and that by consequence they acknowledge thereby in some sort that a Reformation is useful and necessary VI. Of justfication THE THIRD PART The method which the Bishop of Condom hath observed requires that after the Worship of Saints c. we examine his Doctrine concerning Justification the merit of Works of Satisfactions Purgatory and of Indulgences It is true as the Bishop of Condom saith that the Article of Justification is one of the chief things which gave occasion of reformation to our Fathers Very few are Ignorant what was the state of the Latin church at that time On one hand presented it selfe the Doctrin of the merit of works the necessity of satisfying Gods Justice in this life or endureing the fire of Purgatory after death to compleat what was wanting of this satisfaction on the other hand was to be seen an extraordinary irregulatity in the life and manners as well of the Clergy as of the people and by consequence no likelihood of salvation neither by works nor by those satisfactions and in fine there appeared no other Object before the eyes of men but Purgatory or Hell In this state of the Church the Pope opens the Treasures of his Indulgencies distributes his Agnus's his Beads and Reliques and prescribes certain numbers of Pater nosters and Ave Mary's of Stations of Visits of Churches of Pilgrimages Fasts Pennances of macerations and mortifications with which and with the help of Pardons Dispensations and Indulgences which were purchased at a dear rate those who had them were not onely justified themselves but helped to justifie others delivering souls out of Purgatory and acquiring for them a greater degree of blessednesse or an augmentation of glory as the Councill speaks Our Fathers did believe that there was an abuse in all these things and that this Doctrine which possessed the minds of the people and that made up the greatest part of their piety did overthrow the Foundation of Religion which doth essentially consist in placing our chiefest confidence in the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ and farther in serving God according to his will and not according to the commandments of men It is also true that since the Reformation the Church of Rome it self doth seem to be a little more reserved than she was before as well as to expressions in regard of her Doctrines as in regard of the practice and the very use of Indulgences and they are beholding to us for it which doth very much serve for the justification of our first Reformers but the abuses are yet too great in one and the other for the corrupting of piety and scandalizing of true Christians Those who onely consider the controversie of Justification at a distance or transiently without searching into the grounds and consequences will not it may be at first think it so important as it is but it is of so great moment what herein is the judgment of those who are well informed amongst us that as to the contrary we should not stick here to maintain that the difference of Belief which doth separate us from the Church of Rome as to this point is of so great consequence unto Religion that there is scarce any greater Let us therefore be permitted according to the liberty that Dispute doth require to deny here formally what the Bishop of Condom doth aver in something an uncertain manner That there are but few learned men of our side as he speaks but do confess that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome about this point and that this difficulty is not any longer considered as much material by the most intelligent persons amongst us The Bishop of Condom doth not cite one of those learned men nor one of those intelligent persons unto whom he imputes these sorts of Sentiments as the importance of the business doth require The Confession of Faith of our Churches which contains the General Belief of those of our Communion explains it self to the contrary upon this point as throughly as may be it confirms the very Doctrine which the first Reformers taught declaring in express terms That how little soever we swerve from this Foundation we can never finde any ease but that we shall be continually tossed with inquietude The Council of Trent it self acknowledged the importance of this Controversie First in that it takes notice of it from the first as one of the principal causes of the Schism and which did most deserve the care of the said Council And in the second place by the prodigious length of its Decree and by the vast number of its Canons and Anathema's much greater upon this point than upon any other In summe it may be said that it is not onely a principal point but it is one of them which are most such The others for the most part do onely regard some part of Religion Errour doth corrupt but that part and doth not influence the others if we may so speak The worshipping the Host for example is without doubt one of the most essential points in which it is impossible to finde any mean because the question is whether it ought to be worshiped or not worshipped which is the first and greatest Act of Religion Nevertheless this is but a particular point a capital errour indeed for them who are deceived in it but which doth nothing or changeth nothing in all the other Fundamental Points But who speaks of Justification speaks of the means of our Salvation that is to say the Mystery of our Redemption there is nothing more important than not to be deceived in the choice of such a matter because if a man fails to take the right way he falls from errour to errour and the very true essence of Religion is changed and altered This truth will plainly appear by the bare comparing of our Doctrine with that of the Church of Rome We do believe that our Justification doth alone consist herein that having deserved death Jesus Christ dyed for us and satisfied the Justice of God the Father for us who for the love of his Son pardoneth all our sins in general uniting us unto him by a true and lively faith and imputing his righteousness and obedience unto us that is to say the merit of his Death it self as though we had suffered it in our own persons We believe that it is God himself that doth beget and strengthen this Faith in our hearts by the inward operation of his Holy Spirit and by the outward Ministry of his Word and Sacraments as shall be explained in what follows upon the subject of the Sacraments that this Faith is not a dead or idle Faith but a living Faith and working by love and by all sorts of good works and that these works are very acceptable to God and necessary to Salvation as an inseparable consequent of that Faith which justifies us but that it is onely of pure Grace and by the alone merit of the death of Jâ—sus Christ that
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
authority which must be proposed to us as the rule of our Faith because the Council is formally contrary to the Bishop of Condom's Doctrine Sess 1â— cap. 6. de Sâ—cram Poenâ—â— The Council speaking of Works and of Penances the things here in question doth not onely call them satisfactory in proper terms as also sometimes doth the Bishop of Condom himself but the Council doth declare that it suits not with the justice and goodness of God to forgive us our sins without some satisfaction on our parts and yet more expresly that these pennances whâ—â—â— the Church of Rome doth impose are not onely a precaution for our amendment and a remedy for the time to come which the Bishop of Condom calls the bands of justice and duty but a punishment or a revenge and a chastisement for our past sins requiring in proper termes that the Curates have always this maxime before their eyes and that they be very exact in examining the quality of the crimes and the abilities of the penitents and to impose upon them pennances proportionable to their sins This is so clear and express that nothing can be more In very deed this Doctrine of the Council is the common and constant Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point Lib. 1. de Purg. ca. 14. insomuch that Bellarmine by a subtilty contrary to that of the Bishop of Condoms doth teach that it is we who properly satisfy for our sins and that the satisfaction of Jesus Christ onely puts a value upon ours The Bishop of Condom therefore ought either to make all those of his communion to relinquish this Doctrin of the Council which is the common and constant Doctrine of their Church or to come to an accord that even by his own judgment we have right to charge them with the two things that have been touch'd The one that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome doth contradict it self and the other that they believe to satisfie at least in part for their sinns that by consequence they do injury unto the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ The Bishop of Condom did not judge it for his purpose to speak more openly what those painful and laborious works and those satisfactory pains are whereof here is question it might be said that these are verily of the number of those things which must be little explained and which are much better when they are lightly passed or wrapped up in general terms It would indeed seem that the Bishop of Condom hath introduced this term of painful and laborious works in the room of what the Roman Church directly calls penal works or pennances and satisfactions There is much difference betwixt the one and the other the one imports only difficult works the other punishments and it may plainly be seen by what hath been said that this alteration in the expressions doth onely proceed from the alteration which the Bishop of Condom hath made in the common Doctrine of the Church of Rome But to conclude by what name soever they are called we know they are such kind of works whereof we have already spoken Vows Pilgrimages Visits of Churches Abstinences Prayers by set-number Hair shirts Sack-clothes going without Shirts lying hard and such other Mortifications in this life and at last the paines of Purgatory in the other Now if it be here demanded whether there be not some authority for all these Doctrines the Council of Trent produces not any It only saith that in the Old Testament there are some examples of persons whom God hath punished with temporal paines though he had forgiven them their sin and that it seems to suit with the justice of God that it should be one kind of Grace which he shewes unto those who have sinned before Baptism and another which he shews to those who have sinned after Baptism The Bishop of Condom saith the same that this is just that this is a certain Order established as when God doth forgive us the sin of Adam and yet for all that not free us from the maladies which are the consequent of that sin This is the onely ground and sole authority that they give us for so considerable a Doctrine as is that of Satisfactions that is to say an argument meerly humane without any command or precept in Scripture as if the evils and corrections which God sends us to exercise our faith and patience were not at all effects of his love rather than punishments or as if this were a title or reason for us to give our selves discipline as they speak or to torment our selves and attempt in some sort upon our own lives As to us who have onely the will and Word of God for the rule of our manners and actions as well as of our Faith we are perswaded that all these Works which God hath not commanded being very far from pleasing do offend him that all this appearance of devotion is nothing else but an imitation of the Sect of the Pharisees which corrupted the Law by their Traditions fasting formally twice aweek The abstinence from meats in particular is an imitation of the Sect of the Pythagoraeans which fed on nothing but Herbs Whippings and Macerations an imitation of the Priest of Baal and of those of Cybele which whipped themselves and tore their skin even till the bloud gushed out and to conclude all these pretended Satisfactions are nothing else but commandments of men which as it hath been said do manifestly derogate from the infinite Satisfaction of Jesus Christ Purgatory Joh. Roffen Nav. l. 3. com de Jub Ind. De purgatorio apud priscos illos nulla vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio c. Nulla de purgatorio cura c. Cajetan in Tract de Indulg cap. 2. Nulla Sacrae Scripturae nulla priscorum Doctâ—â—rum Graecorum aut Latinorum authoritas scripta hac ad nostram deduxit no itiam sed hoc solum à 〈◊〉 annis Scripturae commendatem est de uerâ—stis â—â—â—bâ—s quod B. Gregor stat Indulg instituit Gab Biel lect 〈◊〉 57. upon the Can. of the Mass Ante tempora Greg. medicus vel nullus suit usus Inâ—l nunc autem crebrescit c. We have the same things to say against Purgatory as against Satisfactions it is also a Doctrine which derogates from the merit of the death of Jesus Christ as if the expiation which he made of our sins were imperfect that there were need that we should compleat it There is no track of Purgatory to be found in the Scripture whether of the Old or New Testament without forced interpretations and consequences whereof our Doctours have sufficiently shew'd the vanity Many also of themselves of the Church of Rome accord that for this Doctrine they have nothing but Tradition since the time of Gregory the first who wrote in the end of the Sixth Age and that the Doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences are not onely not in Scripture but also
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
to proceed too far in the question What hath been here said which is onely taken from the nature of Sacraments the style of the Scripture may suffice to shew the Bishop of Condom that it is not without reason that we do understand these words This is my Body in a mystical and figurative sense let us now see what he will produce on his part for the proper and literal sense His discourse doth reduce it self unto two propositions the first is That it is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh and the other that there is no natural relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ and that our Saviour having onely said these words This is my Body without explaining them as he did ordinarily other figurative expressions the law of discourse as the Bishop of Condom speaks doth not permit that they should be taken otherwise than in a proper and literal sense As to the first touching our Saviours intention it is a good principle provided it be well established for Jesus Christ can do what he will what he wills is done as he wills and the Bishop of Condom hath no need to inlarge upon the power of God as he doth in what follows nor to seek for reasons why Jesus Christ would not give us his flesh in its very Form but under the covert of Bread that so we might not conceive an horrour at the eating it These are the common places of the first inventors of this Opinion and of all those who have followed them and yet nevertheless all this hath nothing of solidity because on the one hand we concern not our selves to examine whether God is able to do the thing but whether this thing is possible in it self or if it doth not imply a contradiction and on the other if it be matter of horrour to eat true humane flesh the covert may diminish this horrour but it cannot quite take it away especially if a man were certainly perswaded that he did truly eat humane flesh and besides that such flesh for the which he should have a tender veneration But to conclude how is it that the Bishop of Condom proves that this is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh As the Jewes did eat the victims which were offered for them Pag. 81 82 83 c. so saith he Jesus Christ our true sacrifice would that we should effectively eat his flesh c. The Jewes were forbidden to eat the sacrifice offered for sins to shew them that the true expiation was not made under the Law and for the same reason they were forbidden to eat bloud because the bloud was given for the atonement of souls but by a contrary reason Jesus Christ wills that we should eat his flesh to shew that the remission of sins is accomplished in the New Testament and that we should drink his bloud because it is poured out for our sins Thus it is that instead of giving us reasons the Bishop of Condom gives us onely comparisons relations agreeances as if it were not a known rule that comparisons and examples may serve well to illustrate things already proved but can never prove the things which are in question It is true that the sacrifices of the old Law were the figure of the sacrifice which our Lord Jesus Christ offered upon the Cross that is to say that as they offered up sacrifices which were types of Jesus Christ our true sacrifice to appease the wrath of God Jesus Christ offered up himself to reconcile us unto his Father This is the true accomplishment of the figures of the Law and the principal and true relation which there is betwixt the sacrifices of the Old New Testaments therefore also it is that our Saviour giving up the Ghost said these last and great words Joh. 19.30 It is finished The Apostle St. Paul which makes a parallel between the sacrifices of the Law and of Jesus Christ insists onely on this point that under the Law the sacrifices were to be reiterated every day whereas Jesus Christ offered himself onely once and we see not that the Holy Scriptures pursue any farther mystery in it To press further these sorts of relations and differences to make new doctrines and to bring all that is said of the sacrifices of the Old Testament to be said or denied of the sacrifice of the New this would be to make Articles of Faith Worships upon consequences wherein humane reason would have too much share But nevertheless if they will have it so that our Lord Jesus Christ intended there should be a relation betwixt all the circumstances of the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Eucharist which is the representation of the sacrifice that he himself offered upon the Cross we are so far from thinking that all the relations and all the differences which are to be found betwixt the one and the other should be understood according to the letter that we know the intention of the Gospel is opposed to the letter of the Law of Moses that whereas the Jewes under the Law did servilely and carnally ty themselves to outward and material actions it concerns Christians under the Gospel to take all spiritually and lift up their souls hearts unto Heaven Jo. 6.63 The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth The Jewes laid their hands upon the heads of their sacrifices and did eat of them to signifie the union which they had with them This is true we lay hold on Jesus Christ by Faith we eat him by Faith according to the speech of St. Austin Believe and thou hast eaten The Jewes did not eat the sin-offering nor did they ever eat of the bloud we eat the mystical body of our sacrifice and we drink his mystical bloud and as the expiation of our sins is actually made by his death upon the Cross so our Saviour sets before our eyes the sacred Symbols of his dead body as seals of his grace and of the remission of our sins See here how we might enlarge for our edification the relations and differences which we may find in this case betwixt the Old and New Testament betwixt the sacrifices of the Law and the divine sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ These considerations are right pious and conform to the spirit of the Gospel but as to the main that which is called a Doctrine and a Worship and an Article of Faith as is the eating of the proper flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ should not be founded upon relations and agreeances but upon a clear and positive revelation Pag. 84. But this eating saith the Bishop of Condom here ought to be as real as the expiation of sins is actual and effective under the new Covenant In the first place it must be observed here that the Bishop of Condom doth perpetually mistake himself upon the term of Real in the question of
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
God doth forgivâ— us our sins and give us everlasting Life Lastly we believe that we ought to be so far from making the goodness and mercy of God a motive of sin or of neglecting good works that we ought on the contrary to make it a motive of Love of Fear of Thankfulness and of an humble obedience unto all his commandments This is the summe of our Doctrine wholly conformable to the Spirit of the Gospel worthy of the infinite goodness of God and of the honour that we have of being his children and which also leaveth unto him all the glory of our Salvation and thereby puts us by its very own nature under an indispensable obligation of being an holy people and of doing his Will There are other Doctrines which do proceed from hence or relate hereto whereof it is true that many times the dispute is only of words and it seemeth that a man may be in an errour as to some of these Doctrines without derogation from the Glory of God or prejudicing the rule of our conduct as touching the assurance which Believers may have of their Election and touching the sense wherein it is said that God doth recompense our good works but as to what concerns those due sentiments which we laid down touching the onely cause of our Justification namely the Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which blotteth out our sins without our bringing any thing on our parts but that grace wherewith he himself makes us to imbrace the merits of his Death as it is the Foundation of the love and regard which we owe unto him so also of the quiet of our own consciences and not to think of God on this respect as highly as may be and as we are thereby bound or to diminish directly or indirectly by our thoughts or expressions the least point of this glory which he hath to be the onely Authour of our Salvation or of the obligation which we have towards him is to offend his Divine Majesty in the most tender part as we may so say of that love which he himself hath for us We have this advantage on this point as on many others that the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do agree almost to all that we believe the dispute is for the most part onely touching what they add unto that which we believe They confess as we that God is the onely Authour of our Salvation and it would be said at first sight that all which the Bishop of Condom hath set forth as to his Belief touching Justification doth intirely agree with our Doctrine for he saith as we do That our sins are freely forgiven unto us through the Divine mercy for his Son Jesus Christ's sake who blotted them out by his own Bloud He saith also that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed unto us which is an expression we ordinarily keep our selves to according to the stile of Scripture for the better understanding the very Word the nature and means of Justification The Gentlemen of the Roman Church and the Council of Trent in particular do commonly decline this expression because it intimates openly enough that it is not by any righteousness that is in us that we are justified but by that righteousness of Jesus Christ which is out of us and which is made ours by imputation as the Money which is paid by the surety is made the Debtors or reputed to be his because the Creditor is accountable for it and dischargeth him of his debt Those of the Church of Rome do not at all accommodate themselves unto this manner of thinking or speaking because they joyn unto this Righteousness of Jesus Christ that is imputed unto us a righteousness that is proper and inherent in us as they say which doth concur with the former This it is which is properly the ground of the Question betwixt them and us and the source of several other Doctrines which we do reject as shall be spoken in the following Discourse However it is true that the Bishop of Condom here seems to advance a step towards us at least it is certain that he hath done much good to Religion in general in discharging it in some sort from all the vain speculations not onely of the Schoolmen but also of the Council it self which is evidently as much or more Scholastical on this point of Justification as the most thorny School-Doctors The Decree contains no less than sixteen great Chapters and thirty two Canons to which the Chapters of the Decree are reduced The Decree is full of distinctions of the final cause the efficient cause the meritorious cause the formal cause the instrumental cause and the like the Canons full of Anathema's against a great many opinions if not good or innocent being yet in dispute at least doubtful and indifferent and which are visibly of the opinions of those particular Doctours which the Bishop of Condom would with good reason have laid aside the Council thereby making Articles of Faith of all those subtilties in Canonising them and by this means putting an invincible obstacle unto a reunion by the great number of Anathema's which it thunders generally against all those who will not admit all these opinions and distinctions of the Schools Our Confession of Faith reduces all this matter of Justification unto a few Articles in Apostolical stile very simple and very clear And the Bishop of Condom doth also reduce the very Chapters of the Decree and all the Canons unto a few words so far we seem to go as it were hand in hand But it must needs be that the kindness which the Bishop of Condom doth us is not sincere what he gives us with one hand he taketh away at the same time with the other and it may be said that this is still one of those Articles of Faith which the Roman Church receives as we do well nigh as fundamental but from whence at the same time she derogates by contrary Doctrines The Bishop of Condom saith here That God doth freely forgive us our sins and that he blots them out by the bloud of his Son In the following Sections it will appear that these sins are not so forgiven nor so blotted out but that we are bound necessarily to satisfie our selves by temporal pains in this life by the torments of Purgatory in the other or by the Pardons and Indulgences of the Holy Chair and from hence without going farther having said that our sins are blotted out by the bloud of Jesus Christ he immediately adds and by the Grace which regenerates us Now here we must observe that it is the constant Doctrine of the Church of Rome that it is in our power to reject this grace or accept it when it is offered unto us and that then when it falls out that we do not reject it but receive it and afterward act of our selves with the assistance of this grace we have a proper merit of our own and some part in