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
Victor an Authour of the Twelfth Century In the last the Bishop of Condom doth expunge this Opinion which doth not only shew too much uncertainty touching the ground of such a religious Worship but a kind of incompatibility to address Prayers to Saints if it may be supposed that those Prayers be not at all understood 5. In the First Edition speaking of Images he drops these words that the Church of Rome doth not so much honour the image of an Apostle or Martyr as she doth honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the image This imports that properly there is no honour rendred unto the Image it self or that there is but very little given unto it as they usually tell us in common discourse but this doth not speakfull enough according to the Roman Pontifical and according to the Council of Trent and much less according to the general practice of the Romish Church Therefore it is that in the second Edition the Bishop of Condom expresses himself more strongly When we do honour the image of an Apostle or Martyr Page 32. our intention is not so much to honour the image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the image 6. In the First Edition concluding the Article of the worship of Saints Page 33. There is nothing saith he more unjust than to say that the Church doth make all devotion to consist in worshipping Saints because on the contrary she doth not impose any obligation on particular persons to apply themselves to that practice He adds We have already observed the words of the Council of Trent which is content to term it good and useful without teaching that it is necessary or that it is commanded So that it plainly enough appears that the Church condemns none but such as separate through disrespect or a spirit of dissension and revolving This doth intimate plainly that a man may very well omit the worship of Saints because the Church doth not impose any obligation 〈◊〉 practise iâ— and that the only condemns such as reject it through a spirit of scorn and dissension In the Last Edition the Bishop of Condom reforms all this Article on the one hand he strikes out these two Propositions that the Church doth not impose any obligation to practise the worship of Saints and that the worship of Saints is not a practise necessary nor commanded as if he no more intended to speak the same thing or at least that he would not speak it so plainly or absolutely as he had done but leave it more undetermined and on the other hand whereas he had said the Church condemns only those that reject this practice through disrespect or a spirit of dissention he puts by disrespect or by errour By which means supposing that we are in an errour as the Church of Rome doth suppose this Last Edition returns us under the curse from which we were freed by the First Page 47. 7. In the First concluding what he had said of Justification he adds that it was needless to know more to be a sound Christian which doth ease and free Religion from a great many nice distinctions from Decisions Canons and Anathema's of the Council in regard the Bishop of Condom laies aside all these Doctrines thinking those he hath touched to be sufficient In the Last he changeth this opinion into another quite different he only saith that this Doctrine is enough to shew Christians that they ought to refer unto God through Jesus Christ the glory of their salvation so it is that the Bishop of Condom doth often charge what follows without regarding what went before from whence one may judge what can be the sincerity of his arguing or to be plain from the same propositions he draws very different conclusions 8. In the First he saith Page 5â— that the Church hath alwayes acknowledged the two different wayes of obtaining remission of sins which he proceeds to explain and the First by the pardon which God gives us of them the other by another grace and another absolution which the Church grants in form of judgment by imposing upon us works of penance In the second he finds that it is not in his power to shew that the Church hath at all times taught this Last manner of applying the remission of sins which makes him to curtail this proposition Page 56. 9. In the First being about to finish the Article of Indulgences he concludes that this matter relates principally unto Discipline which words are very remarkable because both parties do agree that matters of Discipline may be taken away or changed according to the circumstances of times and places In the Last he saith not any more that it is the matter of indulgences which relates unto Discipline but only the manner of dispensing them â—2 63 10. In the First he saith upon the Sacraments that they confer grace by virtue of the external action done upon us In the Last he joins unto the action the words that are pronounced â—e 65 11. In the First speaking of confirmation he saith that all Christian Churches have retained this custom ever since the Apostles dayes accompanying the imposition of hands with the holy Chrisme In the Last he hath supprest these words since the Apostles dayes as if they had been said through inadvertency Page 74 in the First Edition but in stead of this expression accompanying the imposition of hands with holy Chrisme which gave to understand that the use of Chrisme was joined unto the imposition of hands from the time of the Apostles he hath put making use also of holy Chrisme having very well perceived without doubt that at the least the use of Chrisme was not brought in till a long time after the imposition of hands and that it is not near of so ancient a date as the Apostles days 12. In the First P. 76 85 92 96 30. upon the Eucharist he speaks of our Belief in several places as if we believed a real presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and this under the pretext that we say that we really partake of the Body of Jesus Christ All his consequences are grounded upon this supposition In the Last he plainly doth perceive that this supposition was easily destroyed by a bare disavowing it on our parts because never any of us have said that we believed the real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This is the reason that in the Last Edition speaking of what we believe he useth every where the terms participation or of real communion in stead of that of real presence which he used every where in the First which is very different because the one doth give way to suppose that the Body of Jesus Christ must come down from Heaven into the Sacrament to be present therein and we say onely that by Faith we lift our hearts to Heaven where he is and that it is so
as he could but for all this what might not oâ— say upon each of these propositions if this were a place to handle the question to the bottom But seeing the Bishop of Condom desires not to insist upon refuting of him and also it being not the design of this answer we shall also content our selves almost throughout to set forth simply our beliefe in opposition unto his because it may be thought that there is no more needful as well to judge in general which of the two hath more the character of truth as to make appear that his exposition is always equally contrary to our fundamental points Onely after 〈◊〉 â—â—ample we will touch some reasons upon which we ground our selves for the same consideration which he himself makes where he saith that the knowledge of the principal reasons of a Doctrine doth often make up a necessary part of its exposition The reformed Churches do believe that it is not onely for the Glory of God but that it is his will also as he hath told us in his word that we should worship but one God that we should serve none but God with a religious worship that we should have recourse unto none but God only in our necessities that we should call upon none but God in our Prayers and that invocation according to the very word is a spiritual sacrifice which makes up the chiefest part of the worship due unto God onely We believe that this is the true meaning of the Commandments of the Law and of all the Doctrin of the Gospel which directs us throughout to address unto God our vows our Prayers and our thanksgivings and as for the faithful Servants of God which we esteem to have dyed in his favour we say that we should honour their memories praise their faith their zeal their charity and all other their Christian vertues and propose them for example and imitation unto the faithful This is properly our beliefs and we are perswaded that those who will consider it with a free and equal mind will not onely find it safe and right but also pure and disengaged from abuse from difficulties and uncertainties which accompany that of the Bishop of Condom We will begin to examin this Article of his exposition where he ends it to wit how the Saints know our vows our needs and our Prayers because it is in vain to pray if not understood we have seen that the Bishop of Condom hath declared that never any of his Communion did conceive that the Saints could know our Prayers and desires by themselves that is by their own proper nature that also there is not any immensity attributed unto them and that nevertheless the Church of Rome doth not decide whether it be by the Commerce of Angels or by revelations as were those of the Prophets or whether it be that they see all in God himself But doth not this uncertainty already shew what that Faith can be that hath no surer foundation Is it not a new circuit if our vowes and our Prayers must pass from us unto Angels from Angels to Saints and from Saints to God and is it not yet a new difficulty if we must suppose that Angels themselves know our thoughts and our dâ—sires For although they are Miâ—string Spirits as the Bishop of Condâ—â— alledges when they are sent foâ—â— to attend the Faithful it doâ— not follow that we ought to attribâ— to them the knowledge of hearts which onely belongs to an inâ—nite essence Heb i. 14 Jerem. 17 6 10. Amos 5 7. There is also this diffâ—rence betwixt the Saints and the Prophets that God himself hath said thâ— he revealed things to come unto thâ— Prophets but he never said that 〈◊〉 revealed our thoughts unto Saints and very unlike it is that the knowledge of future things seems to 〈◊〉 more reserved to God than oâ— thoughts and our Prayers as the Bâ—shop of Condom affirms It 〈◊〉 known that the Devils and even mâ— themselves sometimes search iâ— what is to come and that it is properly the knowledge of the hearâ— which God reserves unto himself â—lone Pâ—s 7 10 1 Chro â—6 s 7. It is yet a gulf of difficulties to Imâ—gin that the Saints see all things in thâ— infinite essence of God For is not this to attribute immensity unto them And is it not also to suppose that all things are in God either according to their proper nature or by their Images as they must needs be to be known or seen by the Saints whereas it was never said but that all things were in God only eminently as it is said in the Schools that is to say that the perfection or infinity of his essence comprehends all things and that there is nothing properly without him Besides good heed ought here to be taken that the principal and essential question is not to know how the Saints can understand our thoughts and our Prayers that may be in some sort indifferent but how we may be assured at Least they do know them For if we have only probabilities and conjectures for it this is not sufficient to establish a Religious Worship such as that is nor praying unto the Saints with confidence In the mean while the Church of Rome doth agree that the Saints do not know our desires and our wants by their own nature it were very needful therefore that their should be some very express revelation that might at Least inform us that they do know them though we were ignorant of the means but noâ— having any Likely revelation in this matter it is evident that all this worship of Saints hath no foundation There is yet another difficulty that the Bishop of Condom hath not touched which doth manifestly shew that there can be no assureance that the Saints who are prayed unto caâ— know our desires and Prayers oâ— that they are in a condition of doing what we pray unto them for it is thaâ— we cannot be assured of this it self that the greatest number of the Saintâ— who are prayed unto are in Heaven especially in the Roman Church where they believe a third place For although we ought to judge charitably of them who seem to dye in thâ— Lord yet the judgement of charitâ— is not sufficient to establish such worship as this is The Council nor the Bishop oâ— Condom upon the whole say nothing to these difficulties which yet are essential and preliminaries also as it may be said because it is a most evident truth that no true Religious Worship can be grounded upon uncertain reasons But Lastly having touched what the Bishop of Condom doth not resolve it is time to examin what he explains and that which he saith to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome And First it is a Wonderful thing that in Laying down as he doth so Long a train of Doctrins as hath been mentioned going about to establish so considerable a Worship as the Worship of Saints is in
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
all those that have been baptised as they have said in express termes of the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Supper Goe and Baptise c. and Doe this in remembrance of me And the gift of miracles by the imposition of hands being ceased so many Ages past This is the Opinion of some French Protestants at present but as to the perpetual expediency of such imposition of hands as our English Church uses in Confirmation while not made a Sacrament See the first Reformers whom the Reformed French most follow Calvin on Hebr. 6. And in his Institut lib. 4. c. 19. Sect. 4 and 13. And Theod. Bez. on Hebr. 6. Diodat on the same it cannot be seen why nor how at this time they should make an institution of that which was onely an extraordinary practice and a practice in a word which depended upon a gift that is ceased The Church of Rome following the natural inclination of men which carries them not onely unto an imitation or emulation but a desire to surpass one another hath miscarried almost every where in this regard that of the least occasions she hath made pretexts to establish Worships or Ceremonies as if she had nothing to doe but to frame a Religion of all the usages or of all the actions ordinary or extraordinary of our Lord and of his Apostles Our Lord being tempted of the Devil did fast Fourty dayes in the Wilderness to convince the World that he was truly God-man It must be from hence that the Church of Rome also by degrees is come to make particular Fasts not onely from time to time as was practised at the beginning of Christianity but even a Lent entire of Fourty days We find that once or twice the Apostles healed the sick using a kind of anointing from hence there must be made a Sacrament of Extreme Unction of which we shall speak hereafter And here because there are found some examples of an imposition of hands which wrought miracles they have also by degrees made a grand Establishment of Ceremonies called Confirmation and when once this Establishment was atchieved the Council made a true Sacrament and a Law of this Ceremony charging perpetually Religion and mens consciences with a yoke that neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear The same is also to be said against the Sacrament of Pennance Pennance and Sacramental Confession and of Sacramental Confession On the one hand the Prophets and Apostles seeing men in Idolatry in Errour or in Sin said unto them Repent ye or doe pennance for it is the same thing Amend and be converted unto the Lord which is an-ordinary exhortation in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament And on the other our Lord Jesus Christ sending his Disciples after the Resurrection to preach the Gospel breathing upon them said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins soever ye remit Joh. 2â— 22 they are remitted and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained This Interpretaâ—â—on is â—tely the opinion Calvin and his followers This imports evidently no more but the Power and Commission which Jesus Christ gave them in general before he left them to announce pardon of sins unto those who believed the Gospel and on the contrary to announce the Judgments of God against those who rejected their Doctrine For it sufficiently appears that these words of Jesus Christs did not exclude the Apostles inspection into the manners of men but on the contrary charged them with the conduct of the Churches and it is evident by the occasions on which our Saviour spake them and by all other circumstances of time and place that on those occasions our Lord had regard principally unto the preaching of the Gospel In the mean while behold here the use which the Church of Rome hath made of this Doctrine or the consequence that she hath drawn from it We do believe saith the Bishop of Condom that it hath pleased Jesus Christ that those who have submitted themselves unto the authority of the Church by Bapptism and who have since violated the Laws of the Gospel should come to undergo the judgment of the same Church at the Tribunal of Pennance where she exercises the power which is given unto her of remitting or retaining of sins We believe that it hath pleased Jesus Christ c. but upon what ground Every one sees what resemblance there is of the repentance whereto the Prophets and Apostles exhorted the people and of the power the Apostles had to announce Remission of sins in preaching the Gospel unto this Tribunal of Pennance which is not imploid formally in preaching to the people or in bringing men to receive the Doctrine of the Gospel or to repent and be converted to God I say not formally but in subjecting every Believer in particular to go to declare all his mortal sins by name one after another with all their aggravating circumstances to crave for them pardon or absolution of the Priest and to undergo all those satisfactory pains of Prayers by number of Fasts of Pilgrimages and the like of which we have spoken before and all this under pain of cursing and eternal damnation against those who being able to make this confession Dall de Paen. Satisfact c. shall fail to make it Our Bookes are full of very solid reasons which plainly prove two things the one that this Doctrine very far from being grounded upon those words of the Scripture which have been alledged is directly contrary to the Word of God and that it is injurious to his Wisedome to his Goodness and to the merits of the Death which Jesus Christ hath suffered for us as hath been already made appear upon the matter of Justification and of Satisfactions whereof the pennance confession of the Church of Rome is only a dependent Dall de Confess Morin in his Comment Hist of Penn. 4. The other that this pretended Sacrament of Repentance of auricular Confession and Absolution are things unknown in the First ages of Christianity as the Roman Catholick Doctors accord and besides very different from the Pennance and Satisfactions spoken of in the Fathers It will be needless here to report all the reasons Beatus Rhenanus upon Tertullians Book of Repentance because they may be seen in the places where this matter is treated of expresly neither will it agree with the design we proposed to be brief and attemperate as much as might be to the desire and manner of the Bishop of Condom There shall onely be here made a short reflexion as well upon the First Canons of the Council as upon what the Bishop of Condom hath set forth whereby it may be easily judged of all the rest In the first place is it not a strange thing that the Council doth oblige all to believe as an article of Faith under pain of Excommunication and Damnation that Confession Absolution and Satisfaction as they speak are not onely a necessary
the Prayer being ended the Minister doth read unto us publickly with a loud voice the Liturgy of the Lords Supper which contains principally the manner wherein St. Paul relates that our Saviour did institute it with another exhortation well to prepare our hearts Lastly the Minister taking the bread and the wine saith with a loud voice The bread which we break is the body of Jesus Christ or the communion of the body of Jesus Christ The Cup which we bless is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was poured out for your sins Or the Cup which we bless is the communion of the bloud of Jesus Christ for either one or the other of these expressions are indifferently used the grace of God according to us not being tyed unto the words After which in distributing the Bread to the communicants the Minister saith again unto them to raise and awaken their zeal and their faith This is the body of Jesus Christ which was broken for you and in giving the Cup This is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was shed for your sins or some words to this sense And last of all when every one hath done communicating we conclude with thanksgiving in singing the song of Simeon and with the Blessing wherewith the Minister dismisseth the Assembly This particular account is onely for them who are misinformed of our practice We appeal here to the conscience of all sincere persons in the first place if it be not true that this manner of celebrating and of giving and receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not most conform unto what we see in the institution of our Lord and unto the practice of the Apostles and of the first and purest Ages of Christianity and without comparison more conform than that of the Church of Rome And in the second place which of these two manners of communicating is the most proper to excite and nourish true piety according to knowledge and a sincere remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ There remaines no more as to this point but to touch the Bishop of Condom's last consideration in which he saith That we do not deny the real communication of the substance of the Son of God in the Lords Supper so that there is a necessity that we should agree that the remembrance doth not exclude all manner of presence but only that which doth strike our senses We do not indeed say that remembrance excludes all manner of presence for on the contrary it is said of remembrance as it is of Faith that it makes things to be present that are at the greatest distance There is a moral presence and a mystical presence a presence of object of virtue as they speak which are not incompatible with remembrance For example the Heavens the Stars though almost at an infinite distance are in some sort present with us not onely because we see them but by the influences which they cast upon us We onely say that remembrance excludes a presence real personal and as it were physical local and immediate under the colours and exteriour appearances of Bread and Wine such as the Church of Rome teacheth of the Body of Jesus Christ in the hands of a Priest or in the mouth or stomach of the Communicants But because both here and elsewhere the Bishop of Condom grounds himself upon what he saith that at the same time that we deny this real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament we teach a real participation of his Body and that upon this occasion the Bishop of Condom here makes an express Article of the Exposition of our Belief upon the reality what we will say of our Doctrine upon this point shall serve for an answer unto all the consequences which he draws both here or elsewhere To remove at once XII An examination of the exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of our Doctrine of the Reality saith the Bishop of Condom the equivocations which the Calvinists use upon this matter and to make appear at the same time how near they are come unto us though I have undertaken onely to explain the Doctrine of the Church It will be expedient here to add the exposition of their Judgement Let us be permitted before we enter upon this Article to complain that the Bishop of Condom doth at the very first here begin to treat us in termes prohibited by the Edicts of our Kings at the same time also charging us with affected equivocations which in no wise agree with the simplicity of our Doctrine we are apt to think that it is the heat of dispute which hath here insensibly transported him beyond his natural equity and we would not at all concern our selves to take notice of these sorts of expressions especially in a time wherein we are accustomed unto more strict dealings if the least thing of this nature proceeding from a person of his dignity and for whom we have a great esteem were not more remarkable and of worse example than all the bitterest things that might be said by other persons This Article of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise though more copious is for all that obscure and intangled full of repetitions of digressions and of comparisons odious and besides his business which he makes of us to Socinians Arrians Nestorians Pelagians insulting over us upon words contrary to what appears manifestly to be our sense But we will leave the words and apply our selves to the things In the first place instead of giving a plain and intire Exposition of our Belief and afterwards drawing the consequences which he had a mind of he onely gives it by shreds and so perplext that it cannot be understood He onely reports here and there some of our Expressions separate from each other endeavouring therein to find some obscurity and afterwards he grounds upon this obscurity which himself hath made the equivocations and contradictions which he imputes unto us We need onely take notice what course he takes in the very entrance to make a judgment that he speaks after his own manner and not after ours Their Doctrine saith he hath two parts the one speaks onely of the figure of the body and bloud the other speaks onely of the reality of the body and bloud Divisions are wont to give order and to give light unto discourses but this on the contrary doth at first sight so little set forth our Doctrine that our people would not understand it The explication which follows is neither juster nor more natural Instead of laying down what we believe affirmatively he layes down indeed but onely the negative part of our Belief Wherefore we shall do better to explain our own Doctrine our selves in a few words with relation unto what the Bishop of Condom sayes hereof This shall be that plain Form of Doctrine which he saith we have not and shall serve for a general refutation of all that he hath produced We will not forbear answering afterwards
face of God The Bishop of Condom thinks to take away the opposition in supposing that Jesus Christ is present in Heaven such as he was seen to ascend vested in his ordinary qualities and that he is upon the altars in another state which they call Sacramâ—ntal or â—n the manner of a spirit whereas St. Paul speaks oneâ—y of this first manner of presence in Heaven and that excludes this other sort of presence upon Earth But in the first place this is to answer by the thing it self which is in question To be able to speak thus it were necessary to shew us clearly that the Apostle knew and believed this last sort of presence of Jesus Christ upon Earth and in the second place if the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ had been present in the Sacrament at all times when his Supper was celebrated presenting himself for us before the face of God how could the Apostle have said so absolutely as he doth that Jesus Christ enters not into holy places made with hands but that he is in Heaven where he appears for us without saying at least somthing that might have distinguished the two different manners of appearing at the same time in Heaven and upon the altars and that the one doth not at all exclude the other This cannot be conceived The other proposition of the Apostles is Heb. 9.25 that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often for then must he often have suffered The Bishop of Condom on the contrary saith that Jesus Christ offers himself every day because that to offer himself there is no need that he should dye any more There is nothing more opposite than these two propositions and the reasons upon which they are grounded both one and the other not to offer himself often because it would be necessary he should dye to offer himself every day because it is not necessary he dye It is in vain for the Bishop of Condom here again to hope to remove this contrariety by asserting two manners of offering himself unto God the one in suffering death and the other in putting himself onely under the signs of death and supposing that the Apostle onely speaks of the former and that he means Jesus Christ doth not offer himself to dye often For in the first place this is again to answer the very thing that is in question It were necessary I say to have shewn that the Apostle had acknowledged these two different wayes of offering himself the one in suffering death and the other without dying but on the contrary the Apostle speaks absolutely and without restriction that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often And what he adds that otherwise it had been necessary that Jesus Christ should often have dyed doth not make a part of the Apostles proposition but onely the reason of his proposition otherwise the Apostles proposition would amount unto this that Jesus Christ doth not dye often because he doth not dye often If the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ doth yet offer himself every day for us it is evident that he would not have said in such absolute terms that he doth not offer himself often or that he would have said something that would have shewed these two different manners of offering himself the one in dying and the other in putting himself onely under the sign or under the coverts of death as the Bishop of Condom speaks It appears that we must wilfully shut our Eyes to be able not to see that all the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass is directly opposite unto that of St. Paul Nevertheless the weakness or the variety of the mind of man is such that even from this it self the Bishop of Condom takes occasion yet to triumph upon this point desiring us to make serious reflexion upon his Doctrine and upon the order which he saith providence holds in drawing us insensibly nearer unto the Roman Church XVI Reflections of the Bishop of Condom upon the foregoing Doctrine pa. 145 146 c. This reflexion reduceth it self unto this that the Real presence is the foundation of the sacrifice of the Mass of the adoration of the Host and of all the other consequences of this Doctrine that providence hath permitted that the Lutherans have retained the reality and that in the last place the Calvinists have declared that this belief of the Lutherans hath no poyson in it neither doth overthrow the foundations of Faith and that it ought not to break communion betwixt Brethren so that if the Lutherans do reject the sacrifice and the adoration and do not believe Jesus Christ to be present but onely in the very moment that they do receive the Sacrament it is because they do not so throughly consider the consequences of the Reality as the Roman-Catholicks do that our Doctours themselves agree that the Doctrine of the Roman Church is more consequent in this point than that of the Lutherans and that in fine no subtilty of the Ministers can ever perswade people of right judgement that maintaining the Reality which is the most important and the most difficult point we ought not to maintain the rest In the first Edition it was that the Ministers could never perswade that he who should maintain the Reality might not easily digest the rest The Bishop of Condom hath already in the Entrance on his Treatise objected against us what he here again saith of the Lutherans though in another regard we have there also shewn the difference betwixt their Errour and that of the Church of Rome which is in a word that that of the Lutherans is but an errour of belief upon one point and is not followed by any evil practice whereas that of the Roman Church draws after it the Sacrifice of the Mass the adoration of the Host which are worships and practices whereof the consequence hath been already set forth We will onely add in this case that besides that the Bishop of Condom's argument here is not good and that there is on the contrary an equivocation or change of sense upon the word Reality which makes a kind of Sophisme the Reality or the Real presence such as the Church of Rome believes it by a change of the substance of bread into that of the body of Jesus Christ immediately after these words this is my body are pronounced is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the adoration of the Host This is the sense of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition upon which we have nothing to say God saith he hath permitted that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality This is his second proposition and here the equivocation begins because it is not true that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality such as the Roman Church supposeth it They believe not the presence of the body of Jesus Christ but onely in the use of the Sacrament as the Bishop of Condom
and that in case of appeal unto a National Synod the full and final resolution should be there made by the Word of God unto which if the Gainsayers should refuse to acquiesce from point to point with an express disowning of their errours they should be cut off from the Church From whence the Bishop of Condom draws this consequence that we do not attribute the authority of this last judgment to the Word of God taken in it self independently upon the interpretation of the Church because the appeal of indifferent persons was received who had in their judgment applied that very word The difficulty is here onely as it may be seen upon the more or less of the authority which should be attributed unto the judgment of Synods or of Popes and of Councils Neither this rule nor the consequence which the Bishop of Condom draws from it speak any thing but what we have already all along acknowledged that order and dependance is requisite and that Pastours and Synods are appointed to govern the Church to teach the Word of God and to promote the understanding of it But this infers not at all that we attribute infallibility unto our Pastours nor to our Synods as the Church of Rome doth to Popes and Councils nor that the people are obliged to receive their decisions without examining them or to give a blind obedience unto them The Article sayes that those who have any scruple shall be heard in the Synod with all holy freedom and that the scruple or difficulty shall be there resolved by the Word of God It is not possible to find a temper more just and equitable to retain on the one side particular persons in a just moderation and to leave to God and his Word the supreme and absolute authority over our consciences It may be that this moderation it self is not without some inconvenience and that it would seem that the opinion of the infallibility of Popes or of Councils and the soveraign and absolute authority that is attributed unto them are as a strong rampire to retain the people within bounds But in the first place an inconvenience in a Government is no sufficient reason that another should be good and just if it be not so of it self 2. Where is there any order and form of Government either in Church or State but that there is some inconvenience There is much more without comparison in attributing infallibility and an absolute dominion unto Popes and to Councils because when it so happens that Popes or Councils fall into any errour as it ought to be supposed in this part of the Question that it may so happen and as we are convinced by experience that it hath happened diversetimes the evil is almost without remedy Errour hath the force of authentick and irrevocable Law it renders it self more general more durable and by consequence more difficult to be reformed and when once the guides are blind then there will be a necessity to fly to particular persons unto whom God giveth sufficient light strength and courage to take the part of the Truth But that it might not be said that this is onely a supposition accommodated unto the particular case of the Reformation of our Fathers it is known how hard it was to root out Arrianism when it was supported by the authority of the Episcopal chair of Rome and of the Council of Arimini that it is principally unto the zeal and courage of St. Athanasius that the glory of restoring Christianity in its purity is due and that in fine if God had not made use of this holy man and of others that seconded him the Arrians might have fortified themselues so that they might have mastered the Councils and Truth might have groaned longer than it did under the oppression of those Hereticks 3. In fine it is not absolutely true neither upon the whole that the infallibility and authority which is attributed to Popes and Councils is either a stronger or a surer means to restrain the people than is the temperament of our Discipline For experience shews that for more than an Age since our Churches of France have been governed by this order there hath never been any difference amongst us either in doctrine or in discipline which hath not been decided without any trouble whereas it might be said that the excessive authority of Popes and of Councils far from hindring of division hath very much contributed unto the divisions of the East against the West and of the West against it self which are the two Schisms the most considerable and unfortunate that could fall out in the Church The sincere persons of the Church of Rome do acknowledge yet to this day that it is the too great heighth with which the Popes and the Council of Trent did affect to make Articles of Faith of all that was disputed in the very Schools and to anathematize those that would not receive those Doctrines that hath put an obstruction well nigh inuincible to the peace and re-union of Christians And not long since again amongst Roman Catholicks we have seen that the authority of Popes supported by that of Princes has scarce been able in some way to hinder that the differences which had stirred up so much eagerness upon points of Doctrine and Discipline had not caused yet greater scandal But after all we daily see that this authority of the Pope hath onely the power to change the outward appearances but the unity of minds is wanting so true is it that it is onely the knowledge of Faith and charity which are the solid grounds of an holy union of hearts and of thoughts The Bishop of Condom doth yet make a third difficulty upon the form of the Letters which we give unto our Deputies when we send them to the Synods The Form is conceived in these terms which are reported by the Bishop of Condom We promise in the presence of God to submit our selves to all that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy Assembly to obey and execute it to the best of our power being perswaded that God will reside there and will direct you by his Holy Spirit in all truth and justice by the Rule of his Word Every one at the first light perceiveth that as this Form is conceived it is so far from supposing that the Synod cannot err or from attributing an absolute authority unto it and independent upon Scripture that it doth precisely suppose the contrary It cannot be sufficiently wondred at how the Bishop of Condom could have so much mistaken himself herein as he hath done for he thinks that there is something more in it than in those two other places of our discipline and of the Synod of Charenton which he had reported to shew that we yield a blind submission unto our Synods His reason is because there is submission given unto what shall be resolved in the Synod before it be known that it hath spoken according to the Scripture
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
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