AN ANSWER To the BISHOP of CONDOM's BOOK; Entitled, An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, upon Matters of Controversy.  
Written Originally in French.  
DUBLIN, Printed by Benjamin took, Printer to the KING's most Excellent Majesty; And are to be Sold by Joseph Wild in Castlestreet. 1676.   

SI quis existimet in hoc Libello (cui Titulus, An Answer to the Bishop of Condom, etc.) reperiri quid Doctrinae aut Institutis Ecclesiae Anglicanae non admodum conforme, id donandum est peculiari Reformatarum in Gallia Ecclesiarum statui. Certè responsi corpus verè aureumcenseo, & dignum quod  
Imprimatur.  
Edw. Wetenhall S. T. P. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri ac Domino, D. Michaeli Archiepiscopo Dublin, etc. à Sacris Domesticis.   

The Epistle Dedicatory. To his Grace, MICHAEL, By Divine Providence Archbishop of DUBLIN, And Lord Chancellor of IRELAND.  
IT is well known to the World, that those accomplishments which have at all times been most esteemed by the wisest men, as Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude, have even in the worst of times, most eminently appeared in your Grace. Which virtues have shined with greater lustre, by the light derived from His Sacred Majesty, whose Princely wisdom hath thought fit to choose such an Instrument, to bear so considerable a part of Government, in a Kingdom so lately retrieved from almost total ruin; & to distribute the highest Justice, where so many several Interests interfere; which nevertheless is done with so much moderation, that nothing but Envy can repine at your Grace's eminent degree in Church and State.  
It is sufficiently known, how blind Tradition and custom in matters of Religion, have enthralled the minds of most of the Natives of Ireland, which certainly makes them the more unfit in all respects for the service of their Prince. This consideration moved me to expose the following Treatise unto public view in that Kingdom. It was lately written by a Reu. Divine of the Reformed Church, in answer to the Bishop of Condom a person that upon mature deliberation, with all the Art imaginable, undertook an Exposition of the Belief of the Roman Church: wherein it is evident to the World, how contrary this Prelate's success is unto our Jewell's against Cole, Harding, and other Roman Champions; whereby the decay of that Politic Religion in one Century may be perceived, and the excellent nature of Truth, which prevails over all opposers, may be discovered; which (if any thing) should invite men to submit unto it. Some it may be will censure me, for dediecating things of this natur-unto your Grace, being therein so perfectly versed already. To such I shall only say, that good things are not the worse for being often heard; and knowing that your Grace hath at all times earnestly contended for the Faith and been a zealous promoter of it, these matters being in their Original dressed after the exquisitest manner, I have presumed to send them into the World under your Grace's Patronage: beseeching Almighty God long to preserve your Grace for His Majesty and these Nations good: which shall ever be the earnest prayer of  
Your GRACES Most obedient and most humble Servitor, Jos. Walker.   

To Monsieur CONRART.  
SInce it is you, Sir, who inspired me with the thought of undertaking the defence of our common cause, against a Prelate of the reputation of the Bishop of Condom, be pleased also to become responsible to the public, for the manner in which I have acquitted myself herein. I am persuaded a man could not set here a better name than yours, to do no wrong to himself, or to give more weight to the Answer, he had made. It is notorious that you are known through all parts where desert is known: You are equally loved and esteemed by all worthy persons, both of one and the other Communion, and by the Bishop of Condom himself. And as all the world agrees, that none can wear a spirit or an heart more upright, than that which you own, so it will be easily presumed, that those sentiments which you shall have approved are no less sincere and faithful. Nor can any say, that this is an Anonymous Work, in that they see not my Name here, if you will be pleased it be known, that he, who writ it, has the honour to be one of the friends of Monsieur Conrart.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THE Bishop of Condom's Treatise hath appeared three several times, and at each time in a very different condition: The first in a Manuscript about four years ago, at that time only containing the Articles of worshipping Saints, of Images and Relics, the matter of Justification, and that of the Sacraments, excepting only the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which was not as yet therein. The second about nine or ten months past, of the first Impression, which was recalled. The Bishop of Condom had thereunto joined at that time, not only the Articles of the Eucharist, of Tradition, of the authority of the Church, of the authority of the Pope, all which do make the amplest and most considerable part of his Treatise, but he had also changed several places of the Manuscript Copy. The third, as it doth now appear in this second Edition, which the Printer calls the first, because the first was not published; and it is in this second Edition chief, that it is to be found that the Bishop of Condom hath changed several places, as well of the first Edition, as of the Manuscript that was dispersed amongst us; whether he did it of his own inclination, or to accommodate himself the better unto the Opinions of those of his own communion, with whom he had conferred  
It ought not to be thought strange, that those who in these days publish Books in the matter of Religion, should with all circumspection consider them over again and again, and especially when it is upon points of Controversy, because then a man's business is not only to establish his own belief, but also to engage the contrary, which requires an exact knowledge of all the principles and opinions of one and the other. But if it be true that the Church of Rome hath a plain form of Doctrine, as the Bishop of Condome would have us believe; if the Bishop of Condom's Treatise be only a bare Exposition of Faith, as the Title doth import, and as he himself doth declare in the beginning (pag. 2.) one would think there were not necessary for that, either subtlety, vizour, or contrivance: it would be only needful to tell us at once, with an entire opening of heart, what is believed, and the manner how it is believed; and for so doing, the most natural, and least artificial manner is always best.  
I will not here set down the alterations which the Bishop of Condom hath made, unto what was contained in the Manuscript that was before mentioned; but I cannot pass by with silence, the difference that is to be found in the first, and second Edition, because nothing doth more clearly show the ground of their opinions, who writ, than the different manner, wherein it is seen that they conceive the same things, at several times. They may to much purpose lay down principles, and draw conclusions, form Grave Debates, maintained by sprightly figures of speech, adapt terms, employ those at certain times, that are of a suspended and indeterminate sense: One word naturally escaped doth say or gainsay more, than a whole Book can establish; the very care taken in recalling such a word, doth speak it much the more.  
The greatest part of these differences should have been touched in the very Body of the Answer, in the places to which they relate, as we have touched some upon the Articles of Transubstantiation, and the authority of the Pope: but it fell out when we begun to examine this Treatise, we had not then the first Edition in our hands to compare it with the second. Howsoever though we are constrained to report these passages altered, without any connexion of one, with the other, or with the matters whereon they depend, and without making such reflection, as otherwise might have been made, that hinders not, but that by the simple comparison of these two Editions, it may be sufficiently seen, how that the Romish Church hath but few of these worships and doctrines which separate us from her, which do not aggrieve or create trouble unto the ablest of her communion, at such time as they engage to express a little clearly, what they think of them.  
This same thing may also work this other effect, how little soever equity there be in the world, that our Masters of the Roman Church must more and more acknowledge, that they ought not to have a disesteem or aversion for us, by reason of some difference in opinion touching things, of which the most eminent amongst them have themselves so great difficulty to satisfy themselves; and the rather, because they well know that they are born and bred in their belief, and with the principles, upon which their Belief is founded: whereas we are born and bred up in a Belief opposite, and with principles contrary unto theirs, which is the cause that we do feel the same difficulties more to the quick, than they can do.  

Page 1. of the 1. Edition.  In the first place, at the beginning of the first Edition, the Bishop of Condom doth declare, that he will propose unto us simply the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, separating the Questions that she hath decided, from those which do not appertain to Faith, etc. This doth speak plainly enough, that all those Questions that are not proposed in the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, do not at all appertain to Faith; and this being granted, we are freed from a great number of doctrines and practices of the Romish Church, which the Bishop of Condom doth not propose unto us, or that he doth separate from those which he doth propose. In the last Edition the Bishop of Condom recals this Declaration, and saith quite another thing, though as to the rest he changeth nothing in this regard in the whole model, nor in the continuance of his Treatise: He saith, that he will propose simply the opinions of the Romish Church, 
Page 2. of the 2. Edition Page 7, & 8, of the 1. Edition.  and distinguish them from those that have been falsely imputed unto her  
2. In the first, speaking of the worship of Saints, he saith, That the honour that the Roman Church gives unto Saints is religious, or that it is not religious, but because she gives this honour with relation unto God. He proves the same, That this honour should be so far from being blamed, because it is religious, that on the contrary it were to be blamed, if it were not religious.  
In the last Edition he perceives that he hath said, 
Page 13.  and proved too much, and not knowing how to recall all that he had said, he turns the thing into a form of doubt, or into a suspended sense: if the honour (saith he) that the Church gives unto the holy Virgin, and the Saints can be called religious, it is because it necessarily refers unto God.  
3. In the first, whereas we allege, 
P. 9  as matter of fact, that there is no footstep of any worshipping of Saints in the three first Ages or Centuries; or whereas the Bishop of Condom himself saith, that Mr. Daillé doth confine himself within those Ages. He adds, The reason is, because it is certain that in those three Ages, the Church being more busied in suffering, than writing, left many things to be cleared in her doctrines and practices, etc. In the last, he altogether expunges these words, whatever fair evasion they had: he thought this was to confess something too advantageous for us, that not only the worshipping of Saints, but also several other doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, are not at all to be found in the Writings of the three First Ages, though it is known that the Bishop of Condom is not the only person of his communion that hath not been able to restrain himself from making this confession. And he is sensible also without doubt, that the reason that he would give for this silence, was in effect but a weak colour, that is, that the Church was more employed in suffering than in writing, because that the sufferings of the Church in those First Ages did not at all hinder, but that besides the sacred Writings of Evangelists and Apostles, which are infinitely above the Writings of all other Ages, we have also sufficient large Volumes of many great persons of the three First Centuries; as of Justin Martyr, 
S. Iren, Clement Priest of Alexandria etc.  of Tertullian, St. Cyprian, of Origen, and many others before and after them; for although Tertullian and Origen held some erroneous Opinions, that hinders not, but that one or the other, might have made mention of the worship of Saints, if it were true, that they had seen it practised in their days.  
4. In the First, having laid down the several means, whereby it can be supposed that the Saints do hear our Prayers, whether it be by the ministry of Angels, or whether that God himself makes them know our desires by a particular revelation, or that he discovers unto them this secret in his infinite essence, he adds, or whether that by any other way more impenetrable, and yet more unknown, that God makes us receive the fruit of those Prayers that we address unto those blessed Souls; which doth import in that place, that whether the Saints do hear our Prayers, or whether they hear them not, God doth not fail to recompense the devotion that men have for the Saints: 
Annot, Elucid: Quaest: 228, in Epist. ad Rom: Sanctos pro nobis interpellare, non est aliud quam pro meritis eorum bonos affectus quos habemus in eos propter Deum remunerare, & ideo nihil interest sive nos audiant, sive non audiant.  and this is also the Doctrine of Hugh of St. Victor, an Author of the Twelfth Century. In the last, the Bishop of Condom doth expunge this Opinion, which doth not only show too much uncertainty touching the ground of such a religious Worship, but a kind of incompatibility to address Prayers to Saints, if it may be supposed that those Prayers be not at all understood.  
5. In the First Edition, speaking of Images, he drops these words, that the Church of Rome doth not so much honour the image of an Apostle, or Martyr, as she doth honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the image. This imports, that properly there is no honour rendered unto the Image itself, or that there is but very little given unto it, as they usually tell us in common discourse; but this doth not speakfull enough according to the Roman Pontifical, and according to the Council of Trent, and much less according to the general practice of the Romish Church: Therefore it is that in the second Edition the Bishop of Condom expresses himself more strongly, When we do honour the image of an Apostle, or Martyr, 
Page 32.  our intention is not so much to honour the image, as to honour the Apostle, or Martyr, in presence of the image.  
6. In the First Edition, concluding the Article of the worship of Saints, 
Page 33.  There is nothing (saith he) more unjust, than to say that the Church doth make all devotion to consist in worshipping Saints, because on the contrary she doth not impose any obligation on particular persons, to apply themselves to that practice. He adds, We have already observed the words of the Council of Trent, which is content to term it good and useful, without teaching that it is necessary, or that it is commanded. So that it plainly enough appears, that the Church condemns none, but such as separate through disrespect, or a spirit of dissension and revolving. This doth intimate plainly, that a man may very well omit the worship of Saints, because the Church doth not impose any obligation 〈◊〉 practice i●, and that the only condemns such as reject it through a spirit of scorn and dissension.  
In the Last Edition, the Bishop of Condom reforms all this Article; on the one hand he strikes out these two Propositions, that the Church doth not impose any obligation to practise the worship of Saints, and that the worship of Saints is not a practice necessary nor commanded, as if he no more intended to speak the same thing, or at least that he would not speak it so plainly or absolutely as he had done, but leave it more undetermined: and on the other hand, whereas he had said the Church condemns only those, that reject this practice through disrespect, or a spirit of dissension, he puts, by disrespect or by error. By which means, supposing that we are in an error, as the Church of Rome doth suppose, this Last Edition returns us under the curse, from which we were freed by the First.  

Page 47.  7. In the First, concluding what he had said of Justification, he adds, that it was needless to know more to be a sound Christian; which doth ease and free Religion from a great many nice distinctions, from Decisions, Canons, and anathemas of the Council, in regard the Bishop of Condom lays aside all these Doctrines, thinking those he hath touched to be sufficient; In the Last he changeth this opinion into another quite different; he only saith, that this Doctrine is enough to show Christians, that they ought to refer unto God, through Jesus Christ, the glory of their salvation; so it is, that the Bishop of Condom doth often charge what follows, without regarding what went before: from whence one may judge, what can be the sincerity of his arguing; or, to be plain, from the same propositions, he draws very different conclusions.  
8. In the First he saith, 
Page 5●.  that the Church hath always acknowledged the two different ways of obtaining remission of sins, which he proceeds to explain, and the First by the pardon which God gives us of them; the other by another grace, and another absolution, which the Church grants in form of judgement, by imposing upon us works of penance.  
In the second he finds, that it is not in his power to show, that the Church hath at all times taught this Last manner of applying the remission of sins, which makes him to curtail this proposition.  

Page 56.  9 In the First, being about to finish the Article of Indulgences, he concludes that this matter relates principally unto Discipline; which words are very remarkable, because both parties do agree, that matters of Discipline may be taken away or changed, according to the circumstances of times and places: In the Last, he saith not any more, that it is the matter of indulgences which relates unto Discipline, but only the manner of dispensing them.  

●2, 63,  10. In the First he saith, upon the Sacraments, that they confer grace by virtue of the external action done upon us. In the Last, he joins unto the action, the words that are pronounced.  

●e 65:  11. In the First, speaking of confirmation, he saith, that all Christian Churches have retained this custom ever since the Apostles days, accompanying the imposition of hands with the holy Chrism. In the Last, he hath suppressed these words, since the Apostles days, as if they had been said through inadvertency, 
Page 74:  in the First Edition; but in stead of this expression, accompanying the imposition of hands with holy Chrism, which gave to understand, that the use of Chrism was joined unto the imposition of hands from the time of the Apostles; he hath put, making use also of holy Chrism, having very well perceived without doubt, that at the least the use of Chrism was not brought in, till a long time after the imposition of hands, and that it is not near of so ancient a date as the Apostles days.  
12. In the First, 
P. 76, 85, 92, 96, & 30.  upon the Eucharist, he speaks of our Belief in several places, as if we believed a real presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, and this under the pretext that we say, that we really partake of the Body of Jesus Christ. All his consequences are grounded upon this supposition. In the Last he plainly doth perceive, that this supposition was easily destroyed by a bare disavowing it on our parts, because never any of us have said, that we believed the real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. This is the reason, that in the Last Edition, speaking of what we believe, he useth every where the terms participation, or of real communion, in stead of that of real presence, which he used every where in the First, which is very different, because the one doth give way to suppose, that the Body of Jesus Christ must come down from Heaven into the Sacrament, to be present therein: and we say only, that by Faith we lift our hearts to Heaven, where he is, and that it is so, that we partake of Jesus Christ, very really indeed, but spiritually: nevertheless the Bishop of Condom correcting the term of real presence, which he imputed unto us, leaves the same consequences which he had seemed upon this Idea, prejudging that the belief of the real participation ought to have the same effect, as if we believed the presence itself. This is called, to take away the Foundation and leave the Building in the air, or at best, but to underprop it, by putting in some other support in the place of the Foundation.  
13. In the First, among the many consequences that he draws from our believing a real participation, after having said, that it must needs be, that besides the spiritual communion of the Body of Christ, etc. we must admit of a real communion of the Body of the same Saviour; 
Pag. 100  he concludes that the Church of Rome would be satisfied, would we make this confession; which is of very great consequence, because that this conclusion doth free us from Transubstantiation, and shelter the Lutherans that believe the reality. In the latter, some other consideration made the Bishop of Condom stifle this opinion, 
pa. 112.  and put another altogether different in the place; they will never (saith he) explain this truth in any the least solid manner, if they do not return unto the opinion of the Church.  

pag. 109:  14. In the First, the word Transubstantiation is seen in the Margin, in form of a title, or article, as well as in the Last, to mark out the matter of Controversy treated of in that place; but throughout the Exposition there is nothing in any place of the Article, nor the term of Transubstantiation, nor this Proposition, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In the latter, 
pag, 124,  after these words, the true Body, and the true Blood of Jesus Christ, he hath added, into which the Bread and the Wine are changed, which is that, that is called Transubstantiation.  

pag. 115.  15. In the First, speaking of the Mass, he concludes only, that it may reasonably be called a Sacrifice, which implies also, that one may safely forbear giving it that name. In the latter, he changeth this conclusion into another far different; for he affirms strongly, that there is nothing wanting in the Mass to be a true Sacrifice, which yet are two consequences very different to be drawn from one Doctrine: that is to say, that what the Bishop of Condom proposes in this place for the proving that the Mass is a true Sacrifice, doth prove no more, than that it may reasonably be called by this name.  
16. In the First, 
p, 132,  treating of the belief of them who are called Lutherans, the Bishop of Condom speaketh generally of the whole Party, that they reject the adoration of the Sacrament, which is true. In the latter, 
pag. 148.  he reduces this general Proposition unto a particular one, which destroys the former; for he only saith, that some Lutherans reject the adoration, without the appearance of any ground, which should oblige him to the making such restriction.  
17. In the First, 
pag. 113.  he draws this consequence from the Doctrine of the real presence, that he that can endure the reality, which, saith he, is the most important and most difficult point, may easily digest the rest: In the latter he bethought himself, that this rest comprehends Transubstantiation, Adoration, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the taking away the Cup, and that they are not things so easily believed; wherefore he speaks a little slacker, that enduring the reality, we ought also to endure the rest.  

pag. 165.  18. In the First, touching the authority of the Holy Chair, he saith, that their profession of Faith doth oblige them to acknowledge the Church of Rome as Mistress, and to tender true obedience unto the Pope as Sovereign. In the latter, he wraps up this Sovereign power in more general terms, which conclude nothing positively; we acknowledge, saith he, this Sovereignty, speaking of St. Peter, in his Successors; unto whom, is due, for this reason the submission and obedience, that the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught.  
19 Upon the same point he saith in the First Edition, that the rights of pretensions of the Popes, which the Reformed Ministers are always alleging, to make that power odious, are not of the Catholic Faith, nor at all set down in the Profession of Faith. In the latter, he saith, in more indefinite terms, that as to those matters, of which there is dispute in the Schools, etc. it is not at all necessary to speak thereof, seeing they are not ●f the Catholic Faith.  
20. To conclude, 
pag. 518.  in the First Edition, the Bishop of Condom drawing to the conclusion of his Treatise, saith, that the Fundamentals of Salvation are the adoration of one only God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and a belief in one Saviour, etc. In the Latter, he recalls this so absolute Proposition, plainly seeing, that the allowing this Maxim is to acknowledge, that it is us properly, who have the fundamentals of Salvation; for our Doctrine reduces itself unto these two Heads, and we have nothing contrary unto them, neither in reality, nor in appearance.  
I pass over some other alterations that are less considerable, especially if looked on each apart, but all together do sufficiently speak the trouble, the Bishop of Condom had, to put his Treatise into the condition it is now in.  
The only thing to be added, in this regard, is, that though it may plainly be perceived that the Bishop of Condom proposed to himself two principal ends in his Treatise, the one to insinuate the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, diminishing as much as he could, what she holds that is most violently offensive; the other to oppose ours, principally upon two points, in which he believed he could have put us unto great difficulties, namely, the reality of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and the authority of the Church; nevertheless it appears, that it is only upon the positive Doctrine of the Roman Church, that the Bishop of Condom hath staggered, that he hath touched and retouched, withdrawn, diminished, or added; and finally, that he hath made all the alterations above mentioned.  
Now from whence could proceed this kind of variation in an Exposition of Faith? (for it is known how well the Bishop of Condom is qualified, and the great clearness and readiness he hath in expressing himself) It cannot be said, but that he understood perfectly, not only the grounds of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, but of ours also, four years past, when his Manuscript Copy was dispersed amongst us; or ten months since, when he caused his Treatise to be printed the first time, as well as he knows it, at this present.  
Therefore it must needs be, that these difficulties do proceed from the very nature of the Opinions that he lays down, which have no certain foundation, which are not consequent enough, and which have not that perfect proportion, that the several parts of a Doctrine ought to have, one to the other. A man believes as the Church believes, because he believes the Church cannot err. This is soon said, but when he goes about to explain what the Church of Rome believes, by what motives, and upon what grounds she believes, the mind unsatisfied knows not upon what to fix.  
The light of reason draws one way, authority draws the other; a man speaks more or less than he would, or otherwise than the Council of Trent, or the Doctors, or the general practice of the people would have him speak: He writes, he blots out, he corrects, endeavouring to satisfy all the world; and after all, he hath much ado to satisfy himself, in what is tendered unto others.  
However, it is certain, that there remains not now one word in the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, which hath not been exactly scanned and placed, and therein it is without doubt, that is comprised, what may be most curiously and speciously spoken for the Church of Rome, whether we regard the opinions, whereunto the Bishop of Condom hath, as it were, confined himself, or the terms he made choice of to insinuate his Doctrine, and to wave the difficulties which created him most trouble. His Treatise being otherwise short enough, it is credible there could not be assigned a better manner of answering it, than that which is followed; which is not only to allege his opinions, and the reasons upon which they are grounded, but almost throughout, the proper terms in which he conceived the one, and the other. Furthermore, besides that this is a means to lay his Treatise plainly before the eyes of those that might have forgotten part of it, or that probably might not yet have read it, the Bishop of Condom cannot in the least say, that there was any design to conceal or cloak the sense, and the force of his expressions; and it will also be seen more exactly, if the answer made unto him, be just, and sufficient.  
The Answer explains itself from the beginning, the particular end that is proposed, and the order that is observed.  
The reasons are also touched which may be given, wherefore no enlargement particularly hath been made on the differences, that there might be betwixt the Bishop of Condom's Expositions, and the common doctrine of the Church of Rome. It shal● only be added in this regard, that besides that this discourse must ther● have been of greater length than i● was intended to be, 'tis known tha● there is a certain person of the Church of Rome, which doth write against this very Exposition of the Bishop o● Condoms, and what those of his communion will speak of their own belief, will be much of greater weight and less suspected from their own mouth, than from ours.  
Yet it is easy to discern by reading the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, in the condition wherein he hath put it in this second Edition, that excepting what it may be seen, he extenuates touching the worshipping Saints and Images, touching the article of Satisfactions, touching that of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and touching the authority of Popes: The difference there is betwixt his Exposition, and and the common Doctrine of the Romish Church, doth principally consist, in that the Bishop of Condom doth wrap up some of the most difficult things, in indefinite or general terms, and doth suppress a great number of other Doctrines that are received and believed amongst those of their Communion, as is taken notice of in the Answer.  
But it is no less easy to foresee, by the degree the Bishop of Condom holds with those of his persuasion, that if there were a necessity that he should explain himself more particularly upon all these differences, he would not fail in all likelihood, to give unto his expressions a sense, that right or wrong, should well agree with that of the Romish Church; and as to those doctrines and practices, which he seems to abandon, he will say it may be also, if every one did speak always as he thinks, that his intent was not to abandon them altogether, but only to withdraw them for a time from our sight, to the end to engage those amongst us, that would be inclinable, to accommodate themselves to these first overtures.  
Therefore to reduce this Answer unto something that may be less Subject unto contestation, and of more certain use; the matter chief contended for herein is, to show that the Doctrine of the Romish Church, such as the Bishop of Condom doth represent it in this Second Edition of his Treatise, doth nevertheless always overthrow the foundations of Salvation. Notwithstanding to the end none may be wholly mistaken, as to the difference there is betwixt the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and the Common Doctrine of the Romish Church▪ besides what hath been said of this difference in several places of the answer, it was thought convenient here to insert Word for Word, the form of Confession of Faith by the Council, which is as it were the Abridgement of the belief of the Romish Church, Those that shall read this form with a little reflection, will easily judge whether the mind and intention of this confession, be conform in all things unto the mind & intention of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise: and those of our Communion in particular, when they shall be solicited to change their Religion, upon considerations like to these, which are offered in this Treatise, will at last see, whether that which shall be proposed to them to engage them, is so agreeable in all points unto what they are made to promise, and solemnly swear, when once they are engaged.  
On one side it is told us, that We shall not at all be obliged to call upon Saints, if we are not willing, provided that we do not condemn these that do call on them; that what hath been hitherto called adoration, or Worshipping of Images, is nothing properly, but an honour that is rendered unto the Originals, and an help for instructing the people; that works and satisfactions are but an application of the merits of Jesus Christ: In like manner the Mass, but an application of the Sacrifice of his death; Transubstantiation but a word, or expression, that means nothing after all, but the reality of the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, which we ourselves do also believe (as well as the Lutherans) in receiving the same Sacrament, although one and the other in a different manner; that the Cup may be given to the people for the advantage of Peace; that provided a precedency be allowed in the person of the Pope, for order and unity's sake, what farther rights he pretends unto, are only things controverted in the Schools, but do not belong unto Faith, and that that the Learned in the Gallican Church do yield unto Popes but little more Authority, than we ourselves would be willing they should allow them; that to conclude, all these other Doctrines and Practices that aggrieve us, are at best but private opinions that may be laid aside. This is it, they ordinarily discourse to us, to make us inclinable to themselves, and this is in particular the sense and Soul of the Bishop of Condoms Treatise, more openly indeed and more expressly in the Manuscript Copy, and what hath been cited of the first Edition, but yet clearly enough in the second. On the other side the, profession of Faith declares in so many words, that we must believe and receive all the traditions, all the institutions, & all the customs of the Roman Church; which doth comprise generally, all that is known, and that is not known. It saith yet more expressly, that we ought to pray unto Saints, to Worship their relics, have Images of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin, and of all the Saints, and render them the honour and the Worship due unto them, admit of Seven true Sacraments, and embrace all the Council of Trent hath said and decided touching justification (and by consequence the merit of Works, satisfactions, Purgatory, and all the Doctrine of Indulgences) believe the conversion of all the substance of the Bread into the body of Jesus Christ, and the conversion of all the substance of the Wine into his blood, which is called Transubstantiation, and that all Jesus Christ is entirely received, and the true Sacrament, under the one and the other of the two species: Lastly that we are to believe that the Church of Rome is the Mistress of all other Churches, to swear entire obedience unto the Pope of Rome and generally to receive all other things whatsoever, that are taught by the Councils and particularly by the Council of Tre●● which doth comprise generally wh●● a man will, & all that is in dispute. T●●● is what is formally required of th●●● that present themselves before the C●rate, the Bishop, or the great pe●tentiary now let all these Articles 〈◊〉 Faith be compared with the stile 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Condoms Treatise, and afterwards, Let it be maturely judged if this be one and the same Doctrine  
For our parts, being very far from aggravating the difference there is betwixt the one and the other, or from having a mind to make a greater distance betwixt us and the Church of Rome, than there is indeed, We believe that there is nothing more to be desired for the good of Christian Religion, and by little and little to bring men's Spirits mutually nearer, that that all those of the Roman Church generally, would at least accommodate themselves freely & openly unto these sort of sweetenings, that the Bishop of Condom doth; and that instead of heightening the differences that there may be between his exposition, and the Doctrine which they commonly profess, they would Write on the contrary in the same sense that he doth, and clearer and fuller yet than he hath Written; that Lastly, they would all say, at least as he doth, that this is alone the true Doctrine of the Roman Church. Religion at least would find itself discharged and freed of a great many Doctrines and practices, which do nothing, but burden consciences, & this would be, in sundry points, as one of those insensible changes, which have come into the Church; but a change for the better, and an happy beginning of Reformation, that might have much more happy consequences.   

The BULL of our mo●… Holy Lord, Lord PIU● by Divine Providence Pope the iv of tha● Name: Touching th● Form of the Oath 〈◊〉 Profession of Faith. Translated out of Latin. PIUS Bishop, Servant of the Se●vants of God, [ad perpetuam 〈◊〉 memoriam] for a perpetual record  
THE duty of our Apostolic Charge, which lies upon 〈◊〉 requires, that those things which the Lord Almighty, for the prudent guidance of his Church, has vouchsafed from Heaven, to inspire in the Holy Fathers assembled in his Name we make haste to put in execution without delay, for his praise and glory. Where● therefore according to the Order of the Council of Trent, all, whom it shall henceforth happen to be set over Cathedral or Superior Churches, or to be provided for by any dignities, or Canonries of the same, or any other whatsoever Ecclesiastical benefices having cure of Souls, are bound to make public profession of the Orthodox Faith, and to engage and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Roman Church: We willing also that the same be observed by all, whosoever shall be disposed of, in Monasteries, Convents, Religious houses, or other places whatsoever, of whatsoever Regular Orders, even of the Military ones, by whatsoever name or Title, and to this purpose, that what concerns our care may not be the least wanting to any, that a profession of one and the same faith may be uniformly exibited by all, and that one certain form of it may be known unto all, do by power Apostolic strictly enjoin and command, by the tenor of these presents, that this very form annexed to these presents be published, and that it be received and observed all the World over by those, by whom according to the decrees of the said Council it does belong, and by all other persons aforesaid; and that under the penalties by the said Council enacted against offenders in this case, the aforesaid Profession be Solemnly made, according to this and no other form, in this tenor.  
IN. Do with firm Faith believe and profess all and every things and thing which are contained in the Symbol of Faith which the Holy Roman Church useth, viz.  

Articles of Faith taken out of the Symbols of Nice and Con: stantinople.  I believe in one God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God, and brought forth of his Father before all Ages; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us men and our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary, and made man; was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried, and risen again the third day according to the Scriptures; and ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and shall come again with Glory to judge both the quick and the dead; of whose Kingdom there shall be no end: And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets: And one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the World to come. Amen.  
The Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other observations, 
Articles of Faith touching the matters in Cotroversie, which the Romish Church hath added to the Ancient  and constitutions of the same Church, I most firmly admit and embrace.  
Likewise I admit the Holy Scripture, according to that sense, which our Holy Mother the Church ever did and doth hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I receive or interpret it, but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers  
I profess also, that there are seven true and proper Sacraments of the new Law, instituted by our Lord 〈◊〉 Christ, and necessary 〈…〉 Mankind, though not 〈…〉 person; to wit, Baptism, 〈…〉, the Eucharist, Penance Extreme Unction, [Holy] Order, and Matrimony; and that they do confer grace: And of these, ●●●t Baptism, Confirmation, and Order without Sacrilege cannot be repeated.  
The received and approved rites also of the Catholic Church, in the Solemn administration of all the foresaid Sacraments I do receive and admit.  
I do embrace and receive all and every points and point touching original sin, and justification, which have been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent.  
I do in like manner profess, that there is in the Mass offered up to God a true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead. And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, after Consecration, there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that the whole Substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the Wine into his Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantion.  
I acknowledge likewise that under one kind only, all and entire Christ, and a true Sacrament is taken.  
I do constantly hold there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls there detained, are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.  
In Like manner, that the Saints reigning with Christ are to be Venerated and called upon, and that they offer up Prayers to God for us, and that their Relics are to be had in veneration.  
I do most steadfastly affirm, that the images of Christ, and of the Mother of God always a Virgin, are to be had and kept, and that due honour and veneration is to be given to them.  
That the Power of Indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian People.  
I do acknowledge that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church i● Mother and Mistress of all Churches  
I do promise and swear true obedience to the Pope of Rome, Successor of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.  
I do likewise without doubting receive and profess all other matters, that are delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons, and the Ecumenical Councils, and especially by the Council of Trent: and I do likewise together condemn, reject and Anathematise all things contrary, and all whatsoever Heresies condemned, rejected and Anathematised by the Church.  

Here they lay their hand on the Gospels  I the same N. do promise vow and swear, that as far as lies in me I will take care, that this self same true Catholic Faith, out of which no man can be saved, which at present, of my own accord, I profess and truly hold, by God's help, be most constantly held and confessed by me, whole and inviolate, to the Last breath of my Life; and that the same be held, taught, and Preached by all that are under me, or those, the care of whom shall in my charge belong to me. So God help me and these Gods Holy Gospels  
We will farther, that these present Letters be read in our Apostolic Chancery according to the accustomed manner: and, to the end they may be the more easily known unto all, that they be Registered in the Rolls thereof, and that they be Printed.  
And let no person whatsoever dare to infringe this declaration of our Will and commandment, or by bold presumption to offend against it. And if any one shall presume to attempt it, let him know that he incurs the indignation of Almighty God, and of his Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Dated at Rome at St. Peter's, the Thirteenth day of November, in the year of the incarnanation of our Lord 1564. And of our Popedom the Fift.  
Fed. Cardinal. Caesius. Cae. Glorierius.   

The Stationer hath in his hands the Attestation of Messieurs Claude, de l'Angle, Daillé, and Allix, showing that they have seen this Answer, and that they have not found any thing in it contrary to their Religion.   

AN ANSWER UNTO THE BOOK OF MONSIEUR, The Bishop of CONDOM.  
Monsieur the Bishop of Condom has too much justice to take ill the answering his Book; 
Design of this Trea, 'tice.  On the contrary he seemeth rather to invite us to the same in terms sufficiently express. 
Page 187  And besides it is well known, that defence is a natural and favourable right, especially when it concerns a thing so dear as the interest of truth and Religion ought to be.  

Page 187  He only desires, that in case a● one answer his Treatise, he would not undertake to refute the Doctrine which 〈◊〉 contains, 
Page 188  nor examine the different way that the Catholic Divines have used 〈◊〉 establish the Doctrine of the Council 〈◊〉 Trent, nor the several consequences the particular Doctors have drawn thence, 
Page 3.  being things that are not necessarily nor universally received; 
Page 189  but that 〈◊〉 would chief hold himself to three things to prove that the Faith of the Church of Rome is not faithfully laid down i● his Book, as he believes it is; or tha● he would show that this exposition doth Leave all objections in their force, and all the difficulties whole and entire; or Lastly that it be made precisely appear, wherein his Doctrine so explained doth overthrow the foundation of Faith.  
Of these three things, we will leave the first to be examined by those of his own communion, because that is more properly their business and right than ours. It belongs to them principally to consider if they would not be well contented, and if it would not be very advantageous to them to reduce their belief in all matters of Controversy, unto what is explained in that Treatise; and to Lay aside all the consequences which their other Doctors have drawn from the Council of Trent, and the means they have made use of to establish them, as things that are not necessary, and which nevertheless do clog Religion, or do at Least in part hinder a matter which is so , as the uniformity of Worship, and belief amongst Christians should be.  
We will content ourselves to observe by the Way, several places where the Bishop of Condom uses an Art, that is distant not only from the Common belief of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, and of the general practice of all the people of his Communion, but also from the terms, and the Doctrine itself of the very Council, to the end it may be discerned, wherein consist the sweetenings that the Bishop of Condom doth use, and in what he comes near us  
But we will throughout perform the two other principal things, whic● the Bishop of Condom proposes, whic● are to show, that in reality his exposition doth Leave all objections 〈◊〉 their force, and all important dispute entire, and that his Doctrine, whatever Art he uses, or whatsoever mitigation he seemeth to use therein doth all along equally overthrow th● foundations of true Christianity.  
We will perform both the one an● the other of these two things, in plain manner, according to the B●shop of Condoms desire, without it gageing very far in a new dispute, an● it shall be done not only with th● moderation, which he himself give us a commendable example of, b● with all the respect, which we aught to have for a person of so great me● as his.  
We will only reserve the Liberty which the interest of the cause, an● the right of defence do necessarily require, so as to say of a thing, that i● is not true, when it is not; or of a● argument it is not right, or that it i● captious, when it is such indeed; because otherwise it would not be possible to make known the truth without weakening of it.  
We will then here examine with the greatest clearness and brevity that may be, and in the same order which the Bishop of Condom would have observed, the several Articles of his Treatise, whereof he maketh so many Sections; and to the end that those who give themselves the trouble of Reading this answer, may find where to stop, it shall be divided into Six parts, though unequal, according as matters have more or less extent. The First shall treat concerning the design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, and touching two general propositions (and as it were preliminaries) which the Bishop of Condom Lays down; 
Page 5  the one that we are agreed, that the Church of Rome doth believe, 
Page 12  and embrace all the fundamental points of the Christian Religion; the other, that all the Religious Worship, which she gives unto Saints, Images, or Relics, doth terminate in God only. The Second part shall treat of the worship of Saints Images, and Relics; The Third of the matter of Justification, with all its consequences, the merit of works, Satisfactions, purgatory, and Indulgences. The Fourth of the Sacraments in general, and particularly of the Sacraments of Baptism, of Confirmation, of Penance, of Sacramental Confession, of extreme unction, of Marriage, and of Order. The Fifth of the Sacrament, of the Eucharist in particular. The Sixth and Last, of Tradition, of the authority of the Church, of the authority of the Pope, and of Episcopacy.  

The First Part, 
1. The design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise Page 1 2 4. and 4.   
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 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 Catholic Doctrine, in opposition unto ours, lays hold on, for a foundation, a Council which is well known not to be acknowledged Catholic or Ecumenical, a Council, which, above all other Councils, is such wherein, according to their own Catholic Authors, there appeared visibly most of intrigue, and of human interests, a Council, of which our France itself doth not receive all the decisions, in matters of discipline and Government, a Council to conclude, whose decrees do to this day want explication.  
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 practices 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 controversy 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 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 practices, 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 Relics, the Sovereignty 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 only 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 Worships Universally received: it behoved him therefore properly, either to submit unto our reasons, or to show better; and not put us of only 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 Pastors 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 expressly forbids all sorts of persons, of what order, or dignity soever they are in the Church, the Pope only 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 only to rest upon the proper terms of the Council, or at farthest of the Pope, who hath reserved unto himself the explication: and that in the mean time, they will abate nothing of the decrees of the same Council, nor of the opinions received in the Chairs and Universities, nor of the general practice, what abuse soever be pretended in it.  
However it be, We may observe as we pass, that the Bishop of Condom doth here silently acknowledge, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, all cleared and all decided 〈◊〉 it was by the Council of Trent, is 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 himself will speak plainer on these doubtful points, if he will not contain himself still in general terms, or if he will not wholly 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 examine them, and it will not be easy to form an unanimous sense. They add, it belongs to the Council to determine that by their decrees; but in these very decrees there are things very ambiguous, and that may receive a double, and a triple sense; the Bishop of Condom doth present us an exposition which he saith is faithful. In good time: but another Prelate, or a Doctor of Sorbon, will say that the Bishop of Condom is not sufficiently authorised for that, or that he hath need himself to be explained, and in the mean while, those who are afraid of offending God, by a Religious observance of anything which is not God, and who desire nothing but to Worship the true God purely, according to his Word, shall abide as it were suspended betwixt all these uncertainties, and shall not be able to yield any acquiescency unto these Lively beams, where with this Divine Word hath replenished their Souls. This is, what the design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise would Led us unto; But let us proceed unto the Treatise itself, and let us see if this exposition, such as it is, will produce the two effects it promises, which are to cause all disputes to vanish, or, to reduce them 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 Catholic Church do believe all the fundamental Articles of Chri, stian Reli, gion.  The Bishop of Condom gins wit● this general proposition, that those 〈◊〉 the Pretended reformed Religion 〈◊〉 avow that the Catholic 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 Catholic Chur● the Bishop of Condom intends the R●mish Church. It is an usage, whic● the Gentlemen of the Romish Church very much more affect of Late, th●● they have been accustomed, namely, it seems, to cover themselves with more authentic 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 Catholic Church 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● 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 Catholic is in question, one party doth claim it for himself in prejudice of all others. These Gentlemen do herein, like Princes, who always retain the Title of countries', which they once possessed, although they have Lost those countries' several Ages past.  
It is true, that we ourselves do some time give them the name of Roman Catholics, or this simply of Catholics, as well therein to accommodate ourselves to the stream of the general use, as for the advantage of peace, being to Live amongst them: according as also for these very considerations, we give them the name of Fathers, of Bishops, of Prelates, and others the Titles which they give unto themselves, although the right by which they pretend to take them, be yet in question: and it may be the Word Catholic 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 Catholic 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 truly Catholic and universal, which we profess in the Apostles Creed, which is the body 〈◊〉 the Elect of all Ages, not only 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 allege: 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 only by the consequences which we draw from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as the Bishop of Condom avers, only because it pleaseth him so to do, 
P. 8  but directly by the Doctrine itself, which she teacheth, and openly practices.  
It is true that the Church of Rome doth teach, that we ought to Worship one only 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 only: not to speak 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; She knelt 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 Abridgement 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 itself 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 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 Relics, of the Cross, and of Images, especially in the excess, and inevitable abuse which follows, however the matter is sweetened in disputation, is a degree of a Religious confidence in the creature, which thereby doth become sharer in what we own 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 be useless in this part of the question where it sufficeth to intimate, that we do so believe: what follows will show the reasons which we have to believe so.  

p. 9 a. 1  The 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-catholics, 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 Doctrine. 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 Doctrine, and which are followed by a sort of Worship 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 not venom in it, which is notwithstanding a natural expression, and proper to the Subject, for it imports nothing else, but what is said b●fore, that the Lutherans denying the consequences of their Doctrine, and believing the humanity of Jesus Christ, as it is certain they do, their error touching the Eucharist, 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 only by consequences, but by a positive Doctrine, and by a constant practice, as we pretend, whatsoever she saith, that she doth not sufficiently acknowledge the Sovereignty, which is due unto God, nor the quality of Saviour and Mediator in our Lord Jesus Christ, nor the superabundant fullness of his merits; because it appears plainly unto us, that she gives unto the creature, the Worship which is only 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 relics, to Images, and unto the Cross, etc. these are not consequences contested, but positive Doctrine 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 shows 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 etc. terminates itself in God only Mat. 4.10.  that the Church of Rome doth teach, that all Religion's worship ought to terminate itself on God. We say more simply, and more naturally, that all Religious Worship ought to address itself 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 Doctrine of the Old and New Testaments doth tend: there cannot be showed in those Holy Originals, neither Commandment nor example to the contrary. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, an● him only shalt thou serve, said our Saviour to the Devil that tempted him  
If Religion were only 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, superstition, 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 itself to, or terminate itself on God: the people will everlastingly terminate it on the Saints, on their relics, and on their Images; because the same reason, which causeth that grosser minds cannot form to themselves any Idea of an Infinie and in 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 only know imperfectly. They will have, as the Jews had, Gods to march before them and at all times, when Relics 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 only at the saints themselves, but at their Images and Relics.   

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 gins with the Invocation of Saints, endeavouring also to sweeten and extenuate this worship of the Church of Rome, as well in the Doctrine as in the practice, and only studies colourable means to insinuate his Doctrine, in stead of following the natural order of things & of the Doctrine itself, 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 endeavours to surprise men's 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 Relics, 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 acknowledgement 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, etc.  Blonde●, Chamier, Bochard, in a word all those who have treated throughly of this Subject, have agreed upon the time in which Praying unto Saints, begun to be introduced. This trick of expression from the Bishop of Condom, is only 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 public service of the Church: nor is it true, that it was authorised by any Council.  
Only 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 mark in any of the authors of the fi●●● three Ages, which are extant in sufficiently great numbers.  
Mr. D●ille doth not accuse any the Fathers, much less St. Augusti●● to have changed the Doctrine 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 complain of this, that they suffered them insensibly to be brought in upon bad principles, and doth accuse them of hauling 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 error, 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 departure out of this Life, shall sleep until th● day of Judgement, and Generally al● those that have followed or do ye● follow any one of these errors 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 Doctrine: 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 show, 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 of them which shows 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 authorize 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 showing the time when these examples appeared, who see● not that this might be referred unto the time immediately going before in the same Age, and would conclude nothing for the three first, if nothing were ●o be found in those Ages? Howsoever i● be, we believe shall we be abl● to ●a●e appear, that never any author of the Fourth Age, hath alleged any text of the three former, th● 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 Author's next to the Apostles Age; seeking vain sleights and evasions upon this matter.  
Perez a Spanish Bishop, 
Os Tradi. pa 197●  more sincere, goeth farther, confessing that he found not that any Prayed 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 makes 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 Mr. Daille had better understood the opinion of the Fathers of the three first Ages, than 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 alleged, which those of the fourth Age have understood i● one sense, and Mr. Daille in another.  
The only business is to know, i● there be any thing in those writings which showeth 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 imagines, 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 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 ancient things, be one day joined 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 afric: Printing not being then in use, there was not the same facility to see all the Manuscripts of Foreign parts. The Fathers had each their proper Lights, and peculiar study of some of the writings of the preceding ages, and of their own: at this day, those, who have the time, Wisdom, Judgement, and the knowledge of tongues which are necessary for the well understanding the Fathers may collect not only all the Father's works of the three first Ages, but also the several Lights of the Fourth, and also join unto those Lights, those of all the following ages unto that wherein we Live: day unto day uttereth Speech, & right unto night showeth 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 itself 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 errors 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 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 manner, 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 departed from our Lord Jesus Christ. Afterwards he adds that the Church doth not offer unto God 〈◊〉 Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the honour 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 secret ●●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 means, which God make use of in imparting this knowledge un●● the Saints, whether he doth it by the Ministry of Angels, or by a particular 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● 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 ourselves almost throughout, to set forth simply our belief 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. Only, after 〈◊〉 ●●ample, we will touch some reasons, upon which we ground ourselves, 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 only for the Glory of God, but that it is his will also, as he hath told us in his word, that we should worship but one God, that we should serve none but God with a religious worship, that we should have recourse unto none but God only in our necessities; that we should call upon none but God in our Prayers, and that invocation, according to the very word is a spiritual sacrifice, which makes up the chiefest part of the worship due unto God only. We believe that this is the true meaning of the Commandments of the Law, and of all the Doctrine 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 died in his favour, we say that we should honour their memories, praise their faith, their zeal, their charity, and all other their Christian virtues, and propose them for example, and imitation unto the faithful. This is properly our beliefs and we are persuaded that those who will consider it with a free and equal mind, will not only find it safe, and right, but also pure and disengaged from abuse, from difficulties, and uncertainties, which accompany that of the Bishop of Condom.  
We will begin to examine 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 show what that Faith can be, that hath no surer foundation? Is it not a new circuit, if our vows and our Prayers must pass from us unto Angels, from Angels to Saints, and from Saints to God? and is it not yet a new difficulty, if we must suppose that Angels themselves know our thoughts and our desire's? For although they are Mi●string Spirits as the Bishop of Cond●● alleges, 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 only belongs to an inanite essence. 
Heb, i 14 Jerem. 17 6 & 10. Amos 5 7.  There is also this difference 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 Imagine, that the Saints see all things in th● 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 Lest they do know them; For if we have only probabilities and conjectures for it, this is not sufficient to establish a Religious Worship, such as that is, nor praying unto the Saints with confidence. In the mean while the Church of Rome doth agree, that the Saints do not know our desires and our wants by their own nature: it were very needful therefore that their should be some very express revelation, that might at Least inform us that they do know them, though we were ignorant of the means: but 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 show that there can be no assurance 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 itself 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 die in th● Lord, yet the judgement of charit● is not sufficient to establish such worship as this is.  
The Council, nor the Bishop o● 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 examine 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 Doctrines 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 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 gins 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 Doctrine are able to find one single passage it all the Scripture of the Old and new Testament, which says that God wills the invocation of Saints: nay (what is far from that) we do allege 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 practice through scorn or error.  
This doth manifestly enough declare, that those which are already in the Roman Communion, might very well abstain from all Invocation of the Saints, doing it with good intention; as for example, not to Pray but unto God alone, or not believe the invocation of Saints, to be absolutely necessary; provided they do not despise, nor condemn it: that is to say, that the Bishops are obliged to Preach the Invocation of Saints, as the Council doth very expressly 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 Doctrine, and a Communion very extraordinary, if it be true, that some may practise a Religious Worship, and others may refuse it. This doth sufficiently make evident, that our belief and our practice 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 God's 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 Rome, may well fear the jealousy 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 persuaded that God alone should be invoked, are in as much safety at Least as those, who are in the Roman Communion, who have their Liberty to forbear it; for it is a much less fault in Religion not to do a thing when one thinks it not to be good, than not to do it when one believes it to be good and useful.  
But on the other side, how shall we reconcile the expressions of the Council of Trent and of the Bishop of Condom, either with the profession of Faith, which the Roman Catechism doth prescribe by authority of the said Council, or with the opinions of the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church and with the general practice of all those of their Communion? For the profession of Faith doth say in express terms, not that it is good and useful to pray unto the Saints, but purely and simply, that we ought to Pray unto the Answ. Answ. to the repl. of the King of Great Britain Page 872 Saints, pronouncing Anathema against all those which do not receive this Doctrine. And the Cardinal Du Peron of whom every one knows how his judgement is followed in the Roman Church, saith in express Terms, that the invocation of Saints is not only 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. etc.  to teach above all things that the Saints who Reign with our Lord Jesus Christ do pray for us, and that it is good and useful, to render unto them a Religious honour, and to fly unto their aid, and succour is not this to say that we ought to do it?  
But if any amongst them would forbear in this matter, either because they do not think it absolutely necessary, or because they will not address their Prayers unto any but God himself, how can they assist at all the public 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 sweetning 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 join with them, we should not pray unto the Saints if we pleased: but when once men are engaged, we call to witness those who desert us, if they do not oblige them to swear amongst other things, that men ought to pray unto Saints, as it is contained in the profession of Faith made by 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 Brothers 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 certain knowledge that the Saints understand 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 more than human rendered 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 Catholic 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 employ and often fix heart and thoughts on men, is not this to divert them for that time from their. true object, which is God.  
The Church of Rome thinks to excuse this Worship by the difference which she pretends to put betwixt the Prayer she makes unto God, and that she makes unto Saints; but it is all along Prayer: and according to us, Religious Prayer, what ever the matter or end may be, is always a part of that Worship and honour which we own God only. An● moreover, it is not true, that they only Pray unto the Saints to pray fo● them. They of the Roman Church 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 Shipwreck, 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 etc. Domina mundi, cum filio tuo sanctissimo miserere nobis.  and that which they would have to make the difference betwixt God and the Saints. And what is very remarkable, it is not particular persons that make these sorts of requests by a missled Devotion; the● are public and solemn Prayers, inserted in the Offices and rituals 〈◊〉 they speak, authorised by the Roman Church, and generally practise● 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 only to intercede for us, and to obtain of God all those good things, which they beseech.  
But what then is it, that the Bishop of Condom doth here understand by the Church, if it be not the body of all those who make it up, which are the same persons who make these Prayers; of whom it was said, that they reduce the sense of Prayer to the Saints, to Pray the Saints to intercede for us? Is not this to apply the name of Church unto all things, as if it were a remedy for all diseases? The people demand of the Saints all good things Temporal and Spiritual; these people do make up the Church: and they tell us that the intention of the Church doth reduce their demands unto a simple request of Prayer; that is, that the people do say in Prayer another thing than they would, and that the intention doth here explain the words, whereas otherwise it is the words that are the Interpreters of the intentions.  
Besides, wherefore are they no● willing, that God should be jealous 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 thereby understand the Council of Trent, o● the sense of the Roman Church in General, 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 intention of the Council, or of t● Church in General: and the int●●tion of those who Pray, doth 〈◊〉 only not go beyond what is here supposed but it is impossible it should be otherwise. The nature of man is such, that not only it inclines, but also doth evermore fix itself 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 gross and proportioned to its weakness this object shall be, the better will humane Nature accommodate itself thereto.  
It is the constant default of the Roman Communion, that they make not sufficient reflection, 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 only might temperate himself unto the dulness of people, and of the Jews in particular. These poor people had nothing dearer unto them than their flocks, the fruits 〈◊〉 their lands, and the commodities o● this Life: God required of them sacrifices of their flocks and offerings o● their fruits, as the most assured pledge 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 join 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● entirely, 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 Gospels' strange to their reason, they easily return ●n●o their gross and carnal sense if ever the least occasion be give● 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 showed how she addresseth unto Saints Prayers altogether like to those which she addresseth unto God; it is seen how she Consecrates Temples, Altars, Hosts, Holy days, Monasteries, and Religious societies in their names; how they put persons, families, cities, & whole Kingdoms under their protection, how they offer incense unto them as unto God himself etc. In some s●t they go farther, they join 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 myself 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 threatening of the indignation of God, and St Peter and St. Paul, joining the Apostles with God for companions of h●●n●●●.  
If there appear any difference betwixt the Worship which is given to God, and that which is given to Saints it is this, that in truth there is much more of these outward things done to the Saints, than there is to God; for one Prayer addressed to God, how many are there addressed unto Saints, and particularly to the Virgin, whether it be in the offices and Rituals, or when they say their beads which is as it were the measure of the People's 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 only 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 Church's Consecrated unto the names of Saints, and those which bear the name of God or of any of the persons of the Holy Trinity: For example, betwixt our Lady's, and St. Eustace's, on the one side, and St. Saviour's, and the Holy Ghosts, 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 only here mentioned, to prove what hath been said of the natural inclination of people, who turn their hearts, their devotion, and their dependence itself ever towards the Creatures, when they make them the object of their Religion. You may, as long as you please, distinguish betwixt a mediate and an immediate object or Worship, an adoration or invocation relative or subalternate, and absolute or final; Say, you make a difference betwixt the Prayers unto Saints, and those which are made to God, endeavour to reduce thoughts and expressions by the intention of the Church, or the Council of Trent, or by some sweetning of expressions: men shall be judged by their own proper intentions, and not by those of the Council; and not only by their intentions, but if they must render an account for every idle word, by greater reason, of Vows, of Incense, of Bowing the Knee and Prayers, or of words of Devotion, which they shall have addressed to others besides God; and these very words shall be taken according to their natural sense, and not according to a strange or forced interpretation.  
The Bishop of Condom cannot conceive, how reducing the Invocation of Saints to nothing, but to demand thei● aid for obtaining benefits of Go● through his Son Jesus Christ, who i● our only 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 subtlety 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 embrace, and closely hold him by a true and lively Faith.  
Let the Gentlemen of the Roman Church make here a sincere & serious reflection. Our Religion goes strait 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 sweetening, 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 mere 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 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 these kinds of seeming sweetenings, which are only in some terms, or in matters of small consequence, do not at all satisfy a man, and only raise new doubts in stead of resolving the old.  
The Bishop of Condom passes from the Invocation of Saints, 
V Of Images and Relics.  to the particular Worship of Images and Relics; 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 testify 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 testify the inward sentiments, why will they have us to judge of the exterior by the interior, whereas it is of the interior that we should judge by the exterior? Or wherefore should it be, that the exterior answers so ill to the interior, 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 ignorant amongst us, who are not accustomed unto these refinings of intention, 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 Worship which is given to Saints, to their Images, and their Relics, so li● the honour that is to be given to Go● himself, without taking this Worsh●● 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 itself; It is no longer to serve them, as yet the very terms of the Council of Trent run, but only to honour them. And it is true, this is, in appearance, a step towards a reformation, and a sign, that men of wisdom 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 Emperor 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, etc. Remissiones. Vetustissimum esse in Ecclesia Dei. & a sanctis Patribas comprobatum, usum sanctorum Imaginum earum denique adoratio pluribus testimoniis comprobatur, &c Tho. p. 3 q. 25. Art. 4. Bonav. Cajet. etc. 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 itself, pretend that it is an ancient and approved usage, to have Images, and to worship them (these are the very words) and they authorize this practice by the judgement 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 Doctors 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 Relics; 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 of the Image: which doth show nevertheless, that the Image is honoured in itself, 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 only a Doctrine merely 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 showed, he hath expressly 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 only found accompanied with threaten, unto children's Children of them who shall make Images, or serve them: as if God foreseeing the narural inclination of men, carrying them to this Worship, would more particularly make them know his Jealousy, and hold back this tendency or inclination by the terror of his Judgements.  
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 qualify, if it may be so said, the express Commandments of God, which not only 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 says elsewhere, 
Pag. 80.  upon the words of the institution of the Lords Supper, that himself, and those of his Communion, 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 Highway; and that it is those that have recourse unto a figurative sense, and who follow crooked ways, that should give an account 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 ways of speaking are mystical; and as the word itself 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 he forsakes this Highway 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 only 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 dwelled 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 only but by reason, that the Superstition of the people went much farther, than the Opinions & Maxims of their Philosophers, or of their Priests and Archpriests.  
The Pagans believed, that their Gods came sometimes upon earth, 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, whilst she was in the Grecian Army, conducting the Chariot of Diomedes, and fight against the Trojans themselves.  

Arnob. adver. Gent. li. 6. Maxim. Tyr. Serm. 38. Exod. 32.4, 5.  The Pagans believed only 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 only at some times, give some extraordinary marks 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 Brazen 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 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 Brazen 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 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 Councils and to conclude, 
Memorias frequentari.  all those affects Devotions, which are tied more t● one place than another.  
This is what hath been already 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 only to stir up the remembrance of the Originals: That 〈◊〉 not the question, whether it must b● believed or not believed that there 〈◊〉 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 only fix their confidence upon Images: but the experience of all Ages doth manifestly show, that it is impossible but that they should naturally incline thereto.  
A public 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 excessive 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 Foreign 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 people's sight, but only to transport it into the adjacent Chapel: and it seemeth they much less dare take away the others, because it is known that the hearts of the people are fastened 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 only authorize 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 Divinity, there is to be seen in sundr● places in the Churches, Images s● up, not only 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 expressly 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, etc. against the prohibition of the Law so often repeated; and i● fine, against the Judgement of th● second Council of Nice itself; and 〈◊〉 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 strange of all, is, that this usage is not only established by the general practice of the Roman Church, but also maintained expressly by the Catechism of the Roman Church, which was made by the order and authority of the Council.  
The only thing that the same Catechism doth allege, to authorize, 
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 brazen Serpent should be lifted up before the people. True; but you say it yourselves, 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 mere ornament for the propitiatory, and were only in the most Holy Place, where none entered but only the High Priest once a year; and the brazen Serpent was only 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 brazen Serpent, they did not worship them at all. Ezekias broke the brazen Serpent, as soon as he saw that the people offered incense unto it; and the Scripture doth expressly 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● only 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: 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 only 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 lays 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 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 administered 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 form 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 blood, 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 encumbered, 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 only for the people (as the Council doth intimate) and the people almost always abusing them (as the most sincere persons do confess) the Images, therefore, are properly only for those who abuse them.  
As to what concerns Relics, it will only 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 objects 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 Relics of Saints, than in that of Images.  
What we have in particular, touching Relics, 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 Relics have no virtue, nor that we ought not to place confidence in them, as they all do say of Images. 
Ibid. de havoc. Sanct. etc. de cultu Sanct.  On the contrary, the Council teacheth, that God confers very great graces by means of Relics; 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 Relics, above that of Images, for the virtue which they would have believed to be in Relics: And on the other hand, themselves, in some measure overthrow, the principal reason, which they allege to justify the Worship of Images, which is, that they believe there is no virtue in them.  
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 Relics. And here is the second thing, which is to be observed, touching Relics 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 own 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 necessary, the Church may extend more or less these exterior practices, according to the diversity of times and places, not desiring that her children should be servilely subject unto visible things.  
All the World may see, how this discourse is turned and sweetened, 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 only 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 Relics, that they should carry them with them, as preservatives against danger of Fire, of Shipwreck, 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 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 only.  
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 Relics; 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 covetousness Idolatry; & we every day say, that men do idolise what they love, when they love it to excess. It is the same thing, in a 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 only 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 Relics, 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 entire, 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 Church of Rome may use some moderation in the outward signs of this Worship, whilst 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 Doctors of his Communion, we can look neither upon the one nor the other but only as humane inventions. And to conclude, these very sweetenings 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, etc. 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 itself the Doctrine of the merit of works, the necessity of satisfying God's Justice in this life, or endureing the fire of Purgatory after death, to complete 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 men, but Purgatory, or Hell.  
In this state of the Church, the Pope opens the Treasures of his Indulgencies, distributes his Agnus', his Beads, and Relics, 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 only justified themselves, but helped to justify others, delivering souls out of Purgatory, and acquiring for them a greater degree of blessedness, or an augmentation of glory, as the Council 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 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 itself 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 scandalising of true Christians.  
Those who only consider the controversy 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 judgement of those, who are well informed amongst us, that as to the contrary, we should not stick here 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 itself to the contrary upon this point, as 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 find any ease, but that we shall be continually tossed with inquietude.  
The Council of Trent itself acknowledged the importance of this Controversy; 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 anathemas, much greater upon this point, than upon any other.  
In sum, it may be said, that it is not only a principal point, but it is one of them which are most such. The others, for the most part, do only regard some part of Religion: Error doth corrupt but that part, and doth not influence the others, if we may so speak. The worshipping the Host, for example, is, without doubt, one of the most essential points, in which it is impossible to find any mean, because the question is, whether it ought to be worshipped or not worshipped, which is the first and greatest Act of Religion: Nevertheless, this is but a particular point; a capital error 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 error to error, 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 died 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 itself, 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 only of pure Grace and by the alone merit of the death of J●sus Christ, that God doth forgive us our sins, and give us everlasting Life. Lastly, we 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 sum 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 error, as to some of these Doctrines, without derogation from the Glory of God, or prejudicing the rule of our conduct: as, touching 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 only cause of our Justification, namely, the Blood 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 embrace the merits of his Death, as it is the Foundation of the love and regard which we own 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 only Author 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.  
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, only touching what they add unto that which we believe. They confess, as we, that God is the only Author 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 entirely 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 Blood. He saith also, that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed unto us, which is an expression we ordinarily keep ourselves 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 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 join 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 it in some sort, from all the vain speculations, not only of the Schoolmen, but also of the Council itself, 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 anathemas 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 Doctors, which the Bishop of Condom would with good reason have laid aside: the Council thereby making Articles of Faith, of all those subtleties in Canonising them, and by this means putting an invincible obstacle unto a reunion, by the great number of anathemas which it thunders generally against all those, 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 blood of his Son. In the following Sections it will appear, that these sins are not so forgiven, nor so blotted out, but that we are bound necessarily to satisfy ourselves 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 blood 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 ourselves 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 only 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 reflection made thereon, that as to the Foundation, this difference is very great, as well upon the points of their Doctrine in this very matter, as upon all the other points that proceed from it.  
In the first place, he busies himself more or less, touching the sincerity and purity of thoughts which we ought to have, not only 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 only without ourselves, as when he is found of them which seek him not, but also often maugre ourselves as when he doth touch the hearts of; those which persecute his Church, which in effect is, what the Christian Religion hath, more noble, most essential, and most admirable. We have nothing upon this point, but to compare our Sentiments with those of the Church of Rome, to see which are most conformable unto this fair Idea of the great mercy of God, which makes him to extend his benefits and compassions even unto those very persons who resist him.  
1. We attribute all unto God, in the Work of our Salvation, without desiring to take any thing unto ourselves; and albeit this very thing were true, that we could pretend unto any small part, yet upon the whole, the error may not be criminal. It may, on the contrary, be esteemed profound humility, and an acknowledgement 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 ourselves, 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 entire confidence which he ought to have in the blood 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 engage 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 engage them to the same Duty, but it diminisheth much herein, by supposing that they are something beholding unto their own natural strength: and besides this, it mingles with this duty, motives of Hope of good, and fear of evil, which in their nature would not be amiss, were it as easy, 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 only or the principal thing, which is alleged against us upon this Article of Justification, is, that they pretend that our Doctrine referring, as it doth, our Salvation wholly to the mercy of God, and to the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is imputed unto us, it seems to put men at liberty, or at least under a relaxation from good Works; as if they had nothing to do on their part, or that it ought to be indifferent unto them, whether they did good or evil.  
But we have already prevented this Objection, by giving to understand, that being very far from making the mercy of God an occasion of sin, and negligence, we say with David, that there is mercy with God, that he may be feared.  
And besides, though there be but too much of vice and sin in us, as we do not presume that our manners are better than those of Roman Catholics; we can say, for the defence of our Doctrine, that it cannot be seen that we are much more wicked or extravagant than they, whether the people or Clergy be regarded.  
We, on our side, do yet oppose unto the Gentlemen of the Roman Church, that their Belief doth produce two infallible evil effects; it casts some into a presumption of their own merits, from whence proceed Vows, Abstinences, Macerations, and other the like practices, which we believe superstitious, and contrary to the Word of God; and it precipitates others into despair, by the resentment they have of their own weakness, from whence proceeds their recourse unto Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, and all those other Doctrines and Practices; which we believe to be contrary unto true piety.  
It may therefore be seen by the bare comparing of our Doctrine with that of the Church of Rome, which of the two doth most tend unto the glory of God, and to form the most pure and disinteressed thoughts in our hearts; and if in the end, the difference which there is betwixt the one and the other, doth not induce any very considerable change in Religion, this will yet farther appear, in examining other Doctrines, which in some sort, depend upon Justification.  
The first, 
VII. The merit of Works.  in the Bishop of Condom's order is the merit of Works, upon which we confess sincerely, that the Bishop of Condom, and those of the Roman Church, who discover the purest sentiments of Free Grace, speak almost every where as we do. We agree with them in the principal, which is, that good Works are not only well pleasing unto God, but necessary to Salvation: Nor do we deny, either one or the other, that God doth crown his gifts and his graces, and that, according to his promises, he doth freely reward those who serve him. In sum, it would seem, that this Doctrine were sufficient to entertain in our hearts the true love of Righteousness, and hatred of Sin; and here it is properly, that the dispute is only touching words. This term of merit, 
Mereri.  which hath been introduced only 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 blood 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 descent, but that these sorts of expressions of merit, may very well be waved, and that ours are more humble and more 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 only, to serve none but him, to obey our Superiors, and lastly, to love God with all our hearts, and our Neighbour as ourselves, which is the sum 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 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 Penance, believe they satisfy, 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 destined 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 entirely vitiate all that is good, in that of Justification, and of good Works. One would say, that it were another Gospel, a Discourse merely 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 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 entire 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 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 only 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 paid the price of our ransom; there is nothing wanting of this payment, his justice is imputed unto us, our sins are blotted out by his blood. 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 ourselves for our sins.  
The Bishop of Condom would salve this contradiction, by saying, as he doth, that these pains which God reserves, are only to keep us in our duty, within the hands of Justice, as he speaks, and not to satisfy for our sins: 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, etc. and that if we yet object to them, that they believe they shall be able to satisfy 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 Condoms, that he seems to do 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 encumbered, because it cannot be any thing but Faith only, 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 Works done by us, or that any pain that we suffer, can be the application of the obedience, which Jesus Christ rendered unto his Father, and of the pains 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 satisfy, as they just now said more expressly, 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 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. Penal.   
The Council speaking of Works, and of Penances (the things here in question) doth not only 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 expressly, that these pennances wh●●● the Church of Rome doth impose, are not only 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 terms, that the Curates have always this maxim 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 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 subtlety 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 only puts a value upon ours: The Bishop of Condom therefore ought either to make all those of his communion to relinquish this Doctrine of the Council, which is the common and constant Doctrine of their Church, or to come to an accord, that even by his own judgement, we have right to charge them with the two things that have been touched; The one, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome doth contradict itself; and the other, that they believe to satisfy at least in part, for their sins, & 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 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 only 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, 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 pains 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 pains, 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 shows unto those who have sinned before Baptism, and another which he shows 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 only ground, and sole authority that they give us, for so considerable a Doctrine as is that of Satisfactions; that is to say, an argument merely 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 ourselves discipline, as they speak, or to torment ourselves, and attempt in some sort upon our own lives.  
As to us, who have only the will and Word of God for the rule of our manners and actions, as well as of our Faith, we are persuaded 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: Whip and Macerations, an imitation of the Priest of Baal, and of those of Cybele, which whipped themselves, and tore their skin, even till the blood 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. Nau. l. 3. come. de Jub. & Ind. De purgatorio apud priscos illos nulla vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio, etc. Nulla, de purgatorio cura, etc. 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, etc.   
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 complete it. There is no tract of Purgatory to be found in the Scripture, whether of the Old or New Testament, without forced interpretations and consequences, whereof our Doctors have sufficiently showed 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 only 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 itself, had several Errors 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 Judgement. 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; 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 purify 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 only an imitation of that of the Pagans, and that even Pope Gregory himself, who is the first that put this Doctrine in credit, speaks in the same sense, and the same terms as Virgil, saying, that the souls are purged, some in the Fire, others fanned in the Air, others washed and cleansed in Rivers and in Ice; and lastly, others in Baths and Stoves; but we only design to touch things here as in pass.  

Indulgences.  If the Doctrine of Satisfactions and of Purgatory be evil, that of Indulgences doth fall of itself, 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 public penitents, and the pardons which Popes give, as well for the dead, as for the living; and we have showed 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 knows 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 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 itself 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 Centre 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 show, 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 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 FOURTH 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 pains to read this Answer, will be better employed upon the matter of the Eucharist, and upon the other articles, which concern Tradition, and the authority of the Pope, which are more important, and upon which we have most controversy.  
In the first place, as to the name of Sacraments, 
Greg. in cap. 16. ●ib. Reg. Tertul. de praesc. etc. Lib. 10, & 50. Tra. 80. 〈◊〉 Joan. Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum.  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 signify 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 joined, as he saith elsewhere, unto the matter of the outward Elements. In the first sense, they may if they please, make not only seven Sacraments, 
Pierre de Damien Ser. 69. pa. 168.  but twelve if they will, as a Catholic Doctor did before the Council. The Bishop of Condom doth in some sort accommodate himself unto this general sense, 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 expressly 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 Penance, and Order, which are three of these seven Sacraments, there is nothing of a visible sign, unto which the blessing can be joined, as there ought to be, to make true Sacraments, according to the Doctrine of St. Augustine.  
As to their Efficacy, we agree with the Gentlemen of the Roman Church, and with the Bishop of Condom in particular, in that we acknowledge, as they do, that the Sacraments are not only signs, or seals 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 itself.  
And as for us, we believe in truth, that God doth accompany the Sacraments with his power, and that they confer grace, when they are received with Faith; but not that they do confer it of themselves; or by the words which are pronounced, and by the outward action done upon us, if they be not received with a true Faith.  
The Church of Rome doth believe, that this virtue is, as it were, inherent, or affixed to the Sacrament, and to the outward action which is in it performed, though neither the Council, nor the Bishop of Condom believed themselves bound to explain, whether it be a Moral, or Physical virtue; so that according to their Doctrine, this iis not necessary itself 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 only that we partake of these graces, God not affixing his power (merely) unto visible things, 
Pa. 154  as the Bishop of Condom himself confesseth in another place.  
We reject the Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point, with so much the more reason, for that besides that it is very evil in itself, there may be observed several considerable abuses which proceed from it.  
1. First, This Doctrine is very evil in itself, in that it doth tie 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 sanctify them, without ever troubling themselves so much as to bring any good disposition with them, which is a Doctrine, whereof the bare Exposition doth disgust those, who are not accustomed unto it.  
From whence also proceeds, that in the Roman Church, they make the greatest part of devotion and piety, to consist in causing to be said a great number of Masses, and of going often to confession, as they speak; because they are taught, that the action of the Priest, and the words which he pronounces, have the virtue to confer grace, provided only 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 show hereafter.  
4. From thence also is plainly come the Opinion of the necessity of giving the Eucharist unto Infants, which is an Error that reigned a long time in the Church; and this other Error of the necessity of Baptism, which yet doth reign 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 employed the matter of the Sacraments for Charms, and for other most mischievous uses.  
6. To conclude, the Council makes this Opinion a principle to establish thereby many others, which we reject, and which together do corrupt very much the purity of Christianity.  
So that it is evident, that this matter of the Sacraments in general, which at the first sight appeared not very considerable, ceaseth not nevertheless to be of great importance, by reason of the consectaries which it draws after it; for that this is the nature of Error to be fruitful in productions.  
It were much to be desired, that for an entire 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 Cheats do pretend to give the Sacraments of Baptism, and of the Eucharist, of Penance, and of Absolution, etc. 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, do they not clearly show, that the Doctrine itself is very evil? The Bishop of Condom not saying any thing unto these controverted matters, would be content, that here, and elsewhere, where he deals 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 Baptism, 
Baptism.  unto that of the necessity of this Sacrament for Infants, and indeed that is the chiefest. All that he says herein, consists in three things, upon which it may be said at first sight, that this haply is one of those places of his Treatise, wherein he doth most of all swerve from his natural equity. In the first place, he condemns those poor small creatures in terms more formal and severe, than the Council itself 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 only pronouncing of this sentence against the Infants of Believers, causes a kind of horror, 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 horror and pity, which such condemnation itself excites in our spirits, being natural and reasonable, it is a sign there is no condemnation. You condemn them, because they cannot supply the want of Baptism, by acts of Faith, as do the adult persons, whom you save without Baptism: but it is for that very reason, that you ought not to condemn them. The Roman Church is well contented, that the Faith of Godfathers, and Godmothers, and of the Church, should supply the want of Faith in Infants even then, when they receive Baptism. It is the Godfather that speaking for the Child, saith, that he demands to be baptised, that he renounces the Devil, that he Believes in God; and, in a word, that makes the whole Confession of Faith, which we make in the Creed. Wherefore then will she not yield, that this same Faith of the Godfathers, and of the Church, may supply the place to Infants, of those desires or vows which adult persons have for Baptism, or of those acts of Faith, which are in stead of Baptism? There is no more reason for one, than for the other; if the Fathers, or Godfathers, speaking for the Infant, may say, I believe in God the Father Almighty, etc. 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 die in Adam, seeing they are born of Christian Parents, & that they die 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 Privileges of the Cities and Countries which they are born, and in the benefits of Treaties of Peace and Friendship, which are made betwixt the Princes, though the Children be not in a condition of ability to testify, that they do submit unto those Treaties.  
You have a veneration for the Relics 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 only 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 died truly in Adam, so that they had no part in Jesus Christ? Or that God, who substituted some other means of Salvation for those Infants, in the place of Baptism, or of Circumcision, cannot and will not also, even yet at this day, supply the (necessitated) default of Baptism, by his grace.  
How is it, that those of the Church of Rome, who find so much difficulty to comprehend the eternal Decree of God, according unto which, though we are all children of Adam, God hath chosen some, and passed by others, without, as we can conceive, any other reasons, but his good pleasure; how is it, I say, that these Gentlemen find no difficulty to believe, that the Infants of the Faithful should be so entirely excluded from the (common) Redemption, without any other reason, save that they are children of Adam, as the Fathers themselves also were, whom God called unto Salvation.  
To conclude, what can there be more convincing against this absolute necessity of Baptism, than this other necessity of the intention of the Priest, who administers the Sacrament? For if on the one hand, there can be no Salvation without Baptism, and on the other, the effect of Baptism depend on the intention of him who baptiseth, not only the Salvation of Infants, who have not been baptised, but the Salvation even of those, who die soon after Baptism, before they come to age, depends then absolutely on the Priest: which is equally inconsistent with the Justice, the Power, the Wisdom, and the Goodness of God.  
The only or the principal authority, that the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome do allege, for the belief of a Doctrine so dangerous, as is this absolute necessity of Baptism, is a passage of our Saviour's, 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 Saviour's near the same place, 
Joh. 6 53.  If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, 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 administering 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 error, & 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 error? 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 only of such as have age, and means necessary to partake of the Eucharist, why do they pass a judgement 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 joined unto the water? As that place which saith, Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire, is also taken for a Spiritual Purification under the figure of Fire. And so much the rather, because the occasion itself, 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 expressly, 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 itself 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 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 only those, who would have Baptism indifferent, or unnecessary, as the Council itself 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 seems 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 allege & 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 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 easy to show the Bishop of Condom, how much he is mistaken in this matter, not o●ely by what we have just now alleged 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-catholics, 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 also expressly 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 die, 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 public Assembly.  
We are very far from suffering willingly our Children to die 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 Condoms) 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 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 tied unto sensible things, nor unto the outward Acts; that is to say, to the words that are pronounced, and unto the exterior action that is done upon us, as it hath been before set forth: and we not only 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 citys 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 die in Christianity, is not to die in Adam, or out of the Covenant of Jesus Christ.  
As for Confirmation, 
Confirmation.  we do not only 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 aone in this Opinion, as the Bishop of Condom allegeth, that we can make good the quite contrary by the Testimony of Authors, 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 Chrism, or of the Confirmation of the Roman Church: Amongst the Greeks themselves, who have a kind of Chrism, 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 Church, which might ground it upon this practice of the Apostles, and that the use of Chrism, that is to say of Oil 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 terms of the Sacraments of Baptism, and of the Supper, Go and Baptism, etc. and, Do 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 only an extraordinary practice, and a practice in a word, which depended upon a gift that is ceased.  
The Church of Rome following the natural inclination of men, which carries them not only 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 do, 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 Forty days 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 only from time to time, as was practised at the beginning of Christianity, but even a Lent entire of Forty 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 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 achieved, the Council made a true Sacrament, and a Law of this Ceremony, charging perpetually Religion, and men's 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 Penance, 
Pennance, and Sacramental Confession.  and of Sacramental Confession: On the one hand, the Prophets and Apostles seeing men in Idolatry, in Error, or in Sin, said unto them, Repent ye, or do penance, 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 are retained. 
This Interpretation 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 Judgements of God against those, who rejected their Doctrine. For it sufficiently appears, that these words of Jesus Christ's, 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 spoke 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, and who have since violated the Laws of the Gospel, should come to undergo the judgement of the same Church at the Tribunal of Penance, where she exercises the power which is given unto her, of remitting or retaining of sins.  
We believe that it hath pleased Jesus Christ, etc. 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 Penance, which is not employed 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 spoken before, and all this under pain of cursing and eternal damnation against those, who being able to make this confession, 
dal. de Paen. & Satisfact. etc.  shall fail to make it. Our Books 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 alleged, is directly contrary to the Word of God, and that it is injurious to his Wisdom, 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 penance & confession of the Church of Rome is only a dependent.  

dal. 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 Catholic Doctors accord; and besides, very different from the Penance and Satisfactions spoken of in the Fathers.  
It will be needless here to report all the reasons, 
Beatus Rhenanus upon Tertullia's Book of Repentance.  because they may be seen in the places, where this matter is treated of expressly: 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 only be here made a short reflection, 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 only 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 joined unto some visible sign, which serves as matter, according to the Doctrine of St. Austin.  
2. Is it not also an odd thing, that the Council doth make articles of Faith of all these distinctions, of Attrition, Contrition, and several others, which at least ought to be left to the Schools? and that because a certain Father speaking of Repentance after sin, 
* St. Jerom.  compares it unto a Plank, by which a man saves himself, when the Vessel is cast away, 
Sess. 14. de Sacram. Paenit. Can. 2.  the Council applying this comparison unto the Sacrament of Penance, and of Confession, which nevertheless is quite another thing, as hath been showed, thunders out an Anathema against all such who do not agree, that Penance is rightly called a second Plank after Shipwreck; as it were, canonising a Figure of Rhetoric. Perhaps it may be said, that the Council intended only to define the thing itself: 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 itself, and it cannot be, but that this easiness in making articles of Faith of all things, & throwing out anathemas on all hands, must create offence in some, and contempt in others.  
To conclude, if it be true, as the Council itself hath once defined it, touching all the Sacraments in general, and here in particular touching this of Penance, 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, etc. 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 villainy giddiness, error or want of power of one man?  
The Bishop of Condom hath almost throughout used an easy expedient to disentangle himself; for either he saith nothing of all these Doctrines of the Council, or he doth not engage himself to prove any thing, of what he himself speaks to them, if it be not sometimes, when he thinks that the matter is favourable for him, or that he may enlarge 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 public sins, etc. 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 only of public sins, because that amongst us, there is none but sinners who have committed notorious sins, that make a public acknowledgement in the presence of the Assembly; unto whom, in this case, the Ministers announce the pardon of their sins, with the circumstances and co●tidions, which, according to custom, relate thereto.  
But yet for all that, it is not true, that we limit the power of announcing pardon of sins unto public 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 public or private, and wherein our Pastors do announce unto us forgiveness. First, in the public Assemblies, in our entrance upon our ordinary exercises, we make unto God a general confession of our sins: Every one makes a particular reflection upon his own sins, and upon them whereunto he finds himself most subject.  
2. In the Sermon, we are again exhorted to confess our sins hearty, 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 steadfast 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 public prayers, or in our own private reflections: and on these occasions again the Ministers, in the name and in the authority of Jesus Christ, in the very Quality of Ministers, declare on the one hand, the Judgements 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 Pastors and Guides, or before our Friends; making also acknowledgement sometimes more particularly and freely, of the infirmities and sins whereunto we are most subject. Our Friends and our Pastors exhort us unto a lively sorrow for our faults, and unto an entire trust in our Saviour; and our Pastors 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 God's Judgements 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 show grace and mercy to us. If we have any quarrel or animosities, whether it be in sickness or health, they say to us, as St. James, Confess your faults one to another; for this is the true meaning of that passage, and not the Sacramental confession, as the sincere 
* Cardinal Aureolus in Compen. elucid. 5. upon this passage of Saint James. Hu. Menard in Conc. regular. pa. 564. Cardinal Cajetan in his commentary upon the Epistle of Saint James.  Doctors 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 itself, we are invited to have recourse to the wholesome advice and consolations of our Pastors and Guides, and those under their charge, who are afflicted with any considerable perplexity, whether as to Faith, or as to any great sins whereunto they find themselves inclined, are to have recourse unto them, and so really have.  
7. To conclude, upon occasion of any public sins (which moved us to enter upon this subject) when any one hath committed any crime, or notorious 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 scandalised the whole Church, he is then enjoined to make a public 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 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,  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 merely as can be, the ancient usage of the Church, whether for ordinary Sinners, or public 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 persuading 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 any thing to reproach us of, that they very well know they have not any resemblance of this public penance of the Ancients, as hath been showed we have; for they have changed all into this other kind of Penance, 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 only declared unto them in general terms, as the Minister's 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 conceit, in which it was said, that the Bishop of Condom had wrapped up himself.  
In the first place, it was just now showed, that it is not true, that we have taken away this practice, nor lost the benefits and fruits of the Counsels, and comforts which may be thence expected; we have taken away the Evil, which is almost always 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 knows 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 only to touch in general terms, as we are sincere, & as there are but few Doctrines so bad, that have not some good in 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 showed, that we are very far from condemning or rejecting all sorts of Confessions. We only say that we cannot sustain, with good conscience, this Tribunal, or rather, this Yoke, which is imposed upon conscience itself; this Article of Faith, and this absolute necessity, to tell all a man's 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 sum, in exchange of what benefits may accrue by the Sacramental Confession of the Roman Church, we call to witness the sincere persons of 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 Authors, some of whom do 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 accustom themselves to sin, upon the confidence they have, that their sins shall be blotted out by this ordinary and easy 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 whilst they continue in their sin amongst us, they find nothing that may assure them of the pardon and absolution, which they hope for of a Confessor. And if it be true, that the Confessors, or Directors of conscience, as they are termed, often give wise counsels, it is but too true also, that the Counsellors themselves very often take occasion thereby to corrupt themselves, or to insinuate themselves in all public affairs of State, or in the particular affairs of private Families: and History is but too full of the Evils, which have happened unto the public, 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 chief unto God.  
The Council here joins Extreme Unction unto Repentance. 
Extreme Unction.   
There is this difference betwixt the precedent Article, and this, that this latter is nothing near of so great consequence. This is nothing in a manner, but an useless ceremony, and an evil custom, whereof the error may be tolerable in itself, 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 Penance, Marriage, or Orders, which follow this, because at least, the Oil may there hold the place of a visible Sign, as the Council, and the Bishop of Condom, do not fail to give to understand.  
But, after all, this pretended Sacrament hath this common with penance and the others, which we admit not as Sacraments, that the Institution made by the Church of Rome herein, is only founded upon some custom practised on particular occasions, which are now ceased.  
St. James speaking of the virtue of Prayer, saith (and that only 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 Oil in the name of the Lord: And the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. The Roman Catechism cannot deny, but that these words have allusion unto what was said before of the Apostles, who being departed from our Saviour, preached that men should repent, 
S. Mark cap. 6.12, 13.  that they cast out many Devils, & anointing with Oil 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 only by laying their hands upon them; which caused also, that one of the greatest men of the Church of Rome, speaking more fully than the Catechism, doth openly acknowledge, that these words of St. James, are to be understood of an anointing, exercised by the Disciples of Jesus Christ upon the Sick, 
Cardinal Cajetan upon S. Jam. 5.  such as is related in the Gospel, and not of the Extreme Unction, which is practised in the Roman Church; In the mean time, this is all the Foundation, or all the pretext which the Council, and the Bishop of Condom have, for the instituting of such a Sacrament.  
What is worst of all is, that the Church of Rome doth not do the thing itself, 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 Catechism doth agree) speak only indeed of healing the Sick; unto which it is true that St. James adds, that if the Sick hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him, which is principally to be understood of those sins, that may have drawn the chastisement of sickness upon the sick person. The Roman Church doth on the contrary, make Extreme Unction to be a Sacrament of Remission of sins, as Baptism; and regards little or nothing the health of the body, acknowledging that it hath not now the miraculous gift of healing the sick. Therefore also it is, that, whereas St. James speaks of the sick in general, in what estate soever they be, the Church of Rome doth for the most part understand, that they must be at the extremity, before this Unction be carried unto them; and she never gives it unto little children. This is as much as to say, that in all things, even of the least moment, she must invent or add something of her own, if it were but only to show her authority.  
The Bishop of Condom speaks only 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 maxim of the Church of Rome, touching Marriage, whereof we do not find any tract in Scripture, nor in the practice of the ancient Church. But seeing the Bishop of Condom enters not upon these Questions, we will forbear speaking of them here.  
We will only observe, that the Council could not better set forth the reasons, that it had to make so many Decrees, and so many Canons touching Marriage, which is nevertheless naturally a civil contract, than by the first and the last of these same Canons, which comprehend all the rest. The first doth pronounce Anathema against all those, who do not believe that Marriage is a true Sacrament; and the last, against all those, who will not believe that all causes concerning Marriage, do belong to the Church: that is to say, that these two Canons were made the one for the other. Every one at the first sight may see, the great consequences of this Doctrine, and the great advantages which do arise unto the Court of Rome, whether it be for the authority in examination of Matrimonial causes, or for the income of Dispensations. It was necessary that the Church of Rome might take cognisance of causes Matrimonial, for the great advantages which accrue unto her thereby: and to bring it to pass, that she might have cognizance of them, it was necessary to make Marriage a Sacrament; as also she would have had cognizance of all other civil affairs, under pretext of the Oath which was inserted in contracts, if the just jealousy 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 only a word of Order in general, as he hath done of Marriage, to put it into the number of Sacraments. It is true, as he saith, that we hold the ministry of the Word of God for a sacred thing, taking the term in a general sense. We practise the ceremony of Imposition of Hands, as it was practised in the Apostles time; but we cannot agree, that Order or Orders are a true Sacrament, as Baptism, and the Eucharist: as well for that in Orders, there is no Element, or Visible sign, no more than in Marriage, and in confession; as also because it is in truth the nature of the Sacraments of the Gospel, that the Sacraments ought to be common to all the Church, and Orders are not.  
It is in this point also the interest of Rome, that made Orders a true Sacrament; to the end she might withdraw all the great Body of the Roman Clergy, from the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate, and thereby make unto herself proper subjects of other Prince's people, in the midst of their States and Kingdoms, as a particular Kingdom, or Hierarchy apart, not only distinct from the Temporal Monarchy, but superior, and overruling Kings themselves.  
Many things might be said upon this Article, to show principally, that the Priesthood and the sacrificing of the Roman Church, is an invention purely humane; and that it hath no example, nor any foundation in the Gospel: for there can be no true Priesthood, where there is not a true Sacrifice; and in the following Discourse it shall be made appear, that there is none such in the Mass. But in this place we will be content to follow the Bishop of Condom, who had no mind to engage in all these Questions; whether it be that he deserts them tacitly by his silence, or that he thought them to be fit for the Schools, than for public edification; or Lastly, that he hastened to pass unto the matter of the Eucharist, where he believed he might enlarge 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 & Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, & the manner how she understands these words, This is my Body.  arrived at the Question of the Eucharist, etc. 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 Relics, of Satisfactions, of Purgatory, of Indulgences, of the number and efficacy of the Sacraments, whereof we have hitherto treated, and this of the Eucharist, whereon at present we enter, that in all the others, there is not to be found any Footstep of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament, nor in the very First ages of Christianity; whereas upon the question of the Eucharist, the Roman Church pretends, that she hath the Scripture itself 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 ourselves 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 Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, and how she understands these words, THIS IS MY BODY. 2. How she understands these other words, DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. 3. The Exposition which she makes of our belief, as to the reality. 4. Transubstantiation, and Adoration, and in what sense the Eucharist is a sign. 5. The sacrifice of the Mass. 6. What the Apostle teacheth in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he saith, That Jesus Christ offered himself once. 7. The reflection 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 only 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 gins 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 alleged elsewhere upon another subject, that you must no more ask them, wherefore they apply themselves to the literal sense, than of a Traveller, why he follows the High way.  
Let any one judge of the sequel, by the beginning. The Question betwixt us is, Whether the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament, are truly and really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; or whether they are so only in the mystery: That is to say, whether the words of the institution, This is my Body, aught to be understood literally, or figuratively; whether they truly signify 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 itself, which is in question; or that he doth give us his sense, & his will for a reason. To have the liberty to speak as the Bishop of Condom doth, we must lay it as a principle, that there is nothing in the Scripture that one should not, or at least, that may not be taken literally. Then might she take literally, what our Saviour saith elsewhere, 
John 6.35. & 19.5.  that he is the bread of Heaven; or that he is a vine, and his Disciples are the branches, and that none should be allowed to inquire how it might be.  
The Bishop of Condom judging truly enough, that this was not a proposition maintainable, enters upon two other conceits more reasonable; On the one side, he engageth us to prove, that the words of institution of the Eucharist, aught 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 allege for the proper and literal sense.  
In the First place, whensoever any great of a Mystery, and of a Sacrament, 〈…〉 and the common use, to take the oppressions, and the things themselves, mystically and figuratively. The very word itself 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 itself, 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 & Blood of Jesus Christ, St. Austin, and Theodoret, 
Aug. Epist. 23. ad Bonif.  answer for us. The First saith, that it is because of the relation which the Sacraments have to the things whereof they are Sacraments: and the latter, to keep us from resting in the nature of the things that are seen, 
Theodoret. Dial. 1.  and that as Jesus Christ said, that he was bread, and a stock or vine, so be honours the Symbols of bread and wine, with the name of his Body, and of his Blood. The force of these Testimonies is not here urged, as to the main Question; they are only alleged 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 hearts, above the Visible signs.  
2. We know in general, that all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament, is full of these sorts of Figurative expressions: whether it was the Style of the Eastern Nations in those times, as indeed it was; or that God judged this Style the fittest to exercise our Faith. We see, that the First preaching of Jesus Christ is nothing else, but a continued succession of Figures: 
John 6.35. Joh. 15.3.  every one knows those just now mentioned, I am the bread which came down from Heaven. I am the vine. The rock was Christ. 
1 Cor. 10.4. Mat. 5.29. De Doctrine. 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 seems to offend good manners, or the truth of Faith, aught to be taken in a Figurative sense; and yet more expressly, that this, which Jesus Christ saith, that we must eat his body, and drink his blood, appearing a wicked thing, is therefore a Figure. We press not still this passage as to the main Question, we only allege 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 itself, the obscure places by them which are more plain, those which have a double meaning, by them which have but a single? The Author of the Book, entitled, Lawful Prejudices, lays down this Maxim for the understanding of Books, that when there is any passage, which may admit of a double sense, that must be taken, which agrees best with the whole, and which is the most reasonable. There is but one passage only 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 blood of the Son of man, you have no life in you; and this very expression St. Austin notes, aught 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, etc. the very words of the Eucharist require, that we do this in remembrance of him, and to show forth his Death till he come. To be in Heaven corporally, and upon Earth by representation, are not two senses repugnant: but not to be any more with us, or to be corporally in Heaven, and yet to be every day upon Earth, in men's 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 exterior 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 only in Heaven: the other without his dimensions, and exterior qualities, as she pretends that he is under the covert of Bread and Wine. But this is to answer here punctually the thing in question. We formally deny this second manner of being bodily in a place; & it is not contested, but that nature, the senses, & reason, far from teaching any such thing, cry loudly against it. It would therefore highly concern the Church of Rome upon the whole case, to establish this second manner of being in a place by some passage, the sense whereof were not at all in question; and till that is done, it may be truly said, that the figurative sense of these words, This is my Body, is the true and genuine sense, the first, and the only that presents itself 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 only above reason, as the Mysteries of the Trinity, and Incarnation, but directly against reason, and which in fine, destroys 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 too far in the question. What hath been here said, which is only taken from the nature of Sacraments, & the style of the Scripture, may suffice to show 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 itself 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 only 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 Saviour's intention, it is a good principle, provided it be well established, for Jesus Christ can do what he will, & what he wills, is done as he wills; and the Bishop of Condom hath no need to enlarge 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 horror 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 ourselves to examine, whether God is able to do the thing, but whether this thing is possible in itself, or if it doth not imply a contradiction: and on the other, if it be matter of horror to eat true humane flesh, the covert may diminish this horror, but it cannot quite take it away, especially if a man were certainly persuaded, 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 Bishop of Condom proves, that this is the intention of Jesus Christ, that we should effectively eat his flesh? As the Jews did eat the victims which were offered for them, 
Pag. 81, 82, 83, etc.  so, saith he, Jesus Christ our true sacrifice, would that we should effectively eat his flesh, etc. The Jews were forbidden to eat the sacrifice offered for sins, to show them, that the true expiation was not made under the Law; and for the same reason they were forbidden to eat blood, because the blood was given for the atonement of souls: but by a contrary reason, Jesus Christ wills that we should eat his flesh, to show, that the remission of sins is accomplished in the New Testament, and that we should drink his blood, because it is poured out for our sins.  
Thus it is, that instead of giving us reasons, the Bishop of Condom gives us only 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 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 only on this point; that under the Law, the sacrifices were to be reiterated every day, whereas Jesus Christ offered himself only 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 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 Jews under the Law, did servilely and carnally tie 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 quickeneth.  
The Jews laid their hands upon the heads of their sacrifices, and did eat of them, to signify 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 Jews did not eat the sin-offering, nor did they ever eat of the blood; we eat the mystical body of our sacrifice, and we drink his mystical blood: 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 blood of Jesus Christ, should not be founded upon relations and agreeances, but upon a clear and positive revelation.  

Pag. 84.  But this eating, saith the Bishop of Condom here, aught 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 always 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 blood of Jesus Christ, with the mouth of the body; according as in Baptism we do agree, both the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we, that we do partake of, or that we are truly and really united unto Jesus Christ, and unto his sacrifice, and yet for all that, this union is not corporal.  
In fine, there is a kind of incompatibility, or of contradiction, in the Bishop of Condom's arguing. He would have it, that as the Jews 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 Jews 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 alleged out of St. Austin, and Theodoret? that the Sacraments do not take the name of the things whereof they are Sacraments, but because of the relation which there is betwixt the Sacraments, and the things themselves: that without this relation, they could not be Sacraments; that it is formally because of this relation, that the bread and the wine are called the body & the blood 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 blood, giving, as it were, reciprocally, the names of the one, unto the other, 
Dial. 1.  as Theodoret speaks.  
In sum, our Saviour seeing his Disciples bend 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 blood is drink indeed, showing plainly, that as the bread doth nourish our bodies, 
Jo. 6.68  so his flesh, and his blood, is the life and nourishment of our souls. This word seemed hard to many who forsook him, but the Apostles understood very well from that time, the relation or similitude, which made Jesus Christ say he was bread, and that his flesh was this bread: unto whom shall we go, 
Lib. 1. de Offic. Eccl. cap. 18. Com. en Marc. 14  saith St. Peter, thou hast the words of eternal life. St. Isidore, Bede, and many others, very far from saying, that there is no relation betwixt the Sacraments, and the body and blood 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 blood, because wine breedeth blood in our flesh, and rejoiceth the heart. There is another resemblance also well known, which the Fathers have explained, not only betwixt the bread and wine, and the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, 
Theoph. Antioc. 1 Comment. in 4 Evan. pa. 359. St. Cyprian Ep. 63.  but betwixt the Sacraments, and that other mystical body of Jesus Christ, whereof he himself is head, to wit, the Church: that as the bread is made of many grains, and the wine of many clusters of grapes, so the mystical body of Christ is composed of many Believers, which are his living members. So that we may plainly see, so far is it from there being no relation betwixt bread, and the body of Jesus Christ, as the Bishop of Condom supposeth, that we find on the contrary the two relations, which he calls natural relation; and relation of institution, and of which he demands but one, or the other, that the sign may take the name of the thing, and that it might be proper to bring down the Idea into the mind: to wit, a relation of the natural virtue of bread, unto that of the body of Jesus Christ, the body of Jesus Christ being the nourishment of our souls, as bread is the nourishment of our bodies; and the relation which Jesus Christ had established before in the minds of his Apostles, 
Jo. 6.52  by the use which he had made of this likeness, having accustomed them unto this manner of speaking, even before the institution of the Sacraments, and confirming or establishing anew this relation, by the very words of the institution itself.  
But there is here yet something else to be understood: The Bishop of Condom doth curteil, if I may so say, the words of institution, or rather the sense; and secretly makes a kind of Sophism 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 inquire 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 says not only, this is my body, he saith in the same breath, my body which is broken for you. And suppose that these first words had not clearly enough intimated the relation, which there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ, these others which our Saviour adds, are as a second touch of a pencil, or a new colour, which heighthens the draught, and better expresses the resemblance betwixt the Image, and the Divine Original: that is to say, that as the bread is broken in pieces to serve us for nourishment, and as the wine is poured out to serve us for drink, so the body of Jesus Christ was broken, and his blood was shed upon the Cross, to be the spiritual nourishment of our souls.  
Here we must observe the perpetual error, or the continual source of the error 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 only 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 signify 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 only the introduction, the vehicle, or the foundation of all that follows; as in arguing, the first propositions are only a leading unto the conclusion, and are far less considerable than the conclusion itself. 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 show forth my death until I come, which is the sense in which St. Paul explicates these latter words of our Saviour's: for Jesus Christ gives his body, 
1 Co● 11.  only as it was broken for us; and his blood 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 only for not taking them altogether, that the Church of Rome is fallen into all these errors which make us separate from her. If instead of insisting so much, as she doth upon these first words, this is my body, she had weighed a little more the following words, which is broken for you, she would doubtless have acknowledged, that Jesus Christ having not yet suffered death when he spoke 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 only upon the former, she had never proceeded so far, as to take away the cup in the Sacrament.  
But to return to the point on which we are here principally concerned: what hath been now said, doth not only show, 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 do 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 itself, it hath been already showed, that Jesus Christ had prepared the Apostles to understand it; having told them, that these sorts of expressions were to be understood spiritually. And to conclude, 
John 6 63.  how can it be said, that Jesus Christ said nothing to explain himself? If our Lord had said no more but these words, this is my body, as the Bishop of Condom only 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, do this in remembrance of me: 
1 Cor. 11.24. Mat. 26.29.  This is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for many. I will not any more drink of this fruit of the vine, etc. 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 show 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 Farewell, 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, Do this in remembrance of me, is no longer the Traveller that those follows the great High way; I mean, words, he no longer understands the words of our Lord, according to the letter. The literal and natural sense of these last words altogether, Do this in remembrance of me, is this; that we should do what Jesus Christ ordained, to put us in remembrance of him: for it is Jesus Christ that saith in remembrance of me. But the Bishop of Condom somewhat detorts this sense, and would have it, that the intention of our Lord, should be only to oblige us to remember his death; under pretence that the Apostle concludes with these words, that we show forth the death of our Lord. It is not difficult to comprehend, what this the Bishop of Condom's little detortion tends to, namely, that if this be the sense of those words, Do this in remembrance of me, we ought to call to remembrance the very person of Jesus Christ. This sense leads us naturally to believe, that the divine person that we ought to call to remembrance, is not really present: For, according to the manner of usual conceiving and speaking amongst men, to call to remembrance, is properly of persons absent: Otherwise, supposing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, as the Church of Rome supposeth, the sense and the Idea which these words carry, Do this in remembrance of me, is this, Eat my proper body, to call yourselves 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 ourselves to remembrance of him, by an act of love and acknowledgement, and that we meditate also on his death, as an effect of his love, and the price of our Redemption.  
The Bishop of Condom, very far from acknowledging, that to call to remembrance, as our Lord requires, supposes his absence, turns the thing to the clear contrary, so as to infer, that this very remembrance should be grounded upon the real presence. To this purpose, he here brings in again the comparison of the sacrifices. As, saith he, the Jews 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 died 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 children's hearts.  
First, as to what concerns the comparison, we have already said that it is not a proof, and that upon the whole case, the relation there is of the Law to the Gospel, is no reason that we should take all according to the letter in the Gospel, as we do for the most part matters in the Law: that on the contrary it is sufficient, that our spiritual eating of the body of Jesus Christ, answers unto the Oral eating of the sacrifices, which were the Figure of his sacrifice.  
But there is yet more in it: the Bishop of Condom only 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 Jews 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 Jews, that they eaten nothing instead of this sacrifice, whereas we eat the holy Symbols, which livelily represent unto us the body and blood of Jesus Christ; his body broken for us, and his blood poured out for the expiation of our sins.  
Further, what are our manners, and our education, that to put us in a tender remembrance of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must needs eat his proper flesh with our bodily mouth? Or rather, if it be true that the remembrance, which is the thing in question, be nothing else but an apprehension excited by the objects which affect the sense, has the manner, in which it is believed they eat this flesh in the Church of Rome, any thing which doth more affect the senses, than ours? seeing, that we eat it, both one and the other, under the same kinds or forms of bread and wine.  
We will not here inquire, 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 itself, is become accustomed unto this conceit, which of itself doth stir up contrary affections.  
It will be only needful to compare the manner, how they administer the Sacraments in the Church of Rome, with that wherein they administer them in our Churches, to judge which of the two is most capable to entertain a true remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ. The Church of Rome believes, she holds the proper flesh of Jesus Christ under the sacred coverts of bread and wine, as it were under a mystical Tomb, or under dead signs, but a living and vivifying flesh, etc. These be the terms of the Bishop of Condom, which form a notion or Idea very perplexed 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 only of the death of Jesus Christ, of which the main question here is: whereas amongst us, where we only 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 blood shed for us, This image doth give unto us a clear and distinct Idea of the death, which Jesus Christ hath suffered for us; which is properly the effect which our Lord would produce in the Sacrament.  
In the Church of Rome, the Priest that saith Mass, or that consecrates, often saith it alone, most commonly very low, and always in Latin, 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 acknowledgement of this Divine Saviour; but it is only 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 only upon their own profit and advantage; and which is more, the Priest says this itself in the same Latin Tongue, which the greatest part do 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 days before the time appointed for administering the Sacrament, there is an exhortation made to us, to prepare ourselves by acts of Repentance, of Faith, and of charity, and by an holy life; the day be●ing come after the usual exercises of devotion, which consist in Prayers, singing of Psalms, and reading portions of the holy Scriptures, most proper unto the subject, there is ordinarily a Sermon made to us, expressly 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 publicly, 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 blood of Jesus Christ, which was poured out for your sins: Or, the Cup which we bless, is the communion of the blood of Jesus Christ; for either one or the other of these expressions are indifferently used, the grace of God, according to us, not being tied 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 blood 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 only 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, 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 remains 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 Lord's 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 an infinite distance, are in some sort present with us, not only because we see them, but by the influences which they cast upon us. We only say, that remembrance excludes a presence real, personal, and as it were physical, local, and immediate, under the colours and exterior 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.  
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 only 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 terms 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 ourselves to take notice of these sorts of expressions, especially in a time wherein we are accustomed unto more strict deal, 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 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 entangled, 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 ourselves to the things.  
In the first place, instead of giving a plain and entire Exposition of our Belief, and afterwards drawing the consequences which he had a mind of, he only gives it by shreds, and so perplexed, that it cannot be understood. He only 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 unto us. We need only take notice, what course he takes in the very entrance, to make a judgement that he speaks after his own manner, and not after ours. Their Doctrine, saith he, hath two parts; the one speaks only of the figure of the body and blood, the other speaks only of the reality of the body and blood.  
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 lays down indeed but only the negative part of our Belief.  
Wherefore we shall do better to explain our own Doctrine ourselves in a few words, with relation unto what the Bishop of Condom says 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 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 only 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 interior, which is the secret operation of his Holy Spirit, without which those others were in vain; the others exterior, 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 show forth our Entrance into the Church, and the washing away of our sins; and the Lords Supper, to show 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 do, that it is necessary we be spiritually united unto Jesus Christ, that this Union is made by Faith, that it is the Holy Spirit which produces this Faith in our hearts, and that the Word, Baptism, and the Eucharist, are the outward means, which the Holy Spirit makes use of, whether to produce, or to increase and strengthen Faith in our hearts. If there be any difference about this, betwixt the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and us, it is not about what we have now said, but upon those several other Doctrines which she hath added.  
As to the Eucharist in particular, whereof here the Question is betwixt them and us, we also say very plainly, that the Bread and Wine are outward signs, which Jesus Christ hath added unto the Word, to set forth his death before our eyes more livelily, & more sensibly, than by Baptism, or by the Gospel; and that when we receive these signs by Faith, Jesus Christ gives himself unto us; or that he confirms 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 himself by his holy spirit. This is truly the abridgement of our Doctrine, drawn from our confession of Faith, and our catechism, conformable unto what the scriptures teach us throughout, of the spiritual union of the faithful with our Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing in all this, which is not plain and easy to be conceived, excepting only the ineffable & incomprehensible manner, in which this holy Spirit worketh in us, and whereby he effects this union of the faithful, with Jesus Christ our Divine Head.  
Yet we have some resemblances, though very imperfect, 
Eph. 5.30, 31, 32. 1 Cor. 6.16, 17.  as well of this operation of the holy Spirit in our hearts, as of the union of the faithful with Jesus Christ, in the conjugal love which unites husband and wife, and which is the reason that the Scripture saith, that they are but one body and one soul.  
However the matter stands, it is very observable in this case, that this difficulty, such as it is, is common with us and them of the Church of Rome, and that it proceeds not more or less from hence, that our Doctrine is different from theirs. They believe (the same as we do) the spiritual union of the Faithful with Jesus Christ, by the operation of the holy Spirit, as we have just now said, as well in the preaching of the Gospel, as in Baptism and the Eucharist. They conceive not at all this spiritual union any better than we, nor explain themselves otherwise therein than we do; and what they believe more than we in the Sacrament, to wit, that they receive the proper body of Jesus Christ, by the mouth of the body into their stomach, doth not add any thing at all, according to their own principles, either to effect, or make understood this spiritual union, which we have with Jesus Christ, which is the only and true cause of our Salvation. For they do not deny, that those who receive Baptism without the Word, and without the Eucharist, or Baptism and the Word without the same Eucharist, may be saved, and united perpetually unto Jesus Christ, as well as they who receive also the Eucharist. Neither do they say, that the body of Jesus Christ, which they do believe they receive into their stomach, is united unto their soul, or unto their body, by his presence; nor even that the substance of their body, or of their soul, doth touch the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  
They say only, 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 Forms, 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 itself unto the substance of the body and blood 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 gins with the reason, which he pretends hath, as it were, forced us to come nearer unto the Church of Rome, in the point of the reality; and afterwards, he passeth unto the objections, which he makes to prove, that in effect we are come nearer unto them.  
It is sufficient, saith he, to have learned by the Scriptures, that the Son of God would testify 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 satisfy himself by things that are as effectual, as those which he hath already accomplished for our Salvation. Wherefore it is not to be wondered at, if he gives unto every one of us the proper substance of his Flesh, and of his Blood; 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 blood of Jesus Christ, would not satisfy Christistians accustomed to the bounty of a God, which gives himself so really unto us: therefore it is, that they would not be accused to deny this real participation of Jesus Christ in their Sacrament.  
Behold here the reason, that he saith hath forced us to approach unto the Church of Rome: but Christians are then either very ingrateful, or very difficult to be contented, if they are not satisfied that Jesus Christ died for them, that these sacred signs assure them of it, and that they serve them as an effectual and saving means, to raise their hearts and their Faith unto Jesus Christ. They have then the ears of their understanding close stopped, if it be true, that these sacred signs joined 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 blood was poured out for the remission of their sins.  
The Opinion, which the Church of Rome adds, that Jesus Christ is present, being very far from better setting forth his death, incumbers, as I may so say, the conception of it, as hath been showed before, because it represents the body of Jesus Christ in a living state, under dead signs: and moreover, the way of giving these signs, in a language not understood, or ill understood, makes much less impression in the hearts, than the way, wherein it hath been showed, 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 die 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 blood. 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, only by morsels, as some possibly may say the Capernaites understood the words of our Saviour, but in any manner or under any coverts under which it may be put? For, although God doth testify 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 itself: 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 entire Love doth make us do one for another. To pay for another, is the true office of a Friend; and to die 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 die for an Enemy, is a generosity that hath had no example amongst men, before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died for us, who were originally his creatures, but were become his enemies. This is that, which this Love hath in it incomprehensible; and nevertheless, this Love, which was foretold by the prophets, was accomplished in the time that was foretold.  
But neither prophecy, 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 only that he presently explained this speech unto them, and that he made them understand, that they should receive it spiritually.  
The Gentlemen of the Roman Church do always fall into this error, that although they do not directly deny, that the communion which we have with Jesus Christ by Faith, is very real, & of its self sufficing to salvation, as they do confess in particular of the communion which we have with him, either by the Word, or by Baptism, nevertheless always, when there is any mention of the Mystery of the Eucharist, they have this impression reigning in their minds, which overbears all others, that Jesus Christ cannot give himself really unto them, but when they believe, that he gives his proper flesh to be eaten with the mouth of their body. It is from this apprehension; that the Bishop of Condom faith here again, that Jesus Christ makes as taste 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 died for us.  
Let us now come unto the Objections, which the Bishop of Condom makes against some of our expressions, to prove that we are approached nearer unto the Church of Rome.  

pa. 146.  In the first place, he seems to contradict himself, for he says afterwards, that the more we explain ourselves, (the Gentlemen of the Roman Church, and we) upon this Article, the more contrary we find ourselves 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 Doctors, 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 only upon three divers Expressions, drawn from our Catechism, which is, as it is known, the ancient explanation of our Doctrine, The Bishop of Condom pretends, that 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 blood. It is a certain truth, that the Scripture never makes 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 only some ancient Doctors, which have used it in divers senses, sometimes to express the matter, or the essence itself of the things, and oftentimes also to signify the virtue. 
Sunday 50. and in the form of administering of Baptism  Our Catechism itself, speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism, saith indifferently, in two places, the substance, and the virtue of Baptism, to signify the efficacy of it.  
Not any of the first Ages have said, that Jesus Christ did give us the substance of his body and blood; 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 quickening 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 Authors of our Confession of Faith, and of our Catechism used these sorts of expressions, amongst many others, it plainly appears, 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 show 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 Tenor 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 joined to this divine Word, not only sets forth this union in a most express manner, but also gives us a lively feeling of it, strengtheners 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.  aught to be really present; and it is not possible to make understood, that a body, which is only 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 joined, or be not both together in one place, which yet is a manifest error. As if, for example, when we acquire an inheritance, though we are distant from it, it might not be said, that not only the fruits, and the Revenue belong unto us, but that the propriety, the 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 joineth 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 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 blood 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 only 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 only in part, and not fully, whence the Bishop of Condom infers, that Jesus Christ is fully given unto us in the Lord's 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 Lord's Supper, 
Pa. 106.  Jesus Christ is fully received; and in Baptism, and in the Gospel, but in part, than the manner in which he is received in the Lord's 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 blood 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 sum, it is certain, there is in it a kind of sophism; Of a thing which is only true in some regards, he draws consequences, as if it were absolutely true, and in all regards: He changes the terms of the Propositions, as we speak in the Schools; and he puts more in the conclusion, than there is in the propositions, whence the conclusion should be form. It is almost as if a man should say, the manner of a man's 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 Noonday 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 only by the light; therefore the Sun at Noonday, doth not communicate the objects unto us by the light. Or to form a conclusion upon the Bishop of Condom's very terms; therefore it needs must be, that there is something in the Sun at Noonday, 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 only in the more or less of the light; a difference in degree, as we speak, and not in kind, in the means itself, 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 itself: if the Bishop of Condom would have pleased to have taken the sense of the Article of the Catechism entirely, as it had been just, he would have seen, that he had not the least pretext to play with words as he doth. 
Sunday 52.  The Catechism having laid down, that the communion which we have with Jesus Christ, is not only in the Sacrament, but also in preaching the Word of God, the Minister demands, What is it that the Lords Supper adds unto the Word; or what have we more in the Lord's Supper, and what is its use? This, saith the Child, that in the Lord's 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 itself lays 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 Lord's Supper, than by Baptism, and by the preaching of the Word; but only that in the Lord's 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 only, to show our entrance into the Church, and to let us understand, that as the water doth cleanse our bodies, so the blood of Jesus Christ, doth wash us from our sins; and particularly, from our Original sin, without representing more expressly, either the death of Jesus Christ, or our spiritual union with him: though upon the whole, the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth nevertheless thereby produce this spiritual union of the Faithful with Jesus Christ, and the eternal happiness of them which are baptised.  
The word doth very well represent unto us, the promise of Salvation, and all that depends thereon: it is a very effectual means to work Faith, and to unite us unto Jesus Christ, when God is pleased to accompany it with his grace; 
Rom. 10.17.  for Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.  
But whereas the Word only 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 only sets forth our entrance into the Church, and only applies or communicates unto us the blood of Jesus Christ by the form of washing; the Eucharist doth yet more expressly represent unto us, that the body of Jesus Christ was broken for us, and that his blood was poured out for the remission of our sins, communicating both one and the other unto us, by the form of meat, and of drink. In a word, the Sacrament of the Eucharist gives us to understand, that as bread and wine nourish our bodies, so the body and blood of Jesus Christ nourish and vivify our souls: and lastly, that the bread and the wine are not more truly and really united unto our bodies, than 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 Lord's 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 Lord's Supper fully; for it is but one and the same thing, in the sense of the Catechism.  
The manner in which Baptism communicates Jesus Christ unto us, in admitting of us into the Church, may be compared, if we please, unto that wherein it was said, that the Sun communicates the sight of objects at his rising: the manner in which the Word also communicates Jesus Christ to us, in declaring unto us the promises of the Gospel, unto that of Torches, communicating the same objects in the night: and Lastly, the manner wherein 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 exterior 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 always Jesus Christ whole and entire, which is communicated unto us by each of these three means; and it is always 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 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 Lord's 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 means, 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 Lord's Supper, or that he washeth us from our sins, as it doth speak of Baptism; nor that Faith comes by the Lord's Supper, to use that manner of speaking, that is to say, that the Lords Supper produces in our heart's 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 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 Lord's 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, What is it then in sum, 
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 itself; 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 God, is given unto us, to certify us that we have part in this reconciliation. This word certify, 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 entire 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 do 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 error of the Gentlemen of the Roman Church, which makes them perpetually to oppose communion real 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 forced arguments, the strainedness of which shows, 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 only 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 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 blood; 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 seals 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 Bishop of Condoms, 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 complete sense of these words; namely, that not only 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 exterior signs to affect our senses, and to confirm our faith, and our confidence. The dispute is only 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 (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 gins. To reason right, and more intelligibly, it had been needful to have resumed, as was begun: If Jesus Christ not only 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 only the intricacy, but also the Sophisms; for that when we pass from consequence to consequence, 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 employed 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 only 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 unto Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper, and that being united unto him, we hold ourselves assured of having share in the fruit of his death. Nothing is more simple, and easy 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 only finds that he is not led on 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, than 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 the inheritance to be ours, it is not at all necessary to have two Titles, or two different contracts, the one for the inheritance itself, 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.  
In sum, 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 ourselves to Jesus Christ himself; and by the other, unto the fruit of his death) without any need to imagine, for all this, two different communions, one spiritual by Faith, and the other with the mouth of the body, or real, as the Bishop of Condom speaks? Lord, draw us after thee, lift up our hearts unto thee, come dwell in our hearts by the operation of thy Spirit. Behold here an act of Faith, which unites us to Jesus Christ, if the Faith be such as it ought to be: and this union of its self suffices, to effect that we should also have part in the fruit of his death, by this one act of Faith. Lord, impute to us thy righteousness, and grant that being united unto thee by a true and lively Faith, we may have a share in all thy benefits, and in particular, in the fruit of thy death: Behold here nevertheless, a second act of Faith, which regards directly the part that we have in the fruit of his death. The difference of these two acts of Faith, properly will be only in the distinction of the objects, which Faith doth propose unto itself: in the one it proposes the body of the Lord, and in the other the fruit of his death; and in one and the other, there is a real communion with our Saviour, but spiritually and by Faith.  
But no man, adds the Bishop of Condom, 
〈◊〉. 112.  can conceive what difference there is betwixt participating by Faith of the body of our Saviour, and to participate by Faith, of the fruit of his death.  
This is now the second or third time, that the Bishop of Condom will conceive all; Let us see if he will be of the same mind, upon the Article of Transubstantiation, which follows immediately after this.  
But after all, how can he say, that no man can conceive any difference betwixt participating by Faith of the body of the Lord, and participating by Faith of the fruit of his death? for the body of the Lord, and the fruit of his death, are evidently two different things, and there is no one who cannot easily conceive, that there is great difference betwixt partaking of the one, and partaking of the other, whether it be, that it is done by one act of Faith, or by two; though besides, the manner of partaking of one and the other, be always the same, to wit spiritually, and by Faith.  
Nevertheless, it is here that the Bishop of Condom cries out again in finishing this Article, Who can but admire the force of truth, etc. 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 only, and the participation of his Spirit only, in effect, laying aside these great words of Participation, of proper substance, and many others, which express a real presence, and which only cause perplexities, etc.  
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 only 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 Lord's Supper there is a communion, 
pa. 112.  by the which we partake spiritually of the body of our Saviour, and of his spirit altogether, in receiving the fruit of his death; which is properly the result of our Doctrine: and these words of participation, and of substance, with which the Bishop of Condom pleaseth himself, and which he useth for all that himself, signify nothing more. The only 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 only which is had by the mouth of the body, and that without admitting of that, there can nothing be acknowledged in the Lord's Supper, but the figure of his body, and a participation of the Spirit, excluding thus this other spiritual communion of the very body of Jesus Christ, which he but now confessed. Let it be judged by this, and by all the rest which hath been said, as well of our opinions, as of his way of arguing, who it is that creates perplexities, or that contradicts themselves; whether it is the Bishop of Condom or us, that use equivocations about words; And Lastly, if he hath so much subject of Triumph upon this Article, as he seemed to imagine to himself.  

XIII. Of Tran. substantiation, of Adoration, and in what sense the Bishop of Condom saith, that the Sacrament is a sign.  The Bishop of Condom will slide along more sweetly upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and upon the Adoration of the Host, than he did in opposing our Doctrine. There he attacked, and attacked Adversaries, as he calls them, to whom they hardly give the liberty to defend themselves, (We may say any thing against them, they will answer but by halfs.) Here he must defend himself, and he hath against him Scripture, reason, evidence of the senses, and the common notions of Christianity, imprinted in conscience, which are other kind of Adversaries, more terrible, speaking, malgre opposition, each in his order, and speaking so loud, as they put the ablest to silence. The Bishop of Condom, when he speaks of our Belief, though all things be very simple in it, is not satisfied, if he cannot conceive even the very manner, whereby the Holy Ghost doth really unite us unto Jesus Christ, notwithstanding the great distance which there is betwixt us and him, which nevertheless the Roman Church doth perpetually teach, as well as we, and yet it is the only 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 only (without looking unto his will) which are the only 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 only properly the object of our Admiration, and of our Adoration.  
What the Bishop of Condom speaks touching Transubstantiation, may be reduced unto four distinct assertions, which yet shall only be touched as we pass, because this is a pure controversy, 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 blood 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 only put it as a title in the Margin to note the Article, or the matter of Controversy, 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 blood of Jesus Christ; but he adds both the one and the other in the latter: The third Doctrine is, That the reality doth not hinder, but that the Eucharist may be a sign, as to what it hath exterior 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 only 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 only, because elsewhere he hath glanced on this in passage, that it was agreeable that God should give us his flesh and blood wrapped up under a strange form, to exercise, saith he, 
pag. 84.  our Faith in this Mystery, and to take away the horror of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in their proper form.  
But what a reason is this to establish such a Doctrine as this? To exercise our Faith in this Mystery. There is nothing so strange, which might not be made pass under such indefinite pretexts of conveniency or agreeableness: as if the Mystery of the Sacrament had not sufficient matter besides to exercise our Faith, without supposing the change of the bread and wine into the proper flesh, and proper blood of our Saviour, against the formal testimony of all our senses.  
The flesh and blood, say they, would induce horror, if we were to eat them in kind; and it is certain, that the very thought only of eating humane flesh, doth naturally produce this effect: but it hath been already elsewhere touched, that the cover, as they speak, may lessen his horror, but not entirely take it away. And if the Church of Rome be at last accustomed unto this notion, it is but only in tract of time, and in favour of that mystical and figurative expression in St. John, 
Cap. 6.  who faith, to eat the flesh of Christ, instead of saying, to believe in him; unto which mystical expression, the Church of Rome hath made the ●●teral sense to succeed.  
But Lastly, the difficulty is not to prove, that the appearances of bread and wine do remain, or to show a reason why they remain, but to show, that there is nothing else but the appearances that remains; for in the first place, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle St. Paul, who is his instrument, say, that after the benediction, it is bread and wine: and in the Apostles times, and in the first times after the Apostles, there was nothing spoken of but only bread and wine: And in fine, God having given unto us our senses to know all corporal things, which are their true object, and which depend on their jurisdiction, their testimony being the foundation of almost all Notions, and the proof which Jesus Christ made use of, to establish the truth of his humanity, and of his Resurrection, can the Bishop of Condom, that will understand all, conceive, that God intended that in an act of Religion, which he established to help our weakness and unbelief, in presenting figures or outward objects to our senses, can he conceive, I say, that God intended that there should be in this act of Religion, a perpetual and manifest contradiction, betwixt the testimony of our senses, and our Faith, that Faith should continually tell us, that what we see and touch, are only 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 height of impiety, to doubt of the one or the other; The only point in hand is, touching the sense of what he hath spoken. This may here again be called giving the change, through favour of the profound regard which ought to be had for the great authority and power of our Lord. But is not Faith attentive unto the word of him which saith, 
Joh. 6.41, & 10.11. & 15.5, 8, 12, 10.7.4, 14. Mat. 26. 1 Cor. 11.  I am the bread which came down from Heaven: I am the good Shepherd: I am the Vine, the Light, the Gate, a Fountain of living water, etc. and who in the institution of the Sacrament itself 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 alleged 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 alleged for more than the real presence; but that nothing advantageth the particular Doctrine of Transubstantiation. For these words do not give the least intimation, that the substance of bread and wine vanish, or that they be changed into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ; but only that the bread and wine, of which our Saviour spoke, were his body and blood, 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 Saviour's 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 Topics, whether of Scripture, or of the senses and right reason.  
Further, Transubstantiation being a Doctrine different from the real Presence, which adds something unto it, and which regards properly the manner of this Presence (which thing is the reason also, that the Bishop of Condom makes it an Article distinct) it is necessary that the Bishop of Condom should seek other reasons for this Doctrine than these words, This is my body; or that he should say, that he finds Transubstantiation in these very words, by this consequence which he draws thence, that the bread cannot be made the body of Jesus Christ, but by this only 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 entire sense of his words. And in this case things being brought to this point, behold here a way open to dispute; We have right to examine, whether the Bishop of Condom draws his consequence well or ill. When it is said, the Bishop of Condom, we mean the Church of Rome: and therefore it may yet be truly said here, as well as upon all the other Articles, that the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, being very far from putting an end unto disputes and objections, only gives us occasion to make new ones, upon the most important points of Faith.  
The third Assertion of the Bishop of Condoms 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 blood of Jesus Christ, that doth not hinder its being together the sign, and the thing signified. This is the reason also, that the Bishop of Condom perceiving that he did not proceed directly to the purpose, afterwards changes the proposition, and changes it so Strongly on the other side, that he resolves the sign to be a sign of such nature, as to be so far from excluding the reality, that it necessarily carries it with it: the reason is this, saith he, that Jesus Christ having said, this is my body, this is a sign that he is present.  
We confess we find it difficult to understand this arguing of the Bishop of Condoms; 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 blood 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 only 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 itself in question. The Question is, Whether the bread and wine are together the signs of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the body and blood 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 blood 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 only 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 itself is not the sign that you would have it to be, but only by giving it the literal sense, which you give it, and this literal sense alone, makes our first and principal question.  
The fourth and last Assertion of the Bishop of Condom, upon the Article of Transubstantiation, is touching the adoration of the Host. This Assertion is without doubt, the most fundamental and most important point, that separates us from the Church of Rome; because it is not only 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 presence, 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 signs do not now certify 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 there is not one word of it in the relation of the institution of the Sacrament, which shows, that the Apostles did prostrate themselves in receiving of it, nor that they shown 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 only very plainly said, that they went breaking bread from house to house.  
The Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament, who have carefully collected all the passages of Ecclesiastical Doctors 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 only, in three or four places, in all the following Ages, until towards the Tenth Age. And which is more, in those very places the adoration doth not relate unto the Sacrament, but unto Jesus Christ, believed ●o be in Heaven: whence they cannot conclude a sovereign adoration of the Sacrament, with greater reason than they grant we have, when we allege ●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 signify a sovereign and absolute Adoration, such as is given unto God, but only a veneration or relative honour, as they speak, why will they not allow, that in those few places where those other Authors speak of the Sacrament, the adoration, whereof they speak, may not also be an honour, or ●eneration, which is rendered unto the sacred Mysteries.  
It is true, as the Bishop of Condom affirms, that the Church of Rome not acknowledging any other substance in the Sacrament, but the body of Jesus Christ we do not wonder, that those who are so persuaded, pay it their adoration; but from thence itself, that they believe that adoration is a necessary consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that they do 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 only as a consequence of the Real Presence, and of Transubstantiation; for there is nothing like it to be found in the Scriptures, nor in the first Ages of Christianity. In those first times they preached the Gospel, and celebrated the Lords Supper, in the very same simplicity wherein it was instituted: but they said neither Low Mass nor High Mass, nor Mass without communicants, nor Mass unto such or ●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 blood 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 always forceth things unto extremes, 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 itself, wherein we offer ourselves unto God, and believe that we render God favourable unto us, is a true propitiatory Sacrifice.  
We will not here press what the Apostle says, 
Heb. 9.22.  that there is no true propitiation or remission of sins, without effusion of blood; We will only observe, that it is a rule of Divine Right touching the Sacrifices, that not only the Sacrifices, but the Altar itself is of greater dignity, and of greater holiness than the oblation, and that the oblation itself 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 man's hand, and the offering the proper Son of God, God himself.  
If they who have read this part of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, would attentively cast their eyes at the same time upon those passages of the Gospel, and of the Acts of the Apostles, which speak of the manner in which the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted and celebrated, we are persuaded, 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 only to follow the rule, which the Bishop of Condom hath himself proposed to know whether 2 Doctrines are opposite, 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 only two of the Apostles, both which speak almost the same thing, to see if the Doctrine of the Bishop of Condom be conform thereto.  
St. Paul comparing the ceremonies and the figures of the Old Covenant, with the truth which is found in Jesus Christ, and designing to show, 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 entered 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 Sacramental, or ●n the manner of a spirit; whereas St. Paul speaks one●y of this first manner of presence in Heaven, and that excludes this other sort of presence upon Earth.  
But in the first place, this is to answer by the thing itself which is in question. To be able to speak thus, it were necessary to show 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 lest something 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 than 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 die 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 die; to offer himself every day, because it is not necessary he die.  
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 only under the signs of death, and supposing that the Apostle only speaks of the former, and that he means Jesus Christ doth not offer himself to die 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 shown, that the Apostle had acknowledged these two different ways of offering himself, the one in suffering death and the other without dying: but on the contrary, the Apostle speaks absolutely, and without restriction, that Jesus Christ doth not offer himself often. And what he adds, that otherwise it had been necessary that Jesus Christ should often have died, doth not make a part of the Apostles proposition, but only the reason of his proposition; otherwise the Apostles proposition would amount unto this, that Jesus Christ doth not die often, because he doth not die 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 showed these two different manners of offering himself, the one in dying, and the other in putting himself only under the sign, or under the coverts of death, as the Bishop of Condom speaks.  
It appears, that we must wilfully shut our Eyes to be able not to see, that all the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, is directly opposite unto that of St. Paul. Nevertheless the weakness, or the variety of the mind of man is such, that even from this itself, the Bishop of Condom takes occasion yet to triumph upon this point, desiring us to make serious reflection 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, etc.  This reflection reduceth itself 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 not poison in it, neither doth overthrow the foundations of Faith, and that it ought not to break communion betwixt Brethren: so that if the Lutherans do reject the sacrifice and the adoration, and do not believe Jesus Christ to be present, but only 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-catholics do: that our Doctors 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 subtlety of the Ministers can ever persuade 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 persuade, 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 shown the difference betwixt their Error, and that of the Church of Rome, which is in a word, that that of the Lutherans is but an error 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 only 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 Sophism) the Reality or the Real presence, such as the Church of Rome believes it, by a change of the substance of bread into that of the body of Jesus Christ, immediately after these words this is my body are pronounced, is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and of the adoration of the Host. This is the sense of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition, upon which we have nothing to say. God, saith he, hath permitted, that the Lutherans continue firm in the belief of the Reality. This is his second proposition, and here the equivocation gins, 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 only 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 poison in it, and ought not to cause a separation amongst Brethren. This is the Bishop of Condom's third proposition, where one may see the continuance of the equivocation upon the word Reality: for it is not of the belief of the Reality in general, that we have declared that it hath no poison 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 falseness 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 ●●em more consequent than that of ●he Lutherans, as the Bishop of Con●●m says that our Doctors do 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 itself be an Error, 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 〈◊〉 subtlety of the Ministers, to say, an Error which seems more consequent ●s not more tolerable.  
On the contrary, the more consequent an Error is, the more natural also is it that it leads 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 strait soever that way seems to be. Who can reasonably doubt, but that the Error 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 Error 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 Error 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 sum, we do only endure it, and blame them for it, and we have not admitted them into our communion, but through a spirit of peace, and of charity, when they have desired to be thereinto admitted, and according to the conditions mentioned in the Act of our Synod.  
N●w although the Bishop of Condom seems only 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 itself; and that to conclude, we should receive this Doctrine altogether, and not only swallow it down, but also digest it.  
There remains but one Article more of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, 
XVII. The Communion under both kinds.  touching the Eucharist to examine. The title is conceived in these terms, The communion under both kinds, as if it were the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that we ought to communicate under both kinds, of bread, and wine; in stead of saying, The taking away the Cup, or the communion under one kind, which is properly the thing meant. It is plain here, that they find it troublesome to say the thing as it is, because it cannot be said without showing at first sight, that they have taken away something of the institution of our Lord.  
However the case stands, the Bishop of Condom only 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 itself, 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 blood of the New Testament which was shed for many, which yet are words most essential to this subject, and which contain not only an express command to all, to drink of the Cup, but also the reason of the command, which is, that the blood of the Lord was shed for many.  
Let the Bishop of Condom tell us here, why he makes so much reflection 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 only propose, but command, and when he commands that we should all drink ot the blood of the New Testament?  
At other times they pay us with this escape, that in the Institution of the Eucharist, Jesus Christ did only 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 blood 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 tied unto the sensible forms but unto the proper substance of his flesh, which is living and quickening, 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 only, because they thereby receive all that is essential to this Sacrament, with a fullness so much the more certain, in that the separation of the body and blood not being real, as it hath been said, there is received entirely and without division, him that only is able to satisfy us.  
We need only 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 blood, and that he that believes he receives the body, aught to believe that he receives the blood also, under one and the same form, by reason of what they call concomitance, that is to say, that the blood 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 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 blood 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 blood 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 blood 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.  
Nevertheless, if the bread and wine be really made the body and blood 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 blood be only 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 blood 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, aught 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 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 blood. So that what way soever we take the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, it manifestly contradicts itself: 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 blood, 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 only; nor by consequence that the Cup ought to be taken away.  
The Bishop of Condom not being able to justify 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 only; 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 herself 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, 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 prejudicated, 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 herself 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 great regard had for the Sacraments of the body and blood 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 blood of Jesus Christ; for it is well known, that it is only 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 reunion, 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 reunion, which hindered not but that the Council of Trent did elude this re-establishment in a time, when it was demanded with so much instance, will never in all likelihood prevail against the inconvenience of Irreverencie, which will always continue: that is to say, it will always be a great scandal, ever and anon to see spilt that which is believed to be the proper blood of the Lord; and the simple reflection 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 itself.  
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 Lord's 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 only one.  
But who sees not the extreme difference, that there is betwixt this useage of our Churches, and that which the Church of Rome ordains and practices, 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 only through this natural aversion, which they cannot overcome, forbear to take the sign of the wine; and they give not the bread itself, 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 loan, or to Princes, or other considerable persons whom she thinks good to gratify: 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 dispatched: we leave it unto those, who are pleased to take the pains of reading this Answer, to make reflection 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 moiety of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise: it was impossible to clear all, and to be shorter. We shall make a speedier dispatch with the three points which remain, to wit, Tradition, the authority of the Church, and the authority of the Pope; as well because they are general matters upon which there are express Volumes, as also because the Bishop of Condom himself passeth very lightly over the Questions of Tradition, and of the authority of the Pope; and that Lastly, ●t is known, that these three Questions will be treated of throughly by a better hand, in a Work which will shortly 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 ourselves here to examine in a few words, what the Bishop of Condom lays down upon each of these three Articles, and we are persuaded, that we cannot bet●er confirm our Doctrine, in opposition unto that of the Church of Rome, than by showing 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 written 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 itself which is in question. He ●ntends to suppose thereby, that the Traditions of the Church of Rome, which we admit not at all, are nothing else but the very Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and of his Apostles, as well as the Holy Scriptures, with this only 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, etc. Can. Script.  and that the Council of Trent itself decides it, in proper terms.  
Now we have no thoughts of denying, that what our Lord and his Apostles said by word of mouth, aught to be of the same authority, as that which the same Apostles afterwards left in writing; that is not at all the question: but we say, that our Lord having put it into the hearts of the Evangelists and of the Apostles to write the Gospel which they preached, these holy Doctors 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 reproof, that the man of God may be perfect and accomplished 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 only place, which is that whereof the Bishop of Condom makes mention, 
Mar. 7.8, 9, 13. Colos. 2.8. 2 Thes 2.15.  the Apostle exhorting the Thessalonians to hold fast the Traditions which they had received of him, whether it were by mouth when he was present with them, or by Epistle which he had since writ to them, says 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 sum, 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 itself, which hath the least resemblance to prayer for the dead, to Purgatory, to the invocation of Saints, to the adoration of Images, nor in fine, to any of the Traditions which are in question betwixt the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, and us.  
It were an easy matter here, 
De Doct. Christ. li. 2. c. 9 & li. 3. count. lit. Petili. c. 6. Hieron. ad Hel. vi. pa. 315, & 366. Chrysos. Hono. 3. in 2. ad Cor.  to strengthen ourselves 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 Controversy touching the judgement 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. Only let us see what the Bishop of Condom produces for the unwritten Word. Jesus Christ (saith he) having founded his Church upon preaching, 
pa. 158.  the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity, and when thereto the Scriptures of the New Testament were added, this Word did not thereby lose its authority. We must observe here at first, that this is to speak in some sort improperly to say, that Jesus Christ founded the Church upon preaching and not rather by preaching: Preaching is a means, and not a foundation: the means may cease, the foundation ought to be durable. And, no more is it true, that the unwritten Word was the first rule of Christianity: It is the Scripture itself 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 only 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 prophecies touching the Messiah, the time, and the place of his Birth, and all the circumstances of his death. The Gospel, as all the world knows, is not the abrogating, but the fulfilling of the Law; therefore it is, that we see that Jesus Christ and the Apostles, grounded their preaching upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ continually refers the Jews to the Law, and to the Testimony. It is written, saith he, in your Law, etc. 
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, etc. separated unto the Gospel, etc. which was promised by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures; concerning his Son Jesus Christ, etc. who was made of the seed of David, according to the Flesh: and so he gins his very Epistle to the Hebrews; God, who at sundry times spoke unto the Fathers by the prophets, etc. In fine, his first Chapter, and the whole Epistle, is nothing else but one citation of Exodus, of Chronicles, of Samuel, Job, Psalms, and the other Books of the Old Testament.  
It is besides a very improper manner of speaking, to say, that when the Scriptures of the New Testament were joined 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 Condoms, that the Scriptures were joined 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 only 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 Error.  
For upon the main, the Bishop of Condom pretends, that the Holy Scripture contains only the lesser part of Christian Religion; and that on the contrary, Tradition doth contain the principal part. At least his pretence is, that there may be some particular Doctrines which are not to be had but by Tradition, which ought not for their not being in Scripture therefore to lose their authority.  
As for any thing else, the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome are so little firm to their principle of Tradition, or at least they so well acknowledge, that Tradition cannot go equal with Scripture, though the Council hath been pleased to determine the contrary, that when they are pressed touching particular Traditions, which are in question betwixt them and us, there is scarce one, but they endeavour to support by the authority of Scripture, whether it be by interpreting it in their sense, or by the consequences which they draw thence. When they treat of Tradition in general, they maintain it with excess, comparing it to Scripture, as if it went through all Religion; and when they treat of their Doctrines in particular, they would make the World believe, that there is scarce any one amongst them, which is not founded on the very Scripture.  
But if we would know nevertheless, how the Bishop of Condom proves, that the particular ponits of Tradition are the very Doctrine of the Apostles, unwritten, it may be at first we would believe, that he had in hand some Author 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 bind men's Consciences.  
But in conclusion, behold here what the Bishop of Condom gives us in stead of such a proof: 
pa. 159, 160.  the certain sign (saith he) that a Tradition comes from the Apostles, is, when it is embraced by all the Christian Churches, without possible finding out the beginning of it, etc. 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 lays down this Maxim, not daring to apply the same unto any of the Traditions of the Church of Rome, as knowing that this character, indefinite as it is, doth not suit with them.  
To judge rightly of his argument, and of the consequence which he would draw from thence, this is the order into which we ought to put his propositions.  
It is impossible, saith he, that a Doctrine received from the beginning of the Church, should proceed from any other origin but from the Apostles; A Doctrine embraced by all the Christian Churches, whereof the beginning cannot be showed, 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 showing 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 showed that it was then received generally of all the Churches, and that the Apostles did not oppose themselves against it; for the Apostles themselves testify, that in their times the Mystery of iniquity began to work, 
2 Thes. 2.7. 1 Tim. 1.7.  that there were false Teachers amongst the Christians, and by consequence false Doctrines: so that it was no way impossible, that these same Doctrines were not followed, or revived in aftertimes, ●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 reflection 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 shown. Much less therefore should it be said, that these Establishments must necessarily be from the first foundation of these States or Religion. Who could show the Original of all the false Traditions of the Jews? 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. two. 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 custom, aught to show their reasons for it; nevertheless it is one of those Doctrines, whereof we cannot show the beginning; and for all that none dares to say at this time, that it was received from the beginning of the Church, or that it came from the Apostles; otherwise the Council of Trent would not have dared to abrogate and abolish it, as it hath done.  
In fine, the third proposition which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose in his Argument, is yet less true than the two former, namely that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which separate us from her communion, are Doctrines embraced by all the Christian Churches, without possible showing the beginning thereof. Can the Church of Rome show 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 Relics, of the Cross, of auricular confession, of Indulgences, of the Pope's Supremacy, of private Masses, of the adoration of the Host, of the communion under one kind, of religious Worship in an unknown Tongue; or in fine, of any of the particular Doctrines which separate us from the Roman Church? For not to speak of the present time in which it is evidently known, that there are many of the Christian Churches, as well in the East as the West, which do not embrace all the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, it is also a thing most certain and notorious, that it is not in the power of the Church of Rome to show, I will not say of all these Doctrines in general, but of any one of them alone, that it was embraced, not only 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 shown: 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 Authors 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, etc. 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 descent as to the greatest number of Traditions, as hath been noted before, of worshipping of Saints, of Images, of confession of Purgatory, and indulgences; and they maintain not these sorts of Doctrines, but by the general Maxim 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 Maxim which he lays down is not true, (which is, that all the Doctrines, embraced by all the Christian Churches, whereof the first beginning cannot be shown, 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 embraced by all the Christian Churches, without possibility of showing their beginning and by consequence this conclusion, whether it be of the Bishop of Condom, or of the Council of Trent, far from being true and orthodox, is a very strange principle, that we ought to receive the Traditions (even those which do separate us from the Church of Rome) with the same respect, and the same submission, as the Holy Scripture.  

XIX. The authority of the Church.  After Tradition follows the authority of the Church. The Bishop of Condom doth not clearly explain wherein this authority consists; nor what he understands by the Church, which should have this authority; whether this authority should have any bounds, or whether it should have none, or whether it be the Pope with the Council, or without the Council, or the Council alone, in which this authority doth reside; for we also have our Churches, and our Governors, and we believe that we should not only 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 says in this case, is reducible to four principal propositions. The first, that it cannot be, but by the authority of the Church, that we receive the whole body of the Holy Scriptures. The second, that it is of the Church, that we learn Tradition, and by Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures. The third, that it is the Church, and her Pastors 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 itself.  
As to the first, we agree with the Bishop of Condom, that the Christian Church is the Guardian of the Scriptures, and that as she hath received the Law and the Prophets from the Jewish Church, so it is from the Chirstian Church, that the Faithful receive all the Scriptures as well of the Old, as of the New Testament.  
We even acknowledge that the authority of the Church is a lawful reason, which at first makes us look upon the Scripture as a revelation from Heaven: but we do deny, not only that it is merely 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 itself 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 dependence upon an humane authority.  
It is, as if one would say, that it is yet at this day only by the authority of the Jewish Church, that Christians have received the whole body of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, because it is by her hand that we have received them; though upon the whole, the authority of this peopel, chosen of God, may be a reasonable ground of the Divinity of the Scriptures.  
Truth hath its proper character even in humane matters, which makes us acknowledge it for its self, when once it is set before our eyes, and not for the authority of those who propose it to us: By greater reason Heavenly truths, like the Sun, manifest themselves by their proper splendour.  
'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 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. Judas, which might be suspected, by reason of some Apocryphal Books, which are therein alleged.  
But how dare any man rebate, or decry, as I may so speak, the brightness and force of the Word of God? Why says 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. Judas, which we look upon both in the one and the other communion, as sacred Books, and that without so much as alleging the reasons, which have determined as well the Church of Rome, as ours to receive these Writings as Canonical?  
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 'tis well known there are some others, as Toby, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two first Books of Maccabees, etc. 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 Jew's not receiving for such, all that the Church of Rome receiveth, she doth not think herself 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 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 Jews, the Church did not tie herself blindly to receive their Traditions which overthrew the Law, nor their interpretation, when it doth not accord with the true sense of the Prophets.  
Error, as vice, is for the most part in the extremes: we own 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 this submission into a voluntary blindness.  
Faith being a gift of God, we ought not to change, nor force the use of the exterior means which God employs 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 persuade 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 herself, that she inventeth not any thing anew in points of Doctrine: and elsewhere, very far from intending to render herself mistress of her Faith, as her Adversaries accuse her, she hath done what she can to bind herself, and that the means of innovation may be taken away, seeing she not only submits to the Scripture, but to banish for ever those arbitrary interpretations, which make men's thoughts to pass for Scripture, she hath bound herself to understand them, as to what regards Faith and manners, according to the sense of the holy Fathers, from which she professeth never to departed; 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 always exactly followed the Doctrine of the Fathers, or of the very preceding Councils? for not to speak of Transubstantiation, of worshipping the Host, and of private Masses, which according to us are Doctrines and Worships unknown, at least in the 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 bathe also been showed 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 confession, and of Indulgences, which have succeeded to the practice of public penance, 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 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 allege the sixth of St. John for the communion under both kinds, 
Sess. 21. de come. 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 been already done heretofore, and because we treat not here of the right, but only of the matter of fact, which the Bishop of Condom hath averred, to wit, that the Church of Rome hath bound herself, that she hath taken away the means of innovating, that she submits herself 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 herself, 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 only compared in general with the Doctrines and practices of the three first, and even with the following Ages; the Council of Trent, 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 herself within the bounds, which it is said that she hath prescribed herself; 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 only 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 Pastors assembled to decide controversies, and the Faithful to receive their decisions without examining them: we all agree to the former part of this proposition; and we believe also that the way of Synodal Assemblies, is the most universal outward means, and the most effectual, that God makes use of, to keep men's minds united in one only 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 allegeth out of the 15th. of the Acts, when the Apostles being assembled upon the controversy which was raised touching the ceremonies of the Law, they pronounced these remarkable works, It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us, etc. 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 Catholic Authors observe the passion, the motives, and the humane interest, that inspirited them.  
2. We see, that though the Apostles were fully persuaded of their authority, as St. Paul speaks particularly of himself, yet they are very far from thundering out anathemas for the least matters, as the Council hath done, at every word, against all those that will not admit even of mere School-distinctions, and Figures of Rhetoric. We see the Apostles found their judgement upon the Holy Scriptures, and having concluded upon it, they only 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 only 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 Jews, and the other people which had newly embraced the Doctrine of the Gospel. In sum, very soon after, St. Paul himself preached, that people might eat indifferently of all sorts of meat; and it is known, that in process of time, the usage established by this Ordinance of the Apostles was insensibly abolished.  
4. It doth not appear, that the Apostles did publish their decision with an absolute injunction to obey it: but they sent Paul, Barnabas, and Silas, to instruct the Faithful to keep this Ordinance; that is to say, in all likelihood, to show 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 always 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 forbade the worshipping of Images; and the decisions of those Councils have not hindered, but that other Councils have ordained the contrary. It is known, that the Gallican Church hath not yet, to this day, received all the decisions of the Council of Trent, as to points that regard Ecclesiastical Order and discipline, which notwithstanding are much more of humane Jurisdiction, than the very matters of Faith.  
The fourth and last proposition of the Bishop of Condom's touching the authority of the Church, is, that wherein he objects against us, that this authority is so necessary, that after having decried it, we have been obliged to establish it in the very matters of Faith itself.  
This proposition contains two accusations which destroy each the other, that which makes them the less credible. The one is, that we have decried the authority of the Church; the other, that we have established it without any bounds. In sum, nothing is worse grounded than the first of these accusations: for it is not true, that we ever denied 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 Pastors and Governors of the Faithful. Our confession of Faith, our discipline, the Acts of our Synods, in a word all that the Bishop of Condom himself reports, which is what is most ancient, and most authentic amongst ●s since the Reformation, manifestly destroys this accusation; and the Bishop of Condom doth not allege any thing which shows the contrary.  
Our Doctors have preached and written against the excessive authority of the Court of Rome, against the Sovereignty which we believe the Popes have generally usurped over Bishops (which yet have the same character, 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 Pope's 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 Emperors that assembled them. In fine, we could have again exclaimed against the abuse of Indulgences; and in a word, against all those points, whereby the manner of the Government of the Church is become so widely different from that, wherein it was governed by the Apostles and St. Peter himself, of whom the Pope's style themselves successors; but in all these very things, those of our communion are the only 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 College of Sorbon, the appeals unto Councils, Finally, the Writings of a great number of Catholics, even in these last times, clearly enough show, that we are not the only men, nor the first, nor the last, which have cried down the excessive authority of Popes.  
Let us proceed now to the second accusation, which is, that after having decried this authority, we have been constrained to establish it amongst ourselves. 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 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 find 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 only 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, than it is that he displays all the subtlety of his arguring; than it is that he enlarges and insults over us, as if we only could hang down our heads. This is the part of a feeble Enemy, which keeps himself enclosed, and only 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 maintain unity. But this implies not any wise, that we have attributed a kind of infallibility, or a sovereign and absolute authority unto our Synods, such as the Church of Rome attributes unto Popes, and unto Councils, which is the only 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 Sovereign.  
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 composed their confession of Faith. Their fault was chief 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 dependence, inasmuch as the greatest inconveniency that it observes, whereinto the Faithful might fall by independency, is this very point, that Schisms might be form, 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 itself. 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 Pastors: 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 herself 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 errors, 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 judgement to the Word of God taken in itself, independently upon the interpretation of the Church, because the appeal of indifferent persons was received, who had in their judgement applied that very word.  
The difficulty is here only as it may be seen, upon the more or less of the authority which should be attributed unto the judgement 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 dependence is requisite, and that Pastors 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 Pastors, 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 says, that those who have any scruple shall be heard in the Synod with all holy freedom, and that the scruple or difficulty shall be there resolved by the Word of God. It is not possible to find a temper more just and equitable to retain, on the one side particular persons in a just moderation, and to leave to God and his Word the supreme and absolute authority over our consciences.  
It may be, that this moderation itself is not without some inconvenience, and that it would seem, that the opinion of the infallibility of Popes, or of Councils, and the sovereign 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 itself. 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 error, as it ought to be supposed in this part of the Question that it may so happen, and as we are convinced by experience that it hath happened diversetimes, the evil is almost without remedy. Error hath the force of authentic and irrevocable Law, it renders itself more general, more durable, and by consequence more difficult to be reform; 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 only 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 themselves, so that they might have mastered the Councils, and Truth might have groaned longer than it did, under the oppression of those Heretics.  
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 shows, 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 hindering of division, hath very much contributed unto the divisions of the East against the West, and of the West against itself; which are the two Schisms, the most considerable and unfortunate that could fall out in the Church. The sincere persons of the Church of Rome do acknowledge yet to this day, that it is the too great height 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 anathematise those that would not receive those Doctrines, that hath put an obstruction well nigh invincible to the peace and reunion of Christians. And not long since again, amongst Roman Catholics, 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 only the power to change the outward appearances, but the unity of minds is wanting: so true is it, that it is only the knowledge of Faith and charity, which are the solid grounds of an holy union of hearts, and of thoughts.  
The Bishop of Condom doth yet make a third difficulty, upon the form of the Letters, which we give unto our Deputies, when we send them to the Synods. The Form is conceived in these terms, which are reported by the Bishop of Condom. We promise in the presence of God, to submit ourselves to all, that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy Assembly, to obey and execute it to the best of our power, being persuaded 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 wondered at, how the Bishop of Condom could have so much mistaken himself herein, as he hath done; for he thinks that there is something more in it, than in those two other places, of our discipline, and of the Synod of Charenton, which he had reported, to show 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 only 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 ourselves otherwise. But upon the whole, every one sees that the sense of this Form is, as if one should say, we promise to submit ourselves 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 governs you, and that you do not proceed by canvasing and Cabals, or by humane motives and interests, as the Roman Catholic Authors testify it was done in the latter Councils of Constance and of Trent.  
If it be, saith the Bishop of Condom, a persuasion founded upon an humane presumption, can any man in conscience promise to submit, himself to what shall be resolved? And if this persuasion hath its foundation in a certain belief of the assistance of the Holy Spirit given unto the Church, the Catholics 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 dilemmas: this persuasion is a judgement 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, always provided that they have Truth, and the Word of 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 itself, that our Synods in the whole are made up only 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 Ambassadors, or their Envoys, the ordinary, style whereof is, that they have entire trust and confidence in the integrity, fidelity and ability of them whom they send, giving them full power, etc. Nevertheless with this condition understood all along, that 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 only in the quality and style of them who speak; Princes speak as Prince's men of business like men of business, and Churches in a style pious, and Christian: so that these Letters missive not only give merely a limited 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 it is a constant principle of Christianity, according to us, that Faith is a firm persuasion, and by consequence, that men's minds must be cleared and rendered 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 ourselves. 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 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 Union. 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 Viscount 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 sum the resolution of 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 custom. 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 error: and mean time, they have not feared to commit their Faith into the hands of four men, with so large abandoning their own judgement, 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 blood.  
To this head in fine, is the Bishop of Condom's evil reflection come: 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 cried always 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 judgements 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 only in the most eminent place of the Council for order amongst the Councils themselves? Is it all the Councils together, that are infallible, and whose decisions we must follow, or only 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 only saith to serve and worship, and give unto them the honour that is due? And as to this Council of Trent itself, 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 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 only 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 complete 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 concealed all the difficulties throughout, and only endeavoured to create doubts upon some points of ours: for the positive, clear, and sincere proposal of a Doctrine, doth persuade 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) 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 yourselves 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 itself: 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 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 itself. 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 men's 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 lies all the subtlety of his Exposition, to sweeten what he can, and to let alone what he cannot sweeten. The difficulty is only in keeping a man's self within just bounds, not too much to weaken the sense in sweetening, and not to lose 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 entered into conference with the Lutherans. To conclude, as it is principally upon the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, that we have differed from the Lutherans, so upon that itself 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 to us with them. It would seem, that if the Lutherans could not entirely 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. We 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 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 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 canonised themselves, affect them more, it is known how Stephen Bishop of Rome, did excommunicate St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage; 
Firmil. Ep. ad Cypria. Hieron. Ep. ad Theoph. Alex. Cum. oper. Theoph.  how St. Jerome was incensed against St. chrysostom, 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 days 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 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 coexistence 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 itself, than not to adore him there at all. But upon the whole, these indeed are only speculations of the Schools, and private Opinions: and as these consequences of the Lutherans, taking them aright, are only consequences which no ways engage those, who only admit the Lutherans into their communion; so it plainly appears, 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 entering 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 itself, or the form of the power which they gave unto their Deputies: for as to the thing, when any difference is treated of, the power which is given, how ample soever it be, regards only the difference itself, and extends not itself 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 itself, 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 Lutherans. It is well known, that on such occasions, the power is relative, and as it were restrained, unto the memoirs 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 only 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, 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 only 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 reunion; The Synod would have approved and ratified it: they would have framed an Act, that should have contained the motives, the grounds, and principal reasons of their decree, and the Deputies of Provinces would have been enjoined to obtain also the final acquiescence of the Churches by their silence.  
Let it now be judged, whether there be any thing in all this, that in the least tends to establish that infallibility, and absolute dominion, which the Church of Rome attributes either to Popes or Councils, which is the only 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 only for finishing this Answer to the Bishop of Condom's Treatise, that we speak a word in particular touching the authority of the Pope, and of Episcopacy. This is again one of those places, where the Bishop of Condom is as it were upon thorns. In the first Impression of his Treatise, after having said, as in passage, that God had instituted the Primacy of St. Peter, 
pa. 165  to preserve unity, he adds, This is the reason that our confession of Faith obliges us to acknowledge the Church of Rome as the Mother and Mistress [Magistram] of all other Churches, and to render a perfect obedience to the Sovereign High Priest, Successor 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, Sovereign, Vicar of Jesus Christ, and perfect obedience which is due unto him, whether it be that he would not engage to maintain these expressions in the extent of them, or whether he was loath to anger us; or in fine, for some other reason that he had. Now behold what he has put in stead of what he took away. We acknowledge, 
New Edition 〈…〉  saith he, this same Primacy (speaking of that of St. Peter, which we have said that he supposed) in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles, unto whom is due, for this reason, the submission and obedience, which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always 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'll 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 itself.  
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 allege 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 Catholic Faitb.  
But in all likelihood, by these things which are disputed, the Bishop of Condom here only means the abuse of dispensations, and of Indulgences, the power of deposing Kings, and to absolve Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance, and such other matters, as are truly odious: but for those things which precisely regard the submission that the Popes pretend due, whether in matters of Faith, or of Government Ecclesiastical, though they are disputed as well out of the Schools, as in the Schools, if the Bishop of Condom avers that they are no more of the Catholic 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 easy to show in this place, that the Fathers and Councils, unto whom the Bishop of Condom refers us, have not always taught, that the Church of Rome was to be acknowledged as the mother and mistress of all others, nor the Bishop of Rome as Sovereign High Priest, sole Head, and only Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, nor that in this quality, the submission and obedience, which he at this day claims of all the World, is due unto him. Those who are but the least versed in History, and judge without prejudice, do well know, 
Dist. 22. ca Constantinopolitanae.  that 'tis only the pre-eminence 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 only above other Episcopal Chairs, but above Kings and Emperors themselves.  
It might also be showed very clearly by the Scripture, that the very pretended Primacy of St. Peter, upon which the Authority of the Pope is grounded, is not itself founded upon any thing; for St. Peter had no more but his function of an Apostle like the rest. It is said in the Eighth of the Acts, that the Apostles which were in Jerusalem, sent Peter and John to Samaria; a passage which doth not intimate, 
Gal. 2.9. Gal. 2.11.  that St. Peter did attribute to himself any dominion over his Fellow Labourers. The others are called pillars of the Church as well as he: St. Paul saith himself, that he withstood him to the face; and if it were true, that St. Peter had some primacy amongst the Apostles, either because of his age, or of his zeal, as indeed it appears he spoke 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 Pastors 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 only 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, living in a great deal of simplicity under the governance of our Pastors 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 itself, 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 only an Overseer, and no more than that of a Pastor, or Minister; the Apostles are indifferently termed one and the other. It is known that in Germany, and England, the name of Bishops is retained, and a kind of Hierarchy which we do not disapprove of, being moderate as it is. And in fine, God is our witness, that we love peace and union, as the Bishop of Condom de-fsires; but a true union of hearts and judgements with knowledge; and, as God himself hath commanded, that we should love, Peace with Truth.   
FINIS.   

A TABLE Of the chief Points.  

THE FIRST PART.  
I. THE Design of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise page 50.  
II. The Bishop of Condom 's first general proposition, that those of the pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge, that the Church of Rome doth embrace all the Fundamental points of Christian Religion page 58.  
III. The Bishop of Condom's second general proposition, That the Church of Rome doth teach, that Religious Worship is terminated on God only pag. 69.   

SECOND PART.  
iv Of Invocation of Saints pag. 67.  
V Of Images and Relics pag. 109.   

THIRD PART.  
VI Of Justification pag. 134.  
VII. Of the merit of Works pag. 153.  
VIII. Of satisfaction, Purgatory, and Indulgences pag. 156.   

FOURTH PART.  
IX. Of the Sacraments pag. 171.  
Baptism pag. 179.  
Confirmation pag. 191.  
Pennance and Sacramental Confession pag. 195.  
Extreme Unction pag. 213.  
Marriage pag. 217.  
Orders pag. 219.   

FIFTH PART.  
X. Of the Eucharist. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the Real presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and the manner in which the Church of Rome understands these words, This is my Body pag. 221  
XI. An Explication of these words, Do this in remembrance of me pa. 249.  
XII. The Exposition which the Bishop of Condom makes of the Doctrine of those of the Reformed Religion upon the Reality pag. 261.  
XIII. Of Transubstantiation, of Adoration, and in what sense it is that the Bishop of Condom saith, that the Eucharist is a Sign pag. 308.  
XIV. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass p. 324.  
XV. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews pag. 327.  
XVI. The Bishop of Condom's reflection, upon the precedent Doctrine pa. 332.  
XVII. The Communion under both kinds pa. 55.   

SIXTH PART.  
XVIII. Of Tradition, or the Word written, and the Word unwritten. pag 355.  
XIX. Of the Authority of the Church pag. 370  
XX. The judgement of those of the P. R. Rel. upon the Authority of the Church pag. 389  
XXI. Of the Authority of the Holy Chair, and of Episcopacy pa. 426.   
FINIS.   

A Note on line 17. pag: 38.  
Because the Roman Creed doth not use genitum twice, but unigenitum & natum I did not think fit to render genitum and natum b●th by one English word: nor yet to render ex patre natum born of the Father; for we say in the Apostles Creed born of the Virgin Mary: nor proceeding from the Father, that being said properly of the Holy Ghost. I therefore have said brought forth. Against which if any take exception, I declare, let the Roman Church mean what She will by Natum, I mean the same by brought forth. For I meant to express her Latin words by English one's, as strictly answering, as I could. Indeed in so great a mystery all language must needs be improper.   

Errata insigniora.  
Pag: 11. l: 23. deal that. P. 25. l. 12. it league them. P. 32. l. 11. d. that. P. 89. l. 5. leg. that it is. p. 132. l. penult fasten lege. soften. p. 138. l. 28. leg. The error. p: 157. l. 11. for leg. before. p. 158. l: 21. del. not. p: 182. l. ult. lege. in which. p. 274. l: 4. leg. this death. p: 279. l: 20. And it is also. leg. But it is.