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
in Pag. 71 72. reality they partake not any way of the grace of Redemption and so dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ The onely pronouncing of this sentence against the Infants of Believers causes a kind of horrour mingled with a tender and just compassion for these poor Innocents for they are looked on as such though they are tainted with Original sin and the Church of Rome calls them Innocents and Martyrs which Herod caused to be slain and celebrates a Feast unto their memory Now this very sense of horrour and pity which such condemnation it self excites in our spirits being natural and reasonable it is a sign there is no condemnation You condemn them because they cannot supply the want of Baptism by acts of Faith as do the adult persons whom you save without Baptism but it is for that very reason that you ought not to condemn them The Roman Church is well contented that the Faith of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the Church should supply the want of Faith in Infants even then when they receive Baptism It is the Godfather that speaking for the Child saith that he demands to be baptised that he renounces the Devil that he Believes in God and in a word that makes the whole Confession of Faith which we make in the Creed Wherefore then will she not yield that this same Faith of the Godfathers and of the Church may supply the place to Infants of those desires or vows which adult persons have for Baptism or of those acts of Faith which are in stead of Baptism There is no more reason for one than for the other if the Fathers or Godfathers speaking for the Infant may say I believe in God the Father Almighty c. they may as well say for him too I do promise and vow to be baptised if death or want of means do not hinder Dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ But why will you have these Children to dy in Adam seeing they are born of Christian Parents that they dy in their arms in the midst of vows and prayers which are made to God for them Gen. 17.7 God is the Father of Abraham and of his posterity our Father and the Father of our Children And the Children of Believers are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 that is to say they are Children of the Promise as the Scripture speaks or they are born in the Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and by consequence they should not be excluded from the benefit of his Death which is common to them with their Fathers under a pretence that they are not of age to declare that they accept of this benefit as in the World the Children that are born in Cities or in Countries have a share in the Rights and Priviledges of the Cities and Countries which they are born and in the benefits of Treaties of Peace and Friendship which are made betwixt the Princes though the Children be not in a condition of ability to testifie that they do submit unto those Treaties You have a veneration for the Relicks of Saints because they are parts of the living members of Jesus Christ this is the reason which the Council gives as it hath elsewhere been said But after all these are onely of the bones dead parts of those living members yet without scruple you condemn these poor little Infants which are as much parts of Saints and living and animated parts And further do you believe that all Infants departed since Adam before the institution of Baptism or of Circumcision which was the Figure of Baptism for example the Children of Abel or of Noah under the Law of Nature do you believe I say that as it may be said they dyed truly in Adam so that they had no part in Jesus Christ Or that God who substituted some other meanes of Salvation for those Infants in the place of Baptism or of Circumcision cannot and will not also even yet at this day supply the necessitated default of Baptism by his grace How is it that those of the Church of Rome who find so much difficulty to comprehend the eternal Decree of God according unto which though we are all children of Adam God hath chosen some and passed by others without as we can conceive any other reasons but his good pleasure how is it I say that these Gentlemen find no difficulty to believe that the Infants of the Faithful should be so intirely excluded from the common Redemption without any other reason save that they are children of Adam as the Fathers themselves also were whom God called unto Salvation To conclude what can there be more convincing against this absolute necessity of Baptism than this other necessity of the intention of the Priest who administers the Sacrament For if on the one hand there can be no Salvation without Baptism and on the other the effect of Baptism depend on the intention of him who baptiseth not onely the Salvation of Infants who have not been baptised but the Salvation even of those who dye soon after Baptism before they come to age depends then absolutely on the Priest which is equally inconsistent with the Justice the Power the Wisedom and the Goodnesse of God The onely or the principal authority that the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome do alledge for the belief of a Doctrine so dangerous as is this absolute necessity of Baptism is a passage of our Saviours in St. John's Gospel speaking to Nicodemus Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This passage is like another of our Saviours near the same place Joh. 6 53. If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud you have no life in you and it is true that upon these two passages taken according to the letter some of the fathers have grounded themselves as well for the necessity of administring the Eucharist unto Infants as for the necessity of Baptism But if the Church of Rome hath in process of time justly acknowledged that the necessity of the Eucharist unto Infants was a gross errour that this Sacrament ought not to be given unto Infants wherefore is it that she doth not also acknowledge that this necessity of Baptism may be as much an errour If they believe that this last passage ought not to be understood of the Eucharist or at least that it ought not to be understood according to the letter of all sorts of persons indifferently but onely of such as have age and meanes necessary to partake of the Eucharist why do they pass a judgment so contrary touching the other Why will they not also admit it ought to be understood likewise of regeneration or of a spiritual washing under the figure or expression of water and of the Spirit which is joyned unto the water As that place which saith Ye shall be baptized
will therefore here set down some of the reasons which we have for the Figurative sense seeing that the Bishop of Condom doth require it of us and afterwards we will examine those which the Bishop of Condom doth alledge for the proper and literal sense In the First place whensoever any great of a Mystery and of a Sacrament 〈…〉 and the common use to take the â—â—pressions and the things themselves mystically and figuratively The very word it self Mystery doth lead us thereto otherwise it were no more a Mystery Let any examine generally all the Sacraments as well of the Old as the New Testament not one excepted no not the very ceremonies of the Roman Church it self where there is any visible sign as the Passover and Circumcision under the Law Baptism under the Gospel that which the Church of Rome doth call Confirmation and Extreme Unction through all will be found things and words which must be understood in a mystical and a Figurative sense But if it be demanded more particularly wherefore the Bread and the Wine are said to be the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ St. Austin and Theodoret Aug. Epist 23. ad Bonif. answer for us The First saith that it is because of the relation which the Sacraments have to the things whereof they are Sacraments and the latter to keep us from resting in the nature of the things that are seen Theodoret Dial 1. and that as Jesus Christ said that he was bread and a stock or vine so be honours the Symbols of bread and wine with the name of his Body and of his Bloud The force of these Testimonies is not here urged as to the maine Question they are onely alledged to give a reason of the use wherefore it is that the sign doth bear the name of the thing signified by a kind of mystical and Figurative way of speaking to elevate our spirits and our heartes above the Visible signs 2. We know in general that all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament is full of these sorts of Figurative expressions whether it was the Style of the Eastern Nations in those times as indeed it was or that God judged this Style the fittest to exercise our Faith We see that the First preaching of Jesus Christ is nothing else but a continued succession of Figures John 6.35 Joh. 15.3 every one knows those just now mentioned I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the vine The rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 Mat. 5.29 De Doctrin Christ lib. 3. cap. 6. If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and an infinite number of others Now if it be demanded of us how we can distinguish betwixt Figurative expressions and those which are proper and literal St. Austin here again answers for us that what seemes to offend good manners or the truth of Faith ought to be taken in a Figurative sense and yet more expresly that this which Jesus Christ saith that we must eat his body and drink his bloud appearing a wicked thing is therefore a Figure We press not still this passage as to the main Question we onely alledge it to make the reason which we have for the Figurative sense better apprehended 3. Finally what can there be more natural and more reasonable than to understand the Scripture by the Scripture it self the obscure places by them which are more plain those which have a double meaning by them which have but a single The Authour of the Book intituled Lawful Prejudices layes down this Maxim for the understanding of Books that when there is any passage which may admit of a double sense that must be taken which agrees best with the whole and which is the most reasonable There is but one passage onely in the Scripture which seems to favour the literal sense that the Church of Rome gives to these words This is my Body to wit that which we now spoke of If you eat not the flesh and drink the bloud of the Son of man you have no life in you and this very expression St. Austin notes ought to be understood Figuratively whereas there are a great number of others which say that Jesus Christ is no more with us but by the operation of the Holy Spirit The poor you shall have always with you Mat. 26.11 but me ye shall not have always And if I depart I will send the Comforter unto you and so many more Joh. 16. that make us daily say in the Creed he ascended into Heaven and from thence he shall come c. the very words of the Eucharist require that we do this in remembrance of him and to shew forth his Death till he come To be in Heaven corporally and upon Earth by representation are not two senses repugnant but not to be any more with us or to be corporally in Heaven and yet to be every day upon Earth in mens hands in his proper Body are two terms contradictory and incompatible It is therefore natural to take these words This is my body in a mystical and Figurative sense which alone doth perfectly agree with all the other passages of the Scripture It is well known that the Church of Rome doth suppose that there be two divers ways according unto which she pretends that the Body of Jesus Christ may be present in Heaven and upon Earth the one with his dimensions and his exteriour qualities such as he was seen upon Earth and it is after this manner that she will have it to be said that Jesus Christ is no more with us or that he is onely in Heaven the other without his dimensions and exteriour qualities as she pretends that he is under the covert of Bread and Wine But this is to answer here punctually the thing in question We formally deny this second manner of being bodily in a place it is not contested but that nature the senses reason far from teaching any such thing cry loudly against it It would therefore highly concern the Church of Rome upon the whole case to establish this second manner of being in a place by some passage the sense whereof were not at all in question and till that is done it may be truly said that the figurative sense of these words This is my Body is the true and genuine sense the first and the onely that presents it self unto the mind We might here add many other reasons as to the main to make appear that the Doctrine of the real presence is not onely above reason as the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but directly against reason and which in fine destroyes the testimony of the senses which nevertheless is it that our Lord made use of John 20.27 Theodoret Dial. 2. to prove unto Thâ—mas the truth of his presence as the Church also hath since done to prove that the Body of Jesus Christ was a true Humane body against the Eutychians but this would be
Devotions which are tyed more tâ— one place than another This is what hath been alreadâ— touched upon the Worship of Sainâ— in general The Church of Roâ— may as long as she pleases tell uâ— they put no confidence in Images and that they believe no other virtâ— in them but onely to stir up the remembrance of the Originals That 〈◊〉 not the question whether it must bâ— believed or not believed that there 〈◊〉 virtue in Images but whether a religious Worship ought to be given unto them The general practice of the people doth manifestly contradict this profession and the people do not onely fix their confidence upon Images but the experience of all Ages doth manifestly shew that it is impossible but that they should naturally incline thereto A publick mark of this confidence that the people do believe something more than humane in Images is that though the better sort of the Roman Church themselves condemn openly the excessiue Worship which is given unto many Images of the Blessed Virgin as for instance unto those which have been or are yet to be seen in the Streets at Paris In Goos-street near the Capuchins c St. Honore's street c At the Capuchins in St. Honore's street and unto others yet more famous in Forreign Parts whereunto the people do flock in great numbers yet we have seen one Image amongst others which they durst not remove out of the peoples sight but onely to transport it into the adjacent Chappel and it seemeth they much less dare take away the others because it is known that the hearts of the people are fastned untâ— them To omit that the Church of Româ— is so far from having contained hâ—â—self in the worshipping of Saints sincâ— the Council of Trent that it appeaâ— on the contrary That whereas the Council doth onely authorise in express terms the Image of Jesus Chriâ— as man of the Virgin and of thâ— Saints and at the farthest only somâ— representation of some History of thâ— Scripture or some action of the Dâ—vinity there is to be seen in sundrâ— places in the Churches Images sâ— up not onely of Angels in formeâ— young Children with wings buâ— also of God the Father in likeness oâ— an old man and of the Holy Ghosâ— in form of a Dove against what thâ— Apostle expresly says of those Deut. 4.12.15.16 Isa 40.18 Acts 17.29 whâ— change the glory of the immortal God into the likeness of a mortal man anâ— of Birds c. against the prohibition of the Law so often repeated and iâ— fine against the Judgment of thâ— second Council of Nice it self and 〈◊〉 the first and most zealous Patriots of Images who at the least would not that there should be any image made of the Trinity But what is yet most stange of all is that this usage is not onely established by the general practice of the Roman Church but also maintained expresly by the Catechism of the Roman Church which was made by the order and authority of the Council The onely thing that the same Catechism doth alledge to authorise Rom. Catech. part 3. de cultu Sanctorum in some sort the use of Images and the Worship given unto them is saith he that God did command that two Cherubims should be placed upon the Ark and that the brasen Serpent should be lifted up before the people True but you say it your selves God commanded it upon occasion and for reasons all particular which it is plain you cannot argue from except you had had some special order in this behalf The Cherubims were nothing else but a meer ornament for the propitiatory and were onely in the most Holy Place where none entred but onely the High Priest once a year and the brasen Serpent was onely a Type of Jesus Christ instituted by God to heal the Israelites of the bitings of the Serpents of the Wilderness as Jesus Christ doth heal us of the bitings of the old Serpent They did not kneel down before the Cherubims nor before the brasen Serpent they did not worship them at all Ezekias brake the brasen Serpent as soon as he saw that the people offered incense unto it and the Scripture doth expresly declare 2 Kings ch 18. that this was a matter acceptable to God We agree all of the one and the other Communion that the Gospel iâ— onely the accomplishment of the Law we have not yet at this day any other rule than the Jews either for our duties unto God or our duties unto men All the differencâ— there is betwixt the Jews and us iâ— that the figures of the Law have given place unto the truths of the Gospel in stead of sacrifices and ceremonies of the ancient Covenant we have Jesus Christ which hath offered himself upon the Cross and in stead of the Passeover and Circumcision the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper This is properly and onely the true Christian Religion why then should they adjoin hereto the Worship of Images which is nothing else but an imitation of Pagans and which laies an insuperable obstacle to the communion of the Jews and of the Turks who are half Jews Images Concil Trid. Sess 25. de invoc SS say they do serve to instruct the people in the mysteries of Religion and to maintain devotion and piety But in the first place as to instruction if they will own the truth the people is no where worse instructed in the true mysteries of Salvation than in those places where the Worship of Images is most urged as in Muscovia They have reason to say that Images are the Books of the ignorant that is a pernicious mean which the slothfulness or ignorance of those who ought to instruct the people themselves have substituted in the place of true and sound instructions Every one may see that our Reformed People who have no Images nor other exercise but our Prayers our singing of Psalms our Sermons the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the Sacraments administred in the same simplicity that our Lord did institute them are not less instructed than those of the Roman Church with their Images The Bishop of Condom knows as well as any man that in truth it is by preaching that there should be formed in the hearts of men the lively Images of Jesus Christ who died for us and if we will have them the Images of the life and death of holy men who have sealed the Truth with their bloud and the Holiness of their life And as to matter of devotion the same is also seen that the people which use Images and all the other ceremonies where with Religion is incumbred have it may be more of the outward appearances of zeal but not therefore a more solid piety towards God and on the contrary all their devotion is turned towards these outward things Concil Trid. Sess 25. de invoc Sanct. Populum Plebi indoctae and towards the Images themselves That is in a word
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
the Work of our Salvation though it should be onely for not having rejected it And though it seem at first sight that there is not in this point so great a difference betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us it will appear upon very iâ—â—le râ—flection made thereon that as to the Foundation this difference is very great as well upon the points of their Doctrine in this very matter as upon all the other points that proceed from it In the first place he busies himself more or less touching the sincerity and purity of thoughts which we ought to have not onely of the power of God but more particularly of his grace and infinite goodness which could make us without us and which will yet save us in some sense not onely without our selves as when he is found of them which seek him not but also often maugre our selves as when he doth touch the hearts of those which persecute his Church which in effect is what the Christian Religion hath more noble most essential and most admirable We have nothing upon this point but to compare our Sentiments with those of the Church of Rome to see which are most conformable unto this fair Idea of the great mercy of God which makes him to extend his benefits and compassions even unto those very persons who resist him 1. We attribute all unto God in the Work of our Salvation without desiring to take any thing unto our selves and albeit this very thing were true that we could pretend unto any small part yet upon the whole the errour may not be criminal It may on the contrary be esteemed profound humility and an acknowledgment of our nothingness whereas the Romish Church whatever protestation she makes that she also attributes all to God as we do sticks not nevertheless to attribute unto man a great part of the merit and honour of his Salvation 2. In ascribing all unto God as we do and in renouncing our selves we assure the quiet of conscience because thereby we put all the confidence of our Salvation in the goodness of God and in the merits of his Son's Death which is an unshakeable Foundation whereas the Church of Rome gives man an opinion of his own strength which on the one side cannot but diminish in some sort that intire confidence which he ought to have in the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and on the other side make him promise himself much from his Fasts and from his other good Works like the Pharisee in the Gospel and notwithstanding this he ceaseth not to be miserably perplexed in this life or at his death with fears of Purgatory or of Hell when he comes to perceive his weakness and to think that it was partly in his power to have saved himself 3. Our Belief doth very strictly ingage us by all the strongest bands of Love and Gratitude to Worship God and to serve him and to keep his Commandments with so much the more care and zeal as he saveth us by his pure grace overcoming the very opposition of our Will The Doctrine of the Gentlemen of the Roman Church doth also ingage them to the same Duty but it diminisheth much herein by supposing that they are something beholding unto their own natural strength and besides this it mingles with this duty motives of Hope of good and fear of evil which in their nature would not be amiss were it as easie as it is difficult to keep them within just moderation which nevertheless are always more of the dispensation of the Law than of the true Spirit of the Gospel The onely or the principal thing which is alledged against us upon this Article of Justification is that they pretend that our Doctrine referring as it doth our Salvation wholly to the mercy of God and to the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ which is imputed unto us it seems to put men at liberty or at least under a relaxation from good Works as if they had nothing to do on their part or that it ought to be indifferent unto them whether they did good or evil But we have already prevented this Objection by giving to understand that being very far from making the mercy of God an occasion of sin and negligence we say with David that there is mercy with God that he may be feared And besides though there be but too much of vice and sin in us as we do not presume that our manners are better than those of Roman Catholicks we can say for the defence of our Doctrine that it cannot be seen that we are much more wicked or extravagant than they whether the people or Clergy be regarded We on our side do yet oppose unto the Gentlemen of the Roman Church that their Belief doth produce two infallible evil effects it casts some into a presumption of their own merits from whence proceed Vows Abstinences Macerations and other the like practices which we believe superstitious and contrary to the Word of God and it precipitates others into despair by the resentment they have of their own weakness from whence proceeds their recourse unto Saints Purgatory Indulgences and all those other Doctrines and Practices which we believe to be contrary unto true piety It may therefore be seen by the bare comparing of our Doctrine with that of the Church of Rome which of the two doth most tend unto the glory of God and to form the most pure and disinteressed thoughts in our hearts and if in the end the difference which there is betwixt the one and the other doth not induce any very considerable change in Religion this will yet farther appear in examining other Doctrines which in some sort depend upon Justification The first VII The merit of Works in the Bishop of Condom's order is the merit of Works upon which we confess sincerely that the Bishop of Condom and those of the Roman Church who discover the purest sentiments of Free Grace speak almost every where as we do We agree with them in the principal which is that good Works are not only well pleasing unto God but necessary to Salvation Nor do we deny either one or the other that God doth crown his gifts and his graces and that according to his promises he doth freely reward those who serve him In summe it would seem that this Doctrine were sufficient to entertain in our hearts the true love of Righteousness and hatred of Sin and here it is properly that the dispute is onely touching words This term of merit Mereri which hath been introduced onely by an ill interpretation of the Latin hath indeed thus much of disgust that on the one hand it seems to make our weak endeavours to concur with the merit of the bloud of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to suppose some proportion betwixt our Works and eternal Life and on the other hand it puffs up that arrogancy unto which man is naturally too much inclined But