the Eucharist he alwayes supposes that real and corporal are but one and the same thing and that a thing is not real if it be not corporal The eating or partaking of the body of Jesus Christ is very real according to us as real and effective as the expiation of our sins but it doth not follow for all that that there is a necessity that this participation be corporal that is to say that we must receive the proper flesh and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body according as in Baptism we doe agree both the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we that we do partake of or that we are truly and really united unto Jesus Christ and unto his sacrifice and yet for all that this union is not corporal In fine there is a kind of incompatibility or of contradiction in the Bishop of Condom's arguing He would have it that as the Jewes did effectively eat of the sacrifice offered for their sins we also should effectively eat the body of Jesus Christ our sacrifice and he doth not consider that as the sacrifices which the Jewes did eat were dead so it would be necessary that the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament were in a state of death that it might be eaten as a sacrifice whereas the Church of Rome teacheth that he is there in a state of life that is to say living and not dead As to what is the Bishop of Condom's other proposition that there is no relation betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ is it not openly to gainsay what hath been already alledged out of St. Austin and Theodoret that the Sacraments doe not take the name of the things whereof they are Sacraments but because of the relation which there is betwixt the Sacraments and the things themselves that without this relation they could not be Sacraments that it is formally because of this relation that the bread and the wine are called the body the bloud of Jesus Christ for these are St. Austin's own words and that to conclude Epist 23 ad Bonif. As Jesus Christ had said that he was bread and a vine he said afterward that the bread was his body and the wine his bloud giving as it were reciprocally the names of the one unto the other Dial. 1. as Theodoret speaks In summe our Saviour seeing his Disciples bent upon the things of this life taking an occasion by the miracle of the Loaves did himself strongly establish the resemblance which there is betwixt him and bread saying that he is the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.41.51 55. that this bread is his flesh that his flesh is meat indeed and his bloud is drink indeed shewing plainly that as the bread doth nourish our bodies Jo. 6.68 so his flesh and his bloud is the life and nourishment of our souls This word seemed hard to many who forsook him but the Apostles understood very well from that time the relation or similitude which made Jesus Christ say he was bread and that his flesh was this bread unto whom shall we go Lib. 1. de Offic. Eccl. cap. 18. Com. en Marc. 14 saith St. Peter thou hast the words of eternal life St. Isidore Bede and many others very far from saying that there is no relation betwixt the Sacraments and the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as doth the Bishop of Condom say on the contrary that the bread is called his body because bread nourisheth and fortifieth the body and that the wine is called his bloud because wine breedeth bloud in our flesh and rejoyceth the heart There is another resemblance also well known which the Fathers have explained not onely betwixt the bread and wine and the flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ Theoph. Antioc 1 Comment in 4 Evan. pa. 359. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. but betwixt the Sacraments and that other mystical body of Jesus Christ whereof he himself is head to wit the Church that as the bread is made of many grains and the wine of many clusters of grapes so the mystical body of Christ is composed of many Believers which are his living members So that we may plainly see so far is it from there being no relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ as the Bishop of Condom supposeth that we find on the contrary the two relations which he calls natural relation and relation of institution and of which he demands but one or the other that the sign may take the name of the thing and that it might be proper to bring down the Idea into the mind to wit a relation of the natural virtue of bread unto that of the body of Jesus Christ the body of Jesus Christ being the nourishment of our souls as bread is the nourishment of our bodies and the relation which Jesus Christ had established before in the minds of his Apostles Jo. 6.52 by the use which he had made of this likeness having accustomed them unto this manner of speaking even before the institution of the Sacraments and confirming or establishing anew this relation by the very words of the institution it self But there is here yet something else to be understood The Bishop of Condom doth curteil if I may so say the words of institution or rather the sense and secretly makes a kind of Sophisme in dividing the words and examining them in a sense separate the one from another instead of taking them altogether Here it concerned not to enquire the relation there is betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ barely this relation consists as it was said in that the one doth nourish our bodies and the other doth nourish our souls The likeness betwixt the bread broken and the body broken should have been searched into for Jesus Christ gives us not his body properly but in this regard and Jesus Christ sayes not onely this is my body he saith in the same breath my body which is broken for you And suppose that these first words had not clearly enough intimated the relation which there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ these others which our Saviour adds are as a second touch of a pencil or a new colour which heighthens the draught and better expresses the resemblance betwixt the Image and the Divine Original that is to say that as the bread is broken in pieces to serve us for nourishment and as the wine is poured out to serve us for drink so the body of Jesus Christ was broken and his bloud was shed upon the Cross to be the spiritual nourishment of our souls Here we must observe the perpetual errour or the continual source of the errour of the Roman Church upon this point The Roman Church makes the Essential the Principal the force and virtue of the institution of the Sacrament to consist in these first words This is my body which are the onely ones she
of our communion are the onely persons nay the first that have neither spoken nor written nor again and again exclaimed against the abuses and enterprises of the Court of Rome The Liberties of the Gallicane Church the quarrels of our Kings with the Popes the concordates the Remonstrances of Bishops the Acts of Parliaments the decrees of the Colledge of Sorbon the appeals unto Councils Finally the Writings of a great number of Catholicks even in these last times clearly enough shew that we are not the onely men nor the first nor the last which have cryed down the excessive authority of Popes Let us proceed now to the second accusation which is that after having decryed this authority we have been constrained to establish it amongst our selves We have no mind to say that there is not any Order established amongst us but the Bishop pretends that we give this infallibility authority unto our Synods which we will not acknowledge neither in the persons of Popes nor in the Assemblies of Councils and he means the same afterwards that we have given it even to excess and with a kind of abandoning our right To this purpose he reports in the first place an Act of the Synod at Charenton in 1644. upon the case of those who were called Independants Secondly an Article of our discipline in the title of Consistories Thirdly the Form of Letters Missive which are given to those who are deputed to go to the Synods which was drawn up a the Synod held at Vitre in 1617. Fourthly and Lastly a resolution that was taken at the Synod of St. Faith in 1578 upon occasion of an overture of accommodation which was proposed betwixt those of our communion and those of the confession of Ausburg which are called Lutherans This is yet another passage of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise wherein he useth his utmost endeavours and where he hopes to finde the greatest advantage When he treats of his own belief that is soon passed over he saith but a word in clouded terms he scarce proves any thing and makes himself no objection and if haply it be taken notice of that he useth to do so he will say that it is because he makes onely a bare exposition and that he hath proposed to himself neither to speak all nor to prove what he speaks But when once or twice he is come unto some points of those of Christian Religion where there seems to be some difficulty in our doctrine as well as in that of the Church of Rome then it is that he displayes all the subtilty of his arguring then it is that he enlarges and insults over us as if we onely could hang down our heads This is the part of a feeble Enemy which keeps himself inclosed and onely makes some small sally at certain times The first difficulty which the Bishop of Condom here creates us is no difficulty The Synod in 1644. doth censure the Independants because they would not acknowledge the authority of Assemblies and Synods and it gives the same reason which is cited by the Bishop of Condom that this proceeding is so prejudicial to the State as well as to the Church that it opens the door unto Irregularities and extravagancies that it takes away the means of remedy and that in fine if it might have place it would produce as many Religions as there are parishâ—s or particular Assemblies This plainly imports that in the communion of our Churches we love Order and that we acknowledge the authority of Assemblies and Synods as a means conform to the practice established by our Saviour and by the Apostles and very proper to preserve the purity of Faith and to maintain unity But this implies not any wise that we have attributed a kind of infallibility or a soveraign and absolute authority unto our Synods such as the Church of Rome attributes unto Popes and unto Councils which is the onely thing in question It is as if one should say that in acknowledging the just authority of Magistrates for maintaining of Laws and the service of the Prince we did allow that the Magistrates are above the Laws or have right to give what Orders they please how contrary soever those Orders may appear to be against the service of the common Master so that at no time and in no case the people might forbear the observance of these Orders to continue faithful unto their Soveraign The Independants fault was not in that they admitted of nothing but the Word of God to be a rule of Faith they did not absolutely reject Synods themselves for afterwards in 1653. they held an Assembly numerous enough in London where they composed their confession of Faith Their fault was chiefly in this regard in that they would not submit to have amongst them a constant and permanent rule of having conferences and Synods whereby they kept the door open unto all sorts of confusion as well in State as Church voluntarily depriving themselves of one of the best outward means which God hath given to men to prevent corruption and Schisms But saith the Bishop of Condom it is principally in matter of Faith that the Synod would establish a dependance inasmuch as the greatest inconveniency that it observes whereinto the Faithful might fall by independency is this very point that Schisms might be formed or as many Religions arise as there were parishes But if this consequence were good it might also be said that Faith and Religion do depend on the civil Magistrate because if the people were not restrained by the authority of the Magistrate they would live each according to their own fancy even in matters of Religion it self Faith and discipline mutually hold hands Faith works a love of order and discipline order and discipline serve to keep up the purity of Faith But they are nevertheless things very different and it cannot be said for all this that Faith depends upon order or upon the Orderers whether they be civil or Ecclesiastical To conclude we do not at all deny but that even in matters of Faith we ought to depend upon the guidance of Synods and of Pastours on the contrary we do recommend teachableness deference and submission the Question even here is but of the more or less The point in hand is to know whether the Popes or Councils be infallible and by consequence whether we ought to depend blindly on their power so that at no time nor in any case we may refuse to submit to their Bulls and to their Decrees and we have made evident that there have been many times and occasions upon which the Church of Rome her self hath not wholly received all the Bulls nor all the Decrees of Popes or of Councils The second thing that the Bishop of Condom objects against us in this case is that Article of our Discipline where it is said that the Consistories should endeavour to appease the differences which may arise upon any point of Doctrine and Discipline
The Bishop of Condom takes for an absolute power that which is onely a condition and a limitation to the power of the Synod Religion requires amongst us that we should presume God presides in these Assemblies and the rules of justice and decency yea even custom permit not that we should explain our selves otherwise But upon the whole every one sees that the sense of this Form is as if one should say we promise to submit our selves unto what you shall resolve if as we hope of you through the grace of God you take his Word and his truth for the rule of your thoughts and conduct and thereby make appear that it is indeed his Spirit that presides in your consultations and governs you and that you do not proceed by canvasing and Cabals or by humane motives and interests as the Roman Catholick Authours testifie it was done in the latter Councils of Constance and of Trent If it be saith the Bishop of Condom a perswasion founded upon an humane presumption can any man in conscience promise to submit himself to what shall be resolved And if this perswasion hath its foundation in a certain belief of the assistance of the Holy Spirit given unto the Church the Catholicks in this case demand no more We answer hereby that it is properly neither the one nor the other and that it is not worth the labour to make upon it a double-horned Argument for so we commonly call dilemma's this perswasion is a judgment of charity which makes us hope well of the intentions of those that are deputed unto these Assemblies and that is sufficient to warrant our promising to acquiesce unto what they resolve alwayes provided that they have Truth and the Word of God for the Rule of their consultations Upon which it is to be observed though it may be too long to insist upon what is so clear in it self that our Synods in the whole are made up onely of divers Deputies which have all of them their Letters in the same Form almost after the same manner as have they which are deputed unto the Provincial Estates so that things being equal amongst them it cannot be said that this condition and this limitation can wound the dignity or just authority of these Assemblies These Letters missive are properly nothing else but proxies or if the term please better in some measure resemble Letters and Commissions which Princes give to their Ambassadours or their Envoys the ordinary style whereof is that they have intire trust and confidence in the integrity fidelity and ability of them whom they send giving them full power c. Nevertheless with this condition understood all along that they govern themselves by their orders and instructions and that if they conform themselves thereunto whatsoever they shall conclude shall be confirmed The difference betwixt these sorts of Letters of deputation and proxies in matters of business and the Commissions of Princes is onely in the quality and style of them who speak Princes speak as Princes men of business like men of business and Churches in a style pious and Christian so that these Letters missive not onely give merely a limitted and conditional power but the resolutions themselves which are made by virtue of this power though conformable to the Scripture according to the condition expressed in the Letters pass not for authentical decrees till they are brought unto the Churches and the Churches have as it were ratified them by their acquiescence and when it falls out that any Church or any particular persons find any difficulties therein the business is remitted to further consideration in the following Synods because it is a constant principle of Christianity according to us that Faith is a firm perswasion and by consequence that mens minds must be cleared and rendred capable as far as may be of the truths which are taught that is to say made to taste the Doctrine with a certain sweetness and not have the belief imposed by constraint and absolute dominion What we have now said of these Letters missive serves for answer to the Bishop of Condom's last objection touching the resolution taken up at the Synod of St. Faith for there is throughout the same foundation or rather the same pretence The Bishop of Condom strains himself more on this matter than on the others and again insults over us here as if we were of bad Faith and of little accord amongst our selves Let us see what the matter is In the year 1578. there was an overture of reconciliation made betwixt those that are called Lutherans and our Churches of France by means of a Form of confession of Faith which was to be general and common unto all the Churches The Churches of this Kingdom were desired to depute good men authorised by the Church with power to treat accord and decide all the points of Doctrine and other things which might concern that Vnion Upon this proposition the Synod decreed that if the confession of Faith proposed were sent time enough it should be examined in each Provincial Synod and in the mean time the Synod deputed four Ministers with Letters and ample proxies of the Ministers and Elders and of Mounsieur the Vicount of Turenn and in case they should not have time enough to examine this confession of Faith in all the Provinces they remitted it unto the prudence of those Deputies to accord and conclude of all points which should come under deliberation whether of Doctrine or any thing else that might concern the good the union and the ease of all the Churches This is in summe the resolution of this Synod as the Bishop of Condom reports it and it is plain here that there is nothing that is not agreeable to reason and custome In the mean while he proceeds with a kind of admiration To this head doth the false squeamishness of the Gentlemen of the pretended reformed Religion come they have now thus and thus often upbraided to us as a weakness that submission which we have for the decrees of the Church which is nothing else say they but a society of men subject to errour and mean time they have not feared to commit their Faith into the hands of four men with so large abandoning their own judgment that they have given them full power to change the very confession of Faith which they propose at this day to all the Christian World and that as a confession of Faith which contains nothing but the pure Word of God and for which they have said at their presenting it to our Kings that an infinite number of persons were ready to shed their bloud To this head in fine is the Bishop of Condom's evil reflexion come they have saith he thus and thus often upbraided to us as a weakness the submission which we have for the decrees of the Church In the first place it had been just that the Bishop of Condom would have been pleased to have told us at least
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