have said of the Popes Infallibility and his being the only Judge of Controversies is true p. 410. and that himself does hold them as truths de Fide p. 425. He tells us likewise in the Chapter entituled Calumniae â—lutae That some not of the unlearned only but learned too had clancularly aspersed him as if he had said it was not matter of Faith That the Church could not err That she was not the supream and only Judge That the Pope was not Head of the Church That he sought the union of Religion by remitting part of the Faith The cry of this was so great that he tells us he set forth a publick Programma in his own vindication wherein he declares his assent to those things which he was supposed to have denied and says they are Veritates Fidei Truths belonging to the Faith though not defined by the Council Ipsissimis terminis and that he did not intend by any of his Explications any such diminution of their Faith as his accusers mistook him to intend but only used this as a necessary method to reduce such as were gon astray He often taxes them to shew wherein he had expresly impugned those Truths which they thought him to have betray'd and tells them their oversight lay in this that when he said such and such Truths were not de fide Catholica they mistook him as though he had denied them to be necessary Truths which he denies himself to have the least implied and declares his own belief of the Popes Infallibility adding withal that the Explication which he had given of himself in this instance he would have understood with respect to all the Matters he had handled as Transubstantiation Merits Images Adoration of the Eucharist c. This he look'd upon he tells us p. 315. as the most expedient Method to propose only those Doctrines which the Council expresly commanded to be held and pass the rest in silence when they expect to win Runnagates to the Faith whom if they can bring first to the admission of this there will be opportunity gained to prevail with them in the rest I will not take the advantage given me by this mans fraud to accuse M. Condom of the like but only infer in part from hence that the Doctrine of this Exposition which differs not from Verone's has been look'd on with a jealous eye among themselves whatever approbation it may have now and again that the Gentlemen have no reason to be angry since themselves have made the detection if we fear to swallow abait that may conceal a hook What was done to remedy those Abuses which were in vain complained of will be better justifiable after examination of the particulars when we shall be capable to consider on whom the Schism and the miseries consequent upon it may be most justly charged I thank the Advertiser that he forbears reproaches though he says he could find ground enough for them in abuses that are among us for which although I hope he could find but few yet I shall hold my self indebted to him the forbearance of all Invectives and the silence of those Abuses which shall any way appear to be disallowed by their Church I likewise beg of God that they may read without bitterness and may that God from whom alone is all success who knows the progress of Error and its increase through mens making his Religion subservient to their own ambition intrests and hypocrisies so effectually touch the hearts of all that all parties may act and with their utmost strength endeavour all which true sincere Piety and a zeal for God and his glory free from all other ends and intrests does oblige them to for healing the Wounds of his afflicted Church CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Late Bishop of Condom's BOOK ENTITULED An Exposition of the Catholick Faith in Matters of Controversie SECT I The Design of his Treatise considered AS to this first Section wherein he mentions his Design having considered it in part already I have little more to add I confess it very expedient to consider the Grounds of the first Separation and the necessity of a Right Explication of their Churches Tenents and that these ought to be taken from the publick Acts of the Church and not from particular Doctors for the reason quoted out of M. Daille That the sentiments of particular persons ought not to be imputed to the whole body only here is one thing wanting which we desire might be declared that all Tenents of particular Doctors contrary to any of this which shall be delivered as the sense of the Church are false and disowned by it for to say it is implied is not sufficient when a Church pretends to declare her self to her Adversaries who charge her with other Doctrines maintained by her But for what he adds from Mr. Daille That no separation ought to be but upon the account of Articles authentickly estabished to the belief and observance of which all persons are obliged I must here observe That this Concession does not affect the Church of England till it be proved that by Reforming her self she has departed either from the true Faith or from some authority to which she was lawfully subject not that I hold National Churches less obliged to preserve the unity of the whole than every particular member that of the Church wherein he lives but that I maintain a Church that is not dependent upon others can never be said to have done any thing to prejudice the unity of the Catholick Church by reforming abuses within her self and taking the best expedients to preserve the foundations of Faith and promote good life so that all 39 Artic. of the Church of England things be done to edifying as it is express'd by the Church of England Artic. 34. Whereas he says that what he writes shall be approved of in the Church and be conformable to the Doctrine of the Council I could wish he had promised that it should be the true and only Sense of the Council and that it should likewise be the whole Doctrine of the Church in the Particulars he treats of Another thing is necessary for me to premise here that what Advantages he may take from the Principles of some Reformists in these Disputes I think my self not much concerned in having declared that I will oblige my self only to the Consequences that may be drawn from the Principles of the Church of England SECT II. Concerning the Church of Rome's embracing all the Fundamentals of Religion THis Section premiseth That the Church of Rome believes and professes all the Fundamental Articles of Faith particularly those in the Apostles Creed which we are so far from denying that we plead and challenge it being sure it will give us this Advantage that they can never charge us with Innovation nor with departure from the Faith if these are all the Fundamental and Principal Articles But M. Condom pretends that they also can draw from hence great
to be received for the Word of God if not confirmed by the Scripture because the Motives upon which they were received cannot be as evident as those of the Scriptures Questionless no man can deny the Traditions of the Jews to be as useful for the understanding the Old Testament as any now for that of the New but then it was they perverted the Use of Traditions when they taught them for God's Commandments But that which he infers from this that has given us both so much trouble is just nothing Upon this account the Church professes she tells us nothing from herself and that she invents nothing new in her Doctrine Whoever thought that their Church ever professed the contrary or can conceive that any Church will profess otherwise the question then is not what she professes but what she has done and let me tell him that his own words are as great an argument against the Church's absolute and Infallible Authority as any can be given For if upon the account of her being established by God to be the Guardian of the Scripture and Tradition and the deliverer of them to her Children she be obliged to profess suppose what may reasonably be supposed that she be but obliged to act as she does profess that she delivers nothing new nothing from herself nothing but by the interior direction of the Holy Ghost Shall not her Authority be confined within these limits Shall she have any power to act beyond them or if she be accused as having acted against that Christianity that she ought to have maintained Shall it not be shewn de facto that she has not or if that seem too apparent Shall it be pleaded that she is infallible and cannot have acted against it though it 's visible to all but them that plead so that she has But he further tells us That there being a dispute raised in the times of the Apostles the Holy Ghost put an end to it by the Church and the method then taken by the Apostles to decide it has taught succeeding Ages by what authority all other differences are to be ended so that as often as any divisions shall happen the Church will interpose her Authority and her Pastors assembled will say after the Apostles It seemeth good unto the Holy Ghost and to us What they will say I know not I am sure this gives them no warrant to say the like It 's true this practice of the Apostles has directed the Church upon differences that have hapned to assemble its Pastors for the ending them but I see no promise here that they shall have the like assistance with the Apostles who not only had the Spirit of God at all times in a measure which no man can pretend to have now at any time but had likewise frequently immediate inspirations And if a man should think they had an immediate inspiration upon the place signifying how they should order the matter he might have grounds for his opinion very considerable inspirations being then so frequent even at the common Assemblies of Christians and St. Paul being so cautions as to difference things of his own from the Commands of the Lord although he thought himself at the same time to have the Spirit of God But whether so or not no Councils can from hence presume that the Holy Ghost will lead them into all Truth in whatsoever they take a humour to determine because Christ promised to send his Spirit to his Apostles to lead them into all Truth for the teaching and establishing our common Christianity Father Paul tells us of a Proverb which perhaps this Gentleman may have known to pass in France That the modern Council had more Authority than that of the Apostles because their own pleasure only was sufficient ground for the Decrees without admitting the Holy Ghost whether verified in this of Trent I shall not say but the ground of it is certainly possible and God that has promised to lead men by his Spirit into all Truth has not said he will lead them whether they will or no. Whereas then he says further That when the Church has spoken her Children will be taught that they ought not to examine again the Articles so resolved on but are bound humbly to receive her decisions and that they are resolved to follow the example of Paul and Silas not permitting them to be again discussed but teaching all to observe the ordinances of the Apostles He would have done well to have shewn us that the Decrees of the Trent Council are as much the acts of the Holy Ghost as that of the Apostles before he had required us to think them act as justifiably in teaching them as Paul and Silas did But by the way if he speaks this as the fix'd resolution of all their Church not to admit a new discussion of what has been decided but to require all to observe it he lets us know an excellent Resolution of his Church and how much it is for her turn that differences in Religion be everlasting But thus it is he tells us the Children of God acquiesce in the Judgment of the Church believing that from her mouth they hear the Oracle of the holy Ghost This he should have forborn to have said till he had shewn by something more than he has hitherto that God has bid his children to hear his Word from the mouth of any Church speaking without the Scripture that contains it but especially methinks he should not have presumed to say this is the ground why in our Creed having said I believe in the Holy Ghost we add immediately The holy Catholick Church if we had no other ground to believe the Holy Catholick Church than he has hitherto shewn I am sure we should have but very little for so great an Article of Faith But no wonder he builds his faith on no better grounds since he has framed a new sense of the Article of which if I convince him by the Catechism of his own Church I suppose he may be inclinable to hear it even that then teaches him That the word Cat. Trid. sub Titulo Ecclesia quibus siguris Church in this Article does chiefly denote the whole number of Believers including both good and bad not the Rulers only but those likewise who are to obey and if so I know not how a man is obliged by believing this Article to acknowledge any Infallibility in the governours of any Church or to think that if they err this Article of our Creed should become false or that he has ever the less faith in God if he apprehend or fear least the Rulers of the Church should abuse their power Whereas after this he endeavours to perswade us That the Catholick Church meaning that of Rome is so far from making herself Mistress of our Faith as she is accused that on the contrary she has done what she could to limit and deprive herself of all the means of
introduce the Sense he intends The ground he proceeds on I confess is such as must not be rejected as vain in this Dispute neither must it on the other side be allowed to conclude necessarily for though the correspondence between the Old and New Testament ought to be greatly regarded yet of itself it is not sufficient ground to build matter of Faith upon Again in whatever it be allowed to conclude it must be according to the difference between the Old and New Testament which must still be maintained and which is undeniably this That as Israel under the Old Testament were the Israel according to the Flesh and those under the New are the Israel according to the Spirit so the correspondence between the Law and Gospel may conclude from things that were carnally under the Law that the same are spiritually fulfilled under the Gospel but never that they are now to be fulfilled carnally because they were then For instance when the Apostle argues from Abraham's leaving his own Country to go into a strange Land that thereby also he sought an heavenly Country it may with the like force be argued that we who travel after God's Promises shall certainly arrive to the possession of that heavenly Country but not that we shall as certainly possess an earthly Canaan by the way So when he argues from Adam's being made a living Soul that the second Adam is a quickning Spirit we cannot certainly think him to be a quickning Spirit in that sense that the first Adam was a living Soul but in a much more spiritual manner This being premised I shall consider his Arguments First then he says That as the Jews did not in Spirit only partake of the Victim that was sacrificed for them but did in reality eat of the sacrificed Flesh which was to them a Mark of their partaking of that Oblation so Christ becoming our Victim would have us really eat his Flesh to assure us in particular that it was for us he gave it Thus much I allow the correspondence between the Old and New Testament may prove that whereas Christ has given us Bread as a representation of his sacrificed Body to partake of that he thereby intended to make us partakers of his Flesh to assure us that for us it was sacrificed but not that it shall hence follow that because the Jews eat carnally of the Flesh of their Sacrifices we must also eat of his after the like manner Who sees not upon the difference between the Law and the Gospel premised that the contrary does necessarily follow that they being the Israel after the Flesh did necessarily partake of the Flesh of their Sacrifices after a carnal manner those therefore that are the Israel after the Spirit must partake of their Sacrifices not as the others but spiritually Let then God's prohibiting the Jews to eat of the Sin-Offering because of their Sins not being expiated by those Sacrifices conclude that now our blessed Saviour having made himself an Offering for Sin we ought to partake of this Sacrifice to assure us that the Remission of sins is accomplished for us yet this shall not conclude against our partaking of this Victim after a spiritual manner As for God's prohibiting the Children of Israel to eat Blood because it was given for the expiation of Souls it being a prohibition of eating Blood in general as well as the particular blood of their Sacrifices if it conclude any thing it is chiefly for the eating Blood in general the reason of its being forbidden being ceased but yet neither for this doth it conclude necessarily for then the Apostles could not by their Decree have required the Gentiles to abstain from Blood But suppose it to conclude for our drinking the Blood of our Sacrifice yet it does not in the least prove that we are to drink it in a carnal and not in a spiritual manner but it will prove if it be allowed conclusive what will not at all please the Church of Rome that she cannot now with-hold the Sacramental Blood from us since our Sins are fully expiated by the Blood of Christ for a reason contrary to that upon which it was prohibited the Jews because this Blood being shed has wrought a full Remission of Sins Therefore upon so little that has been yet said to the purpose I admire the Gentleman should tell us That our Saviour to free us from the horror of eating humane Flesh and drinking Blood in their proper species thought fit to cloath them under another species but that the consideration that obliged him to this did not oblige him in the least to deprive us of the reality of his Substance For by what Authority does he presume to tell us what considerations moved our Saviour or how far this or that consideration shall oblige him Or how has he proved that it was ever the intent of our blessed Saviour to give us the Real as that signifies the fleshly Substance of his Body to be by us carnally received To accomplish then the ancient Figures we confess our blessed Saviour does give us his Body and Blood to possess us of the Sacrifice offered for our Sins but to maintain the difference between the Law and the Gospel our eating must be spiritual not carnal It matters not whether it be the plainness of our Saviour's Words alone or as joyned with other things that are said concerning it in Scripture that forceth us to confess and acknowledge what we do we need no forcing for we most readily acknowledge all we conceive the Scripture does oblige us to in it and the Question is whether any thing said therein will oblige us to take their Sense or does not oblige to the contrary I shall not enter into Dispute of what the power of Christ can do or whether his Dominion over universal Nature can make his Body present in several places at once and under several Extents and not destroy the properties of a Body in it his Omnipotence having nothing to do herein any further than it appears his intent to bring something to pass by it We may therefore without questioning what can be wrought by his omnipotent power expect an Evidence that what they pretend him to bring to pass thereby was by him intended to be brought to pass before we are obliged to believe it Whether therefore these Words This is my Body will conclude it to be our Saviours intent to make that Bread to be no longer Bread but to become the very Substance of his Body is the thing in question which cannot be presumed before we have considered the whole Discourse of our Saviour and also what other things are said of it by his Apostles Matth. 26. 26. we find it set down thus Whilst they were eating Jesus took Bread and having blessed broke and gave it to his Disciples and said Take Eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and blessing gave to them saying Drink all of this for this is my Blood
Institution of our Lord who blessed Bread and Wine for this only purpose that we might take eat and drink and thereby partake of his Body and Blood in that it not only lays aside the End of his Institution but sets up a new Action of a greater value as is pretended in that also whilst it pretends to apply the Benefits of Christ's Death by this new means it takes off the necessity of using that of our Saviour's own appointment and occasions men to be wholly careless of it when hereby they are warranted to partake of all his Benefits and incur not the danger they would if they should come to partake of the Sacrament with impenitent hearts in that likewise it pretends this Sacrifice propitiatory for men after Death thereby in a great measure voiding the necessity of a Christian Life especially considering that Doctrine which is commonly taught in that Church that this Sacrifice avails ex opere operato that all the Benefits of Christ are derived upon the People by the very external Work done the people not being concerned in or assisting to the Sacrifice either in their Prayers or participation and withal their practice of sacrificing for any whatever dying within their Communion to free them from the pains of Purgatory SECT XI Of his Reflections BY the Grounds then upon which I have proceeded I am little concerned with the Explication he gives of the Epistle to the Hebrews to shew that their Doctrine of the Sacrifice ascribing all the virtue wholly to the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not impeach or prejudice its efficacy which the Apostle there pleads Which if it were granted as that it cannot well be for that they have set up a Sacrifice which shall make God more propitious to us than the Sacrament which does possess us of all the Benefits of Christ's Death yet this could no way justifie them in setting up a Sacrifice representative of Christ's Death to Effects which he had not appointed pretending thereby to make application of his Sacrifice on the Cross which he has not warranted them to apply by such means and to such persons also as they cannot from Scripture warrant it beneficial to However notwithstanding M. Condom seems to remove all Equivocation in the Word Offer he either still uses it equivocally or expresses not the Sense of those of his Communion for Bellarmine places not the Sacrifice only in presenting to God Christ crucified but in destroying the Elements that were there before and making Christ present under their Species as dead on the Cross And the Catechism favours this Sense when it says The Priests that sacrifice act not in their own persons but in the person of Christ when they make to be present his Body and Blood So that if we consider this especially if joyned with the Doctrine of Eckius that those Representations which the Church makes of Christ as dead by making his Body as such to appear before God and his Blood as separate from it by these Ceremonies that are used in this Action are the things that constitute the Sacrifice Against whom Chemnitius disputes so largely from this Epistle to the Hebrews If this be considered it will be evident that in this Epistle was not made use of to such impertinent purpose against them as this Gentleman pretends In his Reflections there is little material for me to consider the Grounds of all their Doctrine being overthrown But because he presses it so earnestly I must take notice of the main thing in it Here then he would first perswade us that the main difference between us is that of the Real Presence This we indeed allow That their Error in this Point is the Foundation of the Doctrines they build upon it but this makes it not necessary that their consequent Doctrines and Practices shall not be judged more prejudicial to Christianity than their first Error There scarce ever was a Heresie but pretended to deduce all its Errors from some Doctrine that had appearance of Truth and that did not in itself expresly contradict or prejudice the Faith though by the progression they drew from it the whole Faith has been subverted But then he farther argues That the Real Presence is owned by the Lutherans though they consider not the consequences of it That the Calvinists themselves have declared the Lutheran Doctrine to have no poyson in it and that it does not subvert the Foundations of Faith That further some Calvinists have said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans whence he concludes It is an established Truth that the Roman Doctrine in this point contains nothing but the Doctrine of the Real Presence rightly understood An Inference that has not the least coherence with the Premises Can any man of Sense allow this a rational Argument The Lutherans hold a Real Presence the Calvinists say There is no Poyson in their Doctrine The Lutherans admit not such Consequences as we do the Calvinists say we reason better than the Lutherans therefore it is an established Truth that our Doctrine contains nothing but the Real Presence rightly understood But to answer it so far as it may seem any way to give him an advantage The Lutherans do indeed hold a Real Presence in a Sense different from that I have explained but then they do no obtrude their Sense upon others as a necessary condition of Communion so that we may communicate with them without professing their error nor do they hold such a Local Presence as the Church of Rome nor does their Opinion lead them to the Worship of any Creature nor do they acknowledge any Presence of Christ therein but only in the act and to the end of his Institution of this Sacrament and if this has led some to a Declaration that the Lutheran Opinion does not subvert the foundation of Faith upon this account that it proceeds not to any further Effects destructive of it shall this be taken for an acknowledgment that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which obliges to such practices upon it as are inconsistent with the Faith is not such as ought to break communion with her And suppose it to have been said that the Catholicks reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans if it has been said by any of those that allowed Communion with the Lutherans it 's manifest that when they said so they did not think but that the Roman Doctrine was much more inconsistent with Christianity And that the World may see it is so I shall transcribe the difference which a Lutheran gives us between the Adoration they tender Christ in the Eucharist and that which is given by the Church of Rome He places the difference chiefly in two Particulars First that the Church of Rome requires that the Sacrament Gerhard Loc. Com De sacra Caena de Vener it self or all that which according our Lord's Institution we receive should be adored with the honour due
reason any further than to prevent the swallow of their Errors with this bait What I intend is to evidence that there are Matters of that weight in controversie notwithstanding the pretence of this Book to have discussed and answered the most material as will abundantly justifie the Reformed in their distance from the Church of Rome and which is more conclude them under a necessity of maintaining that distance as things now stand THE ADVERTISEMENT TO THE Bishop of Condom's Book Considered THE Advertisement begins with a Supposition which it thinks we must necessarily allow That M. Condom has faithfully expounded the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Treatise from his beng a Bishop in the Church whose Understanding therefore and Sincerity ought not to be suspected and afterwards from his being called to be Praeceptor to the Dauphin Son to so great a King and Defender of the Catholick Religion But yet he tells us Though the sincerer part of the Reformed acknowledged it would take away great Difficulties if approved and owned for their Doctrine yet they would never believe it such or that it would be approved at Rome being prepossessed with Prejudice and false Opinion But without reflecting either upon the Bishop's Understanding or Sincerity we have a great deal of reason to expect he shew us an Authority that warrants him to give us this Exposition and declare it to us as the faithful and true Sense and only Doctrine of the Church since the Pope hath peremptorily forbidden Bulla Pii quarti super Confirm Concil Trid. all Prelates of whatever Order Condition or Degree to set forth any Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trent-Council reserving it to the Apostolical See Setting then his Authority as questionable for the present aside I am no more convinced by the Nature of the Exposition that it is the genuine Sense of the Church of Rome in all points than those who first saw the Book Whether it be Prejudice or Prepossession that blinds my Understanding will not appear till after the Discussion of Particulars Pag. 2. He tells us of two Answers to this Treatise and that both of them agreed in questioning M. Condom's Authority to expound the Council and that his Exposition agrees not with the Decisions of the Council nor with their Profession of Faith Concerning these things I shall determine nothing till I come to the Particulars But whereas he saies Pag. 3. That one of them has drawn a wrong Conclusion from those Softnings of M. Condom to confirm themselves in a better Opinion of the Reformation I do not think the Inference altogether so absure as the Advertizer pretends it for do not they in a great measure justifie the Reformed who call for the Reformation of those Abuses which the Church of Rome herself pretends to condemn but will not or has not rectified The next Thing it endeavors is to prove p 4. That this Exposition of M. Condom's is the true Sense of the Church which is grounded first upon the general Approbation his Book received throughout the whole Church testified by Lerters from all sorts of People not in France only but at Rome especially in Eight Letters concerning it from Cardinals and others of great Merit But taking it for granted without any further Examination That all these Men by their Approbations of this Book do consent that this Exposition is the true Sense of the Church which is more than need be granted since some only say it is a Method very ingenious and good to force the Calvinists to confess the atholick Faith yet this will not suffice where there are so many Writers of as great Authority and Eminence in the Church as any of these that have though not perhaps undertook to expound the Council as this Author yet to declare and defend a Doctrine much different from this from the same Council and in behalf of the same Church And suppose the Number that approved it great yet Cardinal Bona's Letter informs us that some found fault with it and those he must mean of their own Church when he gives this Reason that he does not wonder at it Because all Works great and above the common Level find Persons still to contradict them And be the Number what it will I suppose he will not as it is not reasonable seek for the Churches Doctrine by counting Noses Then for the Letter of Cardinal Sigismond which says the Advertizer shews how ill grounded that Scruple is against this Exposition from the Pope's Prohibition to explicate the Council To me it rather shews how well it is grounded for his Words are Certainly it was never his intention to give the interpretation of the Tenets of the Council but only to deliver them in his Book rightly explicated in such sort that Hereticks may be convinced and especially in those things which the holy Church obliges them to believe Which if it signifie any thing must be That his Exposition is not an interpretation of the Council obliging any to believe it as Matter of Faith but a Design of explicating it in such sort as he judged useful for convincing Hereticks But if this will not content we have an Approbation from the Pope himself after which 't was needless to mention others says the Advertizer and let me add without which his others signifie little to his Point The Gentleman calls it a Breve wherein the Pope gives his Approbation and that so express as to leave no further doubt and in the most authentick manner that could be expected I have considered it and yet my Doubt is not vanished and when the least that could have been expected in reason on Account of the difficulty of believing it express'd by the Reformed five or six years before the Date of this Breve from the Pope as also from the Nature of the thing which being an exposition of Faith ought to be so received by all that not one man hold Tenets different from it as also from the former Pope's Prohibition of all Explication of this Council is that the Pope should have declared that this Exposition did perfectly contain the true and whole Faith of the Church in the Points expounded and that it should be lookt upon as authentick as if made by the Apostolick See it self We may have that Charity for the Advertizer as to think its his good desire to have it made authentick that makes him look upon it as such and suppresses all his Doubts But we who desire no less than he that it were so have yet some peculiar Reasons to see to our selves that we are not imposed on and therefore to examine what Authority this Approbation gives it All which the Pope here saies to approve it is no more than this That it contains such Doctrine and is composed in such a Method and with so much Prudence that it is thereby rendred proper to instruct and to extort even from the unwilling a Confession of the Catholick Faith
but he does not in all this say that it is the true and only Sense of the Council And further That for these Reasons he does not only think it worthy his Commendation but to be read and esteemed by all He does not say nor mean esteemed for the only Sense of the Council as is plain by the Latine Copy And further We hope this Work by the Grace of God will bring forth much Fruit and will not a little help to propagate the Orthodox Faith In all which he neither declares it for the Sense of the Council nor confirms it as such nor does any thing to make it authentick if that be to authorize it as a Truth throughout the whole Church which yet is the least that could be lookt for in this Case for the Reasons given The utmost therefore that can be made of it is only that it has the commendation of his private Judgment for a prudent useful good Book likely to work no small Effects for the propagation of the Catholick Faith So that this will be no great prejudice to any Proofs that shall be made against M. Condom where I may attempt in opposition to him to shew that he has not fully given the Doctrine of his Church But the Advertizer raising himself on this Foundation that this Exposition is as true and as authentick as he pretends it and laying on this Presumption further that it has most effectually served the Ends it aims at insults over the Reformed as if the Day was clearly gained boasting the pretended Victory not over the Answerers only but all Reformers What particular Advantages he pretends over the Answerers I meddle not with wanting both opportunity to procure and capacity to understand their Books if French nor will I be obliged to concern my self with any pretended to be gotten over any Numbers of the Reformed either for their false Opinions Doctrines or Concessions in any Cases but where the like may seem pretended from like Doctrines or Concessions of the Church of England Whether he has such real Cause to Boast will not appear till the End But what of his is added to back M. Condom shall be considered under their particular Heads in the Exposition Pag. 18. He goes on to vindicate M. Condom First That he has done well to propose the true Tenets of the Council and their Church and distinguish them from those that are falsly imputed to her No body will blame his Aim in this God forbid that any should refuse to hear what may inform them and remove their Prejudices Secondly That he has done but just in taking the Doctrine of the Church from the Council of Trent Nor will any blame him for this or require him to justifie the Council from the great suspitions that are justly had of it for be the Council what it will it 's sufficient for the Exposition that the Doctrine of it is universally received throughout their Church Nor shall Father Pont's History because he here is said to be a profess'd enemy to the Council of Trent either prejudice me against its Doctrines or make me call its Decisions ambiguous without apparent grounds for it Thirdly That his choice was not amiss in pitching upon those Points from which the subject of the Reformation was taken But however if new Matters have been added by themselves since which make the distance wider those may well be added as Obstacles to a present Union and without reflecting on the Bishops sincerity or accusing him to have on purpose left out the greatest difficulties it may be allowed me to produce others so far as they are material to shew that some great Objections are yet in force and many great Disputes untouched But whether he has been so faithful to his promise as to affirm nothing to make the Council better understood which is not approved of in the Church and manifestly conformable to it will appear when the particulars are examined There is one thing more that will greatly affect me as well as the other Answers against whom it 's urged p. 23. That it 's to no purpose to object against this Exposition the Bull of Pius the Fourth for that the design of this Book says the Advertiser has nothing of those Glosses and Commentaries which with great reason that Pope condemned some of which usually fill'd the Margins with their own Imaginations and gave them for the Text it self and such for the conservation of Unity the Pope was obliged not to permit nothing of which nature is in this Exposition But he need not have taken all this pains if himself durst have relied on his former proof of its authentickness yet to make this of any strength to back what he had said before he should have told us by what authority he declares what sort of Comments and Glosses the Pope forbids in that Bull or the Reasons upon which he did it Let this be one reason yet what shall hinder but Father Paul's may be another that it was to withstand the checks which the Council might be said to give to the Papal power and disable all from using it to the prejudice of the Court of Rome To believe which we have greater grounds than Father Paul's bare assertion but much less to believe the Advertiser since the Bull in express words forbids not only such Interpretations as Comments and Glosses but all Annotations Scholia's and every kind of interpretation whatsoever decreeing likewise all such as any should attempt to make wittingly or ignorantly with or by whatsoever authority void and null Whereas in the conclusion p. 24. he says That suppose we call for the Reformation of Abuses it is one way of suppressing them to shew the Truth in purity not excluding other means I shall here take occasion to remember out of M. Verone in his Epitome of his Methods part of whose method M. Condom exactly follows how little we can propose to our selves from these fair pretences of representing the truth in purity towards this effect which will also shew in part upon what grounds this Doctrine of the Exposition may find that approbation which it has amongst them and yet be far from being so truly and universally received as is pretended This M. Vernone is most eminent for the use of this Method to separate the Decrees of the Council from the Opinions of all particular persons whatsoever and the Doctrine he would perswade as the Churches sense seems in all things as moderate as this of M. Condom He says they do no further honor Images than as they use outward respect to the Bible and other sacred Utensils and speaks of Transubstantiation Merits c. much after the same moderation and will not have the Infallibility of the Pope to be matter of the Catholick Faith And yet this Person though he Verone's Epit. 〈…〉 Convin â—…et declares the Doctrine of their Church in a way fair to appearance tells us nevertheless that what other Doctors