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 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
Church I most firmly admit and embrace Likewise I admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our Holy Mother the Church ever did and doth hold to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures neither will I receive or interpret it but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I profess also that there are seven true and proper Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord 〈◊〉 Christ and necessary 〈…〉 Mankind though not 〈…〉 person to wit Baptism 〈…〉 the Eucharist Pennance Extream Vnction Holy Order and Matrimony and that they do confer grace And of these â—â—â—t Baptism Confirmation and Order without Sacrilidge cannot be repeated The received and approved rites also of the Catholick Church in the Solemn administration of all the foresaid Sacraments I do receive and admit I do embrace and receive all and every points and point touching original sin and justification which have been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent I do in like manner profess that there is in the Mass offered up to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist after Consecration there is truly really and substantially the body and bloud together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that the whole Substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ and the whole substance of the Wine into his Bloud which conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantion I acknowledge likewise that under one kind onely all and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is taken I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful In Like manner that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be Venerated and called upon and that they offer up Prayers to God for us and that their Reliques are to be had in veneration I do most stedfastly affirm that the images of Christ and of the Mother of God alwayes a Virgin are to be had and kept and that due honour and veneration is to be given to them That the Power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church and that the use of them is most wholesom to Christian People I do acknowledge that the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church iâ— Mother and Mistress of all Churches I do promise and swear true obedience to the Pope of Rome Successour of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ I do likewise without doubting receive and profess all other matters that are delivered defined and declared by the Sacred Canons and the Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Council of Trent and I do likewise together condemn reject and Anathematize all things contrary and all whatsoever Heresies condemned rejected and Anathematized by the Church Here they lay their hand on the Gospels I the same N. do promise vow and swear that as far as lies in me I will take care that this self same true Catholick Faith out of which no man can be saved which at present of my own accord I profess and truly hold by Gods help be most constantly held and confest by me whole and inviolate to the Last breath of my Life and that the same be held taught and Preached by all that are under me or those the care of whom shall in my charge belong to me So God help me and these Gods Holy Gospels We will farther that these present Letters be read in our Apostolick Chancery according to the accustomed manner and to the end they may be the more easily known unto all that they be Registred in the Rolls thereof and that they be Printed And let no person whatsoever dare to infringe this declaration of our Will and commandment or by bold presumption to offend against it And if any one shall presume to attempt it let him know that he incurs the indignation of Almighty God and of his Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul Dated at Rome at St. Peters the Thirteenth day of November in the year of the incarnanation of our Lord 1564. And of our Popedome the Fift Fed. Cardinal Caesius Cae. Glorierius The Stationer hath in his hands the Attestation of Messieurs Claude de l'Angle Daillé and Allix shewing that they have seen this Answer and that they have not found any thing in it contrary to their Religion AN ANSVVER UNTO THE BOOK OF MONSIEUR The Bishop of CONDOM Monsieur the Bishop of Condom has too much justice to take ill the answering his Book Design of this Trea tise On the contrary he seemeth rather to invite us to the same in terms sufficiently express Page 187 And besides it is well known that defence is a natural and favourable right especially when it concerns a thing so dear as the interest of truth and Religion ought to be Page 187 He onely desires that in case aâ— one answer his Treatise he would not undertake to refute the Doctrine which 〈◊〉 contains Page 188 nor examin the different way that the Catholick Divines have used 〈◊〉 establish the Doctrine of the Council 〈◊〉 Trent nor the several consequences the particular Doctors have drawn thence Page 3. being things that are not necessarilâ— nor universally received Page 189 but that 〈◊〉 would chiefly hold himself to three things to prove that the Faith of the Churcâ— of Rome is not faithfully laid down iâ— his Book as he believes it is or thaâ— he would shew that this expositioâ— doth Leave all objections in their force and all the difficulties whole and intire or Lastly that it be made precisely appear wherein his Doctrine so explained doth overthrow the foundation of Faith Of these three things we will leave the first to be examined by those of his own communion because that is more properly their business and right than ours It belongs to them principally to consider if they would not be well contented and if it would not be very advantageous to them to reduce their belief in all matters of Controversie unto what is explained in that Treatise and to Lay aside all the consequences which their other Doctors have drawn from the Council of Trent and the means they have made use of to establish them as things that are not necessary and which nevertheless do clog Religion or do at Least in part hinder a matter which is so desireable as the uniformity of Worship and belief amongst Christians should be We will content our selves to observe by the Way several places where the Bishop of Condom uses an Art that is distant not onely from the Common belief of the Doctors of the Church of Rome and of the general practice of all the people of his Communion but also from the terms and the Doctrine it self of the very Council to the end it may be discerned wherein consist the sweetnings that the Bishop
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
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
those which he hath already accomplished for our Salvation Wherefore it is not to be wondred at if he gives unto every one of us the proper substance of his Flesh and of his Bloud he doth it to imprint in our hearts that it is for us that he took them and that it is for us that he offered them as a sacrifice And a little afterwards he adds Our adversaries have very well seen that simple figures and simple signs of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ would not satisfie Christistians accustomed to the bounty of a God which gives himself so really unto us therefore it is that they would not be accused to deny this real participation of Jesus Christ in their Sacrament Behold here the reason that he saith hath forced us to approach unto the Church of Rome but Christians are then either very ingrateful or very difficult to be contented if they are not satisfied that Jesus Christ died for them that these sacred signs assure them of it and that they serve them as an effectual and saving means to raise their hearts and their Faith unto Jesus Christ They have then the ears of their understanding close stopped if it be true that these sacred signes joyned unto the Word do not yet tell them plainly and loud enough that Jesus Christ became man for them that his body was broken for them and that lastly his bloud was poured out for the remission of their sins The Opinion which the Church of Rome adds that Jesus Christ is present being very far from better setting forth his death incumbers as I may so say the conception of it as hath been shewed before because it represents the body of Jesus Christ in a living state under dead signs and moreover the way of giving these signes in a language not understood or ill understood makes much less impression in the hearts than the way wherein it hath been shewed they are given amongst us But in fine where is the reason of this consequence The Love which Jesus Christ hath for us induced him to dye really for us therefore it is the part of this Love to give really unto us the proper substance of his flesh and of his bloud What bond or what necessary consequence is there of one and the other of these things From what time and in what place hath it been known or usual that it is a sign of love in any to give his proper flesh to eat to them whom he loves I do not say onely by morsels as some possibly may say the Capernaites understood the words of our Saviour but in any manner or under any coverts under which it may be put For although God doth testifie his Love unto us by incomprehensible effects though his ways are not our ways grace doth not for all that destroy nature his ways are above our ways and even contrary to what ours have of evil and irregularity but not at all to what they have that is good and right which proceeds from God himself What there is incomprehensible in the effects of his Love is nothing as to the manner as we may say but to the degree or rather the infinity of this Love it self For as to the other point we in some sort conceive all that this infinite Love makes him do for us by a comparison though very imperfect of what an intire Love doth make us doe one for another To pay for another is the true office of a Friend and to dye for another hath always passed for a true test of Love Joh. 15.13 Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his Friends To dye for an Enemy is a generosity that hath had no example amongst men before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ dyed for us who were originally his creatures but were become his enemies This is that which this Love hath in it incomprehensible and nevertheless this Love which was foretold by the prophets was accomplished in the time that was foretold But neither prophesie nor reason nor humane manners ever yet taught us that Jesus Christ should give us his real flesh to eat with the mouth of our body as a token of the Love that he hath for us and when Jesus Christ said unto his Disciples John 6. That he would give his flesh for the life of the world and that whosoever did not eat his flesh had no life in him seeing that this word offended many it doth not appear unto us that our Saviour condemned their surprise but onely that he presently explained this speech unto them and that he made them understand that they should receive it spiritually The Gentlemen of the Roman Church do always fall into this error that although they do not directly deny that the communion which we have with Jesus Christ by Faith is very real of its self sufficing to salvation as they do confess in particular of the communion which we have with him either by the Word or by Baptism nevertheless always when there is any mention of the Mystery of the Eucharist they have this impression reigning in their minds which overbears all others that Jesus Christ cannot give himself really unto them but when they believe that he gives his proper flesh to be eaten with the mouth of their body It is from this apprehension that the Bishop of Condom faith here again that Jesus Christ makes as tast his bounty by things as effectual as those which he accomplished for our salvation as if the Faith which he gives as and the communion which we have with him by his Spirit even out of the Eucharist were not all of these effectual things and as effectual as it is true that he dyed for us Let us now come unto the Objections which the Bishop of Condom makes against some of our expressions to prove that we are approached nearer unto the Church of Rome pa. 146. In the first place he seems to contradict himself for he says afterwards that the more we explain our selves the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we upon this Article the more contrary we find our selves one to another he gives also the reason for it which is that the more we consider the consequences of Transubstantiation the more we are discouraged with the difficulties which sense and reason discover in it This doth not import that we are approached nearer Besides there are very few persons who should hear him say that we are approached unto the Church of Rome but would believe that the reason is because some of our late Synods or some of our more famous modern Doctours had relaxed somewhat of our Doctrine either in the sense or in the expressions In the mean while there is nothing less than this All this accusation bears onely upon three diverse Expressions drawn from our Catechism which is as it is known the ancient explanation of our Doctrine The Bishop of Condom
doth it appear that after the death of our Saviour the same Apostles did adore the Sacrament Acts 2.46 It is onely very plainly said that they went breaking bread from house to house The Authours of the Office of the Holy Sacrament who have carefully collected all the passages of Ecclesiastical Doctours of the twelve first Centuries which they thought might favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament have caused to be printed in great letters all the passages where there is any word that seems to intimate that at any time or in any place the Sacrament was adored but they have neither found the word adore nor the thing signified by the word in the three first Ages and no more but the word onely in three or four places in all the following Ages until towards the Tenth Age. And which is more in those very places the adoration doth not relate unto the Sacrament but unto Jesus Christ believed â—o be in Heaven whence they cannot conclude a soveraign adoration of the Sacrament with greater reason than they grant we have when we alledge â—o the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome an infinite number of places where their Authors teach the adoration of Images If they will have it that in these places where their Authors speak of Images this term of Adoration doth not signifie a soveraign and absolute Adoration such as is given unto God but onely a veneration or relative honour as they speak why will they not allow that in those few places where those other Authours speak of the Sacrament the adoration whereof they speak may not also be an honour or â—eneration which is rendred unto the sacred Mysteries It is true as the Bishop of Condom affirms that the Church of Rome not acknowledging any other substance in the Sacrament but the body of Jesus Christ we do not wonder that those who are so perswaded pay it their adoration but from thence it self that they believe that adoration is a necessary consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that they doe not find this consequence neither in the Scripture nor in the practice of the Apostles and the times which are not in question there is much reason to admire that this same relation which the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do find betwixt these two Doctrines doth not at least give them some suspicion of them both or rather that it doth not at last incline them to reject both the one and the other XIV The Sacrifice of the Mass The same thing may be said of the Sacrifice of the Mass which the Bishop of Condom also regards onely as a consequence of the Real Presence and of Transubstantiation for there is nothing like it to be found in the Scriptures nor in the first Ages of Christianity In those first times they preached the Gospel and celebrated the Lords Supper in the very same simplicity wherein it was instituted but they said neither Low Mass nor High Mass nor Mass without communicants nor Mass unto such or â—uch an intention nor for all these particular ends for which Masses are â—aid at present nor Lastly the Mass â—n a Language not understood by the people At this time all this is practised in the Church of Rome and all the World knows that in this Church the Sacrifice of the Mass is as the principal and most important part of their Religion The propitiatory Sacrifices were distinguished from the Eucharistical Sacrifices Heb. 13.15 Psal 50.14 Psal 4.6 in that the former were to appease the Deity and to make expiâ—ation of sins by the bloud of the Offerings and the others to render thanks to God for blessings received or to â—rave others We do not deny but that the Lords Supper or the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice in a large and general sense as the Scripture saith a Sacrifice of prayer and a Sacrifice of praise and that Alms deeds 〈◊〉 a sacrifice but the Church of Rome which alwayes forceth things unto extreams will have the Mass to be a true sacrifice We think saith the Bishop of Condom that this oblation makes God become favourable pa. 130. and therefore it is that we call it propitiatory Thus it is that there needs but a thought and a word to make a propitiatory Sacrifice and in this sort Prayer it self wherein we offer our selves unto God and believe that we render God favourable unto us is a true propitiatory Sacrifice We will not here press what the Apostle sayes Heb. 9.22 that there is no true propitiation or remission of sins without effusion of bloud We will onely observe that it is a rule of Divine Right touching the Sacrifices that not onely the Sacrifices but the Altar it self is of greater dignity and of greater holiness than the oblation and that the oblation it self is sanctified by the Altar here they will have a Sacrifice where it is known that the man who is the Sacrificer Exod. 29.37 Mat. 23.18 19. is but a worm of the Earth the Altar a stone or Table made by mans hand and the offering the proper Son of God God himself If they who have read this part of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise would attentively cast their eyes at the same time upon those passages of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles which speak of the manner in which the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted and celebrated we are perswaded that if they never so little keep their minds free and in a condition to judge without prejudice they will find so little agreement of the one with the other that it may be said they are two Gospels But this will appear yet more particularly XV. The Epistle to the Hebrews if we rightly take the mind of the Apostle in the Epistle which he writ unto the Hebrews the force whereof the Bishop of Condom endeavours here also to elude To which purpose we need onely to follow the rule which the Bishop of Condom hath himself proposed to know whether 2 Doctrines are opposit which is to see if the propositions of the Apostle do sufficiently agree with those of the Bishop of Condom For expedition sake we will here mention onely two of the Apostles both which speak almost the same thing to see if the Doctrine of the Bishop of Condom be conform thereto St. Paul comparing the ceremonies and the figures of the Old Covenant with the truth which is found in Jesus Christ and designing to shew how the sacrifices of the Old Testament were abolished by the sacrifices of Jesus Christ he saith amongst other things Heb. 9. â—â— that Jesus Christ is not entred into places made with hands but that he is in Heaven where he appears for us before the face of God The Bishop of Condom teacheth on the contrary that Jesus Christ is every hour upon the altars made with hands and that it is there that he appears for us before the
of 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
as he could but for all this what might not oâ— say upon each of these propositions if this were a place to handle the question to the bottom But seeing the Bishop of Condom desires not to insist upon refuting of him and also it being not the design of this answer we shall also content our selves almost throughout to set forth simply our beliefe in opposition unto his because it may be thought that there is no more needful as well to judge in general which of the two hath more the character of truth as to make appear that his exposition is always equally contrary to our fundamental points Onely after 〈◊〉 â—â—ample we will touch some reasons upon which we ground our selves for the same consideration which he himself makes where he saith that the knowledge of the principal reasons of a Doctrine doth often make up a necessary part of its exposition The reformed Churches do believe that it is not onely for the Glory of God but that it is his will also as he hath told us in his word that we should worship but one God that we should serve none but God with a religious worship that we should have recourse unto none but God only in our necessities that we should call upon none but God in our Prayers and that invocation according to the very word is a spiritual sacrifice which makes up the chiefest part of the worship due unto God onely We believe that this is the true meaning of the Commandments of the Law and of all the Doctrin of the Gospel which directs us throughout to address unto God our vows our Prayers and our thanksgivings and as for the faithful Servants of God which we esteem to have dyed in his favour we say that we should honour their memories praise their faith their zeal their charity and all other their Christian vertues and propose them for example and imitation unto the faithful This is properly our beliefs and we are perswaded that those who will consider it with a free and equal mind will not onely find it safe and right but also pure and disengaged from abuse from difficulties and uncertainties which accompany that of the Bishop of Condom We will begin to examin this Article of his exposition where he ends it to wit how the Saints know our vows our needs and our Prayers because it is in vain to pray if not understood we have seen that the Bishop of Condom hath declared that never any of his Communion did conceive that the Saints could know our Prayers and desires by themselves that is by their own proper nature that also there is not any immensity attributed unto them and that nevertheless the Church of Rome doth not decide whether it be by the Commerce of Angels or by revelations as were those of the Prophets or whether it be that they see all in God himself But doth not this uncertainty already shew what that Faith can be that hath no surer foundation Is it not a new circuit if our vowes and our Prayers must pass from us unto Angels from Angels to Saints and from Saints to God and is it not yet a new difficulty if we must suppose that Angels themselves know our thoughts and our dâ—sires For although they are Miâ—string Spirits as the Bishop of Condâ—â— alledges when they are sent foâ—â— to attend the Faithful it doâ— not follow that we ought to attribâ— to them the knowledge of hearts which onely belongs to an inâ—nite essence Heb i. 14 Jerem. 17 6 10. Amos 5 7. There is also this diffâ—rence betwixt the Saints and the Prophets that God himself hath said thâ— he revealed things to come unto thâ— Prophets but he never said that 〈◊〉 revealed our thoughts unto Saints and very unlike it is that the knowledge of future things seems to 〈◊〉 more reserved to God than oâ— thoughts and our Prayers as the Bâ—shop of Condom affirms It 〈◊〉 known that the Devils and even mâ— themselves sometimes search iâ— what is to come and that it is properly the knowledge of the hearâ— which God reserves unto himself â—lone Pâ—s 7 10 1 Chro â—6 s 7. It is yet a gulf of difficulties to Imâ—gin that the Saints see all things in thâ— infinite essence of God For is not this to attribute immensity unto them And is it not also to suppose that all things are in God either according to their proper nature or by their Images as they must needs be to be known or seen by the Saints whereas it was never said but that all things were in God only eminently as it is said in the Schools that is to say that the perfection or infinity of his essence comprehends all things and that there is nothing properly without him Besides good heed ought here to be taken that the principal and essential question is not to know how the Saints can understand our thoughts and our Prayers that may be in some sort indifferent but how we may be assured at Least they do know them For if we have only probabilities and conjectures for it this is not sufficient to establish a Religious Worship such as that is nor praying unto the Saints with confidence In the mean while the Church of Rome doth agree that the Saints do not know our desires and our wants by their own nature it were very needful therefore that their should be some very express revelation that might at Least inform us that they do know them though we were ignorant of the means but noâ— having any Likely revelation in this matter it is evident that all this worship of Saints hath no foundation There is yet another difficulty that the Bishop of Condom hath not touched which doth manifestly shew that there can be no assureance that the Saints who are prayed unto caâ— know our desires and Prayers oâ— that they are in a condition of doing what we pray unto them for it is thaâ— we cannot be assured of this it self that the greatest number of the Saintâ— who are prayed unto are in Heaven especially in the Roman Church where they believe a third place For although we ought to judge charitably of them who seem to dye in thâ— Lord yet the judgement of charitâ— is not sufficient to establish such worship as this is The Council nor the Bishop oâ— Condom upon the whole say nothing to these difficulties which yet are essential and preliminaries also as it may be said because it is a most evident truth that no true Religious Worship can be grounded upon uncertain reasons But Lastly having touched what the Bishop of Condom doth not resolve it is time to examin what he explains and that which he saith to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome And First it is a Wonderful thing that in Laying down as he doth so Long a train of Doctrins as hath been mentioned going about to establish so considerable a Worship as the Worship of Saints is in
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
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
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
these Gentlemen do in some sort salve the former of these inconveniences in declaring as they do that they do not attribute any merit unto Works but by virtue of the free promise which God hath made to reward them producing them himself in us by his grace and besides the moderate persons amongst them do not dissent but that these sorts of expressions of merit may very well be waved and that ours are more humble and more safe as also on our part we do not deny but that those of the Roman Church may be suffered in the sense wherein they now explain them And it may be this is it which the Bishop of Condom doth here understand when he saith that the Learned of our Communion do not believe some of our Disputes upon this point to be very material What is here most mysterious is that upon this expression that good Works do merit eternal life there are â—ounded two other Doctrines which are very evil The first is that they are not contented to command works that are truly good and commanded as to worship God onely to serve none but him to obey our Superiours and lastly to love God with all our hearts and our Neighbour as our selves which is the summe of the Law and of Christian Religion but they have brought in the practice of Vows of Abstinences of Pilgrimages Macerations and all those other Works which the Bishop of Condom doth call Pennances because in very deed God hath not required any of that nature The other evil Doctrine which proceeds from the merit of Works is that of Satisfaction of Purgatory and Indulgences for those who do these Works of Pennance believe they satisfie at least in some part the justice of God and therefore it is that they call them Satisfactions and those who do none of them believe themselves destin'd to the pains of Purgatory and have recourse unto Indulgences to deliver them VIII Satisfactions Purgatory and Indulgences The Doctrine of Satisfactions is in reality so evil according to us that it doth intirely vitiate all that is good in that of Justification and of good Works One would say that it were another Gospel a Discourse meerly humane the several parts whereof do so ill agree together Very far is the whole Article from being conform unto the Analogy of Faith Es 1.18 Psal 32.12 Ps 103.12 The Scripture reiterates unto us throughout that God doth pardon us our sins for his Son's sake that if our sins were redder than scarlet he makes them white as snow that he imputes them not unto us that he covers them that he blotteth them out that he separateth them from us as far as the East is from the West The Bishop of Condom saith on the contrary that God doth pardon our sins but upon such condition under such Law and with such reservation as he pleaseth that he confers an intire abolition of all sins committed for Baptism but as for those that are committed after Baptism God forced by our ingratitude changes the eternal pain into a temporal This is what the Council of Trent calls remitting the sin and retaining the punishment This is to say that God doth pardon and he doth not pardon or at least that he doth not fully pardon Our sins all blotted out as they are do nevertheless cry for vengeance It is not enough that Jesus Christ hath atoned for them nor that we repent and endeavour to amend and to keep the Commandments of God if together herewith we do not Works which the Bishop of Condom calls painful and laborious or if we suffer not temporal pains either in this life or after death This is what hath been already touched the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not onely injurious unto the mercy of God and unto the merit of the death of Jesus Christ by the conditions and restrictions which she presumes to bring thereunto but she contradicts her very self pulling down with one hand what she builds up with another On the one hand Jesus Christ hath fully payed the price of our ransome there is nothing wanting of this payment his justice is imputed unto us our sins are blotted out by his bloud In a word Jesus Christ hath fully satisfied for us And on the other hand Pag. 60 61. the justice of God and a certain way which he hath appointed will have us not to suffer our selves for our sins The Bishop of Condom would salve this contradiction by saying as he doth that these pains which God reserves are onely to keep us in our duty within the hands of Justice as he speaks and not to satisfie for our sins therefore it is that he makes a kind of protestation that if after the explication which he gives in that sense We shall object unto those of his Communion that they do prejudice unto the satisfactions of Jesus Christ that we must forget what he hath already told us that Jesus Christ has paid the full price of our ransom c. and that if we yet object to them that they believe they shall be able to satisfie of themselves as to some part of the pain which is due to their sins he may boldly say that the contrary doth appear by the Maxims which he hath established Unto which he adds for a conclusion That what they call satisfaction with the ancient Church is nothing AFTER ALL but an application of the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ It may plainly be seen by these last expressions of the Bishop of Condom's that he seemes to doe like the Dove which returned unto the Ark not knowing where to rest her foot AFTER ALL what they call satisfaction is nothing but the application of the satisfaction of Jesus Christ This expression hath something in it improper and incumbred because it cannot be any thing but Faith onely which is the hand of the Soul that can apply unto us the satisfaction of Jesus Christ by acts of love and reliance It cannot properly be said that any Workes done by us or that any pain that we suffer can be the application of the obedience which Jesus Christ rendred unto his Father and of the paines which he suffered for us The truth is that the Bishop of Condom after having defended as much as he could the opinions and the expressions of the Church of Rome will give to understand that AFTER ALL what they call satisfactions are not properly satisfactions that they themselves do not believe they can satisfie as they just now said more expresly and that in conclusion there is nothing really but the satisfaction of Jesus Christ which ought to be called by this name This Doctrine is sound and it is certain that it is in some sort to come unto us or rather to the truth of the Gospel but this is nothing in the main if the Doctrine of the Council of Trent be still allowed to stand that is to say if that be the Supreme
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
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
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
the Prayer being ended the Minister doth read unto us publickly with a loud voice the Liturgy of the Lords Supper which contains principally the manner wherein St. Paul relates that our Saviour did institute it with another exhortation well to prepare our hearts Lastly the Minister taking the bread and the wine saith with a loud voice The bread which we break is the body of Jesus Christ or the communion of the body of Jesus Christ The Cup which we bless is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was poured out for your sins Or the Cup which we bless is the communion of the bloud of Jesus Christ for either one or the other of these expressions are indifferently used the grace of God according to us not being tyed unto the words After which in distributing the Bread to the communicants the Minister saith again unto them to raise and awaken their zeal and their faith This is the body of Jesus Christ which was broken for you and in giving the Cup This is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was shed for your sins or some words to this sense And last of all when every one hath done communicating we conclude with thanksgiving in singing the song of Simeon and with the Blessing wherewith the Minister dismisseth the Assembly This particular account is onely for them who are misinformed of our practice We appeal here to the conscience of all sincere persons in the first place if it be not true that this manner of celebrating and of giving and receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not most conform unto what we see in the institution of our Lord and unto the practice of the Apostles and of the first and purest Ages of Christianity and without comparison more conform than that of the Church of Rome And in the second place which of these two manners of communicating is the most proper to excite and nourish true piety according to knowledge and a sincere remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ There remaines no more as to this point but to touch the Bishop of Condom's last consideration in which he saith That we do not deny the real communication of the substance of the Son of God in the Lords Supper so that there is a necessity that we should agree that the remembrance doth not exclude all manner of presence but only that which doth strike our senses We do not indeed say that remembrance excludes all manner of presence for on the contrary it is said of remembrance as it is of Faith that it makes things to be present that are at the greatest distance There is a moral presence and a mystical presence a presence of object of virtue as they speak which are not incompatible with remembrance For example the Heavens the Stars though almost at an infinite distance are in some sort present with us not onely because we see them but by the influences which they cast upon us We onely say that remembrance excludes a presence real personal and as it were physical local and immediate under the colours and exteriour appearances of Bread and Wine such as the Church of Rome teacheth of the Body of Jesus Christ in the hands of a Priest or in the mouth or stomach of the Communicants But because both here and elsewhere the Bishop of Condom grounds himself upon what he saith that at the same time that we deny this real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament we teach a real participation of his Body and that upon this occasion the Bishop of Condom here makes an express Article of the Exposition of our Belief upon the reality what we will say of our Doctrine upon this point shall serve for an answer unto all the consequences which he draws both here or elsewhere To remove at once XII An examination of the exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of our Doctrine of the Reality saith the Bishop of Condom the equivocations which the Calvinists use upon this matter and to make appear at the same time how near they are come unto us though I have undertaken onely to explain the Doctrine of the Church It will be expedient here to add the exposition of their Judgement Let us be permitted before we enter upon this Article to complain that the Bishop of Condom doth at the very first here begin to treat us in termes prohibited by the Edicts of our Kings at the same time also charging us with affected equivocations which in no wise agree with the simplicity of our Doctrine we are apt to think that it is the heat of dispute which hath here insensibly transported him beyond his natural equity and we would not at all concern our selves to take notice of these sorts of expressions especially in a time wherein we are accustomed unto more strict dealings if the least thing of this nature proceeding from a person of his dignity and for whom we have a great esteem were not more remarkable and of worse example than all the bitterest things that might be said by other persons This Article of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise though more copious is for all that obscure and intangled full of repetitions of digressions and of comparisons odious and besides his business which he makes of us to Socinians Arrians Nestorians Pelagians insulting over us upon words contrary to what appears manifestly to be our sense But we will leave the words and apply our selves to the things In the first place instead of giving a plain and intire Exposition of our Belief and afterwards drawing the consequences which he had a mind of he onely gives it by shreds and so perplext that it cannot be understood He onely reports here and there some of our Expressions separate from each other endeavouring therein to find some obscurity and afterwards he grounds upon this obscurity which himself hath made the equivocations and contradictions which he imputes unto us We need onely take notice what course he takes in the very entrance to make a judgment that he speaks after his own manner and not after ours Their Doctrine saith he hath two parts the one speaks onely of the figure of the body and bloud the other speaks onely of the reality of the body and bloud Divisions are wont to give order and to give light unto discourses but this on the contrary doth at first sight so little set forth our Doctrine that our people would not understand it The explication which follows is neither juster nor more natural Instead of laying down what we believe affirmatively he layes down indeed but onely the negative part of our Belief Wherefore we shall do better to explain our own Doctrine our selves in a few words with relation unto what the Bishop of Condom sayes hereof This shall be that plain Form of Doctrine which he saith we have not and shall serve for a general refutation of all that he hath produced We will not forbear answering afterwards
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
Bishop of Condom gives this reason himself unawares in effect saith he the taking away the Cup or the communion under one kind is a consequence of Transubstantiation Before Transubstantiation was believed there was a great regard had for the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but the Irreverencies were not of the same consequence nor so scandalous as they have been since it was caught that the bread and the wine are no longer the same which they are seen to be but that they are the proper body and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ for it is well known that it is onely since Transubstantiation hath passed into an Article of Faith that the Cup also hath been taken away Therefore also whatever hopes the Bishop of Condom seems to give that the Communion under the Form of the wine may be re-establisht for the benefit of peace and re-union in all appearance we are to a wait a long time this re-establishment if it be at all to be expected whilst the Doctrine of Transubstantiation shall subsist The benefit of re-union which hinderd not but that the Council of Trent did elude this re-establishment in a time when it was demanded with so much instance will never in all likelihood prevail against the inconvenience of Irreverencie which will alwayes continue that is to say it will alwayes be a great scandal ever and anon to see spilt that which is believed to be the proper bloud of the Lord and the simple reflexion which may be made on this consequence may alone be capable to open at last the eyes of the people upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self The other consideration which the Bishop of Condom brings for the taking away the Cup is this that he saith our own Synods have not judged that in the Lords Supper we ought to deny the bread unto those who by a natural aversion cannot suffer the smell or taste of wine and that by consequence the communion under both kinds is not essential unto the Sacrament and that it is in the power of the Church to give therein onely one But who sees not the extreme difference that there is betwixt this useage of our Churches and that which the Church of Rome ordains and practises and that there can no good consequence be drawn from the one unto the other Our Synods are so far from allowing to themselves the authority of taking away any thing from the Institution of our Saviour or of making any the least change therein that they have kept themselves so religiously to his words as to have made it a question whether the bread should be given unto them who onely through this natural aversion which they cannot overcome forbear to take the sign of the wine and they give not the bread it self but in the manner which the Bishop of Condom reports causing them who cannot drink wine to make a protestation that it is not through disrespect and obliging them to put the Cup to their lips to avoid scandal The Church of Rome on the contrary takes away the Cup from whole Nations that desire it reseraving his advantage to the Clergy lone or to Princes or other considerable persons whom she thinks good to gratifie and all this apparently as a new means to increase and confirm her authority over Princes and people THE SIXTH PART Behold now at length the Question of the Eucharist dispatcht we leave it unto those who are pleased to take the pains of reading this Answer to make reflexion themselves what the importance of the thing requires I was unwilling to have insisted so long time upon it but this Article alone makes us the moyety of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise it was impossible to clear all and to be shorter We shall make a speedier dispatch with the three points which remain to wit Tradition the authority of the Church and the authority of the Pope as well because they are general matters upon which there are express Volumes as also because the Bishop of Condom himself passeth very lightly over the Questions of Tradition and of the authority of the Pope and that Lastly â—t is known that these three Questions will be treated of throughly by a better hand in a Work which will â—hortly be published and particularly the Question of the Church which is the chiefest upon which in a manner depend the two others We will confine our selves here to examine in a few words what the Bishop of Condom layes down upon each of these three Articles and we are perswaded that we cannot betâ—er confirm our Doctrine in opposition unto that of the Church of Rome than by shewing how weak â—nd vain are the reasons of a person â—f so much address and reputation as â—t is In the first place as to Tradition XVIII The Word writen and unwritten The Bishop of Condom here again â—akes an indirect advantage in â—he expressions in calling it as he â—oth the unwritten Word a name â—hat prejudges the Question by the â—hing it self which is in question He â—ntends to suppose thereby that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which we admit not at all are nothing else but the very Doctrine of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles as well as the Holy Scriptures with this onely difference that the one was put into Paper by the Evangelists and by the Apostles and that the other was committed to the memory of the first faithful from whom the Church of Rome pretends that they have been delivered from hand to hand unto our Age and by consequence that we ought to receive Traditions with the same Faith and submission as the Scriptures for so it is that the Bishop of Condom gives us to understand in two places pa. 159 160. Sess 4 c. Can. Script and that the Council of Trent it self decides it in proper terms Now we have no thoughts of denying that what our Lord and his Apostles said by word of mouth ought to be of the same authority as that which the same Apostles afterwards left in writing that is not at all the question but we say that our Lord having put it into the hearts of the Evangelists and of the Apostles to write the Gospel which they preached these holy Doctours being immediately directed by the Holy Spirit have not done the thing imperfectly or by halves that by consequence at the least they did not omit any thing essential unto Christian Religion and that Lastly their writings do contain all that is necessary for the Service of God and for the rule of our manners St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17 as yet regarding principally the Scripture of the Old Testament said unto Timothy that the Scripture is proper for instruction Mat. 1â— 3.9 for correction for reproofe that the man of God may be perfect and accomplisht unto every good work By greater reason both the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament being conjoined are able to do
all this The same Scripture of the New Testament speaks in divers places against Traditions without ever intimating that there were some good which were to be distinguished from the bad and in one onely place which is that whereof the Bishop of Condom makes mention Mar. 7.8 9 13. Colos 2.8 2 Thes 2.15 the Apostle exhorting the Thessalonians to hold fast the Traditions which they had received of him whether it were by mouth when he was present with them or by Epistle which he had since writ to them sayes not one word which intimates that the things which he had taught them by mouth were different from those which he had written unto them but he gives to understand all along that it was one and the same Gospel which he preached unto all to them who were present by voice and to them that were absent by writing In summe whosoever will take the pains with any attention to read St. Paul's Two Epistles to the Thessalonians where he speaks unto them of the instructions which he gave them and of the manner of his having preached the Gospel unto them shall find there nothing at all no more than in the Gospel it self which hath the least resemblance to prayer for the dead to Purgatory to the invocation of Saints to the adoration of Images nor in fine to any of the Traditions which are in question betwixt the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome and us It were an easie matter here De Doct. Christ li. 2. c. 9. li. 3. cont lit Petili c. 6. Hieron ad Hel. vi pa. 315 366. Chrysos Hono. 3. in 2. ad Cor. to strengthen our selves with the Testimony of St. Austin and of several other Fathers to prove what we have said that the Scripture doth contain all that is necessary either for the Service of God or for the rule of our actions but besides that this were to engage in a particular Controversie touching the judgment of the Fathers which is not the design of this Answer we think that amongst Christians it were in some fort to prejudice the Dignity and Divinity of this same Holy Scripture to doubt that its proper light were not sufficient to make known its perfection Onely let us see what the Bishop of Condom produces for the unwritten Word Jesus Christ saith he having founded his Church upon preaching pa. 158. the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity and when thereto the Scriptures of the New Testament were added this Word did not thereby lose its authority We must observe here at first that this is to speak in some sort improperly to say that Jesus Christ founded the Church upon preaching and not rather by preaching Preaching is a means and not a foundation the means may cease the foundation ought to be durable And no more is it true that the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity It is the Scripture it self of the Old Testament which was the first and the eldest rule and the foundation of the Faith of Christians It is the Old Testament that not onely contains the Commandments of the Law which is the permanent and unchangeable rule of our Duty as well towards God as towards men but likewise all the figures all the promises and all the prophesies touching the Messias the time and the place of his Birth and all the circumstances of his death The Gospel as all the world knows is not the abrogating but the fulfilling of the Law therefore it is that we see that Jesus Christ and the Apostles grounded their preaching upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament Jesus Christ continually refers the Jews to the Law and to the Testimony It is written saith he in your Law c. Joh. 5.39 46. Rom. 1. Search the Scriptures diligently for in them ye think ye have eternal life And the Apostle St. Paul to the Romans Paul a servant of Jesus Christ c. separated unto the Gospel c. which was promised by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning his Son Jesus Christ c. who was made of the seed of David according to the Flesh and so he begins his very Epistle to the Hebrews God who at sundry times spake unto the Fathers by the prophets c. In fine his first Chapter and the whole Epistle is nothing else but one citation of Exodus of Chronicles of Samuel Job Psalms and the other Books of the Old Testament It is besides a very improper manner of speaking to say that when the Scriptures of the New Testament were joyned unto the unwritten Word this word for all that did not thereby lose its authority as if the Doctrine of the Gospel such as we have it now in writing were an accessary or were a thing different from that unto which they pretend it was joined or that that which was not written were more considerable than that which we have in the Sacred Books for this expression of the Bishop of Condom's that the Scriptures were joyned to the unwritten word suggests all these imaginations in stead of saying the thing properly as it is He should have said that the unwritten Word having been put into writing or the Scripture of the New Testament having succeeded preaching this Divine Word not onely not lost its authority but on the contrary was corroborated in that it doth not any longer depend on the memory nor the will of men naturally subject unto Errour For upon the main the Bishop of Condom pretends that the Holy Scripture contains onely the lesser part of Christian Religion and that on the contrary Tradition doth contain the principal part At least his pretence is that there may be some particular Doctrines which are not to be had but by Tradition which ought not for their not being in Scripture therefore to lose their authority As for any thing else the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome are so little firm to their principle of Tradition or at least they so well acknowledge that Tradition cannot go equal with Scripture though the Council hath been pleased to determine the contrary that when they are pressed touching particular Traditions which are in question betwixt them and us there is scarce one but they endeavour to support by the authority of Scripture whether it be by interpreting it in their sense or by the consequences which they draw thence When they treat of Tradition in general they maintain it with excess comparing it to Scripture as if it went through all Religion and when they treat of their Doctrines in particular they would make the World believe that there is scarce any one amongst them which is not founded on the very Scripture But if we would know nevertheless how the Bishop of Condom proves that the particular ponits of Tradition are the very Doctrine of the Apostles unwritten it may be at first we would believe that he had in hand some Authour either of the age of the
Apostles themselves or at least of the following age which speaketh clearly and in express words we have received such or such a Doctrine from the mouth of the Apostles or we hold it from those who have received it themselves from the Apostles own mouth for who can doubt but that there should be at least some formal and express Testimony to establish by the sole authority of Tradition a Religious Worship or any Important Doctrine that should binde mens Consciences But in conclusion behold here what the Bishop of Condom gives us in stead of such a proof pa. 159 160. the certain sign saith he that a Tradition comes from the Apostles is when it is embraced by all the Christian Churches without possible finding out the beginning of it c. And a little after It not being possible adds he that a Doctrine received from the beginning of the Church can proceed from any other origin but that of the Apostles The Bishop of Condom indefinitely layes down this Maxim not daring to apply the same unto any of the Traditions of the Church of Rome as knowing that this character indefinite as it is doth not suit with them To judge rightly of his argument and of the consequence which he would draw from thence this is the order into which we ought to put his propositions It is impossible saith he that a Doctrine received from the beginning of the Church should proceed from any other origin but from the Apostles A Doctrine embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the beginning cannot be shewed is necessarily from the beginning of the Church Therefore such a Doctrine proceeds from the Apostles Now the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning therefore they proceed from the Apostles These are the Bishop of Condom's propositions in the order wherein they ought to be and in this order it is plainly evident that there is not one of them that is absolutely true or rather that is not false in the terms in which it is conceived In the first place this proposition is not true that it is not possible that a Doctrine received from the beginning oâ— the Church should come from any other origin but from the Apostles except it be shewed that it was then received gâ—nerally of all the Churches and that the Apostles did not oppose themselves against it for the Apostles themselves testifie that in their times the Mystery of iniquity began to work 2 Thes 2.7 1 Tim. 1.7 that there were false Teachers amongst the Christians and by consequence false Doctrines so that it was no way impossible that these same Doctrines were not followed or revived in after-times â—s were many Heresies which appeared in the first and second age of Christianity But the second proposition is yet less true that a Doctrine embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the beginning is not to be found should necessarily be from the beginning of the Church or that it should come from the Apostles which is the same thing in the Bishop of Condom's sense for those that make any reflexion upon the manner by which changes come in either in the Laws or Customs of States or in the Worship and Doctrines of Religion very well know that the time and original of these changes cannot always be shewn Much less therefore should it be said that these Establishments must necessarily be from the first foundation of these States or Religion Who could shew the Original of all the false Traditions of the Jewes Should it therefore be said that they were all from the beginning of the Jewish Church or the unwritten Word of Moses Amongst Christians themselves for example the use of giving the Sacrament unto little children was without doubt generally observed De pec in rit remi ii 1. ca. 20 24. Et l. 3. contr Julian c 4 Sâ—ss cap 4 because St. Austin openly has taught it as an Apostolical Tradition that it was absolutely necessary and that without it little children could not be saved The Council of Trent saith upon this subject that the Fathers which followed this custome ought to shew their reasons for it nevertheless it is one of those Doctrines whereof we cannot shew the beginning and for all that none dares to say at this time that it was received from the beginning of the Church or that it came from the Apostles otherwise the Council of Trent would not have dared to abrogate and abolish it as it hath done In fine the third proposition which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose in his Argument is yet less true than the two former namely that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which separate us from her communion are Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches without possible shewing the beginning thereof Can the Church of Rome shew any thing near this of any one of those Traditions which are in dispute betwixt us for example of Purgatory of the invocation of Saints of worshipping of Images of Relicks of the Cross of auricular confession of Indulgences of the Pope's Supremacy of private Masses of the adoration of the Host of the communion under one kind of religious Worship in an unknown Tongue or in fine of any of the particular Doctrines which separate us from the Roman Church For not to speak of the present time in which it is evidently known that there are many of the Christian Churches as well in the East as the West which do not embrace all the Doctrines of the Church of Rome it is also a thing most certain and notorious that it is not in the power of the Church of Rome to shew I will not say of all these Doctrines in general but of any one of them alone that it was embraced not onely in all times but scarcely at any time by all the Christian Churches On the contrary there are a great number of these Traditions of the Church of Rome whereof their first beginnings may precisely enough be shewn for example the worshipping of Saints and Images auricular confession the communion under one kind and many others and of all in general excepting that of praying for the dead whereof there is some mention to be found towards the latter end of the second Age. Our Authours have very solidly made appear that there is no footstep of them to be found in the three first Cajetan Thom. Pâ—râ—z Peron Beat. Rhen. Gab. Biel Roffen-Lombard c. Gab. Biel lect 57. upon the Canon of the Mass Quia sine du bio Ecclesia habet Spiritum sponsi sui Christi ideo non errans The most knowing of the Church of Rome themselves do not dissent as to the greatest number of Traditions as hath been noted before of worshipping of Saints of Images of confession of Purgatory and indulgences and they maintain not these sorts of Doctrines but by the general Maxime of the