The First Part,

As for the Bishop of Condom's de­sign, he declares it himself in the be­ginning; he did believe, he saith, that the matters, which we made the Subject of our breach, being now sufficiently cleared, he could do nothing better, nor more useful for us, than to propose plain­ly unto us, the opinions of the Church [Page 51] of Rome, by explaining to us what she hath defined in the Council of Trent; hoping that alone would cause sundry con­tests wholly to vanish, and that those which remained, would not appear, ac­cording to our own principles, of such weight, as we would it should be believ­ed they are; and that according to our own principles, they contain nothing that doth wound the foundations of Faith.

We have, in the very entrance this advantage, that the Bishop of Condom going about to make a plain draught, as he speaks, of the Catholick Doctrine, in opposition unto ours, lays hold on, for a foundation, a Council which is well known not to be acknowledged Catholick or Oecumenical, a Coun­cil, which, above all other Councils, is such wherein, according to their own Catholick Authors, there apear­ed visibly most of intrigue, and of human interests, a Council, of which our France it self doth not receive all the decisions, in matters of discipline and Government, a Council to con­clude, whose decrees do to this day want explication.

[Page 52]In sum, if the Bishop of Condom doth desire that men should speak what they think, nothing is more frivolous than his design, unless it be for those Doctrines and pra­ctises that are not very necessary, Whereof he seems to desire to dis­charge his Religion; for as to the o­ther, Which he calls the principal causes of our breach, he saith himself, that the matters of controversie are now cleared: and it is certain that there is nothing but prejudice, the weakness, and the variety of the mind of man, that doth hinder that all the World doth not so Judge. Where­fore then is it, that at this time they propose plainly the same things, as if men heeded not at all, instead of bring­ing of new Lights, to overcome if it might be, those human infirmities which do occasion diversity of opini­ons.

It is true that the Doctors and Preachers, of the one side and the o­ther, do sometimes aggravate the things which they treat of; Whether it be the things themselves, or the conse­quences [Page 53] they draw from thence: yet this doth not hinder, but that it is very well known on both sides, what is the substance of the belief of the one and the other in the principal points. It is properly nothing but these Do­ctrines and these practises, which the Bishop of Condom would have laid aside, which are not so well known by all the World. For example, we do very well know what the Church of Rome doth commonly teach con­cerning the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist, touching the worshipping of Saints, of the Cross, of Images, and of Relicks, the Soveraignty of the Pope, and all the other principal points, which separate us from her communion: we are sufficiently in­formed, of what she doth profess to teach, of what She receiveth, and practiseth in all places upon these points: it is onely the excess, and abuse, that are greater haply in some parts, than in others, wherein all the world doth not equally agree. We believe we have solidly refuted all these principal Doctrines, and all these [Page 54] Worships Universally received: it be­hoved him therefore properly, either to submit unto our reasons, or to shew better; and not put us of one­ly with a simple exposition.

It is not here put in question, what power the Bishop of Condom hath to explain What the Church of Rome hath defined in the Council of Trent, or to re­duce the Doctrine unto the point, to which he seems to have reduced it. For our parts we do not in the least make any doubt, but that Pastours may make probable expositions ac­cording to the motions of their con­science, whether it be for instructing their Flocks, or to bring back unto the truth such as have forsaken it: for why should they not explain such Writings, seeing they do every day explain that, which is less clear in the Holy Scripture.

But as for the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, what will become of the Authentical Bull of Pius the Fourth, which doth contain the con­firmation of the Council of Trent, and gives it all its authority? That Bull ex­presly [Page 55] 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, [Page 56] that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, all cleared and all decided [...] it was by the Council of Trent, is no [...] for all so clear, but that it hath y [...] need of farther explication: which [...] most true, as to the very ground [...] it; and they have for this same reaso [...] designedly put their several decrees i [...] general and ambiguous terms, to giv [...] in appearance the greater satisfaction to people. It will now be seen by th [...] sequel, if the Bishop of Condom himsel [...] will speak plainer on these doubtf [...] 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 [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] to vanish, or, to reduce them un [...] such terms, as according to our ow [...] principles have nothing in them whic [...] 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 wit [...] this general proposition, that those [...] the Pretended reformed Religion [...] avow that the Catholick Church d [...] receive all the fundamental Articles of [...] Christian Religion: here at first it ma [...] be seen, as also in the Title of th [...] Treatise, that by the Catholick Chur [...] the Bishop of Condom intends the R [...] mish Church. It is an usage, whic [...] the Gentlemen of the Romish Churc [...] very much more affect of Late, th [...] they have been accustomed, namely, it seems, to cover themselves with more authentick Title, and to tak [...] a kind of advantage in words abo [...] all other Christians: that is to say, tha [...] the name of the Roman Church, an [...] the name of the Catholick Churc [...] doth not sufficiently to their mind mean the same thing; the one dot [...] seem much more auspicious, than th [...] other. And moreover this same thin [...] makes evident, that the Titles whic [...] [Page 59] 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, [Page 60] 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 [Page 61] 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 Holy Ghost, which is the first, and most fundamental Article of the Christian Religion: but at the very same instant, She doth teach another Article, which is quite contrary ac­cording to us, when She saith, that we ought to Worship, and when she doth indeed Worship, that, which according to us, is not God.

The Church of Rome receives, as we do, the first Commandment of the Law, which forbids having any other God than the Mighty and Jealous God. Yet at the same time, She calleth up­on the Saints, which is a Religious worship by their own Confession, and according to us, it is a kind, or part of that worship, which we ought not to give but to God onely: not to speak [Page 62] here of the excess, which is seen in that worship.

The Church of Rome receives the second Commandment, which doth particularly forbid the making Images of any thing that is in Heaven, or in the Earth, to worship them: but at the same time She doth make Images of the very persons of the Trinity, and of all the Saints; Shee kneels down before them, and doth serve them Religiously, against the express terms of the Commandment, and it is also well known, to what excess She hath advanced this worship in the practice.

The Church of Rome receives, as we do the Apostles Creed, which is [...]n Abridgment of the fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel, for those who are well instructed in it, and that do understand it in the full force of its ex­pressions: But therein it self we do agree no wise touching that, which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose, that the Church of Rome hath the pure and true understanding of the Creed. We pretend that to believe in God [Page 63] the Creator, and in Jesus Christ doth mean so to believe in God as to matter of Reli­gion, as not to have the Least confidence in any thing else: and we believe that the Worshipping of Saints, of Relicks, of the Cross, and of Images, especi­ally in the excess, and inevitable abuse which follows, however the matter is sweetned in disputation, is a degree of a Religious confidence in the creature, which thereby doth become sharer in what we owe only unto the Creator.

The Church of Rome with us be­lieves that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven, that he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, and that it is he, who shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead: but she believes at the same time, that our Lord Jesus Christ, is also every day corporally upon earth, though in an invisible State, and different from that estate he is in in Heaven.

Here it might be proved, that in effect all these Doctrines of the Roman Church, and several others are dire­ctly contrary to the fundamental Do­ctrine of the Gospel, but that would [Page 64] be useless in this part of the question where it sufficeth to intimate, that we do so believe: what follows will shew the reasons which we have to believe so.

p. 9 a. 1The Bishop of Condom doth here make the objection against us, which is usually made against us touching the Lutherans, that the consequences which we draw from their Doctrine, do not hinder, but that we admit them into our Communion, although these consequences do seem to destroy the foundation.

But there is a great deal of diffe­rence betwixt the Lutherans and the Roman-Catholicks, in reference unto us; in effect we agree, that always heed is not to be taken of the conse­quences, which may be drawn from a Doctrin. Doubtless we ought to di­stinguish the consequences contested by him that doth teach the Doctrine and which do not produce any effect in the intention nor Worship, from those which are granted by the very persons which teach the Doctrin, and which are followed by a sort of Wor­ship [Page 65] which is thought to be evil. It is true that Mr. Daille saith of the Luthe­rans, as the Bishop of Condom doth instance, that they have an opinion, which according unto us doth infer, as well as that of the Roman Church, the destruction of the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is also very certain, that this consequence, as Mr. Daille doth add, cannot be without great injustice imputed unto them, because they do for­mally deny it, and that besides, they have nothing in their Worship which doth establish, or suppose this conse­quence. This is the reason of this ex­pression of Monsieur Dailles, which hath been so urged of late times, and which the Bishop of Condom doth here again urge, that the opinion of the Lutherans has no venim in it, which is notwithstanding a natural expressi [...]n, and proper to the Subject, for it im­ports nothing else, but what is said b [...] ­fore, that the Lutherans denying the consequences of their Doctrin, and be­lieving the humanity of Jesus Christ, as it is certain they do, their errour touching the Eucharist, [Page 66] although it may be gross according unto us, may nevertheless be chari­tably born with, for the advantage of Peace and Union.

But as to the Church of Rome, it is not onely by consequences, but by a positive Doctrin, and by a constant practice, as we pretend, whatsoever she saith, that she doth not sufficient­ly acknowledge the Soveraignty, which is due unto God, nor the quality of Saviour and Mediator in our Lord Je­sus Christ, nor the superabundant ful­ness of his merits; because it appears plainly unto us, that she gives unto the creature, the Worship which is onely due unto the Creator: and that she doth make to concur the satis­factions and merits of men, with the satisfaction and merit of Jesus Christ. It cannot with justice be said that the Lutherans do not believe the humanity of Jesus Christ, but it is no calumny to say that the Church of Rome doth Worship the host, and that she doth give a Religious Worship to Saints, & to their relicks, to Images, and unto the Cross, &c. these are not consequen­ces [Page 67] contested, but positive Doctrin confirmed by practice.

The Bishop of Condom, having a mind to cover the contrariety, we conceive between the fundamental Articles, which the Church of Rome holds, and those other Worships that we reject, passeth over here in silence, what should have been spoken touching the a­doration of the Host, which point alone most openly shews this contrariety.

He thinks to reconcile all by his Se­cond proposition, III. Second pro [...]ion general of the Bi­shop of Condom This the Catho. Church doth teach that the Religi­ous wor­shipping of Saints and Ima­ges &c. termi­nates it self in God only Mat. 4.10. that the Church of Rome doth teach, that all Religions wor­ship ought to terminate it self on God. We say more simply, and more naturally, that all Religious Worship ought to addresse it self unto God, because indeed Religion should regard no­thing but God, and should have on­ly him for its object. All Religious Worship should begin with him, con­tinue in him, and end on him. This is it, to which only all the Doctrin of the Old and New Testaments doth tend: there cannot be shewed in those Holy Originals, neither Command­ment nor example to the contrary. [Page 66] [...] [Page 67] [...] [Page 68] Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, an [...] him onely shalt thou serve, said our Sa­viour to the Devil that tempted him

If Religion were onely an arbitrary Worship, St. Aug. lib. 4. contr. Faust. cap. 11. & de Ge­nes cont. Manich. li be a p. 1. and that to render it Law­ful, it were enough to refer all to God the Manichees which adored God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with a Sovereign Worship, and who also Worshipped the Sun and Moon, by reason of the residence they believed God made in those glorious bodies might have said that they did termi­nate all in God; and in a Word there could be no false Worship, supersti­on, or evil action, which may not be justified if it were enough to say that all did terminate in God.

Besides the Church of Rome doth but fairly say that She teacheth, that the Worship of Saints ought to refer it self to, or terminate it self on God: the people will everlastingly ter­minate it on the Saints, on their re­licks, and on their Images; because the same reason, which causeth that grosser minds cannot form to them­selves any Idea of an Infinie and in [Page 69] visible God as he is, doth also make them naturally to stop at Saints and creatures, and that they rely more on things which they see or know, than on that which they onely know im­perfectly. They will have, as the Jews had, Gods to march before them and at all times, when Relicks and Ima­ges, are set before the eyes of the people, as is usual, their eyes and their hearts, far from being lifted up unto God, will stop not onely at the saints themselves, but at their Images and Relicks.

The Second Part.

The Bishop of Condom doth here descend from the General Proposition touching the nature of Religious Worship, Of the Invocati­on of Saints. to the explication of par­ticular Worships, which do make part of the Articles of Faith, whereunto he reduces the controversies. He begins with the Invocation of Saints, in­deavouring also to sweeten and exte­nuate this worship of the Church of Rome, as well in the Doctrine as in the practice, and onely studies [Page 70] colourable means to insinuate his Do­ctrin, in stead of following the natural order of things & of the Doctrin it self, that is to say, instead of establishing be­fore all things, that the Invocation of Saints is a Lawful worship instituted by God, and by consequence well pleasing in his eyes, he indeavours to surprise mens minds by this other ge­neral proposition, that those of the Pre­tended Reformed Religion, being pres­sed by the force of the truth, do begin to acknowledge that the Custom of Praying unto Saints, and to honour their Relicks, was established ever since the fourth Cen­tury; he means, that we do acknow­ledge that this worship, did begin to be established at that time. This is but a perverting of words: for the Bishop of Condom knows very well, that it is not now that we do begin to make this acknowledgement, and that this acknowledgment is neither new, nor forced, nor particular to Monsieur Daille, as the Bishop of Con­dom doth seem to take notice. Clemnit. Casaub. [...]ossias du Mou­lin, &c. Blonde [...], Chamier, Bochard, in a word all those who have treated throughly [Page 51] of this Subject, have agreed upon the time in which Praying unto Saints, begun to be introduced. This trick of expression from the Bi [...]hop of Condom, is onely a short w [...]y to insinuate, that there hath been a variation betwixt our authors, and less sincerity at one time than at another, which never­theless hath not the least ground: how­ever his proposition shall be ex­plained, that it may not be mi­staken.

It is true that we have always ac­knowledged, that Praying unto Saints began to be practised towards the end of the Fourth Age: but we never acknowledged, neither do we yet acknowledge, that it was an usage then established in the publick service of the Church: nor is it true, that it was authorised by any Coun­cil.

Onely if it be needful, we make appear by convincing proofs, not on­ly that there is neither command nor example, neither in the Old or New Testament, for the Invocation of Saints, but also that there is not the least [Page 72] mark in any of the authors of the fi [...] three Ages, which are extant in s [...] ficiently great numbers.

Mr. D [...]ille doth not accuse any the Fathers, much less St. Augusti [...] to have changed the Doctrin in th [...] point from the former Ages: for [...] Austin hath declared himself the Le [...] of any for these sorts of Prayers [...] Saints; Mr. Daille doth only complai [...] of this, that they suffered them inse [...] sibly to be brought in upon bad pri [...] ciples, and doth accuse them of hav [...] ing erred in this, as the Church [...] Rome doth acknowledge, that the [...] have all erred in other things. If th [...] Bishop of Condom pretend, that th [...] is to abandon those great men un­der colour of acknowledging that the were men subject to errour, the mil­lenaries, which do yet to this day ex­pect a Kingdom for a Thousand year on earth, under the immediate Government of Christ Jesus, those whic [...] believe that Souls at their departur [...] out of this Life, shall sleep until th [...] day of Judgement, and Generally al [...] those that have followed or do ye [...] [Page 73] follow any one of these errours which appeared in the first Ages, may as well say, that we have abandoned those of the Fathers, who followed or taught those matters, and by con­sequence that they are not errors, but Doctrines Lawfully established.

But it will appear very unlikely, saith the Bishop of Condom, that Mr. Dail­lé hath better understood the opinions of the Fathers of the three first Ages, than those who have gathered, as it may be said, the succession of their Doctrin: and he will be much less believed, that the Fathers of the fourth Age where far from perceiving that there was any innovation brought in in their Worship: this Minister on the contrary hath produced express texts, by which they clearly shew, that they pretend, in praying to the Saints, to have followed the example of those who went before them.

These kinds of discourses are very uncertain, and are properly but Co­lours. If the Bishop of Condom had taken the pains to have mentioned the texts he speaks of, it would have been seen that there is not the least in any [Page 74] of them which shews clearly, as he would have men believe, that the Fa­thers of the fourth Age, did preten [...] that the invocation of Saints was it use in the three precedent Ages. It is known to be the custom of those who have no good ground, not Lawful right for what they do, to seek to authorise themselves at leas [...] by examples, as the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do at this present, by the greatest part of their traditions But if it were true, that some Author of the Fourth Age had written i [...] General terms, that in Praying un­to Saints in that Age, they followed the example of those that had gone be­fore them, not shewing the time when these examples appeared, who see [...] not that this might be referred unto the time immediatly going before in the same Age, and would conclude no­thing for the three first, if nothing were [...]o be found in those Ages? How­soeve [...] i [...] be, we believe shall we be abl [...] to [...]a [...]e appear, that never any au­thor of the Fourth Age, hath alledged any text of the three former, th [...] [Page 75] makes out, that in those times they prayed unto Saints.

The Cardinal Du Perron, In the reply unto the King of Great Britain: answer, 187 [...]. Impress. P [...]a [...] whose art in turning all to his advantage is sufficiently known, hath been forced to confess in proper terms, that there is not to be found any footstep of the in­vocation of Saints in the Authors next to the Apostles Age; seeking vain sl [...]ights and evasions upon this matter.

Perez a Spanish Bishop, Os Tradi. pa 197 [...] more sin­cere, goeth farther, confessing that he found not that any Prayd unto Saints before the year 360. See then more than three Ages and a [...] half, ex­empted from the pretensions of the Gentlemen of the Church o [...] Rom, by their own confession: and what can there be more convincing on the side of Tradition, unto those which make if the rule of their Faith, against such a worship as this, which maks so great a part of the Roman Religion, than not to find at all the least step of it, in the whole course of 360 years, the purest time of Christianity.

As to what the Bishop of Condom saith, that it is not at all likely, that [Page 76] Mr. Daille had better understood the opinion of the Fathers of the three first Ages, then those of the fourth Age did understand them; first it is not here the business to understand, or not to un­derstand the opinion of the Fathers of the three first Ages: for none of their writings can be alledged, which those of the fourth Age have understood i [...] one sense, and Mr. Daille in another.

The onely business is to know, i [...] there be any thing in those writings which sheweth that they Prayed un­to Saints: Mr. Daille affirms that he finds nothing at all. Du Perr [...] and Perez speaking to the same effect as is already said, and the authors of the Fourth Age, say nothing contrary.

But if there were occasion to ex­plain any of the Fathers of the three first Ages, it would not possibly be so great a Paradox as the Bishop of Con­dom imagins, to suppose that Mr. Daille has been able to understand them as well as most of the Fathers of the fourth age did understand them. Those who amongst all his other works have read his books of the use of the fa­thers [Page 77] of the Novelty of Roman Traditi­ons, of the object of the worship of the Latins, and upon the Epistles attri­buted to St. Ignatius, where he had occasion to speak throughly of the Do­ctring of the three first Ages, will ac­knowledge, if they are in the least just and sincere, that haply scarce any be­fore him, hath either more studied, or better understood the Fathers than he: and I may credible say here, that if the veneration which is to be had for antient things, be one day joyned un­to the proper excellency of his works, and unto the clear reputation, in which he lived & preached, even unto a great age, he will be esteemed in after times, for one of the greatest & most excellent Doctors which the Church ever had.

The Fathers of the Fourth age lived some in Europe, others in Asia, and some in Africk: Printing not being then in use, there was not the same facility to see all the Manuscripts of Forreign parts. The Fathers had each their proper Lights, and peculiar study of some of the writings of the preceding ages, and of their own: [Page 78] at this day, those, who have the time, Wisdom, Judgment, and the know­ledge of tongues which are necessary for the well understanding the Fathers may collect not onely all the Fathers works of the three first Ages, but al­so the several Lights of the Fourth, and also joyn unto those Lights, those of all the following ages unto that wherein we Live: day unto day uttereth Speech, & right unto night sheweth know­ledge. Who questions but at this time several places of the Holy Scriptures, are better understood, than they were in the First ages; This dispute it self hath served to clear many truths, which were not known until these Last times; for instance, several pas­sages misunderstood by the Fathers, which are now better understood, in the one, and in the other Commu­nion, than they were formerly; and sundry errours whereinto it is agreed they were fallen, from which, praised be God, we are now delivered.

Here it is, that the Bishop of Condom comes at length to explain the belief of the Roman Church touching [Page 79] the invocation of Saints in particular: what he saith may be reduced to this, that the Church of Rome teacheth that it is useful to pray unto Saints, and that she teacheth to pray unto them in a Spirit of Charity, and Brotherly fel­lowship, as we pray to our Brethren, that are living upon earth: that this Prayer unto Saints doth not any more derogate from the mediation of Jesus Christ, than that which we make unto our Living Brethren, that the Church of Rome makes a great deal of difference betwixt the Prayers which she addres [...] unto God, and those which she makes unto Saints, that unto God she saith have mercy upon us, and to the Saints only, Pray for us, and that this is the sense, unto which the Church reduceth all the Pray­ers unto Saints in whatsoever terms they be conceived; that the Council teach­ing that it is good and useful to call upon the Saints in an humble maner, and to fly unto their aid for obtaining benefits of God by his Son Jesus Christ, the Bi­shop of Condom conceives not how we can say that this is to depart from our Lord Jesus Christ. Afterwards he adds [Page 80] that the Church doth not offer unto God [...] Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the honor of Saints, but only so as to name them [...] the faithful servants of God, to render his thanks for their victory, and to pray hi [...] to be inclined by their intercessions; mo [...] over that this is not to advance the crea­ture above its condition, to attribute [...] them a knowledge of the desires and ne­cessities of which we make s [...]cret [...] quests unto them, in as much as th [...] God hath not refused to reveal things [...] come unto the Prophets, though they seem to be more particularly reserved un [...] his own knowledge: that, Lastly, th [...] Church doth not decide any thing, up [...] the different meanes, which God make use of in imparting this knowledge un [...] the Saints, whether he doth it by the Ministry of Angels, or by a particul [...] revelation, or whether he discover all unto them in his infinite essence, where a truth is comprised.

This is the sense, and as near a [...] may be the Bishop of Condoms ver [...] expressions, whereby he would sweeten his Doctrines as much as he could but for all this, what might not o [...] [Page 81] 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 [...] [...] ­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 [Page 82] 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, [Page 83] 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 [Page 84] we must suppose that Angels themselves know our thoughts and our d [...] sires? For although they are Mi [...] string Spirits as the Bishop of Cond [...] alledges, when they are sent fo [...] to attend the Faithful, it do [...] not follow that we ought to attrib [...] to them the knowledge of hearts which onely belongs to an in [...] nite essence. Heb, i. 14 Jerem. 17 6 & 10. Amos 5 7. There is also this diff [...] rence betwixt the Saints and the Prophets, that God himself hath said th [...] he revealed things to come unto th [...] 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 o [...] thoughts and our Prayers, as the B [...] shop of Condom affirms. It [...] known that the Devils, and even m [...] themselves, sometimes search i [...] what is to come, and that it is properly the knowledge of the hear [...] which God reserves unto himself [...] lone.

P [...]s 7 10 & 1 Chro [...]6 s 7.It is yet a gulf of difficulties to Im [...] gin, that the Saints see all things in th [...] [Page 85] 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 [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [Page 86] 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 no [...] 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, ca [...] know our desires, and Prayers, o [...] that they are in a condition of doing what we pray unto them for: it is, tha [...] we cannot be assured of this it self that the greatest number of the Saint [...] 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 th [...] Lord, yet the judgement of charit [...] is not sufficient to establish such worship as this is.

The Council, nor the Bishop o [...] [Page 87] 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 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 M [...]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 [Page 88] 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 C [...] 23 [...]1, and the others, We have received of the Lord what we ha [...]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, no [...] the Council of Trent, nor the Bishop of Condom who explains their Doctrin [...] 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 [Page 89] 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 [Page 90] 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 Comm [...]ndment as to this matter, nor example in his word to oblige us ther [...]u [...] [...] whereas the Church of [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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 [Page 93] 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 [Page 94] in the profession of Faith made by th [...] Council.

However it be, useful, or necessary, We do not Pray unto Saints (s [...] they) but in a Spirit of charity a [...] Communion, as we do pray our Brethr [...] that are living to pray for us, and th [...] one doth not more derogate from th [...] Glory of God, than the other.

But the Scripture is full of exam­ples and precepts which oblige us t [...] pray one for another; we are assure▪ that our brethren who are Living d [...] understand us, and there is so grea [...] a difference betwixt what we thin [...] of them, and of God, that these sort of charitable Offices which we ren­der to another, were never Looke [...] upon, but as actions purely human and never making up any part of Re­ligious Worship; Whereas, on th [...] one hand, we have no Command fo [...] Praying unto Saints, nor certai [...] knowledge that the Saints understan [...] our vows and our Prayers, and o [...] the other hand, the Idea which w [...] form of the Saints Reigning in Glory with Jesus Christ, the honours much [Page 95] 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 [Page 96] a part of that Worship and ho­nour which we owe God onely. An [...] moreover, it is not true, that they on­ly Pray unto the Saints to pray fo [...] them. They of the Roman Churc [...] beseech of them redress of their evils deliverance from dangers, in a wor [...] all things temporal, and spiritual of St. Paul, or St. Nicholas to sa [...] them from Shipwrack, of St. Roc [...] preserve them from the Plague, of S [...] Peter to open unto them the Gates o [...] 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 betwix [...] God and the Saints. And what is ve­ry remarkable, it is not particula [...] persons that make these sorts of re­quests by a missled Devotion; the [...] are publick and solemn Prayers, in­serted in the Offices and rituals [...] they speak, authorised by the Roman Church, and generally practise [...] [Page 97] 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 [Page 98] the words, whereas otherwise it is the words that are the Interpre­ters of the intentions.

Besides, wherefore are they no [...] willing, that God should be jealou [...] of our words, as he is of our thoughts For our tongue is Gods, as well [...] our heart: and it is the words whic [...] do declare the honour outwardly, [...] it is the intention which doth rule th [...] inward thoughts, and God will n [...] 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 Pr [...] for us, when I say, we shall thereb [...] understand the Council of Trent, o [...] the sense of the Roman Church in G [...] neral, as it doth seem he would ha [...] us to understand by it, it is w [...] known that the intention of those wi [...] Pray, doth follow the natural sense the expressions they use, and that th [...] do not go to seek after any other i [...] tention of the Council, or of t [...] Church in General: and the int [...] tion of those who Pray, doth [...] [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] poor people had nothing dearer unto them than their flocks, the fruits [...] their lands, and the commodities o [...] this Life: God required of them s [...] crifices of their flocks and offerings o [...] their fruits, as the most assured pledg [...] which they could give of their Lov [...] and obedience. But since it hat [...] pleased God to increase the Lights o [...] [...]eason, by a Longer use of reason i [...] self, and to joyn unto these Lights th [...] Light of the Gospel, which hath raised and purified our thoughts and ou [...] affections, God would no Longer have any offering, nor Sacrifice but th [...] hearts of men, their Love, their fea [...] and their Religious confidence: bu [...] he will have this same confidence a [...] intirely, and will not suffer that w [...] should impart the least share of it unt [...] any others besides himself. Men fo [...] their parts, although more enlightn [...] now than the Jews were, cease n [...] yet to be men, that is to say, weak and as the Light of the Gospel [...] strange to their reason, they easily return [...]n [...]o their grosse and carnal sense if ever the least occasion be give [...] [Page 101] 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, [Page 102] 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 s [...]t they go farther, they joyn the Saints unto God in several things: in pray­ing, they have no sooner said a Paternoster, 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 Almi [...] but in the name of God and the Vir­gin: the Authors in like manner pray or thank God and the Virgin in th [...] beginning and end of their Works and Lastly the Pope himself doth en [...] 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 h [...] [...]n [...].

If there appear any difference be­twixt [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] Saints to nothing, but to demand thei [...] aid for obtaining benefits of Go [...] through his Son Jesus Christ, who i [...] our onely Saviour and Redeemer, w [...] 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 subtilt [...] of his expressions, and by the troubl [...] he hath had, to put them in the con­dition they are now in; how, I say, h [...] should not see, that this is to go alo [...] off from Jesus Christ, for to fetch thi [...] compass about to come unto him. Fo [...] we suppose, that Jesus Christ would that we come directly unto him, th [...] he commandeth this very matter, tha [...] he is alone the truth, Joh 6.14; the way, and th [...] life; and that there are none come un [...] 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 [Page 107] 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 denied, that much is lost in the way, by the fast hold which the people take upon the creature.

As to the last sweetning, which the Bishop of Condom uses here for that particular worship, which is given to Saints, when they offer the sacrifice of the Mass (that is Jesus Christ sa­crificed) in their honour, he is pleased to say, that this is nothing but nameing the Saints as faithful servants of God, and praying God that he will become propitious through their intercession; the meer expression of offering Jesus Christ sacrificed in honour of the Saints, has somewhat in it so strange, & abhorring from the true Spirit of the Gospel, that we cannot imagine how Christian ears could become accustom­ed to it, and, less yet, how the Council of [Page 108] Trent could prevail with themselves to make a Doctrine or Decree of it.

We have a little more enlarged up­on this point of the Invocation of Saints, because it is one of the most es­sential parts of their Religion, & one, on which the Bishop of Condom him­self has most insisted: we shall be more brief upon most of the others, as being less important. In the mean while it seems already apparent, by this sole Article, that the Bishop of Condom's Exposition hath nothing in it new but neat and delicate artifice, and that in conclusion it takes not off any thing from the whole force of our principal objections, nor from the number of im­portant controversies; and that his do­ctrine, whatsoever artifice he uses in expressions, overthrows all along, ac­cording to us, the foundations of the Faith. Nay, we know not whether there be not cause to fear, that if on the one side, he had removed some questions, as it would seem to be his design by put­ting out of the way many doctrines & practices of the Roman Chur [...], yet he had not on the other given place to some new difficulties, for that ofttimes [Page 109] these kinds of seeming sweetnings, which are onely in some terms, or in matters of small consequence, do not at all satisfie a man, and onely raise new doubts in stead of resolving the old.

The Bishop of Condom passes from the Invocation of Saints, V. Of Ima­ges and Relicks. to the par­ticular Worship of Images and Re­licks; and, as it seems, does not ap­prove all that is seen to be practised in this matter. In the beginning, he would that we judge of what nature the honour is, which the Church of Rome outwardly gives unto Saints, by the inward intentions she hath for them; Page 30. ibid. The outward Worship (saith he) being established to testifie the inward in­tention of the souls.

But is not this, in a manner, to contradict himself, and to overturn or confound the natural order of things; for, if the Worship be esta­blished to testifie the inward senti­ments, why will they have us to judge of the exteriour by the interi­our, whereas it is of the interiour that we should judge by the exteri­our? [Page 110] Or wherefore should it be, that the exteriour answers so ill to the interiour, and that notwithstandig there is nothing said of amendment.

But if the Bishop of Condom doth think, that what he here declare unto us of the intention of the Rom [...] Church, doth warrant him henc [...] forward to reduce the outward maid of Honour, which she gives to Saint [...] unto what sense he thinks fit to gi [...] it, besides that it is not enough f [...] such a declaration, to change th [...] common usage of expressions, a [...] the natural meaning of Signs, h [...] will they, for instance, that a Tr [...] a Pagan, the Americans, the ign [...] rant amongst us, who are not acc [...] stomed unto these refinings of inte [...] tion, and who judge of things one by the common use, and by the common notions; How will they, I sa [...] that all the World behold all th [...] great pomp of Religious Worshi [...] which is given to Saints, to their Images, and their Relicks, so li [...] the honour that is to be given to Go [...] himself, without taking this Worsh [...] [Page 111] for a true mark of adoration, and the Saints themselves for so many Gods.

The Council doth forbid (saith the Bishop of Condom) to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images, for which there should be any reverence due to them; or for which any honour should be required to them, or confidence put in them, and will that all refer to the Originals which they represent, which doth distinguish the Church of Rome from Idolaters, because very far from he­lieving as they, that any Divinity re­sides in Images, she attributes no virtue unto them, but that of exciting the re­membrance of the Originals.

Here is it notwithstanding, and in what follows, that the Bishop of Condom doth sweeten the terms, as much as he thinks may be done: it is not any longer to worship Images, as is the common and ordinary sense of the principal Doctors who have written for this Worship, and of the very second Council of Nice it self; It is no longer to serve them, as yet the very termes of the [Page 112] Council of Trent run, but onely to honour them. And it is true, this is, in appearance, a step towards a reformation, and a sign, that men of wisedom and clearness, such as the Bishop of Condom is, are somewhat ashamed of the height whereunto they have advanced the Doctrine of this Worship: But in the conclusion, it is still, notwithstanding this, all one and the same thing, because they still continue to give the same religious Service unto Images.

The Council of Trent doth pro­nounce Anathema against all those who reject this Worship, by this means boldly condemning the ancient Coun­cil of Elibery, that of Constantinople, consisting of 338. Bishops; That o [...] Francfort, where there were 300; The Emperour Charlemaigne, and the Churches of France, and of Almai [...] of that time, and of a long time af­ter, Concil. Trent, Sess. 25. de Invoc. Sanct, &c. Re­missiones. Vetustissi­mum esse in Eccle­sia Dei. & a san­ctis Pa­tribas compro­batum, usum san­ctorum Imagi­num ea­rum de­ni (que) ado­ratio plu­ribus te­stimoniis compro­batur, &c Tho. p. 3 q. 25. Art. 4. Bonav. Cajet. &c. Pon. Ro. p. 3. ord. ad vis. par. pag. 480. Pag. 33. Pag. 32. which all rejected the Worship of Images. The Observations that are printed with the Text of the ve­ry Council of Trent it self, pretend that it is an ancient and approved [Page 113] usage, to have Images, and to worship them (these are the very words) and they authorise this practice by the judgment of Thomas Aquinas, of Bel­larmine, of Vasques, and of a great number of the chief Doctors of the Roman Church. It is also known, that many of the same Doctours teach, that it is a duty to worship the Cross, and the Image of Jesus Christ, with the Worship of Latry, as they speak, which yet is the Di­vine honour that is given to God himself. It is seen, with what de­votion and zeal, the people kneel before the Cross, before Images, and before Relicks; how they greet them, how they kiss them, how they in­cense them, how they fasten their eyes and their hearts upon them. The Bishop of Condom doth pass all this over, by the word Honouring: it is not any longer the Cross that is ado­red, but he is adored before the Cross, who did bear our sins upon the Tree. The intention of the Church, is not so much to honour the Apostle or Martyr, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence [Page 114] of the Image: which doth shew ne­vertheless, that the Image is honour­ed in it self, and that unawares they speak of the presence of the Image, as if it were animated.

Besides, this is nothing else but the Doctrine of the Council of Trent; it is the Council of Trent which tea­cheth, which ordains, which for­bids; and never any one word of God, never the least Commandment, nor the least Example of all the Holy Scripture, of the Old or New Testa­ment: that is to say, this is onely a Doctrine meerly humane.

So far is it from being true, that God hath commanded this Worship, or that he hath approved it; that it hath already been shewed, he hath ex­presly forbidden it: and it may here be added, that all the Command­ments of the Law supposing great pu­nishments against those who violate them, this which forbids to make Images, and to serve them, is onely found accompanied with threatnings, unto Childrens Chil­dren of them who shall make Images, [Page 115] or serve them: as if God foreseeing the narural inclination of men, car­rying them to this Worship, would more particularly make them know his Jealousie, and hold back this ten­dency or inclination by the terrour of his Judgments.

They think to avoid the meaning of the Commandment, and to distin­guish themselves from Pagan Idola­ters, in saying they do not adore the Images, and that they believe not there is any Divinity or virtue in them, as the Pagans did.

But doth the Council dare so to restrain and qualifie, if it may be so said, the express Commandments of God, which not onely forbid to worship Images, or to believe any virtue in them, but absolutely to make them, to worship, to serve, and to bow down before them? for the terms of the Commandment have precisely all this.

The Bishop of Condom sayes else­where, Pag. 80. upon the words of the insti­tution of the Lords Supper, that him­self, and those of his Communion, [Page 116] do understand these words according to the letter, and that none ought any more to ask, Why they hold unto the literal sense, than to ask of a Tra­veller, why he follows the High-way; and that it is those that have recourse un­to a figurative sense, and who follow crooked ways, that should give an ac­compt of what they do.

Nevertheless, the sense of the Old Testament is, without comparison, more literal than that of the New; and all the World knows, that the terms of a Law or a Commandment, should be more express, and in a more literal sense, than those of a my­stery, because it behoveth necessarily that the Commandment be clear, to the end that all those who are to keep it, may plainly understand it; where­as in Mysteries, it is seen almost al­ways, that the wayes of speaking are mystical; and as the word it self im­ports, signifying something hid and figured. Now let the Bishop of Con­dom tell us here, why he doth not follow the letter of the Command­ment, which is so express? where­fore [Page 117] he forsakes this High-way mark­ed with Gods own finger, to fly un­to a forced or alienate sense.

It is further but an undue impu­tation, touching Heathens, Athe­nag. in Apol. p. 17. St. Aug. in Psal. 96. to say as he doth, That they believed that their false Divinities did dwell in their Ima­ges: the Pagans did not yield by any means, that they worshipped wood and stone, but onely the Originals, which were represented by them. They did also make a great difference betwixt the Worship which they gave unto the great Gods, and those which they gave unto the less Divinities: nei­ther did they believe, that their Gods were shut up in their Shrines, or that they dwelt in them, as the Bishop of Condom doth affirm; and if it be found that any such thing hath been impu­ted unto them in the first Ages of Christianity, it is onely but by reason, that the Superstition of the people went much farther, than the Opini­ons & Maxims of their Philosophers, or of their Priests and Arch-priests.

The Pagans believed, that their Gods came sometimes upon earth, [Page 118] but that they made their residence in the Heavens, or in some places separa­ted from the sight of men. Pallas, for ex­ample, could not attend to be in the Pal­ladium in Troy, whilest she was in the Grecian Army, conducting the Cha­riot of Diomedes, and fighting against the Trojans themselves.

Arnob. adver. Gent. li. 6. Ma­xim. Tyr. Serm. 38. Exod. 32.4, 5.The Pagans believed onely in ge­neral, that there was fatality or vir­tue in the Images of their false Gods; as in the Palladium, the virtue of preserving the City of Troy: and that these Gods did onely at some times, give some extraordinary markes of their presence, and of their power, in their Images. These things are too well known to be called in que­stion.

No more did the Israelites acknow­ledge that they did worship the Bra­sen Serpent, nor the Golden Calf, nor that the Golden Calf was God himself; but they looked upon it as an Image or a representation of that true God, that had delivered them from the Bondage of Egypt.

Nevertheless, the Pagans and the [Page 119] Israelites were both alike guilty of Idolatry, by these two principal rea­sons, the one, that their false Wor­ship, whatever it was, or whatever construction they gave it, was con­demned by God: The other, that though the clearest amongst the Hea­thens, and amongst the Israelites, did say in general, that they did not wor­ship, neither the Images of false Gods, nor the Brasen Serpent, nor the Gol­den Calf, the people, nevertheless, did not forbear to give a Religious Service unto those things, to kneel before them, to incense them, and in some measure, to fasten their trust and affections upon them.

The Roman Church doth not be­lieve any Divinity in the Images: it is true; except haply some grosser Spirits, which are capable of think­ing any thing, when they are kneel­ing before them, and are possessed with the wonders that have been done by the Images.

But how can it so formally be said, that the Church of Rome doth not believe that there is any virtue in [Page 120] them? For she desires this very m [...] ter of God in consecrating of them that he would bless them, that h [...] would accompany them with hi [...] power, & all those other points, whic [...] are to be seen at large in the Rom [...] Pontifical. The Books of the Rom [...] Church are full of the Virtues of th [...] Cross, of the miraculous Images o [...] the Virgin, and of the Saints, ar [...] of the Marks which the Saints do o [...] ten give of their presence, and of the [...] power; from whence also do proceed the Vows, the Offerings, t [...] Pilgrimages authorised by the Counci [...] and to conclude, Memori­as fre­quentari. all those affect [...] Devotions, which are tyed more t [...] one place than another.

This is what hath been alread [...] touched upon the Worship of Sain [...] in general. The Church of Ro [...] may, as long as she pleases, tell u [...] they put no confidence in Images and that they believe no other virt [...] in them, but onely to stir up the remembrance of the Originals: That [...] not the question, whether it must b [...] believed or not believed that there [...] [Page 121] virtue in Images, but whether a re­ligious Worship ought to be given unto them. The general practice of the people doth manifestly contradict this profession; and the people do not onely fix their confidence upon Images: but the experience of all Ages doth manifestly shew, that it is impossible but that they should na­turally incline thereto.

A publick mark of this confidence, & that the people do believe something more than humane in Images, is, that though the better sort of the Roman Church themselves, condemn open­ly the excessiue Worship which is gi­ven unto many Images of the Blessed Virgin (as for instance, unto those which have been, or are yet to be seen in the Streets at Paris, In Goos-street near the Capu­chins, &c: St. Ho­nore's street, &c At the Capu­chins in St. Hon­ore's street. and unto others yet more famous in Forreign Parts, whereunto the people do flock in great numbers) yet we have seen one Image amongst others, which they durst not remove out of the peoples sight, but onely to transport it into the adjacent Chappel: and it seemeth they much less dare take away the o­thers, [Page 122] because it is known that the hearts of the people are fastned unt [...] them.

To omit, that the Church of Rom [...] is so far from having contained h [...] self in the worshipping of Saints sinc [...] the Council of Trent, that it appea [...] on the contrary, That whereas the Council doth onely authorise in express terms, the Image of Jesus Chri [...] as man, of the Virgin, and of th [...] Saints; and at the farthest, only som [...] representation of some History of th [...] Scripture, or some action of the D [...] vinity, there is to be seen in sundr [...] places in the Churches, Images s [...] up, not onely of Angels, in forme [...] young Children, with wings; bu [...] also of God the Father, in likeness o [...] an old man; and of the Holy Ghos [...] in form of a Dove; against what th [...] Apostle expresly says of those, Deut. 4.12.15.16. Isa. 40.18. Acts 17.29. wh [...] change the glory of the immortal God into the likeness of a mortal man, an [...] of Birds, &c. against the prohibition of the Law so often repeated; and i [...] fine, against the Judgment of th [...] second Council of Nice it self; and [...] [Page 123] the first and most zealous Patriots of Images, who, at the least, would not that there should be any image made of the Trinity.

But what is yet most stange of all, is, that this usage is not onely esta­blished by the general practice of the Roman Church, but also maintained expresly by the Catechism of the Ro­man Church, which was made by the order and authority of the Coun­cil.

The onely thing that the same Ca­techism doth alledge, to authorise, Rom. Catech. part. 3. de cultu Sancto­rum. in some sort, the use of Images, and the Worship given unto them, is, saith he, that God did command that two Cherubims should be placed upon the Ark, and that the brasen Serpent should be lifted up before the people. True; but you say it your selves, God commanded it upon oc­casion, and for reasons all particu­lar, which it is plain you can­not argue from, except you had had some special order in this behalf. The Cherubims were nothing else, but a meer ornament for the propitia­tory, [Page 124] and were onely in the most Holy Place, where none entred but onely the High Priest once a year; and the brasen Serpent was onely a Type of Jesus Christ, instituted by God, to heal the Israelites of the bitings of the Serpents of the Wilder­ness, as Jesus Christ doth heal us of the bitings of the old Serpent. They did not kneel down before the Che­rubims, nor before the brasen Ser­pent, they did not worship them at all. Ezekias brake the brasen Ser­pent, as soon as he saw that the peo­ple offered incense unto it; and the Scripture doth expresly declare, 2 Kings ch. 18. that this was a matter acceptable to God.

We agree all of the one and the o­ther Communion, that the Gospel i [...] onely the accomplishment of the Law: we have not yet at this day any other rule than the Jews, either for our duties unto God, or our du­ties unto men. All the differenc [...] there is betwixt the Jews and us, i [...] that the figures of the Law, have gi­ven place unto the truths of the Go­spel: [Page 125] in stead of sacrifices, and cere­monies, of the ancient Covenant, we have Jesus Christ, which hath offer­ed himself upon the Cross; and in stead of the Passeover, and Circumci­sion, the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper. This is pro­perly and onely the true Christian Religion: why then should they ad­join hereto the Worship of Images, which is nothing else but an imitati­on of Pagans, and which laies an insuperable obstacle to the communi­on of the Jews, and of the Turks, who are half Jews.

Images, Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. de invoc. SS. (say they) do serve to in­struct the people in the mysteries of Reli­gion, and to maintain devotion and pi­ety.

But in the first place, as to instru­ction, if they will own the truth, the people is no where worse instru­cted in the true mysteries of Salvati­on, than in those places where the Worship of Images is most urged, as in Muscovia. They have rea­son to say, that Images are the Books of the ignorant, that is a per­nicious [Page 126] mean, which the slothfulness or ignorance of those, who ought to instruct the people themselves, have substituted in the place of true and sound instructions. Every one may see, that our Reformed People who have no Images, nor other exercise, but our Prayers, our singing of Psalms our Sermons, the reading of the Ho­ly Scriptures, and the Sacraments ad­ministred in the same simplicity, that our Lord did institute them, are not less instructed, than those of the Ro­man Church with their Images. The Bishop of Condom knows as well as a­ny man, that, in truth, it is by prea­ching, that there should be formed in the hearts of men, the lively Ima­ges of Jesus Christ, who died for us, and (if we will have them) the Ima­ges of the life and death of holy men, who have sealed the Truth with their bloud, and the Holiness of their life.

And as to matter of devotion, the same is also seen, that the people which use Images, and all the other ceremonies where with Religion is in­cumbred, [Page 127] have, it may be, more of the outward appearances of zeal, but not therefore a more solid piety to­wards God; and on the contrary, all their devotion is turned towards these outward things, Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. de invoc. Sanct. Popu­lum. Ple­bi indo­ctae. and towards the Images themselves. That is, in a word, that the Images being pro­perly onely for the people (as the Council doth intimate) and the peo­ple almost alwayes abusing them (as the most sincere persons do confess) the Images, therefore, are properly onely for those who abuse them.

As to what concerns Reliques, it will onely be needful to apply hereto, what hath been spoken in ge­neral, and in particular; touching the object of Religious Worship, and touching the invocation of Saints, and the veneration that is given to Images. For, as to the Doctrine, we have almost the same reasons a­gainst all these different obiects of Worship: And, as to the practice, all the World knows, that there are yet far greater abuses committed in the Worship of all that they call Reliques [Page 128] of Saints, than in that of Images.

What we have in particular, tou­ching Reliques, may be reduced unto two principal Heads; the first, that neither the Council of Trent, nor the Catechism, nor the Bishop of Con­dom, say, that Reliques have no vir­tue, nor that we ought not to place confidence in them, as they all do say of Images. Ibid. de [...]voc. Sanct. &c. de cultu Sanct. On the contrary, the Council teacheth, that God confers very great graces by means of Reliques; and the Catechism speaks stronger, and more openly; that God makes use of them to heal the lame and the blind, to raise the dead, and to exorcise devils, and to drive them out of the bodies of li­ving men. By which passages, the Council, and the Catechism, on the one hand, recommend the Worship of Reliques, above that of Images, for the virtue which they would have believed to be in Reliques: And on the other hand, themselves, in some measure overthrow, the principal reason, which they alledge to justifie the Worship of Images, which is, that they believe there is no virtue in them.

[Page 129]As for the Bishop of Condom, he shelters himself from all these difficul­ties, in not saying, whether there is, or is not, any virtue in Reliques. And here is the second thing, which is to be observed, touching Reliques in particular, that the Bishop of Con­dom seems not to consider them, but as marks of reverence and affection, which are borne for the persons we love and honour. From whence he draws this consequence, That if God, P. 36, 37, & 38. all jealous as he is of the love of men, doth not look upon us, as if we divided betwixt him and the creature, when we love our neighbour for his sake; the same God, howsoever jealous of the respect of Belie­vers, doth not behold them, as if they divided the Worship which they owe un­to him alone, when they honour, for the respect which they bear unto him, those whom he himself hath honoured. And in the end he concludes, that these out­ward marks of reverence not being abso­lutely nec [...]ssary, the Church may extend more or less these exteriour practices, ac­cording to the diversity of times and pla­ces, not desiring that her children should [Page 130] be servilely subject unto visible things.

All the World may see, how this discourse is turned and sweetned, and how it seems to open a way to some Reformation: but if these opinions be sincere, and approved by all those of the Roman Communion, let them, at least, make appear, that their actions do answer their words. If they will onely honour the Saints, the true honour of dead bodies is burial; and as for apparel, and other things, which served for their use, let them be carefully preserved, if they please, but let them not incense them, and let them not expose them in the House of God, to become an object of Wor­ship. Let them not suffer the people to trust in Reliques, that they should carry them with them, as pre­servatives against danger of Fire, of Shipwrack, and against the Devil himself; and that thereby, their hearts cleaving unto the things which they have before their eyes, they become more negligent of praying unto God, and having recourse to him alone. No persons have greater respect and vene­ration [Page 131] for the memory of Saints, than we have; let there be no mixture of Religion, nor Worship, no not the very terms: for, as for us, it is our unmovable Foundation, that God a­lone ought to be the object of our Re­gilion, and that there ought not to be any sort of Religious Worship given to any, but unto God onely.

God will have us to love our neigh­bours, which are living members of our Lord Jesus Christ, and which are not things inanimate, or the dead parts of living members, as are the Re­liques; for this is the reason, for which the Council will have men to have a veneration for them. But who doth not know, that even in this love for our neighbours, there may be an ex­cess, and that God may be displeased thereat. God permits us to love goods, and riches, as gifts from his hand, but this love doth often extend too far, and God is offended at it. The Scri­pture calls coveteousness Idolatry; & we every day say, that men do ido­lize what they love, when they love it to excess. It is the same thing, in a [Page 132] manner, as to the honour that is due to Saints. God will have us to love and honour their memory, that we should praise them, that we should propose to imitation their Faith, their Zeal, that their names should be in venera­tion and blessing amongst us: but he will not we observe no measure, he will not have us give unto them the same marks of Honour, as we give unto himself; and he not onely for­bids that we should divide this ho­nour betwixt him and the Saints, but he will also have us not communicate the least part of it unto any but him­self alone.

Now to end this article of the wor­ship of Saints, of Reliques, and of I­mages, if the Bishop of Condom will do any thing that is sincere and solid, if he will cure the disease, and not palliate it; that is, if he will leave the Foundations of Faith whole, and intire, and dispel a considerable part of our Controversies, as he saith it is his design to do, it is not enough to change some terms, or to fasten them; nor to insinuate, as he doth, that the [Page 133] Church of Rome may use some mo­deration in the outward signs of this Worship, whilest in the general, it is seen, that at the bottom, the Do­ctrine and practice of the Roman Church, is all along one and the same.

As for us, though it may seem that there is less appearance of evil and su­perstition, in the manner of the Bi­shop of Condom's speaking, than there is in that of the Council, of the Roman Catechism, and the other Doctours of his Communion, we can look nei­ther upon the one nor the other but onely as humane inventions. And to conclude, these very sweetnings of the Bishop of Condom himself, being far from giving us any ill opinion of our Reformation, rather confirm us the more, that the worthy and moderate persons of the Roman Church, do them­selves, at least, condemn a good part of what we condemn, and that by consequence, they acknowledge there­by in some sort, that a Reformation is useful and necessary.

VI. Of just­fication,THE THIRD PART.

The method which the Bishop of Condom hath observed, requires, that after the Worship of Saints, &c. we examine his Doctrine concerning Ju­stification, the merit of Works, of Sa­tisfactions, Purgatory, and of Indul­gences.

It is true, as the Bishop of Condom saith, that the Article of Justification is one of the chief things which gave occasion of reformation to our Fathers. Very few are Ignorant what was the state of the Latin church at that time. On one hand presented it selfe the Do­ctrin of the merit of works, the necessity of satisfying Gods Justice in this life, or endureing the fire of Purgatory after death, to compleat what was want­ing of this satisfaction; on the other hand was to be seen an extraordinary irregulatity in the life and manners, as well of the Clergy, as of the people; and by consequence no likelihood of salvation neither by works, nor by those satisfactions: and in fine there appear­ed no other Object before the eyes of [Page 135] men, but Purgatory, or Hell.

In this state of the Church, the Pope opens the Treasures of his Indulgen­cies, distributes his Agnus's, his Beads, and Reliques, and prescribes certain numbers of Pater nosters, and Ave Mary's, of Stations, of Visits of Churches, of Pilgrimages, Fasts, Pennances, of macerations and mor­tifications; with which, and with the help of Pardons, Dispensations, and Indulgences, which were pur­chased at a dear rate, those who had them were not onely justified them­selves, but helped to justifie others, delivering souls out of Purgatory, and acquiring for them a greater de­gree of blessednesse, or an augmen­tation of glory, as the Councill speaks. Our Fathers did believe, that there was an abuse in all these things, and that this Doctrine which possessed the minds of the people, and that made up the greatest part of their pi­ety, did overthrow the Foundation of Religion, which doth essentially consist, in placing our chiefest confi­dence in the Death of our Lord Jesus [Page 136] Christ; and farther, in serving God according to his will, and not ac­cording to the commandments of men.

It is also true, that since the Re­formation, the Church of Rome it self doth seem to be a little more re­served, than she was before, as well as to expressions, in regard of her Doctrines, as in regard of the pra­ctice, and the very use of Indulgen­ces; and they are beholding to us for it, which doth very much serve for the justification of our first Refor­mers; but the abuses are yet too great in one, and the other, for the corrupting of piety, and scandalizing of true Christians.

Those who onely consider the con­troversie of Justification at a distance, or transiently, without searching in­to the grounds and consequences, will not, it may be, at first, think it so important as it is: but it is of so great moment, what herein is the judgment of those, who are well informed amongst us, that as to the contrary, we should not stick here [Page 137] to maintain, that the difference of Belief, which doth separate us from the Church of Rome, as to this point, is of so great consequence unto Reli­gion, that there is scarce any great­er.

Let us therefore be permitted, ac­cording to the liberty that Dispute doth require, to deny here formally what the Bishop of Condom doth aver in something an uncertain manner, That there are but few learned men of our side (as he speaks) but do confess, that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome, about this point, and that this difficulty is not any longer con­sidered as much material, by the most intelligent persons amongst us.

The Bishop of Condom doth not cite one of those learned men, nor one of those intelligent persons, unto whom he imputes these sorts of Sen­timents, as the importance of the bu­siness doth require. The Confession of Faith of our Churches, which con­tains the General Belief of those of our Communion, explains it self to the contrary upon this point, as [Page 138] throughly as may be: it confirms the very Doctrine, which the first Re­formers taught, declaring in express terms, ‘That how little soever we swerve from this Foundation, we can never finde any ease, but that we shall be continually tossed with in­quietude.’

The Council of Trent it self ac­knowledged the importance of this Controversie; First, in that it takes notice of it from the first, as one of the principal causes of the Schism, and which did most deserve the care of the said Council: And in the se­cond place, by the prodigious length of its Decree, and by the vast num­ber of its Canons and Anathema's, much greater upon this point, than upon any other.

In summe, it may be said, that it is not onely a principal point, but it is one of them which are most such. The others, for the most part, do onely regard some part of Religion: Errour doth corrupt but that part, and doth not influence the others, if we may so speak. The worshipping [Page 139] the Host, for example, is, without doubt, one of the most essential points, in which it is impossible to finde any mean, because the question is, whether it ought to be worship­ed or not worshipped, which is the first and greatest Act of Religion: Never­theless, this is but a particular point; a capital errour indeed for them, who are deceived in it, but which doth nothing, or changeth nothing, in all the other Fundamental Points.

But who speaks of Justification, speaks of the means of our Salvation, that is to say, the Mystery of our Re­demption; there is nothing more im­portant, than not to be deceived in the choice of such a matter, because if a man fails to take the right way, he falls from errour to errour, and the very true essence of Religion is chan­ged and altered.

This truth will plainly appear, by the bare comparing of our Doctrine with that of the Church of Rome.

We do believe, that our Justifica­tion doth alone consist herein, that ha­ving deserved death, Jesus Christ dy­ed [Page 140] for us, and satisfied the Justice of God the Father for us, who for the love of his Son, pardoneth all our sins in general, uniting us unto him by a true and lively faith, and impu­ting his righteousness and obedience unto us, that is to say, the merit of his Death it self, as though we had suffered it in our own persons. We believe that it is God himself, that doth beget and strengthen this Faith in our hearts, by the inward opera­tion of his Holy Spirit, and by the outward Ministry of his Word and Sacraments, as shall be explained in what follows, upon the subject of the Sacraments; that this Faith is not a dead, or idle Faith, but a living Faith, and working by love, and by all sorts of good works, and that these works are very acceptable to God, and necessary to Salvation, as an in­separable consequent of that Faith which justifies us; but that it is one­ly of pure Grace and by the alone merit of the death of J [...]sus Christ, that God doth forgiv [...] us our sins, and give us everlasting Life. Lastly, we [Page 141] believe, that we ought to be so far from making the goodness and mer­cy of God a motive of sin, or of ne­glecting good works, that we ought, on the contrary, to make it a mo­tive of Love, of Fear, of Thank­fulness, and of an humble obedience unto all his commandments.

This is the summe of our Doctrine, wholly conformable to the Spirit of the Gospel, worthy of the infinite goodness of God, and of the honour that we have of being his children, and which also leaveth unto him all the glory of our Salvation, and there­by puts us, by its very own nature, under an indispensable obligation of being an holy people, and of doing his Will.

There are other Doctrines which do proceed from hence, or relate hereto, whereof it is true, that many times the dispute is only of words; and it seemeth, that a man may be in an errour, as to some of these Do­ctrines, without derogation from the Glory of God, or prejudicing the rule of our conduct: as, touching [Page 142] the assurance which Believers may have of their Election, and touching the sense wherein it is said, that God doth recompense our good works: but as to what concerns those due sentiments, which we laid down, touching the onely cause of our Justi­fication, namely, the Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which blotteth out our sins, without our bringing any thing on our parts, but that grace wherewith he himself makes us to im­brace the merits of his Death, as it is the Foundation of the love and regard which we owe unto him, so also of the quiet of our own consciences: and not to think of God on this re­spect, as highly as may be, and as we are thereby bound; or to diminish directly or indirectly, by our thoughts or expressions, the least point of this glory (which he hath to be the onely Authour of our Salvation) or of the obligation which we have towards him, is to offend his Divine Majesty in the most tender part, as we may so say, of that love which he himself hath for us.

[Page 143]We have this advantage on this point, as on many others, that the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do agree almost to all that we believe: the dispute is, for the most part, one­ly touching what they add unto that which we believe. They confess, as we, that God is the onely Authour of our Salvation; and it would be said at first sight, that all which the Bishop of Condom hath set forth as to his Belief, touching Justification, doth in­tirely agree with our Doctrine; for he saith as we do, That our sins are freely forgiven unto us, through the Divine mercy, for his Son Jesus Christ's sake, who blotted them out by his own Bloud. He saith also, that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed unto us, which is an expression we ordinarily keep our selves to, according to the stile of Scripture, for the better understand­ing the very Word, the nature and means of Justification. The Gentle­men of the Roman Church, and the Council of Trent in particular, do com­monly decline this expression, because it intimates openly enough, that [Page 144] it is not by any righteousness, that is in us, that we are justified, but by that righteousness of Jesus Christ which is out of us, and which is made ours by imputation: as the Money which is paid by the surety, is made the De­btors, or reputed to be his; because the Creditor is accountable for it, and dischargeth him of his debt. Those of the Church of Rome, do not at all accommodate themselves unto this manner of thinking or speaking, be­cause they joyn unto this Righteous­ness of Jesus Christ, that is imputed unto us, a righteousness, that is pro­per and inherent in us, as they say, which doth concur with the former. This it is, which is properly the ground of the Question betwixt them and us, and the source of several o­ther Doctrines, which we do reject, as shall be spoken in the following Discourse.

However, it is true, that the Bi­shop of Condom here seems to advance a step towards us: at least, it is cer­tain, that he hath done much good to Religion in general, in dischar­ging [Page 145] it in some sort, from all the vain speculations, not onely of the School­men, but also of the Council it self, which is evidently as much or more Scholastical on this point of Justifica­tion, as the most thorny School-Do­ctors. The Decree contains no less than sixteen great Chapters, and thir­ty two Canons, to which the Cha­pters of the Decree are reduced. The Decree is full of distinctions of the fi­nal cause, the efficient cause, the me­ritorious cause, the formal cause, the instrumental cause, and the like; the Canons full of Anathema's against a great many opinions, if not good or innocent (being yet in dispute) at least doubtful and indifferent, and which are visibly of the opinions of those particular Doctours, which the Bishop of Condom would with good reason have laid aside: the Council thereby making Articles of Faith, of all those subtilties in Canonising them, and by this means putting an invinci­ble obstacle unto a reunion, by the great number of Anathema's which it thunders generally against all those, [Page 146] who will not admit all these opini­ons and distinctions of the Schools.

Our Confession of Faith, reduces all this matter of Justification, unto a few Articles, in Apostolical stile, very simple, and very clear. And the Bi­shop of Condom doth also reduce the very Chapters of the Decree, and all the Canons, unto a few words; so far we seem to go, as it were, hand in hand.

But it must needs be, that the kind­ness which the Bishop of Condom doth us, is not sincere; what he gives us with one hand, he taketh away at the same time with the other: and it may be said, that this is still one of those Articles of Faith, which the Roman Church receives as we do, well nigh as fundamental, but from whence, at the same time, she derogates by con­trary Doctrines.

The Bishop of Condom saith here, That God doth freely forgive us our sins, and that he blots them out by the bloud of his Son. In the following Secti­ons it will appear, that these sins are not so forgiven, nor so blotted out, [Page 147] but that we are bound necessarily to satisfie our selves by temporal pains in this life, by the torments of Purgato­ry in the other; or by the Pardons and Indulgences of the Holy Chair: and from hence, without going farther, having said that our sins are blotted out by the bloud of Jesus Christ, he immediately adds, and by the Grace which regenerates us. Now here we must observe, that it is the constant Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that it is in our power to reject this grace, or accept it, when it is offered unto us; and that then, when it falls out that we do not reject it, but receive it, and afterward act of our selves with the assistance of this grace, we have a proper merit of our own, and some part in 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 i [...]le r [...]flection made thereon, that as to the Foundation, [Page 148] 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.

[Page 149]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 [Page 150] 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 [Page 151] 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.

[Page 152]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 [Page 153] 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 [Page 154] 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 these Gentlemen do in some sort salve the former of these inconveniences, in de­claring as they do, that they do not attribute any merit unto Works, but by virtue of the free promise, which God hath made to reward them, pro­ducing them himself in us by his grace; and besides the moderate per­sons amongst them, do not dissent, but that these sorts of expressions of merit, may very well be waved, and that ours are more humble and more [Page 155] safe: as also on our part we do not deny, but that those of the Roman Church, may be suffered in the sense wherein they now explain them. And it may be this is it, which the Bishop of Condom doth here under­stand, when he saith, that the Lear­ned of our Communion do not be­lieve some of our Disputes upon this point, to be very material.

What is here most mysterious, is, that upon this expression, that good Works do merit eternal life, there are [...]ounded two other Doctrines which are very evil. The first is, that they are not contented to command works that are truly good and commanded, as to worship God onely, to serve none but him, to obey our Superi­ours, and lastly, to love God with all our hearts, and our Neighbour as our selves, which is the summe of the Law, and of Christian Religion; but they have brought in the practice of Vows, of Abstinences, of Pilgrimages, Macerations, and all those other Works, which the Bishop of Condom doth call Pennances, because in very [Page 156] deed, God hath not required any of that nature.

The other evil Doctrine which proceeds from the merit of Works, is that of Satisfaction, of Purgatory, and Indulgences; for those who do these Works of Pennance, believe they satisfie, at least in some part, the ju­stice of God; and therefore it is, that they call them Satisfactions: and those who do none of them, believe them­selves destin'd to the pains of Purga­tory, and have recourse unto Indul­gences to deliver them.

VIII. Satisfa­ctions, Purga­tory, and Indul­gences.The Doctrine of Satisfactions is, in reality, so evil, according to us, that it doth intirely vitiate all that is good, in that of Justification, and of good Works. One would say, that it were another Gospel, a Discourse meerly humane, the several parts whereof do so ill agree together. Very far is the whole Article from being conform unto the Analogy of Faith.

Es. 1.18. Psal. 32.12. Ps. 103.12.The Scripture reiterates unto us throughout, that God doth pardon us our sins for his Son's sake; that if our sins were redder than scarlet, he [Page 157] makes them white as snow; that he imputes them not unto us, that he co­vers them, that he blotteth them out, that he separateth them from us, as far as the East is from the West.

The Bishop of Condom saith on the contrary, that God doth pardon our sins, but upon such condition, under such Law, and with such reservation as he pleaseth; that he confers an intire abolition of all sins committed for Baptism; but as for those that are committed after Baptism, God forced by our ingratitude, changes the eternal pain into a temporal. This is, what the Council of Trent calls re­mitting the sin, and retaining the pu­nishment.

This is to say, that God doth par­don, and he doth not pardon; or at least, that he doth not fully pardon. Our sins, all blotted out as they are, do nevertheless cry for vengeance. It is not enough, that Jesus Christ hath a­toned for them, nor that we repent, and endeavour to amend, and to keep the Commandments of God, if toge­ther herewith we do not Works, which the Bishop of Condom calls painful [Page 158] and laborious, or if we, suffer not temporal pains, either in this life, or after death. This is what hath been already touched; the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is not onely injurious unto the mercy of God, and unto the merit of the death of Jesus Christ, by the conditions and restri­ctions which she presumes to bring thereunto, but she contradicts her ve­ry self, pulling down with one hand, what she builds up with another. On the one hand, Jesus Christ hath fully payed the price of our ransome; there is nothing wanting of this payment, his ju­stice is imputed unto us, our sins are blot­ted out by his bloud. In a word, Jesus Christ hath fully satisfied for us. And on the other hand, Pag. 60, & 61. the justice of God, and a certain way which he hath appointed, will have us not to suffer our selves for our sins.

The Bishop of Condom would salve this contradiction, by saying, as he doth, that these pains which God re­serves, are onely to keep us in our du­ty, within the hands of Justice, as he speaks, and not to satisfie for our sins: [Page 159] therefore it is that he makes a kind of protestation, that if after the explica­tion, which he gives in that sense, We shall object unto those of his Communion, that they do prejudice unto the satisfacti­ons of Jesus Christ; that we must forget what he hath already told, us that Jesus Christ has paid the full price of our ran­som, &c. and that if we yet object to them, that they believe they shall be able to satisfie of themselves, as to some part of the pain which is due to their sins, he may boldly say, that the contrary doth ap­pear by the Maxims which he hath esta­blished. Unto which he adds for a conclusion, That what they call satisfa­ction, with the ancient Church, is nothing, AFTER ALL, but an application of the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ.

It may plainly be seen by these last expressions of the Bishop of Condom's, that he seemes to doe like the Dove, which returned unto the Ark not knowing where to rest her foot. AF­TER ALL, what they call satisfaction, is nothing but the application of the sa­tisfaction of Jesus Christ. This expressi­on hath something in it improper, and [Page 160] incumbred, because it cannot be any thing but Faith onely, which is the hand of the Soul, that can apply unto us the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, by acts of love, and reliance. It cannot properly be said, that any Workes done by us, or that any pain that we suffer, can be the application of the o­bedience, which Jesus Christ rendred unto his Father, and of the paines which he suffered for us.

The truth is, that the Bishop of Condom, after having defended as much as he could, the opinions and the ex­pressions of the Church of Rome, will give to understand, that AFTER ALL, what they call satisfactions, are not properly satisfactions: that they them­selves do not believe they can satisfie, as they just now said more expresly, and that in conclusion, there is no­thing really but the satisfaction of Je­sus Christ, which ought to be called by this name. This Doctrine is sound, and it is certain, that it is in some sort to come unto us, or rather to the truth of the Gospel; but this is nothing in the main, if the Doctrine of the Coun­cil [Page 161] of Trent be still allowed to stand, that is to say, if that be the Supreme authority which must be proposed to us as the rule of our Faith: because the Council is formally contrary to the Bishop of Condom's Doctrine. Sess. 1 [...]. cap. 6. de S [...] ­cram. Poen [...].

The Council speaking of Works, and of Penances (the things here in question) doth not onely call them sa­tisfactory in proper terms, as also some­times doth the Bishop of Condom him­self, but the Council doth declare, that it suits not with the justice and goodness of God to forgive us our sins without some satisfaction on our parts, and yet more expresly, that these pennances wh [...] the Church of Rome doth impose, are not onely a precaution for our amendment and a remedy for the time to come, which the Bishop of Condom calls the bands of justice and duty, but a punishment or a revenge, and a chastisement for our past sins, requiring in proper termes, that the Curates have always this maxime be­fore their eyes, and that they be very ex­act in examining the quality of the crimes, and the abilities of the penitents, and to impose upon them pennances proportiona­ble [Page 162] to their sins. This is so clear and express, that nothing can be more.

In very deed, this Doctrine of the Council, is the common and constant Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point: Lib. 1. de Purg. ca. 14. insomuch that Bellarmine, by a subtilty contrary to that of the Bishop of Condoms, doth teach that it is we, who, properly satisfy for our sins, and that the satisfaction of Jesus Christ onely puts a value upon ours: The Bi­shop of Condom therefore ought either to make all those of his communion to relinquish this Doctrin of the Coun­cil, which is the common and constant Doctrine of their Church, or to come to an accord, that even by his own judgment, we have right to charge them with the two things that have been touch'd; The one, that the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome doth contradict it self; and the other, that they believe to satisfie at least in part, for their sinns, & that by consequence they do injury unto the infinite satis­faction of Jesus Christ.

The Bishop of Condom did not judge it for his purpose, to speak more [Page 163] openly, what those painful and labo­rious works, and those satisfactory pains are, whereof here is questi­on: it might be said, that these are ve­rily of the number of those things, which must be little explained; and which are much better when they are lightly passed, or wrapped up in general terms. It would indeed seem, that the Bishop of Condom hath intro­duced this term of painful and labori­ous works, in the room of what the Roman Church directly calls penal works, or pennances and satisfactions. There is much difference betwixt the one and the other; the one imports on­ly difficult works, the other punish­ments; and it may plainly be seen by what hath been said, that this altera­tion in the expressions, doth onely proceed from the alteration which the Bishop of Condom hath made in the common Doctrine of the Church of Rome.

But to conclude, by what name so­ever they are called, we know they are such kind of works whereof we have already spoken, Vows, Pilgrima­ges, [Page 164] Visits of Churches, Abstinences Prayers by set-number, Hair shirts Sack-clothes, going without Shirts, lying hard, and such other Mortifica­tions in this life; and at last, the paines of Purgatory in the other.

Now if it be here demanded, whe­ther there be not some authority for all these Doctrines, the Council of Trent produces not any. It only saith, that in the Old Testament there are some examples of persons, whom God hath punished with temporal paines, though he had forgiven them their sin; and that it seems to suit with the justice of God, that it should be one kind of Grace which he shewes unto those who have sinned before Baptism, and another which he shews to those who have sinned after Baptism. The Bishop of Condom saith the same, that this is just, that this is a certain Order established; as when God doth forgive us the sin of Adam, and yet for all that not free us from the maladies which are the consequent of that sin.

This is the onely ground, and sole authority that they give us, for so con­siderable [Page 165] a Doctrine as is that of Satis­factions; that is to say, an argument meerly humane, without any com­mand or precept in Scripture: as if the evils and corrections which God sends us to exercise our faith and patience, were not at all effects of his love, ra­ther than punishments, or as if this were a title or reason for us to give our selves discipline, as they speak, or to torment our selves, and attempt in some sort upon our own lives.

As to us, who have onely the will and Word of God for the rule of our manners and actions, as well as of our Faith, we are perswaded that all these Works which God hath not comman­ded, being very far from pleasing, do offend him; that all this appearance of devotion, is nothing else but an imi­tation of the Sect of the Pharisees, which corrupted the Law by their Traditions, fasting formally twice a­week: The abstinence from meats, in particular, is an imitation of the Sect of the Pythagoraeans, which fed on no­thing but Herbs: Whippings and Ma­cerations, an imitation of the Priest of [Page 166] Baal, and of those of Cybele, which whipped themselves, and tore their skin, even till the bloud gushed out; and to conclude, all these pretended Satisfactions are nothing else but com­mandments of men, which, as it hath been said, do manifestly derogate from the infinite Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Pur­gatory Joh. Roffen. Nav. l. 3. com. de Jub. & Ind. De purgato­rio apud priscos illos nul­la vel quam ra­rissima fiebat mentio, &c. Nulla, de purgatorio cu­ra, &c. Cajetan. in Tract. de Indulg. cap. 2. Nulla Sa­crae Scripturae, nulla priscorum Doct [...]rum, Graecorum aut Latinorum authoritas scripta hac ad nostram de­duxit no itiam, sed hoc solum à [...] annis Scripturae commendatem est, de uer [...]stis [...]b [...]s quod B. Gregor. stat. Indulg. instituit Gab: Biel lect. [...]. 57. upon the Can. of the Mass. Ante tempora Greg. medicus vel nullus su­it usus In [...]l. nunc autem crebrescit, &c.

We have the same things to say a­gainst Purgatory, as against Satisfacti­ons; it is also a Doctrine which dero­gates from the merit of the death of Jesus Christ, as if the expiation which he made of our sins, were imperfect, & that there were need that we should compleat it. There is no track of Purgatory to be found in the Scri­pture, [Page 167] whether of the Old or New Testament, without forced interpre­tations and consequences, whereof our Doctours have sufficiently shew'd the vanity. Many also of themselves, of the Church of Rome, accord, that for this Doctrine they have nothing but Tradition, since the time of Gregory the first, who wrote in the end of the Sixth Age, and that the Doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences, are not onely not in Scripture, but also that there is very little, or scarce a jot of this usage, nor of the mention thereof, found in the first times of the Christian Church. It is well known, that the Fa­thers of the first three or four Centu­ries, and some of the fifth it self, had se­veral Errours touching the state of souls after death, which process of time hath taken away; some having believed, that the souls did abide in a place of refreshing near Heaven, or under Heaven, until the Day of Judg­ment. Others, that they did sleep, and that they should arise the first time with their bodies to reign a thousand years upon earth with Jesus Christ; [Page 168] and finally, at the day of Judge­ment, and of the last Resurrection, all that were raised should pass, as it were, through a Sea of Fire, which should purifie and cleanse them. But never a­ny of them did believe a place where the souls should suffer, after the death of the body, pains, in some sort, like those of Hell, except for continuance, as the Church of Rome teaches. No more did the ancient Jews believe it, neither do the Greeks yet at this day believe it, though they pray for the dead after the same manner, as the Fathers now mentioned did. Dial. lib. 4. ca. 39, 40, 51, 55.

It may be made appear here, that this Doctrine is onely an imitation of that of the Pagans, and that even Pope Gregory himself, who is the first that put this Doctrine in credit, speakes in the same sense, and the same terms as Virgil, saying, that the souls are pur­ged, some in the Fire, others fann'd in the Air, others washed and cleansed in Rivers and in Ice; and lastly, others in Baths and Stoves; but we onely de­sign to touch things here as in passe.

Indul­gences.If the Doctrine of Satisfactions and [Page 169] of Purgatory be evil, that of Indulgen­ces doth fall of it self, because this, as it is taught in the Church of Rome, is but as consequent and dependant on the other. If God hath not subjected us unto Works of Satisfaction, and unto temporal punishments, unto which the Church of Rome would subject us, there is no need of her dispensations, and we have no business to examine if she hath any power herein

Few persons are ignorant of the great difference that there is, betwixt the Indulgence which was formerly used unto publick penitents, and the pardons which Popes give, as well for the dead, as for the living; and we have shewed by the very confession of them­selves of the Roman Church, that this Doctrine is not grounded upon any authority in Scripture, and that there is not found any practice nor mention of it in the five or six first Centuries. Also every one knowes what interest the Court of Rome hath, to maintain as well Purgatory, as the power of the Keys, as the Council speaks; the great authority, and immense riches, which [Page 170] this Doctrine hath brought unto it, and that it brings unto it daily; the cases reserved unto the Holy See, the Table of Sins rated, Sess. 25. de In­dulg. more or less, ac­cording to the nature of Sins; Lastly, the crying abuses are too visible, whereof the Council it self has been constrained to order a Reformation. They are it may be, something less in France, where people have their eyes more open; but they are so great in Spain, beyond the Mountains, and in the very place which is termed the Center of Religion, that the sober per­sons of their Communion, cannot forbear condemning of them.

This is what we had to say of Justi­fication, and of the Doctrines which depend upon it. It may be believed, that this may suffice to shew, that the questions which separate us from the Roman Church upon this point, are not of so small consequence as the Bi­shop of Condom would insinuate; but that on the contrary, herein is concer­ned the purest, and if it may be spo­ken, the most Christian part of Reli­gion, as hath been proved throughout [Page 171] upon this Article; and that to con­clude, the Bishop of Condom doth not make any controversies to cease, except perhaps in regard of those things which he hath suppressed, and upon this par­ticular point of Satisfactions, upon which the Council of Trent, Bellarmine, and in a word, the doctrine and ge­neral practice of the Roman Church, formally take away what the Bishop of Condom would grant us.

THE FOƲRTH PART.

The Process of the Bishop of Con­dom's Treatise, IX. The Sa­cra­ments in gene­ral. doth call us to the matter of the Sacraments. We will but little insist, as neither doth he, up­on the name, the number, and the ef­ficacy of the Sacraments in general; and in like sort, upon the greatest part of what he calls Sacraments in parti­cular, because the difficulties upon these points, are not in reality so hot­ly agitated, as the Bishop of Condom himself saith. It may be believed, that the time and patience of them who shall take the paines to read this An­swer, will be better imployed upon the matter of the Eucharist, and upon [Page 172] the other articles, which concern Tra­dition, and the authority of the Pope, which are more important, and upon which we have most controversie.

In the first place, as to the name of Sacraments, Greg. in cap. 16. [...]ib. Reg. Tertul. de praesc. &c. Lib. 10, & 50. Tra. 80. [...] Joan. Accedit verbum ad ele­mentū, & fit Sacra­mētum. it were a thing indiffe­rent to give them one name, rather than another, if we were agreed of the things; or if the names would not by consequence draw in the things them­selves.

The name of Sacrament may be taken in a double sense; the one gene­ral and extensive, to signifie any sacred act or ceremony, as it is often taken in the Fathers; the other proper & less extensive, as St. Augustine defines it in his Book of the City of God, when he calls it a visible sign of an invisible grace, the blessing of the Word being joyn­ed, as he saith elsewhere, unto the mat­ter of the outward Elements. In the first sense, they may if they please, make not onely seven Sacraments, Pierre de Da­mien Ser. 69. pa. 168. but twelve if they will, as a Catholick Doctour did before the Council. The Bishop of Condom doth in some sort accom­modate himself unto this general sense, [Page 173] when he uses this expression, that in his communion, there are received seven Signs, or sacred Ceremonies.

The difficulty is, that the Council being herein less equitable than the Bishop of Condom, hath in this, as well as in the matter of Justification, made Articles of Faith of many particular Opinions, which are nothing to the Essence of Sacraments, which are good for nothing at all but for the Schools.

For the Council will have us ex­presly to believe, not only seven Signs or sacred Ceremonies in a general sense, but seven true Sacraments, pro­perly so called, as it speaks, and that we believe neither more nor less, un­der pain of Anathema; however it is plainly to be seen, that at least in the ceremonies of Marriage, of Pennance, 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, [Page 174] 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 [Page 175] 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.

[Page 176]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 [Page 177] 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.

[Page 178]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 [Page 179] 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 [Page 180] 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 [Page 181] 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 [Page 182] 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 [Page 183] 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 [Page 184] 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 [Page 185] 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 [Page 186] 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 with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire, is also taken for a Spiritual Purification un­der [Page 187] the figure of Fire. And so much the rather, because the occasion it self, on which Jesus Christ speaks thus to Nicode­mus, is but indeed a particular occasion, where there is not the least appearance that our Saviour had any thoughts, neither expresly, nor by consequence, to establish the necessity of Baptism.

The second thing, wherein the Bi­shop of Condom here recedes from his natural equity, is this, that he would take a false and indirect advantage a­gainst us, by what he saith, That the Lutherans do believe with the Church of Rome, the absolute necessity of Baptism for Infants, and that never any man be­fore Calvin, dared openly to call in que­stion this truth, it was so strongly imprin­ted in the minds of the Faithful.

For, in the first place, the Council it self doth not impose this necessity so absolutely, as doth the Bishop of Condom; it saith not so positively, as doth the Bishop of Condom, that Infants have not any part in the Redemption of Jesus Christ, or with Jesus Christ. The Council doth not condemn those who say, that Baptism is not altoge­ther [Page 188] necessary to Salvation; Sess. 7. de Bapt. Can. 5. Si quis dixerit Baptis­mum li­berum esse, hoc est non necessa­rium ad salutem, Anathe­ma sit. Heming in via vitae. Calixt. de Bapt. Co [...]. Dieter. de Bapt. and if it did, that would not infer an absolute necessity. It condemns onely those, who would have Baptism indifferent, or unnecessary, as the Council it self explains it, which is very much diffe­rent from this necessity, that the Bi­shop of Condom makes so absolute. And it is much to be admired, that he who is naturally inclined to sweetness, and who seemes to remit somewhat upon other Questions, doth on the contrary discover more severity upon this point, which yet is one of the most favoura­ble.

Further, if he oppose the Lutherans to us, as b [...]ing of a contrary judge­ment to ours in this point, besides that the Bishop of Condom ought not to impute unto the whole body of the Lutherans, what is constantly rejected by the most eminent Divines of their Communion, we will alledge & pro­duce against him the Ethiopians and Christians of St. Thomas, which are ve­ry ancient Churches, where at this day they do not baptise their Children up­on any account, Males 4 [...] days, Females 80 days after. until whole months [Page 189] after their birth. Not to speak any thing here of the Testimony of Tertul­lian, who advised to defer Baptism un­til years of discretion; nor of Gregory Nazianzen, of St. Ambrose, of St. Au­stin, of Paulin Bishop of Nole, and ma­ny others, which were not baptised till far gone in age.

As for Calvin's part, to whom the Bishop of Condom imputes it to have been the first that denied this absolute necessity, it is very easie to shew the Bishop of Condom, how much he is mistaken in this matter, not o [...]ely by what we have just now alledged of those Christian Churches, of Tertullian, and of others who were named, but al­so by Hinemar Archbishop of Reims in the Ninth Age, and since by Catharin, Gerson, Gabriel Biel, Cardinal Cajetan, Tilman de Sigebert, Cassander, and ma­ny others that were Roman-Catholicks, who have all denied this necessity be­fore Calvin: For Hin [...]mar did teach, In Ep. 55. cap. 482. pa. 572. that the Faith of Fathers, and of Godfa­thers, might serve for Infants, by the grace of God, whose Spirit bloweth where it listeth; and all the others have [Page 190] also expresly declared themselves, for the possibility of the Salvation of In­fants departed without Baptism.

To conclude, the Bishop of Con­dom doth here again recede from his natural equity, when he saith, in terms too severe, Pag. 73. That the pretended Refor­mers are not afraid voluntarily to let their children dye, like children of infi­dels, without bearing any badge of Chri­stianity, and without having received any grace, if their death doth precede the day of their publick Assembly.

We are very far from suffering wil­lingly our Children to dye without Baptism: contrary to what he says, nothing is more against our wills; for though we do not believe, that Bap­tism is necessary unto salvation by an absolute necessity, (such as is that of the Bishop of Condom's) no more than the participating of the Eucharist, yet we find very great comfort in cele­brating the Sacraments, and suffer not that they be slighted or neglected: We do what we can possible to supply the want of ordinary Assemblies, by con­descending to them who demand this [Page 191] comfort with greater importunity. But it is also true, that we do not be­lieve for all that, that the grace and goodness of God is tyed unto sensible things, nor unto the outward Acts; that is to say, to the words that are pro­nounced, and unto the exteriour action that is done upon us, as it hath been be­fore set forth: and we not onely be­lieve that God can, but that he will supply this defect, by the operation of that Holy Spirit, which bloweth where it listeth, as Hinemar cites it out of the Gospel.

To conclude, we believe as the Pro­phets, that God is the Father of our Children: as the Apostles, that the Children of Believers are holy, as we have already observed; and that so, to be born and dye in Christianity, is not to dye in Adam, or out of the Cove­nant of Jesus Christ.

As for Confirmation, Confir­mation. we do not onely not believe it to be altogether necessary, but we cannot believe it to be a (true) Sacrament instituted by God: and so far are we from being a-one in this Opinion, as the Bishop of [Page 921] Condom alledgeth, that we can make good the quite contrary by the Testi­mony of Authours, even of his own Communion: Zaga Zabo. Alvares. Guido Carme. Soto. Arma­chanus, Gouvea Jarric, lib. 6. c. 9, & 12. to wit, the Eastern Churches had not, nor to this day have, for the most part, any know­ledge of Chrisme, or of the Confirma­tion of the Roman Church: Amongst the Greeks themselves, who have a kind of Chrisme, it is the Priest, and not the Bishop, that gives it with Ba­ptism, as making it a part of Baptism; and by consequence, on the contrary, there is none but the Church of Rome alone, who have made Confirmation to be a particular Sacrament.

It is true, that our Lord and Savi­our Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, who had the gift of miracles, laid their hands, sometimes upon the sick, some­times upon the Baptised, and some­times upon them, whom they sent to preach the Gospel; at the same time communicating unto them, extraor­dinary and miraculous graces. But besides, that there is not, to speak pro­perly, any imposition of hands in the Confirmation used in the Roman [Page 193] Church, which might ground it upon this practice of the Apostles, and that the use of Chrisme, that is to say of Oyl with Balm, is a thing unknown in the First Ages, we find not, that ei­ther Jesus Christ, or the Apostles, ever said, Go, lay your hands upon all those that have been baptised, as they have said in express termes of the Sacra­ments of Baptism, and of the Supper, Goe and Baptise, &c. and, Doe this in remembrance of me. And the gift of mi­racles, by the imposition of hands, be­ing ceased so many Ages past, This is the Opi­nion of some French Prote­stants at present: but as to the perpetual expediency of such imposi­tion of hands, as our English Church uses in Con­firmation, while not made a Sacrament, See the first Reformers, whom the Reformed French most follow, Calvin on Hebr. 6. And in his Institut. lib. 4. c. 19. Sect. 4, and 13. And Theod. Bez. on Hebr. 6. Diodat. on the same. it can­not be seen why, nor how, at this time, they should make an institution of that, which was onely an extraor­dinary practice, and a practice in a word, which depended upon a gift that is ceased.

[Page 194]The Church of Rome following the natural inclination of men, which car­ries them not onely unto an imitation, or emulation, but a desire to surpass one another, hath miscarried almost every where in this regard, that of the least occasions, she hath made pre­texts to establish Worships or Ceremo­nies; as if she had nothing to doe, but to frame a Religion of all the usages, or of all the actions, ordinary or ex­traordinary, of our Lord, and of his Apostles. Our Lord being tempted of the Devil, did fast Fourty dayes in the Wilderness, to convince the World that he was truly God-man: It must be from hence, that the Church of Rome also, by degrees, is come to make particular Fasts, not onely from time to time, as was practised at the beginning of Christianity, but even a Lent entire of Fourty days. We find that once or twice, the Apostles heal­ed the sick, using a kind of anointing, from hence there must be made a Sa­crament of Extreme Unction, of which we shall speak hereafter. And here, because there are found some ex­amples [Page 195] of an imposition of hands, which wrought miracles, they have also by degrees, made a grand Establish­ment of Ceremonies, called Confirma­tion; and when once this Establish­ment was atchieved, the Council made a true Sacrament, and a Law of this Ceremony, charging perpetually Reli­gion, and mens consciences, with a yoke, that neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear.

The same is also to be said against the Sacrament of Pennance, Pen­nance, and Sa­cramen­tal Con­fession. and of Sa­cramental Confession: On the one hand, the Prophets and Apostles see­ing men in Idolatry, in Errour, or in Sin, said unto them, Repent ye, or doe pennance, for it is the same thing; A­mend and be converted unto the Lord, which is an-ordinary exhortation in the Holy Scripture of the Old, and New Testament: And on the other, our Lord Jesus Christ sending his Disciples after the Resurrection, to preach the Gospel, breathing upon them, said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins soever ye remit, Joh. 2 [...].22. they are remit­ted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they [Page 196] are retained. This In­terpreta­ [...]on is [...]tely the opinion Calvin and his follow­ers. This imports evidently no more, but the Power and Commis­sion, which Jesus Christ gave them in general, before he left them, to an­nounce pardon of sins unto those, who believed the Gospel; and on the con­trary, to announce the Judgments of God against those, who rejected their Doctrine. For it sufficiently appears, that these words of Jesus Christs, did not exclude the Apostles inspection in­to the manners of men, but on the contrary, charged them with the con­duct of the Churches: and it is evi­dent by the occasions on which our Saviour spake them, and by all other circumstances of time and place, that on those occasions our Lord had re­gard principally, unto the preaching of the Gospel.

In the mean while, behold here the use which the Church of Rome hath made of this Doctrine, or the conse­quence that she hath drawn from it. We do believe, saith the Bishop of Con­dom, that it hath pleased Jesus Christ, that those, who have submitted themselves unto the authority of the Church by Bap­ptism, [Page 197] and who have since violated the Laws of the Gospel, should come to un­dergo the judgment of the same Church at the Tribunal of Pennance, where she exercises the power which is given unto her, of remitting or retaining of sins.

We believe that it hath pleased Jesus Christ, &c. but upon what ground? Every one sees what resemblance there is of the repentance whereto the Pro­phets and Apostles exhorted the peo­ple, and of the power the Apostles had to announce Remission of sins in preaching the Gospel, unto this Tri­bunal of Pennance, which is not imploid formally in preaching to the people, or in bringing men to receive the Doctrine of the Gospel, or to re­pent, and be converted to God (I say not formally) but in subjecting every Believer in particular, to go to declare all his mortal sins by name, one after another, with all their aggravating circumstances, to crave for them par­don or absolution of the Priest, and to undergo all those satisfactory pains of Prayers by number, of Fasts, of Pilgri­mages, and the like, of which we have [Page 198] spoken before, and all this under pain of cursing and eternal damnation a­gainst those, who being able to make this confession, Dall. de Paen. & Satis­fact. &c. shall fail to make it. Our Bookes are full of very solid reasons, which plainly prove two things; the one, that this Doctrine, very far from being grounded up­on those words of the Scripture which have been alledged, is directly contra­ry to the Word of God, and that it is injurious to his Wisedome, to his Goodness, and to the merits of the Death which Jesus Christ hath suffer­ed for us; as hath been already made appear, upon the matter of Justificati­on, and of Satisfactions, whereof the pennance & confession of the Church of Rome is only a dependent.

Dall. de Confess. Morin in his Com­ment. Hist. of Penn. 4.The other, that this pretended Sa­crament of Repentance, of auricular Confession and Absolution, are things unknown in the First ages of Christi­anity, as the Roman Catholick Doctors accord; and besides, very different from the Pennance and Satisfactions spoken of in the Fathers.

It will be needless here to report [Page 199] all the reasons, Beatus Rhena­nus upon Tertulli­ans Book of Re­pen­tance. because they may be seen in the places, where this matter is treated of expresly: neither will it agree with the design we proposed, to be brief and attemperate, as much as might be, to the desire, and manner of the Bishop of Condom. There shall onely be here made a short reflexion, as well upon the First Canons of the Council, as upon what the Bishop of Condom hath set forth, whereby it may be easily judged of all the rest.

In the first place, is it not a strange thing, that the Council doth oblige all to believe, as an article of Faith, under pain of Excommunication, and Dam­nation, that Confession, Absolution, and Satisfaction, as they speak, are not onely a necessary 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.

[Page 200]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 [Page 201] 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 [Page 202] 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 [Page 320] the circumstances and co [...]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 [Page 204] 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, [Page 205] 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 [Page 206] 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. Hu. Me­nard in Conc. regular. pa. 564. Cardi­nal Ca­jetan in his com­mentary upon the Epistle of Saint James. Doctours of the Roman Church do agree. They exhort us unto reconciliation, & they in effect reconcile us. They exhort us generally to restore the Goods we do unjustly retain, and those who are honest and sufficient, do thereupon re­ally restore them.

6. Even in health it self, we are in­vited to have recourse to the whole­some advice and consolations of our Pastours and Guides, and those under their charge, who are afflicted with any considerable perplexity, whether as to Faith, or as to any great sinnes whereunto they find themselves incli­ned, are to have recourse unto them, and so really have.

7. To conclude, upon occasion of any publick sins (which moved us to enter upon this subject) when any one hath committed any crime, or notori­ous [Page 207] sin, whether it be for that he was born, according to us, in a bad Reli­gion, or that he has been so weak, as to forsake the true Religion, or that he is convinced to have sinned against the Commandments of the First or second Table, or to have given scandal to his Neighbour, he is summoned, or he comes first of his own accord, before the Assembly of Ministers, and Elders, where he makes a particular confession of his sins; he is then severely censu­red, according to the quality of his sin, and at the same time, prayers are made with him, and for him, to ob­tain of God forgiveness of his sin. If his sin be great, he is interdicted the communion of the Holy Sacraments, to humble him: if he hath scandalized the whole Church, he is then enjoined to make a publick confession before the whole congregation, and when all this is done, and that he hath given evi­dences of his Repentance, the Mini­sters of the Church announce also unto him the remission of his sins; but always under the condition of Faith, Repentance, and a true amendment of [Page 206] [...] [Page 207] [...] [Page 208] life. In this manner is it, that the power, which Jesus Christ hath given unto his Ministers, is exercised amongst us; which is, what we call the Disci­pline of our Churches: thus far is it, tht we extend it in this regard; and not any farther, to set up a Tribunal for our Guides, wherein they should ex­ercise an absolute dominion over the consciences of men.

Those who are but the least versed in Ecclesiastical History, may easily see, if this be not as meerly as can be, the ancient usage of the Church, whether for ordinary Sinners, or publick Of­fenders, except it be, that the corrup­tion of the times hath caused but too great a relaxation of the rigour of this Discipline; which thing is the cause, that the censures and punishments are nothing near so grievous, and so long as they were, and as there was a ne­cessity they should be, at the first esta­blishing of Christianity, for the better perswading the people of the Holiness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In which behalf, the Gentlemen of the Roman Church are so far from having [Page 209] any thing to reproach us of, that they very well know they have not any re­semblance of this publick pennance of the Ancients, as hath been shewed we have; for they have changed all into this other kind of Pennance, or into this private confession to the Priest, even of sins which are most notori­ous, and which give most scandal.

But this private confession, adds the Bishop of Condom, is so necessary a curb of licentiousness, so fruitful a spring of wise Counsels, so sensible a consolation of troubled souls, when Absolution is not onely declared unto them in general terms, as the Ministers practice, but that they are effectually absolved, by the authority of Jesus Christ, after a particular exami­nation, and with cognisance of the cause, that we cannot believe that our Adversa­ries can behold the so great benefits here­of, without regret for the loss of them, and without some shame of a Reformation, that hath taken away a practice so whole­some and holy. This is the second con­ceipt, in which it was said, that the Bishop of Condom had wrapt up him­ [...]elf.

[Page 210]In the first place, it was just now shewed, that it is not true, that we have taken away this practice, nor lost the benefits and fruites of the Counsels, and comforts which may be thence expected; we have taken away the Evil, which is almost alwayes in the abuse and excess of the best things: wherefore, God be praised, we have no cause of regret nor shame, in this regard.

If the Priest or the Minister were our absolute Judge, if it were so with him, that he had truly the right or power to condemn, or to absolve us, it were to be acknowledged in this case we ought to render him an exact account of all the circumstances of our lives: but it is God alone, who is the true Judge, who knowes our hearts, and our most secret thoughts, even when we say nothing unto him of them.

And as to what concerns the bene­fits and fruits of Confession, which the Bishop of Condom thought fit onely to touch in general terms, as we are sin­cere, & as there are but few Doctrines so bad, that have not some good in [Page 211] them in some regard, we ingenuously acknowledge, that private confession of sins may sometimes produce some good effects, either to cause restituti­ons to be made of what is unjustly de­tained, or to beget a greater shame in sinners for their miscarriages and sins: therefore also it hath been shewed, that we are very far from condemning or rejecting all sorts of Confessions. We onely say that we cannot sustain, with good conscience, this Tribunal, or ra­ther, this Yoke, which is imposed up­on conscience it self; this Article of Faith, and this absolute necessity, to tell all a mans sins by particulars, without which the Roman Church is so bold as to teach, that the Faithful cannot obtain pardon of their sins, whatever bitter sorrow they feel for them, and whatever firm belief they have in the death of our Saviour: for even this also the Council of Trent teacheth. Sess. 14 de Sa­cram Paeni [...]. cap. 6. can. 4.

In summe, in exchange of what be­nefits may accrue by the Sacramental Confession of the Roman Church, we call to witness the sincere persons of [Page 212] her communion, if it be not true, that this Confession is also the original of infinite Evils. If any shall not be pleased to agree hereunto, we have the experience of all times on this matter, and the testimony of their Cas­sand. Art. 11. of his Consult. Beatus Rhen. in his Pre­face up­on Ter­tullian's Book of Repen­tance. own Authours, some of whom doe o­penly enough acknowledge, that things are come to that pass, that au­ricular Confession, such as is practised in the Church of Rame, cannot any longer be of any good use.

In plain truth, instead of being on­ly a curb unto licentiousness, men ac­custome themselves to sin, upon the confidence they have, that their sins shall be blotted out by this ordinary and easie way of Confession, or by 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. [Page 213] 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 Ʋnction.

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 [Page 214] 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 [Page 215] 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 [Page 216] 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 [Page 217] 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 [Page 218] 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 [Page 219] 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: [Page 220] 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 over­ruling 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, [Page 221] 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 [Page 222] 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 un­ [...]erstands these other words, DO THIS [Page 223] 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 [Page 224] 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 [Page 225] 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 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.

[Page 226]In the First place, whensoever any great of a Mystery, and of a Sacrament, [...] and the common use, to take the [...]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 [Page 227] 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 [Page 228] 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 [Page 229] 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 [Page 230] 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 [Page 231] 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 Th [...]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 to pro­ceed [Page 230] [...] [Page 231] [...] [Page 232] too far in the question. What hath been here said, which is onely ta­ken from the nature of Sacraments, & the style of the Scripture, may suffice to shew the Bishop of Condom, that it is not without reason, that we do un­derstand these words, This is my Body, in a mystical and figurative sense; let us now see what he will produce on his part, for the proper and literal sense.

His discourse doth reduce it self un­to two propositions: the first is, That it is the intention of Jesus Christ, that we should effectively eat his flesh; and the o­ther, that there is no natural relation betwixt bread, and the body of Jesus Christ; and that our Saviour having one­ly said these words, This is my Body, without explaining them, as he did ordi­narily other figurative expressions, the law of discourse, as the Bishop of Con­dom speaks, doth not permit that they should be taken otherwise, than in a pro­per and literal sense.

As to the first, touching our Savi­ours intention, it is a good principle, provided it be well established, for Je­sus [Page 233] Christ can do what he will, & what he wills, is done as he wills; and the Bishop of Condom hath no need to in­large upon the power of God, as he doth in what follows; nor to seek for reasons, why Jesus Christ would not give us his flesh in its very Form, but under the covert of Bread, that so we might not conceive an horrour at the eating it. These are the common pla­ces of the first inventors of this Opini­on, and of all those who have follow­ed them, and yet nevertheless, all this hath nothing of solidity: because on the one hand, we concern not our selves to examine, whether God is a­ble to do the thing, but whether this thing is possible in it self, or if it doth not imply a contradiction: and on the other, if it be matter of horrour to eat true humane flesh, the covert may di­minish this horrour, but it cannot quite take it away, especially if a man were certainly perswaded, that he did truly eat humane flesh, and besides that, such flesh, for the which he should have a tender veneration.

But to conclude, how is it that the [Page 234] Bishop of Condom proves, that this is the intention of Jesus Christ, that we should effectively eat his flesh? As the Jewes did eat the victims which were offered for them, Pag. 81, 82, 83, &c. so, saith he, Jesus Christ our true sacrifice, would that we should effectively eat his flesh, &c. The Jewes were forbidden to eat the sacrifice offered for sins, to shew them, that the true expi­ation was not made under the Law; and for the same reason they were forbidden to eat bloud, because the bloud was given for the atonement of souls: but by a con­trary reason, Jesus Christ wills that we should eat his flesh, to shew, that the re­mission of sins is accomplished in the New Testament, and that we should drink his bloud, because it is poured out for our sins.

Thus it is, that instead of giving us reasons, the Bishop of Condom gives us onely comparisons, relations, agree­ances: as if it were not a known rule, that comparisons and examples may serve well to illustrate things already proved, but can never prove the things which are in question. It is true, that the sacrifices of the old Law, were the [Page 235] figure of the sacrifice, which our Lord Jesus Christ offered upon the Cross: that is to say, that as they offered up sacrifices, which were types of Jesus Christ our true sacrifice, to appease the wrath of God, Jesus Christ offered up himself to reconcile us unto his Father. This is the true accomplishment of the figures of the Law, and the principal and true relation, which there is be­twixt the sacrifices of the Old & New Testaments: therefore also it is, that our Saviour giving up the Ghost, said these last and great words, Joh. 19.30. It is finish­ed. The Apostle St. Paul, which makes a parallel between the sacrifices of the Law, and of Jesus Christ, insists onely on this point; that under the Law, the sacrifices were to be reitera­ted every day, whereas Jesus Christ offered himself onely once, and we see not, that the Holy Scriptures pursue a­ny farther mystery in it. To press fur­ther these sorts of relations and diffe­rences, to make new doctrines, and to bring all that is said of the sacrifices of the Old Testament, to be said or de­nied, of the sacrifice of the New, this [Page 236] would be to make Articles of Faith, & Worships, upon consequences where­in humane reason would have too much share.

But nevertheless if they will have it so, that our Lord Jesus Christ intend­ed, there should be a relation betwixt all the circumstances of the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and the Eucharist, which is the representation of the sacri­fice, that he himself offered upon the Cross, we are so far from thinking, that all the relations and all the diffe­rences, which are to be found betwixt the one and the other, should be un­derstood according to the letter that we know, the intention of the Gospel is opposed to the letter of the Law of Moses; that whereas the Jewes under the Law, did servilely and carnally ty themselves, to outward and material actions, it concerns Christians under the Gospel, to take all spiritually, and lift up their souls & hearts unto Hea­ven; Jo. 6.63 The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickneth.

The Jewes laid their hands upon the heads of their sacrifices, and did eat [Page 237] of them, to signifie the union which they had with them. This is true, we lay hold on Jesus Christ by Faith, we eat him by Faith, according to the speech of St. Austin, Believe, and thou hast eaten. The Jewes did not eat the sin-offering, nor did they ever eat of the bloud; we eat the mystical body of our sacrifice, and we drink his my­stical bloud: and as the expiation of our sins is actually made by his death upon the Cross, so our Saviour sets be­fore our eyes the sacred Symbols of his dead body, as seals of his grace, and of the remission of our sins.

See here how we might enlarge for our edification, the relations and dif­ferences, which we may find in this case, betwixt the Old and New Te­stament; betwixt the sacrifices of the Law, and the divine sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. These considerati­ons are right, pious, and conform to the spirit of the Gospel: but as to the main, that which is called a Doctrine and a Worship, and an Article of Faith, as is the eating of the proper flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ, should not be [Page 238] founded upon relations and agreean­ces, but upon a clear and positive re­velation.

Pag. 84.But this eating, saith the Bishop of Condom here, ought to be as real, as the expiation of sins is actual and effective, under the new Covenant.

In the first place, it must be obser­ved here, that the Bishop of Condom doth perpetually mistake himself upon the term of Real, in the question of 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 [Page 239] 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 [Page 240] 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 [Page 241] 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, [Page 242] 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 [Page 243] 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: [Page 244] 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 [Page 245] 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 Co [...] 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 [Page 246] 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 [Page 247] 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 [Page 248] 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 [Page 249] 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 [Page 250] 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, [Page 251] 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 [Page 252] 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 [Page 253] 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 [Page 254] 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 [Page 255] 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 [Page 256] 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 be­ [...]ing come after the usual exercises of [Page 257] 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: the Prayer being ended, the Mi­nister doth read unto us publickly, with a loud voice, the Liturgy of the Lords Supper, which contains princi­pally the manner, wherein St. Paul relates that our Saviour did institute it, with another exhortation well to prepare our hearts. Lastly, the Mini­ster taking the bread and the wine, saith with a loud voice, The bread which we break, is the body of Jesus Christ, or the communion of the body of Jesus Christ. The Cup which we bless, is the bloud of Jesus Christ, which was poured out for your sins: Or, the Cup which we bless, is the communion of the bloud of Jesus Christ; for either one or the other of these expressions are in­differently used, the grace of God, ac­cording [Page 258] to us, not being tyed unto the words. After which, in distributing the Bread to the communicants, the Minister saith again unto them, to raise and awaken their zeal and their faith, This is the body of Jesus Christ, which was broken for you; and in giving the Cup, This is the bloud of Jesus Christ which was shed for your sins, or some words to this sense. And last of all, when every one hath done communi­cating, we conclude with thanksgi­ving, in singing the song of Simeon, and with the Blessing, wherewith the Minister dismisseth the Assem­bly.

This particular account is onely for them, who are misinformed of our practice. We appeal here to the con­science of all sincere persons in the first place, if it be not true, that this man­ner of celebrating, and of giving, and receiving the Sacrament of the Eu­charist, be not most conform unto what we see in the institution of our Lord, and unto the practice of the Apostles, and of the first and purest Ages of Christianity; and without comparison, [Page 269] more conform than that of the Church of Rome. And in the second place, which of these two manners of com­municating, is the most proper to ex­cite and nourish true piety, according to knowledge, and a sincere remem­brance of the death of Jesus Christ.

There remaines no more as to this point, but to touch the Bishop of Condom's last consideration, in which he saith, That we do not deny the real communication of the substance of the Son of God in the Lords Supper; so that there is a necessity that we should agree, that the remembrance doth not exclude all manner of presence, but only that which doth strike our senses.

We do not indeed say, that remem­brance excludes all manner of pre­sence; for on the contrary, it is said of remembrance, as it is of Faith, that it makes things to be present, that are at the greatest distance. There is a mo­ral presence, and a mystical presence, a presence of object & of virtue, as they speak; which are not incompatible with remembrance. For example, the Heavens, the Stars, though almost at [Page 260] an infinite distance, are in some sort present with us, not onely because we see them, but by the influences which they cast upon us. We onely say, that remembrance excludes a presence re­al, personal, and as it were physical, local, and immediate, under the co­lours and exteriour appearances of Bread and Wine, such as the Church of Rome teacheth of the Body of Jesus Christ, in the hands of a Priest, or in the mouth or stomach of the Commu­nicants.

But because both here and elsewhere the Bishop of Condom grounds him­self upon what he saith, that at the same time that we deny this real pre­sence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, we teach a real partici­pation of his Body, and that upon this occasion, the Bishop of Condom here makes an express Article of the Exposition of our Belief upon the re­ality, what we will say of our Do­ctrine upon this point, shall serve for an answer unto all the consequences which he draws both here, or else­where.

[Page 261] To remove at once, XII. An exa­minati­on of the exposi­tion, which the Bi­shop of Con­dom makes of our Do­ctrine of the Re­ality. saith the Bishop of Condom, the equivocations which the Calvinists use upon this matter, and to make appear at the same time, how near they are come unto us, though I have un­dertaken onely to explain the Doctrine of the Church, It will be expedient here to add the exposition of their Judge­ment.

Let us be permitted, before we en­ter upon this Article, to complain, that the Bishop of Condom doth at the very first, here begin to treat us in termes prohibited by the Edicts of our Kings, at the same time also charging us with affected equivocations, which in no wise agree with the simplicity of our Doctrine. we are apt to think, that it is the heat of dispute, which hath here insensibly transported him beyond his natural equity, and we would not at all concern our selves to take notice of these sorts of expressions, especially in a time wherein we are accustomed unto more strict dealings, if the least thing of this nature, proceeding from a person of his dignity, and for whom we have a great esteem, were not more [Page 262] remarkable, and of worse example, than all the bitterest things that might be said by other persons.

This Article of the Bishop of Con­dom's Treatise, though more copious, is for all that obscure and intangled, full of repetitions, of digressions, and of comparisons (odious and besides his business) which he makes of us, to Socinians, Arrians, Nestorians, Pela­gians, insulting over us upon words, contrary to what appears manifestly to be our sense. But we will leave the words, and apply our selves to the things.

In the first place, instead of giving a plain and intire Exposition of our Belief, and afterwards drawing the consequences which he had a mind of, he onely gives it by shreds, and so per­plext, that it cannot be understood. He onely reports here and there some of our Expressions, separate from each other, endeavouring therein to find some obscurity; and afterwards, he grounds upon this obscurity, which himself hath made, the equivocations and contradictions which he imputes [Page 263] unto us. We need onely take notice, what course he takes in the very en­trance, to make a judgment that he speaks after his own manner, and not after ours. Their Doctrine, saith he, hath two parts; the one speaks onely of the fi­gure of the body and bloud, the other speaks onely of the reality of the body and bloud.

Divisions are wont to give order, and to give light unto discourses: but this on the contrary, doth at first sight so little set forth our Doctrine, that our people would not understand it. The explication which follows, is neither juster, nor more natural. Instead of laying down what we believe affir­matively, he layes down indeed but onely the negative part of our Be­lief.

Wherefore we shall do better to ex­plain our own Doctrine our selves in a few words, with relation unto what the Bishop of Condom sayes hereof. This shall be that plain Form of Do­ctrine, which he saith we have not, and shall serve for a general refutation of all that he hath produced. We will not [Page 264] forbear answering afterwards 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 [Page 265] 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 [Page 266] 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, [Page 267] 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 [Page 268] 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 [Page 269] 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.

[Page 270] 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 [Page 271] 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 [Page 272] 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 [Page 273] 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 [Page 274] 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 [Page 275] 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.

[Page 276] 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 pretends, that [Page 277] these expressions do suppose the real presence, and that they cannot con­cord, but by admitting the Doctrine of the real presence, which comes all to one thing; and that it is by these ex­pressions, that our Reformers them­selves approached unto the Church of Rome. It is in this part of his Treatise, that he hath laboured most, and con­ceived with greatest care, as being the place, where there seemed to be most advantage; but which at the bottom, is nothing else but an heap of plausi­ble pretexts, and unjust consequences, and almost throughout playing upon words.

The first of his Objections is, upon this expression of our Catechism, where we say, that we do make no doubt, [...]t that Jesus Christ makes us parta­ [...]s of his proper substance, by uniting us [...] himself in the same life; and upon this other passage of our Confession of Faith, where it is said to the same ef­fect, that Jesus Christ doth nourish and [...]ivifie us with the proper substance of his body, and of his bloud. It is a certain truth, that the Scripture never makes [Page 278] use of this term of Substance upon the subject of the Eucharist. The first Fathers of the Church did not use it neither. There are onely some anci­ent Doctours, which have used it in divers senses, sometimes to express the matter, or the essence it self of the things, and oftentimes also to signifie the virtue. Sunday 50. and in the form of admini­string of Baptism Our Catechism it self, speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism, saith indifferently, in two places, the substance, and the virtue of Baptism, to signifie the efficacy of it.

Not any of the first Ages have said, that Jesus Christ did give us the sub­stance of his body and bloud; but some, less ancient, have said, that he nourish­ed and vivified us by his substance; or that he gave us a living substance, meaning, a quickning virtue, alluding unto that mystical expression, I am the living bread, Joh. 6. this bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World.

When the Authours of our Confes­sion of Faith, and of our Catechism used these sorts of expressions, amongst many others, it plainly ap­pears, [Page 279] that they were not constrained so to do, to conform themselves unto the Scripture; nor to the ancient Fa­thers of the Church, who used them not at all: but they did it doubtless, to accommodate themselves therein, to the use which the latter times had brought in, and to shew in different terms, the truth of this spiritual Com­munion, which we believe we have with Jesus Christ, so as they explain it in the same place. And we will make no scruple here to add, that it is not simply the words of in­stitution of the Lords Supper, which oblige us to speak in such effectual terms; because it is evident, that the first aim of the words of institution is, to recommend the commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ: And it is also, on one hand, the Tenour of the Gospel in general, which doth through­out inculcate a most intimate commu­nion of the faithful with Jesus Christ, saying, that we are flesh of his flesh, Eph [...] and bone of his bone; and on the other hand it is the nature of this Sacrament, which joyned to this divine Word, [Page 280] not onely sets forth this union in a most express manner, but also gives us a lively feeling of it, strengthens and confirms it by the grace, with which God is pleased to accompany an action so holy.

But that which is communicated ac­cording to its proper substance, saith the Bishop of Condom, Pa. 104. ought to be really present; and it is not possible to make un­derstood, that a body, which is onely spi­ritually communicated unto us, and by Faith, can be really communicated unto us, and in its proper substance. But the reason why we cannot make you un­derstand it, is the prejudice which you will not lay aside upon this subject of the Eucharist, to wit, that there is no real union nor participation, if it be not Physical; that is to say, if two bo­dies, or two substances be not joyned, or be not both together in one place, which yet is a manifest errour. As if, for example, when we acquire an in­heritance, though we are distant from it, it might not be said, that not onely the fruits, and the Revenue belong unto us, but that the propriety, the [Page 281] body, the substance of the Land; in fine, all that belongs to it, is ours.

Besides, our Catechism, had alrea­dy answered unto the Bishop of Con­dom's Objection, in the Article which immediately follows that which he objects to us. The Minister demands, Sunday 53. How can it he, that Jesus Christ makes us partakers of his proper substance to u­nite us unto himself, seeing his body is in Heaven, and we upon Earth? It is (saith the Child) by the incomprehensible pow­er of the Holy Ghost, which joyneth things that are asunder by the distance of place; And Art. 36. our Confession of Faith, saith the same thing, and in the same terms: Would the Bishop of Condom dispute, that the Holy Ghost cannot effect a real and true union of us with Jesus Christ, when we partake of the Lords Supper, notwithstanding the distance that there is betwixt him and us? And who saith a true and real union with Jesus Christ, saith he any thing less, than to be made partaker of, or to be nourished and vivified, with his sub­stance? Doth either the Bishop of Condom himself better understand, or [Page 282] is it possible, that he should make bet­ter understood, the manner wherein he doth believe, that the bread and the wine are transubstantiated into the body and bloud of Jesus Christ, by the operation of the same spirit of God, insomuch, that the bread doth cease to be bread, and that the body of our Divine Saviour, his proper bo­dy, which is sitting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, is neverthe­less upon Earth, in a thousand places at once, after the manner of a spirit, in less room than a point doth take up. In fine, is it possible to make better understood this other manner, which he believes, that this holy body, which onely passeth through his stomach, doth unite, or rather is not united, with his proper body and soul.

The second Objection, which the Bishop of Condom here makes against us, is upon another expression of our Catechism, Sunday 52. where it is said, that though Jesus Christ be truly communicated unto us by Baptism, and by the Gospel, it is onely in part, and not fully, whence the Bishop of Condom infers, that Jesus [Page 283] Christ is fully given unto us in the Lords Supper, and that there is an exceeding difference betwixt recei­ving in part, and receiving fully. Granting this, see whereunto his Ar­gumentation amounts.

If in the Lords Supper, Pa. 106. Jesus Christ is fully received; and in Baptism, and in the Gospel, but in part, then the manner in which he is received in the Lords Supper, is different from that in which he is 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 r [...] ­gards: He changes the terms of the Propositions, as we speak in the [Page 284] 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 [Page 285] 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 [Page 286] 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 [Page 287] 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.

[Page 288]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, [Page 289] 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, [Page 298] communicating the same objects in the night: and Lastly, the manner wherein the Eucharist communicates the same Jesus Christ unto us, by form of nourishment, that vivifies us, unto that of the Suns communicating also the same objects at full Noonday; e­specially if the Eucharist be consider­ed as being added unto the Word, and unto Baptism, as the Catechism doth consider it. These three manners of communicating Jesus Christ, are dif­ferent betwixt themselves, because that these three exteriour means, have each their proper way of working upon us, to produce, or to strengthen Faith in our hearts, and to confirm our communion with Jesus Christ, by the operation of the Holy Spirit. But it is alwayes Jesus Christ whole and intire, which is communicated unto us by each of these three means; and it is alway by Faith, and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is the man­ner common to all those three; as it is the sight of the same objects which is communicated by Torches in the night, and by the Sun at his rising or [Page 291] at full Noonday, & always by the light, which is the common mean to Tor­ches, and to the Sun, to illuminate the objects.

But, it is remarkable (saith the Bi­shop of Condom here) that how great a desire soever the Reformers had to equal Baptism, and preaching to the Lords Supper, in that Jesus Christ is therein truly communicated unto us, they did not dare to say in their Catechism, that Je­sus Christ was given unto us in his pro­per substance in Baptism, and in preaching, as they have said, in the Lords Supper.

But the reason of this difference may easily be gathered, from what hath been said hitherto; it is, that when an Exposition is made of the meanes, whereof God makes use to unite us unto him, every one ought to be spo­ken of according to the proper use, for the which it is known they are e­stablished. Our Catechism doth not say, that Jesus Christ spiritually rege­nerates us in the Lords Supper, or that he washeth us from our sins, as it doth speak of Baptism; nor that Faith comes by the Lords Supper, to use that man­ner [Page 292] of speaking, that is to say, that the Lords Supper produces in our hearts Faith, as it is said, that Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: for that the Lords Supper is not instituted to represent unto us our union with Jesus Christ under this notion, but to represent it unto us un­der the notion of a substantial union, such as is that of nourishment. In like manner, if the Catechism saith not, that we are made partakers of the substance of Jesus Christ in Baptism, or in the preaching of the Gospel, as it saith of the Lords Supper, it is not but that in these very actions we are really united unto Jesus Christ, or that Jesus Christ doth not there spiritually nourish our souls with his substance, as really as he doth in the Sacrament; and the Bishop of Condom dares not say the contrary: but so it is, that al­though these divers means produce for the main the same effect, yet the same expressions do not equally agree to the one and the other, because the water of Baptism, and the sound of the Word, are not at all proper, as the [Page 293] Symbols of bread and of wine, to re­present unto us, as well the spiritual nourishment of our souls, as the inti­mate union which is made betwixt us and Jesus Christ.

The third and last of our expressi­ons, upon which the Bishop of Con­dom strains himself more than upon the former, is taken from an Article of our Catechism, which follows that which we have now examined. In the first Article it is said, that in the Lords Supper we have a new and more ample confirmation of the com­munion which we have with Jesus Christ, by the preaching of the Go­spel: here the Minister proceeds to demand, VVhat is it then in summe, Sunday 52. which we have by the sign of bread? As if he should say, On what, in fine, doth the use which we should make of this Sacrament, terminate it self; or what is the fruit of this confirmation, which you say, that we therein have of our communion with Jesus Christ? The Child answers, It is this, that the body of Jesus Christ, inasmuch as it was once offered a sacrifice to reconcile us unto [Page 294] God, is given unto us, to certifie us that we have part in this reconciliation. This word certifie, is a word of those very times, which signifies to assure us ful­ly, or to make us certain or assured of our reconciliation with God; and eve­ry one sees, that the clear and intire sense of this Answer is, that the union or communion which we have with Jesus Christ, doth fully assure us that we have part in the fruit of his death.

pa 112.In the mean time, what is the use that the Bishop of Condom would make of these words? It is, that by a long deduction of consequences, he would conclude one way or other, that be­sides the communion by which we doe partake spiritually of the body of our Sa­viour, and of his spirit both together, in receiving the fruit of his death, there is yet another real communion (as he speaks) of the body of the same Saviour, which is an assured pledge unto us, that the other is secured for us. Here again we may observe as we pass, the effect of the errour of the Gentlemen of the Roman Church, which makes them perpetually to oppose communion re­al [Page 295] to spiritual, as if that which is spi­ritual, or which is spiritually effected, were not real.

But to return to what the Bishop of Condom proposes to himself upon this Article: it may be said that this is one of those forc'd arguments, the strain­edness of which shews, that there is in it no more truth, than there is na­ture. To answer unto it in such a manner, as that we may understand something, we must necessarily repeat his Propositions one after another, in the same terms that he conceived them: for putting them altogether, and all in consequence, they make such an entangled piece, as will create no small difficulty to unravel.

If these words, saith he, pa. 1 [...] have any sense, to wit, those of the Catechism, if they be not an unprofitable sound, and vain amusement, they should give us to understand, that Jesus Christ doth not give us a Symbol onely but his true body, to assure us that we have an inter­est in his sacrifice.

This is the first consequence, which the Bishop of Condom [...] the [Page 296] words of the Catechism; and it is true that thus far he keeps the sense and the expressions very exactly. But on the other side, this consequence is use­less enough, though made with such an ample and specious preface. For we never brought into dispute in the least, whether without the Symbols, or with the Symbols, Jesus Christ gives us not what is represented by the Symbols, that is to say, his body and bloud; the sign, and the thing signifi­ed both together, and whether he gives us not both one and the other, to assure us that we have part in the fruit of his death.

Sunday 46, & 47.This is that which our Catechism says elsewhere, in other terms, to wit, that the Sacraments are seales of the Promises of God in our hearts, accor­ding to the doctrine of the Apostle, that Jesus Christ gives himself unto us, to the end we might enjoy him, and that all that he hath may be ours: and here the same Catechism saith, that his body is given unto us, to assure us that we have part in the fruit of his death, so that this first consequence of the [Page 297] Bishop of Condom's, is not a conse­quence at all, for it adds nothing al­most unto our sense, nor unto our words.

He forgets even under this head, to comprehend what we but now touched, which is not in question nei­ther, but yet is thus far of this place, as that it conduces to form a compleat sense of these words; namely, that not onely the body of Jesus Christ, or the union which we have with him, doth assure us of the part which we have in the fruit of his death: but that the Symbols themselves also assure us af­ter their manner, or according to the use for which God hath appointed them. For God makes use of these exteriour signs to affect our senses, and to confirm our faith, and our con­fidence. The dispute is onely of the manner, whereby Jesus Christ gives unto us his body with the signs, and here the Bishop of Condom doth not at all engage in this first proposi­tion.

In exchange, he goes too far, or strays too much, in the second; Now [Page 298] (saith he) if the reception of the body of our Lord, pa. 110. assure us of participating of the fruit of his death, it must necessarily be, that this participation of the fruit, be di­stinguished from the reception of the body; because one is the earnest of the other Here is it, that the intricacy and ob­scurity begins. To reason right, and more intelligibly, it had been needful to have resumed, as was begun: If Jesus Christ not onely gives us the Sym­bol of his body, but his body also, or his proper body, to assure us that we have part in his sacrifice, and in the reconcili­ation of mankind, we must then here distinguish the communion which we have of the body of Jesus Christ, from the part which we have in the fruit of his death, seeing that the one doth as­sure us of the other. These are the terms of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition, which agree with them of the Catechism: now the Bishop of Condom changes them, against the rule of disputation, and this is it which creates not onely the intricacy, but also the Sophisms; for that when we pass from consequence to consequence, [Page 299] how little soever one term imports more or less than another, or expres­ses it with any difference in the sense, or in the force of the word, we di­vert or astray; and this is called to take, or give the change.

When the Bishop of Condom saith, that the reception of the body is an earnest to us of the participation of the fruit of the death of Jesus Christ, these three terms of Reception, of Par­ticipation, and of Earnest, which were not in the first proposition, though they seem to answer to them which are there, being so imployed by oppo­sition one to the other as they are here, do not so little alter the sense, but that this change alone is the sole founda­tion of this Argument, and of all that there is captions in it.

If the Bishop of Condom resuming his first terms, had onely said, that the communion of the body of our Lord assured us of the part which we have unto the fruit of his death, he had not had a word to say; because that evi­dently imports but one and the same action, which causes that we are uni­ted [Page 300] unto Jesus Christ in the Lords Supper, and that being united unto him, we hold our selves assured of having share in the fruit of his death. Nothing is more simple, and easie to be understood, than this: to have part in the fruit of the death of our Lord, is not here properly an action, it is properly but a right acquired. But in substituting to these words those o­ther terms, of Reeeption of the body, and of participation of the fruit, as the Bishop of Condom doth, it is a little colour, by the sound of words, for sup­posing two different actions in this com­munion: and afterwards adding this expression, that one is the earnest of the other, this seems yet to make a greater diversity. This foundation being once laid, in a nimble manner, and almost imperceptible to those who only read cursorily, there is a long continuance of consequences to attain unto two different communions of the body of Jesus Christ. The mind of him that reads, perceives confusedly, that he is led he knows not where, nor how; he onely findes that he is not led on [Page 301] evenly, if it may be so said, or that he is led amiss.

But let us not forget to resume the Bishop of Condom's consequences in the same terms that he hath concei­ved them, for the better making known the defects. If the reception, saith he, of the body of our Lord, doth assure us of the participation of the fruit of his death, then this participation of the fruit, must necessarily be distinguished from the reception of the body. In good time: let the mind distinguish the commu­nion which we have with the body, from the part which we have in the fruit; because it is true that the body of the Lord, and the fruit of his death, are two different things, and may be conceived distinctly; as an inheritance which is given unto us, is different from the revenue which it brings us. But it is not necessary for all that, to distinguish the communion of the bo­dy, from the part which we have in the fruit, as if we had not both one and the other of these two things, but by two different actions; even as, to make an inheritance, and the fruits of [Page 302] the inheritance to be ours, it is not at all necessary to have two Titles, or two different contracts, the one for the inheritance it self, and the other for the fruits, because that the same Title serves for one and the o­ther.

He proceeds; If we must distinguish the participation of the body of our Lord, from the participation of the fruit of his death, we must also distinguish the par­ticipation of this Divine body, from all that participation which is made spiritu­ally, and by Faith: for that the parti­cipation by Faith, cannot accommodate two different actions, by one of which we should receive the body of our Saviour, and by the other the fruit of his sacrifice.

We have already seen, that we must not separate the communion of the body of the Lord, from the part which we have in the fruit of his death, as if there were two different actions; al­though there be two several objects which may be distinguished, to wit, the body of the Lord, and the fruit of his death: So all this consequence hath no foundation.

[Page 303]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, [Page 304] 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 [Page 305] 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 [Page 306] 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, [Page 307] 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 [Page 308] 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 [Page 309] 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 [Page 310] 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 [Page 311] 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 [Page 312] 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, [Page 313] the Church of Rome hath made the [...]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 [Page 314] 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 [Page 315] 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 [Page 316] 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.

[Page 317]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, [Page 318] 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 [Page 319] 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 [Page 320] 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 [Page 321] is without doubt, the most fundamen­ [...]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 [...]he question is, Whether we are to [...]dore, or not to adore: In which be­half we cannot mistake, without fal­ [...]ing into impiety, or into Idolatry. Nevertheless, the Bishop of Condom [...]sseth swifter than lightning over [...]his point, without giving himself the [...]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 [...] ou [...] adorations. This proposition is conceived in so equivocal a manner, [...]hat the adoration may refer to the [...]esence, to the object, or to the sign [...] self: He intends without doubt, the [...]bject believed present under the sign. But why not scruple at all? for these [...]igns do not now certifie any thing, [...]ut what they certified in the times of the Apostles themselves, and in all [...]he following times of the purest Christianity. Yet it is certain, that [Page 322] 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 [Page 323] the Tenth Age. And which is more, in those very places the adora­tion doth not relate unto the Sacra­ment, but unto Jesus Christ, believed [...]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 [...]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 [...]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 [Page 324] 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: [Page 325] but they said neither Low Mass nor High Mass, nor Mass without com­municants, nor Mass unto such or [...]uch an intention, nor for all these particular ends for which Masses are [...]aid at present; nor Lastly, the Mass [...]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 expi­ [...]ation of sins by the bloud of the Offe­rings; and the others, to render thanks to God for blessings received, or to [...]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 [Page 326] 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.

[Page 327]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 [Page 328] 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. [...]. 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 Sacra­m [...]ntal, or [...]n the manner of a spirit; whereas St. Paul speaks one [...]y of this [Page 329] 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 [Page 330] 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 [Page 331] 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, [Page 332] 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 [Page 333] 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 [Page 334] 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 [Page 335] 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 [Page 336] 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 [Page 337] [...]em more consequent than that of [...]he Lutherans, as the Bishop of Con­ [...]m sayes that our Doctours doe a­ [...]ree, that is to say, supposing that we once believe the Real presence of [...]e body of Jesus Christ in the Sacra­ment, we have reason to believe, [...]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 [...]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 [Page 338] 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 [Page 339] mentioned in the Act of our Sy­nod.

N [...]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 [Page 340] 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 [Page 341] 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 [Page 342] this escape, that in the Institution of the Eucharist, Jesus Christ did onely speak to his Disciples, and that that did not concern the people: but they have at last sufficiently seen, that it was needful to seek other excuses, be­cause that there, as well as almost in all other places, the Disciples did represent the body of the faithful, and that Jesus Christ saying, that his bloud was shed for many, he intend­ed that all those, for whom it was shed, should have part in this Sacra­ment.

Behold here what the Bishop of Condom puts in the place of it; Jesus Christ, saith he, being really present in the Sacrament, the grace and blessing is not tyed unto the sensible forms but unto the proper substance of his flesh, which is living and quickning, because of the Divinity which is united unto it. Therefore it is, that all those who believe the Reality, ought not to be troubled to communicate under one kind onely, be­cause they thereby receive all that is es­sential to this Sacrament, with a ful­ness so much the more certain, in that the [Page 343] separation of the body and bloud not be­ing real, as it hath been said, there is received intirely and without division, him that onely is able to satisfie us.

We need onely to observe at the first view, how these expressions are wrapped up, to discern how wide this Doctrine is from the simplicity of the Gospel; the Bishop of Condom would say, in a word, that the bo­dy is not without the bloud, and that he that believes he receives the body, ought to believe that he receives the bloud also, under one and the same form, by reason of what they call concomitance, that is to say, that the bloud doth accompany the bo­dy.

But, in the first place, this is constantly to suppose what is in que­stion, to wit, that the body of Je­sus Christ is really under the form of bread, and by consequence, the rea­sons which we have against the Do­ctrine of the Real presence, do di­rectly oppose this particular doctrine of taking away the Cup.

2. Who hath given this right to [Page 346] the Roman Church, to seek for rea­sons to take away so considerable a part of the Institution of our Lord?

3. And to conclude, what ground hath the Bishop of Condom to con­clude as he doth, that the separati­on of the body and bloud is not real; for our Lord doth separate them in the Institution; he saith of the bread apart, that it is his body broken for us; and of the wine apart, that it is his bloud shed for us: and he also commands severally that we eat of the bread, and drink of the Cup. The Bishop of Condom saith, without any more ado, that the separation of the body and bloud is not real, and if any would know how he proves it, he adds coldly, pa. 132. as it was said. That is elsewhere, (upon occasion then also) he insinuated by the way that this separation is mystical and fi­gurative, without giving the least reason for it, any more than he doth here; and it is enough according to him, to make this separation not to be real, that he insinuate it, without more ado, with an as it hath been said.

[Page 347]Nevertheless, if the bread and wine be really made the body and bloud of our Lord, according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, by what reason can one part of the Insti­tution be taken to be real, and the other part pretended to be mysti­cal and figurative? Or rather, if the separation of the body and bloud be onely in the mystery and figure, wherefore will they not also grant, that the bread and the wine also is but the mystery and the figure of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ? for there is no more reason for the one, than for the other. Our Saviour hath said this is my body which was broken for you; if these words this is my body, ought to be understood in a proper and real sense, there cannot any good reason be given, where­fore these other words that follow, to wit, which is broken for you, ought not also be taken in the same sense as those that went before: but that the first, should be understood in a pro­per sense, and they that follow in a [Page 348] mystical and figurative sense is unrea­sonable. For as our Saviour said that the bread is his body, he saith that this body is broken; it is the same Lord speaks: that is in a word, if it must be understood that the bread is really made the body of Jesus Christ, it cannot be understood but that it is also made his body really broken, I mean his dead body, and his body really separated from his bloud. So that what way soever we take the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, it manifestly contradicts it self: for ei­ther the bread is not really the body of Jesus Christ; or if it be his body, it is his body broken, and in a state of death; which cannot be said with­out impiety, because our Lord is ri­sen from the dead, and death hath no more dominion over him. And Lastly, suppose that his proper body were in the Sacrament, in a state of death, and separate from his bloud, this se­paration being real, it could not be said, as saith the Bishop of Condom, that the Sacrament is received fully, and without division, under one kind onely; [Page 349] nor by consequence that the Cup ought to be taken away.

The Bishop of Condom not being able to justifie this retrenchment, uses two reasons to endeavour to make it indureable. The first is, that it is not at all through contempt, that the Church reduces the Faithful to one kind onely; but on the contrary, that it is to hinder the irreverencies, that the confusion and negligence of the people had caused in the last Ages, reserving unto her self the re-establish­ment of the Communion under both kinds, according as it should be most useful for increasing of peace and uni­ty.

But is not this in some sort to say, that our Saviour did not foresee these Irreverencies, when he commanded we should all drink of the Cup; or, that foreseeing them, he was so far from preventing them, that he au­thorised them by this Command­ment.

These Irreverencies were much more to be feared in the Apostles times, and in the first Ages of Chri­stianity, [Page 350] than in the time when this innovation was made: for in the first times, the Christians were persecu­ted, they communicated as they could from house to house, and communicated at the holding the Feasts which they called Feasts of Charity. The Apostle complains of disorders committed in those Feasts, saying, 1 Cor. 11.20. that was not to eat the Supper of the Lord, and yet the Apostle ne­ver thought of taking away the Cup because of these Irreverencies.

They must be very much prejudi­cate, who see not the true reason why neither Jesus Christ, nor the Apostle, nor the Church during the space of above a thousand years, ever thought of taking away the Cup, and that yet the Church of Rome at last be thought her self to take it away.

The 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 [Page 351] 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 [Page 352] 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 [Page 353] 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 [Page 354] 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 [Page 355] of Tradition, and of the autho­rity of the Pope; and that Lastly, [...]t is known, that these three Questi­ons will be treated of throughly by a better hand, in a Work which will [...]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 bet­ [...]er confirm our Doctrine, in oppo­sition unto that of the Church of Rome, than by shewing how weak [...]nd vain are the reasons of a person [...]f so much address and reputation as [...]t is.

In the first place, as to Tradition, XVIII. The Word writen and un­written The Bishop of Condom here again [...]akes an indirect advantage in [...]he expressions, in calling it as he [...]oth, the unwritten Word; a name [...]hat prejudges the Question, by the [...]hing it self which is in question. He [...]ntends to suppose thereby, that the [Page 356] 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 [Page 357] 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. 1 [...] 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 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, [Page 358] 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 [Page 359] 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 [Page 360] 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 [Page 361] 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 [Page 360] 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 [Page 361] 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; [Page 362] 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 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.

[Page 363]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 [Page 364] 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 o [...] the Church, should come from any other origin but from the Apostles, except it be shewed that it was then received g [...]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 [Page 365] 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, [...]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. [Page 366] 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: S [...]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 [Page 367] 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 [Page 368] 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. P [...]r [...]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 [Page 369] 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 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 [Page 370] 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.’ [Page 371] 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.

[Page 372]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 [Page 373] 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.

'Tis 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 [Page 374] 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 [Page 375] receive these Writings as Canoni­ [...]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 [Page 376] 'tis 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 we receive not as such: and that on the contrary, we do receive the Epi­stle of St. James, which the Luthe­rans receive not, at least all of them as we do, whatever conformity there may be in other things betwixt them and us. Again, as a proof that it is not the authority of the Jewish Church, which determines the one, or the other of us, to receive the Scriptures of the Old Testament as Canonical, we may take this, that at this time the Jewes not receiving for such, all that the Church of Rome receiveth, she doth not think her self bound to acquiesce in their judge­ment.

The Bishop of Condom's second proposition, touching the authority of the Church, depends in a manner wholly on the former; for he saith, that as we receive the Scriptures from the hands of the Church, so we learn [Page 377] Tradition of her, and by means of Tradition the true sense of the Scri­ptures. In good time: Let the Church then be the Guardian of Tra­dition, as she is of the Scriptures; and let her make use of Tradition either for order and discipline, to facilitate the understanding of Scri­pture, but let her not make thereof a title, to impose upon us Worships or Doctrines which do not accord with the Scriptures, or to make the sense of the Scripture to depend ab­solutely upon the interpretation of the Church: as in receiving the Old Testament from the Jewes, the Church did not tye her self blindly to receive their Traditions which overthrow the Law, nor their in­terpretation, when it doth not ac­cord with the true sense of the Pro­phets.

Errour, as vice, is for the most part in the extremes: we owe re­spect, teachableness and submission, unto all those whom God sets over us to instruct us; this is not contest­ed: but this is no reason to change [Page 378] this submission into a voluntary blind­ness.

Faith being a gift of God, we ought not to change, nor force the use of the exteriour means which God employes to work it in our hearts; but we ought to use them according to his intention, with a spirit of sweetness and of charity, to perswade and not to constrain. Otherwise, a blind submission in matter of Faith, is not submission, but a spirit of ser­vitude, very unworthy of the liberty of the children of God; and to re­quire such a submission, by what name soever it be called, is to make an outward society, of bodies, of inter­est, and appearance, and not at all a true communion of spirit, and of judgement. pa 162. pa. 165. The Church, saith the Bi­shop of Condom, doth profess that she saith nothing now of her self, that she inventeth not any thing anew in points of Doctrine: and elsewhere, very far from intending to render her self mistriss of her Faith, as her Adversaries accuse her, she hath done what she can to bind her self, and that the means of innova­tion [Page 379] may be taken away, seeing she not onely submits to the Scripture, but to banish for ever those arbitrary interpreta­tions, which make mens thoughts to pass for Scripture, she hath bound her self to understand them, as to what re­gards Faith and manners, according to the sense of the holy Fathers, from which she professeth never to depart; declaring in all the Councils, and in all the pro­fessions of Faith, which she hath pub­lished, that she receives not any Doctrine which is not conformable unto the tradi­tion of all the foregoing Ages.

The Bishop of Condom doth well to say, that the Church of Rome professes that she invents not any thing; for where be the Innovatours which do not profess the same thing? But upon the main, is it true that the latter Councils have alwayes ex­actly followed the Doctrine of the Fathers, or of the very preceding Councils? for not to speak of Tran­substantiation, of worshipping the Hoste, and of private Masses, which according to us are Doctrines and Worships unknown, at least in the [Page 280] eight first Ages (because the Gentle­men of the Roman Church do not agree to it) it hath already been made appear in another place, that the worshipping of Images was for­bidden by the Councils of Eliberis, of Constantinople, and of Francfort, and that the same Worship has been esta­blished or maintained by the authori­ty of the second Council of Nice, and in the last place by that of Trent. It bath also been shewed upon the Ar­ticle of Purgatory, that that Do­ctrine, with all its consequences, was put in the place of the opinion which many of the Fathers of the first Ages had, that after death the souls did sleep, or did refresh themselves in a place separate from Heaven. The case is the same as to Auricular con­fesssion, and of Indulgences, which have succeeded to the practice of publick pennance, and generally as to all the Doctrines, and all the pra­ctice, of which we find no foot­steps in the Fathers of the three first Ages, nor in the first Councils, and which we pretend to have been ad­ded [Page 381] at several times unto the Doctrine and Institution of Jesus Christ, and of his Apostles.

And here to instance yet in two examples of alteration in Doctrine and practice, which are quite out of all question: Hath not the Council of Trent (which is that the Bishop of Condom takes for the rule of his Exposition) abrogated the doctrine and use of giving the Sacrament unto little children, of which we have already spoken? Hath it not also declared in express terms, for confirming the taking away the cup, which was before ordained by the Council of Constance, that therein little weight could be laid on the Fathers; for it is to no purpose (so the Council decides) to alledge the sixth of St. John for the communion under both kinds, Sess. 21. de com. cap. 2. what way soever (saith the Council) it be understood, according to the sundry interpretations of the holy Fathers.

We will not here examine, whe­ther all these divers changes are for the better or worse, because it hath [Page 382] been already done heretofore, and because we treat not here of the right, but onely of the matter of fact, which the Bishop of Condom hath averred, to wit, that the Church of Rome hath bound her self, that she hath taken away the means of innovating, that she sub­mits her self through all to the sense of the Holy Fathers, and that she doth not receive any Doctrine which is not conformable unto that of precedent A­ges.

To conclude, these Expositions seem to intimate, that the Church of Rome is not so well assured of her infallibility, but that it hath been ac­knowledged she had need to be secu­red against her self, by tying up her hands, and taking away the means of Innovation. And nevertheless, if we will be a little informed by themselves, what hath been the suc­cess of all this precaution? Let the Doctrines of the last five or six cen­turies, be onely compared in gene­ral with the Doctrines and practices of the three first, and even with the following Ages; the Council of Trent, [Page 383] with them that went before it, with­out having any regard, if they please, to our 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 [Page 384] 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 [Page 385] 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 [Page 386] 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, [Page 387] 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 [Page 388] 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 [Page 389] all that the Bishop of Condom himself [...]eports, which is what is most anci­ent, and most authentick amongst [...]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 [...]haracter, and the same dignity as [...]hey have) over all the Clergy, over the people, over the Councils, and [...]ver Princes themselves; under pre­ [...]ence of the spiritual Sword. We [...]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 [Page 390] 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 of our com­munion are the onely persons, nay the first, that have neither spoken nor written, nor again and again exclaimed against the abuses and en­terprises of the Court of Rome.

The Liberties of the Gallicane Church, the quarrels of our Kings with the Popes, the concordates, the Remonstrances of Bishops, the Acts of Parliaments, the decrees of the Colledge of Sorbon, the appeals un­to Councils, Finally, the Writings of a great number of Catholicks, e­ven in these last times, clearly enough shew, that we are not the onely men, nor the first, nor the last, which have cryed down the excessive authority of Popes.

Let us proceed now to the second [Page 391] accusation, which is, that after ha­ving decryed this authority, we have been constrained to establish it a­mongst our selves. We have no mind to say, that there is not any Order established amongst us; but the Bi­shop pretends, that we give this in­fallibility & authority unto our Sy­nods, which we will not acknow­ledge, neither in the persons of Popes, nor in the Assemblies of Councils: and he means the same afterwards, that we have given it even to excess, and with a kind of abandoning our right. To this purpose, he reports, in the first place an Act of the Synod at Charenton in 1644. upon the case of those who were called Indepen­dants. Secondly, an Article of our discipline in the title of Consistories. Thirdly, the Form of Letters Mis­sive, which are given to those who are deputed to go to the Synods, which was drawn up a the Synod held at Vitre in 1617. Fourthly and Lastly, a resolution that was taken at the Synod of St. Faith in 1578, upon occasion of an overture of accommo­dation [Page 392] which was proposed betwixt those of our communion, and those of the confession of Ausburg, which are called Lutherans.

This is yet another passage of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, wherein he useth his utmost endeavours, and where he hopes to finde the greatest advantage. When he treats of his own belief, that is soon passed over; he saith but a word, in clouded terms, he scarce proves any thing, and makes himself no objection; and if haply it be taken notice of, that he useth to do so, he will say, that it is be­cause he makes onely a bare expositi­on, and that he hath proposed to himself, neither to speak all, nor to prove what he speaks. But when once or twice he is come unto some points of those of Christian Religion, where there seems to be some diffi­culty in our doctrine, as well as in that of the Church of Rome, then it is that he displayes all the subtilty of his arguring; then it is that he en­larges and insults over us, as if we onely could hang down our [Page 393] heads. This is the part of a fee­ble Enemy, which keeps himself in­closed, and onely makes some small sally at certain times.

The first difficulty which the Bi­shop of Condom here creates us, is no difficulty: The Synod in 1644. doth censure the Independants, because they would not acknowledge the au­thority of Assemblies and Synods, and it gives the same reason which is cited by the Bishop of Condom, that this proceeding is so prejudicial to the State, as well as to the Church, that it opens the door unto Irregularities and extravagancies, that it takes away the means of remedy, and that in fine if it might have place, it would produce as many Religions, as there are parish [...]s, or particular Assemblies. This plain­ly imports, that in the communion of our Churches, we love Order, and that we acknowledge the autho­rity of Assemblies, and Synods, as a means conform to the practice established by our Saviour, and by the Apostles, and very proper to pre­serve the purity of Faith, and to [Page 394] maintain unity. But this implies not any wise, that we have attribu­ted a kind of infallibility, or a sove­raign and absolute authority unto our Synods, such as the Church of Rome attributes unto Popes, and unto Councils, which is the onely thing in question. It is as if one should say, that in acknowledging the just authority of Magistrates, for main­taining of Laws, and the service of the Prince, we did allow, that the Magistrates are above the Laws, or have right to give what Orders they please, how contrary soever those Orders may appear to be against the service of the common Master, so that at no time, and in no case, the peo­ple might forbear the observance of these Orders, to continue faithful unto their Soveraign.

The Independants fault was not, in that they admitted of nothing but the Word of God to be a rule of Faith: they did not absolutely reject Synods themselves; for afterwards in 1653. they held an Assembly nume­rous enough in London, where they [Page 395] composed their confession of Faith. Their fault was chiefly in this regard, in that they would not submit to have amongst them a constant and perma­nent rule of having conferences and Synods, whereby they kept the door open unto all sorts of confusion, as well in State as Church, voluntari­ly depriving themselves of one of the best outward means, which God hath given to men, to prevent corruption and Schisms.

But, saith the Bishop of Condom, it is principally in matter of Faith, that the Synod would establish a dependance, inasmuch as the greatest inconveniency that it observes, whereinto the Faith­ful might fall by independency, is this very point, that Schisms might be for­med, or as many Religions arise, as there were parishes. But if this conse­quence were good, it might also be said, that Faith and Religion do de­pend on the civil Magistrate, because if the people were not restrained by the authority of the Magistrate, they would live each according to their own fancy, even in matters of Reli­gion [Page 396] it self. Faith and discipline mu­tually hold hands: Faith works a love of order and discipline; order and discipline serve to keep up the purity of Faith. But they are, never­theless, things very different; and it cannot be said for all this, that Faith depends upon order, or upon the Orderers, whether they be civil or Ecclesiastical.

To conclude, we do not at all deny, but that even in matters of Faith, we ought to depend upon the guidance of Synods and of Pastours: on the contrary, we do recommend teachableness, deference, and sub­mission; the Question even here is, but of the more or less. The point in hand is to know, whether the Popes or Councils be infallible, and by consequence, whether we ought to depend blindly on their power, so that at no time, nor in any case, we may refuse to submit to their Bulls, and to their Decrees: and we have made evident, that there have been many times and occasions, upon which the Church of Rome her self [Page 397] hath not wholly received all the Bulls, nor all the Decrees of Popes or of Councils.

The second thing that the Bishop of Condom objects against us in this case is, that Article of our Discipline, where it is said, that the Consistories should endeavour to appease the differen­ces which may arise upon any point of Doctrine and Discipline; 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 [Page 398] 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 [Page 399] 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 [Page 400] 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 [Page 401] 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 [Page 402] 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.

[Page 403]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, [Page 406] 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. The Bishop of Condom takes for an absolute power, that which is onely a condition, and a limitation to the power of the Synod. Religi­on requires amongst us, that we should presume God presides in these Assemblies, and the rules of justice and decency, yea even custom, per­mit not that we should explain our selves otherwise. But upon the whole, every one sees that the sense of this Form is, as if one should say, we promise to submit our selves un­to what you shall resolve, if, as we hope of you through the grace of God, you take his Word and his truth, for the rule of your thoughts and conduct, and thereby make appear, that it is indeed his Spirit that presides in your consultations, and [Page 405] governs you, and that you do not proceed by canvasing and Cabals, or by humane motives and interests, as the Roman Catholick Authours testi­fie it was done in the latter Councils of Constance and of Trent.

If it be, saith the Bishop of Con­dom, a perswasion founded upon an humane presumption, can any man in conscience promise to submit, himself to what shall be resolved? And if this perswasion hath its foundation in a cer­tain belief of the assistance of the Holy Spirit given unto the Church, the Ca­tholicks in this case demand no more. We answer hereby, that it is pro­perly neither the one nor the other; and that it is not worth the labour to make upon it a double-horned Ar­gument, for so we commonly call dilemma's: this perswasion is a judg­ment of charity, which makes us hope well of the intentions of those that are deputed unto these Assemblies; and that is sufficient to warrant our promising to acquiesce unto what they resolve, alwayes provided that they have Truth, and the Word of [Page 406] [...] [Page 405] [...] [Page 406] God, for the Rule of their consulta­tions.

Upon which it is to be observed, though it may be too long to insist upon what is so clear in it self, that our Synods in the whole are made up onely of divers Deputies, which have all of them their Letters in the same Form, almost after the same manner as have they which are de­puted unto the Provincial Estates: so that things being equal amongst them, it cannot be said that this con­dition, and this limitation, can wound the dignity or just authority of these Assemblies.

These Letters missive, are proper­ly nothing else but proxies, or if the term please better, in some measure resemble Letters and Commissions which Princes give to their Ambassa­dours, or their Envoys, the ordi­nary, style whereof is, that they have intire trust and confidence in the in­tegrity, fidelity and ability of them whom they send, giving them full power, &c. Nevertheless with this condition understood all along, that [Page 407] they govern themselves by their or­ders and instructions, and that if they conform themselves thereunto, what­soever they shall conclude shall be confirmed. The difference betwixt these sorts of Letters of deputation, and proxies in matters of business, and the Commissions of Princes, is onely in the quality and style of them who speak; Princes speak as Princes men of business like men of business, and Churches in a style pious, and Christian: so that these Letters mis­sive not onely give merely a limitted and conditional power, but the re­solutions themselves which are made by virtue of this power, though con­formable to the Scripture, according to the condition expressed in the Let­ters, pass not for authentical decrees, till they are brought unto the Chur­ches, and the Churches have as it were ratified them by their acquie­scence: and when it falls out that any Church, or any particular persons find any difficulties therein, the busi­ness is remitted to further considera­tion in the following Synods; be­cause [Page 408] it is a constant principle of Christianity, according to us, that Faith is a firm perswasion, and by consequence, that mens minds must be cleared and rendred capable, as far as may be, of the truths which are taught, that is to say, made to taste the Doctrine with a certain sweet­ness, and not have the belief im­posed by constraint, and absolute dominion.

What we have now said of these Letters missive, serves for answer to the Bishop of Condom's last objection touching the resolution taken up at the Synod of St. Faith; for there is throughout the same foundation, or rather the same pretence. The Bi­shop of Condom strains himself more on this matter, than on the others, and again insults over us here, as if we were of bad Faith, and of little accord amongst our selves. Let us see what the matter is.

In the year 1578. there was an o­verture of reconciliation made be­twixt those that are called Lutherans, and our Churches of France, by [Page 490] means of a Form of confession of Faith, which was to be general and common unto all the Churches. The Churches of this Kingdom were de­sired to depute good men, authori­sed by the Church, with power to treat, accord, and decide all the points of Doctrine, and other things which might concern that Ʋnion. Upon this proposition the Synod de­creed, that if the confession of Faith proposed, were sent time enough, it should be examined in each Provincial Synod; and in the mean time, the Synod deputed four Ministers with Letters, and ample proxies of the Mi­nisters and Elders, and of Mounsieur the Vicount of Turenn: and in case they should not have time enough to examine this confession of Faith in all the Provinces, they remitted it unto the prudence of those Deputies, to accord and conclude of all points, which should come under deliberation, whether of Doctrine, or any thing else that might concern the good, the union, and the ease of all the Churches.

This is in summe the resolution of [Page 410] this Synod, as the Bishop of Condom reports it; and it is plain here, that there is nothing that is not agreeable to reason and custome. In the mean while he proceeds, with a kind of admiration. To this head doth the false squeamishness of the Gentlemen of the pretended reformed Religion come: they have now thus and thus often upbraided to us, as a weakness, that submission which we have for the decrees of the Church, which is nothing else, say they, but a society of men, subject to errour: and mean time, they have not feared to commit their Faith into the hands of four men, with so large aban­doning their own judgment, that they have given them full power to change the very confession of Faith, which they propose at this day to all the Christian World, and that as a confession of Faith, which contains nothing but the pure Word of God, and for which they have said, at their presenting it to our Kings, that an infinite number of per­sons were ready to shed their bloud.

To this head in fine, is the Bishop of Condom's evil reflexion come: [Page 411] they have, saith he, thus and thus oft­en upbraided to us as a weakness, the submission which we have for the decrees of the Church.

In the first place it had been just, that the Bishop of Condom would have been pleased to have told us, at least somewhere, what we are to understand by the Church. It is a great name indeed, and for which we have a true and sincere respect: but is not this to abuse names, and to neglect the things, as those who cryed al­wayes the Temple, the Temple. If they will have us to render submissi­on, let them tell us at least to whom we should render it. The Question is to know, in whom this infallibili­ty and this absolute and supreme Authority resides, of whom we should receive these final judgments without examining them. Is it the Pope or the Council that is infallible, and unto whom we must thus blindly submit? The Pope either above the Council to approve of it, and to give it all its authority; or onely in the most eminent place of the Council for [Page 412] order amongst the Councils them­selves? Is it all the Councils toge­ther, that are infallible, and whose decisions we must follow, or onely those Councils, which have deter­mined according to the allowance of the Roman Church? Those of Con­stantinople, and of Francfort, which prohibit the worshipping of Images, or the second Council of Nice, which in express terms enjoins the adorati­on of them; or in fine that of Trent, which onely saith to serve and wor­ship, and give unto them the ho­nour that is due? And as to this Council of Trent it self, ought we to take all together as they do in Spain, in Italy, and Germany, or reject all which is contrary to the just Liberties of the Gallican Church, as is done in France? And in fine, how can we be assured, that the Spi­rit of God presided in some of their Sessions, and not in all, that they have erred in one point, and that they are infallible in another.

These are not questions made at pleasure, or School questions, as [Page 413] the Bishop of Condom would insinu­ate, to palliate the profound silence that he keeps upon all these things: neither are they like many other que­stions, really useless, whereof ne­vertheless the Council hath made so many Articles of Faith. These are important matters, which ought not onely to be known for curiosities sake, but which are to be practised, and by consequence well understood to regulate our conscience. The Bi­shop of Condom proposing to himself to make a compleat Exposition of his Belief, one would think it had been more agreeable to his design, to let us have understood it a little plainer, and more openly, than to have conceald all the difficulties through­out, and onely endeavoured to cre­ate doubts upon some points of ours: for the positive, clear, and sincere proposal of a Doctrine, doth per­swade it much better, than do Di­sputes.

Let us return notwithstanding to what the Bishop of Condom imputes to us; they (saith he speaking of us) [Page 414] upbraid to us our submission to the Church. Yes, a blind submission, without examining any thing, as the Bishop of Condom proposes; or ra­ther, a slavery directly contrary to the Spirit of Christianity; a submissi­on, in fine, of body rather than of mind, which tends to the plunging men into that gross ignorance from whence Christianity had delivered them: for as to a free and voluntary submission, and with knowledge, such as the Scripture requires, being very far from blaming it, we teach it, we preach it, and God be prai­sed, we practise it.

But you your selves also, saith the Bishop of Condom, have this weakness, and blind submission, which you up­braid to us. When persons are char­ged with Opinions, which do open­ly contradict one another, if the proof be not clear, it destroys it self: Now what is the Bishop of Condom's proof? You have, saith he, put your Faith into the hands of four Ministers, so far leaving it to them, that you have given them full power to alter your con­fession [Page 415] of Faith. These are the Bishop of Condom's words, and not ours; this is a commentary upon the decree of the Synod, or a consequence which the Bishop of Condom draws thence, aggravating the terms, and not at all the sense, nor expressions of the de­cree it self. The decree gives power to agree and conclude upon all points, which shall come under con­sideration, and not to change the confession of Faith. These are diffe­rent terms: and though it might be presumed, that such reconciliations are never made, without using some temper, which may content mens minds on the one part and the other, and that this overture of reconciliati­on was founded upon the project of some confession of Faith, which was to be common, yet to restrain some opinion which was not essentially ne­cessary, or even to change or sweet­en some expression, would not be to change a confession of Faith.

In all likelihood, the Bishop of Condom will not disapprove of this de­sign, for therein lyes all the subtilty [Page 416] of his Exposition, to sweeten what he can, and to let alone what he can­not sweeten. The difficulty is onely in keeping a mans self within just bounds, not too much to weaken the sense in sweetning, and not to loose too much by silence; that is to say, that men abandon not Worships or Doctrines which do visibly tend to the glory of God, nor change the nature of a Doctrine by reducing it unto sweeter terms. It belongs to the Bishop of Condom himself, and to those who shall read his Treatise, to judge whether he hath kept himself within these just bounds; as it would have belonged unto our Churches to have judged whether their Deputies had kept themselves, if it had happened that they had entred into conference with the Lutherans. To conclude, as it is princ [...]pally upon the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, that we have dif­fered from the Lutherans, so upon that it self we agree, both they and us, upon the foundation, and admit not of any Article that destroys it, accor­ding to the principles which are com­mon [Page 417] to us with them. It would seem, that if the Lutherans could not intirely have accorded to our Do­ctrine, they would have reduced theirs unto what the ablest amongst them do, which is, not to deter­mine the manner how Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament. VVe believe, say they, his presence, and we feel therein his efficacy, but we are ignorant here of the manner. And in this case it may plainly be seen, that they approached nearer unto us, than we did to them, in admitting them hereby to our communion, without having made for all that▪ on our part, any essential alteration in our confession of Faith.

But some will say, how comes it to pass that you speak here so mode­rately of the Lutherans? Your first Reformers were not at all so reserved: it is very well known, how far the sharp words, which they wrote one against another, did proceed. They, whose institution you follow, found that our Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion was more consequent, than the [Page 418] real presence of the Lutherans, and testified in some sort a greater aversi­on for that of the Lutherans than for ours. Whence comes it then to pass that you have admitted them into your communion? The consequence would conclude, and why will you not admit us also? But the Church of Rome doth not so take it; she con­cludes, why do you not come unto us, though the sequel of the Argu­ment doth not admit of it. However the case stands, piety and charity re­quire that Christians should be mo­derate: if it appears, that we are more moderate herein than our first Reformers, it is not, that we do pre­sume to have more piety, nor more charity than they, but it is, that commonly divisions are fiercer in their first beginning, than in process of time; and greater betwixt persons that are nearer, than betwixt those who are at the greatest distance. This very thing that they of our commu­nion seemed to have more heat against the Lutherans upon the particular point of the Reality, is a sign that [Page 419] they were the better united one with the other in all the other points. We pretend not wholly to excuse this heat, nor the other failings unto which the first Reformers might be subject: We have a customary saying amongst us, that we canonize not any. Wherefore, without equalling them unto the Apostles, unless it be for what there was humane in the one and the other, might it not be said of our Reformers, what the A­postles themselves said of themselves, that they were men subject to like passions with us. All the World knows what is usually said upon this subject, that Paul and Barnabas those blessed Apostles, were so sharp in words to each other, that they came even to a provocation and a quarrel (for the Scripture term amounts to so much) and that it must needs be that they parted asunder. And if the Example of Saints, which the Gen­tlemen of the Roman Church have canonized themselves, affect them more, it is known how Stephen Bi­shop of Rome, did excommunicate [Page 420] St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage; Firmil. Ep. ad Cypria. Hieron. Ep. ad Theoph. Alex. Cum. oper. Theoph. how St. Jerome was incensed against St. Chrysostome, and many other Exam­ples of discord amongst great per­sons.

But not to instance so far back in the Ages past, we have seen in our dayes how far contention hath pro­ceeded betwixt persons esteemed the most pious and eminent of the Roman Church upon points of Doctrine. The circumstances of the times where­in our Reformers lived, and their temper, if any please, may possibly in some measure excuse the too much heat, wherewith it may be thought they defended themselves, whether against the Church of Rome, or against their own Brethren; if it be supposed in the main, that their intentions were upright and sincere: as also the like temper, and other circumstances, may excuse the heat which hath ap­peared betwixt these two parties, if it be granted, upon the main, that this heat was a right zeal.

After all, it is but upon the sole point of the Transubstantiation of the [Page 421] Gentlemen of the Roman Church, & the Consubstantiation of the Luthe­rans, that some of ours may have said, that the Doctrine of the for­mer is more consistent, that is to say, that if the Reality of the presence must be believed, it would seem here is more reason, according to the spe­culations of the School, to believe that this presence is effected by the way of change of one substance into another, than by the way of impa­nation, or by the co-existence of two substances of the Body of Jesus Christ, and of the Sacraments one with the other: and that supposing, that the Body of Jesus Christ was really pre­sent, there would be more reason to adore him in the Sacrament it self, than not to adore him there at all. But upon the whole, these indeed are onely speculations of the Schools, and private Opinions: and as these con­sequences of the Lutherans, taking them aright, are onely consequences which no wayes engage those, who onely admit the Lutherans into their communion; so it plainly appears, [Page 422] that when the heat of dispute leaves the mind in an entire liberty in this regard, we have been able to admit them into our communion, without its being any reason that we should pass unto that of the Church of Rome; which joins unto Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, private Masses, the adoration of the Host, and the taking away of the Cup, as inseparable consequences of this Do­ctrine: not to speak again here of the Service in an unknown Tongue, and the other worships and practices which separate us from her.

However the case stands in this regard, this being the state of things betwixt us and the Lutherans, it is evident that our Churches entring into conference with them, expo­sed not themselves unto any essen­tial alteration in our confession of Faith; so far were they from putting it into the hands of Compromissa­ries, whether we regard the thing it self, or the form of the power which they gave unto their Deputies: for as to the thing, when any difference [Page 423] is treated of, the power which is given, how ample soever it be, re­gards onely the difference it self, and extends not it self unto other things, which are not in dispute. For Ex­ample, when Princes give power to their Ministers to make Treaties of peace, and of alliance, we do not say, that they put in compromiss the fundamental Laws of their King­doms. There was so little to be fear­ed on our side in our reconciliation with the Lutherans, that it was seen we made no difficulty to admit them into our communion, assoon as some amongst them desired it of us. And as to what concerned the power it self, that could not expose us any thing the more; for besides what hath been said of the state of our difference with the Lutherans, the Synod knew be­fore hand the plain state and founda­tion upon which the reconciliation was to be made, that is to say, in a manner the very sense and form in which it was judged, that a confes­sion of Faith might be made, that might be common with us, and the [Page 424] Lutherans. It is well known, that on such occasions, the power is re­lative, and as it were restrained, un­to the memoires and instructions which are given to the Deputies. If it falls out that they abuse it, they who gave it, are acquitted upon their disapproving what they have done: the shame of the disapprovement falls properly upon them; there is no blame at the most, but onely of the bad choice that was made of their ministry. In a word, what removes all difficulty in this regard, is, that these sorts of accords, howsoe­ver the Deputies conclude, must be approved and ratified by those who granted the power, before it can be said that they have truly consented.

If the project of this reconciliation had further succeeded, and that a Form of confession had been agreed upon, it had been necessary accord­ing to the practice of our Discipline, that all that had been accorded by the Deputies at the conference, should have been sent and communicated to our Provincial Synods, to the end, [Page 425] that the Deputies of Provincial Syn­ods, might afterwards have met in a National Synod: there all would have been maturely considered, with a 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 [Page 426] 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 [Page 427] 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 [Page 428] 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 [Page 429] 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 [Page 430] 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 'tis 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 [Page 431] 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, 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, [Page 432] 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 [Page 433] judgements with knowledge; and, as God himself hath commanded, that we should love, Peace with Truth.