all this The same Scripture of the New Testament speaks in divers places against Traditions without ever intimating that there were some good which were to be distinguished from the bad and in one onely place which is that whereof the Bishop of Condom makes mention Mar. 7.8 9 13. Colos 2.8 2 Thes 2.15 the Apostle exhorting the Thessalonians to hold fast the Traditions which they had received of him whether it were by mouth when he was present with them or by Epistle which he had since writ to them sayes not one word which intimates that the things which he had taught them by mouth were different from those which he had written unto them but he gives to understand all along that it was one and the same Gospel which he preached unto all to them who were present by voice and to them that were absent by writing In summe whosoever will take the pains with any attention to read St. Paul's Two Epistles to the Thessalonians where he speaks unto them of the instructions which he gave them and of the manner of his having preached the Gospel unto them shall find there nothing at all no more than in the Gospel it self which hath the least resemblance to prayer for the dead to Purgatory to the invocation of Saints to the adoration of Images nor in fine to any of the Traditions which are in question betwixt the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome and us It were an easie matter here De Doct. Christ li. 2. c. 9. li. 3. cont lit Petili c. 6. Hieron ad Hel. vi pa. 315 366. Chrysos Hono. 3. in 2. ad Cor. to strengthen our selves with the Testimony of St. Austin and of several other Fathers to prove what we have said that the Scripture doth contain all that is necessary either for the Service of God or for the rule of our actions but besides that this were to engage in a particular Controversie touching the judgment of the Fathers which is not the design of this Answer we think that amongst Christians it were in some fort to prejudice the Dignity and Divinity of this same Holy Scripture to doubt that its proper light were not sufficient to make known its perfection Onely let us see what the Bishop of Condom produces for the unwritten Word Jesus Christ saith he having founded his Church upon preaching pa. 158. the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity and when thereto the Scriptures of the New Testament were added this Word did not thereby lose its authority We must observe here at first that this is to speak in some sort improperly to say that Jesus Christ founded the Church upon preaching and not rather by preaching Preaching is a means and not a foundation the means may cease the foundation ought to be durable And no more is it true that the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity It is the Scripture it self of the Old Testament which was the first and the eldest rule and the foundation of the Faith of Christians It is the Old Testament that not onely contains the Commandments of the Law which is the permanent and unchangeable rule of our Duty as well towards God as towards men but likewise all the figures all the promises and all the prophesies touching the Messias the time and the place of his Birth and all the circumstances of his death The Gospel as all the world knows is not the abrogating but the fulfilling of the Law therefore it is that we see that Jesus Christ and the Apostles grounded their preaching upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament Jesus Christ continually refers the Jews to the Law and to the Testimony It is written saith he in your Law c. Joh. 5.39 46. Rom. 1. Search the Scriptures diligently for in them ye think ye have eternal life And the Apostle St. Paul to the Romans Paul a servant of Jesus Christ c. separated unto the Gospel c. which was promised by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning his Son Jesus Christ c. who was made of the seed of David according to the Flesh and so he begins his very Epistle to the Hebrews God who at sundry times spake unto the Fathers by the prophets c. In fine his first Chapter and the whole Epistle is nothing else but one citation of Exodus of Chronicles of Samuel Job Psalms and the other Books of the Old Testament It is besides a very improper manner of speaking to say that when the Scriptures of the New Testament were joyned unto the unwritten Word this word for all that did not thereby lose its authority as if the Doctrine of the Gospel such as we have it now in writing were an accessary or were a thing different from that unto which they pretend it was joined or that that which was not written were more considerable than that which we have in the Sacred Books for this expression of the Bishop of Condom's that the Scriptures were joyned to the unwritten word suggests all these imaginations in stead of saying the thing properly as it is He should have said that the unwritten Word having been put into writing or the Scripture of the New Testament having succeeded preaching this Divine Word not onely not lost its authority but on the contrary was corroborated in that it doth not any longer depend on the memory nor the will of men naturally subject unto Errour For upon the main the Bishop of Condom pretends that the Holy Scripture contains onely the lesser part of Christian Religion and that on the contrary Tradition doth contain the principal part At least his pretence is that there may be some particular Doctrines which are not to be had but by Tradition which ought not for their not being in Scripture therefore to lose their authority As for any thing else the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome are so little firm to their principle of Tradition or at least they so well acknowledge that Tradition cannot go equal with Scripture though the Council hath been pleased to determine the contrary that when they are pressed touching particular Traditions which are in question betwixt them and us there is scarce one but they endeavour to support by the authority of Scripture whether it be by interpreting it in their sense or by the consequences which they draw thence When they treat of Tradition in general they maintain it with excess comparing it to Scripture as if it went through all Religion and when they treat of their Doctrines in particular they would make the World believe that there is scarce any one amongst them which is not founded on the very Scripture But if we would know nevertheless how the Bishop of Condom proves that the particular ponits of Tradition are the very Doctrine of the Apostles unwritten it may be at first we would believe that he had in hand some Authour either of the age of the
will therefore here set down some of the reasons which we have for the Figurative sense seeing that the Bishop of Condom doth require it of us and afterwards we will examine those which the Bishop of Condom doth alledge for the proper and literal sense In the First place whensoever any great of a Mystery and of a Sacrament 〈…〉 and the common use to take the â—â—pressions and the things themselves mystically and figuratively The very word it self Mystery doth lead us thereto otherwise it were no more a Mystery Let any examine generally all the Sacraments as well of the Old as the New Testament not one excepted no not the very ceremonies of the Roman Church it self where there is any visible sign as the Passover and Circumcision under the Law Baptism under the Gospel that which the Church of Rome doth call Confirmation and Extreme Unction through all will be found things and words which must be understood in a mystical and a Figurative sense But if it be demanded more particularly wherefore the Bread and the Wine are said to be the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ St. Austin and Theodoret Aug. Epist 23. ad Bonif. answer for us The First saith that it is because of the relation which the Sacraments have to the things whereof they are Sacraments and the latter to keep us from resting in the nature of the things that are seen Theodoret Dial 1. and that as Jesus Christ said that he was bread and a stock or vine so be honours the Symbols of bread and wine with the name of his Body and of his Bloud The force of these Testimonies is not here urged as to the maine Question they are onely alledged to give a reason of the use wherefore it is that the sign doth bear the name of the thing signified by a kind of mystical and Figurative way of speaking to elevate our spirits and our heartes above the Visible signs 2. We know in general that all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament is full of these sorts of Figurative expressions whether it was the Style of the Eastern Nations in those times as indeed it was or that God judged this Style the fittest to exercise our Faith We see that the First preaching of Jesus Christ is nothing else but a continued succession of Figures John 6.35 Joh. 15.3 every one knows those just now mentioned I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the vine The rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 Mat. 5.29 De Doctrin Christ lib. 3. cap. 6. If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and an infinite number of others Now if it be demanded of us how we can distinguish betwixt Figurative expressions and those which are proper and literal St. Austin here again answers for us that what seemes to offend good manners or the truth of Faith ought to be taken in a Figurative sense and yet more expresly that this which Jesus Christ saith that we must eat his body and drink his bloud appearing a wicked thing is therefore a Figure We press not still this passage as to the main Question we onely alledge it to make the reason which we have for the Figurative sense better apprehended 3. Finally what can there be more natural and more reasonable than to understand the Scripture by the Scripture it self the obscure places by them which are more plain those which have a double meaning by them which have but a single The Authour of the Book intituled Lawful Prejudices layes down this Maxim for the understanding of Books that when there is any passage which may admit of a double sense that must be taken which agrees best with the whole and which is the most reasonable There is but one passage onely in the Scripture which seems to favour the literal sense that the Church of Rome gives to these words This is my Body to wit that which we now spoke of If you eat not the flesh and drink the bloud of the Son of man you have no life in you and this very expression St. Austin notes ought to be understood Figuratively whereas there are a great number of others which say that Jesus Christ is no more with us but by the operation of the Holy Spirit The poor you shall have always with you Mat. 26.11 but me ye shall not have always And if I depart I will send the Comforter unto you and so many more Joh. 16. that make us daily say in the Creed he ascended into Heaven and from thence he shall come c. the very words of the Eucharist require that we do this in remembrance of him and to shew forth his Death till he come To be in Heaven corporally and upon Earth by representation are not two senses repugnant but not to be any more with us or to be corporally in Heaven and yet to be every day upon Earth in mens hands in his proper Body are two terms contradictory and incompatible It is therefore natural to take these words This is my body in a mystical and Figurative sense which alone doth perfectly agree with all the other passages of the Scripture It is well known that the Church of Rome doth suppose that there be two divers ways according unto which she pretends that the Body of Jesus Christ may be present in Heaven and upon Earth the one with his dimensions and his exteriour qualities such as he was seen upon Earth and it is after this manner that she will have it to be said that Jesus Christ is no more with us or that he is onely in Heaven the other without his dimensions and exteriour qualities as she pretends that he is under the covert of Bread and Wine But this is to answer here punctually the thing in question We formally deny this second manner of being bodily in a place it is not contested but that nature the senses reason far from teaching any such thing cry loudly against it It would therefore highly concern the Church of Rome upon the whole case to establish this second manner of being in a place by some passage the sense whereof were not at all in question and till that is done it may be truly said that the figurative sense of these words This is my Body is the true and genuine sense the first and the onely that presents it self unto the mind We might here add many other reasons as to the main to make appear that the Doctrine of the real presence is not onely above reason as the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation but directly against reason and which in fine destroyes the testimony of the senses which nevertheless is it that our Lord made use of John 20.27 Theodoret Dial. 2. to prove unto Thâ—mas the truth of his presence as the Church also hath since done to prove that the Body of Jesus Christ was a true Humane body against the Eutychians but this would be
Bishop of Condom gives this reason himself unawares in effect saith he the taking away the Cup or the communion under one kind is a consequence of Transubstantiation Before Transubstantiation was believed there was a great regard had for the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but the Irreverencies were not of the same consequence nor so scandalous as they have been since it was caught that the bread and the wine are no longer the same which they are seen to be but that they are the proper body and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ for it is well known that it is onely since Transubstantiation hath passed into an Article of Faith that the Cup also hath been taken away Therefore also whatever hopes the Bishop of Condom seems to give that the Communion under the Form of the wine may be re-establisht for the benefit of peace and re-union in all appearance we are to a wait a long time this re-establishment if it be at all to be expected whilst the Doctrine of Transubstantiation shall subsist The benefit of re-union which hinderd not but that the Council of Trent did elude this re-establishment in a time when it was demanded with so much instance will never in all likelihood prevail against the inconvenience of Irreverencie which will alwayes continue that is to say it will alwayes be a great scandal ever and anon to see spilt that which is believed to be the proper bloud of the Lord and the simple reflexion which may be made on this consequence may alone be capable to open at last the eyes of the people upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self The other consideration which the Bishop of Condom brings for the taking away the Cup is this that he saith our own Synods have not judged that in the Lords Supper we ought to deny the bread unto those who by a natural aversion cannot suffer the smell or taste of wine and that by consequence the communion under both kinds is not essential unto the Sacrament and that it is in the power of the Church to give therein onely one But who sees not the extreme difference that there is betwixt this useage of our Churches and that which the Church of Rome ordains and practises and that there can no good consequence be drawn from the one unto the other Our Synods are so far from allowing to themselves the authority of taking away any thing from the Institution of our Saviour or of making any the least change therein that they have kept themselves so religiously to his words as to have made it a question whether the bread should be given unto them who onely through this natural aversion which they cannot overcome forbear to take the sign of the wine and they give not the bread it self but in the manner which the Bishop of Condom reports causing them who cannot drink wine to make a protestation that it is not through disrespect and obliging them to put the Cup to their lips to avoid scandal The Church of Rome on the contrary takes away the Cup from whole Nations that desire it reseraving his advantage to the Clergy lone or to Princes or other considerable persons whom she thinks good to gratifie and all this apparently as a new means to increase and confirm her authority over Princes and people THE SIXTH PART Behold now at length the Question of the Eucharist dispatcht we leave it unto those who are pleased to take the pains of reading this Answer to make reflexion themselves what the importance of the thing requires I was unwilling to have insisted so long time upon it but this Article alone makes us the moyety of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise it was impossible to clear all and to be shorter We shall make a speedier dispatch with the three points which remain to wit Tradition the authority of the Church and the authority of the Pope as well because they are general matters upon which there are express Volumes as also because the Bishop of Condom himself passeth very lightly over the Questions of Tradition and of the authority of the Pope and that Lastly â—t is known that these three Questions will be treated of throughly by a better hand in a Work which will â—hortly be published and particularly the Question of the Church which is the chiefest upon which in a manner depend the two others We will confine our selves here to examine in a few words what the Bishop of Condom layes down upon each of these three Articles and we are perswaded that we cannot betâ—er confirm our Doctrine in opposition unto that of the Church of Rome than by shewing how weak â—nd vain are the reasons of a person â—f so much address and reputation as â—t is In the first place as to Tradition XVIII The Word writen and unwritten The Bishop of Condom here again â—akes an indirect advantage in â—he expressions in calling it as he â—oth the unwritten Word a name â—hat prejudges the Question by the â—hing it self which is in question He â—ntends to suppose thereby that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which we admit not at all are nothing else but the very Doctrine of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles as well as the Holy Scriptures with this onely difference that the one was put into Paper by the Evangelists and by the Apostles and that the other was committed to the memory of the first faithful from whom the Church of Rome pretends that they have been delivered from hand to hand unto our Age and by consequence that we ought to receive Traditions with the same Faith and submission as the Scriptures for so it is that the Bishop of Condom gives us to understand in two places pa. 159 160. Sess 4 c. Can. Script and that the Council of Trent it self decides it in proper terms Now we have no thoughts of denying that what our Lord and his Apostles said by word of mouth ought to be of the same authority as that which the same Apostles afterwards left in writing that is not at all the question but we say that our Lord having put it into the hearts of the Evangelists and of the Apostles to write the Gospel which they preached these holy Doctours being immediately directed by the Holy Spirit have not done the thing imperfectly or by halves that by consequence at the least they did not omit any thing essential unto Christian Religion and that Lastly their writings do contain all that is necessary for the Service of God and for the rule of our manners St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17 as yet regarding principally the Scripture of the Old Testament said unto Timothy that the Scripture is proper for instruction Mat. 1â— 3.9 for correction for reproofe that the man of God may be perfect and accomplisht unto every good work By greater reason both the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament being conjoined are able to do
authority of the Church of Rome which they pretend cannot err Behold therefore the Bishop of Condom's argument overthrown in all its parts seeing that the Maxime which he layes down is not true which is that all the Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the first beginning cannot be shewn proceed from the Apostles and that the application which he doth make is less true which is that all the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embrac'd by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning and by consequence this conclusion whether it be of the Bishop of Condom or of the Council of Trent far from being true and orthodox is a very strange principle that we ought to receive the Traditions even those which do separate us from the Church of Rome with the same respect and the same submission as the Holy Scripture XIX The authority of the Church After Tradition follows the authority of the Church The Bishop of Condom doth not clearly explain wherein this authority consists nor what he understands by the Church which should have this authority whether this authority should have any bounds or whether it should have none or whether it be the Pope with the Council or without the Council or the Council alone in which this authority doth reside for we also have our Churches and our Governours and we believe that we should not onely keep order but all that doth conduce for the maintaining of unity and concord and the Question here as elsewhere is oftentimes but of the more or less What the Bishop of Condom sayes in this case is reducible to four principal propositions The first that it cannot be but by the authority of the Church that we receive the whole body of the Holy Scriptures The second that it is of the Church that we learn Tradition and by Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures The third that it is the Church and her Pastours assembled which should determine controversies that divide the Faithful and that when once they have resolved any matter we ought to submit unto their decisions without examining anew that which they have resolved The fourth and last that this authority is so necessary that after having denied it we have been forced to establish it amongst us by our discipline by the Acts of our Synods and by our practice in things pertaining to Faith it self As to the first we agree with the Bishop of Condom that the Christian Church is the Guardian of the Scriptures and that as she hath received the Law and the Prophets from the Jewish Church so it is from the Chirstian Church that the Faithful receive all the Scriptures as well of the Old as of the New Testament We even acknowledge that the authority of the Church is a lawful reason which at first makes us look upon the Scripture as a revelation from Heaven but we do deny not onely that it is meerly by the authority of the Church but that it is principally by her authority that we receive the Scripture as the Divine Word The Scripture is full of Testimonies which it self gives of its Divinity and of the efficacious power which it hath upon hearts by the operation of the Holy Ghost It is indeed somewhat injurious to this the Divinity of the Scripture and to its efficacy and somewhat contradictory when it is contended that a matter Divine should not be received but by dependance upon an humane authority It is as if one would say that it is yet at this day onely by the authority of the Jewish Church that Christians have received the whole body of the Scriptures of the Old Testament because it is by her hand that we have received them though upon the whole the authority of this peopel chosen of God may be a reasonable ground of the Divinity of the Scriptures Truth hath its proper character even in humane matters which makes us acknowledge it for its self when once it is set before our eyes and not for the authority of those who propose it to us By greater reason Heavenly truths like the Sun manifest themselves by their proper splendour 'T is a common speech upon this subject that a man asleep being told the Sun is up presently believes it is day upon what is told him but when once he sees it is day he believes it not any longer because he was told so but because he sees it and he doth not so much as dream any longer that it was told him so The Gentlemen of the Church of Rome will not agree that it is as clear that the Scripture is the Word of God as it is clear that it is day when the Sun is above our Horizon and this is it which the Bishop of Condom gives to understand in terms positive enough when he speaks of us that whatever we say he believes that it is principally the authority of the Church pag. 16. that determines us to reverence as Divine Books the Song of Songs which hath so few sensible marks of prophetical inspiration the Epistle of St. James which Luther rejected and that of St. Jude which might be suspected by reason of some Apocryphal Books which are therein alledged But how dare any man rebate or decry as I may so speak the brightness and force of the Word of God Why sayes he absolutely that the Song of Songs hath so few marks of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit And to what end here again proposes he scruples against this Song and against the two Epistles of St. James and St. Jude which we look upon both in the one and the other communion as sacred Books and that without so much as alledging the reasons which have determined as well the Church of Rome as ours to receive these Writings as Canoniâ—al For will any say that if these Writings had not had any character of Divinity the sole approbation of the Church of Rome could give them 〈◊〉 light which they had not of themselves For our parts 2 Tim. 3.16 we say with the Apostle that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and if all men do not look upon them in the same manner or with the same sentiments it is not the fault of the Scripture but it is the effect of the variety and weakness of the humane spirit and the wise and free dispensation of the Spirit of God which bloweth where it will and as it will An evident proof that it is not the authority of the Church of Rome which determines those of our communion to reverence the Scriptures and these three Books particularly as Canonical but that it is their own proper character and the grace which we believe that God gives us to acknowledge this character is that 't is well known there are some others as Tobie Judith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus and the two first Books of Maccabees c. which the Church of Rome receives as Canonical which
that we are so far from abolishing the Episcopal Government which was in force in the Apostles times as the Bishop of Condom imputes to us that our Churches maintaining as they do an holy Union betwixt themselves living in a great deal of simplicity under the governance of our Pastours and Synods are a true Image of the ancient Churches of Jerusalem of Corinth of Ephesus of Galatia of the Colossians of the Thessalonians and of Rome it self all founded by the Apostles affecting not at all any superiority one over the other but all being equal amongst themselves united by the Bonds of the same Faith and of the same charity under the governance of the same Apostles and under one sole Spiritual Head Jesus Christ The word Bishop as it is known signifies onely an Overseer and no more than that of a Pastour or Minister the Apostles are indifferently termed one and the other It is known that in Germany and England the name of Bishops is retained and a kind of Hierarchy which we do not disapprove of being moderate as it is And in fine God is our witness that we love peace and union as the Bishop of Condom de-fsires but a true union of hearts and judgements with knowledge and as God himself hath commanded that we should love Peace with Truth FINIS A TABLE Of the chief Points THE FIRST PART I. THE Design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise page 50. II. The Bishop of Condom 's first general proposition that those of the pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge that the Church of Rome doth embrace all the Fundamental points of Christian Religion page 58. III. The Bishop of Condom's second general proposition That the Church of Rome doth teach that Religious Worship is terminated on God only pag. 69. SECOND PART IV. Of Invocation of Saints pag. 67. V. Of Images and Relicks pag. 109. THIRD PART VI. Of Justification pag. 134. VII Of the merit of VVorks pag. 153. VIII Of satisfaction Purgatory and Indulgences pag. 156. FOURTH PART IX Of the Sacraments pag. 171. Baptism pag. 179. Confirmation pag. 191. Pennance and Sacramental Confession pag. 195. Extreme Vnction pag. 213. Marriage pag. 217. Orders pag. 219. FIFTH PART X. Of the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the manner in which the Church of Rome understands these words This is my Body pag. 221 XI An Explication of these words Do this in remembrance of me pa. 249. XII The Exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of the Doctrine of those of the Reformed Religion upon the Reality pag. 261. XIII Of Transubstantiation of Adoration and in what sense it is that the Bishop of Condom saith that the Eucharist is a Sign pag. 308. XIV Of the Sacrifice of the Mass p. 324. XV. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews pag. 327. XVI The Bishop of Condom's reflexion upon the precedent Doctrine pa. 332. XVII The Communion under both kinds pa. 55. SIXTH PART XVIII Of Tradition or the VVord written and the VVord unwritten pag 355. XIX Of the Authority of the Church pag. 370 XX. The judgment of those of the P. R. Rel. upon the Authority of the Church pag. 389 XXI Of the Authority of the Holy Chair and of Episcopacy pa. 426. FINIS A Note on line 17. pag 38. Because the Roman Creed doth not use genitum twice but unigenitum natum I did not think fit to render genitum and natum bâ—th by one English word nor yet to render ex patre natum born of the Father for we say in the Apostles Creed born of the Virgin Mary nor proceeding from the Father that being said properly of the Holy Ghost I therefore have said brought forth Against which if any take exception I declare let the Roman Church mean what She will by Natum I mean the same by brought forth For I meant to express her Latin words by English ones as strictly answering as I could Indeed in so great a mystery all language must needs be improper Errata insigniora Pag 11. l 23. dele that P. 25. l. 12. it lege them P. 32. l. 11. d. that P. 89. l. 5. leg that it is p. 132. l. penult fasten lege soften p. 138. l. 28. leg The errour p 157. l. 11. for leg before p. 158. l 21. del not p 182. l. ult lege in which p. 274. l 4. leg this death p 279. l 20. And it is also leg But it is
than the different manner wherein it is seen that they conceive the same things at several times They may to much purpose lay down principles and draw conclusions form Grave Debates maintained by sprightly figures of speech adapt terms imploy those at certain times that are of a suspended and indeterminate sense One word naturally escaped doth say or gainsay more than a whole Book can establish the very care taken in recalling such a word doth speak it much the more The greatest part of these differences should have been touched in the very Body of the Answer in the places to which they relate as we have touched some upon the Articles of Transubstantiation and the authority of the Pope but it fell out when we begun to examine this Treatise we had not then the first Edition in our hands to compare it with the second Howsoever though we are constrained to report these passages altered without any connexion of one with the other or with the matters whereon they depend and without making such reflection as otherwise might have been made that hinders not but that by the simple comparison of these two Editions it may be sufficiently seen how that the Romish Church hath but few of these worships and doctrines which separate us from her which do not aggrieve or create trouble unto the ablest of her communion at such time as they ingage to express a little clearly what they think of them This same thing may also work this other effect how little soever equity there be in the world that our Masters of the Roman Church must more and more acknowledge that they ought not to have a disesteem or aversion for us by reason of some difference in opinion touching things of which the most eminent amongst them have themselves so great difficulty to satisfie themselves and the rather because they well know that they are born and bred in their belief and with the principles upon which their Belief is founded whereas we are born and bred up in a Belief opposite and with principles contrary unto theirs which is the cause that we do feel the same difficulties more to the quick than they can do Page 1. of the 1. Edition In the first place at the beginning of the first Edition the Bishop of Condom doth declare that he will propose unto us simply the Doctrine of the Church of Rome separating the Questions that she hath decided from those which do not appertain to Faith c. This doth speak plainly enough that all those Questions that are not proposed in the Bishop of Condom's Treatise do not at all appertain to Faith and this being granted we are free'd from a great number of doctrines and practices of the Romish Church which the Bishop of Condom doth not propose unto us or that he doth separate from those which he doth propose In the last Edition the Bishop of Condom recals this Declaration and saith quite another thing though as to the rest he changeth nothing in this regard in the whole model nor in the continuance of his Treatise He saith that he will propose simply the opinions of the Romish Church Page 2. of the 2. Edition Page 7 8 of the 1. Edition and distinguish them from those that have been falsly imputed unto her 2. In the first speaking of the worship of Saints he saith That the honour that the Roman Church gives unto Saints is religious or that it is not religious but because she gives this honour with relation unto God He proves the same That this honour should be so far from being blamed because it is religious that on the contrary it were to be blamed if it were not religious In the last Edition he perceives that he hath said Page 13. and proved too much and not knowing how to recal all that he had said he turns the thing into a form of doubt or into a suspended sense if the honour saith he that the Church gives unto the holy Virgin and the Saints can be called religious it is because it necessarily refers unto God 3. In the first whereas we alledge P. 9. as matter of fact that there is no footstep of any worshiping of Saints in the three first Ages or Centuries or whereas the Bishop of Condom himself saith that Mr. Daillé doth confine himself within those Ages He adds The reason is because it is certain that in those three Ages the Church being more busied in suffering than writing left many things to be cleered in her doctrines and practices c. In the last he altogether expunges these words whatever fair evasion they had he thought this was to confess something too advantageous for us that not only the worshipping of Saints but also several other doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome are not at all to be found in the Writings of the three First Ages though it is known that the Bishop of Condom is not the onely person of his communion that hath not been able to restrain himself from making this confession And he is sensible also without doubt that the reason that he would give for this silence was in effect but a weak colour that is that the Church was more imploy'd in suffering than in writing because that the sufferings of the Church in those First Ages did not at all hinder but that besides the sacred Writings of Evangelists and Apostles which are infinitely above the Writings of all other Ages we have also sufficient large Volumes of many great persons of the three First Centuries as of Justin Martyr S. Iren Clement Priest of Alexandria c. of Tertullian St. Cyprian of Origen and many others before and after them for although Tertullian and Origen held some erroneous Opinions that hinders not but that one or the other might have made mention of the worship of Saints if it were true that they had seen it practised in their dayes 4. In the First having laid down the several means whereby it can be supposed that the Saints do hear our Prayers whether it be by the ministry of Angels or whether that God himself makes them know our desires by a particular revelation or that he discovers unto them this secret in his infinite essence he adds or whether that by any other way more impenetrable and yet more unknown that God makes us receive the fruit of those Prayers that we address unto those blessed Souls which doth import in that place that whether the Saints do hear our Prayers or whether they hear them not God doth not fail to recompence the devotion that men have for the Saints Annot Elucid Quaest 228 in Epist ad Rom Sanctos pro nobis interpellare non est aliud quam pro meritis eorum bonos affectus quos habemus in eos propter Deum remunerare ideo nihil interest sive nos audiant sive non audiant and this is also the Doctrine of Hugh of St.
Victor an Authour of the Twelfth Century In the last the Bishop of Condom doth expunge this Opinion which doth not only shew too much uncertainty touching the ground of such a religious Worship but a kind of incompatibility to address Prayers to Saints if it may be supposed that those Prayers be not at all understood 5. In the First Edition speaking of Images he drops these words that the Church of Rome doth not so much honour the image of an Apostle or Martyr as she doth honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the image This imports that properly there is no honour rendred unto the Image it self or that there is but very little given unto it as they usually tell us in common discourse but this doth not speakfull enough according to the Roman Pontifical and according to the Council of Trent and much less according to the general practice of the Romish Church Therefore it is that in the second Edition the Bishop of Condom expresses himself more strongly When we do honour the image of an Apostle or Martyr Page 32. our intention is not so much to honour the image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the image 6. In the First Edition concluding the Article of the worship of Saints Page 33. There is nothing saith he more unjust than to say that the Church doth make all devotion to consist in worshipping Saints because on the contrary she doth not impose any obligation on particular persons to apply themselves to that practice He adds We have already observed the words of the Council of Trent which is content to term it good and useful without teaching that it is necessary or that it is commanded So that it plainly enough appears that the Church condemns none but such as separate through disrespect or a spirit of dissension and revolving This doth intimate plainly that a man may very well omit the worship of Saints because the Church doth not impose any obligation 〈◊〉 practise iâ— and that the only condemns such as reject it through a spirit of scorn and dissension In the Last Edition the Bishop of Condom reforms all this Article on the one hand he strikes out these two Propositions that the Church doth not impose any obligation to practise the worship of Saints and that the worship of Saints is not a practise necessary nor commanded as if he no more intended to speak the same thing or at least that he would not speak it so plainly or absolutely as he had done but leave it more undetermined and on the other hand whereas he had said the Church condemns only those that reject this practice through disrespect or a spirit of dissention he puts by disrespect or by errour By which means supposing that we are in an errour as the Church of Rome doth suppose this Last Edition returns us under the curse from which we were freed by the First Page 47. 7. In the First concluding what he had said of Justification he adds that it was needless to know more to be a sound Christian which doth ease and free Religion from a great many nice distinctions from Decisions Canons and Anathema's of the Council in regard the Bishop of Condom laies aside all these Doctrines thinking those he hath touched to be sufficient In the Last he changeth this opinion into another quite different he only saith that this Doctrine is enough to shew Christians that they ought to refer unto God through Jesus Christ the glory of their salvation so it is that the Bishop of Condom doth often charge what follows without regarding what went before from whence one may judge what can be the sincerity of his arguing or to be plain from the same propositions he draws very different conclusions 8. In the First he saith Page 5â— that the Church hath alwayes acknowledged the two different wayes of obtaining remission of sins which he proceeds to explain and the First by the pardon which God gives us of them the other by another grace and another absolution which the Church grants in form of judgment by imposing upon us works of penance In the second he finds that it is not in his power to shew that the Church hath at all times taught this Last manner of applying the remission of sins which makes him to curtail this proposition Page 56. 9. In the First being about to finish the Article of Indulgences he concludes that this matter relates principally unto Discipline which words are very remarkable because both parties do agree that matters of Discipline may be taken away or changed according to the circumstances of times and places In the Last he saith not any more that it is the matter of indulgences which relates unto Discipline but only the manner of dispensing them â—2 63 10. In the First he saith upon the Sacraments that they confer grace by virtue of the external action done upon us In the Last he joins unto the action the words that are pronounced â—e 65 11. In the First speaking of confirmation he saith that all Christian Churches have retained this custom ever since the Apostles dayes accompanying the imposition of hands with the holy Chrisme In the Last he hath supprest these words since the Apostles dayes as if they had been said through inadvertency Page 74 in the First Edition but in stead of this expression accompanying the imposition of hands with holy Chrisme which gave to understand that the use of Chrisme was joined unto the imposition of hands from the time of the Apostles he hath put making use also of holy Chrisme having very well perceived without doubt that at the least the use of Chrisme was not brought in till a long time after the imposition of hands and that it is not near of so ancient a date as the Apostles days 12. In the First P. 76 85 92 96 30. upon the Eucharist he speaks of our Belief in several places as if we believed a real presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and this under the pretext that we say that we really partake of the Body of Jesus Christ All his consequences are grounded upon this supposition In the Last he plainly doth perceive that this supposition was easily destroyed by a bare disavowing it on our parts because never any of us have said that we believed the real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This is the reason that in the Last Edition speaking of what we believe he useth every where the terms participation or of real communion in stead of that of real presence which he used every where in the First which is very different because the one doth give way to suppose that the Body of Jesus Christ must come down from Heaven into the Sacrament to be present therein and we say onely that by Faith we lift our hearts to Heaven where he is and that it is so
that we partake of Jesus Christ very really indeed but spiritually nevertheless the Bishop of Condom correcting the term of real presence which he imputed unto us leaves the same consequences which he had seemed upon this Idea prejudging that the belief of the real participation ought to have the same effect as if we believed the presence it self This is called to take away the Foundation and leave the Building in the air or at best but to underprop it by putting in some other support in the place of the Foundation 13. In the First among the many consequences that he draws from our believing a real participation after having said that it must needs be that besides the spiritual communion of the Body of Christ c. we must admit of a real communion of the Body of the same Saviour Pag. 100. he concludes that the Church of Rome would be satisfied would we make this confession which is of very great consequence because that this conclusion doth free us from Transubstantiation and shelter the Lutherans that believe the reality In the latter some other consideration made the Bishop of Condom stifle this opinion pa. 112. and put another altogether different in the place they will never saith he explain this truth in any the least solid manner if they do not return unto the opinion of the Church pag. 109 14. In the First the word Transubstantiation is seen in the Margin in form of a title or article as well as in the Last to mark out the matter of Controversie treated of in that place but throughout the Exposition there is nothing in any place of the Article nor the term of Transubstantiation nor this Proposition that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ In the latter pag 124 after these words the true Body and the true Bloud of Jesus Christ he hath added into which the Bread and the Wine are changed which is that that is called Transubstantiation pag. 115. 15. In the First speaking of the Mass he concludes onely that it may reasonably be called a Sacrifice which implies also that one may safely forbear giving it that name In the latter he changeth this conclusion into another far different for he affirms strongly that there is nothing wanting in the Mass to be a true Sacrifice which yet are two consequences very different to be drawn from one Doctrine that is to say that what the Bishop of Condom proposes in this place for the proving that the Mass is a true Sacrifice doth prove no more than that it may reasonably be called by this name 16. In the First p 132 treating of the belief of them who are called Lutherans the Bishop of Condom speaketh generally of the whole Party that they reject the adoration of the Sacrament which is true In the latter pag. 148. he reduces this general Proposition unto a particular one which destroyes the former for he onely saith that some Lutherans reject the adoration without the appearance of any ground which should oblige him to the making such restriction 17. In the First pag. 113. he draws this consequence from the Doctrine of the real presence that he that can endure the reality which saith he is the most important and most difficult point may easily digest the rest In the latter he bethought himself that this rest comprehends Transubstantiation Adoration the Sacrifice of the Mass and the taking away the Cup and that they are not things so easily believed wherefore he speaks a little slacker that enduring the reality we ought also to endure the rest pag. 165. 18. In the First touching the authority of the Holy Chair he saith that their profession of Faith doth oblige them to acknowledge the Church of Rome as Mistriss and to tender true obedience unto the Pope as Sovereign In the latter he wraps up this Soveraign power in more general terms which conclude nothing positively we acknowledge saith he this Sovereignty speaking of St. Peter in his Successors unto whom is due for this reason the submission and obedience that the holy Councils and Fathers have alwayes taught 19. Upon the same point he saith in the First Edition that the rights of pretensions of the Popes which the Reformed Ministers are alwayes alledging to make that power odious are not of the Catholick Faith nor at all set down in the Profession of Faith In the latter he saith in more indefinite termes that as to those matters of which there is dispute in the Schools c. it is not at all necessary to speak thereof seeing they are not â—f the Catholick Faith 20. To conclude pag. 518. in the First Edition the Bishop of Condom drawing to the conclusion of his Treatise saith that the Fundamentals of Salvation are the adoration of one only God Father Son and Holy Ghost and a belief in one Saviour c. In the Latter he recalls this so absolute Proposition plainly seeing that the allowing this Maxime is to acknowledge that it is us properly who have the fundamentals of Salvation for our Doctrine reduces it self unto these two Heads and we have nothing contrary unto them neither in reality nor in appearance I pass over some other alterations that are less considerable especially if looked on each apart but all together do sufficiently speak the trouble the Bishop of Condom had to put his Treatise into the condition it is now in The only thing to be added in this regard is that though it may plainly be perceived that the Bishop of Condom proposed to himself two principal ends in his Treatise the one to insinuate the Doctrine of the Church of Rome diminishing as much as he could what she holds that is most violently offensive the other to oppose ours principally upon two points in which he believed he could have put us unto great difficulties namely the reality of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the authority of the Church nevertheless it appears that it is only upon the positive Doctrine of the Roman Church that the Bishop of Condom hath stagger'd that he hath touched and retouched withdrawn diminished or added and finally that he hath made all the alterations above mentioned Now from whence could proceed this kind of variation in an Exposition of Faith for it is known how well the Bishop of Condom is qualified and the great clearness and readiness he hath in expressing himself It cannot be said but that he understood perfectly not only the grounds of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome but of ours also four yeares past when his Manuscript Copy was dispersed amongst us or ten moneths since when he caused his Treatise to be printed the first time as well as he knows it at this present Therefore it must needs be that these difficulties do proceed from the very nature of the Opinions that he laies down which have no certain foundation which
are not consequent enough and which have not that perfect proportion that the several parts of a Doctrine ought to have one to the other A man believes as the Church believes because he believes the Church cannot err This is soon said but when he goes about to explain what the Church of Rome believes by what motives and upon what grounds she believes the mind unsatisfied knows not upon what to fix The light of reason draws one way authority draws the other a man speaks more or less than he would or otherwise than the Council of Trent or the Doctors or the general practice of the people would have him speak He writes he blots out he corrects endeavouring to satisfie all the world and after all he hath much ado to satisfie himself in what is tendred unto others However it is certain that there remains not now one word in the Bishop of Condom's Treatise which hath not been exactly scann'd and placed and therein it is without doubt that is comprised what may be most curiously and speciously spoken for the Church of Rome whether we regard the opinions whereunto the Bishop of Condom hath as it were confined himself or the terms he made choice of to insinuate his Doctrine and to wave the difficulties which created him most trouble His Treatise being otherwise short enough it is credible there could not be assigned a better manner of answering it than that which is followed which is not onely to alledge his opinions and the reasons upon which they are grounded but almost throughout the proper terms in which he conceived the one and the other Furthermore besides that this is a means to lay his Treatise plainly before the eies of those that might have forgotten part of it or that probably might not yet have read it the Bishop of Condom cannot in the least say that there was any design to conceal or cloak the sense and the force of his expressions and it will also be seen more exactly if the answer made unto him be just and sufficient The Answer explains it self from the beginning the particular end that is proposed and the order that is observed The reasons are also touched which may be given wherefore no inlargement particularly hath been made on the differences that there might be betwixt the Bishop of Condom's Expositions and the common doctrine of the Church of Rome It shalâ— onely be added in this regard that besides that this discourse must therâ— have been of greater length than iâ— was intended to be 't is known thaâ— there is a certain person of the Church of Rome which doth write againsâ— this very Exposition of the Bishop oâ— Condom's and what those of his communion will speak of their own belief will be much of greater weight and less suspected from their own mouth than from ours Yet it is easie to discern by reading the Bishop of Condom's Treatise in the condition wherein he hath put it in this second Edition that excepting what it may be seen he extenuates touching the worshipping Saints and Images touching the article of Satisfactions touching that of the Sacrifice of the Mass and touching the authority of Popes The difference there is betwixt his Exposition and and the common Doctrine of the Romish Church doth principally consist in that the Bishop of Condom doth wrap up some of the most difficult things in indefinite or general terms and doth suppress a great number of other Doctrines that are received and believed amongst those of their Communion as is taken notice of in the Answer But it is no less easie to foresee by the degree the Bishop of Condom holds with those of his perswasion that if there were a necessity that he should explain himself more particularly upon all these differences he would not fail in all likelyhood to give unto his expressions a sense that right or wrong should well agree with that of the Romish Church and as to those doctrines and practices which he seems to abandon he will say it may be also if every one did speak always as he thinks that his intent was not to abandon them altogether but only to withdraw them for a time from our sight to the end to engage those amongst us that would be inclinable to accommodate themselves to these first overtures Therefore to reduce this Answer unto something that may be less Subject unto contestation and of more certain use the matter chiefly contended for herein is to shew that the Doctrine of the Romish Church such as the Bishop of Condom doth represent it in this Second Edition of his Treatise doth nevertheless always overthrow the foundations of Salvation Notwithstanding to the end none may be wholy mistaken as to the difference there is betwixt the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and the Common Doctrin of the Romish Church besides what hath been said of this difference in several places of the answer it was thought convenient here to insert Word for Word the form of Confession of Faith by the Council which is as it were the Abridgement of the belief of the Romish Church Those that shall read this form with a little reflexion will easily judge whether the mind and intention of this confession be conform in all things unto the mind intention of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise and those of our Communion in particular when they shall be sollicited to change their Religion upon considerations like to these which are offered in this Treatise will at last see whether that which shall be proposed to them to ingage them is so agreeable in all points unto what they are made to promise and solemnly swear when once they are ingaged On one side it is told us that We shall not at all be obliged to call upon Saints if we are not willing provided that we do not condemn these that do call on them that what hath been hitherto called adoration or Worshipping of Images is nothing properly but an honour that is rendred unto the Originals and an help for instructing the people that works and satisfactions are but an application of the merits of Jesus Christ In like manner the Mass but an application of the Sacrifice of his death Transubstantiation but a word or expression that means nothing after all but the reality of the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament which we our selves do also believe as well as the Lutherans in receiving the same Sacrament although one and the other in a different manner that the Cup may be given to the people for the advantage of Peace that provided a precedency be allowed in the person of the Pope for order and unity's sake what farther rights he pretends unto are onely things controverted in the Schools but do not belong unto Faith and that that the Learned in the Gallican Church do yield unto Popes but little more Authority than we our selves would be willing they should allow them that to conclude all these other Doctrines
Pius the Fourth which doth contain the confirmation of the Council of Trent and gives it all its authority That Bull expresly forbids all sorts of persons of what order or dignity soever they are in the Church the Pope onely excepted to explain the decrees of the Council in whatsoever manner or under whatsoever pretext it may be and doth before hand make void all such explications After this let any one tell us what foundation may be had for what the Bishop of Condom hath explained of these decrees how to be assured that some person of his Communion will not stand up and think he may say of him what he hath said of others that herein he is but a particular Doctor that we ought onely to rest upon the proper terms of the Council or at farthest of the Pope who hath reserved unto himself the explication and that in the mean time they will abate nothing of the decrees of the same Council nor of the opinions received in the Chairs and Universities nor of the general practice what abuse soever be pretended in it However it be We may observe as we pass that the Bishop of Condom doth here silently acknowledge that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome all cleared and all decided 〈◊〉 it was by the Council of Trent is noâ— for all so clear but that it hath yâ—â— need of farther explication which 〈◊〉 most true as to the very ground 〈◊〉 it and they have for this same reasoâ— designedly put their several decrees iâ— general and ambiguous terms to givâ— in appearance the greater satisfaction to people It will now be seen by thâ— sequel if the Bishop of Condom himselâ— will speak plainer on these doubtfâ—â—â— points if he will not contain himself still in general terms or if he will not wholy pass over those points here in silence In the mean time what will become of us The Holy Scripture say they is obscure it appertains unto the Church to explain it according to the unanimous sense of the Fathers the Fathers have their obscurities everyone draws them to their side it will require many years to examin them and it will not be easie to form an unanimous sense They add it belongs to the Council to determin that by their decrees but in these very decrees there are things very ambiguous and that may receive a double and a triple sense the Bishop of Condom doth present us an exposition which he saith is faithful In good time but another Prelate or a Doctor of Sorbon will say that the Bishop of Condom is not sufficiently authorised for that or that he hath need himself to be explained and in the mean while those who are afraid of offending God by a Religious observance of anything which is not God and who desire nothing but to Worship the true God purely according to his Word shall abide as it were suspended betwixt all these uncertainties and shall not be able to yield any acquiescency unto these Lively beams where with this Divine Word hath replenished their Souls This is what the design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise would Lead us unto But let us proceed unto the Treatise it self and let us see if this exposition such as it is will produce the two effects it promises which are to cause all disputes to vanish or to reduce them unâ—â—â— such terms as according to our owâ— principles have nothing in them whicâ— Wound the foundations of Faith II. The general proposition of the Bishop of Condom that they of the P. R. R. do confess that the Catholick Church do believe all the fundamental Articles of Chri stian Reli gion The Bishop of Condom begins witâ— this general proposition that those 〈◊〉 the Pretended reformed Religion 〈◊〉 avow that the Catholick Church dâ—â— receive all the fundamental Articles of 〈◊〉 Christian Religion here at first it maâ— be seen as also in the Title of thâ— Treatise that by the Catholick Churâ— the Bishop of Condom intends the Râ—mish Church It is an usage whicâ— the Gentlemen of the Romish Churcâ— very much more affect of Late thâ—â— they have been accustomed namely it seems to cover themselves with more authentick Title and to takâ— a kind of advantage in words aboâ—â— all other Christians that is to say thaâ— the name of the Roman Church anâ— the name of the Catholick Churcâ— doth not sufficiently to their mind mean the same thing the one dotâ— seem much more auspicious than thâ— other And moreover this same thinâ— makes evident that the Titles whicâ— Parties or Communions assume unto themselves according as they have more Lustre and Power are not always a certain proof that they do possess in reality what these Titles ascribe to them because it doth appear that in the midst of the dispute and in the very place where this Title of Catholick is in question one party doth claim it for himself in prejudice of all others These Gentlemen do herein like Princes who alway retain the Title of Countreys which they once possessed although they have Lost those Countreys several Ages past It is true that we our selves do some time give them the name of Roman Catholicks or this simply of Catholicks as well therein to accommodate our selves to the stream of the general use as for the advantage of peace being to Live amongst them according as also for these very considerations we give them the name of Fathers of Bishops of Prelates and others the Titles which they give unto themselves although the right by which they pretend to take them be yet in question and it may be the Word Catholick would not have been so urged here above all other if it did not in the beginning cause an ambiguity in the Bishop of Condom proposition which is that we do allow that the Catholick Church doth believe all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion for who is it that ever doubted a proposition conceived in those terms We allow in earnest that the Church truely Catholick and universal which we profess in the Apostles Creed which is the body 〈◊〉 the Elect of all Ages not onely always hath held and shall always hold all the fundamental points but that she never did nor ever shall hold any Capital Error which doth intirel 〈◊〉 destroy the foundations and this i 〈◊〉 what we cannot say of the Church o 〈◊〉 Rome We own that she doth receive the fundamental Articles as the Bishop of Condom doth alledge but we do say at the same time as he himself doth instance that she destroys the foundations by contrary Articles and we prove it not onely by the consequences which we draw from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as the Bishop of Condom avers onely because it pleaseth him so to do P. 8 but directly by the Doctrine it self which she teacheth and openly practices It is true that the Church of Rome doth teach that we ought to Worship one onely God Father Son and
as he could but for all this what might not oâ— say upon each of these propositions if this were a place to handle the question to the bottom But seeing the Bishop of Condom desires not to insist upon refuting of him and also it being not the design of this answer we shall also content our selves almost throughout to set forth simply our beliefe in opposition unto his because it may be thought that there is no more needful as well to judge in general which of the two hath more the character of truth as to make appear that his exposition is always equally contrary to our fundamental points Onely after 〈◊〉 â—â—ample we will touch some reasons upon which we ground our selves for the same consideration which he himself makes where he saith that the knowledge of the principal reasons of a Doctrine doth often make up a necessary part of its exposition The reformed Churches do believe that it is not onely for the Glory of God but that it is his will also as he hath told us in his word that we should worship but one God that we should serve none but God with a religious worship that we should have recourse unto none but God only in our necessities that we should call upon none but God in our Prayers and that invocation according to the very word is a spiritual sacrifice which makes up the chiefest part of the worship due unto God onely We believe that this is the true meaning of the Commandments of the Law and of all the Doctrin of the Gospel which directs us throughout to address unto God our vows our Prayers and our thanksgivings and as for the faithful Servants of God which we esteem to have dyed in his favour we say that we should honour their memories praise their faith their zeal their charity and all other their Christian vertues and propose them for example and imitation unto the faithful This is properly our beliefs and we are perswaded that those who will consider it with a free and equal mind will not onely find it safe and right but also pure and disengaged from abuse from difficulties and uncertainties which accompany that of the Bishop of Condom We will begin to examin this Article of his exposition where he ends it to wit how the Saints know our vows our needs and our Prayers because it is in vain to pray if not understood we have seen that the Bishop of Condom hath declared that never any of his Communion did conceive that the Saints could know our Prayers and desires by themselves that is by their own proper nature that also there is not any immensity attributed unto them and that nevertheless the Church of Rome doth not decide whether it be by the Commerce of Angels or by revelations as were those of the Prophets or whether it be that they see all in God himself But doth not this uncertainty already shew what that Faith can be that hath no surer foundation Is it not a new circuit if our vowes and our Prayers must pass from us unto Angels from Angels to Saints and from Saints to God and is it not yet a new difficulty if we must suppose that Angels themselves know our thoughts and our dâ—sires For although they are Miâ—string Spirits as the Bishop of Condâ—â— alledges when they are sent foâ—â— to attend the Faithful it doâ— not follow that we ought to attribâ— to them the knowledge of hearts which onely belongs to an inâ—nite essence Heb i. 14 Jerem. 17 6 10. Amos 5 7. There is also this diffâ—rence betwixt the Saints and the Prophets that God himself hath said thâ— he revealed things to come unto thâ— Prophets but he never said that 〈◊〉 revealed our thoughts unto Saints and very unlike it is that the knowledge of future things seems to 〈◊〉 more reserved to God than oâ— thoughts and our Prayers as the Bâ—shop of Condom affirms It 〈◊〉 known that the Devils and even mâ— themselves sometimes search iâ— what is to come and that it is properly the knowledge of the hearâ— which God reserves unto himself â—lone Pâ—s 7 10 1 Chro â—6 s 7. It is yet a gulf of difficulties to Imâ—gin that the Saints see all things in thâ— infinite essence of God For is not this to attribute immensity unto them And is it not also to suppose that all things are in God either according to their proper nature or by their Images as they must needs be to be known or seen by the Saints whereas it was never said but that all things were in God only eminently as it is said in the Schools that is to say that the perfection or infinity of his essence comprehends all things and that there is nothing properly without him Besides good heed ought here to be taken that the principal and essential question is not to know how the Saints can understand our thoughts and our Prayers that may be in some sort indifferent but how we may be assured at Least they do know them For if we have only probabilities and conjectures for it this is not sufficient to establish a Religious Worship such as that is nor praying unto the Saints with confidence In the mean while the Church of Rome doth agree that the Saints do not know our desires and our wants by their own nature it were very needful therefore that their should be some very express revelation that might at Least inform us that they do know them though we were ignorant of the means but noâ— having any Likely revelation in this matter it is evident that all this worship of Saints hath no foundation There is yet another difficulty that the Bishop of Condom hath not touched which doth manifestly shew that there can be no assureance that the Saints who are prayed unto caâ— know our desires and Prayers oâ— that they are in a condition of doing what we pray unto them for it is thaâ— we cannot be assured of this it self that the greatest number of the Saintâ— who are prayed unto are in Heaven especially in the Roman Church where they believe a third place For although we ought to judge charitably of them who seem to dye in thâ— Lord yet the judgement of charitâ— is not sufficient to establish such worship as this is The Council nor the Bishop oâ— Condom upon the whole say nothing to these difficulties which yet are essential and preliminaries also as it may be said because it is a most evident truth that no true Religious Worship can be grounded upon uncertain reasons But Lastly having touched what the Bishop of Condom doth not resolve it is time to examin what he explains and that which he saith to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome And First it is a Wonderful thing that in Laying down as he doth so Long a train of Doctrins as hath been mentioned going about to establish so considerable a Worship as the Worship of Saints is in
We do not Pray unto Saints sâ— they but in a Spirit of charity aâ— Communion as we do pray our Brethrâ—â— that are living to pray for us and thâ— one doth not more derogate from thâ— Glory of God than the other But the Scripture is full of examples and precepts which oblige us tâ— pray one for another we are assure that our brethren who are Living dâ— understand us and there is so greaâ— a difference betwixt what we thinâ— of them and of God that these sort of charitable Offices which we render to another were never Lookeâ— upon but as actions purely human and never making up any part of Religious Worship Whereas on thâ— one hand we have no Command foâ— Praying unto Saints nor certaiâ— knowledge that the Saints understanâ— our vows and our Prayers and oâ— the other hand the Idea which wâ— form of the Saints Reigning in Glory with Jesus Christ the honours much more than human rendred unto them the benefits and succours demanded of them however any endeavour to sweeten the matter in dispute make them approach so near unto God that it is too apparent the people regard the Saints as Divi or Gods which also is the name that several Catholick Authors give them The Prayers which we make to our Brethren alive consist but in a Word and do not any wise divert our hearts from the Religious Worship of God but the Worship of Saints doth alone make a Long exercise of Religion Bellar. lib 3 Sanct. beat cap 9 Lips in virg Bonav in Psalt Beat virg and while it shall do nothing else but imploy and often fix heart and thoughts on men is not this to divert them for that time from their true object which is God The Church of Rome thinks to excuse this Worship by the difference which she pretends to put betwixt the Prayer she makes unto God and that she makes unto Saints but it is all along Prayer and according to us Religious Prayer what ever the matter or end may be is always a part of that Worship and honour which we owe God onely Anâ— moreover it is not true that they only Pray unto the Saints to pray foâ— them They of the Roman Churcâ— beseech of them redress of their evils deliverance from dangers in a worâ— all things temporal and spiritual of St. Paul or St. Nicholas to saâ—â— them from Shipwrack of St. Roc 〈◊〉 preserve them from the Plague of Sâ— Peter to open unto them the Gates oâ— Heaven of the Virgin that she would defend them from the enemy which is the Devil that she would receive them at the hour of death that she would have mercy upon them which is precisely what we beseech of God himself In the Litany's of the Virg. Parce nobis Domina c. Domina mundi cum filio tuo sanctissimo miserere nobis and that which they would have to make the difference betwixâ— God and the Saints And what is very remarkable it is not particulaâ— persons that make these sorts of requests by a missled Devotion theâ— are publick and solemn Prayers inserted in the Offices and rituals 〈◊〉 they speak authorised by the Roman Church and generally practiseâ— by all those of its Communion Yes Say they farther But in what terms soever it is that these Prayers are conceived the intention of the Church is to reduce the sense to Pray the saints onely to intercede for us and to obtain of God all those good things which they beseech But what then is it that the Bishop of Condom doth here understand by the Church if it be not the body of all those who make it up which are the same persons who make these Prayers of whom it was said that they reduce the sense of Prayer to the Saints to Pray the Saints to intercede for us Is not this to apply the name of Church unto all things as if it were a remedy for all diseases The people demand of the Saints all good things Temporal and Spiritual these people do make up the Church and they tell us that the intention of the Church doth reduce their demands unto a simple request of Prayer that is that the people do say in Prayer another thing than they would and that the intention doth here explain the words whereas otherwise it is the words that are the Interpreters of the intentions Besides wherefore are they noâ— willing that God should be jealouâ— of our words as he is of our thoughts For our tongue is Gods as well 〈◊〉 our heart and it is the words whicâ— do declare the honour outwardly 〈◊〉 it is the intention which doth rule thâ— inward thoughts and God will nâ— give his Glory to another But when we shall understand 〈◊〉 the Church whose intention it 〈◊〉 said is to reduce the invocation 〈◊〉 Saints unto a simple request to Prâ— for us when I say we shall therebâ— understand the Council of Trent oâ— the sense of the Roman Church in Gâ—neral as it doth seem he would haâ— us to understand by it it is wâ— known that the intention of those wiâ— Pray doth follow the natural sense the expressions they use and that thâ— do not go to seek after any other iâ—tention of the Council or of tâ— Church in General and the intâ—â—tion of those who Pray doth 〈◊〉 onely not go beyond what is here supposed but it is impossible it should be otherwise The nature of man is such that not onely it inclines but also doth evermore fix it self unto some Religious object proposed to it which hath some resemblance unto the sense and Nature of man what care soever is taken to direct the intention and the more grosse and proportioned to its weakness this object shall be the better will humane Nature accommodate it self thereto It is the constant default of the Roman Communion that they make not sufficient reflexion on the one hand upon the Nature of God and the true Worship which he requires of us and on the other upon the Nature of man himself God Great infinite Jealous of his Glory a pure Spirit did not seem heretofore to be otherwise pleased with sacrifices and ceremonies in the infancy of the world or under the rudiments of the Law than that he onely might temperate himself unto the dulness of people and of the Jews in particular These poor people had nothing dearer unto them than their flocks the fruits 〈◊〉 their lands and the commodities oâ— this Life God required of them sâ—crifices of their flocks and offerings oâ— their fruits as the most assured pledgâ— which they could give of their Lovâ— and obedience But since it hatâ— pleased God to increase the Lights oâ—â—eason by a Longer use of reason iâ— self and to joyn unto these Lights thâ— Light of the Gospel which hath raised and purified our thoughts and ouâ— affections God would no Longer have any offering nor Sacrifice but thâ— hearts of men their Love their feaâ— and their Religious
confidence buâ— he will have this same confidence aâ— intirely and will not suffer that wâ— should impart the least share of it untâ— any others besides himself Men foâ— their parts although more enlightnâ— now than the Jews were cease nâ— yet to be men that is to say weak and as the Light of the Gospelâ— strange to their reason they easily return â—nâ—o their grosse and carnal sense if ever the least occasion be giveâ— them there must therefore be taken away from their senses all that may incline them unto the Creatures much less may we present unto them objects of Worship that should incline them to them otherwise it is to will two things which are altogether incompatible one that they should regard these objects and the other that they should not incline to them One general mark of this Natural inclination of men and of the difficulty there is in restraining them is that let the Church of Rome pretend as Long as she please that she puts a difference betwixt the Worship which she renders to God and that which she renders unto the Saints yet it appears almost in all places and in all things that there is no sort of homage of honour or outward service which is given to God that they do not also render the Like thereto unto Saints It hath already been shewed how she addresseth unto Saints Prayers altogether like to those which she addresseth unto God it is seen how she Consecrates Temples Altars Hosts Holy days Monasteries and Religious societies in their names how they put persons families cities whole Kingdoms under their protection how they offer incense unto them as unto God himself c. In some sâ—t they go farther they joyn the Saints unto God in several things in praying they have no sooner said a Pater-noster but they say an Ave Mary in the general confession of sins they say I confess my self unto God unto the Virgin unto the Apostles and all the Saints in Paradise In dangers in surprises and at the hour of death they teach the people to say Jesus Mary the poor do not ask Almiâ— but in the name of God and the Virgin the Authors in like manner pray or thank God and the Virgin in thâ— beginning and end of their Works and Lastly the Pope himself doth enâ— all his Bulls by a form of threatning of the indignation of God and St Peter and St. Paul joyning the Apostles with God for companions of hâ—â—nâ—â—â— If there appear any difference betwixt the Worship which is given to God and that which is given to Saints it is this that in truth there is much more of these outward things done to the Saints than there is to God for one Prayer addressed to God how many are there addressed unto Saints and particularly to the Virgin whether it be in the offices and Rituals or when they say their beads which is as it were the measure of the Peoples Devotion In Paris for one Church consecrated to the Name of God there is an infinite Number to be seen consecrated to the Name of Saints and several unto the name of one Saint a thing very different from the usage of the first Ages of Christianity which onely made mention of the Temple or of the house of God and that had not so much as one Temple that was consecrated unto the Name of Angels or Saints But Let us yet observe the difference there is betwixt the Churches Consecrated unto the names of Saints and those which bear the name of God or of any of the persons of the Holy Trinity For example betwixt our Lady's and St. Eustace's on the one side and St. Saviour's and the Holy Ghost's on the other nothing can be added to the greatness and magnificence of the two first either within or in the Frontispiece These are the Grand Churches here is properly the Grand devotion and concourse of people The others are as it were neglected obscure and almost forsaken in comparison of the former This it will be said matters nothing unto the Essence of Religion these are but popular things the Churches themselves though they bear the name of Saints are first and principally intended to the Service of God and all finally refers unto God and is terminated on God In good time and would to God that it were really so But these things are onely here mentioned to prove what hath been said of the natural inclination of people who turn their hearts their devotion and their dependence it self ever towards the Creatures when they make them the object of their Religion You may as long as you please distinguish betwixt a mediate and an immediate object or Worship an adoration or invocation relative or subalternate and absolute or final Say you make a difference betwixt the Prayers unto Saints and those which are made to God endeavour to reduce thoughts and expressions by the intention of the Church or the Council of Trent or by some sweetnings of expressions men shall be judged by their own proper intentions and not by those of the Council and not onely by their intentions but if they must render an account for every idle word by greater reason of Vows of Incense of Bowing the Knee and Prayers or of words of Devotion which they shall have addressed to others besides God and these very words shall be taken according to their natural sense and not according to a strange or forced interpretation The Bishop of Condom cannot conceive how reducing the Invocation of Saints to nothing but to demand theiâ— aid for obtaining benefits of Goâ— through his Son Jesus Christ who iâ— our onely Saviour and Redeemer wâ— can say that this is to go aloof off from Jesus Christ and we for our parts cannot conceive how the Bishop of Condom should not see by the very subtiltâ— of his expressions and by the troublâ— he hath had to put them in the condition they are now in how I say hâ— should not see that this is to go aloâ— off from Jesus Christ for to fetch thiâ— compass about to come unto him Foâ— we suppose that Jesus Christ would that we come directly unto him thâ— he commandeth this very matter thaâ— he is alone the truth Joh 6.14 the way and thâ— life and that there are none come unâ— the Father but by him and is not this 〈◊〉 keeping aloof off from Jesus Christ to put the Saints as a medium betwixt Christ and us whereas we should immediately imbrace and closely hold him by a true and lively Faith Let the Gentlemen of the Roman Church make here a sincere serious reflexion Our Religion goes straight unto God it looks only to God and fears to give unto the creature that religious honour which is due to none but God theirs besides that it is not found authorised by any command of God or example of the Apostles professes indeed to refer all their devotion unto God but at the least it cannot be
the Work of our Salvation though it should be onely for not having rejected it And though it seem at first sight that there is not in this point so great a difference betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us it will appear upon very iâ—â—le râ—flection made thereon that as to the Foundation this difference is very great as well upon the points of their Doctrine in this very matter as upon all the other points that proceed from it In the first place he busies himself more or less touching the sincerity and purity of thoughts which we ought to have not onely of the power of God but more particularly of his grace and infinite goodness which could make us without us and which will yet save us in some sense not onely without our selves as when he is found of them which seek him not but also often maugre our selves as when he doth touch the hearts of those which persecute his Church which in effect is what the Christian Religion hath more noble most essential and most admirable We have nothing upon this point but to compare our Sentiments with those of the Church of Rome to see which are most conformable unto this fair Idea of the great mercy of God which makes him to extend his benefits and compassions even unto those very persons who resist him 1. We attribute all unto God in the Work of our Salvation without desiring to take any thing unto our selves and albeit this very thing were true that we could pretend unto any small part yet upon the whole the errour may not be criminal It may on the contrary be esteemed profound humility and an acknowledgment of our nothingness whereas the Romish Church whatever protestation she makes that she also attributes all to God as we do sticks not nevertheless to attribute unto man a great part of the merit and honour of his Salvation 2. In ascribing all unto God as we do and in renouncing our selves we assure the quiet of conscience because thereby we put all the confidence of our Salvation in the goodness of God and in the merits of his Son's Death which is an unshakeable Foundation whereas the Church of Rome gives man an opinion of his own strength which on the one side cannot but diminish in some sort that intire confidence which he ought to have in the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and on the other side make him promise himself much from his Fasts and from his other good Works like the Pharisee in the Gospel and notwithstanding this he ceaseth not to be miserably perplexed in this life or at his death with fears of Purgatory or of Hell when he comes to perceive his weakness and to think that it was partly in his power to have saved himself 3. Our Belief doth very strictly ingage us by all the strongest bands of Love and Gratitude to Worship God and to serve him and to keep his Commandments with so much the more care and zeal as he saveth us by his pure grace overcoming the very opposition of our Will The Doctrine of the Gentlemen of the Roman Church doth also ingage them to the same Duty but it diminisheth much herein by supposing that they are something beholding unto their own natural strength and besides this it mingles with this duty motives of Hope of good and fear of evil which in their nature would not be amiss were it as easie as it is difficult to keep them within just moderation which nevertheless are always more of the dispensation of the Law than of the true Spirit of the Gospel The onely or the principal thing which is alledged against us upon this Article of Justification is that they pretend that our Doctrine referring as it doth our Salvation wholly to the mercy of God and to the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ which is imputed unto us it seems to put men at liberty or at least under a relaxation from good Works as if they had nothing to do on their part or that it ought to be indifferent unto them whether they did good or evil But we have already prevented this Objection by giving to understand that being very far from making the mercy of God an occasion of sin and negligence we say with David that there is mercy with God that he may be feared And besides though there be but too much of vice and sin in us as we do not presume that our manners are better than those of Roman Catholicks we can say for the defence of our Doctrine that it cannot be seen that we are much more wicked or extravagant than they whether the people or Clergy be regarded We on our side do yet oppose unto the Gentlemen of the Roman Church that their Belief doth produce two infallible evil effects it casts some into a presumption of their own merits from whence proceed Vows Abstinences Macerations and other the like practices which we believe superstitious and contrary to the Word of God and it precipitates others into despair by the resentment they have of their own weakness from whence proceeds their recourse unto Saints Purgatory Indulgences and all those other Doctrines and Practices which we believe to be contrary unto true piety It may therefore be seen by the bare comparing of our Doctrine with that of the Church of Rome which of the two doth most tend unto the glory of God and to form the most pure and disinteressed thoughts in our hearts and if in the end the difference which there is betwixt the one and the other doth not induce any very considerable change in Religion this will yet farther appear in examining other Doctrines which in some sort depend upon Justification The first VII The merit of Works in the Bishop of Condom's order is the merit of Works upon which we confess sincerely that the Bishop of Condom and those of the Roman Church who discover the purest sentiments of Free Grace speak almost every where as we do We agree with them in the principal which is that good Works are not only well pleasing unto God but necessary to Salvation Nor do we deny either one or the other that God doth crown his gifts and his graces and that according to his promises he doth freely reward those who serve him In summe it would seem that this Doctrine were sufficient to entertain in our hearts the true love of Righteousness and hatred of Sin and here it is properly that the dispute is onely touching words This term of merit Mereri which hath been introduced onely by an ill interpretation of the Latin hath indeed thus much of disgust that on the one hand it seems to make our weak endeavours to concur with the merit of the bloud of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to suppose some proportion betwixt our Works and eternal Life and on the other hand it puffs up that arrogancy unto which man is naturally too much inclined But
and Order which are three of these seven Sacraments there is nothing of a visible sign unto which the blessing can be joined as there ought to be to make true Sacraments according to the Doctrine of St. Augustine As to their Efficacy we agree with the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and with the Bishop of Condom in particular in that we acknowledge as they do that the Sacraments are not onely signes or seales of the grace of God but instruments or means which he accompanies with his power to confer that very grace But there is this difference which is very considerable betwixt them and us that they will have it that the Sacraments do confer grace by virtue of the words which are spoken and by the action which is outwardly performed upon us Pag. 69 70. provided that we put no obstacle by any evil disposition which is what the Council terms conferring grace ex opere operato as it is also the language of the School that is to say by the action or by the bare celebration of the Sacrament it self And as for us we believe in truth that God doth accompany the Sacraments with his power and that they confer grace when they are received with Faith but not that they do confer it of themselves or by the words which are pronounced and by the outward action done upon us if they be not received with a true Faith The Church of Rome doth believe that this virtue is as it were inherent or affixed to the Sacrament and to the outward action which is in it performed though neither the Council nor the Bishop of Condom believed themselves bound to explain whether it be a Moral or Physical virtue so that according to their Doctrine this iis not necessary it self to be in a good disposition that is to say to have Faith or at least to exercise the acts in receiving the Sacraments It will suffice not to be in an evil disposition and thereby not to interrupt the virtue of the Sacraments or not to put an obstacle thereto for neither the Council nor the Bishop of Condom require any thing else But as for us we hold unto the Word of God which doth teach us in several places that it is by Faith onely that we partake of these graces God not affixing his power meerly unto visible things Pa. 154 as the Bishop of Condom himself confesseth in another place We reject the Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point with so much the more reason for that besides that it is very evil in it self there may be observed several considerable abuses which proceed from it 1. First This Doctrine is very evil in it self in that it doth tye the grace of God unto outward things 2. In that it carries men to neglect the acts and habits of Faith and of other Christian virtues teaching them that the Sacraments alone regenerate and sanctifie them without ever troubling themselves so much as to bring any good disposition with them which is a Doctrine whereof the bare Exposition doth disgust those who are not accustomed unto it From whence also proceeds that in the Roman Church they make the greatest part of devotion and piety to consist in causing to be said a great number of Masses and of going often to confession as they speak because they are taught that the action of the Priest and the words which he pronounces have the virtue to confer grace provided onely that they put not any obstacle on their part 3. This opinion hath served to introduce or establish the Doctrine of the Real Presence such as it is taught in the Roman Church which we believe to be very bad as we shall shew hereafter 4. From thence also is plainly come the Opinion of the necessity of giving the Eucharist unto Infants which is an Errour that reigned a long time in the Church and this other Errour of the necessity of Baptism which yet doth raign at this day in the Church of Rome 5. The same Opinion doth also give occasion to several other very wicked and superstitious acts insomuch that there have been some people who have imployed the matter of the Sacraments for Charms and for other most mischievous uses 6. To conclude the Council makes this Opinion a principle to establish thereby many others which we reject and which together do corrupt very much the purity of Christianity So that it is evident that this matter of the Sacraments in general which at the first sight appeared not very considerable ceaseth not nevertheless to be of great importance by reason of the consectaries which it drawes after it for that this is the nature of Errour to be fruitful in productions It were much to be desired that for an intire clearing of what is most considerable upon this Article the Bishop of Condom would have been pleased to have told us something of his thoughts upon the several Doctrines of the Council which he passeth over in silence and amongst others upon that of the Eleventh Canon which requires that the Priest which administers the Sacrament have an intention to consecrate and to confer grace without which there is nothing effected It is known that there are men to be found so wicked as to sport themselves with the Holy Mysteries as indeed of them there be but too many Examples Let them tell us in this case what ought to be thought of all those unto whom these wicked Cheates do pretend to give the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist of Pennance and of Absolution c. As to some have they not adored what was not adorable as to the others are they not deprived altogether of the effect of Baptism or of Absolution and so of the other Sacraments And as to all the necessary consequents of this principal Doctrine doe they not clearly shew that the Doctrine it self is very evil The Bishop of Condom not saying any thing unto these controverted matters would be content that here and elsewhere where he deales after the same sort his silence should be taken for a tacit consent that all these Doctrines howsoever established by the Canons of the Council are at least of the number of those things which may be waved The Bishop of Condom reduces all the Questions touching Baptisme Baptism unto that of the necessity of this Sacrament for Infants and indeed that is the chiefest All that he says herein consists in three things upon which it may be said at first sight that this haply is one of those places of his Treatise wherein he doth most of all swerve from his natural equity In the first place he condemnes those poor small creatures in terms more formal and severe than the Council it self doth Infants saith he not being able to supply the want of Baptism by the acts of Faith of Hope and of Charity nor by desire or vow of receiving this Sacrament we believe that if they receive it not
in Pag. 71 72. reality they partake not any way of the grace of Redemption and so dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ The onely pronouncing of this sentence against the Infants of Believers causes a kind of horrour mingled with a tender and just compassion for these poor Innocents for they are looked on as such though they are tainted with Original sin and the Church of Rome calls them Innocents and Martyrs which Herod caused to be slain and celebrates a Feast unto their memory Now this very sense of horrour and pity which such condemnation it self excites in our spirits being natural and reasonable it is a sign there is no condemnation You condemn them because they cannot supply the want of Baptism by acts of Faith as do the adult persons whom you save without Baptism but it is for that very reason that you ought not to condemn them The Roman Church is well contented that the Faith of Godfathers and Godmothers and of the Church should supply the want of Faith in Infants even then when they receive Baptism It is the Godfather that speaking for the Child saith that he demands to be baptised that he renounces the Devil that he Believes in God and in a word that makes the whole Confession of Faith which we make in the Creed Wherefore then will she not yield that this same Faith of the Godfathers and of the Church may supply the place to Infants of those desires or vows which adult persons have for Baptism or of those acts of Faith which are in stead of Baptism There is no more reason for one than for the other if the Fathers or Godfathers speaking for the Infant may say I believe in God the Father Almighty c. they may as well say for him too I do promise and vow to be baptised if death or want of means do not hinder Dying in Adam they have no part in Jesus Christ But why will you have these Children to dy in Adam seeing they are born of Christian Parents that they dy in their arms in the midst of vows and prayers which are made to God for them Gen. 17.7 God is the Father of Abraham and of his posterity our Father and the Father of our Children And the Children of Believers are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 that is to say they are Children of the Promise as the Scripture speaks or they are born in the Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and by consequence they should not be excluded from the benefit of his Death which is common to them with their Fathers under a pretence that they are not of age to declare that they accept of this benefit as in the World the Children that are born in Cities or in Countries have a share in the Rights and Priviledges of the Cities and Countries which they are born and in the benefits of Treaties of Peace and Friendship which are made betwixt the Princes though the Children be not in a condition of ability to testifie that they do submit unto those Treaties You have a veneration for the Relicks of Saints because they are parts of the living members of Jesus Christ this is the reason which the Council gives as it hath elsewhere been said But after all these are onely of the bones dead parts of those living members yet without scruple you condemn these poor little Infants which are as much parts of Saints and living and animated parts And further do you believe that all Infants departed since Adam before the institution of Baptism or of Circumcision which was the Figure of Baptism for example the Children of Abel or of Noah under the Law of Nature do you believe I say that as it may be said they dyed truly in Adam so that they had no part in Jesus Christ Or that God who substituted some other meanes of Salvation for those Infants in the place of Baptism or of Circumcision cannot and will not also even yet at this day supply the necessitated default of Baptism by his grace How is it that those of the Church of Rome who find so much difficulty to comprehend the eternal Decree of God according unto which though we are all children of Adam God hath chosen some and passed by others without as we can conceive any other reasons but his good pleasure how is it I say that these Gentlemen find no difficulty to believe that the Infants of the Faithful should be so intirely excluded from the common Redemption without any other reason save that they are children of Adam as the Fathers themselves also were whom God called unto Salvation To conclude what can there be more convincing against this absolute necessity of Baptism than this other necessity of the intention of the Priest who administers the Sacrament For if on the one hand there can be no Salvation without Baptism and on the other the effect of Baptism depend on the intention of him who baptiseth not onely the Salvation of Infants who have not been baptised but the Salvation even of those who dye soon after Baptism before they come to age depends then absolutely on the Priest which is equally inconsistent with the Justice the Power the Wisedom and the Goodnesse of God The onely or the principal authority that the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome do alledge for the belief of a Doctrine so dangerous as is this absolute necessity of Baptism is a passage of our Saviours in St. John's Gospel speaking to Nicodemus Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God This passage is like another of our Saviours near the same place Joh. 6 53. If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud you have no life in you and it is true that upon these two passages taken according to the letter some of the fathers have grounded themselves as well for the necessity of administring the Eucharist unto Infants as for the necessity of Baptism But if the Church of Rome hath in process of time justly acknowledged that the necessity of the Eucharist unto Infants was a gross errour that this Sacrament ought not to be given unto Infants wherefore is it that she doth not also acknowledge that this necessity of Baptism may be as much an errour If they believe that this last passage ought not to be understood of the Eucharist or at least that it ought not to be understood according to the letter of all sorts of persons indifferently but onely of such as have age and meanes necessary to partake of the Eucharist why do they pass a judgment so contrary touching the other Why will they not also admit it ought to be understood likewise of regeneration or of a spiritual washing under the figure or expression of water and of the Spirit which is joyned unto the water As that place which saith Ye shall be baptized
means of Salvation or a sign and sacred Ceremony as the Bishop of Condom terms it but a true Sacrament properly so called as are Baptism and the Eucharist though it is plain that there is nothing properly here whereby the blessing of the Word might be joyned unto some visible sign which serves as matter according to the Doctrine of St. Austin 2. Is it not also an odd thing that the Council doth make articles of Faith of all these distinctions of Attrition Contrition and several others which at least ought to be left to the Schools and that because a certain Father speaking of Repentance after sin * St. Jerom compares it unto a Plank by which a man saves himself when the Vessel is cast away Sess 14. de Sacram Paenit Can. 2. the Council applying this comparison unto the Sacrament of Pennance and of Confession which nevertheless is quite another thing as hath been shewed thunders out an Anathema against all such who do not agree that Pennance is rightly called a second Plank after Shipwrack as it were canonising a Figure of Rhetorick Perhaps it may be said that the Council intended onely to define the thing it self but let them say herein what they will it doth not at all suit with the simplicity and gravity of the Subject nor with the honour and gravity of the Council it self and it cannot be but that this easiness in making articles of Faith of all things throwing out Anathema's on all hands must create offence in some and contempt in others To conclude if it be true as the Council it self hath once defined it touching all the Sacraments in general and here in particular touching this of Pennance that when the Priest hath no real intention to absolve the sinner or when he doth not make use of this Form of Absolution Ego te absolvo c. I absolve thee c which is the essential and necessary Form of this Sacrament in which principally consists all its virtue according to the same Council or where the Priest hath not power to absolve as in cases reserved unto the Bishop or unto the Pope himself in all these cases Confession is without any effect and the sinner without pardon of what nature then is this Doctrine or Religion which runs all along upon so uncertain principles which makes the grace of God and the salvation of men to depend still upon the villany giddiness errour or want of power of one man The Bishop of Condom hath almost throughout used an easie expedient to disentangle himself for either he saith nothing of all these Doctrines of the Council or he doth not engage himself to prove any thing of what he himself speaks to them if it be not sometimes when he thinks that the matter is favourable for him or that he may inlarge himself without the least danger Here he wraps himself up in two opinions which are little to the purpose keeping a profound silence upon all the rest The First is that the terms of the Commission which is given to the Ministers of the Church to remit sins are so general that they cannot without temerity be restrained unto publick sins c. This is a little obscure the Bishop of Condom seems to intimate that amongst us we do believe that the Ministers of the Church cannot give absolution but onely of publick sins because that amongst us there is none but sinners who have committed notorious sins that make a publick acknowledgment in the presence of the Assembly unto whom in this case the Ministers announce the pardon of their sins with the circumstances and coâ—tidions which according to custome relate thereto But yet for all that it is not true that we limit the power of announcing pardon of sins unto publick sins and because we have no better mean whether it be to refute the Doctrines of those of the Roman Church or to make them in love with our Doctrine than to make them rightly understand it it shall be explained here in a few words what is the practice of our Churches touching confession and remission of sins There are several occasions upon which we do confess our sins whether it be in publick or private and wherein our Pastours doe announce unto us forgiveness First in the publick Assemblies in our entrance upon our ordinary exercises we make unto God a general confession of our sins Every one makes a particular reflexion upon his own sins and upon them whereunto he finds himself most subject 2. In the Sermon we are again exhorted to confess our sins heartily to repent of them to be a better people on which condition God pardons us it is the main subject and perpetual conclusion of all our Sermons 3. In our Houses in our Closets we do again more particularly confess our sins in the presence of God and both on the one and the other of these occasions we believe that if we are truly penitent with a true and lively confidence in the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ and a stedfast resolution to live better for the time to come God vouchsafes us the grace of pardon and regeneration 4. Upon the particular occasions of communion in the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist in afflictions and upon the solemn occasions of Fasting we do make a more express and as we may so speak aggravated confession of our sins whether it be in publick prayers or in our own private reflexions and on these occasions again the Ministers in the name and in the authority of Jesus Christ in the very Quality of Ministers declare on the one hand the Judgments of God upon the impenitent and on the other supposing the Faith and repentance of the Sinners they announce unto us the remission of our sins 5. In our sicknesses and especially in those that are most dangerous we likewise more particularly confess our sins whether it be before our Pastours and Guides or before our Friends making also acknowledgment sometimes more particularly and freely of the infirmities and sins whereunto we are most subject Our Friends and our Pastours exhort us unto a lively sorrow for our faults and unto an intire trust in our Saviour and our Pastours in particular do exhort and comfort us If they see us in too great security or too little touched with the sense of our sins they declare unto us the severity of Gods Judgments against impenitent Sinners as on the contrary if they behold in us true motions of sorrow and repentance and a lively hope in the death of our Saviour they assure us that God will shew grace and mercy to us If we have any quarrel or animosities whether it be in sickness or health they say to us as St. James Confess your faults one to another for this is the true meaning of that passage and not the Sacramental confession as the sincere * Cardinal Aureolus in Compen elucid 5. upon this passage of Saint James
some corporal or pecuniary pennances imposed upon them Therefore also it hath often been observed in our Churches that the least regular persons are most subject to forsake our Communion because that whilest they continue in their sin amongst us they find nothing that may assure them of the pardon and absolution which they hope for of a Confessor And if it be true that the Confessors or Directors of conscience as they are termed often give wise counsels it is but too true also that the Counsellors themselves very often take occasion thereby to corrupt themselves or to insinuate themselves in all publick affairs of State or in the particular affairs of private Families and History is but too full of the Evils which have hapned unto the publick and to particular persons The very consolation also which they give Sinners in pronouncing their absolution doth turn into security and to conclude as hath already been openly declared upon another subject it cannot be made appear that they who live in the practice of auricular Confession are better people than those who confess themselves chiefly unto God The Council here joines Extreme Unction unto Repentance Extreme Vnction There is this difference betwixt the precedent Article and this that this latter is nothing near of so great consequence This is nothing in a manner but an useless ceremony and an evil custom whereof the errour may be tolerable in it self if it were not of dangerous influence in introducing into Religion lesser matters which might by little and little turn away the soul and heart from solid piety We might upon better grounds call this ceremony a Sacrament than Pennance Marriage or Orders which follow this because at least the Oyl may there hold the place of a visible Sign as the Council and the Bishop of Condom doe not fail to give to understand But after all this pretended Sacrament hath this common with pennance and the others which we admit not as Sacraments that the Institution made by the Church of Rome herein is onely founded upon some custom practised on particular occasions which are now ceased St. James speaking of the virtue of Prayer saith and that onely once in concluding his Epistle Is any sick amongst you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with Oyl in the name of the Lord And the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him The Roman Catechism cannot deny but that these words have allusion unto what was said before of the Apostles who being departed from our Saviour preached that men should repent S. Mark cap. 6.12 13. that they cast out many Devils anointing with Oyl many that were sick healed them because indeed the Apostles and their Disciples who had the gift of Miracles did then heal many either by anointing them or onely by laying their hands upon them which caused also that one of the greatest men of the Church of Rome speaking more fully than the Catechism doth openly acknowledge that these words of St. James are to be understood of an anointing exercised by the Disciples of Jesus Christ upon the Sick Cardinal Cajetan upon S. Jam. 5. such as is related in the Gospel and not of the Extreme Unction which is practised in the Roman Church In the mean time this is all the Foundation or all the pretext which the Council and the Bishop of Condom have for the instituting of such a Sacrament What is worst of all is that the Church of Rome doth not doe the thing it self according to the words and the intention of St. James St. James testifies that it was to heal the Sick and which is very remarkable the other words of the Evangelist unto which these of St. James allude as the Roman Catechisme doth agree speak onely indeed of healing the Sick unto which it is true that St. James adds that if the Sick hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him which is principally to be understood of those sins that may have drawn the chastisement of sickness upon the sick person The Roman Church doth on the contrary make Extreme Unction to be a Sacrament of Remission of sins as Baptism and regards little or nothing the health of the body acknowledging that it hath not now the miraculous gift of healing the sick Therefore also it is that whereas St. James speaks of the sick in general in what estate soever they be the Church of Rome doth for the most part understand that they must be at the extremity before this Unction be carried unto them and she never gives it unto little children This is as much as to say that in all things even of the least moment she must invent or add something of her own if it were but onely to shew her authority The Bishop of Condom speaks onely one word here of Marriage and he saith nothing but what we would very easily consent unto We acknowledge as he doth that Marriage is one of the most sacred Bands of civil Society but we do not agree with the Church of Rome that Marriage is a true Sacrament nor that it should not be permitted unto them that are in Orders as they speak to marry as if there ought to be a kind of incompatibility betwixt two divers Sacraments of the Gospel neither Lastly do we agree unto many other maxime of the Church of Rome touching Marriage whereof we do not find any track in Scripture nor in the practice of the ancient Church But seeing the Bishop of Condom enters not upon these Questions we will forbear speaking of them here We will onely observe that the Council could not better set forth the reasons that it had to make so many Decrees and so many Canons touching Marriage which is nevertheless naturally a civil contract than by the first and the last of these same Canons which comprehend all the rest The first doth pronounce Anathema against all those who do not believe that Marriage is a true Sacrament and the last against all those who will not believe that all causes concerning Marriage do belong to the Church that is to say that these two Canons were made the one for the other Every one at the first sight may see the great consequences of this Doctrine and the great advantages which do arise unto the Court of Rome whether it be for the authority in examination of Matrimonial causes or for the income of Dispensations It was necessary that the Church of Rome might take cognisance of causes Matrimonial for the great advantages which accrue unto her thereby and to bring it to pass that she might have cognizance of them it was necessary to make Marriage a Sacrament as also she would have had cognizance of all other civil affairs under pretext of the Oath which was inserted in contracts if the just jealousie of the Parliaments of
our Kings had not set some bounds to the enterprises of the Court of Rome As for Order or Orders for the Council sets down Seven under this name to wit the Priest the Deacon Order the Subdeacon the Acolyte the Exorcist the Reader and the Porter The Bishop of Condom speaks onely a word of Order in general as he hath done of Marriage to put it into the number of Sacraments It is true as he saith that we hold the ministry of the Word of God for a sacred thing taking the term in a general sense We practise the ceremony of Imposition of Hands as it was practised in the Apostles time but we cannot agree that Order or Orders are a true Sacrament as Baptism and the Eucharist as well for that in Orders there is no Element or Visible sign no more than in Marriage and in confession as also because it is in truth the nature of the Sacraments of the Gospel that the Sacraments ought to be common to all the Church and Orders are not It is in this point also the interest of Rome that made Orders a true Sacrament to the end she might withdraw all the great Body of the Roman Clergy from the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate and thereby make unto her self proper subjects of other Princes people in the midst of their States and Kingdoms as a particular Kingdom or Hierarchy apart not only distinct from the Temporal Monarchy but superiour and over-ruling Kings themselves Many things might be said upon this Article to shew principally that the Priesthood and the sacrificing of the Roman Church is an invention purely humane and that it hath no example nor any foundation in the Gospel for there can be no true Priesthood where there is not a true Sacrifice and in the following Discourse it shall be made appear that there is none such in the Mass But in this place we will be content to follow the Bishop of Condom who had no mind to engage in all these Questions whether it be that he deserts them tacitely by his silence or that he thought them to be fitter for the Schools than for publick edification or Lastly that he hastened to pass unto the matter of the Eucharist where he believed he might inlarge himself with less disadvantage THE FIFTH PART We are saith he now at last X. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real presence of the Body Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament the manner how she understands these words This is my Body arrived at the Question of the Eucharist c. as if one should say after a great deal of bad way now we are gotten a little more at large On the whole there is this difference betwixt all these Questions of the worshipping of Saints of Images and Relicks of Satisfactions of Purgatory of Indulgences of the number and efficacy of the Sacraments whereof we have hitherto treated and this of the Eucharist whereon at present we enter that in all the others there is not to be found any Footstep of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament nor in the very First ages of Christianity whereas upon the question of the Eucharist the Roman Church pretends that she hath the Scripture it self on her side Therefore also it is that whereas the Bishop of Condom did but lightly pass over all the rest here saith he it will be necessary more amply to explain our Doctrine And here the better to accommodate our selves to the Bishop of Condom's method as we have done upon the other articles we will distinctly examine all the several Heads of which he makes so many Sections 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and how she understands these words THIS IS MY BODY 2. How she unâ—erstands these other words DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. 3. The Exposition which she makes of our belief as to the reality 4. Transubstantiation and Adoration and in what sense the Eucharist is a sign 5. The sacrifice of the Mass 6. What the Apostle teacheth in the Epistle to the Hebrews when he saith That Jesus Christ offered himself once 7. The reflexion which the Bishop of Condom makes upon this Doctrine 8. and Lastly The point of Communion under both kinds which the Bishop of Condom doth onely consider as a sequel or consequent of all the rest We will touch each of these Heads with as much brevity as shall be possible The Bishop of Condom begins with this proposition that the Real Presence is firmly established by these words of the institution of the Eucharist THIS IS MY BODY The reason which he gives thereof is because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter and here it is that he saith what hath been alledged elsewhere upon another subject that you must no more ask them wherefore they apply themselves to the literal sense than of a Traveller why he follows the High way Let any one judge of the sequel by the beginning The Question betwixt us is Whether the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament are truly and really the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ or whether they are so onely in the mystery That is to say whether the words of the institution This is my Body ought to be understood literally or figuratively whether they truly signifie a real presence as they speak or a presence mystical and of virtue for it is all one and the same thing The Bishop of Condom saith without any other pretext that the belief of the real presence is firmly established upon these words because the Church of Rome doth understand them according to the letter that is it is so because I understand it so that is to say that he decides the question by the thing it self which is in question or that he doth give us his sense his will for a reason To have the liberty to speak as the Bishop of Condom doth we must lay it as a principle that there is nothing in the Scripture that one should not or at least that may not be taken literally Then might she take literally what our Saviour saith elsewhere John 6.35 19.5 that he is the bread of Heaven or that he is a vine and his Disciples are the branches and that none should be allowed to inquire how it might be The Bishop of Condom judging truly enough that this was not a proposition maintainable enters upon two other conceipts more reasonable On the one side he ingageth us to prove that the words of institution of the Eucharist ought to be taken in a Figurative sense On the other he engages to prove himself Pa. 80 that they ought to be taken according to the letter It is their part saith he who have recourse to Figurative senses to give a reason of what they do We
the Eucharist he alwayes supposes that real and corporal are but one and the same thing and that a thing is not real if it be not corporal The eating or partaking of the body of Jesus Christ is very real according to us as real and effective as the expiation of our sins but it doth not follow for all that that there is a necessity that this participation be corporal that is to say that we must receive the proper flesh and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body according as in Baptism we doe agree both the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we that we do partake of or that we are truly and really united unto Jesus Christ and unto his sacrifice and yet for all that this union is not corporal In fine there is a kind of incompatibility or of contradiction in the Bishop of Condom's arguing He would have it that as the Jewes did effectively eat of the sacrifice offered for their sins we also should effectively eat the body of Jesus Christ our sacrifice and he doth not consider that as the sacrifices which the Jewes did eat were dead so it would be necessary that the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament were in a state of death that it might be eaten as a sacrifice whereas the Church of Rome teacheth that he is there in a state of life that is to say living and not dead As to what is the Bishop of Condom's other proposition that there is no relation betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ is it not openly to gainsay what hath been already alledged out of St. Austin and Theodoret that the Sacraments doe not take the name of the things whereof they are Sacraments but because of the relation which there is betwixt the Sacraments and the things themselves that without this relation they could not be Sacraments that it is formally because of this relation that the bread and the wine are called the body the bloud of Jesus Christ for these are St. Austin's own words and that to conclude Epist 23 ad Bonif. As Jesus Christ had said that he was bread and a vine he said afterward that the bread was his body and the wine his bloud giving as it were reciprocally the names of the one unto the other Dial. 1. as Theodoret speaks In summe our Saviour seeing his Disciples bent upon the things of this life taking an occasion by the miracle of the Loaves did himself strongly establish the resemblance which there is betwixt him and bread saying that he is the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.41.51 55. that this bread is his flesh that his flesh is meat indeed and his bloud is drink indeed shewing plainly that as the bread doth nourish our bodies Jo. 6.68 so his flesh and his bloud is the life and nourishment of our souls This word seemed hard to many who forsook him but the Apostles understood very well from that time the relation or similitude which made Jesus Christ say he was bread and that his flesh was this bread unto whom shall we go Lib. 1. de Offic. Eccl. cap. 18. Com. en Marc. 14 saith St. Peter thou hast the words of eternal life St. Isidore Bede and many others very far from saying that there is no relation betwixt the Sacraments and the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as doth the Bishop of Condom say on the contrary that the bread is called his body because bread nourisheth and fortifieth the body and that the wine is called his bloud because wine breedeth bloud in our flesh and rejoyceth the heart There is another resemblance also well known which the Fathers have explained not onely betwixt the bread and wine and the flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ Theoph. Antioc 1 Comment in 4 Evan. pa. 359. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. but betwixt the Sacraments and that other mystical body of Jesus Christ whereof he himself is head to wit the Church that as the bread is made of many grains and the wine of many clusters of grapes so the mystical body of Christ is composed of many Believers which are his living members So that we may plainly see so far is it from there being no relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ as the Bishop of Condom supposeth that we find on the contrary the two relations which he calls natural relation and relation of institution and of which he demands but one or the other that the sign may take the name of the thing and that it might be proper to bring down the Idea into the mind to wit a relation of the natural virtue of bread unto that of the body of Jesus Christ the body of Jesus Christ being the nourishment of our souls as bread is the nourishment of our bodies and the relation which Jesus Christ had established before in the minds of his Apostles Jo. 6.52 by the use which he had made of this likeness having accustomed them unto this manner of speaking even before the institution of the Sacraments and confirming or establishing anew this relation by the very words of the institution it self But there is here yet something else to be understood The Bishop of Condom doth curteil if I may so say the words of institution or rather the sense and secretly makes a kind of Sophisme in dividing the words and examining them in a sense separate the one from another instead of taking them altogether Here it concerned not to enquire the relation there is betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ barely this relation consists as it was said in that the one doth nourish our bodies and the other doth nourish our souls The likeness betwixt the bread broken and the body broken should have been searched into for Jesus Christ gives us not his body properly but in this regard and Jesus Christ sayes not onely this is my body he saith in the same breath my body which is broken for you And suppose that these first words had not clearly enough intimated the relation which there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ these others which our Saviour adds are as a second touch of a pencil or a new colour which heighthens the draught and better expresses the resemblance betwixt the Image and the Divine Original that is to say that as the bread is broken in pieces to serve us for nourishment and as the wine is poured out to serve us for drink so the body of Jesus Christ was broken and his bloud was shed upon the Cross to be the spiritual nourishment of our souls Here we must observe the perpetual errour or the continual source of the errour of the Roman Church upon this point The Roman Church makes the Essential the Principal the force and virtue of the institution of the Sacrament to consist in these first words This is my body which are the onely ones she
is wont to call Sacramental It is by virtue of these words alone that the consecration is made one would think that the others signifie nothing or that they be nothing in comparison of the former whereas if we rightly take the thing according to the end which it is plain our Lord proposed to himself in this Institution these first words are onely the introduction the vehicle or the foundation of all that follows as in arguing the first propositions are onely a leading unto the conclusion and are far less considerable than the conclusion it self The true essence the force virtue of the Sacrament is without doubt in the sense of these other terms 1 Cor. 11. Luk 22.19 which is broken for you do this and do it in remembrance of me and to shew forth my death until I come which is the sense in which St. Paul explicates these latter words of our Saviours for Jesus Christ gives his body 1 Coâ— 11. onely as it was broken for us and his bloud as poured out for our sins This is properly the Mystery of our salvation the expiation of our sins the accomplishment of the Law These are the words properly which make the true likeness betwixt the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Cross betwixt the Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament We ought to take them altogether to form a true Idea of this Mystery and it may be truly said that it is onely for not taking them altogether that the Church of Rome is fallen into all these errours which make us separate from her If instead of insisting so much as she doth upon these first words this is my body she had weighed a little more the following words which is broken for you she would doubtless have acknowledged that Jesus Christ having not yet suffered death when he spake them and nevertheless giving his body as broken and in a state of death his intention could not be that his proper body was really in the Sacrament and less yet that it was there in a state of life such as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome doth suppose it If instead of insisting so much as she doth upon the first words she had also weighed a little more those other do this in remembrance of me she would have also understood thereby that the sense of these words imports that Jesus Christ kept aloof from and did not at all put himself in the place of the bread and to conclude if she had a little better weighed these last words drink ye all of this instead of insisting onely upon the former she had never proceeded so far as to take away the cup in the Sacrament But to return to the point on which we are here principally concerned what hath been now said doth not onely shew the relation there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ but doth wholly overthrow the consequence of the Bishop of Condom's Argument to wit that Jesus Christ did not on this say any thing to explain himself as he was careful to doe in the other figures or in other parables For in the first place we know that Jesus Christ did not explain generally all the Figures he used whether it were that he would leave some exercise for our Faith and meditation or that he thought them sufficiently intelligible of themselves as we do pretend that this very passage is 2. If this Figure had not been so plainly intelligible of it self it hath been already shewed that Jesus Christ had prepared the Apostles to understand it having told them that these sorts of expressions were to be understood spiritually And to conclude John 6 63. how can it be said that Jesus Christ said nothing to explain himself If our Lord had said no more but these words this is my body as the Bishop of Condom onely frames his Argument upon these words it might seem somewhat less strange that they should dare to speak thus to us but Jesus Christ said all in the same breath this is my body which was broken for you doe this in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.24 Mat. 26.29 This is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for many I will not any more drink of this fruit of the vine c. And the Apostle St. Paul who very well understood the words of our Lord doth add 1 Cor. 11.26 that as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come What greater explication or rather what greater clearness can be desired in a Mystery to give to understand that Jesus Christ leaving his Apostles and speaking to them as it were his last Farewel left them this Sacrament as an earnest a memorial and a seal of the death which he suffered for them and for us XI The explication of those words Do this in remembrance of me The Bishop of Condom passing over the first words of the Institution This is my body to those which immediately follow Doe this in remembrance of me is no longer the Traveller that those follows the great High way I mean words he no longer understands the words of our Lord according to the letter The literal and natural sense of these last words altogether Do this in remembrance of me is this that we should do what Jesus Christ ordained to put us in remembrance of him for it is Jesus Christ that saith in remembrance of me But the Bishop of Condom somewhat detorts this sense and would have it that the intention of our Lord should be only to oblige us to remember his death under pretence that the Apostle concludes with these words that we shew forth the death of our Lord. It is not difficult to comprehend what this the Bishop of Condom's little detortion tends to namely that if this be the sense of those words Do this in remembrance of me we ought to call to remembrance the very person of Jesus Christ This sense leads us naturally to believe that the divine person that we ought to call to remembrance is not really present For according to the manner of usual conceiving and speaking amongst men to call to remembrance is properly of persons absent Otherwise supposing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as the Church of Rome supposeth the sense and the Idea which these words carry Do this in remembrance of me is this Eat my proper body to call your selves to remembrance of me in my presence or as if I were present which makes but an odd and inconsistent sense In the mean time neither the nature of the thing that is to say Jesus Christ who was now about to leave the Apostles nor his expressions at all suffer us to doubt but that he requires precisely these two things to wit to call our selves to remembrance of him by an act of love and acknowledgment and that we meditate also on his death as an effect
of his love and the price of our Redemption The Bishop of Condom very far from acknowledging that to call to remembrance as our Lord requires supposes his absence turns the thing to the clear contrary so as to infer that this very remembrance should be grounded upon the real presence To this purpose he here brings in again the comparison of the sacrifices As saith he the Jewes in eating the Peace-offerings did call to remembrance that they were offered for them so in eating the flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice we ought to call to remembrance that he dyed for us and from thence he passeth unto a kind of Rhetorical rapture upon the tender remembrance which the Tombs of the Fathers excite in the childrens hearts First as to what concerns the comparison we have already said that it is not a proof and that upon the whole case the relation there is of the Law to the Gospel is no reason that we should take all according to the letter in the Gospel as we do for the most part matters in the Law that on the contrary it is sufficient that our spiritual eating of the body of Jesus Christ answers unto the Oral eating of the sacrifices which were the Figure of his sacrifice But there is yet more in it the Bishop of Condom onely speaks of Peace-offerings and remembers not himself of what he himself had said of the sacrifice offered for sins which is the true Figure of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross May not his argument be returned back against himself that as the Jewes did not eat of this expiatory sacrifice and yet for all that failed not to remember that it was offered for their sins in like manner it is not necessary that we should eat the proper flesh of Jesus Christ our sacrifice to put us in remembrance of his death We have this advantage of the Jewes that they ate nothing instead of this sacrifice whereas we eat the holy Symbols which livelily represent unto us the body and bloud of Jesus Christ his body broken for us and his bloud poured out for the expiation of our sins Further what are our manners and our education that to put us in a tender remembrance of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ we must needs eat his proper flesh with our bodily mouth Or rather if it be true that the remembrance which is the thing in question be nothing else but an apprehension excited by the objects which affect the sense has the manner in which it is believed they eat this flesh in the Church of Rome any thing which doth more affect the senses than ours seeing that we eat it both one and the other under the same kindes or forms of bread and wine We will not here enquire whether it excite a real tenderness to conceive that we effectively eat the flesh which we love and adore or if on the contrary it be not by degrees that the Church of Rome it self is become accustomed unto this conceipt which of it self doth stir up contrary affections It will be onely needful to compare the manner how they administer the Sacraments in the Church of Rome with that wherein they administer them in our Churches to judge which of the two is most capable to entertain a true remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ The Church of Rome believes she holds the proper flesh of Jesus Christ under the sacred coverts of bread and wine as it were under a mystical Tomb or under dead signs but a living and vivifying flesh c. These be the terms of the Bishop of Condom which form a notion or Idea very perplext and contradictory as if we should say a dead body full of life and the fountain of life under the coverts of death Which is the very cause that this Idea being so confused is not without much difficulty received into the mind and that it there makes the less impression or at least doth not make so lively an impression onely of the death of Jesus Christ of which the main question here is whereas amongst us where we onely regard the bread broken and the wine poured out but as an image and representation of the body of Jesus Christ broken for us and his bloud shed for us This image doth give unto us a clear and distinct Idea of the death which Jesus Christ hath suffered for us which is properly the effect which our Lord would produce in the Sacrament In the Church of Rome the Priest that saith Mass or that consecrates often saith it alone most commonly very low and alwayes in Latine which is not at all the Language of the people The Consecration being done if he gives the Host for every one knows that there are infinite Masses without communicants he saith not unto them who do receive it that the body of Jesus Christ was broken for them which is properly what he ought to say unto them according to the words of our Saviour to imprint well in their minds the Idea of his death and to excite in their hearts a pure sense and such which becomes hearts engaged in love and acknowledgment of this Divine Saviour but it is onely said unto them by form of a Petition which is made for them the body of Jesus Christ keep or preserve their souls unto eternal life and though we do not here repeat this form of Petition to condemn it because it is good and of ancient use yet it may be said that it is a more self-interessed consideration which makes them not to reflect but onely upon their own profit and advantage and which is more the Priest sayes this it self in the same Latine Tongue which the greatest part doe not understand In very truth what sound remembrance or what true sense of love and thankfulness can this kind of setting forth the death of the Lord all in a low mumbling tone in general terms in a Language ill understood excite We speak of a sound remembrance of a love with understanding for as for an outward devotion or confused resentments of Holiness it is not denied but that the way of the Roman Church being full of pomp may excite as much as or more than ours which is more simple Amongst us to the end there may be no mistake in this matter behold in a few words what is our practice In the first place some dayes before the time appointed for administring the Sacrament there is an exhortation made to us to prepare our selves by acts of Repentance of Faith and of charity and by an holy life the day beâ—ing come after the usual exercises of devotion which consist in Prayers singing of Psalms and reading portions of the holy Scriptures most proper unto the subject there is ordinarily a Sermon made to us expresly upon the death of our Lord Jesus Christ or upon the Sacraments themselves The Sermon is followed with an excellent Prayer also upon the same subject
unto whatsoever he shall oppose that is most considerable Our Doctrine is simple as the Bishop of Condom saith that it ought to be incomparably more simple than that of the Church of Rome Here as well as elsewhere we have this advantage that the Church of Rome believes all that we do believe the difference is onely in the things which she adds and which we cannot believe We believe that Jesus Christ having taken our humane nature to suffer the death which we had deserved it was necessary that we should be united unto him as the members are united unto the head to the end that his obedience and his righteousness should be imputed unto us that we might partake of all his merits We say that this union is made on our part by the faith which we have in him that it is God himself who gives us this Faith and that to give it unto us and to confirm it in our hearts he maketh use of two sundry sorts of means the one interiour which is the secret operation of his Holy Spirit without which those others were in vain the others exteriour which are the Word and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper the Word to declare unto us the promises of Salvation Baptism more particularly to shew forth our Entrance into the Church and the washing away of our sins and the Lords Supper to shew forth yet more perfectly the death of Jesus Christ and our communion with him Hitherto we go along with the Gentlemen of the Roman Church They believe as we doe that it is necessary we be spiritually united unto Jesus Christ that this Union is made by Faith that it is the Holy Spirit which produces this Faith in our hearts and that the Word Baptism and the Eucharist are the outward means which the Holy Spirit makes use of whether to produce or to increase and strengthen Faith in our hearts If there be any difference about this betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us it is not about what we have now said but upon those several other Doctrines which she hath added As to the Eucharist in particular whereof here the Question is betwixt them and us we also say very plainly that the Bread and Wine are outward signs which Jesus Christ hath added unto the Word to set forth his death before our eyes more livelily more sensibly than by Baptism or by the Gospel and that when we receive these signs by Faith Jesus Christ gives himself unto us or that he confirmes the gift which he hath already made unto us of himself in Baptism or in the preaching of the Gospel for the communicating to us all his benefits Not that his body is in the bread and his blood in the Wine or under the forms of bread and wine but by lifting our hearts up unto heaven where he is and uniting us unto himselfe by his holy spirit This is truly the abridgment of our Doctrin drawne from our confession of Faith and our catechisme conformable unto what the scriptures teach us throughout of the spirituall union of the faithful with our Lord Jesus Christ There is nothing in all this which is not plain and easie to be conceived excepting onely the ineffable incomprehensible manner in which this holy Spirit worketh in us and whereby he effects this union of the faithful with Jesus Christ our Divine Head Yet we have some resemblances though very imperfect Eph. 5.30 31 32. 1 Cor. 6.16 17. as well of this operation of the holy Spirit in our hearts as of the union of the faithful with Jesus Christ in the conjugal love which unites husband and wife and which is the reason that the Scripture saith that they are but one body and one soul However the matter stands it is very observable in this case that this difficulty such as it is is common with us and them of the Church of Rome and that it proceeds not more or less from hence that our Doctrine is different from theirs They believe the same as we do the spiritual union of the Faithful with Jesus Christ by the operation of the holy Spirit as we have just now said as well in the preaching of the Gospel as in Baptism and the Eucharist They conceive not at all this spiritual union any better than we nor explain themselves otherwise therein than we do and what they believe more than we in the Sacrament to wit that they receive the proper body of Jesus Christ by the mouth of the body into their stomach doth not add any thing at all according to their own principles either to effect or make understood this spiritual union which we have with Jesus Christ which is the onely and true cause of our Salvation For they do not deny that those who receive Baptism without the Word and without the Eucharist or Baptism and the Word without the same Eucharist may be saved and united perpetually unto Jesus Christ as well as they who receive also the Eucharist Neither do they say that the body of Jesus Christ which they do believe they receive into their stomach is united unto their soul or unto their body by his presence nor even that the substance of their body or of their soul doth touch the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ They say onely that their substance doth touch the sensible Forms of Bread and Wine and that the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ under these Formes is an earnest unto them of their spiritual union with Jesus Christ Some also add that it is unto them a blossoming of life and immortality by its virtue without pretending for all that that the substance of their soul or body doth join or unite it self unto the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ Let us now see wherein the Bishop of Condom doth pretend that we use Equivocations or that we come near unto the Church of Rome To render his accusation the more plausible he begins with the reason which he pretends hath as it were forced us to come nearer unto the Church of Rome in the point of the reality and afterwards he passeth unto the objections which he makes to prove that in effect we are come nearer unto them It is sufficient saith he to have learned by the Scriptures that the Son of God would testifie his love unto us by incomprehensible effects This love saith he was the cause of this so real union by which he became man this love induced him to offer up for us that his body as really as he had taken it and all these designs are followed and this love is maintained throughout by the same fervour So whensoever it shall please him to make any of his children sensible of the goodness which he hath expressed unto all in general by giving himself to them in particular he will find a means to satisfie himself by things that are as effectual as
those which he hath already accomplished for our Salvation Wherefore it is not to be wondred at if he gives unto every one of us the proper substance of his Flesh and of his Bloud he doth it to imprint in our hearts that it is for us that he took them and that it is for us that he offered them as a sacrifice And a little afterwards he adds Our adversaries have very well seen that simple figures and simple signs of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ would not satisfie Christistians accustomed to the bounty of a God which gives himself so really unto us therefore it is that they would not be accused to deny this real participation of Jesus Christ in their Sacrament Behold here the reason that he saith hath forced us to approach unto the Church of Rome but Christians are then either very ingrateful or very difficult to be contented if they are not satisfied that Jesus Christ died for them that these sacred signs assure them of it and that they serve them as an effectual and saving means to raise their hearts and their Faith unto Jesus Christ They have then the ears of their understanding close stopped if it be true that these sacred signes joyned unto the Word do not yet tell them plainly and loud enough that Jesus Christ became man for them that his body was broken for them and that lastly his bloud was poured out for the remission of their sins The Opinion which the Church of Rome adds that Jesus Christ is present being very far from better setting forth his death incumbers as I may so say the conception of it as hath been shewed before because it represents the body of Jesus Christ in a living state under dead signs and moreover the way of giving these signes in a language not understood or ill understood makes much less impression in the hearts than the way wherein it hath been shewed they are given amongst us But in fine where is the reason of this consequence The Love which Jesus Christ hath for us induced him to dye really for us therefore it is the part of this Love to give really unto us the proper substance of his flesh and of his bloud What bond or what necessary consequence is there of one and the other of these things From what time and in what place hath it been known or usual that it is a sign of love in any to give his proper flesh to eat to them whom he loves I do not say onely by morsels as some possibly may say the Capernaites understood the words of our Saviour but in any manner or under any coverts under which it may be put For although God doth testifie his Love unto us by incomprehensible effects though his ways are not our ways grace doth not for all that destroy nature his ways are above our ways and even contrary to what ours have of evil and irregularity but not at all to what they have that is good and right which proceeds from God himself What there is incomprehensible in the effects of his Love is nothing as to the manner as we may say but to the degree or rather the infinity of this Love it self For as to the other point we in some sort conceive all that this infinite Love makes him do for us by a comparison though very imperfect of what an intire Love doth make us doe one for another To pay for another is the true office of a Friend and to dye for another hath always passed for a true test of Love Joh. 15.13 Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his Friends To dye for an Enemy is a generosity that hath had no example amongst men before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ dyed for us who were originally his creatures but were become his enemies This is that which this Love hath in it incomprehensible and nevertheless this Love which was foretold by the prophets was accomplished in the time that was foretold But neither prophesie nor reason nor humane manners ever yet taught us that Jesus Christ should give us his real flesh to eat with the mouth of our body as a token of the Love that he hath for us and when Jesus Christ said unto his Disciples John 6. That he would give his flesh for the life of the world and that whosoever did not eat his flesh had no life in him seeing that this word offended many it doth not appear unto us that our Saviour condemned their surprise but onely that he presently explained this speech unto them and that he made them understand that they should receive it spiritually The Gentlemen of the Roman Church do always fall into this error that although they do not directly deny that the communion which we have with Jesus Christ by Faith is very real of its self sufficing to salvation as they do confess in particular of the communion which we have with him either by the Word or by Baptism nevertheless always when there is any mention of the Mystery of the Eucharist they have this impression reigning in their minds which overbears all others that Jesus Christ cannot give himself really unto them but when they believe that he gives his proper flesh to be eaten with the mouth of their body It is from this apprehension that the Bishop of Condom faith here again that Jesus Christ makes as tast his bounty by things as effectual as those which he accomplished for our salvation as if the Faith which he gives as and the communion which we have with him by his Spirit even out of the Eucharist were not all of these effectual things and as effectual as it is true that he dyed for us Let us now come unto the Objections which the Bishop of Condom makes against some of our expressions to prove that we are approached nearer unto the Church of Rome pa. 146. In the first place he seems to contradict himself for he says afterwards that the more we explain our selves the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we upon this Article the more contrary we find our selves one to another he gives also the reason for it which is that the more we consider the consequences of Transubstantiation the more we are discouraged with the difficulties which sense and reason discover in it This doth not import that we are approached nearer Besides there are very few persons who should hear him say that we are approached unto the Church of Rome but would believe that the reason is because some of our late Synods or some of our more famous modern Doctours had relaxed somewhat of our Doctrine either in the sense or in the expressions In the mean while there is nothing less than this All this accusation bears onely upon three diverse Expressions drawn from our Catechism which is as it is known the ancient explanation of our Doctrine The Bishop of Condom
received in the Gospel and in Baptism Now the manner in which he is received in Baptism and in the Gospel is by Faith Therefore it must needs be that there should be a real manner of receiving the body and bloud of our Lord in the Sacrament which is not by Faith By any the least Attention to his Argument it will at first sight be found faulty In summe it is certain there is in it a kind of sophism Of a thing which is onely true in some regards he draws consequences as if it were absolutely true and in all râ—gards He changes the terms of the Propositions as we speak in the Schools and he puts more in the conclusion than there is in the propositions whence the conclusion should be formed It is almost as if a man should say the manner of a mans going is upright and different from that of beasts the beast goeth upon his feet therefore men do not go upon their feet Or to make all more plainly to be understood by an example which hath nearer relation unto the subject here in question The Argument of the Bishop of Condom is much like unto this The Sun at Noon-day communicates to us objects or the sight of objects in a full manner and different from that in which he communicates them unto us at his rising or if you will in a different manner from that wherein Torches communicate them unto us in the night Now the Sun at his rising and Torches in the night do communicate objects onely by the light therefore the Sun at Noon-day doth not communicate the objects unto us by the light Or to form a conclusion upon the Bishop of Condom's very terms therefore it needs must be that there is something in the Sun at Noon-day which causeth a manner of communicating objects which is not by the light The Sophism lies herein that the difference of the manner whereby the Sun communicates the objects at Noonday from that whereby it communicates them at his rising or that whereby Torches communicate them in the night is in truth onely in the more or less of the light a difference in degree as we speak and not in kind in the means it self rather than in the effect because these divers manners fail not to communicate the same objects though with more or less clearness whereas it is plain that this argument concludes that there is in the Sun at Noonday something else than the light which makes this difference But leaving the form of the Argument to follow the thing it self if the Bishop of Condom would have pleased to have taken the sense of the Article of the Catechism intirely as it had been just he would have seen that he had not the least pretext to play with words as he doth Sunday 52. The Catechism having laid down that the communion which we have with Jesus Christ is not onely in the Sacrament but also in preaching the Word of God the Minister demands What is it that the Lords Supper adds unto the VVord or what have we more in the Lords Supper and what is its use This saith the Child that in the Lords Supper our communion is more fully confirmed and as it were ratified after which it immediately adds that though Jesus Christ be truly communicated unto us by Baptism and by the Gospel it is but in part and not fully These words taken together do most clearly give to understand that what the Sacrament of the Lords Supper adds unto the Word is not another manner of communion with Jesus Christ more real in substance or different in kind from that which we have with him by the Ministry of the Word or by Baptism for Jesus Christ being truly communicated by these three divers means as the Catechism it self layes down it cannot in any manner be understood that Jesus Christ can be as it were divided and more or less communicated Or that there is more union with him by the Lords Supper than by Baptism and by the preaching of the Word but onely that in the Lords Supper we have yet a new and more ample confirmation of our union with Jesus Christ and as it were a final ratification which are the words of the Catechism Baptism properly is instituted onely to shew our entrance into the Church and to let us understand that as the water doth cleanse our bodies so the bloud of Jesus Christ doth wash us from our sins and particularly from our Original sin without representing more expresly either the death of Jesus Christ or our spiritual union with him though upon the whole the operation of the Holy Ghost doth nevertheless thereby produce this spiritual union of the Faithful with Jesus Christ and the eternal happiness of them which are baptised The word doth very well represent unto us the promise of Salvation and all that depends thereon it is a very effectual means to work Faith and to unite us unto Jesus Christ when God is pleased to accompany it with his grace Rom. 10.17 for Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the VVord of God But whereas the Word onely works upon one of our senses the Eucharist speaks unto all our senses in general and we know that the sight in particular makes a greater impression upon our spirits than the hearing and whereas Baptism onely sets forth our entrance into the Church and onely applyes or communicates unto us the bloud of Jesus Christ by the form of washing the Eucharist doth yet more expresly represent unto us that the body of Jesus Christ was broken for us and that his bloud was poured out for the remission of our sins communicating both one and the other unto us by the form of meat and of drink In a word the Sacrament of the Eucharist gives us to understand that as bread and wine nourish our bodies so the body and bloud of Jesus Christ nourish and vivifie our souls and lastly that the bread and the wine are not more truly and really united unto our bodies then Faith doth really and spiritually unite us unto the body of our Saviour This is it as every one may see for which our Catechism saith that in the Lords Supper our communion with Jesus Christ is more amply confirmed and ratified unto us than in Baptism and in the preaching of the Gospel or that in Baptism and in the Gospel Jesus Christ is communicated in part unto us and in the Lords Supper fully for it is but one and the same thing in the sense of the Catechism The manner in which Baptism communicates Jesus Christ unto us in admitting of us into the Church may be compared if we please unto that wherein it was said that the Sun communicates the sight of objects at his rising the manner in which the Word also communicates Jesus Christ to us in declaring unto us the promises of the Gospel unto that of Torches communicating the same objects in the night and Lastly the manner wherein
body of the Lord and the fruit of his death So all this consequence hath no foundation In summe wherefore will the Bishop of Condom have two different acts of Faith for uniting us to the body of Jesus Christ and having part in the fruit of his death when it is evident that all is done or might be done by one and the same act of Faith Or wherefore may we not even assert two divers acts of Faith if they be conceived severally by one of which we unite our selves to Jesus Christ himself and by the other unto the fruit of his death without any need to imagine for all this two different communions one spiritual by Faith and the other with the mouth of the body or real as the Bishop of Condom speaks Lord draw us after thee lift up our hearts unto thee come dwell in our hearts by the operation of thy Spirit Behold here an act of Faith which unites us to Jesus Christ if the Faith be such as it ought to be and this union of its self suffices to effect that we should also have part in the fruit of his death by this one act of Faith Lord impute to us thy righteousness and grant that being united unto thee by a true and lively Faith we may have a share in all thy benefits and in particular in the fruit of thy death Behold here nevertheless a second act of Faith which regards directly the part that we have in the fruit of his death The difference of these two acts of Faith properly will be onely in the distinction of the objects which Faith doth propose unto it self in the one it proposes the body of the Lord and in the other the fruit of his death and in one and the other there is a real communion with our Saviour but spiritually and by Faith But no man adds the Bishop of Condom 〈◊〉 112. can conceive what difference there is betwixt participating by Faith of the body of our Saviour and to participate by Faith of the fruit of his death This is now the second or third time that the Bishop of Condom will conceive all Let us see if he will be of the same mind upon the Article of Transubstantiation which follows immediately after this But after all how can he say that no man can conceive any difference betwixt participating by Faith of the body of the Lord and participating by Faith of the fruit of his death for the body of the Lord and the fruit of his death are evidently two different things and there is no one who cannot easily conceive that there is great difference betwixt partaking of the one and partaking of the other whether it be that it is done by one act of Faith or by two though besides the manner of partaking of one and the other be always the same to wit spiritually and by Faith Nevertheless it is here that the Bishop of Condom cryes out again in finishing this Article Who can but admire the force of truth c. And afterwards How ingenuously do the Calvinists confess unto us the truth they would have been strongly disposed to acknowledge the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament in figure onely and the participation of his Spirit onely in effect laying aside these great words of Participation of proper substance and many others which express a real presence and which onely cause perplexities c. Let the Bishop of Condom also in his turn ingenuously confess the truth he has been very strongly disposed and many other intelligent persons in the Church of Rome it may be will be so with him to confess that there is onely in the Eucharist a true and real communion of the body of Jesus Christ as we do acknowledge that that which we there have spiritual is very real laying aside that great word of Transubstantiation as he had laid it aside in the first Edition of his Treatise that of concomitance by virtue whereof the Cup was cut off from the communion and many others which imply manifest contradiction and which cause much more perplexity That which is truly admirable in this place is that the Church of Rome teacheth as we do a spiritual communion of the body of Jesus Christ and the Bishop of Condom himself said the very same but now in express terms that in the Lords Supper there is a communion pa. 112. by the which we partake spiritually of the body of our Saviour and of his spirit altogether in receiving the fruit of his death which is properly the result of our Doctrine and these words of participation and of substance with which the Bishop of Condom pleaseth himself and which he useth for all that himself signifie nothing more The onely difference that there is betwixt him and us is that we stop here and that he besides this spiritual communion of the body of our Lord supposes another real communion as he speaks that is with the mouth of the body which we cannot allow of Here in another prospect he insults over us as if there could not be any other communion of the body of our Lord but that onely which is had by the mouth of the body and that without admitting of that there can nothing be acknowledged in the Lords Supper but the figure of his body and a participation of the Spirit excluding thus this other spiritual communion of the very body of Jesus Christ which he but now confessed Let it be judged by this and by all the rest which hath been said as well of our opinions as of his way of arguing who it is that creates perplexities or that contradicts themselves whether it is the Bishop of Condom or us that use equivocations about words And Lastly if he hath so much subject of Triumph upon this Article as he seemed to imagine to himself XIII Of Tran. substantiation of Adoration and in what sense the Bishop of Condom saith that the Sacrament is a sign The Bishop of Condom will slide along more sweetly upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and upon the Adoration of the Host than he did in opposing our Doctrine There he attacqued and attacqued Adversaries as he calls them to whom they hardly give the liberty to defend themselves We may say any thing against them they will answer but by halfs Here he must defend himself and he hath against him Scripture reason evidence of the senses and the common notions of Christianity imprinted in conscience which are other kind of Adversaries more terrible speaking malgre opposition each in his order and speaking so loud as they put the ablest to silence The Bishop of Condom when he speaks of our Belief though all things be very simple in it is not satisfied if he cannot conceive even the very manner whereby the Holy Ghost doth really unite us unto Jesus Christ notwithstanding the great distance which there is betwixt us and him which nevertheless the Roman Church doth perpetually teach
as well as we and yet it is the onely thing in our Doctrine which humane understanding cannot well comprehend Here where there are depths of difficulties the Bishop of Condom will not perceive any at all his reason shall not at all molest him and though there is no dispute of what God can do for God can do what he pleaseth but of the meaning of his words onely without looking unto his will which are the onely rule of our Faith as well as of our actions the Bishop of Condom will tell us mysteriously that his Faith is attentive unto this infinite power which is onely properly the object of our Admiration and of our Adoration What the Bishop of Condom speaks touching Transubstantiation may be reduced unto four distinct assertions which yet shall onely be touched as we pass because this is a pure controversie which is throughly treated of in all our Books The first is pa. 123. that the appearance of bread and wine ought to continue in the Sacrament the second that the Church of Rome doth not therein acknowledge any other substance but that of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ into which the bread and the wine are changed and this is it saith he Ibid. pa. 124. which is called Transubstantiation The Bishop of Condom had abstained from this term of Transubstantiation in the first Impression of his Treatise having onely put it as a title in the Margin to note the Article or the matter of Controversie which he treats of in that place neither did he formally say upon this Article that the bread and the wine were changed into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but he adds both the one and the other in the latter The third Doctrine is That the reality doth not hinder but that the Eucharist may be a sign as to what it hath exteriour and sensible that in the contrary the sign doth necessarily carry the reality with it The fourth and last that the presence of the body being certified by this sign they of the Roman Church make no scruple to pay it their adorations As to the first of these Assertions because it was agreeable Pa. 12. saith the Bishop of Condom that the senses should perceive nothing in this mystery of Faith it was not necessary that any thing should be changed relating to them in the bread and wine in the Eucharist The Bishop of Condom onely says that it was agreeable and yet he doth but say so without proving it He looks upon it as a thing established and that onely because elsewhere he hath glanced on this in passage that it was agreeable that God should give us his flesh and bloud wrapped up under a strange form to exercise saith he pag. 84. our Faith in this Mystery and to take away the horrour of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud in their proper form But what a reason is this to establish such a Doctrine as this To exercise our Faith in this Mystery There is nothing so strange which might not be made pass under such indefinite pretexts of conveniency or agreeableness as if the Mystery of the Sacrament had not sufficient matter besides to exercise our Faith without supposing the change of the bread and wine into the proper flesh and proper bloud of our Saviour against the formal testimony of all our senses The flesh and bloud say they would induce horrour if we were to eat them in kind and it is certain that the very thought onely of eating humane flesh doth naturally produce this effect but it hath been already elsewhere touched that the coverings as they speak may lessen his horrour but not intirely take it away And if the Church of Rome be at last accustomed unto this notion it is but onely in tract of time and in favour of that mystical and figurative expression in St. John Cap. 6. who faith to eat the flesh of Christ instead of saying to believe in him unto which mystical expression the Church of Rome hath made the â—â—teral sense to succeed But Lastly the difficulty is not to prove that the appearances of bread and wine do remain or to shew a reason why they remain but to shew that there is nothing else but the appearances that remains for in the first place Jesus Christ and the Apostle St. Paul who is his instrument say that after the benediction it is bread and wine and in the Apostles times and in the first times after the Apostles there was nothing spoken of but only bread and wine And in fine God having given unto us our senses to know all corporal things which are their true object and which depend on their jurisdiction their testimony being the foundation of almost all Notions and the proof which Jesus Christ made use of to establish the truth of his humanity and of his Resurrection can the Bishop of Condom that will understand all conceive that God intended that in an act of Religion which he established to help our weakness and unbelief in presenting figures or outward objects to our senses can he conceive I say that God intended that there should be in this act of Religion a perpetual and manifest contradiction betwixt the testimony of our senses and our Faith that Faith should continually tell us that what we see and touch are onely false appearances of bread and wine and that on the contrary our senses should continually tell us that they be truly bread and wine pa. 123. Faith saith the Bishop of Condom attentive to the word of him who doth what he pleaseth acknowledgeth not here any other substance but that which is designed by the same word This is the Bishop of Condom's second assertion which is as it were the support of the former But it hath been already touched that the matter in hand is not to know whether Jesus Christ be true in what he saith or whether he be able to do what he saith it were the heighth of impiety to doubt of the one or the other The onely point in hand is touching the sense of what he hath spoken This may here again be called giving the change through favour of the profound regard which ought to be had for the great authority and power of our Lord. But is not Faith attentive unto the word of him which saith Joh. 6.41 10.11 15.5 8 12 10.7.4 14. Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11. I am the bread which came down from Heaven I am the good Shepherd I am the Vine the Light the Gate a Fountain of living water c. and who in the institution of the Sacrament it self saith bread and the fruit of the vine and who saith Drink ye all of it and do this holy Ceremony in remembrance of him until he come as the Apostle speaks And yet for all that the Faith of the Church of Rome doth not stop at the sound of these words but she taketh the sense either in
the figure of the words themselves or in the occasion and in the nature of the things The Bishop of Condom had before alledged the same reason and almost in the same terms upon the point of the reality and in effect suppose that these words this is my body may be taken in a literal sense they could not be at all alledged for more than the real presence but that nothing advantageth the particular Doctrine of Transubstantiation For these words do not give the least intimation that the substance of bread and wine vanish or that they be changed into the substance of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but onely that the bread and wine of which our Saviour spoke were his body and bloud in the sense which our Saviour himself intended Those of the Confession of Ausburg have this common with the Roman Church that they also understand our Saviours words in a literal sense for a real presence but in regard of the manner of this presence which according to them is the impanation or consubstantiation as they speak that is to say that the two several substances that of bread and that of the body of Jesus Christ are in the Sacrament they take their argument as well from the name of bread and wine which the Scripture gives unto the sign after the consecration as from the other Topicks whether of Scripture or of the senses and right reason Further Transubstantiation being a Doctrine different from the real Presence which adds something unto it and which regards properly the manner of this Presence which thing is the reason also that the Bishop of Condom makes it an Article distinct it is necessary that the Bishop of Condom should seek other reasons for this Doctrine than these words This is my body or that he should say that he finds Transubstantiation in these very words by this consequence which he draws thence that the bread cannot be made the body of Jesus Christ but by this onely way of changing one substance into another in which cases he abandons his principle acknowledging that his Faith is not any longer so attentive to the words of our Saviour as not to call his reason to its assistance to help him to comprehend not the power nor the authority of him that speaks but the import and intire sense of his words And in this case things being brought to this point behold here a way open to dispute We have right to examine whether the Bishop of Condom draws his consequence well or ill When it is said the Bishop of Condom we mean the Church of Rome and therefore it may yet be truly said here as well as upon all the other Articles that the Bishop of Condom's Treatise being very far from putting an end unto disputes and objections onely gives us occasion to make new ones upon the most important points of Faith The third Assertion of the Bishop of Condom's upon this Article is that the reality of the Eucharist doth not hinder the Eucharist's being a sign But this is again to change the terms of the Question The Question is properly Whether if the Sacrament being the sign of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ that doth not hinder its being together the sign and the thing signified This is the reason also that the Bishop of Condom perceiving that he did not proceed directly to the purpose afterwards changes the proposition and changes it so Strongly on the other side that he resolves the sign to be a sign of such nature as to be so far from excluding the reality that it necessarily carries it with it the reason is this saith he that Jesus Christ having said this is my body this is a sign that he is present We confess we find it difficult to understand this arguing of the Bishop of Condom's How can he say that the bread and the wine which are the signs here in question are signs of such nature that they are so far from excluding the presence of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as necessarily to carry it with them for this proposition hath no foundation in the nature of bread and wine And for the reason which the Bishop of Condom adds that Jesus Christ having said this is my body is a sign that he is present is it not onely to play with words and to make therewith but an empty sound and vain amusement This here again is called giving the change and to prove the Question by the thing it self in question The Question is Whether the bread and wine are together the signs of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ and the body and bloud of Jesus Christ themselves We say that signs Symbols Seals and Pledges are not the things themselves whereof they are the signs Symbols Seals and Pledges and nothing is more conformable unto nature and unto reason The Bishop of Condom saith that the bread and the wine being the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as to what they have inward this hinders not but that they may be signs as to what they have outward and sensible but this is onely to say what is in question and how doth he prove it This speech this is my body is a sign that he is present but here we treat of the signs of bread and wine and this speech it self is not the sign that you would have it to be but onely by giving it the literal sense which you give it and this literal sense alone makes our first and principal question The fourth and last Assertion of the Bishop of Condom upon the Article of Transubstantiation is touching the adoration of the Host This Assertion is without doubt the most fundamenâ—al and most important point that separates us from the Church of Rome because it is not onely a doctrine but 〈◊〉 worship and a practice wherein â—he question is Whether we are to â—dore or not to adore In which behalf we cannot mistake without falâ—ing into impiety or into Idolatry Nevertheless the Bishop of Condom â—â—sseth swifter than lightning over â—his point without giving himself the â—ouble to confirm it by any proof All that he saith is pa. 126. that the presence of 〈◊〉 adorable an object being certified by the 〈◊〉 we scruple not at all saith he to pay 〈◊〉 ouâ— adorations This proposition is conceived in so equivocal a manner â—hat the adoration may refer to the â—â—esence to the object or to the sign 〈◊〉 self He intends without doubt the â—bject believed present under the sign But why not scruple at all for these â—igns do not now certifie any thing â—ut what they certified in the times of the Apostles themselves and in all â—he following times of the purest Christianity Yet it is certain that there is not one word of it in the relation of the institution of the Sacrament which shews that the Apostles did prostrate themselves in receiving of it nor that they shewed any mark of adoration Neither
doth it appear that after the death of our Saviour the same Apostles did adore the Sacrament Acts 2.46 It is onely very plainly said that they went breaking bread from house to house The Authours of the Office of the Holy Sacrament who have carefully collected all the passages of Ecclesiastical Doctours of the twelve first Centuries which they thought might favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament have caused to be printed in great letters all the passages where there is any word that seems to intimate that at any time or in any place the Sacrament was adored but they have neither found the word adore nor the thing signified by the word in the three first Ages and no more but the word onely in three or four places in all the following Ages until towards the Tenth Age. And which is more in those very places the adoration doth not relate unto the Sacrament but unto Jesus Christ believed â—o be in Heaven whence they cannot conclude a soveraign adoration of the Sacrament with greater reason than they grant we have when we alledge â—o the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome an infinite number of places where their Authors teach the adoration of Images If they will have it that in these places where their Authors speak of Images this term of Adoration doth not signifie a soveraign and absolute Adoration such as is given unto God but onely a veneration or relative honour as they speak why will they not allow that in those few places where those other Authours speak of the Sacrament the adoration whereof they speak may not also be an honour or â—eneration which is rendred unto the sacred Mysteries It is true as the Bishop of Condom affirms that the Church of Rome not acknowledging any other substance in the Sacrament but the body of Jesus Christ we do not wonder that those who are so perswaded pay it their adoration but from thence it self that they believe that adoration is a necessary consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that they doe not find this consequence neither in the Scripture nor in the practice of the Apostles and the times which are not in question there is much reason to admire that this same relation which the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do find betwixt these two Doctrines doth not at least give them some suspicion of them both or rather that it doth not at last incline them to reject both the one and the other XIV The Sacrifice of the Mass The same thing may be said of the Sacrifice of the Mass which the Bishop of Condom also regards onely as a consequence of the Real Presence and of Transubstantiation for there is nothing like it to be found in the Scriptures nor in the first Ages of Christianity In those first times they preached the Gospel and celebrated the Lords Supper in the very same simplicity wherein it was instituted but they said neither Low Mass nor High Mass nor Mass without communicants nor Mass unto such or â—uch an intention nor for all these particular ends for which Masses are â—aid at present nor Lastly the Mass â—n a Language not understood by the people At this time all this is practised in the Church of Rome and all the World knows that in this Church the Sacrifice of the Mass is as the principal and most important part of their Religion The propitiatory Sacrifices were distinguished from the Eucharistical Sacrifices Heb. 13.15 Psal 50.14 Psal 4.6 in that the former were to appease the Deity and to make expiâ—ation of sins by the bloud of the Offerings and the others to render thanks to God for blessings received or to â—rave others We do not deny but that the Lords Supper or the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice in a large and general sense as the Scripture saith a Sacrifice of prayer and a Sacrifice of praise and that Alms deeds 〈◊〉 a sacrifice but the Church of Rome which alwayes forceth things unto extreams will have the Mass to be a true sacrifice We think saith the Bishop of Condom that this oblation makes God become favourable pa. 130. and therefore it is that we call it propitiatory Thus it is that there needs but a thought and a word to make a propitiatory Sacrifice and in this sort Prayer it self wherein we offer our selves unto God and believe that we render God favourable unto us is a true propitiatory Sacrifice We will not here press what the Apostle sayes Heb. 9.22 that there is no true propitiation or remission of sins without effusion of bloud We will onely observe that it is a rule of Divine Right touching the Sacrifices that not onely the Sacrifices but the Altar it self is of greater dignity and of greater holiness than the oblation and that the oblation it self is sanctified by the Altar here they will have a Sacrifice where it is known that the man who is the Sacrificer Exod. 29.37 Mat. 23.18 19. is but a worm of the Earth the Altar a stone or Table made by mans hand and the offering the proper Son of God God himself If they who have read this part of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise would attentively cast their eyes at the same time upon those passages of the Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles which speak of the manner in which the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted and celebrated we are perswaded that if they never so little keep their minds free and in a condition to judge without prejudice they will find so little agreement of the one with the other that it may be said they are two Gospels But this will appear yet more particularly XV. The Epistle to the Hebrews if we rightly take the mind of the Apostle in the Epistle which he writ unto the Hebrews the force whereof the Bishop of Condom endeavours here also to elude To which purpose we need onely to follow the rule which the Bishop of Condom hath himself proposed to know whether 2 Doctrines are opposit which is to see if the propositions of the Apostle do sufficiently agree with those of the Bishop of Condom For expedition sake we will here mention onely two of the Apostles both which speak almost the same thing to see if the Doctrine of the Bishop of Condom be conform thereto St. Paul comparing the ceremonies and the figures of the Old Covenant with the truth which is found in Jesus Christ and designing to shew how the sacrifices of the Old Testament were abolished by the sacrifices of Jesus Christ he saith amongst other things Heb. 9. â—â— that Jesus Christ is not entred into places made with hands but that he is in Heaven where he appears for us before the face of God The Bishop of Condom teacheth on the contrary that Jesus Christ is every hour upon the altars made with hands and that it is there that he appears for us before the
face of God The Bishop of Condom thinks to take away the opposition in supposing that Jesus Christ is present in Heaven such as he was seen to ascend vested in his ordinary qualities and that he is upon the altars in another state which they call Sacramâ—ntal or â—n the manner of a spirit whereas St. Paul speaks oneâ—y of this first manner of presence in Heaven and that excludes this other sort of presence upon Earth But in the first place this is to answer by the thing it self which is in question To be able to speak thus it were necessary to shew us clearly that the Apostle knew and believed this last sort of presence of Jesus Christ upon Earth and in the second place if the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ had been present in the Sacrament at all times when his Supper was celebrated presenting himself for us before the face of God how could the Apostle have said so absolutely as he doth that Jesus Christ enters not into holy places made with hands but that he is in Heaven where he appears for us without saying at least somthing that might have distinguished the two different manners of appearing at the same time in Heaven and upon the altars and that the one doth not at all exclude the other This cannot be conceived The other proposition of the Apostles is Heb. 9.25 that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often for then must he often have suffered The Bishop of Condom on the contrary saith that Jesus Christ offers himself every day because that to offer himself there is no need that he should dye any more There is nothing more opposite than these two propositions and the reasons upon which they are grounded both one and the other not to offer himself often because it would be necessary he should dye to offer himself every day because it is not necessary he dye It is in vain for the Bishop of Condom here again to hope to remove this contrariety by asserting two manners of offering himself unto God the one in suffering death and the other in putting himself onely under the signs of death and supposing that the Apostle onely speaks of the former and that he means Jesus Christ doth not offer himself to dye often For in the first place this is again to answer the very thing that is in question It were necessary I say to have shewn that the Apostle had acknowledged these two different wayes of offering himself the one in suffering death and the other without dying but on the contrary the Apostle speaks absolutely and without restriction that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often And what he adds that otherwise it had been necessary that Jesus Christ should often have dyed doth not make a part of the Apostles proposition but onely the reason of his proposition otherwise the Apostles proposition would amount unto this that Jesus Christ doth not dye often because he doth not dye often If the Apostle had believed that Jesus Christ doth yet offer himself every day for us it is evident that he would not have said in such absolute terms that he doth not offer himself often or that he would have said something that would have shewed these two different manners of offering himself the one in dying and the other in putting himself onely under the sign or under the coverts of death as the Bishop of Condom speaks It appears that we must wilfully shut our Eyes to be able not to see that all the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass is directly opposite unto that of St. Paul Nevertheless the weakness or the variety of the mind of man is such that even from this it self the Bishop of Condom takes occasion yet to triumph upon this point desiring us to make serious reflexion upon his Doctrine and upon the order which he saith providence holds in drawing us insensibly nearer unto the Roman Church XVI Reflections of the Bishop of Condom upon the foregoing Doctrine pa. 145 146 c. This reflexion reduceth it self unto this that the Real presence is the foundation of the sacrifice of the Mass of the adoration of the Host and of all the other consequences of this Doctrine that providence hath permitted that the Lutherans have retained the reality and that in the last place the Calvinists have declared that this belief of the Lutherans hath no poyson in it neither doth overthrow the foundations of Faith and that it ought not to break communion betwixt Brethren so that if the Lutherans do reject the sacrifice and the adoration and do not believe Jesus Christ to be present but onely in the very moment that they do receive the Sacrament it is because they do not so throughly consider the consequences of the Reality as the Roman-Catholicks do that our Doctours themselves agree that the Doctrine of the Roman Church is more consequent in this point than that of the Lutherans and that in fine no subtilty of the Ministers can ever perswade people of right judgement that maintaining the Reality which is the most important and the most difficult point we ought not to maintain the rest In the first Edition it was that the Ministers could never perswade that he who should maintain the Reality might not easily digest the rest The Bishop of Condom hath already in the Entrance on his Treatise objected against us what he here again saith of the Lutherans though in another regard we have there also shewn the difference betwixt their Errour and that of the Church of Rome which is in a word that that of the Lutherans is but an errour of belief upon one point and is not followed by any evil practice whereas that of the Roman Church draws after it the Sacrifice of the Mass the adoration of the Host which are worships and practices whereof the consequence hath been already set forth We will onely add in this case that besides that the Bishop of Condom's argument here is not good and that there is on the contrary an equivocation or change of sense upon the word Reality which makes a kind of Sophisme the Reality or the Real presence such as the Church of Rome believes it by a change of the substance of bread into that of the body of Jesus Christ immediately after these words this is my body are pronounced is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the adoration of the Host This is the sense of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition upon which we have nothing to say God saith he hath permitted that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality This is his second proposition and here the equivocation begins because it is not true that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality such as the Roman Church supposeth it They believe not the presence of the body of Jesus Christ but onely in the use of the Sacrament as the Bishop of Condom
himself affirms that is to say in the moment that they receive it this is the reason that they admit not the Sacrifice of the Mass and adore not the Sacrament believing that it is not there that Jesus Christ will be adored and that it is sufficient that in receiving the Sacrament they address their adoration unto Jesus Christ himself without circumscription of place as they speak that is to say without considering him precisely as being in the bread The Bishop of Condom goes on God hath even permitted that the Calvinists have declared that this Doctrine of the Reality hath no poyson in it and ought not to cause a separation amongst Brethren This is the Bishop of Condom's third proposition where one may see the continuance of the equivocation upon the word Reality for it is not of the belief of the Reality in general that we have declared that it hath no poyson in it and that it ought not to break communion but it is in particular of the belief of the Lutherans in the terms in which they set it down Therefore ought the Calvinists also to maintain the Sacrifice of the Mass and the adoration of the Host as natural consequences of the Reality This is the consequence of the Bishop of Condom's argument but every one sees that it is a false consequence and besides the Question This falsness is caused by the equivocation of the word and by the ill manner of reasoning for the Reality of the Lutherans which we allow of is not the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass nor of the adoration of the Host as is the Reality of the Roman Church Upon the whole supposing here again that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Reality may â—â—em more consequent than that of â—he Lutherans as the Bishop of Conâ—â—m sayes that our Doctours doe aâ—ree that is to say supposing that we once believe the Real presence of â—e body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament we have reason to believe â—nd to practise the Sacrifice of the Mass and to adore the Host if the Doctrine of the Reality it self be an Errour whether it be understood after the manner of the Lutherans or after the manner of the Church of Rome as it must also be supposed according to us it is not a paradox nor 〈◊〉 subtilty of the Ministers to say an Errour which seems more consequent â—s not more tolerable On the contrary the more consequent an Errour is the more natural also is it that it leades from the truth For example a man that goes out of the right way but after some digression returns back into it suddenly again by another way doth far less go astray than he that having once taken a by way doth a long time go on in a contrary way how straight soever that way seems to be Who can reasonably doubt but that the Errour of the Manichees had been more tolerable if they had rested at the belief that God gave particular marks of his presence in the body of the Sun and of the Moon and that for all that they had not adored the Sun nor the Moon or that those that by Errour should believe that there were some Divinity in Images but yet would not adore them not believing that the Deity would be adored in the Images were not less Idolaters or less faulty than those in whom the motions of the heart did follow the Errour of the mind But to conclude what must be well distinguished here is that we do not receive nor approve the belief of the Lutherans touching the Reality In summe we do onely endure it and blame them for it and we have not admitted them into our communion but through a spirit of peace and of charity when they have desired to be thereinto admitted and according to the conditions mentioned in the Act of our Synod Nâ—w although the Bishop of Condom seems onely here to demand our condescendence to endure also the belief of the Church of Rome it is most certain that in effect he intends all along that we should receive this belief such as it is and that we should profess it as it is professed in the Church of Rome In a word his design is that the Reality or Transubstantiation is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the adoration of the Host that both the one and the other being consequences of the Reality they should no more trouble our mind than the Reality it self and that to conclude we should receive this Doctrine altogether and not onely swallow it down but also digest it There remains but one Article more of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition XVII The Communion under both kinds touching the Eucharist to examine The title is conceived in these terms The communion under both kinds as if it were the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that we ought to communicate under both kinds of bread and wine in stead of saying The taking away the Cup or the communion under one kind which is properly the thing meant It is plain here that they find it troublesome to say the thing as it is because it cannot be said without shewing at first sight that they have taken away something of the institution of our Lord. However the case stands the Bishop of Condom onely considers this Article as a consequence of the Doctrine of the Real presence a thing which is so far from being a reason to make us to like it that it cannot but more and more increase the just a version which we have for the Doctrine it self upon which are built so many evil consequences Mat. 26 27 28. The Bishop of Condom makes not the least mention of these words of our Saviour Drink ye all of this for this is the bloud of the New Testament which was shed for many which yet are words most essential to this subject and which contain not onely an express command to all to drink of the Cup but also the reason of the command which is that the bloud of the Lord was shed for many Let the Bishop of Condom tell us here why he makes so much reflexion upon the former words of the Institution and that he makes none at all upon this as if they had not not all proceeded equally out of the mouth of our Saviour What is the reason that he takes the former according to the letter and that he takes not these also so which are neither less express nor less clear And wherefore in fine is his Faith which is attentive to the authority of our Lord when he doth but just begin a proposition and doth as yet ordain nothing wherefore I say is not the same Faith attentive to the same authority of our Lord when he doth not onely propose but command and when he commands that we should all drink ot the bloud of the New Testament At other times they pay us with this escape that in the Institution
Apostles themselves or at least of the following age which speaketh clearly and in express words we have received such or such a Doctrine from the mouth of the Apostles or we hold it from those who have received it themselves from the Apostles own mouth for who can doubt but that there should be at least some formal and express Testimony to establish by the sole authority of Tradition a Religious Worship or any Important Doctrine that should binde mens Consciences But in conclusion behold here what the Bishop of Condom gives us in stead of such a proof pa. 159 160. the certain sign saith he that a Tradition comes from the Apostles is when it is embraced by all the Christian Churches without possible finding out the beginning of it c. And a little after It not being possible adds he that a Doctrine received from the beginning of the Church can proceed from any other origin but that of the Apostles The Bishop of Condom indefinitely layes down this Maxim not daring to apply the same unto any of the Traditions of the Church of Rome as knowing that this character indefinite as it is doth not suit with them To judge rightly of his argument and of the consequence which he would draw from thence this is the order into which we ought to put his propositions It is impossible saith he that a Doctrine received from the beginning of the Church should proceed from any other origin but from the Apostles A Doctrine embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the beginning cannot be shewed is necessarily from the beginning of the Church Therefore such a Doctrine proceeds from the Apostles Now the Traditions of the Church of Rome are Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches without possibility of shewing their beginning therefore they proceed from the Apostles These are the Bishop of Condom's propositions in the order wherein they ought to be and in this order it is plainly evident that there is not one of them that is absolutely true or rather that is not false in the terms in which it is conceived In the first place this proposition is not true that it is not possible that a Doctrine received from the beginning oâ— the Church should come from any other origin but from the Apostles except it be shewed that it was then received gâ—nerally of all the Churches and that the Apostles did not oppose themselves against it for the Apostles themselves testifie that in their times the Mystery of iniquity began to work 2 Thes 2.7 1 Tim. 1.7 that there were false Teachers amongst the Christians and by consequence false Doctrines so that it was no way impossible that these same Doctrines were not followed or revived in after-times â—s were many Heresies which appeared in the first and second age of Christianity But the second proposition is yet less true that a Doctrine embraced by all the Christian Churches whereof the beginning is not to be found should necessarily be from the beginning of the Church or that it should come from the Apostles which is the same thing in the Bishop of Condom's sense for those that make any reflexion upon the manner by which changes come in either in the Laws or Customs of States or in the Worship and Doctrines of Religion very well know that the time and original of these changes cannot always be shewn Much less therefore should it be said that these Establishments must necessarily be from the first foundation of these States or Religion Who could shew the Original of all the false Traditions of the Jewes Should it therefore be said that they were all from the beginning of the Jewish Church or the unwritten Word of Moses Amongst Christians themselves for example the use of giving the Sacrament unto little children was without doubt generally observed De pec in rit remi ii 1. ca. 20 24. Et l. 3. contr Julian c 4 Sâ—ss cap 4 because St. Austin openly has taught it as an Apostolical Tradition that it was absolutely necessary and that without it little children could not be saved The Council of Trent saith upon this subject that the Fathers which followed this custome ought to shew their reasons for it nevertheless it is one of those Doctrines whereof we cannot shew the beginning and for all that none dares to say at this time that it was received from the beginning of the Church or that it came from the Apostles otherwise the Council of Trent would not have dared to abrogate and abolish it as it hath done In fine the third proposition which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose in his Argument is yet less true than the two former namely that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which separate us from her communion are Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches without possible shewing the beginning thereof Can the Church of Rome shew any thing near this of any one of those Traditions which are in dispute betwixt us for example of Purgatory of the invocation of Saints of worshipping of Images of Relicks of the Cross of auricular confession of Indulgences of the Pope's Supremacy of private Masses of the adoration of the Host of the communion under one kind of religious Worship in an unknown Tongue or in fine of any of the particular Doctrines which separate us from the Roman Church For not to speak of the present time in which it is evidently known that there are many of the Christian Churches as well in the East as the West which do not embrace all the Doctrines of the Church of Rome it is also a thing most certain and notorious that it is not in the power of the Church of Rome to shew I will not say of all these Doctrines in general but of any one of them alone that it was embraced not onely in all times but scarcely at any time by all the Christian Churches On the contrary there are a great number of these Traditions of the Church of Rome whereof their first beginnings may precisely enough be shewn for example the worshipping of Saints and Images auricular confession the communion under one kind and many others and of all in general excepting that of praying for the dead whereof there is some mention to be found towards the latter end of the second Age. Our Authours have very solidly made appear that there is no footstep of them to be found in the three first Cajetan Thom. Pâ—râ—z Peron Beat. Rhen. Gab. Biel Roffen-Lombard c. Gab. Biel lect 57. upon the Canon of the Mass Quia sine du bio Ecclesia habet Spiritum sponsi sui Christi ideo non errans The most knowing of the Church of Rome themselves do not dissent as to the greatest number of Traditions as hath been noted before of worshipping of Saints of Images of confession of Purgatory and indulgences and they maintain not these sorts of Doctrines but by the general Maxime of the
disputes It will easily appear whether the Church of Rome hath hath kept her self within the bounds which it is said that she hath prescribed her self if she hath always exactly followed the steps of those which went before her and if in fine what is here said of her temper and moderation be not onely rather the ordinary stile of those who make profession of submitting themselves unto Laws even when they openly trample them under foot The third proposition particularly regards the authority and infallibility of Synods or Councils The Bishop of Condom saith that it is the part of Pastours assembled to decide controversies and the Faithful to receive their decisions without examining them we all agree to the former part of this proposition and we believe also that the way of Synodal Assemblies is the most universal outward means and the most effectual that God makes use of to keep mens minds united in one onely Belief But as we cannot agree to the infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes unto them so neither can we accord that the Faithful are obliged blindly to receive their decisions without examining them John 5.39 Mat. 7.15 Acts 20.29 1 Thes 5.21 Act. 17.11 The Apostles themselves did not demand so blind a submission to their own Doctrine on the contrary they advised that men would compare it with the Scripture that they would distinguish the Wolf from the Shepherd that they would examine all and retain that which was good and those of Berea were commended for that after having heard the Apostles they compared their Sermons with the Scriptures If it be said that this might take place as to the Doctrine of each Apostle in particular and not as to what had been decided by all the Apostles as that which the Bishop of Condom alledgeth out of the 15th of the Acts when the Apostles being assembled upon the controversie which was raised touching the ceremonies of the Law they pronounced these remarkable works It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us c. And that afterwards St. Paul and Silas went through the Cities teaching believers to keep the Ordinances of the Apostles In the first place the Bishop of Condom would do well to put some difference betwixt those holy men which had received the Holy Ghost immediately in form of fiery tongues and the Fathers of the latter Councils of Constance and of Trent of whom the very Romish Catholick Authours observe the passion the motives and the humane interest that inspirited them 2. We see that though the Apostles were fully perswaded of their authority as St. Paul speaks particularly of himself yet they are very far from thundring out Anathema's for the least matters as the Council hath done at every word against all those that will not admit even of meer School-distinctions and Figures of Rhetorick We see the Apostles found their judgment upon the Holy Scriptures and having concluded upon it they onely say with the greatest sweetness in the World If you do these things you will do well 3. Nor were they at all concerned even in this dispute about essential points of Faith but onely about ceremonies of the Law which were already silently abrogated by the Gospel which the Apostles would maintain but for a time to give the Synagogue an honourable burial and to maintain union betwixt the Jewes and the other people which had newly embraced the Doctrine of the Gospel In summe very soon after St. Paul himself preached that people might eat indifferently of all sorts of meat and it is known that in process of time the usage established by this Ordinance of the Apostles was insensibly abolished 4. It doth not appear that the Apostles did publish their decision with an absolute injunction to obey it but they sent Paul Barnabas and Silas to instruct the Faithful to keep this Ordinance that is to say in all likelihood to shew them the motives and grounds thereof which doth not import that it was forbid them to examine it Lastly we may retort against the Gentlemen of the Roman Church what the Bishop of Condom afterwards objects against us which is that their practice agrees not at all with their Maxims for it is not true that they believe the Councils to be infallible in all things nor that they alwayes receive all their decisions either with examining them or without examining them For example they have not held to those of the Councils whereof we have spoken which forbad the worshipping of Images and the decisions of those Councils have not hindred but that other Councils have ordained the contrary It is known that the Gallican Church hath not yet to this day received all the decisions of the Council of Trent as to points that regard Ecclesiastical Order and discipline which notwithstanding are much more of humane Jurisdiction than the very matters of Faith The fourth and last proposition of the Bishop of Condom's touching the authority of the Church is that wherein he objects against us that this authority is so necessary that after having decried it we have been obliged to establish it in the very matters of Faith it self This proposition contains two accusations which destroy each the other that which makes them the less credible The one is that we have decryed the authority of the Church the other that we have established it without any bounds In summe nothing is worse grounded than the first of these accusations for it is not true that we ever denyed that Order should be observed in the Church nor that we have ever written or spoken against the just authority of those whom God calls to be Pastours and Governours of the Faithful Our confession of Faith our discipline the Acts of our Synods in a word all that the Bishop of Condom himself â—eports which is what is most ancient and most authentick amongst â—s since the Reformation manifestly destroyes this accusation and the Bishop of Condom doth not alledge any thing which shews the contrary Our Doctours have preached and written against the excessive authority of the Court of Rome against the Soveraignty which we believe the Popes have generally usurped over Bishops which yet have the same â—haracter and the same dignity as â—hey have over all the Clergy over the people over the Councils and â—ver Princes themselves under preâ—ence of the spiritual Sword We â—ould have spoken against the absolute power that Popes attribute to themselves of assembling or not assembling Councils because that Ecclesiastical History gives us assurance that in the first and best Ages of Christianity it was the Emperours that assembled them In fine we could have again exclaimed against the abuse of Indulgences and in a word against all those points whereby the manner of the Government of the Church is become so widely different from that wherein it was governed by the Apostles and St. Peter himself of whom the Popes style themselves successours but in all these very things those
and that in case of appeal unto a National Synod the full and final resolution should be there made by the Word of God unto which if the Gainsayers should refuse to acquiesce from point to point with an express disowning of their errours they should be cut off from the Church From whence the Bishop of Condom draws this consequence that we do not attribute the authority of this last judgment to the Word of God taken in it self independently upon the interpretation of the Church because the appeal of indifferent persons was received who had in their judgment applied that very word The difficulty is here onely as it may be seen upon the more or less of the authority which should be attributed unto the judgment of Synods or of Popes and of Councils Neither this rule nor the consequence which the Bishop of Condom draws from it speak any thing but what we have already all along acknowledged that order and dependance is requisite and that Pastours and Synods are appointed to govern the Church to teach the Word of God and to promote the understanding of it But this infers not at all that we attribute infallibility unto our Pastours nor to our Synods as the Church of Rome doth to Popes and Councils nor that the people are obliged to receive their decisions without examining them or to give a blind obedience unto them The Article sayes that those who have any scruple shall be heard in the Synod with all holy freedom and that the scruple or difficulty shall be there resolved by the Word of God It is not possible to find a temper more just and equitable to retain on the one side particular persons in a just moderation and to leave to God and his Word the supreme and absolute authority over our consciences It may be that this moderation it self is not without some inconvenience and that it would seem that the opinion of the infallibility of Popes or of Councils and the soveraign and absolute authority that is attributed unto them are as a strong rampire to retain the people within bounds But in the first place an inconvenience in a Government is no sufficient reason that another should be good and just if it be not so of it self 2. Where is there any order and form of Government either in Church or State but that there is some inconvenience There is much more without comparison in attributing infallibility and an absolute dominion unto Popes and to Councils because when it so happens that Popes or Councils fall into any errour as it ought to be supposed in this part of the Question that it may so happen and as we are convinced by experience that it hath happened diversetimes the evil is almost without remedy Errour hath the force of authentick and irrevocable Law it renders it self more general more durable and by consequence more difficult to be reformed and when once the guides are blind then there will be a necessity to fly to particular persons unto whom God giveth sufficient light strength and courage to take the part of the Truth But that it might not be said that this is onely a supposition accommodated unto the particular case of the Reformation of our Fathers it is known how hard it was to root out Arrianism when it was supported by the authority of the Episcopal chair of Rome and of the Council of Arimini that it is principally unto the zeal and courage of St. Athanasius that the glory of restoring Christianity in its purity is due and that in fine if God had not made use of this holy man and of others that seconded him the Arrians might have fortified themselues so that they might have mastered the Councils and Truth might have groaned longer than it did under the oppression of those Hereticks 3. In fine it is not absolutely true neither upon the whole that the infallibility and authority which is attributed to Popes and Councils is either a stronger or a surer means to restrain the people than is the temperament of our Discipline For experience shews that for more than an Age since our Churches of France have been governed by this order there hath never been any difference amongst us either in doctrine or in discipline which hath not been decided without any trouble whereas it might be said that the excessive authority of Popes and of Councils far from hindring of division hath very much contributed unto the divisions of the East against the West and of the West against it self which are the two Schisms the most considerable and unfortunate that could fall out in the Church The sincere persons of the Church of Rome do acknowledge yet to this day that it is the too great heighth with which the Popes and the Council of Trent did affect to make Articles of Faith of all that was disputed in the very Schools and to anathematize those that would not receive those Doctrines that hath put an obstruction well nigh inuincible to the peace and re-union of Christians And not long since again amongst Roman Catholicks we have seen that the authority of Popes supported by that of Princes has scarce been able in some way to hinder that the differences which had stirred up so much eagerness upon points of Doctrine and Discipline had not caused yet greater scandal But after all we daily see that this authority of the Pope hath onely the power to change the outward appearances but the unity of minds is wanting so true is it that it is onely the knowledge of Faith and charity which are the solid grounds of an holy union of hearts and of thoughts The Bishop of Condom doth yet make a third difficulty upon the form of the Letters which we give unto our Deputies when we send them to the Synods The Form is conceived in these terms which are reported by the Bishop of Condom We promise in the presence of God to submit our selves to all that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy Assembly to obey and execute it to the best of our power being perswaded that God will reside there and will direct you by his Holy Spirit in all truth and justice by the Rule of his Word Every one at the first light perceiveth that as this Form is conceived it is so far from supposing that the Synod cannot err or from attributing an absolute authority unto it and independent upon Scripture that it doth precisely suppose the contrary It cannot be sufficiently wondred at how the Bishop of Condom could have so much mistaken himself herein as he hath done for he thinks that there is something more in it than in those two other places of our discipline and of the Synod of Charenton which he had reported to shew that we yield a blind submission unto our Synods His reason is because there is submission given unto what shall be resolved in the Synod before it be known that it hath spoken according to the Scripture
full liberty of advice and suppose that it had been found that the Deputies had yielded unto something at the conference against the judgement of our Churches it would not onely have been disapproved but blamed and censured If on the contrary it had been found that they had done their duty as it ought to be presumed they would that the Form of confession whereupon they had agreed had contained all the essential fundamental Articles of what is believed amongst us and that there had been no Article in this Form of confession which had destroyed our fundamental Articles in this case we should have praised God for so full and happy a re-union The Synod would have approved and ratified it they would have framed an Act that should have contained the motives the grounds and principal reasons of their decree and the Deputies of Provinces would have been enjoined to obtain also the final acquiescence of the Churches by their silence Let it now be judged whether there be any thing in all this that in the least tends to establish that infallibility and absolute dominion which the Church of Rome attributes either to Popes or Councils which is the onely thing here in question whether there be the least pretext to accuse us as the Bishop of Condom doth of a feigned niceness and of an abandoning of our Belief or whether this be not a trick of expression not so equitable as should be to cast a foul insinuation on a great body without any ground XXI The authority of the Pope and Episcopacy There now remains onely for finishing this Answer to the Bishop of Condom's Treatise that we speak a word in particular touching the authority of the Pope and of Episcopacy This is again one of those places where the Bishop of Condom is as it were upon thorns In the first Impression of his Treatise after having said as in passage that God had instituted the Primacy of St. Peter pa. 165 to preserve unity he adds This is the reason that our confession of Faith obliges us to acknowledge the Church of Rome as the Mother and Mistress Magistram of all other Churches and to render a perfect obedience to the Soveraign High Priest Successour of St. Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ And it is true that the profession of Faith made by Pius the IV. in execution of the Decree of the Council doth contain the same thing in so many words But in the second Edition the Bishop of Condom recalls what there was strongliest spoke in the former to wit these terms of Mistress Soveraign Vicar of Jesus Christ and perfect obedience which is due unto him whether it be that he would not engage to maintain these expressions in the extent of them or whether he was loath to anger us or in fine for some other reason that he had Now behold what he has put in stead of what he took away We acknowledge New Edition 〈…〉 saith he this same Primacy speaking of that of St. Peter which we have said that he supposed in the Successours of the Prince of the Apostles unto whom is due for this reason the submission and obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have alwayes taught So that in stead of explaining to us the Doctrine of the Council as he promised he would do by his Exposition for all the instruction and all the light he 'l give us he remits us to the Fathers and Councils and keeps himself yet in terms more general more obscure and more doubtful than the profession of Faith of the very Council it self It is true the Bishop of Condom here again covers his silence with this pretext that as to things which are disputed of in the Schools though the Ministers incessantly alledge them to render this power of the Pope odious it is not necessary to speak of them because saith he they are not of the Catholick Faitb But in all likelihood by these things which are disputed the Bishop of Condom here onely means the abuse of dispensations and of Indulgences the power of deposing Kings and to absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance and such other matters as are truly odious but for those things which precisely regard the submission that the Popes pretend due whether in matters of Faith or of Government Ecclesiastical though they are disputed as well out of the Schools as in the Schools if the Bishop of Condom avers that they are no more of the Catholick Faith we demand no more herein it may be said that the greatest part of the authority of the Popes contains nothing of great moment As to what remains it were easie to shew in this place that the Fathers and Councils unto whom the Bishop of Condom refers us have not alwayes taught that the Church of Rome was to be acknowledged as the mother and mistress of all others nor the Bishop of Rome as Soveraign High Priest sole Head and onely Successour of the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ nor that in this quality the submission and obedience which he at this day claims of all the World is due unto him Those who are but the least verst in History and judge without prejudice do well know Dist 22. ca. Constantinopolitanae that 't is onely the preheminence of the City of Rome once the chief City of the World and the Seat of the Empire which hath given occasion to the exalting the Holy Chair as they speak not onely above other Episcopal Chairs but above Kings and Emperours themselves It might also be shewed very clearly by the Scripture that the very pretended Primacy of St. Peter upon which the Authority of the Pope is grounded is not it self founded upon any thing for St. Peter had no more but his function of an Apostle like the rest It is said in the Eighth of the Acts that the Apostles which were in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria a passage which doth not intimate Gal. 2.9 Gal. 2.11 that St. Peter did attribute to himself any dominion over his Fellow Labourers The others are called pillars of the Church as well as he St. Paul saith himself that he withstood him to the face and if it were true that St. Peter had some primacy amongst the Apostles either because of his age or of his zeal as indeed it appears he spake first on several occasions who sees not that it can be at most but a primacy of order and rank in his own person such as there must needs be in all Assemblies and which would make no more for the Bishop of Rome than for those of Jerusalem and in general for all the Bishops and Pastours of the Church but this is also one of those Controversies upon which there are whole Volumes written and the Bishop of Condom passing so lightly over this matter as he does this is not a place neither to search deeplier into it We have onely to add for a conclusion
all its parts he tells us not one Word which says that God hath thus ordained it as if Religion were only an human Discipline and that God would be honoured and served according to our thoughts Deut 12 32 Is 1 12 Mâ—t 5.9 and not after his own institution Look into the Decrees of the Council the Catechism made by its authority the Commandments of the Church of Rome they never tell us upon this matter no more than on many others God Wills we Pray unto Saints or God bids we Pray unto Saints but the Church doth teach or the Council doth teach the Council Ordains and pronounceth Anathema This stile is very different from that of the Prophets and Apostles the former begins and almost ever ends Thus saith the Lord Exod. 5.1 1 Câ—â— 23 â—1 and the others We have received of the Lord what we haâ—e also delivered unto you It will be said that the Church of Rome and the Council of Trent are the Instruments of God and that it is God himself which speaketh by their mouth But this is to say a thing that is in question and very much in question this is to multiply questions whereas the Bishop of Condom pretends to diminish them The truth is that neither the Church of Rome noâ— the Council of Trent nor the Bishop of Condom who explains their Doctrinâ— are able to find one single passage it all the Scripture of the Old and new Testament which says that God wills the invocation of Saints nay what is far from that we do alledge in this case a great number which say the contrary The First thing which the Church of Rome doth teach is that is profitable to call upon the Saints and it is certain that as to this part the Council doth speak in these terms The Bishop of Condom doth a Little more sweetten the matter in adding that the Council is content to teach the Faithful that this practice is good and useful for them without saying any thing more and that so the meaning of the Church is to condemn those who reject this practise through scorn or errour This doth manifestly enough declare that those which are already in the Roman Communion might very well abstain from all Invocation of the Saints doing it with good intention as for example not to Pray but unto God alone or not believe the invocation of Saints to be absolutely necessary provided they do not despise nor condemn it that is to say that the Bishops are obliged to Preach the Invocation of Saints as the Council doth very expresly ordain that we are bound to hearken unto them and believe also what they teach but not to do what they teach From whence it appears to be a strange Doctrin and a Communion very extraordinary if it be true that some may practice a Religious Worship and others may refuse it This doth sufficiently make evident that our belief and our practise is safe and that we do follow the securer Way in that regard for if this Worship be but useful if the Council is contented also to teach it so without saying any farther we who openly profess that we do not reject it through scorn but only through the belief which we have that we ought not to address our vows and Prayers but to God only in appearance are not in any danger of incurring Gods displeasure in that behalf especially having neither Commâ—ndment as to this matter nor example in his word to oblige us therâ—uâ—â—◠〈◊〉 whereas the Church of Rome may well fear the jealousie of God if it be true as we believe that this Worship is contrary to his Will And it is Likely that we who reject this Worship because we are perswaded that God alone should be invoked are in as much safety at Least as those who are in the Roman Communion who have their Liberty to forbear it for it is a much less fault in Religion not to do a thing when one thinks it not to be good than not to do it when one believes it to be good and useful But on the other side how shall we reconcile the expressions of the Council of Trent and of the Bishop of Condom either with the profession of Faith which the Roman Catechism doth prescribe by authority of the said Council or with the opinions of the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church and with the general practice of all those of their Communion For the profession of Faith doth say in express terms not that it is good and useful to pray unto the Saints but purely and simply that we ought to Pray unto the Answ Answ to the repl of the King of Great Britain Page 872 Saints pronouncing Anathema against all those which do not receive this Doctrine And the Cardinal Du Peron of whom every one knows how his judgment is followed in the Roman Church saith in express Terms that the invocation of Saints is not onely useful and lawful but that it is necessary though by a conditional necessity which he doth not explain clearly However he pretends to prove this necessity by the authority of St. Ambrose and St. Hilary In sum how can it be said of such a Religious Worship as this that it is but useful as if in Religion all true Worship were not a true duty and by consequence a thing necessary especially a Worship which it is seen doth take up above half the time of the Ceremonies and services of the Roman Religion And when the Bishops have orders as in the matter now in hand In primis Counc Trent Sess 26. de invoc c. to teach above all things that the Saints who Reign with our Lord Jesus Christ do pray for us and that it is good and useful to render unto them a Religious honour and to fly unto their aid and succour is not this to say that we ought to do it But if any amongst them would forbear in this matter either because they do not think it absolutely necessary or because they will not address their Prayers unto any but God himself how can they assist at all the publick services where Saints are every hour called upon without saying Amen as others do or without being as it were a Sect separate in the midst of those of their Communion It is therefore most certain that these sorts of expressions of the Bishop of Condom are only sweetnings in terms to draw us unto a Religious service which he knows we believe to be truly evil It is but for the present the Gentlemen of the Roman Church give us to understand that if we would joyn with them we should not pray unto the Saints if we pleased but when once men are engaged we call to witness those who desert us if they do not oblige them to swear amongst other things that men ought to pray unto Saints as it is contained in the profession of Faith made by thâ— Council However it be useful or necessary