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
we receive not as such and that on the contrary we do receive the Epistle of St. James which the Lutherans receive not at least all of them as we do whatever conformity there may be in other things betwixt them and us Again as a proof that it is not the authority of the Jewish Church which determines the one or the other of us to receive the Scriptures of the Old Testament as Canonical we may take this that at this time the Jewes not receiving for such all that the Church of Rome receiveth she doth not think her self bound to acquiesce in their judgement The Bishop of Condom's second proposition touching the authority of the Church depends in a manner wholly on the former for he saith that as we receive the Scriptures from the hands of the Church so we learn Tradition of her and by means of Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures In good time Let the Church then be the Guardian of Tradition as she is of the Scriptures and let her make use of Tradition either for order and discipline to facilitate the understanding of Scripture but let her not make thereof a title to impose upon us Worships or Doctrines which do not accord with the Scriptures or to make the sense of the Scripture to depend absolutely upon the interpretation of the Church as in receiving the Old Testament from the Jewes the Church did not tye her self blindly to receive their Traditions which overthrow the Law nor their interpretation when it doth not accord with the true sense of the Prophets Errour as vice is for the most part in the extremes we owe respect teachableness and submission unto all those whom God sets over us to instruct us this is not contested but this is no reason to change this submission into a voluntary blindness Faith being a gift of God we ought not to change nor force the use of the exteriour means which God employes to work it in our hearts but we ought to use them according to his intention with a spirit of sweetness and of charity to perswade and not to constrain Otherwise a blind submission in matter of Faith is not submission but a spirit of servitude very unworthy of the liberty of the children of God and to require such a submission by what name soever it be called is to make an outward society of bodies of interest and appearance and not at all a true communion of spirit and of judgement pa 162. pa. 165. The Church saith the Bishop of Condom doth profess that she saith nothing now of her self that she inventeth not any thing anew in points of Doctrine and elsewhere very far from intending to render her self mistriss of her Faith as her Adversaries accuse her she hath done what she can to bind her self and that the means of innovation may be taken away seeing she not onely submits to the Scripture but to banish for ever those arbitrary interpretations which make mens thoughts to pass for Scripture she hath bound her self to understand them as to what regards Faith and manners according to the sense of the holy Fathers from which she professeth never to depart declaring in all the Councils and in all the professions of Faith which she hath published that she receives not any Doctrine which is not conformable unto the tradition of all the foregoing Ages The Bishop of Condom doth well to say that the Church of Rome professes that she invents not any thing for where be the Innovatours which do not profess the same thing But upon the main is it true that the latter Councils have alwayes exactly followed the Doctrine of the Fathers or of the very preceding Councils for not to speak of Transubstantiation of worshipping the Hoste and of private Masses which according to us are Doctrines and Worships unknown at least in the eight first Ages because the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do not agree to it it hath already been made appear in another place that the worshipping of Images was forbidden by the Councils of Eliberis of Constantinople and of Francfort and that the same Worship has been established or maintained by the authority of the second Council of Nice and in the last place by that of Trent It bath also been shewed upon the Article of Purgatory that that Doctrine with all its consequences was put in the place of the opinion which many of the Fathers of the first Ages had that after death the souls did sleep or did refresh themselves in a place separate from Heaven The case is the same as to Auricular confesssion and of Indulgences which have succeeded to the practice of publick pennance and generally as to all the Doctrines and all the practice of which we find no footsteps in the Fathers of the three first Ages nor in the first Councils and which we pretend to have been added at several times unto the Doctrine and Institution of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles And here to instance yet in two examples of alteration in Doctrine and practice which are quite out of all question Hath not the Council of Trent which is that the Bishop of Condom takes for the rule of his Exposition abrogated the doctrine and use of giving the Sacrament unto little children of which we have already spoken Hath it not also declared in express terms for confirming the taking away the cup which was before ordained by the Council of Constance that therein little weight could be laid on the Fathers for it is to no purpose so the Council decides to alledge the sixth of St. John for the communion under both kinds Sess 21. de com cap. 2. what way soever saith the Council it be understood according to the sundry interpretations of the holy Fathers We will not here examine whether all these divers changes are for the better or worse because it hath been already done heretofore and because we treat not here of the right but onely of the matter of fact which the Bishop of Condom hath averred to wit that the Church of Rome hath bound her self that she hath taken away the means of innovating that she submits her self through all to the sense of the Holy Fathers and that she doth not receive any Doctrine which is not conformable unto that of precedent Ages To conclude these Expositions seem to intimate that the Church of Rome is not so well assured of her infallibility but that it hath been acknowledged she had need to be secured against her self by tying up her hands and taking away the means of Innovation And nevertheless if we will be a little informed by themselves what hath been the success of all this precaution Let the Doctrines of the last five or six centuries be onely compared in general with the Doctrines and practices of the three first and even with the following Ages the Council of Trent with them that went before it without having any regard if they please to our
and their hearts upon them The Bishop of Condom doth pass all this over by the word Honouring it is not any longer the Cross that is adored but he is adored before the Cross who did bear our sins upon the Tree The intention of the Church is not so much to honour the Apostle or Martyr as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image which doth shew nevertheless that the Image is honoured in it self and that unawares they speak of the presence of the Image as if it were animated Besides this is nothing else but the Doctrine of the Council of Trent it is the Council of Trent which teacheth which ordains which forbids and never any one word of God never the least Commandment nor the least Example of all the Holy Scripture of the Old or New Testament that is to say this is onely a Doctrine meerly humane So far is it from being true that God hath commanded this Worship or that he hath approved it that it hath already been shewed he hath expresly forbidden it and it may here be added that all the Commandments of the Law supposing great punishments against those who violate them this which forbids to make Images and to serve them is onely found accompanied with threatnings unto Childrens Children of them who shall make Images or serve them as if God foreseeing the narural inclination of men carrying them to this Worship would more particularly make them know his Jealousie and hold back this tendency or inclination by the terrour of his Judgments They think to avoid the meaning of the Commandment and to distinguish themselves from Pagan Idolaters in saying they do not adore the Images and that they believe not there is any Divinity or virtue in them as the Pagans did But doth the Council dare so to restrain and qualifie if it may be so said the express Commandments of God which not onely forbid to worship Images or to believe any virtue in them but absolutely to make them to worship to serve and to bow down before them for the terms of the Commandment have precisely all this The Bishop of Condom sayes elsewhere Pag. 80. upon the words of the institution of the Lords Supper that himself and those of his Communion do understand these words according to the letter and that none ought any more to ask Why they hold unto the literal sense than to ask of a Traveller why he follows the High-way and that it is those that have recourse unto a figurative sense and who follow crooked ways that should give an accompt of what they do Nevertheless the sense of the Old Testament is without comparison more literal than that of the New and all the World knows that the terms of a Law or a Commandment should be more express and in a more literal sense than those of a mystery because it behoveth necessarily that the Commandment be clear to the end that all those who are to keep it may plainly understand it whereas in Mysteries it is seen almost always that the wayes of speaking are mystical and as the word it self imports signifying something hid and figured Now let the Bishop of Condom tell us here why he doth not follow the letter of the Commandment which is so express wherefore he forsakes this High-way marked with Gods own finger to fly unto a forced or alienate sense It is further but an undue imputation touching Heathens Athenag in Apol. p. 17. St. Aug. in Psal 96. to say as he doth That they believed that their false Divinities did dwell in their Images the Pagans did not yield by any means that they worshipped wood and stone but onely the Originals which were represented by them They did also make a great difference betwixt the Worship which they gave unto the great Gods and those which they gave unto the less Divinities neither did they believe that their Gods were shut up in their Shrines or that they dwelt in them as the Bishop of Condom doth affirm and if it be found that any such thing hath been imputed unto them in the first Ages of Christianity it is onely but by reason that the Superstition of the people went much farther than the Opinions Maxims of their Philosophers or of their Priests and Arch-priests The Pagans believed that their Gods came sometimes upon earth but that they made their residence in the Heavens or in some places separated from the sight of men Pallas for example could not attend to be in the Palladium in Troy whilest she was in the Grecian Army conducting the Chariot of Diomedes and fighting against the Trojans themselves Arnob. adver Gent. li. 6. Maxim Tyr. Serm. 38. Exod. 32.4 5. The Pagans believed onely in general that there was fatality or virtue in the Images of their false Gods as in the Palladium the virtue of preserving the City of Troy and that these Gods did onely at some times give some extraordinary markes of their presence and of their power in their Images These things are too well known to be called in question No more did the Israelites acknowledge that they did worship the Brasen Serpent nor the Golden Calf nor that the Golden Calf was God himself but they looked upon it as an Image or a representation of that true God that had delivered them from the Bondage of Egypt Nevertheless the Pagans and the Israelites were both alike guilty of Idolatry by these two principal reasons the one that their false Worship whatever it was or whatever construction they gave it was condemned by God The other that though the clearest amongst the Heathens and amongst the Israelites did say in general that they did not worship neither the Images of false Gods nor the Brasen Serpent nor the Golden Calf the people nevertheless did not forbear to give a Religious Service unto those things to kneel before them to incense them and in some measure to fasten their trust and affections upon them The Roman Church doth not believe any Divinity in the Images it is true except haply some grosser Spirits which are capable of thinking any thing when they are kneeling before them and are possessed with the wonders that have been done by the Images But how can it so formally be said that the Church of Rome doth not believe that there is any virtue in them For she desires this very mâ—â—ter of God in consecrating of them that he would bless them that hâ— would accompany them with hiâ— power all those other points whicâ— are to be seen at large in the Româ— Pontifical The Books of the Româ— Church are full of the Virtues of thâ— Cross of the miraculous Images oâ— the Virgin and of the Saints arâ— of the Marks which the Saints do oâ—ten give of their presence and of theâ— power from whence also do proceed the Vows the Offerings tâ— Pilgrimages authorised by the Counciâ— and to conclude Memorias frequentari all those affectâ—
authority which must be proposed to us as the rule of our Faith because the Council is formally contrary to the Bishop of Condom's Doctrine Sess 1â— cap. 6. de Sâ—cram Poenâ—â— The Council speaking of Works and of Penances the things here in question doth not onely call them satisfactory in proper terms as also sometimes doth the Bishop of Condom himself but the Council doth declare that it suits not with the justice and goodness of God to forgive us our sins without some satisfaction on our parts and yet more expresly that these pennances whâ—â—â— the Church of Rome doth impose are not onely a precaution for our amendment and a remedy for the time to come which the Bishop of Condom calls the bands of justice and duty but a punishment or a revenge and a chastisement for our past sins requiring in proper termes that the Curates have always this maxime before their eyes and that they be very exact in examining the quality of the crimes and the abilities of the penitents and to impose upon them pennances proportionable to their sins This is so clear and express that nothing can be more In very deed this Doctrine of the Council is the common and constant Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point Lib. 1. de Purg. ca. 14. insomuch that Bellarmine by a subtilty contrary to that of the Bishop of Condoms doth teach that it is we who properly satisfy for our sins and that the satisfaction of Jesus Christ onely puts a value upon ours The Bishop of Condom therefore ought either to make all those of his communion to relinquish this Doctrin of the Council which is the common and constant Doctrine of their Church or to come to an accord that even by his own judgment we have right to charge them with the two things that have been touch'd The one that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome doth contradict it self and the other that they believe to satisfie at least in part for their sinns that by consequence they do injury unto the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ The Bishop of Condom did not judge it for his purpose to speak more openly what those painful and laborious works and those satisfactory pains are whereof here is question it might be said that these are verily of the number of those things which must be little explained and which are much better when they are lightly passed or wrapped up in general terms It would indeed seem that the Bishop of Condom hath introduced this term of painful and laborious works in the room of what the Roman Church directly calls penal works or pennances and satisfactions There is much difference betwixt the one and the other the one imports only difficult works the other punishments and it may plainly be seen by what hath been said that this alteration in the expressions doth onely proceed from the alteration which the Bishop of Condom hath made in the common Doctrine of the Church of Rome But to conclude by what name soever they are called we know they are such kind of works whereof we have already spoken Vows Pilgrimages Visits of Churches Abstinences Prayers by set-number Hair shirts Sack-clothes going without Shirts lying hard and such other Mortifications in this life and at last the paines of Purgatory in the other Now if it be here demanded whether there be not some authority for all these Doctrines the Council of Trent produces not any It only saith that in the Old Testament there are some examples of persons whom God hath punished with temporal paines though he had forgiven them their sin and that it seems to suit with the justice of God that it should be one kind of Grace which he shewes unto those who have sinned before Baptism and another which he shews to those who have sinned after Baptism The Bishop of Condom saith the same that this is just that this is a certain Order established as when God doth forgive us the sin of Adam and yet for all that not free us from the maladies which are the consequent of that sin This is the onely ground and sole authority that they give us for so considerable a Doctrine as is that of Satisfactions that is to say an argument meerly humane without any command or precept in Scripture as if the evils and corrections which God sends us to exercise our faith and patience were not at all effects of his love rather than punishments or as if this were a title or reason for us to give our selves discipline as they speak or to torment our selves and attempt in some sort upon our own lives As to us who have onely the will and Word of God for the rule of our manners and actions as well as of our Faith we are perswaded that all these Works which God hath not commanded being very far from pleasing do offend him that all this appearance of devotion is nothing else but an imitation of the Sect of the Pharisees which corrupted the Law by their Traditions fasting formally twice aweek The abstinence from meats in particular is an imitation of the Sect of the Pythagoraeans which fed on nothing but Herbs Whippings and Macerations an imitation of the Priest of Baal and of those of Cybele which whipped themselves and tore their skin even till the bloud gushed out and to conclude all these pretended Satisfactions are nothing else but commandments of men which as it hath been said do manifestly derogate from the infinite Satisfaction of Jesus Christ Purgatory Joh. Roffen Nav. l. 3. com de Jub Ind. De purgatorio apud priscos illos nulla vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio c. Nulla de purgatorio cura c. Cajetan in Tract de Indulg cap. 2. Nulla Sacrae Scripturae nulla priscorum Doctâ—â—rum Graecorum aut Latinorum authoritas scripta hac ad nostram deduxit no itiam sed hoc solum à 〈◊〉 annis Scripturae commendatem est de uerâ—stis â—â—â—bâ—s quod B. Gregor stat Indulg instituit Gab Biel lect 〈◊〉 57. upon the Can. of the Mass Ante tempora Greg. medicus vel nullus suit usus Inâ—l nunc autem crebrescit c. We have the same things to say against Purgatory as against Satisfactions it is also a Doctrine which derogates from the merit of the death of Jesus Christ as if the expiation which he made of our sins were imperfect that there were need that we should compleat it There is no track of Purgatory to be found in the Scripture whether of the Old or New Testament without forced interpretations and consequences whereof our Doctours have sufficiently shew'd the vanity Many also of themselves of the Church of Rome accord that for this Doctrine they have nothing but Tradition since the time of Gregory the first who wrote in the end of the Sixth Age and that the Doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences are not onely not in Scripture but also
to proceed too far in the question What hath been here said which is onely taken from the nature of Sacraments the style of the Scripture may suffice to shew the Bishop of Condom that it is not without reason that we do understand these words This is my Body in a mystical and figurative sense let us now see what he will produce on his part for the proper and literal sense His discourse doth reduce it self unto two propositions the first is That it is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh and the other that there is no natural relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ and that our Saviour having onely said these words This is my Body without explaining them as he did ordinarily other figurative expressions the law of discourse as the Bishop of Condom speaks doth not permit that they should be taken otherwise than in a proper and literal sense As to the first touching our Saviours intention it is a good principle provided it be well established for Jesus Christ can do what he will what he wills is done as he wills and the Bishop of Condom hath no need to inlarge upon the power of God as he doth in what follows nor to seek for reasons why Jesus Christ would not give us his flesh in its very Form but under the covert of Bread that so we might not conceive an horrour at the eating it These are the common places of the first inventors of this Opinion and of all those who have followed them and yet nevertheless all this hath nothing of solidity because on the one hand we concern not our selves to examine whether God is able to do the thing but whether this thing is possible in it self or if it doth not imply a contradiction and on the other if it be matter of horrour to eat true humane flesh the covert may diminish this horrour but it cannot quite take it away especially if a man were certainly perswaded that he did truly eat humane flesh and besides that such flesh for the which he should have a tender veneration But to conclude how is it that the Bishop of Condom proves that this is the intention of Jesus Christ that we should effectively eat his flesh As the Jewes did eat the victims which were offered for them Pag. 81 82 83 c. so saith he Jesus Christ our true sacrifice would that we should effectively eat his flesh c. The Jewes were forbidden to eat the sacrifice offered for sins to shew them that the true expiation was not made under the Law and for the same reason they were forbidden to eat bloud because the bloud was given for the atonement of souls but by a contrary reason Jesus Christ wills that we should eat his flesh to shew that the remission of sins is accomplished in the New Testament and that we should drink his bloud because it is poured out for our sins Thus it is that instead of giving us reasons the Bishop of Condom gives us onely comparisons relations agreeances as if it were not a known rule that comparisons and examples may serve well to illustrate things already proved but can never prove the things which are in question It is true that the sacrifices of the old Law were the figure of the sacrifice which our Lord Jesus Christ offered upon the Cross that is to say that as they offered up sacrifices which were types of Jesus Christ our true sacrifice to appease the wrath of God Jesus Christ offered up himself to reconcile us unto his Father This is the true accomplishment of the figures of the Law and the principal and true relation which there is betwixt the sacrifices of the Old New Testaments therefore also it is that our Saviour giving up the Ghost said these last and great words Joh. 19.30 It is finished The Apostle St. Paul which makes a parallel between the sacrifices of the Law and of Jesus Christ insists onely on this point that under the Law the sacrifices were to be reiterated every day whereas Jesus Christ offered himself onely once and we see not that the Holy Scriptures pursue any farther mystery in it To press further these sorts of relations and differences to make new doctrines and to bring all that is said of the sacrifices of the Old Testament to be said or denied of the sacrifice of the New this would be to make Articles of Faith Worships upon consequences wherein humane reason would have too much share But nevertheless if they will have it so that our Lord Jesus Christ intended there should be a relation betwixt all the circumstances of the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Eucharist which is the representation of the sacrifice that he himself offered upon the Cross we are so far from thinking that all the relations and all the differences which are to be found betwixt the one and the other should be understood according to the letter that we know the intention of the Gospel is opposed to the letter of the Law of Moses that whereas the Jewes under the Law did servilely and carnally ty themselves to outward and material actions it concerns Christians under the Gospel to take all spiritually and lift up their souls hearts unto Heaven Jo. 6.63 The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth The Jewes laid their hands upon the heads of their sacrifices and did eat of them to signifie the union which they had with them This is true we lay hold on Jesus Christ by Faith we eat him by Faith according to the speech of St. Austin Believe and thou hast eaten The Jewes did not eat the sin-offering nor did they ever eat of the bloud we eat the mystical body of our sacrifice and we drink his mystical bloud and as the expiation of our sins is actually made by his death upon the Cross so our Saviour sets before our eyes the sacred Symbols of his dead body as seals of his grace and of the remission of our sins See here how we might enlarge for our edification the relations and differences which we may find in this case betwixt the Old and New Testament betwixt the sacrifices of the Law and the divine sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ These considerations are right pious and conform to the spirit of the Gospel but as to the main that which is called a Doctrine and a Worship and an Article of Faith as is the eating of the proper flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ should not be founded upon relations and agreeances but upon a clear and positive revelation Pag. 84. But this eating saith the Bishop of Condom here ought to be as real as the expiation of sins is actual and effective under the new Covenant In the first place it must be observed here that the Bishop of Condom doth perpetually mistake himself upon the term of Real in the question of
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
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
unto whatsoever he shall oppose that is most considerable Our Doctrine is simple as the Bishop of Condom saith that it ought to be incomparably more simple than that of the Church of Rome Here as well as elsewhere we have this advantage that the Church of Rome believes all that we do believe the difference is onely in the things which she adds and which we cannot believe We believe that Jesus Christ having taken our humane nature to suffer the death which we had deserved it was necessary that we should be united unto him as the members are united unto the head to the end that his obedience and his righteousness should be imputed unto us that we might partake of all his merits We say that this union is made on our part by the faith which we have in him that it is God himself who gives us this Faith and that to give it unto us and to confirm it in our hearts he maketh use of two sundry sorts of means the one interiour which is the secret operation of his Holy Spirit without which those others were in vain the others exteriour which are the Word and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper the Word to declare unto us the promises of Salvation Baptism more particularly to shew forth our Entrance into the Church and the washing away of our sins and the Lords Supper to shew forth yet more perfectly the death of Jesus Christ and our communion with him Hitherto we go along with the Gentlemen of the Roman Church They believe as we doe that it is necessary we be spiritually united unto Jesus Christ that this Union is made by Faith that it is the Holy Spirit which produces this Faith in our hearts and that the Word Baptism and the Eucharist are the outward means which the Holy Spirit makes use of whether to produce or to increase and strengthen Faith in our hearts If there be any difference about this betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us it is not about what we have now said but upon those several other Doctrines which she hath added As to the Eucharist in particular whereof here the Question is betwixt them and us we also say very plainly that the Bread and Wine are outward signs which Jesus Christ hath added unto the Word to set forth his death before our eyes more livelily more sensibly than by Baptism or by the Gospel and that when we receive these signs by Faith Jesus Christ gives himself unto us or that he confirmes the gift which he hath already made unto us of himself in Baptism or in the preaching of the Gospel for the communicating to us all his benefits Not that his body is in the bread and his blood in the Wine or under the forms of bread and wine but by lifting our hearts up unto heaven where he is and uniting us unto himselfe by his holy spirit This is truly the abridgment of our Doctrin drawne from our confession of Faith and our catechisme conformable unto what the scriptures teach us throughout of the spirituall union of the faithful with our Lord Jesus Christ There is nothing in all this which is not plain and easie to be conceived excepting onely the ineffable incomprehensible manner in which this holy Spirit worketh in us and whereby he effects this union of the faithful with Jesus Christ our Divine Head Yet we have some resemblances though very imperfect Eph. 5.30 31 32. 1 Cor. 6.16 17. as well of this operation of the holy Spirit in our hearts as of the union of the faithful with Jesus Christ in the conjugal love which unites husband and wife and which is the reason that the Scripture saith that they are but one body and one soul However the matter stands it is very observable in this case that this difficulty such as it is is common with us and them of the Church of Rome and that it proceeds not more or less from hence that our Doctrine is different from theirs They believe the same as we do the spiritual union of the Faithful with Jesus Christ by the operation of the holy Spirit as we have just now said as well in the preaching of the Gospel as in Baptism and the Eucharist They conceive not at all this spiritual union any better than we nor explain themselves otherwise therein than we do and what they believe more than we in the Sacrament to wit that they receive the proper body of Jesus Christ by the mouth of the body into their stomach doth not add any thing at all according to their own principles either to effect or make understood this spiritual union which we have with Jesus Christ which is the onely and true cause of our Salvation For they do not deny that those who receive Baptism without the Word and without the Eucharist or Baptism and the Word without the same Eucharist may be saved and united perpetually unto Jesus Christ as well as they who receive also the Eucharist Neither do they say that the body of Jesus Christ which they do believe they receive into their stomach is united unto their soul or unto their body by his presence nor even that the substance of their body or of their soul doth touch the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ They say onely that their substance doth touch the sensible Forms of Bread and Wine and that the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ under these Formes is an earnest unto them of their spiritual union with Jesus Christ Some also add that it is unto them a blossoming of life and immortality by its virtue without pretending for all that that the substance of their soul or body doth join or unite it self unto the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ Let us now see wherein the Bishop of Condom doth pretend that we use Equivocations or that we come near unto the Church of Rome To render his accusation the more plausible he begins with the reason which he pretends hath as it were forced us to come nearer unto the Church of Rome in the point of the reality and afterwards he passeth unto the objections which he makes to prove that in effect we are come nearer unto them It is sufficient saith he to have learned by the Scriptures that the Son of God would testifie his love unto us by incomprehensible effects This love saith he was the cause of this so real union by which he became man this love induced him to offer up for us that his body as really as he had taken it and all these designs are followed and this love is maintained throughout by the same fervour So whensoever it shall please him to make any of his children sensible of the goodness which he hath expressed unto all in general by giving himself to them in particular he will find a means to satisfie himself by things that are as effectual as
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
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
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
authority of the Church of Rome which they pretend cannot err Behold therefore the Bishop of Condom's argument overthrown in all its parts seeing that the Maxime which he layes down is not true which is that all the Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the first beginning cannot be shewn proceed from the Apostles and that the application which he doth make is less true which is that all the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embrac'd by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning and by consequence this conclusion whether it be of the Bishop of Condom or of the Council of Trent far from being true and orthodox is a very strange principle that we ought to receive the Traditions even those which do separate us from the Church of Rome with the same respect and the same submission as the Holy Scripture XIX The authority of the Church After Tradition follows the authority of the Church The Bishop of Condom doth not clearly explain wherein this authority consists nor what he understands by the Church which should have this authority whether this authority should have any bounds or whether it should have none or whether it be the Pope with the Council or without the Council or the Council alone in which this authority doth reside for we also have our Churches and our Governours and we believe that we should not onely keep order but all that doth conduce for the maintaining of unity and concord and the Question here as elsewhere is oftentimes but of the more or less What the Bishop of Condom sayes in this case is reducible to four principal propositions The first that it cannot be but by the authority of the Church that we receive the whole body of the Holy Scriptures The second that it is of the Church that we learn Tradition and by Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures The third that it is the Church and her Pastours assembled which should determine controversies that divide the Faithful and that when once they have resolved any matter we ought to submit unto their decisions without examining anew that which they have resolved The fourth and last that this authority is so necessary that after having denied it we have been forced to establish it amongst us by our discipline by the Acts of our Synods and by our practice in things pertaining to Faith it self As to the first we agree with the Bishop of Condom that the Christian Church is the Guardian of the Scriptures and that as she hath received the Law and the Prophets from the Jewish Church so it is from the Chirstian Church that the Faithful receive all the Scriptures as well of the Old as of the New Testament We even acknowledge that the authority of the Church is a lawful reason which at first makes us look upon the Scripture as a revelation from Heaven but we do deny not onely that it is meerly by the authority of the Church but that it is principally by her authority that we receive the Scripture as the Divine Word The Scripture is full of Testimonies which it self gives of its Divinity and of the efficacious power which it hath upon hearts by the operation of the Holy Ghost It is indeed somewhat injurious to this the Divinity of the Scripture and to its efficacy and somewhat contradictory when it is contended that a matter Divine should not be received but by dependance upon an humane authority It is as if one would say that it is yet at this day onely by the authority of the Jewish Church that Christians have received the whole body of the Scriptures of the Old Testament because it is by her hand that we have received them though upon the whole the authority of this peopel chosen of God may be a reasonable ground of the Divinity of the Scriptures Truth hath its proper character even in humane matters which makes us acknowledge it for its self when once it is set before our eyes and not for the authority of those who propose it to us By greater reason Heavenly truths like the Sun manifest themselves by their proper splendour 'T is a common speech upon this subject that a man asleep being told the Sun is up presently believes it is day upon what is told him but when once he sees it is day he believes it not any longer because he was told so but because he sees it and he doth not so much as dream any longer that it was told him so The Gentlemen of the Church of Rome will not agree that it is as clear that the Scripture is the Word of God as it is clear that it is day when the Sun is above our Horizon and this is it which the Bishop of Condom gives to understand in terms positive enough when he speaks of us that whatever we say he believes that it is principally the authority of the Church pag. 16. that determines us to reverence as Divine Books the Song of Songs which hath so few sensible marks of prophetical inspiration the Epistle of St. James which Luther rejected and that of St. Jude which might be suspected by reason of some Apocryphal Books which are therein alledged But how dare any man rebate or decry as I may so speak the brightness and force of the Word of God Why sayes he absolutely that the Song of Songs hath so few marks of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit And to what end here again proposes he scruples against this Song and against the two Epistles of St. James and St. Jude which we look upon both in the one and the other communion as sacred Books and that without so much as alledging the reasons which have determined as well the Church of Rome as ours to receive these Writings as Canoniâ—al For will any say that if these Writings had not had any character of Divinity the sole approbation of the Church of Rome could give them 〈◊〉 light which they had not of themselves For our parts 2 Tim. 3.16 we say with the Apostle that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and if all men do not look upon them in the same manner or with the same sentiments it is not the fault of the Scripture but it is the effect of the variety and weakness of the humane spirit and the wise and free dispensation of the Spirit of God which bloweth where it will and as it will An evident proof that it is not the authority of the Church of Rome which determines those of our communion to reverence the Scriptures and these three Books particularly as Canonical but that it is their own proper character and the grace which we believe that God gives us to acknowledge this character is that 't is well known there are some others as Tobie Judith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus and the two first Books of Maccabees c. which the Church of Rome receives as Canonical which
full liberty of advice and suppose that it had been found that the Deputies had yielded unto something at the conference against the judgement of our Churches it would not onely have been disapproved but blamed and censured If on the contrary it had been found that they had done their duty as it ought to be presumed they would that the Form of confession whereupon they had agreed had contained all the essential fundamental Articles of what is believed amongst us and that there had been no Article in this Form of confession which had destroyed our fundamental Articles in this case we should have praised God for so full and happy a re-union The Synod would have approved and ratified it they would have framed an Act that should have contained the motives the grounds and principal reasons of their decree and the Deputies of Provinces would have been enjoined to obtain also the final acquiescence of the Churches by their silence Let it now be judged whether there be any thing in all this that in the least tends to establish that infallibility and absolute dominion which the Church of Rome attributes either to Popes or Councils which is the onely thing here in question whether there be the least pretext to accuse us as the Bishop of Condom doth of a feigned niceness and of an abandoning of our Belief or whether this be not a trick of expression not so equitable as should be to cast a foul insinuation on a great body without any ground XXI The authority of the Pope and Episcopacy There now remains onely for finishing this Answer to the Bishop of Condom's Treatise that we speak a word in particular touching the authority of the Pope and of Episcopacy This is again one of those places where the Bishop of Condom is as it were upon thorns In the first Impression of his Treatise after having said as in passage that God had instituted the Primacy of St. Peter pa. 165 to preserve unity he adds This is the reason that our confession of Faith obliges us to acknowledge the Church of Rome as the Mother and Mistress Magistram of all other Churches and to render a perfect obedience to the Soveraign High Priest Successour of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ And it is true that the profession of Faith made by Pius the IV. in execution of the Decree of the Council doth contain the same thing in so many words But in the second Edition the Bishop of Condom recalls what there was strongliest spoke in the former to wit these terms of Mistress Soveraign Vicar of Jesus Christ and perfect obedience which is due unto him whether it be that he would not engage to maintain these expressions in the extent of them or whether he was loath to anger us or in fine for some other reason that he had Now behold what he has put in stead of what he took away We acknowledge New Edition 〈…〉 saith he this same Primacy speaking of that of St. Peter which we have said that he supposed in the Successours of the Prince of the Apostles unto whom is due for this reason the submission and obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have alwayes taught So that in stead of explaining to us the Doctrine of the Council as he promised he would do by his Exposition for all the instruction and all the light he 'l give us he remits us to the Fathers and Councils and keeps himself yet in terms more general more obscure and more doubtful than the profession of Faith of the very Council it self It is true the Bishop of Condom here again covers his silence with this pretext that as to things which are disputed of in the Schools though the Ministers incessantly alledge them to render this power of the Pope odious it is not necessary to speak of them because saith he they are not of the Catholick Faitb But in all likelihood by these things which are disputed the Bishop of Condom here onely means the abuse of dispensations and of Indulgences the power of deposing Kings and to absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance and such other matters as are truly odious but for those things which precisely regard the submission that the Popes pretend due whether in matters of Faith or of Government Ecclesiastical though they are disputed as well out of the Schools as in the Schools if the Bishop of Condom avers that they are no more of the Catholick Faith we demand no more herein it may be said that the greatest part of the authority of the Popes contains nothing of great moment As to what remains it were easie to shew in this place that the Fathers and Councils unto whom the Bishop of Condom refers us have not alwayes taught that the Church of Rome was to be acknowledged as the mother and mistress of all others nor the Bishop of Rome as Soveraign High Priest sole Head and onely Successour of the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ nor that in this quality the submission and obedience which he at this day claims of all the World is due unto him Those who are but the least verst in History and judge without prejudice do well know Dist 22. ca. Constantinopolitanae that 't is onely the preheminence of the City of Rome once the chief City of the World and the Seat of the Empire which hath given occasion to the exalting the Holy Chair as they speak not onely above other Episcopal Chairs but above Kings and Emperours themselves It might also be shewed very clearly by the Scripture that the very pretended Primacy of St. Peter upon which the Authority of the Pope is grounded is not it self founded upon any thing for St. Peter had no more but his function of an Apostle like the rest It is said in the Eighth of the Acts that the Apostles which were in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria a passage which doth not intimate Gal. 2.9 Gal. 2.11 that St. Peter did attribute to himself any dominion over his Fellow Labourers The others are called pillars of the Church as well as he St. Paul saith himself that he withstood him to the face and if it were true that St. Peter had some primacy amongst the Apostles either because of his age or of his zeal as indeed it appears he spake first on several occasions who sees not that it can be at most but a primacy of order and rank in his own person such as there must needs be in all Assemblies and which would make no more for the Bishop of Rome than for those of Jerusalem and in general for all the Bishops and Pastours of the Church but this is also one of those Controversies upon which there are whole Volumes written and the Bishop of Condom passing so lightly over this matter as he does this is not a place neither to search deeplier into it We have onely to add for a conclusion
that we are so far from abolishing the Episcopal Government which was in force in the Apostles times as the Bishop of Condom imputes to us that our Churches maintaining as they do an holy Union betwixt themselves living in a great deal of simplicity under the governance of our Pastours and Synods are a true Image of the ancient Churches of Jerusalem of Corinth of Ephesus of Galatia of the Colossians of the Thessalonians and of Rome it self all founded by the Apostles affecting not at all any superiority one over the other but all being equal amongst themselves united by the Bonds of the same Faith and of the same charity under the governance of the same Apostles and under one sole Spiritual Head Jesus Christ The word Bishop as it is known signifies onely an Overseer and no more than that of a Pastour or Minister the Apostles are indifferently termed one and the other It is known that in Germany and England the name of Bishops is retained and a kind of Hierarchy which we do not disapprove of being moderate as it is And in fine God is our witness that we love peace and union as the Bishop of Condom de-fsires but a true union of hearts and judgements with knowledge and as God himself hath commanded that we should love Peace with Truth FINIS A TABLE Of the chief Points THE FIRST PART I. THE Design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise page 50. II. The Bishop of Condom 's first general proposition that those of the pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth embrace all the Fundamental points of Christian Religion page 58. III. The Bishop of Condom's second general proposition That the Church of Rome doth teach that Religious Worship is terminated on God only pag. 69. SECOND PART IV. Of Invocation of Saints pag. 67. V. Of Images and Relicks pag. 109. THIRD PART VI. Of Justification pag. 134. VII Of the merit of VVorks pag. 153. VIII Of satisfaction Purgatory and Indulgences pag. 156. FOURTH PART IX Of the Sacraments pag. 171. Baptism pag. 179. Confirmation pag. 191. Pennance and Sacramental Confession pag. 195. Extreme Vnction pag. 213. Marriage pag. 217. Orders pag. 219. FIFTH PART X. Of the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the manner in which the Church of Rome understands these words This is my Body pag. 221 XI An Explication of these words Do this in remembrance of me pa. 249. XII The Exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of the Doctrine of those of the Reformed Religion upon the Reality pag. 261. XIII Of Transubstantiation of Adoration and in what sense it is that the Bishop of Condom saith that the Eucharist is a Sign pag. 308. XIV Of the Sacrifice of the Mass p. 324. XV. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews pag. 327. XVI The Bishop of Condom's reflexion upon the precedent Doctrine pa. 332. XVII The Communion under both kinds pa. 55. SIXTH PART XVIII Of Tradition or the VVord written and the VVord unwritten pag 355. XIX Of the Authority of the Church pag. 370 XX. The judgment of those of the P. R. Rel. upon the Authority of the Church pag. 389 XXI Of the Authority of the Holy Chair and of Episcopacy pa. 426. FINIS A Note on line 17. pag 38. Because the Roman Creed doth not use genitum twice but unigenitum natum I did not think fit to render genitum and natum bâ—th by one English word nor yet to render ex patre natum born of the Father for we say in the Apostles Creed born of the Virgin Mary nor proceeding from the Father that being said properly of the Holy Ghost I therefore have said brought forth Against which if any take exception I declare let the Roman Church mean what She will by Natum I mean the same by brought forth For I meant to express her Latin words by English ones as strictly answering as I could Indeed in so great a mystery all language must needs be improper Errata insigniora Pag 11. l 23. dele that P. 25. l. 12. it lege them P. 32. l. 11. d. that P. 89. l. 5. leg that it is p. 132. l. penult fasten lege soften p. 138. l. 28. leg The errour p 157. l. 11. for leg before p. 158. l 21. del not p 182. l. ult lege in which p. 274. l 4. leg this death p 279. l 20. And it is also leg But it is
body of the Lord and the fruit of his death So all this consequence hath no foundation In summe wherefore will the Bishop of Condom have two different acts of Faith for uniting us to the body of Jesus Christ and having part in the fruit of his death when it is evident that all is done or might be done by one and the same act of Faith Or wherefore may we not even assert two divers acts of Faith if they be conceived severally by one of which we unite our selves to Jesus Christ himself and by the other unto the fruit of his death without any need to imagine for all this two different communions one spiritual by Faith and the other with the mouth of the body or real as the Bishop of Condom speaks Lord draw us after thee lift up our hearts unto thee come dwell in our hearts by the operation of thy Spirit Behold here an act of Faith which unites us to Jesus Christ if the Faith be such as it ought to be and this union of its self suffices to effect that we should also have part in the fruit of his death by this one act of Faith Lord impute to us thy righteousness and grant that being united unto thee by a true and lively Faith we may have a share in all thy benefits and in particular in the fruit of thy death Behold here nevertheless a second act of Faith which regards directly the part that we have in the fruit of his death The difference of these two acts of Faith properly will be onely in the distinction of the objects which Faith doth propose unto it self in the one it proposes the body of the Lord and in the other the fruit of his death and in one and the other there is a real communion with our Saviour but spiritually and by Faith But no man adds the Bishop of Condom 〈◊〉 112. can conceive what difference there is betwixt participating by Faith of the body of our Saviour and to participate by Faith of the fruit of his death This is now the second or third time that the Bishop of Condom will conceive all Let us see if he will be of the same mind upon the Article of Transubstantiation which follows immediately after this But after all how can he say that no man can conceive any difference betwixt participating by Faith of the body of the Lord and participating by Faith of the fruit of his death for the body of the Lord and the fruit of his death are evidently two different things and there is no one who cannot easily conceive that there is great difference betwixt partaking of the one and partaking of the other whether it be that it is done by one act of Faith or by two though besides the manner of partaking of one and the other be always the same to wit spiritually and by Faith Nevertheless it is here that the Bishop of Condom cryes out again in finishing this Article Who can but admire the force of truth c. And afterwards How ingenuously do the Calvinists confess unto us the truth they would have been strongly disposed to acknowledge the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament in figure onely and the participation of his Spirit onely in effect laying aside these great words of Participation of proper substance and many others which express a real presence and which onely cause perplexities c. Let the Bishop of Condom also in his turn ingenuously confess the truth he has been very strongly disposed and many other intelligent persons in the Church of Rome it may be will be so with him to confess that there is onely in the Eucharist a true and real communion of the body of Jesus Christ as we do acknowledge that that which we there have spiritual is very real laying aside that great word of Transubstantiation as he had laid it aside in the first Edition of his Treatise that of concomitance by virtue whereof the Cup was cut off from the communion and many others which imply manifest contradiction and which cause much more perplexity That which is truly admirable in this place is that the Church of Rome teacheth as we do a spiritual communion of the body of Jesus Christ and the Bishop of Condom himself said the very same but now in express terms that in the Lords Supper there is a communion pa. 112. by the which we partake spiritually of the body of our Saviour and of his spirit altogether in receiving the fruit of his death which is properly the result of our Doctrine and these words of participation and of substance with which the Bishop of Condom pleaseth himself and which he useth for all that himself signifie nothing more The onely difference that there is betwixt him and us is that we stop here and that he besides this spiritual communion of the body of our Lord supposes another real communion as he speaks that is with the mouth of the body which we cannot allow of Here in another prospect he insults over us as if there could not be any other communion of the body of our Lord but that onely which is had by the mouth of the body and that without admitting of that there can nothing be acknowledged in the Lords Supper but the figure of his body and a participation of the Spirit excluding thus this other spiritual communion of the very body of Jesus Christ which he but now confessed Let it be judged by this and by all the rest which hath been said as well of our opinions as of his way of arguing who it is that creates perplexities or that contradicts themselves whether it is the Bishop of Condom or us that use equivocations about words And Lastly if he hath so much subject of Triumph upon this Article as he seemed to imagine to himself XIII Of Tran. substantiation of Adoration and in what sense the Bishop of Condom saith that the Sacrament is a sign The Bishop of Condom will slide along more sweetly upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and upon the Adoration of the Host than he did in opposing our Doctrine There he attacqued and attacqued Adversaries as he calls them to whom they hardly give the liberty to defend themselves We may say any thing against them they will answer but by halfs Here he must defend himself and he hath against him Scripture reason evidence of the senses and the common notions of Christianity imprinted in conscience which are other kind of Adversaries more terrible speaking malgre opposition each in his order and speaking so loud as they put the ablest to silence The Bishop of Condom when he speaks of our Belief though all things be very simple in it is not satisfied if he cannot conceive even the very manner whereby the Holy Ghost doth really unite us unto Jesus Christ notwithstanding the great distance which there is betwixt us and him which nevertheless the Roman Church doth perpetually teach
as well as we and yet it is the onely thing in our Doctrine which humane understanding cannot well comprehend Here where there are depths of difficulties the Bishop of Condom will not perceive any at all his reason shall not at all molest him and though there is no dispute of what God can do for God can do what he pleaseth but of the meaning of his words onely without looking unto his will which are the onely rule of our Faith as well as of our actions the Bishop of Condom will tell us mysteriously that his Faith is attentive unto this infinite power which is onely properly the object of our Admiration and of our Adoration What the Bishop of Condom speaks touching Transubstantiation may be reduced unto four distinct assertions which yet shall onely be touched as we pass because this is a pure controversie which is throughly treated of in all our Books The first is pa. 123. that the appearance of bread and wine ought to continue in the Sacrament the second that the Church of Rome doth not therein acknowledge any other substance but that of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ into which the bread and the wine are changed and this is it saith he Ibid. pa. 124. which is called Transubstantiation The Bishop of Condom had abstained from this term of Transubstantiation in the first Impression of his Treatise having onely put it as a title in the Margin to note the Article or the matter of Controversie which he treats of in that place neither did he formally say upon this Article that the bread and the wine were changed into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but he adds both the one and the other in the latter The third Doctrine is That the reality doth not hinder but that the Eucharist may be a sign as to what it hath exteriour and sensible that in the contrary the sign doth necessarily carry the reality with it The fourth and last that the presence of the body being certified by this sign they of the Roman Church make no scruple to pay it their adorations As to the first of these Assertions because it was agreeable Pa. 12. saith the Bishop of Condom that the senses should perceive nothing in this mystery of Faith it was not necessary that any thing should be changed relating to them in the bread and wine in the Eucharist The Bishop of Condom onely says that it was agreeable and yet he doth but say so without proving it He looks upon it as a thing established and that onely because elsewhere he hath glanced on this in passage that it was agreeable that God should give us his flesh and bloud wrapped up under a strange form to exercise saith he pag. 84. our Faith in this Mystery and to take away the horrour of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud in their proper form But what a reason is this to establish such a Doctrine as this To exercise our Faith in this Mystery There is nothing so strange which might not be made pass under such indefinite pretexts of conveniency or agreeableness as if the Mystery of the Sacrament had not sufficient matter besides to exercise our Faith without supposing the change of the bread and wine into the proper flesh and proper bloud of our Saviour against the formal testimony of all our senses The flesh and bloud say they would induce horrour if we were to eat them in kind and it is certain that the very thought onely of eating humane flesh doth naturally produce this effect but it hath been already elsewhere touched that the coverings as they speak may lessen his horrour but not intirely take it away And if the Church of Rome be at last accustomed unto this notion it is but onely in tract of time and in favour of that mystical and figurative expression in St. John Cap. 6. who faith to eat the flesh of Christ instead of saying to believe in him unto which mystical expression the Church of Rome hath made the â—â—teral sense to succeed But Lastly the difficulty is not to prove that the appearances of bread and wine do remain or to shew a reason why they remain but to shew that there is nothing else but the appearances that remains for in the first place Jesus Christ and the Apostle St. Paul who is his instrument say that after the benediction it is bread and wine and in the Apostles times and in the first times after the Apostles there was nothing spoken of but only bread and wine And in fine God having given unto us our senses to know all corporal things which are their true object and which depend on their jurisdiction their testimony being the foundation of almost all Notions and the proof which Jesus Christ made use of to establish the truth of his humanity and of his Resurrection can the Bishop of Condom that will understand all conceive that God intended that in an act of Religion which he established to help our weakness and unbelief in presenting figures or outward objects to our senses can he conceive I say that God intended that there should be in this act of Religion a perpetual and manifest contradiction betwixt the testimony of our senses and our Faith that Faith should continually tell us that what we see and touch are onely false appearances of bread and wine and that on the contrary our senses should continually tell us that they be truly bread and wine pa. 123. Faith saith the Bishop of Condom attentive to the word of him who doth what he pleaseth acknowledgeth not here any other substance but that which is designed by the same word This is the Bishop of Condom's second assertion which is as it were the support of the former But it hath been already touched that the matter in hand is not to know whether Jesus Christ be true in what he saith or whether he be able to do what he saith it were the heighth of impiety to doubt of the one or the other The onely point in hand is touching the sense of what he hath spoken This may here again be called giving the change through favour of the profound regard which ought to be had for the great authority and power of our Lord. But is not Faith attentive unto the word of him which saith Joh. 6.41 10.11 15.5 8 12 10.7.4 14. Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11. I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the good Shepherd I am the Vine the Light the Gate a Fountain of living water c. and who in the institution of the Sacrament it self saith bread and the fruit of the vine and who saith Drink ye all of it and do this holy Ceremony in remembrance of him until he come as the Apostle speaks And yet for all that the Faith of the Church of Rome doth not stop at the sound of these words but she taketh the sense either in