That in the Letters of Mission whereof the Churches do charge the Deputies which go to Synods there be a Clause of Submission in these Terms We promise before God to submit to all that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy Assembly being perswaded that God will preside by his Spirit c. To that Monsieur de Condom adds a Fact drawn from the Synod of Saint Foy Anno 1578. where some Overtures were made of Reconciliation with the Lutherans and deputed Four Men to whom was given an Absolute Power to terminate that Affair as should seem good to them Behold say they where ends the false delicateness of these Gentlemen They will not receive the Decisions of Councils they make no difficulty to put their Faith into the hands of Four Men who would be weary to be obliged to answer so many things that come to nothing What doth all that I pray you Doth that prove that we hold the Church for an Infallible Judge All that Monsieur de Condom says returns to this Reasoning or it returns to nothing Those who give their Synods power to judge Soveraignly of Points of Faith who promise Submission in the assurance that the Holy Ghost presides there and who retrench from the Communion of the Church those that would not submit to their Decision give to these Synods an Infallible Authority but the Calvinists do that therefore they give to to their Synods an Infallible Authority This Argument supposes false and concludes ill 1. It supposes false for it is not true that we promit our Synods a blind Submission What is said to them That we are perswaded that God will preside in the midst of them by his Spirit is a Clause of Civility whereof the Terms are not to be abused That signifies nothing but that we wish and hope that the Holy Ghost will direct them It is not true neither that the Synod of Sainte Foy have put the Faith of the Protestant Churches of France in deposito into the hands of Four Men for what was committed to them was not to make new Articles of Faith but only to compose a Formulary in general Terms which all the World might receive And they did not so far refer themselves wholly to their Judgment but that they reserved liberty not to follow them if they should chance to make some false Advance 2. This Argument concludes ill for from what Power we give to our Synods to Judge of the Points of Doctrine and do cut off those that will not submit to their Judgment Monsieur de Condom concludes that we attribute to them an Infallible Authority This Reasoning is worth nothing or this is good The Bishops and Archbishops do give Ordinances Councils Provincial and National in the Roman Church decide Points of Faith and cut off those that will not submit therefore they believe themselves Infallible I do not therefore think that the Bishops neither separately nor in their whole Body out of a General Council esteem themselves Infallible Must then the Priviledge of Infallibility be had to have the Power to Judge of a Point of Faith There would then be none but the Pope or the Council that could Judge thereof There must be an Order Every Society is in right of Judging of Controversies which arise in its bosom and that Member thereof that will not submit to that Judgment may be cast out of the Body Therefore we do properly complain That the Roman Church having pronounc'd against us in the Council of Trent after that did cast us out of their Body They used in that the right which appertains to every Society but we complain that they have unjustly condemned us The Question touching the Rights and Authorities of Councils and Synods deserves an Examen much more ample we will leave it as an Incident which Monsieur de Condom hath brought into his Book without necessity and only to entangle the state of the Question It imports nothing at the bottom what Authority Synods may have to know whether the Roman Religion is far distant from the Protestant which is properly the Affair here in agitation ARTICLE XVI Of the POPE and of his Authority I Follow the Order of Monsieur de Condom I finish by the Head of that great Body into which they would have us re-enter that is the Pope Here also after him a Point whereof we have made a stumbling Block without any reason What is the Pope It is the Principle of Unity the Cement of Union It 's a Head whereto all the Members have a relation and who makes the Uniting of the Church for Men know there is no Goverment more solid and that contributes more to the Conservation of States than the Monarchical What hurt then can there be to set upon the Body of the Church a Spiritual Monarch a Visible Head that may watch for its Conservation and may govern it Must not People be very Captious to make of that a cause of Separation I will regard well this Article at first under the same face that Monsicur of Condom doth The Pope is a Visible Head a Spiritual Monarch but who hath appointed this Monarch Is it possible that Men do not feel that this puts a prodigious difference between the Religion of Protestants and the Roman Religion To make it appear I suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ would have the Government of his Church should be Aristocratical and that he hath put it into the hands of such whom he hath called Bishops and Priests whom he hath invested with equal Power I know well that this Principle is contested but once more I am not oblig'd to prove any thing in this Work I am permitted to suppose my Principles and in supposing them I must shew how they are incompatible with those of that Church whereunto they would have us return If then the Lord Jesus Christ hath setled a Government Aristocratick in his Church this kind of Government is of Divine Right and if it be of Divine Right none must be permitted to change it under whatsoever pretence The kind of Government is so much of the Essence of a State That the State changes absolutely loses its Name and its Form when the Government is changed All the World knows that a Kingdom which by a general Revolt shakes off the Yoke of its legal Master and then a Popular Government a Republick which by the violence of an Usurper becomes a Monarchy are no more what they were before and they would that without ruining the Church they may make a Monarchy thereof against the intention and design of Jesus Christ We do not understand that Suppose we also that this Soveraign Power exercised at Rome be an Usurped Power It is the Principle of Protestants Selon ce Principe is it possible that they would oblige us to submit to an Usurped Power If a Tyrant or Rebel had taken the place of the Legal Prince were it not extream baseness and a Crime of
great Ones had busied their Head about All the World knows the several Advances that have been made thereto by some particular Persons They of the Protestant Party which have entred into this Proposition had concluded that it might be done either by way of Accommodation in obliging each of the Parties to yield some things or by way of mutual Toleration that is to say That without leaving their places they might consider one another with Charity and should not damn one another with full authority as is done These two Methods did not at all please the Roman Church that is not it which She demanded She could not take the first way which is that of Accommodation and of mutual Relaxation for according to her Principles being Infallible she could not relax any thing but she must relax some Truths which thing Honour and Religion permitted not The second Party did please her much less by that Way all things had remained in the state wherein they are both the Religions would haye joyned hands but would not have been confounded nor reunited The Protestant would have considered the Roman Catholick as his Brother serving one God in a manner somewhat different but yet would have continued Protestant I cannot blame those Gentlemen for despising that Proposition that cannot accord with Piety But I find it a surprizing thing that rejecting these two Ways of Reunion they have proposed us another which is much more strange For to reunite say they we must necessarily return to make up One and the same Body to have the same Assemblies participate of the same Sacraments and live under the same Pastours But towards that it 's not necessary to change any thing in the Religion and Worship of the Catholicks We must only make the Protestants comprehend that they were to blame to regard the Dogma 's and the Worship of the Church in that sort wherewith they have regarded it hitherto We must perswade them that those great Spaces that divide the Catholick from the Protestant are the only effects of mistaken Imagination that at the Bottom we are all near one another that there are only some Mistakes that we teach not what they believe us to teach that our Worship which seems so opposite in the Service of one only God is nothing of what it appears to be that those Appearances though they seem to be so cross one to another are nevertheless at the bottom the most innocent in the World And that being done those Gentlemen must reunite in returning to the Church there is nothing more facile This is a strange manner of Reuniting When two opposite Parties are reunited Composition is made each one yields of its Rights Here they would have Us to give all and they would grant us nothing Not that We had been capable of suffering our selves to be tempted by Propositions of Accommodation and of mutual Relaxation The Roman Church on her Principles will never make such Propositions with sincere purpose And though she should make them in earnest she would find them impossible in their Execution The Gallican Church hath no right to treat for the Roman Church nor to relax for her while she remains tied to the Chief of that Roman Church That which We would ask in that Treaty is that which will never be granted Us for we must not dissemble we would not have a Demy-Reformation we would have them renounce that which they consider as Essential and Capital It 's true that the manner of Reunion which those Gentlemen have imagined is of all the most commodious thing for their Church but we look on it as the worst of all Evil for Ours After all the Advertisements of my Lord of Condom I would fain know what is more safe now for Us in the Roman Church than what was when we first did come away from her Do not all things persevere therein in the same State Do we see there the Temples filled with Images and Men prostrating themselves before them their Vaults resounding with the Invocation of Creatures Adorations rendred to that which we know not to be God Is it then enough to say to us That we did not understand our selves You have thought we should say that and we would say quite another thing Understand us well and come in again and you shall see that at the Bottom we are not far distanc'd one from the other Surely we must be very weak and very base to fall into that Snare to renounce that Grace which hath cost us so much Blood to forsake the Faith of our Ancestors which they have established with so much labour so much sweat and watching and whereto we have hitherto sacrificed our Repose our Fortune and all our Worldly Interests Either we had no reason to come out forth from the Roman Church or there is no reason to invite us to return thither without having brought in any change into the same To change Expressions and the manner of speaking of Things is to change nothing at the Bottom Let them call the Service of Images Invocation of Saints the Worship of Reliques with what Name they will it s still the same thing Let them put new Colours to the Adoration of the Eucharist it will still be the Adoration of that which we do call a Simple Creature So that we must needs come to the Bottom thereof to know whether we have reason I cannot forbear to add another Reflexion to that former The Sweetnings of these Gentlemen do tend to make us see that we deceive our selves when we were perswaded that we were far distanc'd one from another and that our Debates are grounded upon our misunderstanding that we agree in the Foundations and that the rest are but few small things It 's upon this Supposition that they exhort us to leave our Party to return to Theirs But upon what Right do they make this Proposition to us I will suppose that what they insinuate be true that there be but a little Space between them and us Might we not then say to them Well Sirs Come to us traverse those little Spaces there is no further distance from You to Us than from Us to You. It cannot be more difficult for you to pass this Way than for us Why must we our selves pass all the Advances Methinks I hear them cry out thereupon and say What Insolence Have we not the Possession We are the Church You are gone out from the midst of us It 's your part to return You are the Innovators You are but a handful of People who have the boldness to oppose your selves to Millions of Men and you would have those Millions of Men to come to you Is it not more just you should go to them There was no farther distance from the Donatists to the Catholicks than from the Catholicks to the Donatists But suppose that the Heat which animated both Parties had been quenched that they cleared themselves that they had acknowledged that the
there is no reason to say That Men must adore Images that there is no reason to fasten any virtue thereto to imagine that an Image of our Lady doth more Miracles than another that its blame worthy to carry them about in pomp to prostrate ones self before them to place them on Altars to make Vows and Pilgrimages to them and to buâ—n Incense to them as formerly they did to the false Gods If Invocation of Saints be done in the same Spirit as the Prayers which we present to the Faithful alive to pray for us It 's to accuse all those who do Invocate the Saints in another Spirit After all that I demand of those Gentlemen Why they do seek for an Extraordinary Turn That which they had used hitherto either was good reasonable and proper to give just Idea's of the Doctrine of the Roman Church or it was not so If it was not reason it is they should take another But how can it be that for so many years they have defended the Roman Church by so many Works without finding the proper Turn to give a just Idea of her Doctrine It 's a blindness of the preceding Doctors hardly to be conceived It 's a good hap for my Lord of Condom to have first found out the true sense of the Doctrine of the Church whereof one cannot suspect the cause But if the Turn which my Lord of Condom hath found out is different in that thing it self that it's different from others doth it not condemn them If that which he saith to us be the only true Sense of the Church all other Senses which Doctors have given it are false Senses and consequently he condemns all those that have not spoken like him Without doubt my Lord of Condom will say It was not his design to say any thing new that his Explications of the Doctrine of the Church are the Sense of the Canons of the Councils and of the decisions of the Doctors But if he pretended not to say any thing Extraordinary whence then comes the great Noise which those Gentlemen have made of that Work Can they look for so great Honour from a Thing that should have been said by all other Authors Whence is it that they have begg'd Approbations from all parts of the World That they put amongst those Approbators Cardinals Bishops yea the Pope himself For a thing which all the World had said should there be need of so mony Props seeing it could not be combated nor question'd Why doth my Lord of Condom at the end of his Work shew that he would not have us examine the different Means which the Catholick Theologues have used to establish or to cleaâ— up the Doctrine of the Council of Trent If he be agreed with the Doctors of his fide hath he cause to fear lest we should compare his Senses with theirs And is it not clear that he confesses thereby that he stands in great opposition to them If my Lord of Condom hath brought to light but the true and ancient Sense of the Church why doth he say at the end of his Book that he hath ruined all Disputes for that is it which these words signifie For to s y on this Treatise something solid c. they must shew that this Explication leaves all Disputes in their intire state He pretends then that his Explication must make all Disputes to cease I do not believe that he pretends thereto by the force of the Reasons whereby he hath upheld his cause For a little Book that only explains and which doth not prove cannot cause Disputes to cease by way of Discussion If it were true that the Sense which my Lord of Condom doth give is the Sense of the Roman Catholick Church that it should be received by both Parties and that it would not leave Disputes in their whole state it were true also that it would be some thing which the gravest Authors had not yet perceived For hitherto all the Divines of the Roman Catholick Church have verily believed that the Controversies about Images Invocation of Saints Indulgences Satisfactions were intire Disputes and most real The Council of Trent hath without doubt believed so for if their Sense had been that which my Lord of Condom gives and that it 's a Sense which leaves not Disputes whole why hath it pronounc'd Anathema's against the Lutherans and Zuinglians about things whereof it's decisions made all Disputes to vanish Let 's deal truly Did not the Council fulminate and condemn those People They did not then believe that the Sense of their Canons could easily be reconciled with the Doctrine of Zuinglius and of Luther Besides that I do not well conceive how my Lord of Condom can defend himself for having brought to light a Sense that was unknown to all that have Written and to the Prelates of the Council of Trent themselves Without doubt those Prelates pronounced Oracles without understanding them and more than an Age after an Interpreter is come who hath discovered that which the Holy Spirit had hitherto kept secret But it imports not whether my Lord of Condom be the first or only Man that hath understood the Council of Trent to the Exclusion of the Council it self he cannot hinder us from concluding That in establishing his Sense as the only good and as the Doctrine of his Church he condemns all others which the Doctors have given hitherto and therefore he acts for us and favours our Cause as much as it can be favoured Although the Explications of my Lord of Condom should terminate some different we should not be obliged to believe upon his Word that his Sense should be that of the Council of Trent It hath reproached to these Gentlemen that these Explications were against the Bull of Pius the Fourth which expresly forbids all Explications of that Council These be its own words To avoid the Confusions and Disorders that might arise if it were permitted to every One to bring to light their Commentaries and Interpretations upon the Decrees of the Council by Authority Apostolical we forbid all Persons Ecclesiastick or Laick of whatsoever Dignity Condition Honour or Power whatsoever and all Prelates under pain of being Interdicted the Entrance of the Church and others under pain of Excommunication to undertake without our Authority Commentaries Glosses Annotations Observations or any other kind of Interpretations under whatsoever Name neither under the very pretence of maintaining the Decrees better or Executing or any other Colour And if any find there is any thing obscure less clear needing Interpretation we Ordain he should ascend to the place which the Lord hath chosen that is to the Apostolick Seat which is the Master of all the Faithful and whereof the Holy Council it self hath acknowledged the Authority in a manner so full of respect After that should it be permitted to any private Man to give to the Council a Sense unknown to the whole Earth unknown even to the
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
Theirs and to make Profession of the Real Presence We have offered only to them in remaining still separate from them as We are both by Assemblies and by some Ceremonies external little important to tolerate them to regard them as our Brethren to receive them when they will come to us without obliging them to an express abjuration of the Doctrines that separate us Behold what we have offered And it is demanded of us That abandoning our Assemblies our Ceremonies and our Doctrines and particularly that of the Real Presence we should re-unite that is to say that we re-enter without any more ado into the Roman Church to believe the Real Presence or at least to make Profession of believing it There is so great difference between tolerating an Errour and to make Profession of believing that Errour that the former may be an action of Charity and the second cannot be but an abominable Hypocrisie The one serves towards Salvation and by the other we evidently hazard our Salvation I can say with assurance that if we should re-enter into the Lutheran Church and that we should bring back our People to them to make their Profession of the Real Presence we should commit a Crime that God would never pardon us After that they would have Ministers to lead back their People into the Roman Church without Mystery to make their Profession of the Real Presence which is a thousand times more dangerous than what we tolerate in the Lutherans 2. We may further tolerate the Real Presence of the Lutherans without tolerating that of the Roman Church because there is a very great difference between the one and the other But before we pass further it is good to remark that what those Doctours say is not true That we regard that Real Presence of the Lutherans as a light Errour It is a great Evil and to cure our Brethren of it we would willingly have given half our own Blood And what we have offered to tolerate them it was principally in hope to bring them back by little and little from their wandring If then we say that their is no Venom in that Opinion we understand it of mortal Venom and a killing One. It is enough to confess some Venom in an Opinion to acknowledge therein some Absurdities which dishonour Reason and blast Christian Religion and we acknowledge it too much in the Real Presence of the Lutherans But it is true that we believe not that it destroys any foundation of Faith We regard it principally in that manner wherein it is expressed in their Confession which saith Touching the Lords Supper they teach that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly present and are distributed to them who eat at the Lords Supper and condemn those who say the contrary There is nothing in these general Words that we might not subscribe to As for the manner of this Presence they are reserved and define it not They say Jesus Christ is there but we know not how If there be any which do pass rashly further in setling what they call Ubiquity that is to say the Presence of Christ's Humanity in all places of the World that passes not among them for a Fundamental Point The Real Presence of the Lutherans doth not destroy the Bread for they confess that the Signs are of true Bread and true Wine and according to that they do not suppose that God offers perpetually an Illusion to our Senses to make us see and feel a Body where there is not a Body They do not destroy the Sacrament seeing they leave the Signs entire The Real Presence of the Lutherans hath not for Attendants the Adoration of the Eucharist and obliges not Men to adore a Creature It doth not induce a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ Among the Lutherans they have not retranched the Cup from the People In fine It is not accompanied with an infinite Number of Worships of Ceremonies and of Doctrines which be incompatible with the purity of the Faith In that Church they do not Worship Images they do not Invoke Saints they do not prostrate themselves before Relicks they serve God in a Known Tongue they acknowledge no Mediator but Jesus Christ no other Satisfaction but his Merit any other Indulgence but his Grace any other Soveraign Authority but his own and that of his Word In a word Let the Roman Church set her Real Presence in the same state as is that of the Lutherans and we will offer to them the same thing which we offer to these so they will not ask us any more that is to say that we will offer them a Toleration so that she will not demand us to re-enter into her Communion For yet once more We never offered to conjoyn with the Lutheran Church whilst they abide in the state wherein they are and we will never do it for any thing in the World 3. I must yet Advertize once more these Gentlemen that for to know the poyson of an Errour one must principally regard it in that which is diffused on practice both of the Worship and of Morality Then for to know how dangerous the Real Presence is we must not regard it in her self but in the Attendants given it that is Adoration the Sacrifice and the Retranchment of the Cup. There it is that the danger lies and that is it that the Lutherans have not No subtilty of the Ministers saith Monsieur de Condom shall ever be able to perswade Men of good Sense that bearing with the Reality which is the most important Point and the more difficult they ought not also to tolerate the rest How can the Ingenuity and Light of Monsieur of Condom permit him to say that What if they tolerate a Speculative Opinion which changes nothing in the Worship and in the Religion shall we be obliged to tolerate the Adoration of a Creature which is of all things most opposite to the Foundations of Faith If a Man be perswaded that God is in the Sun by a presence of Substance greater than that wherewith he is in the rest of the World it would be an absurd Opinion But I know not whether there be any Person that would damn a Man for that alone but if that Man would conclude from that Errour that Men ought to worship the Sun and should himself so worship it what Sentiment should we have of him As for me I would tolerate his Errour as a Visionary Thought but I would abhor him as an Idolater because of his Conclusion If then to perswade Men it may be sufficient to express things with a great Assurance I say there will never be any subtilty or disguise that may perswade Men of good Sense that Toleration for a Real Presence should induce to a Toleration for the Attendants which the Roman Church gives it They say to that That they are not Attendants given thereto but that they are Natural Attendants and that even the
the Sacrament of the Eucharist they could not retranch one without ruining the whole Sacrament intirely We must not therefore dissemble that we regard not the Communion in the Roman Church as a Sacrament They may not therefore wonder that we cannot Communicate with them while it shall remain in the state wherein it is 4. Finally We must remark that this Retranchment of the Cup which they would reckon for nothing doth oppose and ruine all the Ends for which the Eucharist hath been established We have already seen that it ruins the Efficacy of the Grace of God which he would convey to us in that Sacrament Besides that we must remember that our Lord Jesus Christ did Institute it to be an Image of his death As often as you shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup you shall shew forth the Lords death Now after the Remark of Monsieur de Condom himself the lively and efficacious Representation of the lively Death which our Lord suffered is not found but in that his Flesh and his Blood are mystically separated For indeed a Flesh cannot be living when it is separated from its Blood and for the fit Representation of Jesus as dead we must see his Flesh and his Blood separated It is then very evident that they which give the People but one Sign which give the Flesh and Blood Mystically conjoyned do not give in their Communion the lively and efficacious Representation of the Violent Death which our Lord suffered It is further certain that this Divine Sacrament hath been instituted as a Sacred Repast that should teach us in a Mysterious manner that our Souls shall find in the Lord Jesus Christ compleat Nourishment therefore it hath been established under the two Signs of Bread and Wine which are sufficient to nourish the Body and that signifies that the Grace of Jesus Christ is sufficient to nourish our Souls But is it not evident that in Retranching the Cup they ruine this excellent Mystery Can one live with Bread alone can a Body be sustain'd with Meat without Drink And the Grace of Jesus Christ that makes our Souls to live is it sufficiently represented by a kind of Repast with which one must necessarily die This Sacrament was also instituted to be a common Repaâ—t a Feast of Society among many Brethren for to nourish Charity and entertain the Union of the Faithful Therefore the Ancients said that this Union was mystically represented by the Union of many grains of Wheat which compose one Loaf of Bread and by that of many grains of Raisons which compose one Wine It is then a Family Repast this Sacrament but where was there ever seen a Repast where only Meat is given and not Drink Certainly those Hereticks which St. Cyprian condemns because they would use only Water in the Eucharist were less Cruel and did less ruine the Mysteries of this Sacrament For there at least in their Eucharist there was both Meat and Drink and that is it which is essential to every Repast Thenceforth therefore let them talk no more of this as of a business little important which destroys the Sacrament of the Eucharist which ruins the Efficacy of it and which opposes all the Ends for which it was instituted Monsieur de Condom hath put himself behind a Retranchment wherein he conceives that we cannot force him It is an old wrangle about one Article of our Discipline which permits such as have an invincible aversion for Wine to Communicate under the sole kind of Bread This Example shews that Monsieur de Condom is not very ambitious of speaking always things that are novel and sublime for there is no Missionary so small that hath not treated this difficulty in the very dust of Publick places and that hath not declaim'd thereon from the very Stalks Yet now must we consider it as having somewhat in it seeing a Man of Merit and Weight would have it so They have judged saith he by this Rule that both Kinds were not Essential to Communion by the Institution of Jesus Christ otherwise they must have refused wholly the Sacrament to those that could not receive it wholly entire I wonder that these Gentlemen do not also argue against us that we have dispensed Blind men from Reading God's Word the Deaf from Hearing and the Dumb from Singing the Praises of their Creatour I always thought that no Man was obliged to Impossibilities To hear God's Word and implore his Name are at least as necessary to Salvation as participation of Sacraments yet the Deaf and the Dumb are dispens'd because of Impossibility Our Discipline speaks of Persons which have an invincible Aversion for Wine that can neither Smell nor Taste it and much less swallow it We dispense not those Persons from taking the Wine it is Nature that dispenses them putting into them an insuperable Obstacle from the reception of Wine It 's not therefore We that give this Dispensation nor that divide the Sacrament To explain my self more neatly I say there are two sorts of Commands Some are Negative which ordain the abstaining such as be the Prohibitions for Example of committing Adultery or Murther of falling into Idolatry Some are Affirmative which order us to do for Example Giving of Alms Visiting the Sick Comfort the Afflicted The first sort do always oblige and in all Circumstances for it is never permitted to commit Adultery to Rob or commit Murther But the Affirmatives oblige not but within certain Circumstances and under condition of Possibility The Command of partaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is one of those Commands Affirmative which oblige not but in such Occasions wherein it is possible A Man that hath no Goods is dispens'd from giving Alms. He that hath no Feet cannot Visit the Sick He that hath no Tongue is dispens'd from Comforting the Afflicted Likewise he that cannot absolutely drink Wine is dispens'd by this absolute Impossibility Methinks a Man must be blinded with his Prejudices beyond all that can be said to compare things so different and to say We dispense a particular Man among an hundred Thousand from taking the Cup because he cannot drink Wine therefore it is permitted willingly and without necessity to take away the Cup from all Christian People I am sensible that those Doctours will not be content herewith and that they will say However tell us if what this Man takes that communicates with you under the Sign of Bread without Wine is a true Sacrament If it be a true Sacrament why should not that be One which we present to our People I Answer That what we offer to this Man is a true Sacrament because we offer him both the Signs yea we oblige him to take the Cup in his hand And what the Roman Church presents to their Communicants is not a true Sacrament because she gives them nothing but Bread But they will say What he receives among you that cannot drink the Wine is not