers singing of Psalms and reading portions of the holy Scriptures most proper unto the subject there is ordinarily a Sermon made to us expresly upon the death of our Lord Jesus Christ or upon the Sacraments themselves The Sermon is followed with an excellent Prayer also upon the same subject
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
face of God The Bishop of Condom thinks to take away the opposition in supposing that Jesus Christ is present in Heaven such as he was seen to ascend vested in his ordinary qualities and that he is upon the altars in another state which they call Sacramâ—ntal or â—n the manner of a spirit whereas St. Paul speaks oneâ—y of this first manner of presence in Heaven and that excludes this other sort of presence upon Earth But in the first place this is to answer by the thing it self which is in question To be able to speak thus it were necessary to shew us clearly that the Apostle knew and believed this last sort of presence of Jesus Christ upon Earth and in the second place if the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ had been present in the Sacrament at all times when his Supper was celebrated presenting himself for us before the face of God how could the Apostle have said so absolutely as he doth that Jesus Christ enters not into holy places made with hands but that he is in Heaven where he appears for us without saying at least somthing that might have distinguished the two different manners of appearing at the same time in Heaven and upon the altars and that the one doth not at all exclude the other This cannot be conceived The other proposition of the Apostles is Heb. 9.25 that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often for then must he often have suffered The Bishop of Condom on the contrary saith that Jesus Christ offers himself every day because that to offer himself there is no need that he should dye any more There is nothing more opposite than these two propositions and the reasons upon which they are grounded both one and the other not to offer himself often because it would be necessary he should dye to offer himself every day because it is not necessary he dye It is in vain for the Bishop of Condom here again to hope to remove this contrariety by asserting two manners of offering himself unto God the one in suffering death and the other in putting himself onely under the signs of death and supposing that the Apostle onely speaks of the former and that he means Jesus Christ doth not offer himself to dye often For in the first place this is again to answer the very thing that is in question It were necessary I say to have shewn that the Apostle had acknowledged these two different wayes of offering himself the one in suffering death and the other without dying but on the contrary the Apostle speaks absolutely and without restriction that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often And what he adds that otherwise it had been necessary that Jesus Christ should often have dyed doth not make a part of the Apostles proposition but onely the reason of his proposition otherwise the Apostles proposition would amount unto this that Jesus Christ doth not dye often because he doth not dye often If the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ doth yet offer himself every day for us it is evident that he would not have said in such absolute terms that he doth not offer himself often or that he would have said something that would have shewed these two different manners of offering himself the one in dying and the other in putting himself onely under the sign or under the coverts of death as the Bishop of Condom speaks It appears that we must wilfully shut our Eyes to be able not to see that all the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass is directly opposite unto that of St. Paul Nevertheless the weakness or the variety of the mind of man is such that even from this it self the Bishop of Condom takes occasion yet to triumph upon this point desiring us to make serious reflexion upon his Doctrine and upon the order which he saith providence holds in drawing us insensibly nearer unto the Roman Church XVI Reflections of the Bishop of Condom upon the foregoing Doctrine pa. 145 146 c. This reflexion reduceth it self unto this that the Real presence is the foundation of the sacrifice of the Mass of the adoration of the Host and of all the other consequences of this Doctrine that providence hath permitted that the Lutherans have retained the reality and that in the last place the Calvinists have declared that this belief of the Lutherans hath no poyson in it neither doth overthrow the foundations of Faith and that it ought not to break communion betwixt Brethren so that if the Lutherans do reject the sacrifice and the adoration and do not believe Jesus Christ to be present but onely in the very moment that they do receive the Sacrament it is because they do not so throughly consider the consequences of the Reality as the Roman-Catholicks do that our Doctours themselves agree that the Doctrine of the Roman Church is more consequent in this point than that of the Lutherans and that in fine no subtilty of the Ministers can ever perswade people of right judgement that maintaining the Reality which is the most important and the most difficult point we ought not to maintain the rest In the first Edition it was that the Ministers could never perswade that he who should maintain the Reality might not easily digest the rest The Bishop of Condom hath already in the Entrance on his Treatise objected against us what he here again saith of the Lutherans though in another regard we have there also shewn the difference betwixt their Errour and that of the Church of Rome which is in a word that that of the Lutherans is but an errour of belief upon one point and is not followed by any evil practice whereas that of the Roman Church draws after it the Sacrifice of the Mass the adoration of the Host which are worships and practices whereof the consequence hath been already set forth We will onely add in this case that besides that the Bishop of Condom's argument here is not good and that there is on the contrary an equivocation or change of sense upon the word Reality which makes a kind of Sophisme the Reality or the Real presence such as the Church of Rome believes it by a change of the substance of bread into that of the body of Jesus Christ immediately after these words this is my body are pronounced is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the adoration of the Host This is the sense of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition upon which we have nothing to say God saith he hath permitted that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality This is his second proposition and here the equivocation begins because it is not true that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality such as the Roman Church supposeth it They believe not the presence of the body of Jesus Christ but onely in the use of the Sacrament as the Bishop of Condom
himself affirms that is to say in the moment that they receive it this is the reason that they admit not the Sacrifice of the Mass and adore not the Sacrament believing that it is not there that Jesus Christ will be adored and that it is sufficient that in receiving the Sacrament they address their adoration unto Jesus Christ himself without circumscription of place as they speak that is to say without considering him precisely as being in the bread The Bishop of Condom goes on God hath even permitted that the Calvinists have declared that this Doctrine of the Reality hath no poyson in it and ought not to cause a separation amongst Brethren This is the Bishop of Condom's third proposition where one may see the continuance of the equivocation upon the word Reality for it is not of the belief of the Reality in general that we have declared that it hath no poyson in it and that it ought not to break communion but it is in particular of the belief of the Lutherans in the terms in which they set it down Therefore ought the Calvinists also to maintain the Sacrifice of the Mass and the adoration of the Host as natural consequences of the Reality This is the consequence of the Bishop of Condom's argument but every one sees that it is a false consequence and besides the Question This falsness is caused by the equivocation of the word and by the ill manner of reasoning for the Reality of the Lutherans which we allow of is not the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass nor of the adoration of the Host as is the Reality of the Roman Church Upon the whole supposing here again that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Reality may â—â—em more consequent than that of â—he Lutherans as the Bishop of Conâ—â—m sayes that our Doctours doe aâ—ree that is to say supposing that we once believe the Real presence of â—e body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament we have reason to believe â—nd to practise the Sacrifice of the Mass and to adore the Host if the Doctrine of the Reality it self be an Errour whether it be understood after the manner of the Lutherans or after the manner of the Church of Rome as it must also be supposed according to us it is not a paradox nor 〈◊〉 subtilty of the Ministers to say an Errour which seems more consequent â—s not more tolerable On the contrary the more consequent an Errour is the more natural also is it that it leades from the truth For example a man that goes out of the right way but after some digression returns back into it suddenly again by another way doth far less go astray than he that having once taken a by way doth a long time go on in a contrary way how straight soever that way seems to be Who can reasonably doubt but that the Errour of the Manichees had been more tolerable if they had rested at the belief that God gave particular marks of his presence in the body of the Sun and of the Moon and that for all that they had not adored the Sun nor the Moon or that those that by Errour should believe that there were some Divinity in Images but yet would not adore them not believing that the Deity would be adored in the Images were not less Idolaters or less faulty than those in whom the motions of the heart did follow the Errour of the mind But to conclude what must be well distinguished here is that we do not receive nor approve the belief of the Lutherans touching the Reality In summe we do onely endure it and blame them for it and we have not admitted them into our communion but through a spirit of peace and of charity when they have desired to be thereinto admitted and according to the conditions mentioned in the Act of our Synod Nâ—w although the Bishop of Condom seems onely here to demand our condescendence to endure also the belief of the Church of Rome it is most certain that in effect he intends all along that we should receive this belief such as it is and that we should profess it as it is professed in the Church of Rome In a word his design is that the Reality or Transubstantiation is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the adoration of the Host that both the one and the other being consequences of the Reality they should no more trouble our mind than the Reality it self and that to conclude we should receive this Doctrine altogether and not onely swallow it down but also digest it There remains but one Article more of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition XVII The Communion under both kinds touching the Eucharist to examine The title is conceived in these terms The communion under both kinds as if it were the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that we ought to communicate under both kinds of bread and wine in stead of saying The taking away the Cup or the communion under one kind which is properly the thing meant It is plain here that they find it troublesome to say the thing as it is because it cannot be said without shewing at first sight that they have taken away something of the institution of our Lord. However the case stands the Bishop of Condom onely considers this Article as a consequence of the Doctrine of the Real presence a thing which is so far from being a reason to make us to like it that it cannot but more and more increase the just a version which we have for the Doctrine it self upon which are built so many evil consequences Mat. 26 27 28. The Bishop of Condom makes not the least mention of these words of our Saviour Drink ye all of this for this is the bloud of the New Testament which was shed for many which yet are words most essential to this subject and which contain not onely an express command to all to drink of the Cup but also the reason of the command which is that the bloud of the Lord was shed for many Let the Bishop of Condom tell us here why he makes so much reflexion upon the former words of the Institution and that he makes none at all upon this as if they had not not all proceeded equally out of the mouth of our Saviour What is the reason that he takes the former according to the letter and that he takes not these also so which are neither less express nor less clear And wherefore in fine is his Faith which is attentive to the authority of our Lord when he doth but just begin a proposition and doth as yet ordain nothing wherefore I say is not the same Faith attentive to the same authority of our Lord when he doth not onely propose but command and when he commands that we should all drink ot the bloud of the New Testament At other times they pay us with this escape that in the Institution
authority of the Church of Rome which they pretend cannot err Behold therefore the Bishop of Condom's argument overthrown in all its parts seeing that the Maxime which he layes down is not true which is that all the Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the first beginning cannot be shewn proceed from the Apostles and that the application which he doth make is less true which is that all the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embrac'd by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning and by consequence this conclusion whether it be of the Bishop of Condom or of the Council of Trent far from being true and orthodox is a very strange principle that we ought to receive the Traditions even those which do separate us from the Church of Rome with the same respect and the same submission as the Holy Scripture XIX The authority of the Church After Tradition follows the authority of the Church The Bishop of Condom doth not clearly explain wherein this authority consists nor what he understands by the Church which should have this authority whether this authority should have any bounds or whether it should have none or whether it be the Pope with the Council or without the Council or the Council alone in which this authority doth reside for we also have our Churches and our Governours and we believe that we should not onely keep order but all that doth conduce for the maintaining of unity and concord and the Question here as elsewhere is oftentimes but of the more or less What the Bishop of Condom sayes in this case is reducible to four principal propositions The first that it cannot be but by the authority of the Church that we receive the whole body of the Holy Scriptures The second that it is of the Church that we learn Tradition and by Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures The third that it is the Church and her Pastours assembled which should determine controversies that divide the Faithful and that when once they have resolved any matter we ought to submit unto their decisions without examining anew that which they have resolved The fourth and last that this authority is so necessary that after having denied it we have been forced to establish it amongst us by our discipline by the Acts of our Synods and by our practice in things pertaining to Faith it self As to the first we agree with the Bishop of Condom that the Christian Church is the Guardian of the Scriptures and that as she hath received the Law and the Prophets from the Jewish Church so it is from the Chirstian Church that the Faithful receive all the Scriptures as well of the Old as of the New Testament We even acknowledge that the authority of the Church is a lawful reason which at first makes us look upon the Scripture as a revelation from Heaven but we do deny not onely that it is meerly by the authority of the Church but that it is principally by her authority that we receive the Scripture as the Divine Word The Scripture is full of Testimonies which it self gives of its Divinity and of the efficacious power which it hath upon hearts by the operation of the Holy Ghost It is indeed somewhat injurious to this the Divinity of the Scripture and to its efficacy and somewhat contradictory when it is contended that a matter Divine should not be received but by dependance upon an humane authority It is as if one would say that it is yet at this day onely by the authority of the Jewish Church that Christians have received the whole body of the Scriptures of the Old Testament because it is by her hand that we have received them though upon the whole the authority of this peopel chosen of God may be a reasonable ground of the Divinity of the Scriptures Truth hath its proper character even in humane matters which makes us acknowledge it for its self when once it is set before our eyes and not for the authority of those who propose it to us By greater reason Heavenly truths like the Sun manifest themselves by their proper splendour 'T is a common speech upon this subject that a man asleep being told the Sun is up presently believes it is day upon what is told him but when once he sees it is day he believes it not any longer because he was told so but because he sees it and he doth not so much as dream any longer that it was told him so The Gentlemen of the Church of Rome will not agree that it is as clear that the Scripture is the Word of God as it is clear that it is day when the Sun is above our Horizon and this is it which the Bishop of Condom gives to understand in terms positive enough when he speaks of us that whatever we say he believes that it is principally the authority of the Church pag. 16. that determines us to reverence as Divine Books the Song of Songs which hath so few sensible marks of prophetical inspiration the Epistle of St. James which Luther rejected and that of St. Jude which might be suspected by reason of some Apocryphal Books which are therein alledged But how dare any man rebate or decry as I may so speak the brightness and force of the Word of God Why sayes he absolutely that the Song of Songs hath so few marks of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit And to what end here again proposes he scruples against this Song and against the two Epistles of St. James and St. Jude which we look upon both in the one and the other communion as sacred Books and that without so much as alledging the reasons which have determined as well the Church of Rome as ours to receive these Writings as Canoniâ—al For will any say that if these Writings had not had any character of Divinity the sole approbation of the Church of Rome could give them 〈◊〉 light which they had not of themselves For our parts 2 Tim. 3.16 we say with the Apostle that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and if all men do not look upon them in the same manner or with the same sentiments it is not the fault of the Scripture but it is the effect of the variety and weakness of the humane spirit and the wise and free dispensation of the Spirit of God which bloweth where it will and as it will An evident proof that it is not the authority of the Church of Rome which determines those of our communion to reverence the Scriptures and these three Books particularly as Canonical but that it is their own proper character and the grace which we believe that God gives us to acknowledge this character is that 't is well known there are some others as Tobie Judith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus and the two first Books of Maccabees c. which the Church of Rome receives as Canonical which
we receive not as such and that on the contrary we do receive the Epistle of St. James which the Lutherans receive not at least all of them as we do whatever conformity there may be in other things betwixt them and us Again as a proof that it is not the authority of the Jewish Church which determines the one or the other of us to receive the Scriptures of the Old Testament as Canonical we may take this that at this time the Jewes not receiving for such all that the Church of Rome receiveth she doth not think her self bound to acquiesce in their judgement The Bishop of Condom's second proposition touching the authority of the Church depends in a manner wholly on the former for he saith that as we receive the Scriptures from the hands of the Church so we learn Tradition of her and by means of Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures In good time Let the Church then be the Guardian of Tradition as she is of the Scriptures and let her make use of Tradition either for order and discipline to facilitate the understanding of Scripture but let her not make thereof a title to impose upon us Worships or Doctrines which do not accord with the Scriptures or to make the sense of the Scripture to depend absolutely upon the interpretation of the Church as in receiving the Old Testament from the Jewes the Church did not tye her self blindly to receive their Traditions which overthrow the Law nor their interpretation when it doth not accord with the true sense of the Prophets Errour as vice is for the most part in the extremes we owe respect teachableness and submission unto all those whom God sets over us to instruct us this is not contested but this is no reason to change this submission into a voluntary blindness Faith being a gift of God we ought not to change nor force the use of the exteriour means which God employes to work it in our hearts but we ought to use them according to his intention with a spirit of sweetness and of charity to perswade and not to constrain Otherwise a blind submission in matter of Faith is not submission but a spirit of servitude very unworthy of the liberty of the children of God and to require such a submission by what name soever it be called is to make an outward society of bodies of interest and appearance and not at all a true communion of spirit and of judgement pa 162. pa. 165. The Church saith the Bishop of Condom doth profess that she saith nothing now of her self that she inventeth not any thing anew in points of Doctrine and elsewhere very far from intending to render her self mistriss of her Faith as her Adversaries accuse her she hath done what she can to bind her self and that the means of innovation may be taken away seeing she not onely submits to the Scripture but to banish for ever those arbitrary interpretations which make mens thoughts to pass for Scripture she hath bound her self to understand them as to what regards Faith and manners according to the sense of the holy Fathers from which she professeth never to depart declaring in all the Councils and in all the professions of Faith which she hath published that she receives not any Doctrine which is not conformable unto the tradition of all the foregoing Ages The Bishop of Condom doth well to say that the Church of Rome professes that she invents not any thing for where be the Innovatours which do not profess the same thing But upon the main is it true that the latter Councils have alwayes exactly followed the Doctrine of the Fathers or of the very preceding Councils for not to speak of Transubstantiation of worshipping the Hoste and of private Masses which according to us are Doctrines and Worships unknown at least in the eight first Ages because the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do not agree to it it hath already been made appear in another place that the worshipping of Images was forbidden by the Councils of Eliberis of Constantinople and of Francfort and that the same Worship has been established or maintained by the authority of the second Council of Nice and in the last place by that of Trent It bath also been shewed upon the Article of Purgatory that that Doctrine with all its consequences was put in the place of the opinion which many of the Fathers of the first Ages had that after death the souls did sleep or did refresh themselves in a place separate from Heaven The case is the same as to Auricular confesssion and of Indulgences which have succeeded to the practice of publick pennance and generally as to all the Doctrines and all the practice of which we find no footsteps in the Fathers of the three first Ages nor in the first Councils and which we pretend to have been added at several times unto the Doctrine and Institution of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles And here to instance yet in two examples of alteration in Doctrine and practice which are quite out of all question Hath not the Council of Trent which is that the Bishop of Condom takes for the rule of his Exposition abrogated the doctrine and use of giving the Sacrament unto little children of which we have already spoken Hath it not also declared in express terms for confirming the taking away the cup which was before ordained by the Council of Constance that therein little weight could be laid on the Fathers for it is to no purpose so the Council decides to alledge the sixth of St. John for the communion under both kinds Sess 21. de com cap. 2. what way soever saith the Council it be understood according to the sundry interpretations of the holy Fathers We will not here examine whether all these divers changes are for the better or worse because it hath been already done heretofore and because we treat not here of the right but onely of the matter of fact which the Bishop of Condom hath averred to wit that the Church of Rome hath bound her self that she hath taken away the means of innovating that she submits her self through all to the sense of the Holy Fathers and that she doth not receive any Doctrine which is not conformable unto that of precedent Ages To conclude these Expositions seem to intimate that the Church of Rome is not so well assured of her infallibility but that it hath been acknowledged she had need to be secured against her self by tying up her hands and taking away the means of Innovation And nevertheless if we will be a little informed by themselves what hath been the success of all this precaution Let the Doctrines of the last five or six centuries be onely compared in general with the Doctrines and practices of the three first and even with the following Ages the Council of Trent with them that went before it without having any regard if they please to our
disputes It will easily appear whether the Church of Rome hath hath kept her self within the bounds which it is said that she hath prescribed her self if she hath always exactly followed the steps of those which went before her and if in fine what is here said of her temper and moderation be not onely rather the ordinary stile of those who make profession of submitting themselves unto Laws even when they openly trample them under foot The third proposition particularly regards the authority and infallibility of Synods or Councils The Bishop of Condom saith that it is the part of Pastours assembled to decide controversies and the Faithful to receive their decisions without examining them we all agree to the former part of this proposition and we believe also that the way of Synodal Assemblies is the most universal outward means and the most effectual that God makes use of to keep mens minds united in one onely Belief But as we cannot agree to the infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes unto them so neither can we accord that the Faithful are obliged blindly to receive their decisions without examining them John 5.39 Mat. 7.15 Acts 20.29 1 Thes 5.21 Act. 17.11 The Apostles themselves did not demand so blind a submission to their own Doctrine on the contrary they advised that men would compare it with the Scripture that they would distinguish the Wolf from the Shepherd that they would examine all and retain that which was good and those of Berea were commended for that after having heard the Apostles they compared their Sermons with the Scriptures If it be said that this might take place as to the Doctrine of each Apostle in particular and not as to what had been decided by all the Apostles as that which the Bishop of Condom alledgeth out of the 15th of the Acts when the Apostles being assembled upon the controversie which was raised touching the ceremonies of the Law they pronounced these remarkable works It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us c. And that afterwards St. Paul and Silas went through the Cities teaching believers to keep the Ordinances of the Apostles In the first place the Bishop of Condom would do well to put some difference betwixt those holy men which had received the Holy Ghost immediately in form of fiery tongues and the Fathers of the latter Councils of Constance and of Trent of whom the very Romish Catholick Authours observe the passion the motives and the humane interest that inspirited them 2. We see that though the Apostles were fully perswaded of their authority as St. Paul speaks particularly of himself yet they are very far from thundring out Anathema's for the least matters as the Council hath done at every word against all those that will not admit even of meer School-distinctions and Figures of Rhetorick We see the Apostles found their judgment upon the Holy Scriptures and having concluded upon it they onely say with the greatest sweetness in the World If you do these things you will do well 3. Nor were they at all concerned even in this dispute about essential points of Faith but onely about ceremonies of the Law which were already silently abrogated by the Gospel which the Apostles would maintain but for a time to give the Synagogue an honourable burial and to maintain union betwixt the Jewes and the other people which had newly embraced the Doctrine of the Gospel In summe very soon after St. Paul himself preached that people might eat indifferently of all sorts of meat and it is known that in process of time the usage established by this Ordinance of the Apostles was insensibly abolished 4. It doth not appear that the Apostles did publish their decision with an absolute injunction to obey it but they sent Paul Barnabas and Silas to instruct the Faithful to keep this Ordinance that is to say in all likelihood to shew them the motives and grounds thereof which doth not import that it was forbid them to examine it Lastly we may retort against the Gentlemen of the Roman Church what the Bishop of Condom afterwards objects against us which is that their practice agrees not at all with their Maxims for it is not true that they believe the Councils to be infallible in all things nor that they alwayes receive all their decisions either with examining them or without examining them For example they have not held to those of the Councils whereof we have spoken which forbad the worshipping of Images and the decisions of those Councils have not hindred but that other Councils have ordained the contrary It is known that the Gallican Church hath not yet to this day received all the decisions of the Council of Trent as to points that regard Ecclesiastical Order and discipline which notwithstanding are much more of humane Jurisdiction than the very matters of Faith The fourth and last proposition of the Bishop of Condom's touching the authority of the Church is that wherein he objects against us that this authority is so necessary that after having decried it we have been obliged to establish it in the very matters of Faith it self This proposition contains two accusations which destroy each the other that which makes them the less credible The one is that we have decryed the authority of the Church the other that we have established it without any bounds In summe nothing is worse grounded than the first of these accusations for it is not true that we ever denyed that Order should be observed in the Church nor that we have ever written or spoken against the just authority of those whom God calls to be Pastours and Governours of the Faithful Our confession of Faith our discipline the Acts of our Synods in a word all that the Bishop of Condom himself â—eports which is what is most ancient and most authentick amongst â—s since the Reformation manifestly destroyes this accusation and the Bishop of Condom doth not alledge any thing which shews the contrary Our Doctours have preached and written against the excessive authority of the Court of Rome against the Soveraignty which we believe the Popes have generally usurped over Bishops which yet have the same â—haracter and the same dignity as â—hey have over all the Clergy over the people over the Councils and â—ver Princes themselves under preâ—ence of the spiritual Sword We â—ould have spoken against the absolute power that Popes attribute to themselves of assembling or not assembling Councils because that Ecclesiastical History gives us assurance that in the first and best Ages of Christianity it was the Emperours that assembled them In fine we could have again exclaimed against the abuse of Indulgences and in a word against all those points whereby the manner of the Government of the Church is become so widely different from that wherein it was governed by the Apostles and St. Peter himself of whom the Popes style themselves successours but in all these very things those
and that in case of appeal unto a National Synod the full and final resolution should be there made by the Word of God unto which if the Gainsayers should refuse to acquiesce from point to point with an express disowning of their errours they should be cut off from the Church From whence the Bishop of Condom draws this consequence that we do not attribute the authority of this last judgment to the Word of God taken in it self independently upon the interpretation of the Church because the appeal of indifferent persons was received who had in their judgment applied that very word The difficulty is here onely as it may be seen upon the more or less of the authority which should be attributed unto the judgment of Synods or of Popes and of Councils Neither this rule nor the consequence which the Bishop of Condom draws from it speak any thing but what we have already all along acknowledged that order and dependance is requisite and that Pastours and Synods are appointed to govern the Church to teach the Word of God and to promote the understanding of it But this infers not at all that we attribute infallibility unto our Pastours nor to our Synods as the Church of Rome doth to Popes and Councils nor that the people are obliged to receive their decisions without examining them or to give a blind obedience unto them The Article sayes that those who have any scruple shall be heard in the Synod with all holy freedom and that the scruple or difficulty shall be there resolved by the Word of God It is not possible to find a temper more just and equitable to retain on the one side particular persons in a just moderation and to leave to God and his Word the supreme and absolute authority over our consciences It may be that this moderation it self is not without some inconvenience and that it would seem that the opinion of the infallibility of Popes or of Councils and the soveraign and absolute authority that is attributed unto them are as a strong rampire to retain the people within bounds But in the first place an inconvenience in a Government is no sufficient reason that another should be good and just if it be not so of it self 2. Where is there any order and form of Government either in Church or State but that there is some inconvenience There is much more without comparison in attributing infallibility and an absolute dominion unto Popes and to Councils because when it so happens that Popes or Councils fall into any errour as it ought to be supposed in this part of the Question that it may so happen and as we are convinced by experience that it hath happened diversetimes the evil is almost without remedy Errour hath the force of authentick and irrevocable Law it renders it self more general more durable and by consequence more difficult to be reformed and when once the guides are blind then there will be a necessity to fly to particular persons unto whom God giveth sufficient light strength and courage to take the part of the Truth But that it might not be said that this is onely a supposition accommodated unto the particular case of the Reformation of our Fathers it is known how hard it was to root out Arrianism when it was supported by the authority of the Episcopal chair of Rome and of the Council of Arimini that it is principally unto the zeal and courage of St. Athanasius that the glory of restoring Christianity in its purity is due and that in fine if God had not made use of this holy man and of others that seconded him the Arrians might have fortified themselues so that they might have mastered the Councils and Truth might have groaned longer than it did under the oppression of those Hereticks 3. In fine it is not absolutely true neither upon the whole that the infallibility and authority which is attributed to Popes and Councils is either a stronger or a surer means to restrain the people than is the temperament of our Discipline For experience shews that for more than an Age since our Churches of France have been governed by this order there hath never been any difference amongst us either in doctrine or in discipline which hath not been decided without any trouble whereas it might be said that the excessive authority of Popes and of Councils far from hindring of division hath very much contributed unto the divisions of the East against the West and of the West against it self which are the two Schisms the most considerable and unfortunate that could fall out in the Church The sincere persons of the Church of Rome do acknowledge yet to this day that it is the too great heighth with which the Popes and the Council of Trent did affect to make Articles of Faith of all that was disputed in the very Schools and to anathematize those that would not receive those Doctrines that hath put an obstruction well nigh inuincible to the peace and re-union of Christians And not long since again amongst Roman Catholicks we have seen that the authority of Popes supported by that of Princes has scarce been able in some way to hinder that the differences which had stirred up so much eagerness upon points of Doctrine and Discipline had not caused yet greater scandal But after all we daily see that this authority of the Pope hath onely the power to change the outward appearances but the unity of minds is wanting so true is it that it is onely the knowledge of Faith and charity which are the solid grounds of an holy union of hearts and of thoughts The Bishop of Condom doth yet make a third difficulty upon the form of the Letters which we give unto our Deputies when we send them to the Synods The Form is conceived in these terms which are reported by the Bishop of Condom We promise in the presence of God to submit our selves to all that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy Assembly to obey and execute it to the best of our power being perswaded that God will reside there and will direct you by his Holy Spirit in all truth and justice by the Rule of his Word Every one at the first light perceiveth that as this Form is conceived it is so far from supposing that the Synod cannot err or from attributing an absolute authority unto it and independent upon Scripture that it doth precisely suppose the contrary It cannot be sufficiently wondred at how the Bishop of Condom could have so much mistaken himself herein as he hath done for he thinks that there is something more in it than in those two other places of our discipline and of the Synod of Charenton which he had reported to shew that we yield a blind submission unto our Synods His reason is because there is submission given unto what shall be resolved in the Synod before it be known that it hath spoken according to the Scripture
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