true that these things may be called Consquences and that we may be justified of that Accusation by denying them That is clear by this Example If one divide the Authority of the Prince Soveraign among his Subjects without his Permission I maintain That injury is done to him by that very thing and that one should not be received to say I deny I do injury to my Soveraign in giving one part of his Soveraign Authority to Others That 's a Consequence which I disown The Injury consists in the Act it self that is done and not in a Consequence which arises from the Action So to give a new Sacrifice new Intercessours and new Objects of a Religious Worship it 's directly to offend God the only Object of Religion It 's to oppose the Unity and Perfection of the Christian Sacrifice It 's to do injury to the only Intercessour and that by the very Actions which are done and not by Consequences which arise from those Actions But at least will they say You are obliged to grant that the most part of the Errours of the Roman Church are not Capital Thereupon I say Three things First That it 's enough if there be two or three Capital Errours and even One alone in a Religion to render intolerable that whith otherwise might have been tolerable The Second thing that I say is that the Errours which every one being apart might have been tolerated if they were alone cannot be born with when they are in a great Number A Life that should be wholly charged with those Sins which the Roman Church calls Venial and that should have no good Work at all would undoubtedly lead to Eternal death although every one of those Sins taken apart would not destroy Grace A Religion that should gather an infinite number of Practises of Superstitions and Errours whereof none were Capital could not be suffered nevertheless for it is a Capital Affair to bury the Truth in so great a number of Errours In fine I say that the Roman Church hath rendred Capital those of her Errours that would not otherwise be such since she hath made Articles of Faith of them She obliges under pain of Anathema that is to say Pain of Eternal damnation to believe that the Books of Maccabees are Canonical that Concupiscence after Baptism is no more Sin that the involuntary Motions of that Concupiscence are not Sins that Baptism is of an absolute necessity that Order is a true Sacrament that Marriage is not dissolved by Adultery and an hundred things of this Nature If she had received those Opinions without obliging others to receive them they might have been tolerated but as soon as she hath made them Articles of Faith they become intolerable For it 's a mortal Sin to receive Errours as Verities Fundamental It 's a horrid Crime to condemn to Hell Men that have but light Errours Now the Roman Church by her Anathema's obliges me to damn those who have but light Errours In fine It 's a black baseness to make Profession by Oath to believe as Capital Verities and necessary Ones such Opinions as we know to be Errours And that is it the Roman Church would oblige us to In a word I think to Reason justly in Reasoning thus All the Articles of Faith are Fundamental Points because they cannot be rejected without being Anathema's The Roman Church of those things which we might have considered as light Errours hath made Articles of Faith which may not be rejected without a direful Anathema Then hath the Roman Church in that regard those Opinions that could have pass'd for being of little importance Fundamental Points and in our regard Capital Errours And from thence it seems to me to be clear that after the decisions of the Council of Trent all Reconciliation is impossible with the Roman Church Because the Question is no more of tolerating light Errours but to believe them and make profession thereof and of damning all those that believe them not and that is it which an honest Man and a Christian cannot do ARTICLE IV. That the Worship forbidden of God cannot terminate in him BEhold the Second Principle of that Union which my Lord of Condom propounds it 's That the Religious Worship in the Pag. 17. Church of Rome terminates in God If the Honour she gives to the Holy Virgin and the Saints may be called Religious it 's because it relates necessarily to God He would conclude thence That in retaining our Principle that every Religious Honour is to be related to God we can without hurt to our Conscience partake of the Worship of the Roman Church seeing that she teaches That every Religionâ— Worship is to be referr'd to God as to its necessary End 1. I wish that my Lord of Condom had cited to us some Text of the Council of Trent which might assure us That all Religious Worship is terminated in God I see there that we must invoke Saints because they reign with Jesus Christ and because they intercede for us c. I read there no more I conceive there is a little difference between invoking a Saint for reference to God and terminate a Religious Worship to God It 's true that the Roman Chuch invokes Saints by respect to God that is to say because they are the Saints of God because they govern under God because they have merited with God because they intercede before God for Men. If those Saints should have no relation to God no doubt Men would not serve them But is not this to impose visibly upon the World to say That because of that all Religious Worship is terminated in God Because that a Favourite hath the Princes Ear that he disposes of the places of the State under his Authority that he obtains of him what he will he is courted a thousand Homages are done to him do those Honours terminate in the Prince because of that Is he bound to own them and regard them as if done to himself A Man that would say such a thing would not he render himself ridiculous Who ever heard that Worship doth not terminate in that Person which is the immediate Object thereof Those Gentlemen conceive that they have right to say what they please and that we are bound to believe them on their Word 2. But though it should be the Intention of those that invoke Saints to terminate all their Worship in God would that Intention suffice to effect the thing If it were so there would never have been any Idolaters that is to say Persons that had adored Images or Idols For there was never any Religion so brutish as to terminate their Worship upon Brass or Wood Silver or Gold whereof the Image is compounded If any Person have done it it must not be imputed to the Religion Those Idolaters referr'd their Worship to the Deity which was represented by the Idol The Israelites had not offended God in the Worship of the Golden Calf for it 's as certain
Charity and upheld by Hope This was the Sense of Gabriel Biel Occam Cajetan Dominicus à Soto who was in the Council of Trent these are not Imputations Molina justifies himself in his Book de Concordia liberi arbitrii cum Gratiae donis in citing all these Authors for himself Is there any thing more Pelagian more opposed to the Doctrine of St. Augustine who supposes and proves so often That the best of Mens Actions done without Grace are but illustrious Sins Though it were true to day that the Roman Church were return'd from that were there any right to accuse our Reformers for calumniating her And could they say That all our Reformation is founded on Calumny Were they bound to have a Spirit of Prophecy and to foresee that the School of Thomas which then did not make any figure in the World would reform it self would resume some force and would labour to re-establish part of the Doctrine of St. Augustine about Grace But I add That we have not the like cause to be content with the Council of Trent about the Doctrine of Justification as they would perswade us Why hath it kept measures with Pelagian Opinions Why did they not condem them And why did they affect an Ambiguity through which they save themselves that renew Pelagianism By that Ambiguity of the Canons of the Council of Trent the Author of the Advertisement would satisfie us in a word It 's true saith he there are some Matters which the Council would not decide and they were such whereof the Tradition was not constant and whereof they disputed in the Schools What the Matters of Grace against Pelagians were then but vain Disputes of the School about which it was not prudent to pronounce Had it not been defined in the Second Council of Orange that it 's a Gift of God when we have good Thoughts that we turn away our feet from Errour and Injustice That as often as we do good God acts in us that we may be able to act That we cannot prevent Grace by any Merit and that the good Works that are done without Grace merit not any recompence That the Grace which is not due to us prevents us that we may do good Works That it is the Gift of God to love him That he gives us to Love because he loves us before we love him That of our selves we have nothing but Sin and Lie That God doth in Man many good things without Man but that Man doth no good but what God makes him to do That the Vertue of Pagans was a worldly Cupidity but that of Christians is the Charity of God which is shed abroad in our hearts not by the force of Free Will which is in us but by the Holy Ghost which is given us There can nothing be more opposite to the Opinions of the School of Scotus who teaches That Man of himself may do all kind of good keep all the Commands in their substance love God above all do Acts of Contrition of true Faith true Hope and thereby prepare himself for Justification by a Proxime preparation Yea will they say but the Council of Trent hath condemn'd those lax Opinions which smelt of Pelagianism If they condemned them why are they yet alive in the Roman Church It 's an important Point and that must be proved The School of Scotus of Molina and the Molinists carries it by far and hath still carried it since the Council of Trent against the School of Thomas and the new Thomists This School of Molina teaches formally That all the Acts of Faith of Love of Repentance of Hope which are necessary for the Justification of an adult Infidel may be produced as to the Substance of the Work by a Man in the state of Nature corrupt with the only forces of Free Will That Divine Mysteries are indeed so high that a Man without Revelation could not find them out but when they are reveal'd to him in a convenient manner without any other Grace than an external Revelation and the Command of God to believe he may do Acts of true Faith and receive those Mysteries with full certitude This School saith the same of Contrition of God's Love c. and if Men will not believe us let them believe Molina himself Since the Council of Trent have they not maintained Preparations for Grace by the forces of Nature only with as much violence as before Estius teacheth us that Alphonsus à Castro doth teach That Man by the force of Nature and Free Will in doing that which is in him for observation of Nature's Law in the same Moment receives the Grace of God because that Divine Bounty suffers not that a Man that lives Morally well be deprived for a Moment of that Grace which may render him worthy of Eternal life though he be not instructed in the Faith of Christ and do not yet put his hope in him We learn from the same Estius that Dominicus à Soto who was present at the Council of Trent and made there so much stir in the Disputes about Grace Melchior Canus Franciscus à Victoria and many others do maintain Preparations for Grace under another form and say That Attrition which may be had by the only strength of Nature is sufficient with the Sacrament to obtain the Grace of Justification Vasquez is our Witness that Ricard Antony of Pantuse and many others have held since the Council of Trent That one may by the force of Nature obtain the Succour which is needful to pepare ones self immediately to the Grace of Justification Ricardus Tapperus and John Driedo Professours in the University of Lovain have taught That God fails not to come to him that makes a good use of his Natural strength by the practise of some Works morally good and that he gives him the Succour of his Grace for to dispose him to the remission of Sins All that is formally contrary to the Decisions of the Church against the Pelagians Yet all these Theologues have pretended to follow the Sense of the Council of Trent I demand then of these Gentlemen who assure us that the Canons of this Council have no ambiguity whence comes this diversity of Senses If the Canons of the Council are not ambiguous why do they suffer Persons who teach Pelagian Errours condemned by Canons clear and precise How can it be that Alphonsus à Castro who is such a Catholick should maintain Semi-Pelagianisme pure with such a violence that he accuses the contrary to his of Impurity and Heresie If it be true that this contrary Opinion be that of the Council of Trent Dominicus à Soto was present at the Council he knew their Spirit and should have known it yet from the time of the Council of Trent he put to light a Book Natura Gratia wherein he maintains by the Canons of the Council all his Semi-Pelagian Opinions At the same time Andrew Vega a Franciscan and Ambrose
Dignity of his Person to offer to God a sufficient Satisfaction for our Sins but that He applies to us that infinite Satisfaction in two manners either in giving us an intire Absolution without reserving any Pains which he doth in Baptism or else in commuting that Eternal pain into Temporal pains Pains whereof the Church remains Mistress and when that is relaxed that is called Indulgence Thence must we not conclude say they Neither that Jesus Christ did not intirely satisfie for us nor that we satisfie for our selves for some part of the Pain which is due to our Sins seeing that which is called Satisfaction is only after all this but the application of the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ After this the Author of the Advertisement cries out with an air of Confidence What will they say now If those Gentlemen please to hear us they shall see that we have yet somewhat to say As they have represented their Doctrine about this as they thought good they will permit us to represent it such as it is in effect and that is it we are going to do when we shall have advertized That they must not here recall us to the Council of Trent as they do upon other Matters because the Council says nothing about this I say Nothing literally meant They that have read the History of that Council know that the Prelates and the Theologians that made it up the Ambassadours of Princes which had perceived the uselessness thereof the Pope and the Council of Rome who did maintain the Charges of it and who feared the Decisions thereof All those Persons I say wearied with the long Continuation of the Council after they had finished the Matter of Orders which had held there Ten whole Months and that of Marriage which had occupied them four Months more resolved to end it at any rate So that in three Weeks time they strangled all the Business that remained which might have kept the Council at work as long as it had lasted already and one of those Matters was that of Indulgences about which they contented themselves to Pronounce That the use thereof was saving that the distribution of them was to be done by the Church but that the Abuses thereof were to be retrenched Behold in what manner was terminated in three Words that which all Christendom had conceived to be one of the greatest Affairs of the Council which had been the Scandal of all Europe and the first occasion that caused a Banner to be lifted up against the Roman Church It 's true that Ten or Twelve years before the 14 th Session held under Julius the Third did treat of Satisfaction in treating of Penitence but it said nothing of Indulgences So that they must give us leave to search out the Opinion of the Roman Church about this Affair in the Practise and Decisions of Doctours adding thereto what the Council of Trent hath said of Satisfaction 1. They say That our Sins deserve two sorts of Pain Eternal Pains and Temporal Pains 2. They grant That the Merit of Jesus Christ is infinite and that if God would this Merit could could be applied to nullifie Temporal Pains as well as Eternal Pains 3. But they hold That Jesus Christ would not suffer for to exempt his Elect from Temporal Pains or at least that he leaves absolutely to the Church the application of his infinite Satisfaction with respect to these Temporal Pains 4. They distinguish the Guilt from the Pain and they say That God forgives all the Guilt and retains one part of the Pain The Holy Council declares That it 's false and contrary to the Word of God that the Guilt can never be pardoned unless all the Pain be remitted 5. They say That the Justice of God requires this Reservation That the Sins that follow Baptism be punished by Temporal Pain Divine Justice seems to require That they who have sinned after Baptism be received into Grace otherwise then those who have sinned through Ignorance before Baptism 6. Behold the Uses which the Council finds in these Satisfactions 1. It 's to serve as a Bit and Bridle to Sinners 2. To drive out the ill Habits by the practice of opposite Vertues 3. To turn away the Pains which might be sent from God 4. To render us conformable to Jesus Christ in that we suffer to satisfie our Sins as Jesus Christ hath suffered to satisfie for those very Sins 5. To chasten and punish Sinners for their preceding Sins Is it not an admirable thing that the Council among those Reasons have forgotten none but that of my Lord of Condom according to whom Satisfactions have no other use but to make application of the Infinite Satisfactien of our Lord Jesus Christ The Council as well as he pretends That these Human Satisfactions do no prejudice to the infinite Merit of Jesus Christ But it is because not being able of our selves or sufficient to any thing we receive of Jesus Christ power to satisfie and to bring forth Fruits worthy of Repentance These are the Words of the Council This Reason is not that of Monsieur de Condom and the Council might more briefly have said if they had been in the same Thought The Satisfactions which the Church imposes do no prejudice to the Merit of Jesus Christ because they are but Applications of the infinite Merit of our Saviour 7. They say That these Pains which remain to be suffered after that the Guilt and Eternal Pains have been remitted are the same pain of Sense which the Sinners should have suffered in Hell stripping it only of its Eternity 8. They say That this Infernal Pain being Temporal may be redeemed by Penal Works and that those Works are truly and properly Satisfactory In following the Sense of the whole Church we will labour to prove That by the Penal Works whereof we have spoken Men satisfie truly and properly to God for the Pain which remains to be paid after that the Guilt is remitted 9. They say That the Church is Mistress of these Satisfactory Pains and that she hath the Right of imposing or relaxing them and they are these Relaxations of Pains which they call Indulgences 10. That there is a Treasure of these Indulgences made up of the Satisfactions of Jesus Christ and of those of the Saints which may be applied to them that are obliged to bear the Pain of their Sins after that the Guilt hath been remitted to them by the Sacrament of Penitence 11. That there is in all good Works of the Just a double respect the one of Merit the other of Satisfaction That that of Merit cannot be applied to another because God rewards Works beyond their Merits but that of Satisfaction may be applied to other And that because a Man may do of those painful Works much more than he hath need of or may suffer by the Providence Dispensation or by the Persecution of Men those Temporal Pains which go far
Port Royal. I dare assure that no man dare deny that they should adore that Relick which is called the Wood of the true Cross Yea I know none to have condemned Thomas Aquinas who would have the true Cross to be adored with Latria Indeed we know not how else to call the Action of a Person that prostrates himself that kneels and kisses a Relick with Religious Devotion We conceive not how my Lord of Condom can imagine that God takes well what is done when they lift up the Chaste of a Saint where we see a dreadful Concourse of People which do humble and prostrate themselves Though Men say that this Worship hath its Source in God himself and returns thither That which hath not been commanded by God hath not its Source in God and what God disowns returns not to him Here as in the matter of Invocation of Saints they lay a Snare for them which incline to change of Religion They tell him Well then If the Worship of Images and Relicks displease you let it alone No body shall force you to it and you may well enough be saved without that Worship But I conjure them to remember what we have said Men will not be acquitted if leaving a good Religion and entring into a bad one they only can say I will hold me to that which the bad Religion hath of Good and will leave what is not good Men shall answer before God for all the faults of the Church whereinto they have cast themselves and besides the Crime of having partak'd of a false Worship such shall be guilty of the Crime of Hypocrisie ARTICLE VII Of Justification and Merit of Works MY Lord of Condom passes to the matter of Justification and of the Merit of Works He pretends to draw a great Advantage from that that this Dispute is not now so heated as it was heretofore He supposes it to have been a chief Cause of our Separation He adds That our Learned Men contest not now so much upon this Matter as they did formerly and that this important difficulty of Justification is no more considered as Capital Thence he concludes first That our Separation was rash Secondly That we ought to return to that Church out of which we came forth because of a Doctrine whereof we at this day acknowledge the Innocency That is it which these Words signifie We must also confess That the Learned of their Side do no more contest so much upon that matter as they did at the beginning and there are but few but will confess that they needed not have separated for that Point But if this important difficulty of Justification whereof their first Authors made their Fort is not now any more considered as Capital by those who are most Judicious among them We leave them to think what must be judged of their Separation and what might be hoped for towards Peace if they did but get above Preoccupation and would but leave the Spirit of Disputes This is a reflexion which infinitely pleases those Gentlemen they often repeat it The Writers of Port Royal have employed it in their Book of Prejudices and Monsieur Arnaud makes a great Work of it in his Book he hath made against our Morals As those two Books have been answer'd with sufficient exactness this Point was not then forgotten Yet seeing those Gentlemen think good to repeat often their Objections to us they must suffer us to let them see our Answers also Behold then the Reflexions which we oppose to them of my Lord of Condom 1. It 's not altogether true that the difficulty of Justification hath been the Fort of our Reformers It was not there they began One may read a Bull of Leo the Tenth after the Year 1520 against Luther That was the first declaration of War and it 's thence that one may compute the beginning of our Separation That Bull condemus 35 Articles of Luther's Doctrine there is none of them that directly concerns Justification In Conscience though we were agreed about that matter would it be a great advance towards Re-union What would be done with Worship of Saints Service of Images Adoration of the Eucharist the Sacrifice of the Mass and an hundred other things People do little understand matters of Justification and of Grace And what is not popular is not to the People a cause of Separation and can neither be for them a way of Reunion though it were agreed on It would be unhandsom enough and strange if we should go and tell our People The Doctrine of the Roman Church is much more pure about Grace and Justification than it was formerly make no more question hence forward to prostrate your selves before Images invoke Creatures serve the Saints believe that the Body of Christ is in the Bread of the Eucharist to adore that Bread as God and to present every day the Body of Christ in Sacrifice 2. I agree nevertheless That our Reformers have made of the Errours of the Roman Church about Justification a Capital Affair and I maintain that they had reason for it in the State wherein they found the Doctrine of the Roman Church about this Point One may see without Exaggeration that the Roman School before the Council of Trent was Pelagian She taught That Man without the help of Grace can prepare himself to Justification by Works truly good that Man by the strength of Nature may have a serious and a true grief for his Sins by a Principle of Love which loves God better than all things else and that this is the last and next disposition to Grace habitual Justifying that it is a true Merit not indeed of Condignity but of Congruity and that this Contrition coming after to receive its form by the reception of habitual Grace becomes Merit of Condignity for the Kingdom of Heaven So Vasquez explains this Sense and attributes it to Scoto to Gabriel Biel and Cajetan that is to say to the Princes of the School Estius attributes it also to William of Auxer Durandus St. Portien Thomas d'Argentine and Almainus It cannot be denied but that the Franciscans defended this Opinion in the Council of Trent with the utmost Ardor In Conscience had not they reason to rise against such a Sentiment Lewis of Catanea and the Dominicans of his side who maintain'd the Doctrine of Grace according to St. Augustine in the said Council did they not say That they were not able enough to distinguish that Theology from that of Pelagius Those very Persons did they not also go further did they not teach That Man can do without Grace and by the force of Nature all that he doth by the succour of Grace Viz. That he can love God more than all things else to have a true Grief for offending God not only of Attrition by the fear of Pain but of Contrition by a chaste Fear and by a Principle of Love To obey all Evangelical Commands believe truly to be filled with
possible to deny it There is no Heresie whereof they would not render us guilty They have said that with Arrius we deny the Eternity of the Son and his Deity that with Nestorius we establish two Persons in Jesus Christ that with Eutyches we confound his two Natures They are two opposite Heresies and which cannot subsist together It matters not all is well enough if we be but calumniated Hath not Bellarmine made a Preface to his Book de Christo expresly to prove that we are Nestorians Sabellians Arrians and Eutychians Hath not Gregory of Valencia made a thick Book de Unitate Trinitate against the Lutherans and the Calvinists asserting that the Lutherans are truly of the Opinion of Servetus and that the Calvinists deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ And doth not Father Cresset say but newly That we hate the Virgin because we hate her Son In regard of Free Will they would have Us to be in the Party of the Manichees who said That Men were by their Nature determined to good or to evil and that they are not carried thereto by Choice and by Will In regard of Good Works they attribute to Us the horrid Opinion of the Gnosticks that said That the Spirital man may plunge himself into the most abominable Crimes of the Flesh without fear of the least Pollution or any Condemnation They say That we deny the necessity of Good Works to Salvation that we make a vile Sinner after a small act of Faith and Repentance as just as the Holy Virgin that we make Men to be Just by the Righteousness of another as if we should make a black Stuff to be white with the whiteness of another Stuff that we do cloath our Just man with an imputed Justice under which are hid the most horrid moral Impurities that we lead men to Salvation by the way of Crimes Murthers and Adulteries that we render the effects of Predestination infallible like the Mahumetans so that a Man Predestinate living like a Devil cannot fail to become happy like an Angel That we would have an Adulterer a Fornicator yea a Man guilty of the Vilest disorders may be as assured of his Salvation as Jesus Christ that our Lord Jesus Christ despaired that he was damned that we are Enemies to the Saints In fine Who could number all the Calumnies wherewith they load us to render us odious That is but a small part thereof And the most terrible of all it 's that though we justifie our selves never so often and tell them we abhor all those Heresies that we detest them that we combat them though we explain our selves never so much and declare that the Words so abused are taken in a Counter-sense though we cry out against the Calumny protest our Innocency formally reject all the Consequences imputed to us that comes to nothing and they still return to the like again We must needs be Hereticks at any rate and they repeat against Us this day all those Calamities with the same air of Confidence as if we had nothing to answer thereto or had never answered the same We should more easily bear with those Excesses if that we had none to complain of but those small Declaimers who do harangue on Shop-boards and who preach in the Markets from the Steps of a Cross If those Outrages were done Us but by those little Scribes who are void of Science Name Spirit Honour and Conscience whereof the World is full But it 's impossible not to lose our Patience when we see Authors that are grave and able learn'd and famous compose great Volumes whereof all the Pages are soiled with those black Slanders whereto we have answered an hundred times When we cannot blame Ignorance and Insufficiency we cannot but complain of unsincere dealings and say that such a Course is not honest It 's an inseparable Character of the false Church Hereticks have always dealt thus with the Orthodox They have still calumniated them and have disfigured by their Imputations the purest and holiest Doctrines we need but to have read a few of the Holy Fathers to be assured thereof But the true Church was always most tender of Sincerity She would never slander her Adversaries and would never disjoyn Zeal from fair dealing Here is another kind of foul dealing that appears less Criminal it 's that which flatters Religion whereof she draws the Picture which dissembles her deformities and gives an air of Innocence and Purity to all This Artifice seems to be innocent every one should be permitted to make himself known by his best sorts and shew its fairest side And this is a Method that hath been extreamly used for some years of late for to defend the Roman Church There are two ways of defending her one is in rejecting the Manage of Policy in using the most ordinary and common Expressions In saying for Example That part of Religious Worship is due to Saints that they may be invok'd as Intercessours with God as they to whom God hath given under himself the Government of the World that Temples may be built Fasts appointed celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass to their Honour make Vows to them and yield to them part of all that which may be called Religion So speaks Vasquez that the Sense of the Catholick Church confirm'd by Tradition and perpetual Use is that there is due to Saints a Sacred Adoration In saying that one may ask of them whatever is ask'd of God Health Protection Remission of Sins Salvation Grace and Glory So that we pray not to them as to the first Authors of these Graces In saying that one must reverence adore and salute the Images of the most holy Virgin Mother of God of the glorious Angels and of all the Saints and that all those that are not of that mind ought to be Anathematized In saying That the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true Sacrifice and so called properly that it 's not a simple Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross but a Propitiatory Sacrifice which is offered for the Pains for the Satisfactions and for other Necessities of the Faithful In thundering out which Anathema's against all that would not receive those Propositions and all others in the very Sense of the Church There is a second Manner of defending the Opinions and Practises of the Roman Church that is in sweetning them In saying for Example That the Worship of Saints is Nothing at the bottom that Invocations addressed to them are not of another Natnre but such as are made to living Saints when we recommend our selves to their Prayers That the Scandal taken from the Worship of Images is a Scandal ill taken that at the bottom they are set in the Church but for the use of Commemoration that human Satisfactions are no prejudice to those of Jesus Christ because they serve only to apply the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ The first Method was in this regard in the way of very
of your Doctors On the contrary They lay before him the Scripture on the Tribunal of the Church They tell him Obey your Leaders suffer not your selves to be conducted by the false Lights of your own Reason Submit to the Mysteries but let not your Submission be blind consult the Scripture read instruct your selves and believe nothing upon the Witness of Men Do not rest but upon the Testimony of God His Word is clear solid sufficient for your Instruction His Authority is Soveraign and Independent of any other He sees not in the Worship of that Religion any strange Language which diffuses Darkness through all which conceals Mysteries from the Eyes of Ignorant Ones all is naked all is open all is simple He sees he hears all that is done all that is said every one Prays in the Tongue he understands and which is understood in the Country where he is This Infidel sees Preachers which exhort him to Repentance to Mortification to renouncing the Vanities and the Idols of the World but they do not impose on him the Necessity of declaring all the Motions of his Soul to a Man they order him to confess primarily to God then they advise him to make choice of a wise Director to discover with Liberty to him the Wounds of his own Conscience and to ask his Advices They tell him That all Human Satisfactions are incapable of paying the Justice of God That our Lord Jesus Christ hath paid for us abundantly That his Merit is granted to us by a gratuitous Mercy and that the true Satisfaction which God requires is the Contrition of the Heart Faith Charity and Amendment of Life They do not charge him with the multitude of External Observations of Fasts of Macerations of Pilgrimages They say to the contrary That bodily Exercise is profitable to little but that solid Piety hath the Promises of this present life and of that which is to come They labour to draw him out of the Security that the Worldlings are plunged in but they seek not to retain him in perpetual Terrours They tell him There is no Salvation for the Sinner that perseveres in Impenitency but that the true Penitent may be assured that God will shew him Mercy They assure him That if his Sins be pardoned him in this life they shall also be pardoned him in the other too and that there is no Purgatory nor Torments through which Men are to pass to arrive to Paradise They confess to him That they have not the power to remit Sins They tell him that that appertains to God only but they tell him That God never refuses that Grace to those that ask it with the Spirit of Humility In fine He sees nothing Pompous in the Government or that may relish of the Spirit of the World No Monarchs no Spiritual Soveraigns He sees none but Conductors that are Men of an equal Authority or if he sees in some places within that Church some Bishops and some Archbishops He understands that those Persons make Profession to have no other Head for the Spirituals but Jesus Christ and no other for their Temporals than those which God hath established in the World by his Providence If this Infidel who hath thus cast his Sight upon these two Religions be wise he will ask time to think of his Choice and will pronounce nothing upon what he hath seen But in Conscience can any Man believe that this Man who hath no other light but that of good Sense can perswade himself that these two Parties make up but one Religion that it is the same thing that their Differences are not Essential In one He sees Altars and Sacrifices in the other he sees none In the one he hears them invoke Saints and Angels in the other he sees they content themselves to reverence their Name and to invoke God In the one he sees Images to be served in the other he sees a mortal aversion for that Worship In the one he understands Nothing in the other he understands all If this Man suffers himself to be conducted by his Natural Lights he will without doubt believe that these two Religions are absolutely different and I cannot imagine that he could believe what my Lord of Condom saith That the Disputes of these two Parties can be nullified by explaining some Terms and that what remains hath nothing Capital and that can hurt the foundations of the Faith ARTICLE III. That we agree not about Fundamental Points BUt happily may some say That this general Review of the two Religions is proper only to make an Illusion because that in this Method Men judge only by appearances Now its true that they are in an Appearance of great distance whereas in examining things in particulars and at the bottom it may be that they would go near to accord about those things and should only dispute about Terms That might happily be and therefore I will not forbear entring into a particular Examen of each Article First My Lord of Condom saith That we all agree about the Foundations of the Faith that the Doctrines which we esteem Fundamental are all believed and professed in the Roman Church He brings for Witness thereof Monsieur Daillé who saith in his Book entituled Faith founded upon the Scriptures That all Fundamental Articles are without Contest that the Roman Church professes to believe them That in Truth we do not hold all the Opinions of that Church but that we hold all their Beliefs or Creances My Lord of Condom lays another Maxim which he draws from our Principles It's That if one agrees with the Foundations and then lays down Opinions which does overthrow those Foundations by Consequences we must not impute those Consequences to him who disavows The Opinion of the Lutherans about the real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist destroys the Human Nature of our Lord Jesus Christ by a lawful Consequence but the Lutherans disavow that Consequence therefore we will not impute it to them He would have us to have the same Equity for his Church For Example She establishes the Sacrifices of the Mass She lays down the Intercession of Saints She ordains Penances and Satisfactions We say That the first of them destroys the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the second prejudices his Mediation that the others are injurious to the Super-abounding fulness of his Merits But they say they are only Consequences which the Roman Church disowns therefore we may not impute the same to them without Calumny I might have many things to say thereabout If I had designed to make a great Book but I will restrain my self within this That this Consideration cannot be a Means of Reunion nor a Reason of our Re-entrance into the Roman Church First Because it 's not true that both Parties agree about all the Protestants esteem to be Fundamental There are Three general Foundations in Religion First That there is a God who is to be adored The
Second That there is but one God and we ought to serve and adore none but him The Third That this God is to be served in Jesus Christ joyntly with him and according to the Religion which he hath taught The first is the foundation of all Religion in general The second the Foundation of the true Religion in that it embraces the Religion of Moses and that of Christ And the Third is the Foundation of the Christian Religion The Roman Church receives the first Foundation That God is to be served and adored She receives the Third but in Words for she makes indeed Profession to adore God according to the Religion which Jesus Christ hath taught but we pretend that her Worship is not suitable to her Profession They must not answer me that we are to blame to pretend that Happily may we be to blame but at present the Question is not to know whether we have reason but only to know if in our Principles the Roman Church destroys some Foundation of the Faith Now she destroys according to us this One therefore it s impossible that we can joyn with her But she destroys much more openly the Second of those Foundations in that she serves and adores that which is not God according to Protestants We must adore a God behold the first Foundation and the Roman Church receives it We must adore none but God behold the second Foundation which is no less important than the first and that is it which the Roman Church absolutely destroys She adores the Sacraments of the Eucharist Yea say they but it 's in the Supposition that the Eucharist becomes the Humanity of Jesus Christ that is to say the Humanity of God But that is nothing to the present Question It suffices me that it 's most evident that according to our Principles the Roman Church adores another besides God and by Consequence she also destroys according to us one of the principal Foundations of the Faith My Lord of Condom will then permit me to tell him That he hath not read in any of our Authors that our Church agrees with his in the Foundations of the Faith Monsieur Daillé hath not said so and if he had said it I would make no difficulty to say That he was deceived We only say That we believe nothing but what the Roman Church believes with us but that we believe not all that the Roman Church believes We distingnish Affirmative Articles from the Negative We agree with the Roman Church about Affirmative Articles viz. we all believe that there is a God that he is to be adored that there is a Jesus Christ that he is dead risen again ascended to Heaven God blessed for ever with the Father that he is the Redeemer of the World c. But we agree not about the Negative Articles and among them there are some that respect the Foundations such is that whereof we speak Thou shalt adore none but God We make no difficulty to say That the Worship of Images and Invocation of Saints do also destroy this Foundation because there is no act of Religion that is not an Adoration So Men cannot serve religiously any Creature without violating this Command Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve 2. I subjoyn That the Fundamental Verities wherein we agree with the Roman Church cannot be a Means of Reunion with her because of the multitude of Opinions which she hath added to those Foundations and that those Additions are absolutely opposed to the purity of the Faith I say that in retaining the Verities which the Roman Church retains and even some over and above one might make a monstrous Religion and Soveraignty Idolatrous for Example Suppose that some Men should believe that there is but One God that we must adore None but him that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of the World that he is truly God and truly Man that there is a Paradise and a Hell c. But who should perswade himself that all Creatures are united to God in so particular a manner that they ought to be worshipp'd with God That the Sun for Example is the Eye of the Divinity that in that quality he ought to be worshipp'd that the Rivers are his Arms whereby he embraces the Earth and because of that one may Sacrifice to them Those People would say I worship but one God I believe in Jesus Christ but I believe that that God is every where and that God is All and because of that I adore that All wherein he is If the Ubiquitans in the Supposition they make That the Humanity of Christ is in all the Spaces and in all the Bodies should come to conclude That Men must worship all the Bodies of the World would they not be Idolaters Nevertheless they would retain all the Foundations of the Faith which the Roman Church retains As for what they say That one must not impute unto People the Consequences which they disavow I Answer That the question is not here about Consequences which arise from certain Errors which Men defend but whereof they disown the Results The question is or Consequences owned and that we may impute to them that avow them Jesus Christ est reellement dans l'Eucharistic Behold the Principle or Errour Then must we adore the Sacrament behold the Consequence and a Consequence avowed We must do all that the Church commands Behold the Principle Therefore we must serve Images and invoke Saints behold the Consequences which are owned I might produce an hundred more but these suffice me I add thereto That there are Consequences which though they be disowned they cease not to subsist Those are they that arise from the very Actions and Practises If a Man should give a Box on the Ear to another and say that no wrong is done to another but when one hath no right to strike and therefore denies to have done him wrong because it was not his Intention to wrong him or because he had right to strike him because he denies the Consequence shall it be less true The Roman Church invokes Saints serves Images adores the Sacrament of the Eucharist We tell her She offers injury to God in imparting to Others a Worship which is due to him alone Thereupon she Answers It 's a Consequence you draw but what we deny In Consciente is such a Justification to be received We must distinguish well between Speculative Consequences which arise from a Doctrine and those that are Practical and which arise from Worship It 's of the former that we must understand this Rule of Equity That we must not impute Consequences to those that disavow them But that cannot be applied to the Consequences of Practice In fine When we accuse the Roman Church to do wrong to God in imparting Adoration to others to the Sacrifice of the Cross in adding another Sacrifice to the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ in establishing Human Satisfactions It 's not
beyond what is necessary for the satisfaction of his own Sins which happened to the Blessed Virgin which having committed no Sins hath suffered so many Pains and to the Blessed Prophets Apostles and Martyrs whose life having been most holy hath yet been a continual Series of Crosses voluntary and involuntary 12. So in that Treasure of the Church with the Merits of Jesus Christ are the Sufferings of the Blessed Virgin and of all the Saints which have suffered more than their Sins required 13. By these superabundant Satisfactions of Jesus Christ and of the Saints may be applied to others by the Pastors of the Church both by way of Indulgences and by the Sacraments with this difference That the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ may be applied both by the Sacrament and by the Indulgences but the Satisfactions of Saints cannot be applied but by way of Indulgences 14. That the Pope is he in whom principally resides the Power of distributing these Indulgences therefore he may grant to the Faithful plenary Indulgences 15. That the Treasure of these Indulgences is opened by the Pope not only in favour of the Living but also of those that are in Purgatory for whom the Pope applies out of this Treasure as much as is needful to recompence the Pain which they should pay in Purgatory 16. For Distribution of Indulgences the Roman Church hath established what she calls Jubilees they are priviledged Years wherein they grant Plenary Indulgences both of Guilt and Pain to them all who being contrite and confessed shall do certain Works imposed on them Boniface the 8 th first Author of these Jubilees about the Year 1300. Ordained that they should return every Hundred year About 45 after Clement the 6 th Ordained that they should be celebrated from 50 to 50 Years Urban the 6 th would have them put to 33 Years and published a Bull about it But Paul the Second Sitting in 1464. Ordered them to 25 Years It is good to remark by the by the great Antiquity of these Jubilees that they may not reproach us to have loaded our Discourse with an useless Chronology 17. Of these Indulgences some are for 1000 10000 150000 there are some for Sins past and Sins to come To the Augustines of Padua they grant a plenary Indulgence for all Sins committed after Baptism till the last Confession with 18000 Years for the future 18. These Indulgences are fixed to certain Churches and Priviledged Altars and those Priviledges last no longer than the Stones and Edifices for if they be ruined the Indulgences perish also 19. They obtain these Indulgences by the Visits of certain Churches of those of St. Peter and St. Paul of St. Mary Major and of St. John of Lateran at Rome Every Saint rewards his Devouts at the Concession of these Indulgences At Rome St. Cosme and St. Damian furnish a Thousand Years Indulgences Eusebius 7454 Quarentines St. Praxade 1200 St. Bibiane 600000. 20. In fine These Indulgences are gotten by repeating many times Ave Maria bearing blessed Grains Rosaries Meddals St. Francis's Cord Scapularies Holy Girdles Kissing Relicks and Praying to Saints We must not oppose thereto the Bull published 1678. against Indulgences by Order of Innocent the 11 th now Sitting For beside that that Piece hath scandalized all the Roman Church which we very well know it abolishos only False Indulgences These are the Terms of the Bull It 's meant of Indulgences wholly false and supposititious which are carried and published in divers parts of the World For the rest the Bull confirms what it doth not condemn and for one that it abolishes it leaves without hyperbole more than a Thousand Behold a sincere description both of the Doctrine and Practise of the Roman Churches about Satisfactions and Indulgences Monsieur of Condom would have us to count that for Nothing It is then nothing that Men should be permitted to conceive this proud Opinion that they can give Satisfaction to God Verè propriè truly and properly It is nothing to advance that Maxim so contrary to Humility so far as to say That they satisfie to God beyond what they ought and lend to those that have not Merit enough out of their own Overplus It is that whereof we may see divers remarkable and new Examples in the Second Answer of Anonymus to Monsieur of Condom It 's nothing to make a Treasure stor'd in such a surprizing manner with the Merits of Christ and of Men. What Union can there be between the Finite and Infinite Can Men conceive that this can be no prejudice to Jesus Christ It is nothing to make the Saints enter into their part of that Benefit which delivers Men from a Pain though not Eternal yet altogether like that of Hell How can Men say that these Human Satisfactions and Indulgences are nothing after all but the application of the infinite Merit of Jesus Christ Had Men need if it were so of the Merits and superabundant Sufferings of the Saints to make application of the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ It is nothing of giving to the Pope power of dispensing the Merits of Jesus Christ to whom he pleases It is nothing to put into his hands the Key of those places where the Dead suffer to draw thence whom he pleases in paying for them those Richesses drawn out of his Treasures and so to carry on his Power to the very Empire of death it self It is nothing that they estrange and draw off the Spirits and Hearts of Men from the practice of the true Means which God hath appointed for Application of the Merit of Jesus Christ viz. Sacraments and Contrition of Heart to give them up to such Means whereof Scripture saith not a word as the Visitation of certain Churches Invocations of certain Saints Scapularies and Relicks We must count it for Nothing to fill the Capacity of the Spirit and Heart of the Vulgar which is but narrow with so many Trifles and things of Nought which is the cause that there remains no more room for Acts of true Devotion It is nothing that they dishonour Christian Religion by a confused heap of Practises which are unworthy the Greatness of his Majesty and of his Spiritualness that they carry out the Piety of the Faithful to be diffused upon Rosaries Chapelets Scapularies Cords Girdles Relicks Ashes Churches Stones Altars Images to obtain thereby Remission of Sins which they should receive from God immediately and him alone These Indulgences are nothing which have given place to so many Abuses so many Simonies whereby they have sold the most Holy things and made a Trade of the Remission of Sins It is they which have given birth to those Scandalous Books like to that of the Roman Chancery where every Sin is taxed at a certain Rate Yet it is the Court of Rome that had made them they were the Indulgences which had given place to them There is nothing in this most horrid relaxation of the Discipline of the Church Heretofore she
shew me that Church to whom I must submit I see in the Orient a Greek Church which they call Schismatick in the Occident I see there Societies of Men whom they call Eutychians Jacobites Nestorians Melchites and many others Each one of these Societies tells me that she is the true Church whom I must hear Which shall I believe Believe her say they that hath the Marks of Antiquity of Succession of Chairs and particularly of the Apostolick Chair But every one of those Societies doth boast to have all those Advantages to be the most Ancient to be Apostolical to have had the Apostles for Founders The Church of Alexandria saith that she was founded by St. Mark her first Bishop that of Jerusalem by St. James These are Matters of Fact and to clear my self thereof I must read whole Libraries I that neither have Latin nor Greek which have neither time enough nor piercing Wits to follow hard Studies Either I must remain uncertain or else I shall be reduced to believe that the Roman Church is the true Church upon her own simple Word and upon the Witness that she gives her self which is of all things in the World the most unjust for no Man ought to be believed in his own Cause Yea though I should believe that the Roman Church is the true Church and Infallible If I ask where that Infallible doth rest they cannot teach it me The one will say that it is in the Pope others will say that it is false and I must beware of that thought Some Doctours will tell me that the Infallible Oracle is not found but in Councils but others will call that Opinion Heresie and will Threaten the Tribunal of the Inquisition if I yield unto those Thoughts I know not then what side to turn to to find a solid Prop to my Faith for on all hands I see nothing but Doubts in that which they call the Church uncertainty and dividing of Opinions If I pierce into the bottom of that Church and that I examine the Sense thereof I see People that say with one Voice We must follow the Church One cannot go off from her without wandring But under that appearance of Uniformity I see a prodigious diversity of Opinions Some are Semi-Pelagians and teach That Grace is not efficacious but by the Will of Man others defend Efficacious Grace by it self and accuse the former of recalling Pelagianism Some say That the Command of Loving God obliges at all times and the others say that it never obliges I see some that accuse others to be the Corrupters of Morality and which indeed make the Truth of their Accusation palpable by ones Finger but they who are accused do by turns accuse their Adversaries to be Calvinists Hereticks to ruine the Virtues of Sacraments to estrange the Faithful from the Communion of the Body of Christ and to bind Conscience by unjust Chains All those People are in the Church they follow all the Sentiments of the Church as they say yet are they in Paths so opposite that Hell and Heaven are not more See the Uniformity of that Church whereto they would have me to give up my self It must be a concluded Affair We shall never resolve to leave the Foundation of the Word of God who always abides the same to engage our Selves in a Sea of Doubts and Uncertainties where we cannot set our Foot nor find a fixed Bottom That the important Controversie of Authority Infallible of the Church be not an Obstacle to our Re-union Monsieur de Condom would perswade us by all means that we are in that regard in the same Practise and in the same Opinion with his Church In that we make our Church Judge Soveraign and Infallible of the Controversies which arise among us He proves it by two things First Because we condemn the Doctrine of the Independants which say That every Faithful Man is to follow the Motions of his own Conscience and that each Flock is to be governed by their proper Laws without dependance of any other in Matters Ecclesiastical Whereto we oppose That if that Doctrine had place there might be formed as many Religions as Parishes and we conclude That the Faithful ought to be Dependants in regard of their Faith that is they must depend upon a Superiour Authority which is that of the Church I conceive not what difficulty Monsieur de Condom finds therein Have we ever said That the Faithful ought to be absolutely Independant of the Church Do we deny the Authority of the Church to be great holy venerable Do we consider the Decisions of holy Councils Assembled in God's Name and who have decreed according to his Word as Nothing There is much difference between a Great Authority and an Infallible Authority between a blind and absolute Dependance and a Dependance conditional The Authority of the Church is great but it is not Infallible Councils ought not to be despised but their Decisions are not to be received blindfold The Faithful are to live in Dependance but they must examine by the Word of God those Decisions whereon they are to depend Not to make a New Religion if they think good but to submit to Decisions by a Principle of Reason lightned with Divine Faith and grounded on the Word of God But they will say If those Private Men in their Examen Judge that the Decision of the Church be not true what must they do Ought they to submit or no If they submit against the Judgment of their Reason that is it we ask If they submit not and that they follow their Thoughts there is a new Religion I Answer If those Private Men Judge that the Decision of a Council be false they cannot but follow the Judgmenr of their Heart although all the Popes and Bishops should oppose it but if they be wise they will not stick to their first Examination they will labour to have their Doubts clear'd If they cannot they will keep silence in case the Errour in hand be not Capital If they believe that their Salvation is concerned then their Consciences obliges them not to make a New Religion but to chuse that which they believe most conformed to the Truth of the Gospel I will not engage further into a Question which hath a long Train One may read thereon those who have Written to justifie our Separation and among others the excellent Answer of Monsieur Claude in his Book of Prejudices there may all see what are the Rights of Private Men and of Flocks when the Church begins to wander The other Proof which Monsieur de Condom brings to prove That we give â—â— our Synods an Infallible Authority is drawn from our Discipline That Discipline would have that when a Point of Doctrine is in Controversie after that the business hath passed the Judgment of the Consistory of the Colloques and of Synods Provincial In fine They should acquiesce in the Judgment of the Synod National The same Discipline Ordains
High Treason to acknowledge this Usurper We must then be perswaded that this Authority which they call Of the Holy Siege is legitimate before that it can be honestly done to sollicite us to submit thereto There hath been a time wherein God had charged himself with the Care of Governing immediately the Common-wealth of the Hebrews by Prophets and inspired Judges whom he sent to them If any during that time had undertaken without a Call to make himself Monarch of that People is it not true that by this attempt the Usurper had made himself guilty less against the Nation whereof he would oppress the Liberty than against God upon whose Rights he had undertaken That People though inclined to Revolt durst not make them a King they ask one of God If that Nation had otherwise used it it is certain it had been Criminal before God as much as may be If we will consider this Reflexion we shall see that Protestants in their Principles must regard as guilty of the highest Enterprize against the Rights of God Him that without Call hath made himself the Head of this Church and it will be granted that without the greatest baseness they cannot submit to that Prince who hath seized upon God's Rights without his permission In fine It is impossible that Protestants should regard as Indifferent or as Tolerable in Christian Religion a Dignity which is absolutely opposite to the Spirit of Christianism This Spirit is Humility Poverty Despising the World Obedience Renouncing all kind of Pomp Grandeur and Vanity After that they would have us to regard as Prince Spiritual of the Christian World a Man that is Crowned with all the Pomp of the Kings of the Earth that makes his Feet to be kissed by the Persons of the greatest Quality that is carried on Mens Shoulders and who carries the Rights of Soveraignty and the Characters of Puissance beyond what was ever imagined But after having considered the Pope is the Theology of Politicians who keep within general Terms why should it not be lawful to us to regard him in an Italian Theology See what it is in this Italian Theology It is a Man that cannot be tied nor untied by a Regular Power who was called God by Constantine Now it is manifest that God cannot be judged by Men. It is a Man whose Faults cannot be admonished on Earth though he should be known to neglect his own Salvation and that of his Brethren useless and relaxed in his Works silencing the Good and leading with himself Crowds of Men to the first slavery of Hell because being setled to judge all the rest He may not be judged of any It is a Man whom none of the Councils lawfully Assembled durst ever judge because he is the Judge of all On the contrary Councils have often cried The first Seat is Judged of none and they say to the Pope Judge your self Justifie or Condem your self It is a Man whereof the Roman Ceremonial saith That as oft as the Emperour seeth him he ought to salute him bare his Head and kneel to him approach his Throne kiss his Feet devoutly hold his Stirrup till he be got up then takes his Horse by the Bridle and leads him some Paces And in whatever Town where the Pope is to be carried in a Chair the Prince of the place though he were a King must carry the Chair some steps with the greatest Lords of the Country It is a Man that can do all what is needful to lead Souls to Paradise and may take away all Obstacles which the World and the Devil with all their Strength and Craft can oppose It is a Man that can suffer the Title of Vice-God as Paul the Fifth in the beginning of this Age. They made Pictures and Dedications with this Inscription Paulo Quinto Vice-Deo c. Most Invincible of the Christian Republick c. It is a Man of whom the Canonists say Restituit Papa solus deponit ipse Dividit ac unit eximit atque probat Articulos solvit Synodumque facit Generalem transfert mutat appellat nullus ab illo That is to say That he alone settles deposes divides unites condemns approves breaks Articles makes Councils transports and changes according to his good pleasure without appeal It is a Man that gives Realms at his Will loosens Subjects from their Oath made to their Prince who is Master of the Temporal of Kings It is a Man who alone possesses the Priviledge of Infallibility and who is the only Oracle of the Church It is a Man that can dispense against Laws Divine and Human and according to the plenitude of his Power dispences above Right and Law dispences against Apostles and their Canons against the Old Testament about Tithes Vows and Oaths It is a Man whom they set upon the Altar when he is Chosen and then to go to Adoration It is a Man that can suffer to be told in a full Council Do so that we may never lose the Spirit Life and Salvation which thou hast given us Thou art the Pastour the Physician the Pilot the Patron Thou art in fine God on Earth It is a Man that likes it well that in the same Council they should apply to him these Words of Psalm 72. Aethiopians shall come c. his Enemies shall lick the dust all Kings shall adore him all Nations shall serve him It is there also where they stiled him The Divine Majesty In fine He is a Man that likes to be called Lord of Lords Most Prudent Most Wise Adored of all Men. If this Power be not lawful why would they have us to submit thereto How could that agree with our Principles These are happily the things which Monsieur de Condom means and whereof he saith That Ministers cease not to relate them to render that Power odious You know well say they that this Italian Theology is slighted They do not Canonize in France the Excess of the Canonists contrarily they are condemned And you cannot be ignorant that the Gallican Church hath still opposed them I grant it if they please Why then would they that I should regard the Pope under the Idea which the Gallican Church forms rather than under that which the Roman Church I always heard say That to know a Subject we must not regard him in the Opinion which certain Persons have of him but in himself in that which he saith of himself and what he doth Now it is certain that the Pope is in himself what the Canonists have made him and that he thinks of himself what the Canonists have said for it is he that hath caused those Canonists to write It is the Canon Law of the Roman Church approved generally by the Court of Rome and according to which they rule their Conduct The Gallican Church may do what they please the Pope doth still keep himself in the possession of Excommunicating Kings dispensing their Subjects to the