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
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
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
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
perswasion of Charity and Equity for we ought always to presume the best of such Assemblies and hope that God will preside over them and that they will acquit themselves of their duty till experience shews the contrary But all this does not imply so entire a submission as for a Man to deprive himself of all right to examine their Resolutions As to that Act which condemns the Independents it is said he extreamly Just For tho Assemblies do not arrive at an Infallibility yet are not they presently to be utterly abolished 'T is a human Order indeed but yet such an Order as God himself hath settled for the preservation of his Church and to desert it therefore is criminal And yet we do not think it follows from hence that the determinations of the Assemblies exact a blind and implicit Obedience nor that the Synod of Charenton intended any such thing And then for the Synod at Saintefoy's deputing four persons to confer with those of the Ausburg Confession and the full power given them you can make no advantage of it For those Deputies were in the nature of Ambassadors who are sent by the King with full Commission to offer Proposals hold Treaties and agree upon Conclusions or as Plenipotentiaries sent to negotiate a Peace Let their power be never so full or call them Plenipotentiaries as long as you please still this condition is constantly and naturally understood that they do nothing against the interest of the persons that commissioned them and to these their Acts must of necessity return for the obtaining their approbation and ratification without which their Treatings would signify nothing at all And this was the meaning of that full power conferr'd by the Synod upon their Deputies to hear those of the Confession of Ausburg to hearken to their Proposals their Complaints their Offers and in return to make others to them to receive from them Explications of difficulties in Controversy and to give them back theirs nay to come to an agreement with them if they could yet not so as either to become absolute Masters of their Faith or blindly receive whatever they should agree upon For in all affairs of this kind there is naturally implied a Clause of recurring to the Judgment of the persons Commissioning and a necessity of their ratifying them Mr. Claude added besides this Consideration Suppose the true sense of an Act of the Church of Rome were called in Question a Canon of the Council of Trent for instance M. de Condom would think it more reasonable that the sence should be taken from him than Mr. Claude because the Question is put concerning the sense of a Church that M. de Condom is a Member of and therefore in all probability he must understand it better than one of another Church Therefore Sir said he I expect the same Justice from you in taking the sense of these Acts now in Dispute from me provided the sense I put upon them do not disagree with the Doctors of my Communion or be not manifestly false and contradictory to the rest of our Principles Now if the sense I put upon these Acts be not any of these you have not in my opinion any right to refuse it or to frame to your self any other different from it M. de Condom replied saying that he would begin where Mr. Claude left off because that what he had urged just before carried some appearance of Truth and made a quick impression upon the mind but had not really any thing of solid Argument in it That were the matter in hand any Explication of their particular Rites and Ceremonies in Preaching the Word and Administring the Sacraments what Mr. Claude said might be allowed for Truth and in that point he would believe him as a person better acquainted with the matter Nay that he did not go about to debar him the liberty of explaining the sense of those that compiled the Discipline and the forementioned Acts after his own way That he was sensible they denied an entire submission to the Church and such as precludes all Examination But this he would say that the very men who denied this absolute submission in Speculation were forced to own and establish it in their practice That so they contradicted themselves and that this was the thing he pretended to prove and in which he was by no means bound to believe Mr. Claude For if the matter in hand now were to demonstrate any Contradictions in the opinions of the Catholick Church he would not desire that His Explications might be thought of Authority sufficient nor deny Mr. Claude the freedom of making what inferences he thought fit from the Council's own words M. de Condom stopping there Mr. Claude replied That since it was evident that the persons who made those Acts denied any submission was due to the determinations of Church-Assemblies without any Examination at all the advantage was thus far at least on his side that M. de Condom himself had acknowledged His Explanation of those Acts was agreeable with the Principles of the Protestants which made them so that there was more reason for his accepting that sense than for the framing to himself another and such a one as contradicted these Principles That supposing the business in Controversy to be an Act of the Romish Church he should not scruple to admit M. de Condom's explanation provided the words of the Act did not oppose it and in that case he might be allowed to infer a Contradiction That if M. de Condom would proceed thus as to the Acts before urged he should be glad to see what grounds he had for this pretended Contradiction M. de Condom said this would easily be made appear That he would show this Contradiction with relation to their Discipline which on one side ordains That differences in Doctrine should be decided in the Consistory by the Word of God that it was also her meaning that this decision was made by the Word of God in the Provincial Synod as well as the National and yet on the other side if men do not acquiesce in the determination of a Consistory or a Provincial Synod it orders things should continue as they were till a National one be convened in which it says a full and final resolution shall be given by the Word of God and if they submit not to this they shall be cut off from the Church Whence it is evident that the submission required to a National Synod was not founded on the Word of God considered abstractedly as such because both Consistory and Provincial Synod were supposed to determine by the Word of God and yet an Appeal from them was allow'd But that it was founded on the Word of God so far forth as That was explained and interpreted by the last judgment of the Church that is because this is the last and final resolution and consequently upon the Authority of the Assembly considered by it self Now this said he
they themselves held one he said at London in the year 1653. so that the Synod of Charenton could not condemn them upon that account but merely for refusing to acknowledg that an entire Dependence and Submission was owing to Synods As for the Synod of Sainte-foy proceeded he if all the business had been no more than illustrating and explaining their Articles as Mr. Claude would have it what need these have been inserted in the Confession of Faith Could not this be done by an Act of a Synod without altering the Confession It is sure their design was to express that Article concerning the Lord's Supper in such ambiguous terms as both sides had agreed upon and each might interpret to his own advantage which hath been an expedient often attempted but to no purpose Now this is in reality not barely to explain and illustrate the Confession of Faith and by that means settle a mutual Toleration but down right to alter it And now added he all that men have to do is but to consider with themselves what opinion they ought to entertain of a Confession of Faith which a whole National Synod consented to alter That the matter between Mr. Claude and him was at last come to such a pass that the truth must presently appear on one side or other That the Principle asserted by Mr. Claude was a Principle of Pride and intolerable Presumption For is not this the very extremity of Pride that mere single private Persons should fancy themselves wiser and better able to understand the Scripture than a whole Ecclesiastical Assembly a whole Council put together And yet this was the unavoidable consequence of his opinion which allowed private Persons a Priviledge and Freedom to examine the decisions of Councils That an entire submission to the Church's judgment and a full and implicite Obedience to that was much more reasonable and argued more of Christian Humility than mens taking upon them to amend its Decisions It being now Mr. Claude's turn to speak he told them That their Discipline did indeed order such as refused submission to be Excommunicated after the last and final resolution had been given according to the Word of God in a National Synod Assembled But it was no part of the Discipline's meaning that this submission was due to the Authority of that Assembly abstractedly and as such but as he had before observed to the Authority of Gods Word according to which the Assemblies decision was to be formed and this ever implies an Examination The Excommunication therefore was just only upon supposal that the Word of God had been followed and never else That the Excommunications pronounced by Councils had not really any thing of Justice or Efficacy except when their determinations were founded on God's Word and when they were not so their sentences of Excommunication were unjust and returned directly upon the head of those that thundered them out according to St. Paul's Maxime If we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed That if the Church of Rome pretended to no more than this our dispute with her would be at an end because then every man would still be priviledged nay obliged to examine whether the Decisions be agreeable to God's Word or no and consequently whether the Excommunications upon them be just or unjust That it was with this temper of mind that the Synod of Dort had condemned not the men whose Persons they never anathematiz'd at all but their Errors by demonstrating they were contrary to express Texts of Scripture That for his own part he lookt upon that as a very just Excommunication but the reason why he did so was that he saw it was founded upon Scripture and not upon the Authority of the Assembly themselves That it was true the Independents had once an extraordinary Assembly in the Year 1653. for the adjusting their Confession of Faith but however they did commonly disavow the use of Colloquies and Synods and for this very reason the Synod of Charenton condemned them and not for refusing a blind and absolute Obedience to what the Assemblies should decree in matters of Faith as by the Act it self is abundantly evident For the Synod of Sainte-Foy I cannot imagine said he why you will needs have it to intend an alteration in the Confession of Faith I mean as to any essential part of it for National Synods are not at all impowered to do this and if that at Sainte-Foy had ever attempted it all the Protestants in the Kingdom would have disclaimed the thing I own they had power to put illustrations and explanations into an Act and you must own too that they had the same power to put them into the Confession and when the same thing is capable of being done different ways men are free to make choice of that which they esteem the most fitting and convenient Here M. de Condom interrupting Mr. Claude told him it was certain that Synod had thoughts of couching the Article of the Lord's Supper in ambiguous expressions and this was the design of the Mediators That there was mentioned a power to decide all points of Doctrine which had a manifest relation to the Real Presence as held by the Lutherans Mr. Claude replyed that to tax the Synod with a design of agreeing upon ambiguous expressions was a mere conjecture of M. de Condom for which he offered not the least proof and that he for his part guessed the quite contrary that he did not at all question but the Synod intended to do all that could be done for reducing the Lutherans to a full knowledge of the truth and this was the meaning of that power given them to decide all Doctrinal Points with them that is to do it by the Word of God Then resuming the method of his Discourse he made answer to what M. de Condom alledged that it was intolerable Pride for mere single private Persons to fancy themselves wiser and better able to understand Scripture than a whole Ecclesiastical Assembly together He told him then that single and private Persons ought by no means to think so highly of themselves as to fancy they were wiser and better able to understand Scripture than a whole Assembly together That on the contrary they should presume favourably of an Assembly and retain a disposition to be taught by it But still this was no Argument that they should not continually have their Eyes open to discern whether an Assembly had really discharged their duty imitating herein those â—eraeans of whom it is said that they compared what St. Paul Preached with the Scriptures searching whether those things were so That we must distinguish between a Judgment of humility and charity which concludes 〈◊〉 probably and a perswasion of Infallibility which concludes necessarily and certainly Thâ—â— according to the Judgment of Charity and Humility we must think the best of an Assembly nay
even of a private Doctor but in as much as both Assemblies and private persons are liable to mistakes a man must not carry on this Judgment of Charity and Humility so far as that he should suffer himself to be blinded by it and when an Assembly or Doctor have really erred not to see it for this would be to stretch things beyond their due bounds For instance said he in the capacity I am in over my Flock it is mens duty to presume favourably of me that I understand the meaning of Scripture better than plain private Persons but for all that they are by no means bound to think me infallible nor fancy it impossible I should ever be mistaken in a point of Doctrine and in such a case a plain private Person is priviledged to think he could understand the Scripture better than I. Private Doctors says Al de Condom are not at all concerned in our Dispute all the World knows private Doctors may err and consequently they can have no title to an absolute obedience The Controversie is concerning the whole Body of an Ecclesiastical Assembly and I expect from you a clear distinct answer to this particular whether you believe single private men can understand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole Body of the Church convened in a Council Mr. Claude replied That he only mentioned private Doctors as an Argument that Christian Humility should not be abused nor made a pretence for men to deny themselves the benefit of their own Eyes that so they might avoid Pride and Presumption For if by M. de Condom's own Confession private Doctors have no right to an absolute Obedience it is neither a proud nor presumptuous Imagination that it may possibly happen we should understand Scripture sometimes better than they tho for the main we are bound to presume in favour of them and that in probability it will be otherwise The case is the same with Assemblies for even these being not Infallible ought not to challenge an absolute Submission and such as God alone hath a just right to That no less a Person than St. Paul hath declared That he had no Dominion over the Corinthians Faith M. de Condom said that quotation was impertinent and desired to know of Mr Claude whether he was not of opinion that an absolute obedience was due to St. Paul The absolute obedience replied Mr. Claude which was due to St. Paul was so to his Divine Doctrines and not his person No more said M de Condom do we pretend that men ought to pay this obedience to the persons of men whereof the Councils consist but to the Holy Ghost by which they are guided according to that profession of the Council at Jerusalem It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us When the Holy Ghost appears in the determinations of Councils as he did in St. Paul's Doctrine and that of the Jerusalem Council then said Mr. Claude this Obedience must be paid never else And this appearance of the Holy Ghost consisteth in the Councils decisions being framed according to the Word of God Still M. de Condom urged that the dispute was not concerning the Word of God but the true meaning of that Word That distinction says Mr. Claude signifies nothing at all because the true meaning of the Word of God and the Word it self are but one and the same thing Then M. de Condom returned to the business of the Independents and urged that according to Mr. Claude's principle there was no remedy for the avoiding Independency nor any prevention that there should not be as many different Religions as Parishes nay as many as there be single persons That the Independents did not cast off Assemblies so far as concerned instruction only they did not allow them in any Authoritative decisions and that in this the Pretended Reformed agreed with them He beat upon this over and over again for a long time together to all which Mr. Claude return'd the same answer he had done before viz. That there was not indeed any humane means of Certainty and Infallibility which could prevent the exorbitant errors of mens minds but there was a certain and infallible Divine one even the Holy Spirit of God imparted to his True Believers That Synods and other Assemblies were means of mighty use and very proper for this purpose and the Independents condemnation was for rejecting these last and not for refusing to Assemblies a full and Absoute Power of determining matters in Controversy That although the Protestants did not allow such Assemblies a supreme and unbounded Authority yet they did allow them as much as the Ministers and Dispensers of God's Word are capable of At this rate said M. de Condom then we shall never have done disputing I ask you therefore once more Sir whether you believe that single and private persons can understand the meaning of God's Word better than the whole Church convened in Council Mr Claude told him he had answered that Question already to wit that it does not usually fall out so and that further 't is our duty to hope the best of an Ecclesiastical Assembly but still it might come to pass that through the prevalency of mens passions and worldly Interests the decisions of such Assemblies might be contrary to Truth You must not run back thus to Interests and Passions said M. de Condom but answer my question in one word by saying either Yes or No. Mens Passions and worldly Interests said Mr. Claude are premised here with a great deal of Reason because these are the main things that occasion erroneous determinations but since you are not willing to hear of them my answer must be with this distinction That God does not suffer it commonly so to be but absolutely speaking it is possible it should be so M. de Condom said that was as much as he desired and that it was the most absurd thing in the World to believe it so much as possible for a single Man and a private person to understand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole Church met together in Council Mr. Claude replied that he was amazed to hear M. de Condom cry out upon That as such a mighty absurdity which resulted merely from the freedom used by God in dispensing his Grace That supposing the Controversy to concern such means of knowledg as are purely humane it would indeed be absurd to say that a single and private person should be wiser than a whole Assembly and that this would be then a principle of pride and presumption But the matter now treated of is the illumination of the Holy Spirit which bloweth where it listeth and God can give it to a private single person and yet not give it to a whole Assembly That of this there was an eminent instance in our Saviours time as he himself said I thank thee O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth for that thou hast bid these things from