words in Anastasius that the See was vacant six days But this is a very idle story There is not any Author mentions this voluntary resignation of Vigilius nor his being chosen in again by the Clergy of Rome as is pretended 't is all a pure fancy of Baronius without any manner of probability for it and the five or six days which the See continued vacant are to be understood to follow not Sylverius his death but the time of his being deposed by Belisarius illegally and by force who took away his Pallium and compelled him to resume a Monks habit He lived after that a year in exile in the Island of Palmenia there he excommunicated Vigilius and his faction to wit the Clergy of Rome that very Clergy which chose Vigilius to succeed him so that the Excommunication being just and valid as Baronius owns it was we cannot look upon Vigilius and his Clergy and all the Bishops in the World then any otherwise than as men degraded and cut off from the Church And then according to M. de Meaux's principles there was no way left but for Christ to come into the World once more to re-establish the call to the Ministry The truth of what I assert may be tryed a third way in that Principle of the supreme Authority and Infallibility of Councils and the blind implicit obedience they pretend is due to them For supposing this Principle to take place the Church of Rome hath ceased to be a true Church long ago I shall not here produce all those Councils heretofore that decreed in favour of Arrianism such as that of Antioch of Sardica or of Philippi that of Milan of Sirmium of Arimini of Seleucia or of Constantinople I will not instance in the second Council of Ephesus where the Bishop of Rome's Legates assisted which establisht the Eutychian Heresy nor that of Diospolis which acquitted Pelagius the Heretick Nor will I speak of those which have at several times determined things directly contradictory to one another in the matter of Images such as the Council of Constantinople under Constantine Copronymus the second Council of Nice under the Empress Irene the Council of Franckfort under Charlemagne and the Council of Paris under Lewis the Debonaire Nor will I insist upon the Councils held in the Tenth Age which contradicted one another upon this question whether Formosus could be lawfully preferred to the Papacy contrary to his Oath which a Pope had dispensed with and whether all the persons ordained by him ought not to be reordained Without troubling our selves with things so far off we need only desire these Gentlemen to tell us if they really and sincerely believe these few late Councils to be infallible That of Rome under Gregory the seventh where Baronius says it was determined That the Pope hath power to depose Emperors and Kings That what he hath once determined no man can afterwards bring to a rehearing but that he alone can rehear and alter the determinations of all other persons That he cannot be judged by any man whatever That he may absolve the Subjects of wicked Princes from their Oaths of Allegiance That of Lateran under Alexander the Third which relèases Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance which they have sworn to their Governors if those Governors hold any correspondence with Hereticks That of Lateran under Innocent the third which enjoyns That if Temporal Princes neglect to root out Hereticks there shall be notice given of it to the Pope that so the Pope may pronounce their Subjects absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance and dispose of their Countries to Catholicks who may discharge their duty better That of Lyons under Innocent the fourth which deposed the Emperor Frederick the Second released his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and forbid them upon penalty of being Anathematized to acknowledg or obey him That of Constance which in the Bull of Martin the fifth containing the Clause de sacro approbante Concilio subjects not only Patriarchs Archbishops and Bishops but even Kings and other supreme Governors of what quality soever they be to the judgment of the Inquisitors even to a deprivation from their honours and all other worldly possessions That of Lateran under Leo the Tenth which sets the Pope's Authority above that of Councils directly contrary to what was defined by the Council of Constance with the approbation of Pope Martin the Fifth and to the Council of Basil with the approbation of Pope Eugenius the Fourth In a word the endeavouring to assert that Councils are infallible and giving them such an Authority as supercedes all examination is so bold an undertaking that many eminent persons in the Church of Rome it self thinking it could never be effected have not scrupled to declare for the other opinion Among these was the famous Abbot of Palerma principal of the Canonists whose words are so very considerable that I cannot omit repeating them I am of opinion says he that if the Pope have better reasons and better authorities than the Council he ought to stick to his own judgment For the Council may and sometimes actually has erred as particularly in the case of a Ravishers marrying with the woman on whom the Rape was committed Saint Jerom's opinion was preferred before the Decree of a Council because it was really better For in matters of Faith a single private mans judgment ought to be preferred before the Pope's if this private judgment be grounded upon better reasons taken out of the Old and New Testament It signifies nothing to alledg the Council cannot err because Jesus Christ hath prayed for his Church that it fail not In answer to this I say that although a General Council do indeed represent the Church universally yet it is plain the Vniversal Church is not there really but only by way of representation For the Vniversal Church is made up of the company of all the Faithful so that they are the Faithful throughout the whole world that constitute the Church Vniversally of which Christ is the Head and the Spouse The Pope is Christs Vicar but he is not truly the Head of the Church And this Church it is that cannot err Thus then it may so happen that the true Faith of Christ may continue entire in a single person and then the true Faith would not fail in the Church as the right of a Community may be preserved in a single member of it See now what the force of truth made one of the greatest Doctors of his Age say The Catholick Church in his opinion consists only of the Faithful it is of them only that Christ is the Head and the Spouse to them alone he hath promised that they shall abide for ever Councils may represent the Church but it does not follow from thence that they are the Church They may fall into Errors The true Church which refuses to fall with them may subsist in a very few and these
band and that which constitutes the Church we are driven to maintain one of these three things Either that such a profession does confer the spirit of Christ Or without Christ's spirit one may still be his Or that the things which make it to be a Church do not yet make it to be Christ's The first of these would be absurd For what more so than to assert ' That a bare profession of Christianity confers the Spirit of Christ At this rate every Hypocrite is a partaker of that Holy Spirit The second That one without Christ's Spirit may still be his directly contradicts Saint Paul's assertion which positively declares That he who hath not Christ's Spirit is not his And for the third That the things which make it to be a Church do not yet make it to be Christ's it may be M. de Condom may not like this himself I for my part look upon it as a very strange position For can one say that what precisely constitutes the Church does not make it Christ's This is as much as to say that the Church is not his Body nor his Spouse nor his well-beloved nor any of all those things the Scripture calls it In a word 't is to say that it is not considered in this quality any part of his concern If M. de Condom frame to himself such a Church as this let him at least give us leave to enquire why he does afterwards appropriate the promises to it For what right can the Church have to these if as such it be not Christ's nor hath Communion with him These two Propositions are evidently destructive of one another If the Church as such be not Christ's it has no share in his promises if it hath then it is his as a Church Let him chuse which he please if the first our Controversie is at an end for to what purpose should we disspute of a Church which he says is Jesus Christ's and yet is not his nor hath any title to the promises If the second let him not talk any more of a Church considered as such being constituted by a bare outward profession For this not conferring Christ's Spirit cannot make the Church his or if it can St. Paul does not say true when he tells us expresly That if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his IX The sundry passages of Scripture concerning Hypocrites who cloak themselves with such an outward profession abundantly prove them not to be of Christ's Church He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkness And a little after In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the Devil whosover doth not righteousness is not God neither he that loveth not his brother Again afterwards He that loveth not knoweth not God for God is love St. Jude speaking of these Hypocrites calls them Spots in our feasts of charity clouds without water trees without fruit twice dead plucked up by the Roots Jesus Christ himself says In the last day he will profess unto them he never knew them What colour then have we for making such members of the Church which is Christ's Body But that place of St. John removes all the difficulty They went out from us but they were of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us What a plain difference is here made between being among us and being of us being among us is proper for Hypocrites that are mixed with the Faithful and joyn in the same profession Being with us is sincerely and truly to be of the Church for which something more than an outward profession is requisite X. We read in Scripture of a twofold Call one by the meer Preaching of the Word commonly termed an outward Call the other by the Preaching of the Word and the Holy Spirit both stiled an inward Call Of the first our Saviour speaks when he says Many are called but few chosen Of the second St. Paul Whom he did predestinate them he also cased and whom he called them he also justified Now the Church whose very name implies a Call must needs have been the effect of one of these two just mentioned But if defined by a bare profession it cannot refer to one or other of these nor can it answer the design of either It does not fulfil the end of the first for the Preaching of the Gospel does not call men to a meer Profession of believing Jesus Christ's Doctrine A Hypocrite is so far from complying with this Call that he rejects and mocks at it It does not refer to the second Call because the Spirit which calls with the Word is a Spirit of Regeneration and not bare profession What Call shall we refer it to then I know not any third the Scripture mentions not any and the nature of the thing will not admit of any We can consider God in such a case but according to two different capacities either as a Law-giver commanding exhorting promising and threating or as an absolute disposer of Events and so bringing to pass in us the thing he commands us But whether commanding us or whether working in to he never stops at a bare profession he goes on to the truth of Holiness and Faith his Word enjoyns it his Spirit produces it So that whether soever of these two Calls you suppose the Church to obey it must either proceed to a true Conversion or be no Church for the proper and natural signification of the word is a Called Society but no one ever called it to an outward profession and no more XI I suppose it is a maxim among all Christians That Jesus Christ hath no more Churches than one and that this on Earth together with that in Heaven make but that one thus much we learn from the Trent-Catcchisin it self A sure method then of discovering the true nature and essence of the Church upon Earth would be to search into that in Heaven for it is plain were these of different natures they would be no longer one but two Churches of a several species Thus much I think must be granted and so likewise must the Conclusion I deduce from it viz. That either the nature of the Church Triumphant must exist in a bare profession or that of the Church Militant cannot If the Churches Unity here below be a Unity of Profession an external Unity only and the internal one be but accidental then the Unity of the Church above must be External too and no more and that Internal one resulting from the agreement of hearts and wills no more essential to it than to this below Otherwise as was said before they must be two different Churches Let them be so kind then to clear this Point Whether we must believe that a true Piety true Regeneration and true Holiness are
Believers that is not of the true Church On the other side when we see men undergo long sharp tryals without being removed either from the profession of the true Doctrine and Worship or from that of Righteousness and Holiness in this respect here is made a positive distinction and such as makes us acknowledg that these persons are of the true Church of Jesus Christ I confess these distinctions are not always either so certain as never to admit of mistakes nor so universal as not to confound one with another For a man may judg rashly of both sorts either for want of knowing mens particular circumstances and the motives they went upon or some other way and it is never seen that all Hypocrites discover themselves at once But however there is great use to be made of this distinction and such a visibility of the true Church results from it as is in some sort personal according to our Hypothesis Now Sir you see whether M. de Condom was in the right to take it for granted as if it were a certain truth that there was no visible Church but such a one as he defined that comprehends good and bad true Believers and Worldlings contrary to the Scriptures and St. Augustin's sense You see too whether he was in the right to maintain in this first part of his discourse that we deny the Churches visibility The Pretended Reform'd says he will not have the visible Church to be that which is called Jesus Christ's Body Which is then that Body where God hath established some Apostles c. Which is that Body where God hath placed several Members and different Graces the Grace of Ministry the Grace of Teaching the Grace of Exhortation and Consolation the Grace of Ruling Which I say is that Body if it be not the visible Church We never denied the visible Church upon Earth to be Christ's Body not the whole Body indeed for there is one part of it collected in Heaven and another not yet in being but still that part upon Earth is Jesus Christ's Body so the Scripture calls it and we are so far from thinking as he saies that quite contrary we prove Hypocrites and Worldlings to be really no part of the true visible Church by this very Argument that it is called in Scripture the Body of Jesus Christ For this reason the visible Church is thus defined in the 27th Article of our Confession of Faith The company of the Faithful agreeing to follow the Word of God and that pure Religion grounded thereon and who constantly make proficiency therein Now this Company of the Faithful thus described is and is called the Body of Jesus Christ If M. de Condom had been at the pains to read Calvin he would find him speaking of the visible Church in the 4th Book of his Institutions Chap. 1. thus It is no ordinary commendation the Scripture gives it when 't is said Ephes 5. 26 27. that Christ hath chosen it and separated it for his spouse to make her without spot and wrinkle his body and his fullness M. Mestrezzat speaking of the visible Church in the same sense says The instruments made use of by God to build his Church are the Pastors and Ministers of his Gospel Ephes 1. 23. according to that of St. Paul Ephes 4. He hath given some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the gathering together the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ And a little after The same Body of Christ which is invisible as to the Election of God and inward sanctification of the heart enjoys the visible Ministry of the Word and from it brings forth fruit unto salvation For we must not look for the Church of God out of this visible state of the Ministry of the Word The same thing I say with relation to that other passage of St. Paul where he says Ephes 5. 25 26 27. Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word That he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle They will not have it possible says M. de Condom Conference Page 5. for this place to be understood of the visible Church not yet of the Church on Earth He must pardon me if I say he is mistaken for tho we understand by this the Church already in Heaven yet do we besides understand the visible Church upon Earth and M. Mestrezzat speaking of this passage saies expresly That St. Paul there sets forth the Church as one and the same Body receiving Grace and Glory and makes Glory to be the perfection and accomplishment of Grace It is evident then that the visible Church is in our Opinion Jesus Christ's Body or which comes all to one that the Body of Christ which is the true Church upon Earth is visible I should now conclude my Third Enquiry did I not think my self under an obligation to remove some difficulties which may be started upon it For it may be said the Ministry is common to good and bad and consequently it makes a Church composed of good men and bad I answer that the Ministry and the use of it is common both to good and bad comes to pass only by accident and from the treachery of the Enemy Of right it belongs to true Believers only and its genuine design was for them Jesus Christ gave it for the assembling of the Saints and instituted it to increase and cultivate his good Corn. If the Tares use it or to speak more truly abuse it this is contrary to his intention For his hand never sowed these but the enemy's who rose by night for that purpose It is sure then that the Ministry of it self does not make up a Church composed of good and bad men because such only as it was intended to gather are to be reckoned of his visible Church Now the Ministry is designed to gather the true Believers and truly Righteous not the worldlings and hypocrites in the least If they thrust themselves into the Assemblies it is not the Ministry that calls them but the spirit of the world that sends them thither An invincible argument that there is no other visible Church but what consists of true Believers because they are the only persons call'd to Religious Assemblies and it is not Jesus Christ but Jesus Christ's enemy that thrusts others into them To give you yet further satisfaction as to this Point permit me Sir to interpose between M. de Condom and St. Augustin not to set them at difference but endeavour to reconcile them M. de Condom assures me that Jesus Christ in that passage Tell it the Church spoke of a visible Church a Church visible by the exercise of the Ministry St. Augustin on the other side assuâ—es me that he speaks of
could heartily have wisht that M. de Condom would have reflected a little upon the use St. Paul made of this instance of Israel in Elijah's time because it is exactly the same with what the Protestant Ministers make of it now It was objected to the Apostle that from his Principles it would follow that God had cast away his people in as much as the whole Body of that people had crucified Jesus Christ and walked contrary to his new Religion if therefore he would undertake to maintain his new Religion was the Right he must at the same time own that God had forsaken his Church No says he God hath not cast away his people for there is a remnant through the election of Grace and hereupon he alledges what happened to Israel heretofore in Elijah's time when God reserved to himself Seven thousand men in secret that had not bowed the knee to Baal What can be more exactly parallel than the use he makes of this passage and that the Protestants make 'T is objected to us that from our Principles it follows God hath cast away his Church because the whole Body of that Church condemns our Reformation and walks contrary to our new Religion They teach that this visible exterior Church may cease to be upon Earth says M. de Condom No such matter say we God hath not deserted his Church there is a remnant according to the Election of Grace and in proof of this we urge the instance of Israel heretofore in Elijah's time If to charge the Protestants with unsincerity for alledging this were at the same time to charge St. Paul If the exception of Judah where the worship in Elias his time was in great lustre were good and to be admitted against us the same was also good and to be admitted against the Apostle For what do we more than he did or what do we say but what we have learnt from Him ought to be said in this Case Let St. Paul then acquit himself and he shall in doing so acquit us Now this is done without any difficulty for he need only Answer that the exception does not make at all against him The business is to know which is the true people of God his true Church which he never forsakes Now it is plain by God's answer to Elijah that this is not the Croud the vast Number not the party of greatest strength or which makes most noise in the World but some persons reserved a remnant according to the election of Grace these are his true people and his true Church Tho Judah had still maintain'd the Divine Worship in its greatest lustre yet does not this detract from the truth of God's declaration made to Elias viz. that his true people his true Church consists of this Remnant or these Persons reserved This is all St. Paul desires this is likewise all the Protestants desire to make of it Lord says Elijah they have broken down thine Altars and slain thy Prophets with the sword and I only am left Had God made his Church to consist in an exterior Body of men who should preserve his worship in a constant uninterrupted purity what could have been more natural than to return this answer Wherefore dost thou complain have I not still my Church in Judah The Cardinal du Perron would have replied exactly thus and from him it is that M. de Condom hath borrowed this shift Yet God answers in a very different manner he fixes his true Church not in the exterior Body but in the Persons he had reserved The Apostle takes the advantage of an Argument against what the Jews in his time objected and we in like manner take the same advantage against what is objected to us now Afterward M. de Condom frames to himself an Objection drawn from the Disorders and horrible Corruptions predominant in Judah during the Reign of Ahaz who shut up the Temple of God and caused Vrijah the Priest to sacrifice unto Idols and afterward under Manasseh whose Impieties transcended those of Ahaz To which he answers first That Isaiah who lived during all the Reign of Ahaz for all these abominations of the King of the Priest Urijah and almost all the People never separated from the Communion of Judah which shews that there is always a People of God from whose Communion 't is never lawful to separate Laying aside for one minute the business of Separation we must in the mean time of necessity grant that this exterior Society called the People of God were prodigiously corrupted in matters of Faith and Worship that their Corruption was publick and general diffused not among some private Persons only but through the whole Body of the ordinary Ministry So that the true Church that to which the Promises of God belong that which must not be interrupted nor totally fail must be acknowledged to consist not in the whole Body of this exterior Society but merely in the Body of true Believers who it is possible may sometimes be reduced to a very inconsiderable number of this Society and scarce make any Figure at all in it We must likewise acknowledge it possible for such an universal Corruption to happen in this Society that there shall be no longer any thing perfectly sound and entire in it that is nothing in the publick Worship without some tincture of impurity For at the same time that Ahaz Reigned in Judah and the Corruption was general there Pekah was King in Isreal who says the Scripture did evil in the sight of the Lord and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin So that the publick Worship was then corrupted every where as well in Israel as Judah What then became of M. de Condom's exterior Church which he says can never err in her Determinations Where was then that Church which does not only maintain some truth but teaches and maintains all truth Well but still M. de Condom tells us Isaiah never separated from the Communion of this People no more than did the rest of the Prophets Now this very thing strengthens our Argument and renders it impregnable because from hence it necessarily follows that there was not in any place of the World besides any publick Worship nor any Exterior Body at all little or great that served God in perfect Purity So that we must inevitably allow one of these two things Either that the Church was at that time utterly extinct or that it was preserved in this Remnant which we see God spoke of to Elijah The first of these destroys the Promises of God the second establishes our Opinion and quite overthrows that of the Romanists Let us now examine how Isaiah and the other Prophets not separating from the Body of the People is to be understood Can we suppose them to have been partakers of the Wickednesses that then prevailed in the publick Worship By no means These Prophets M. de Condom says
triumphant in Heaven that which is now militant on Earth and that which is not yet in the world but shall be in succeeding Ages All these three Churches do really make but one because united together in the eternal purpose of God appointed to know one and the same Word to partake of one and the same Spirit and to inherit one and the same Glory They are but one Family for they have the same Father the same Rights and Priviledges the same Hopes and are called to the same Duties They are but one body under the protection and Guidance of Jesus Christ their only Head who is as the Scripture says The same yesterday to day and for ever And this is our sense of the Church called in the Creed Catholick or Universal The Latitude we here take the Church in hath displeased M. de Condom he says we put a wrong sense upon the Article and to understand it thus is in effect to reject it He is of opinion it should be confined to this part upon Earth which he defines A Society making profession to believe c. But in the first place M. de Condom must allow us to tell him that Saint Augustine however hath taught us to explain the Church in our Creed after this manner That Father indeed went farther than we do for he hath not scrupled to include in this notion the Angels confirmed in Grace Here says he and 't is in his very Exposition of the Creed that he says it we must take the Church whole and entire not only for that part of it upon earth which praises the name of God from the rising of the Sun unto the going down thereof singing to God a new Song since their deliverance from their former Captivity but also for that other part which is in Heaven and never was separated from the Divine presence the Blessed and Holy Angels The Body of Christ says he in another place is the Church not this or that Church but which is diffused over the whole world not that which is made up of men now alive but consisting of those which have been before us and those which shall come after us even to the end of the world For the whole Church being composed of all the Faithful in as much as all the Faithful are the Members of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ for its Head and this Head though exalted high in the Heavens does notwithstanding still continue to govern his body M. de Condom must likewise allow us to tell him that the Catechism of the Council of Trent hath given this sense of the Church in our Creed The Church it says and 't is in the very Explication of this Article hath two parts one of which is called Triumphant the other Militant The Triumphant is that illustrious assembly of the Blessed and all those who have vanquished and triumph'd over the World the Flesh and the Devil and who being now delivered from the miseries of this life enjoy everlasting rest and felicity The Church Militant is the company of all the Faithful yet alive upon earth which is therefore called Militant because they are engaged in a perpetual war with these most deadly enemies Satan the World and the Flesh Yet must we not from hence imagine that they are two distinct Churches but as was said two parts of one and the same Church one of which is gone before and already possest of its Heavenly Country The other daily following after till at length being united with our Saviour it shall rest above in Eternal happiness Again We must desire M. de Condom's leave to say that the very Title of Catholick or Vniversal used in the Creed does lead us to this extended notion of the Church This to me seems evident for two reasons First that this Title is given the Church to distinguish it from all false Churches which do neither exist always nor every where but spring up and die away in some particular places and at some certain times as having no sound nor lasting principle Secondly that this Title was to distinguish it from particular Churches which are but members of this great Body collected by Christ and separated from the world that he might sanctifie it to himself Whence it follows that when we say the Vniversal or Catholick Church by this is plainly meant the Church intire and at large without exception or limitation either as to time or place Lastly M. de Condom must allow us to tell him that we are brought to this notion by what follows in the Creed The Communion of Saints which terms explain this of the Catholick Church For the Saints are not only persons now living upon Earth but those also that reign in Heaven and those which shall be to the worlds end and 't is with all these that we are in Communion If the Communion of Saints were to be understood of such only as make profession to believe in Jesus Christ and govern themselves by his word This could be no other than an external Communion by living under the same Ministry and partaking of the same Sacraments which good and bad men enjoy equally And certainly this would fall far short of so great so Majestick an expression and consequently could not deserve a room in our Creed But says M. de Condom in the Creed which was only a bare declaration of faith this term must be taken in its most proper and most natural signification and such as is most used among Christians I own it must be taken in its most proper and most natural sense but even this supplies us with a fresh argument against him it being certain that the most proper and most natural sense is to take the Vniversal Church for the company of all those that are truly the faithful separated from the world by the Word and Holy Spirit of God according to the purpose of his Election from the beginning to the end of all things I acknowledg the word Church when used in a Civil sense as for instance when spoken of the people of Israel does most properly signifie an external and visible company and so far I am of M. de Condom's mind both as to what he urges out of the Acts and from the Septuagint Translation But still I assert that this word when applied to a Christian Society does not properly denote a visible Congregation or an outward profession of the Faith and no more but chiefly an inward calling a spiritual communion and such as that outward is only a consequence of and does depend upon A man must be utterly ignorant of Christianity to deny this truth The Church then is a name for something within and not barely to signifie what passes without so that implying an inward communion when the Title of Vniversal is put to it it must needs mean the whole body of true and faithful Christians By the same reason I affirm this to be its most natural
of the Church The Church is the Body of Jesus Christ according to that of the Apostle for His body the Church whence it is evident that such as are not accounted his Members cannot obtain Salvation Now the Members of Jesus Christ are united by Love both to one another and to him their Head A little further answering the Donatists Cavils against the Catholicks for having persecuted them for having burnt their Bibles for having sacrificed to Idols I return the same answer says he which I have often done already That what you say either is not true or if it be it concerns not Christ's good Corn but the Chaff The Church does not perish for this which shall be throughly purged from these men at the last exact judgment I enquire after the true Church That is where she is that hears the words of Jesus Christ and does them that builds upon a Rock that thus hearing and doing does yet bear with those that hear and do not and so build upon the Sand. I enquire where the Corn is which must grow among Tares till the Harvest Matt. 13. not what the Tares have done or do I enquire where Christ's Well-beloved is she who is among the wicked Daughters as the Lily among Thorns Cant. 2. not what the Thorns have done or now do I enquire where the good Fish are Matt. 13. which till they are drawn to shore must be content to lye in the same Net with bad ones not what the bad Fish have done or now do Afterwards again Seeing both good and bad administer and receive the Sacrament of Baptism and the good only are spiritually regenerated become his true Members and make up the building of Christ's Body 't is plain that Church consists of the good only to which it was said As the lily among thorns so is my beloved among the daughters Cant. 2. For it consists of those that build upon a Rock that is that hear the Word of God and do it For this Reason when St. Peter acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ the Son of God he said unto him Matt. 16. And upon this Rock will I build my Church This is not therefore those who build upon the Sand i. e. they that hear Christ's Words and do them not For the same Christ hath said Matt. 7. He that heareth my words and doth them I will liken him to a wise man that built his house upon a rock And a little before the end of the Book There are many who communicate with the Church in the Sacraments yet are not in the Church Else if when one is excommunicated visibly he be then only separated from the Church when he is restored to the Communion we must say that he is actually stated in the Church again But suppose his return be hypocritical That he bring a heart inveterate against the Truth and the Church must we own that such a one is perfectly reconciled and become a true member of Jesus Christ because the outward formalities of receiving him in have past upon him God forbid As therefore he is not really of the Church tho readmitted into the Communion so if before Excommunication he had a Soul at enmity with the Truth he was in truth separated even then And thus it is that the good and I bad seed grow together in the same common Field until Harvest that is the Children of the Kingdom and the Children of the wicked one If after all this M. de Condom shall still maintain that an outward profession and participation of the Sacraments are sufficient to make men members of the Church we may take the confidence to tell him that his Authority is not yet advanced so far with us as to be reckon'd of equal weight with St. Augustin's In his Book against Cresconiâ—s Good and bad men he says may baptize but God alone who is eternally good can purifie the conscience The wicked are condemned of Christ without the Churches knowledg as having an evil and a polluted conscience and are not even now in Christ's body the Church For Christ cannot have such for his members as are condemned and therefore they Baptize even while they are out of the Church themselves God forbid such monsters should be reckoned among the members of the only Dove God forbid such should enter into the inclosed garden whose keeper can never be imposed upon In like manner does this holy Father speak in his Book of the Christian Doctrine Tichonius the Donatist haveing busied himself in laying down some Rules for the understanding of Scripture St. Augustine takes them into examination and this is what he says to the second of them His second Rule concerns the twofold Body of Christ that is an improper term for in reality none are his body who shall not continue with him for ever He should rather have exprest it concerning our Lords true or mixt body or true and counterfeit or some such like term For though hypocrites seem to be of the Church they are so far from being with him to all eternity that they are really not with him now He might then be allowed to lay down this Rule but he should have phrased it concerning the mixt Church And afterwards Tichonius his seventh and last Rule is concerning the Devil and his body For the Devil is the head of the wicked and they in some sort his members appointed to undergo with him the punishment of everlasting fire as Christ is the head of the Church which is his body and appointed to eternal glory with him As therefore in the first Rule entituled Of the Lord and his body when the Scripture speaks of one and the same person we must distinguish carefully what belongs to the Head and what to the Body so as to this last Rule we shall find things spoken of the Devil which do not so much belong to Him and his Body Now that Body of his is composed not only of such as are visibly without but those also who though in truth they belong to him yet continue for a time mixed with the Church I make no doubt but so many passages of St. Augustine together with those other proofs I instanced in before for the resolving this question may make M. de Condom a little uneasie though he think never so well of his own principle But in short it concerns not only this Bishop but all others that take this dispute into consideration to know once for all what mighty difficulties they must overcome before they can establish the pretended Authority of their Church That is to say in one word it is fit they know that in order to compass this design they must triumph over Scripture triumph over Reason triumph over the Fathers but above all they must declare open war with St. Austin particularly The Throne of Rome's Hierarchy is never capable of being set up but upon these foundations or to speak more properly upon
of Jesus Christ ceases to be visible but he would not be well-pleased for that reason to be taxed with saying he ceases to be there at all But however let M. de Condom put what sense he please upon our words it is certain we acknowledg the Church to be perpetually visible in the meaning I explain'd just now And M. de Condom could never have spent his time to less purpose than in taking such pains to confute an opinion which we never held against him Quest 4. What Church the Promises of Jesus Christ belong to whether that defined by M. de Condom a Society making profession to believe c. or that which we define A Society which making profession to govern it self by Christ's Word does really govern it self by it M. de Condom speaking of us in one place of his Discourse says They have not the Consolation which the Catholicks have to see Jesus Christ's promise visibly accomplisht and maintain'd during so many Ages They cannot shew a Church which has ever been since Jesus Christ came to build it on the Rock and to save his word they are obliged to have recourse to a Church of the Predestinate which neither themselves nor any else can shew After having cleared the perpetual visibility of the Church as you lately saw judg you Sir what ground there is for his sayings we have not the consolation of seeing Jesus Christ's Promise visibly accomplish'd and maintain'd during so many Ages and whether we have not more than it is possible to have according to the Church of Romes principle M. de Condom according to his Principle sees the duration of a Church whose whole essence consists in an outward profession What is there in this more than human We see the duration of a Church whose essence consists in true Faith and Regeneration What is there in this that is not all Divine M. de Condom sees the duration of a Church supported by politick methods by paying a blind obedience to the injunctions of great men and those perhaps Hypocrites too What is there in this more than human We see the duration of a Church preserved in spight of confusion and all the froward malice of men What is there in this less than Divine They cannot says he shew a Church which hath ever been since Jesus Christ came to build it on the Rock Yes we shew this Church built on the Rock for when we shew the Body in which God nourishes and breeds up his true Believers we shew at the same time those true Believers which are his Church built on the Rock tho mixt with such as build on the Sand. When we shew the held where Jesus Christ sowed his good Seed we shew the Wheat tho there be Tares among it But let M. de Condom tell us if he think fit how he can shew us a Church built on the Rock making as he does the essence of the Church to consist entirely in an outward profession If he call this a Church upon the Rock Jesus Christ himself will reply for that such only are built upon a Rock who hear this word and do it whereas all besides are built upon the Sand. To save Christ's Word continues he they are obliged to have recourse to a Church of the Predestinate Does M. de Condom blame us for seeking the accomplishment of Jesus Christ's Promises in the body of his Elect and true Believers Pray where should we look for it else In a croud of Hypocrites and Reprobates that have no Faith no Holiness no Piety but in outward appearance only Such as God never call'd and Jesus Christ shall one day tell he never knew them Is not this of Cardinal Bellarmin's Perron's and M. de Condoms a curious Church to the constituting whereof no inward virtue is necessarily required but merely an outward profession of Faith and communicating in the Sacraments A Church whose Unity the formal essence of it is that of an external Vocation not that of Predestination nor internal Faith nor a Vnion of Souls by the works of Love In a word a Church defined not by believing and governing it self by God's word but by making profession to believe and govern it self by God's VVord Is not this putting a mighty value upon Jesus Christ's Promises to apply them not only to profane and worldly men as well as the Saints and regenerate but to such a Church as would remain entire tho there were no true believers nor righteous men in it and not cease to be the true Church of Christ tho it were composed of Hypocrites and none else Thus far Sir there is no great perspicacity required to discern that the question in hand resolves it self there being little probability that Jesus Christ was so lavish of his Promises But however let us examine the matter a little more closely The first passage M. de Condom presents us with is that of St. Paul Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might cleanse it with the washing of Water by the Word that he might make it a glorious Church having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing but that it might be holy and without blemish And a little after No man hateth his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church For we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones We see in these words the obligation Jesus Christ put himself under to sanctify his Church to make it a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle holy and without blemish to nourish and cherish it as his own flesh and bones Our business is to know whether this obligation can upon any pretence whatever respect Hypocrites and wicked men And who will be perswaded it does This Church M. do Condom says is glorious because she glorifies God because she declares to all the Earth the Glory of Jesus Christ's Gospel and Cross Now as to the wicked of whom we are here treating there need but this one word be added That they glorify God and the Gospel in hypocrisy and dissimulation but in their hearts deny it Then see what God himself hath spoken as to this matter Vnto the ungodly said God why dost thou preach my laws and takest my Covenant in thy mouth This Church M. de Condom tells us is holy because she always constantly and without varying teaches the Holy Doctrine Add here But as for the wicked if they teach the holy Doctrine this is but with their lips and in shew only then see what St. Paul says They have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof from such turn away This Church according to M. de Condom hath neither spot nor wrinkle because she hath neither any evil Error nor any evil Maxim and because she instructs and contains in her bosom the Elect of God Add But as for sinners They follow Truth and Right only in pretence Then see what
purify her that she may be a peculiar people zealous of good works He will build her upon himself to be an holy Temple an habitation of God through the spirit He will wrde his laws in their hearts and engrave them in their minds He will take away the heart of stone and give them an heart of flesh a new heart and a new spirit How is it possible that nothing of all this should surprise the Doctors of the Romish Communion nor stagger their confidence of finding these Promises fulfilled as well in the bad as the good the just as well as unjust For in short if wicked men who have no more than external profession become by virtue of that profession really and truly Members of the Church the Promises concern them and they have a right to them in common with others for certainly they concern as many as make up the Body of Christ Now shall we say that notwithstanding these are drowned in vice Yet the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against them provided they can but counterfeit dexterously Shall we say that tho gangrened and putrified from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot it matters not They shall be without spot or wrinkle holy and without blemish so they do but continue in an external profession Shall we say that tho they have no Faith no Justice no Piety they need not trouble themselves Jesus Christ will be with them alway by the presence of his Holy Spirit provided they can but maintain a fair outside Shall we say that although they prostitute themselves to all wickedness and villany they need not be so much concerned Jesus Christ will not fail to redeem them from all iniquity and to make of them a peculiar people zealous of good works provided they be not wanting in dissimulation Here is no invidious aggravation in all this The Promises of Christ are plain matters of fact delivered expresly in Scripture in favour of the Church The defining of the Church by a bare external profession is another plain matter of fact to be seen through all the Writers of that Communion and particularly this discourse of M. de Condom The applying these Promises to the Church thus defined is what M. de Condom stitly contends for and makes it an inducement to peoples conversion So that I do not in the least exaggerate nor do I see what reply they can make To talk of two true Churches even in Christ's sight one to which the Promises belong as such viz. That of True Believers and another to which they do not belong as such viz. That whose essence consists in the external profession besides that it would be advancing a notion contrary to Scripture and Reason which inform us but of one true Church would be to argue to no purpose for wherefore should we argue about a Church to which the Promises of Jesus Christ have no relation Why should we invest with such glorious and divine priviledges a Church to which Christ hath promised nothing at all Or what reason have we with a blind obedience to submit to a Church where it may happen that wicked men and Enemies of God may get the upper hand and the Spirit of Christ bear no Rule in it To say we ought to distinguish between two kinds of Promises one such as respect inward Sanctification and Salvation the other respecting the perpetual Visibility of the Ministry and its Infallibility in the external profession of the Truth and that the first sort are peculiar to the Elect and true Believers in the Church but the other belong to the whole Body of that Society making Profession besides that this would be to start a Division of the Promises which the Scripture divided not for all made there are made to one and the same Body to one and the same Church without distinction besides that this would be to frame Promises that never were given such as a perpetual Infallibility of the Ministry in the external Profession of the Truth as we lately saw Besides this I say it is plainly to suppose that the Church as a Church hath no promises made her of Sanctification and Salvation and so consequently 't is to oppose Scripture which makes them to her formally under the name and title of a Church The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against my Church says Christ Christ loved the Church says St. Paul and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie it and present it to himself a glorious Church having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish The Lord says the Apostle nourishes and cherishes the Church all these Promises imply Sanctification and Salvation What can we then with reason say to this matter except what was said upon the foregoing Question to wit That we sometimes form an Idea of the Church by a Judgment of Charity so looking upon all external Professors in general to be true Believers and by this Judgment we include in our Notion abundance of People who really and indeed are not of the Church and consequently have no title to the Promises of Jesus Christ But this Notion is rectified by a Judgment of Reflection Exactness and Truths formed from the Idea's which Scripture and right Reason give us of the true Church restraining it to true Believers only and that the Promises of Scripture must be applyed to it in this last true exact Notion only Add to this that this true Church being intermixt with the counterfeit is not indeed so distinctly visible that we can say with certainly this or that particular man is a true Believer for this is proper to God alone but that it is however visible in a sure though indistinct manner which will go so far as to affirm That there are true Pelievers in such an external Profession Add further that this Church thus visible becomes more or less so according as Corruptions and Disorders are more or less predominant in their exteriour Society and that sometimes it is mightily celipsed partly through the prevalence of worldly superstitious and such like Persons partly through the infirmities of most true Believers but still that it never was absolutely invisible Add once more that this Church now upon Earth together with that in Heaven and that which shall spring up in succeeding Ages are all three that Vniversal Church we profess to believe in our Creed Add I say these three last Propositions to the two foregoing and so you will comprise all I have advanced hitherto you will be furnished with certain uncontestable Principles grounded upon Scripture upon Reason upon the Fathers and upon experience by the help of which you will be able with great ease to throw off all those difficulties usually started by the Romanists upon this Subject This will be further evidenced by what I am in the next place about to say Natural and necessary Consequences of the
amount even to a Demonstration Which way can any one maintain that Definition of the Church which goes upon a bare outward profession and makes it consist of bad as well as good men and which Stapleton Bellarmin Cardinal du Perron and some other Controversial Divines look upon as a principal point after having observed what I have written on this subject in the second question of the Letter to my Friend and the Examination of M. de Meaux's ninth Reflection What pretence can men have for carrying on the Churches visibility so far as to a plain particular and constant designation of mens persons that help to make up that Body after having considered what is said to this purpose in my Third Question and in the Examination of M. de Meaux's Eleventh Reflection How can men fancy that Jesus Christ's Promises belong to this exterior Body composed of good and bad men promiscuously after what I have written to this purpose upon the fourth Question and the Examination of the Twelfth Reflection Which way can the External Succession be defended in the sense these Gentlemen understand it after having weighed my answer to the Second Part of M. de Condom 's Discourse and compared it with my Examination of the Eighth and Thirteenth Reflection What can be sâ—â—d in behalf of the Supreme Authority Church Assemblies pretend to and the ready Obedience to them without any trying their decisions which these Gentlemen would make us believe ought to be paid them after having compared the Relation of our Conference with what I have written on the Six first Reflections I must confess the strength of my Reasons may possibly receive some disadvantage from the manner of my delivering them and that it required a more skilful hand than mine which might have spoke with all the elegance and address of my renowned Adversary But yet I dare aver that even in my plain way and in the midst of all my bluntness there will be found enough to satisfy and convince my Readers That the Systeme treated of is upon many accounts quite destroyed both as to the whole and as to each of its parts I am sensible this Systeme is a thing contrived with abundance of cunning and skill that it was never the invention of one single Brain that they have made it look as specious as the thing could possibly bear But all the skill and cunning in the World can never give a thing so great a lustre as Truth and it is plain that That Systeme can never be true which is repugnant to the evidence both of Scripture and Reason I may add too that notwithstanding all the pains taken to contrive it as strong as might be they are forced to leave it with many weaknesses which it was impossible for them to conceal Nay such a Systeme particularly is This which contradicts experience and contradicts it so far too that were the Church of Rome it self for whose advantage it was first establish'd to be tryed by these Principles that compose it she could not make her party good Let us if you please venture an experiment upon that principle which asserts the perpetuity of the same Exterior Body Will you take the confidence to call that of the three first Ages the same Body with the modern Church of Rome where there is not the least tittle to be found of direct Invocation of Saints and Angels in the publick service of the Church where there is not the least addressing to Images and Pictures in their worship where there is no prohibition of the Cup to the Laity nor of the use of Scripture in the vulgar Tongue without leave granted by the Ordinary nor of Praying in a Language which the people do not understand where we find nothing to the contrary but that the Scripture is the only and the sufficient Rule of Faith in all things necessary to Salvation where we meet with no such number of Sacraments as seven no use made of Papal Indulgences no necessity of Auricular Confession no Elevation of the Host that the people may prostrate themselves in adoration to it no Transubstantiation nor Real presence made Doctrines no mention of the Church of Rome's being the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches nor of I know not how many things besides which are of very considerable importance Will you call the Church of Rome as it stands at this day as it looks upon the opinion of the Mâ—llenaries to be erroneous as it prohibits giving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to little Children as it believes the beatifick vision of God antecedent to the last Judgment as it forbids the Clergy to Marry will you call this I say the same Exterior Body with the Primitive Church which believed and practised directly the contrary To call this the same Body is like Theseus his Ship which was always called the same Ship tho there was scarce a Plank in it all that had not been changed A Second experiment may be made in that Principle which relates to the Succession in Episcopal Sees as these Gentlemen are pleased to understand it For how can they ever maintain this Succession in the See of Rome which they look upon as the very Original and Centre of Church-Unity while they agree as they do that many of those Popes were intruders against all Law and Custom and consequently false Popes such as Baronius calls Violent seizers of the Apostolick See unlawful Vsurpers of the Papal Name and Chair False Popes which only served to make the times they lived in notorious And now seeing this intrusion continued for almost one whole Age and the call to all Ecclesiastical Functions depends upon the See of Rome what must we think of those which proceeded from these false Popes and those that followed after them How can they make good this Succession in the person of Vigilius who by their own confession was an Usurper of the See over Sylverius and a Schismatick excommunicated he and all his party that adhered to him by Sylverius the rightful Pope Which adherents were not only all the Clergy of Rome but all the Archbishops and Bishops of the Empire excepting only four Bishops that were banisht with Sylverius and joyned with him in signing the sentence of Excommunication Sylverius dyed Vigilius kept the Papacy still and yet the Excommunication was not taken off It is acknowledged to be a just and valid sentence and yet from these excommunicated persons are all the Popes Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Bishops descended ever since Baronius in the relation of this Accident endeavours all he can to deprive us of the Conclusions we draw from it He tells us therefore that he guesses Vigilius acted a part all that while and that being informed of Sylverius his death he of his own accord resigned the Popedom usurped by him before and at the same time got the Clergy of Rome to chuse him into it again This conjecture he grounds upon four
being reduced to a bare external profession Would God have sent us a new Jerusalem a new Sion a new City from above and make this up of Righteous and Wicked Hypocrites and true Believers indifferently Does not the Apostle understand it so when he says that Jerusalem is free that her children are not in bondage i. e. those who are the Children by promise that they shall not be cast out like Children of the bondwoman but shall be Heirs and that there is the same difference between this and the other Jerusalem that was between the two Wives of Abraham Sarah and Agar Would God make him a new Tabernacle a new House a new Temple and build it of holy and profane materials indifferently St. Peter did not intend it so You says he as lively stones are built up a spiritual house Would God separate to himself a new people a new Israel a new Nation from all other Nations and require from it no more than an outward profession which alone works no regeneration at all To shew that God himself never intended this observe how himself speaks This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days saith the Lord I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and will be their God and they shall be my people We must take notice that all these names above mentioned are derived from the old figures of the Mosaical dispensation this the very reading of them plainly testifies Now this very thing makes directly against M. de Condom's definition For as it is essential to a figure to consist of something External and Corporeal so is it equally essential to the thing figured to consist of something Internal and Spiritual The Church therefore is no longer a Jerusalem an Israel a people linked together by outward bands only this would correspond well enough with the figures of the old Law but it is a people an Israel a Jerusalem united and compacted by the inward hands of the same Faith and the same Sanctification This very term the Church is of it self sufficient to confirm this truth M. de Condom acknowledges the Christians had it from the Jews which is true He says the Jews made use of it to signify the visible Society of God's people the Assembly which makes profession to serve him I agree with him in that too He adds That the Christians have kept it in the same sense I am not of that opinion This word when applied to the figure can signify no more than a visible outward Assembly but when to the thing figured it must of necessity imply something more it must denote an inward community a company not of Bodies only but Souls too for it is not enough that a confession be made with the mouth men must also believe with the heart unto Righteousness III. This will be yet more evident if you reflect on some other applelations given to the Church with relation to Jesus Christ For it is called His flock his sheep his spouse his sister his dove his well-beloved his body a Body whereof He is the head a Body that is his flesh and his bones a house built upon him as upon a Corner-stone the sanctified in Jesus Christ the Children which God hath given him and other expressions like these Now who can ever imagine these glorious Titles should import no more than an outward profession or that profane persons and reprobates can have any share in them It is his flock but what flock Fear not little flock for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom They are his sheep but how My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me And I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand It is his Spouse and his Sister but in what respect Thou hast ravished my heart my sister my spouse thou hast ravished my heart It is his Dove but why his Dove My dove my undefiled is but one the daughters saw her and blessed her She is his well-beloved but Wherefore his Well-beloved As the lilly among therns so is my beloved among the daughters It is his Body but how his body The edifying of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ He is its Head but what sort of Head From him the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love It is his flesh and his bones but how these No man ever hateth his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church It is a structure built upon him but how In him all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord. They are the sanctified in Jesus Christ but how sanctsied They are such as in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. They are the Epistle of Jesus Christ but in what regard the Epistle Written not with Ink but with the spirit of the living God not in tables of stone but in fleshy tables of the heart It is his People but what kind of people Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power in the beauties of holiness They are the Children which God hath given him But wherefore were they given him To exhibit them one day saying Behold I and the children which thou hast given me Thou hast given me power over all flesh that I should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given me Can any man after all this grant that the Church should be defined A Society making profession to believe c. or imagine that Hypocrites belong to this mystical Divine Body IV. If we search the Scripture yet further we shall find other Arguments in confirmation of this Truth Among these I reckon the predictions concerning the Church of Christ to be met with in the Prophets Thus it is described by Moses The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul that thou mayest live There shall be saith Isaiah a high-way and a way it shall be called the way of holiness the unclean shall not pass over it but it shall be for those the wayfaring men tho fools shall not err therein No lion shall be there nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon it shall not be found there but the redeemed shall walk there And in another place All thy children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of thy children In righteousness
Believers which we look upon as the true Church of Jesus Christ the other of hypocrites and worldlings who have only the shadow and shell of Faith and Regeneration and consequently do not belong to Jesus Christ's true Church This is the original of all that ambiguity betwixt the Romanists and us M. de Condom according to the principles of Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron and most of the Doctors of his Communion does in this Dispute judge of the true visible Church by that notion of Charity which without making any difference includes bad and good true and false Believers And we judge of the true visible Church by that other termed the notion of Reflection which excludes hypocrites and worldlings and confines it self to true Believers only He supposes without offering any proof for it that there is no other visible Church than this whole Body of Professors and that That of the true Believers is invisible which we deny He proves that the true Church of Christ to whom the promises belong is a visible Church which we grant We must take leave therefore to tell him that he supposes what he should prove and proves what he ought to suppose which must needs entangle the matter in dispute and render it mighty intricate and obscure But what great matter is it you 'l say as to this Dispute whether a man judges of the true visible Church by the notion of Charity or that of Reflection I answer if the matter had concerned only the Duties incumbent on the Church or exhorting and instructing men in those Duties it would signify very little which of these two notions we followed For the duties incumbent on beth good and had are much the same they all hear the same Word partake of the same Sacraments and are all under the same Obligations But the present controversy does not concern the duties and exhortations to them but the investing the Church in some particular rights and priviledges allowed her and applying to her the promises of Jesus Christ So that it highly concerns us in this case not to follow a notion which may lead us into mistakes and give away these priviledges and promises to men that have no manner of right to them It nearly concerns us not to follow a notion which may occasion our falling into errour under pretence of that name the Church There is an absolute necessity of clearing an ambiguity which if not cleared may prejudice our Conscience and put our Salvation upon a hazard Now Sir let us see I beseech you whether of these two notions is rather to be received in this dispute And this will easily appear if we consider That the notion followed by M. de Condom is grosly false in one of its parts as taking for true Believers persons who really are not so and can pretend to truth no further than as it is conformable to this second notion That it is not grounded upon an exact knowledg of its object but merely upon a charitable supposition which if niecly look'd into is not true it self And so there can be no robable argument for allowing evil men and hypocrites a part in Christ's Promises Those false plants which our heavenly father hath not planted Those tares which the Lord hath not sown in his field but the enemy râ—se by night to cast in privily Men not at all concerned in that Idea of the true Church which Scripture gives us and consequently not of it In a word this will easily appear that the notion we follow is the most exact the most certain the most agreeable to the Idea's given in Scripture and the only one that can bear any proportion to the Promises of Jesus Christ and the dignity of the true Church But it may be said Was not M. de Condom in the right to say there was not actually any visible Church but that which he defâ—â—es A Society making profession to believe the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and govern it self by his word And so no other than that which comprehends good and bad true Believers and Hypocrites And was it not fair then to make use of this notion in the Controversy I answer the true Church consisting of true Believers only is not indeed visible by any certain and distinct sight we can have of it so as to affirm positively and personally such or such are of the true Church When we would carry on this distinction to particular men disguise and hypocrisie put a stop to it so that in this sence the true Church will always continue invisible till Jesus Christ come to make a full and perfect separation betwixt his own Corn and the Enemies Tares which shall not be done till the end of the World Thus it is not visible not only immediately by its internal form in mens hearts but even by these external Characters as to certain and distinct visibility because dissimulation and deceit often makes these marks to be doubtful All this I grant But for all this we may and must say that the true Church is visible truly visible in other senses and respects For first of all it cannot be denied that it is visible at least materially as they say because the true Believers that appear visibly in publick Assemblies partake of the same Sacraments and live in the same external Order The faithful do not conceal themselves nor decline the Holy Exercises of Religion but on the contrary frequent them and shew themselves more than other men remembring that of St. Paul Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together Besides It is plain that tho the true Church be mixt with wicked men in the same profession yet is it visible in this very mixture as the wheat is visible tho in the same field with the tares and the good fish in the same net with the bad according to the parables in the Gospel or as true Friends are visible tho mixt with dissemblers and flatterers This mixture indeed hinders us from an exact distinction of persons but still we may with great certainty distinguish and discern two sorts of persons We are not sure which particular men are true Believers and which Hypocrites but we are sure that there are true Belivers as well as Hypocrites and this is enough to prove the Church visible according to the Scriptures and t. Austin's Hypothesis Nay I will go further yet for 't is true that upon some occasions Hypocrites do plainly distinguish themselves from true Believers and upon some other occasions true Believers do plainly make a personal distinction of themselves from Hypocrites For instance when we see men drowned in vices inconsistent with true Faith when we see them throw themselves into Superstitions and Errors that are contrary to the true Doctrine and Worship of God tho they abide still in the same Congregations with others and communicate in the same Sacraments yet this makes a negative distinction so as we may say these are not the true
a full and final resolution of the case shall be given by the Word of God and such as refuse to submit to this shall be excommunicated Secondly he produced a formulary of a Letter Missive to the National Synods framed in the Synod of Vitre and which was to be a pattern for all the Provinces to follow for the future by which they promise submission to all the resolutions of that holy Assembly to obey and execute every particular of them as being perswaded says the Formulary that God will preside there and lead you into all truth and equity by his Holy Spirit and by the Rule of his Word Besides that he produced an Act of the National Synod held at Charenton in the Year 1644. where the Independents opinion is condemned who will not allow that particular Congregations should depend upon the Authority of Colloquies and Synods but that every one should be governed by Laws within it self Now this Act expresly declares that that Sect opens a door to all manner of irregularities and extravagances that it deprives men of all means of remedying disorders and would if admitted make as many several Religions as Parishes Lastly he produced an Act of the National Synod at Sainte-foy by which upon occasion of some overtures for a re-union with those of the Ausburg Confession the Synod assigns Deputies to go and confer with them to whom full power is granted to agree upon and determine whatever points should be debated whether in matters of Doctrine or any other thing that might concern the Good and Peace of all the Churches even so far as to consent that their Decisions should be inserted in their Confessions of Faith From all which he inferred That even those of Mr. Claude's Religion did acknowledg a necessity that in order to the preservation of Unity in the Church men should submit their Judgments and pay an entire and absolute obedience to Ecclesiastical Assemblies without leaving themselves at liberty to examine their determinations or judg whether they were agreeable to the Word of God or no and that upon refusal of this Obedience it was just to proceed to Excommunication That this was exactly what the Church of Rome would have and that she desired no more But that we nevertheless in our disputes with her advance a quite contrary Principle He therefore entreated from Mr. Claude a distinct answer to this Point and would quietly hear what he could say to it Adding moreover that Mr. Claude ought to be the more ready to reply upon this subject because no new thing was proposed to him the same Acts and the same consequences that he now deduced from them being to be found in his Exposition of the Catholick Doctrine Mr. Claude first of all replied That although his coming thither was not with intentions to hold a Conference strictly and by rule yet he was extreamly glad that he had now an opportunity given him of testifying to M. de Condom how much he esteemed his person and that having no particular worth of his own he thought it a great honour that a Prelate of M. de Condom's Character should single him out to engage in Controversy with him That he would endeavour to give him satisfaction in each of the points now propounded to him and that if in the following part of the Discourse any expression should escape from him which might be offensive to M. de Condom he protested before-hand that it should be much against his will and design To this M. de Condom replied in very civil and obliging terms and Mr. Claude then resuming the discourse told him That in general whatever he had alledged just before did by no means infer such a blind and entire submission to the determinations of Ecclesiastical Assemblies as the Church of Rome pretends to impose That we must distinguish between two sorts of Authorities the one supream and unlimited the other limited and depending to the former we owe a full and perfect obedience to the other a conditional one only The former M. de Condom was sensible is by the Protestants attributed to God alone speaking to us in the Holy Scriptures and that the second was it they allowed the Pastors of the Church considered either single and by themselves or met together in a Synod or Council That their Authority being only Ministerial is restrained two ways one is That they must frame their decisions not of their own heads nor after their own fancies but according to the Word of God the other That they must always allow the persons under their Jurisdiction the priviledg of examining those decisions that so they may know whether they be really agreeable to God's Word Whence it follows that the obedience due to them ever goes upon this condition that they have not swerved from the Word of God That the Authority of Pastors and Assemblies composed of such cannot extend further than that of our Parliaments in the State of France who are not empowered to alter old Laws and enact new ones and whom we are priviledged nay obliged to disobey so oft as their Injunctions are prejudicial to the King's Service and the Allegiance we owe him That the Authority of Church-Assembles can at most be but as that of Fathers over Children because both God and Nature have invested Fathers with it The Fathers have a right to Act in their Childrens names because they have a right of Educating and Commanding them and the Scripture frequently enjoyns to Children a readiness to learn and obedience to their Fathers yet does it not follow from hence that Children are not priviledged and obliged to examine their Fathers Instructions and Commands whether they be true or false just or unjust and what shall appear to be false and unjust that to reject That nevertheless the Authority of Pastors and their Assemblies is really very great as is likewise that of Parliaments and Fathers notwithstanding their Authorities are under some limitations That the Pastors are as publick Trustees for the keeping God's Word appointed to study and meditate upon it continually thence to deduce necessary truths for the peoples improvement and to save private men a labour which they cannot always attend to because diverted and perplexed by the business of the World That so long as the Pastors discharged this Duty well the people were obliged to obey and submit to their words but when they deviated from it they were to be looked upon as false and treacherous persons Afterwards he came particularly to those Acts M. de Condom had urged and told him That the Clause of Submission contain'd in the Letters Missive to National Synods must be understood according to this Principle and under these Limitations because grounded upon this Supposal That all things would be managed there according to God's Word For those expressions Being perswaded that God will preside among you and lead you into all Truth by his Holy Spirit and by the rule of his Word do imply a