Mr. Claude's answer to Monsieur de Meaux's book, intituled, A conference with Mr. Claude with his letter to a friend, wherein he answers a discourse of M. de Condom, now Bishop of Meaux, concerning the Church.

Mr. CLAƲDE's ANSWER TO Monſieur de MEAƲX's BOOK, INTITULED, A Conference with Mr. CLAUDE.

WITH HIS LETTER to a FRIEND.

WHEREIN He Anſwers a Diſcourſe of M. de Condom, now Biſhop of Meaux, concerning the Church.

IMPRIMATUR,

Junii 18. 1687. GƲIL. NEEDHAM.

LONDON: Printed for T. Dring, at the Harrow in Fleetſtreet, at Chancery-Lane-end. MDCLXXXVII.

THE Author's Preface.

AMONG all the Points in Controverſy betwixt us, and the Gentlemen of the Romiſh Communion, it is plain there is not any one wherein they think better of their Cauſe than this, which hath been ſtarted ſince our Reformation, Concerning the Church; and yet, perhaps there is not any one wherein they have leſs reaſon to think ſo. Were this groundleſs confidence obſerved to be predominant among the Vulgar only, who ſeldom look beyond the prejudices of their Infancy; or among the buſy men of intrigue in the Age, who are ever raiſing their worldly Advantages, as a Bulwark againſt the Truth; there would be no great reaſon to be ſurpriſed at it. But the moſt amazing thing of all is, that we continually meet with the ſame Opinion in perſons that want neither Underſtanding, nor ſound Senſe and Judgment; and which otherwiſe ſeem men of Integrity and Sincerity; ſo that there is ſcarce any queſtion to be made, but that they are verily perſwaded of the thing, as a certain undoubted Truth.

Now for the undeceiving theſe Perſons, it will, in my opinion, be convenient, not only to ſet their own Conceptions before them; but alſo to go back as far as the ground and original of thoſe Conceptions, that ſo they themſelves may pleſe to make ſuch Reflexions upon them, as they ſhall judg fit and neceſſary. The ground then of all this miſtake is, that upon pretence of the Churches being a Society, they immediately ſuffer themſelves to be poſſeſt at firſt with an Opinion, That we are to judg of it almoſt in the ſame manner, that we do of a Civil Society; and ſo never give themſelves the trouble of enquiring into the differences by which theſe two are diſtinguiſht from one another. Hence they have fancied, that the Eſſence of the Church conſiſts intirely in ſomething External; and that as a man need do no more to become a true Member of a Civil Society, than only live in an outward obſervance of the Laws; ſo to become a true Member of the Church, no more was required, than barely an outward Profeſſion of the Faith and Religion; and that there was no neceſſity at all of any inward Virtues, ſuch as Faith, Hope, and Charity. This is the very thing that hath made the Definitions of, moſt of their modern Divines, who place it in a meer outward Profeſſion, be entertained with Approbation and Applauſe. And when once theſe Definitions are received, they are under a neceſſity of looking upon, not any one part of theſe Profeſſors, to be the true Church of Jeſus Chriſt; but in general, the whole Body of Profeſſors, whether they be good or bad men, juſt or unjuſt, hypocrites or ſincere Believers.

From hence, by another unavoidable conſequence, they are forced to conceive of the Church, not only as an exterior and viſible Body, but as a Body diſtinctly, and certainly viſible, to ſuch a degree I mean, that a man might point out, without any danger of miſtake, the particular men of whom it is compoſed; as plainly and diſtinctly, as you can point the Perſons that make up any other Society; and declare without the leaſt fear of miſtaking your men, ſuch and ſuch are members of it. Such a viſibility of the Church as this it is, that Bellarmin hath explained thus:Eccleſia eſt • e • us homi •• m ita viſibi •• , & palpa • lis, ut eſt cae •• s populi Ro • ani, vel Reg • um Galliae, 〈◊〉 Reſpubli • Venetorum. • ellarmin. de • ccleſ. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Edit. • ugdum. 1587. The Church is a company of Men as viſible, and as palpable, as the Citizens of Rome, the Kingdom of France, or the Republick of Venice. So that his meaning is, that as the French, the Romans and Venetians, may plainly and particularly be ſingled out; ſo likewiſe may the Perſons that make the Body of the Church be, as particularly, and with the ſame degree of certainty that they were. Indeed, if there be nothing beſides a bare outward Profeſſion required, to make men truly Members of the Church, This Profeſſion is a thing diſcernable by the eye, in every ſingle perſon; and thus the Church will be viſible, ſo as that particular men may be plainly diſtinguiſhed to be of it.

By another neceſſary and unavoidable Conſequence, they were conſtrained to apply all the Promiſes made by God to his Church, whether in the Old or New Teſtament, to this viſible and exteriour Body. And being theſe Promiſes include the Churches perpetuity, that they might keep as cloſe to their firſt Notions as they could, there was a neceſſity of explaining the Churches ſubſiſtence in this ſenſe: That the Church muſt always ſubſiſt after the manner of a ſenſible and palpable body, ſo as to be the object of our ſight, and diſcernable by all the World, even to a plain and poſitive diſtinction of particular perſons. Hence it is, that they have drawn their ſo much boaſted Succeſſion, and which all their diſputes run ſo much upon. Whereby they underſtand a continued train of Prieſts, one after another, in the ſame Epiſcopal Sees, and a continued train of people, making up the ſame Congregations; ſo as that both People and Prieſts always make profeſſion of the ſame Religion, without any change or alteration, except it be perhaps in matters of Diſcipline, which are things that may very well admit of a change, without making the Church to differ from what it was before.

Then carrying theſe Conceptions of theirs ſtill further, they fancied, that as in order to the preſervation of the Civil Society, an abſolute Supreme Authority, to which all muſt bend, is neceſſary, becauſe without ſuch a one there would be no poſſible means of compoſing differences, or preventing Domeſtick quarrels; the ſame was likewiſe neceſſary in the Church: That in this, one Supreme and Abſolute Tribunal muſt be acknowledged upon Earth; that without this and an intire obedience paid to it, even in matters of Conſcience, Diſpute would never be ended, nor Unity preſerved, but at laſt things would come to ſuch a paſs that there would ſtart up as many Churches, and different Religions, as Families. And this gave birth to their pretentions to Infallibility, and a blind implicite obedience to the determinations of Councils, without preſuming to examine them at all.

Laſtly, It is by all theſe prejudicate opinions, that the Gentlemen of the Romiſh Communion ſuppoſe themſelves able to overthrow the Proteſtant-Cauſe, and make that of their own Church impregnable. The pretended Reformed Church, ſay they, cannot be this exterior body, always viſible, and palpable, which muſt have continued in this ſtate of viſibility, and that without any alteration, ever ſince Jeſus Chriſt, and the Apoſtles time, down to ours; becauſe this is not above a hundred or ſixſcore years old, Therefore it is not the Church of Chriſt. This cannot ſhew a continued ſucceſſion of Prieſts and People, Aſſemblies and Epiſcopal Sees, nor a profeſſion of one and the ſame Religion without any variation, which is exactly what Chriſt promiſed. Therefore this is not the Church of Jeſus Chriſt. This Church hath forſaken the Supreme Authority and Infallibility of the Church of Rome, and refuſed to pay obedience to her deciſions; on the contrary the hath taken upon her to examine thoſe Deciſions, and hath done all that in her lay utterly to ſubvert this Tribunal, which is ſo neceſſary to the ſubſiſtence of the true Church: Therefore ſhe is not the Church of Jeſus Chriſt.

Of theſe Objections eſpecially hath M. de Meaux made his Book to conſiſt; and becauſe this of mine is made publick only with a deſign to anſwer that, it is not fit I ſhould prevent the reading of it in this Preface, nor foreſtal the judgment men may make of my Anſwers, when they ſee them at large. I ſhall think it therefore ſufficient to ſay in general, by way of preparation, That all theſe pretended Principles which the Gentlemen of the Romiſh Communion take the freedom to ſuppoſe, are every one of them falſe and ſophiſtical, and capable of being confuted more ways than one, becauſe all built upon a falſe and vain foundation. For in truth what greater vanity can there be, than to go about to form an Idea of the Church, after the pattern of a Civil Society? The Civil Society is a humane contrivance, that owes its birth to natural inſtinct, under the Government of a General Providence, and is kept up and preſerved by Rules of Juſtice and humane Policy. The Church is a Divine and Supernatural work, born only of the Blood of the Son of God, and animated only by his Spirit. His hands have made it, and his particular Providence watches over it, and preſerves it. The Laws of the Civil Society do not properly reſpect any more than the outward man, they never make it any part of their End or buſineſs to regulate mens hearts, or alter the inclinations, or inward motions there; all within, they leave perfectly free, and are ſatisfied with an outward obſervation, which comes within the reach of man's power. The Laws of the Church do chiefly regard the inward man, their deſign is to ſanctifie the heart, and fix themſelves eſpecially in the ſoul, which are effects above any power of man, and can belong to none but God only.

The matters in which the Civil Society is imployed, are meerly temporal, ſuch as we call the Goods of Fortune, Honour, Trade, the Exerciſe of Arts and Sciences, and other things of this kind, which may be cogniſable by men, and brought under their Juriſdiction. But the matters in which the Society of the Church is concerned, conſiſt in Myſteries conveyed to us by a Supernatural Revelation; in Laws impoſed upon the Conſcience; in the internal and external practice of Chriſtian Vertues. Now all theſe things are Heavenly, Spiritual, unchangeable, having no dependance upon the will, authority, or declaration of men, but ſolely and immediately upon the will of God, and his declaring them to be ſuch. To make a man a true member of the Civil Society, there is no more required than to ſeem ſo in the eyes of the world, who can paſs a judgment only on the outward appearance, without being able to dive into the heart. To be a member of the Church, it is required that a man be ſo, not in the eyes of men only, but of God too, who a • the Scripture expreſſes it, trieth the very hearts and reins, and will not be ſatisfied with a pare outſide. The deſign of Civil Societies, is, that every man may according to his quality and ſtation, enjoy the publick Priviledges, that his Perſonal Rights and Properties may be preſerved intire, that each particular perſon may live quietly and peaceably under the protection of the whole Body; and theſe are Advantages not out of the power of men to give. The end for which the Church is deſigned, is everlaſting Salvation, a Heavenly Paradiſe, the happineſs of a life to come, which are all Advantages not within the power of men to confer. In the Civil Society, private men ought rather to ſuffer injuries that are put upon them, than diſturb the peace of the whole Body, becauſe ſuch injuries may be endured, and yet not approved; and beſides if they do it, the evil is not paſt all redreſs; for God who protects the innocent and oppreſſed, is able to right them, and recompence their loſſes with intereſt: In the Church it is far otherwiſe, where the Conſcience muſt acquieſce, and a quiet ſubmiſſion cannot be given to a lye, an error, or an unjuſt thing, without approving it; and when it is approved, the evil is paſt redreſs, for God will avenge that fault, and nothing can make us amends for the loſs of our Eternal Salvation: Beſides, that the peace we hereby allow the whole Body, is ſo far from a Bleſſing, that it is the worſt of Evils, being, in truth, no better than a War againſt God. I repeat it therefore once again, That there is not in the World a greater falſity, nor a more ſophiſtical impoſture, than the framing ſuch a notion of the Church, after the model of Civil Societies.

The caſe ſtanding thus, who does not perceive that all the concluſions from this falſe ſuppoſition fall to the ground, and utterly vaniſh? A man muſt not after this, fancy the Church to be a Body merely external, nor that all its eſſence conſiſts in a bare Profeſſion; nor that theſe Definitions given us of it, which run upon an outward profeſſion of the ſame Faith, a participation of the ſame Sacraments, a ſubmiſſion to the ſame Pope, without allowing internal Graces any ſhare, are good and valid definitions; nor that wicked men, worldlings and hypocrites, are Members of Jeſus Chriſt's true Church. All this would do, if the queſtion were concerning a Body, or contrivance merely humane, as the Civil Society is. But when we diſcourſe of a thing that is the work and contrivance of God, and muſt bear ſome proportion to the excellency of its Author, we muſt affirm that Faith, Hope and Charity, and in one word, all the parts of true Regeneration are eſſential to it; and that this conſiſts of the Faithful and Elect only, excluding thence the Hypocrites and Reprobate. We muſt not afterwards fancy the Church ſo be a body or company of men, viſible at the ſame rate that Kingdoms and Commonwealths are; Li •• an, ſo as to diſtinguiſh plainly, and without danger of miſtake, the very perſons whereof it is compoſed. This were allowable, provided the Church conſiſted in an outward appearance, and bare profeſſion only. But we muſt affirm it to be viſible in the midſt of diſſemblers, as honeſt men are viſible, when mixt with thoſe that act otherwiſe; or to make uſe of a Scripture inſtance, as the good Corn is viſible, tho mingled in the ſame field with Tares that look like it. The Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt muſt no longer be applied to all the exterior Body made up of a mere profeſſion, nor muſt the perpetuity of the Church be imagined to mean a continuance of this exterior Body in the ſame condition, without undergoing any alteration; or a conſtant equal ſucceſſion of Prieſts, People, Sees and Councils. This might be admitted, if all this exterior body were the true Church of Jeſus Chriſt, if that were not mixt with worldlings and wicked men, who change the Church as to outward appearances; or if it's Miniſtry were ſure to be always intruſted in the hands of good men. But the caſe being otherwiſe, theſe Promiſes muſt be confined to the true Believers, and the Church conceived to ſubſiſt for ever in this mixture of wicked perſons, and conſequently, that it ſhall ſubſiſt ſometimes among the publick corruptions of the Miniſtry, to which Almighty God ſets bounds, as his wiſdom ſees fit for the preſervation of his Children. We muſt not any longer believe a ſupream, viſible, and ſpeaking authority in the Church, to be neceſſary for putting an end to differences and diſputes; nor upon this pretence allow Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies to be infallible, or forbid the faithful to examine their determinations. This might paſs, if the Church were I reſerved, as Civil Societies are, by rules of humane policy; or if ſome temporal advantages were the only thing enquired after; or if the matters ſo determined, required only an outward compliance, as thoſe in Civil Societies do. But now, that the Church is under a protection infinitely more effectual than all the wiſdom of Man; now that Salvation is the thing in queſtion, and a ſubmiſſion of Conſcience the thing required, it muſt be confeſt, that ſince Divine Revelation ceaſed, there is no further need of any other ſupreme infallible: Authority, beſides that of the Scripture, which is the Churches Law, its Oracle, and perpetual Rule; a Rule plain and clear in what it expreſſes in all things neceſſary to be believed; plain and clear in its ſilence with relation to other things not neceſſary to be believed: It muſt be owned, that ſince God does not call men to Miniſterial functions immediately, and by himſelf, it may happen that theſe Functions may generally be exerciſed by Reprobates; and to ſuppoſe that ſuch people as theſe, who can challenge no ſhare in God's Promiſes to his Church, are infallible, would be the moſt palpable abſurdity in the World. We muſt acknowledg, that ſince it is ſo uncertain, whether the men that make up theſe Aſſemblies, are themſelves really of Jeſus Chriſt's Church, it would be not only raſh, but wicked, to receive their Decrees implicitly, and ſubmit to them without any Examination at all; becauſe this were really to put our Salvation upon the venture, which ought to be infinitely dearer to us than any thing in the World, and which, if once loſt, can never be made amends for again. Laſtly, we muſt not upon theſe pretended Principles take up Prejudices againſt the Proteſtant Churches, nor tax them with Novelty, becauſe they are not united to this viſible, exterior Body, which was before the Reformation; or becauſe they do not ſhew that uniform ſucceſſion of Sees, and Councils, and the profeſſion of the ſame Religion, without any alteration at all, and every thing as was practiſed before; nor pretend they have ſubverted a Tribunal neceſſary for the ſubſiſtence of the true Church, becauſe they refuſe to acknowledg the Church of Rome's Authority, and to comply with her determinations. Theſe ſeveral charges upon us might be tolerably well laid, if a man could aſſert that the Church conſiſts of all this exterior body, as it might be aſſerted, if a Civil Society were the matter in queſtion. But being that body muſt be diſtinguiſhed into two parts, the one conſiſting of good, the other of ill men; the one of good Corn, the other of Tares; the Proteſtant Church cannot be called new, if it only oppoſe this latter part, which had gotten poſſeſſion of all the outward advantages, to wit, the Miniſtry, the Sees, the Churches, the Councils, the Schools, and in one word, the Exterior Profeſſion, and which had changed and corrupted all theſe. For is there any neceſſity that a Church ſhould groan under the ſame oppreſſion, in order to being the ſame with a Church that was before? Is there a neceſſity of lying under the Tares that choak'd and encompaſſed the Corn, in order to being of the Corn? And are not men the ſame Children of Jacob, without being among the ſame ſtrangers among whom that Family hath been? The Proteſtants have not one jot the leſs really, and truly, a ſucceſſion of Sees, of Councils, and the profeſſion of Religion, for not having that part of them which was earthly and unclean. I acknowledg they have given quite another aſpect and appearance to the Houſe of God, by this cleanſing; but ſtill there is the ſame Miniſtry, the ſame Sees, the ſame Aſſemblies, the ſame Profeſſion, not with reſpect to the corruptions that appeared in them, but in regard of the Chriſtian Order which ſtill continued under all this filth and naſtineſs. The veſſels of the Temple are ſtill the ſame, only they are waſhed, made clean, and reſtored to their natural uſe. And as for that pretended Tribunal of the Romiſh Church, which the Reformation has ſubverted, it never having any more foundation than what was imaginary, and merely humane, there is no reaſon to complain of the Proteſtants, for not ſubmitting to it, becauſe they would thereby have done wrong to that of the Scripture, which is Jeſus Chriſt's true Tribunal, fixed, and to continue for ever, in the midſt of his people.

But this ſhewing the many differences between the Church and Civil Societies, is not the only method of confuting theſe Gentlemen's Principles. Take which way you will, their falſity and weakneſs is eaſily diſcovered, and they are likewiſe attended with this inconvenience, that as ſoon as one of them is overthrown, all the reſt fall with it. Overthrow for inſtance but that one principle, that the true Church muſt be an exterior viſible Body, even to the pointing out of the particular perſons whereof it is compoſed, and at the ſame time you overthrow all thoſe definitions. they give of it, which include bad men as well as good, and make reprobates to be no leſs members than the Elect; you overthrow their application of God's Promiſes to this whole Body; you overthrow its perpetuity in this Condition, by virtue of thoſe Promiſes; you overthrow the neceſſity of this pretended external Succeſſion, upon which they lay ſuch mighty ſtreſs; you evacuate the ſupreme Authority, and Infallibility of Church Aſſemblies, and the blind obedience required to their determinations. The caſe is the ſame with all their other principles particularly, which muſt of neceſſity, either all ſtand, or all fall together.

I might truly ſay, that you can no where obſerve a Syſteme more effectually deſtroyed in the ſeveral parts of it, than this is in the Book now publiſhed by me: For there is not any one of the propoſitions that help to make that Syſteme, but I have confuted it ſubſtantially, by Arguments that amount even to a Demonſtration. Which way can any one maintain that Definition of the Church which goes upon a bare outward profeſſion, and makes it conſiſt of bad as well as good men; and which Stapleton, Bellarmin, Cardinal du Perron, and ſome other Controverſial Divines look upon as a principal point, after having obſerved what I have written on this ſubject, in the ſecond queſtion of the Letter to my Friend, and the Examination of M. de Meaux's ninth Reflection? What pretence can men have for carrying on the Churches viſibility ſo far, as to a plain, particular, and conſtant deſignation of mens perſons that help to make up that Body, after having conſidered what is ſaid to this purpoſe in my Third Queſtion, and in the Examination of M. de Meaux's Eleventh Reflection? How can men fancy that Jeſus Chriſt's Promiſes belong to this exterior Body compoſed of good and bad men promiſcuouſly, after what I have written to this purpoſe upon the fourth Queſtion, and the Examination of the Twelfth Reflection? Which way can the External Succeſſion be defended, in the ſenſe theſe Gentlemen underſtand it, after having weighed my anſwer to the Second Part of M. de Condom's Diſcourſe, and compared it with my Examination of the Eighth and Thirteenth Reflection? What can be ſ •• d in behalf of the Supreme Authority Church Aſſemblies pretend to, and the ready Obedience to them, without any trying their deciſions, which theſe Gentlemen would make us believe ought to be paid them, after having compared the Relation of our Conference, with what I have written on the Six firſt Reflections? I muſt confeſs the ſtrength of my Reaſons may poſſibly receive ſome diſadvantage from the manner of my delivering them; and that it required a more skilful hand than mine, which might have ſpoke with all the elegance, and addreſs of my renowned Adverſary. But yet I dare aver, that even in my plain way, and in the midſt of all my bluntneſs, there will be found enough to ſatisfy and convince my Readers, That the Syſteme treated of is upon many accounts quite deſtroyed, both as to the whole, and as to each of its parts.

I am ſenſible, this Syſteme is a thing contrived with abundance of cunning and skill, that it was never the invention of one ſingle Brain; that they have made it look as ſpecious as the thing could poſſibly bear; But all the skill and cunning in the World can never give a thing ſo great a luſtre as Truth; and it is plain, that That Syſteme can never be true, which is repugnant to the evidence both of Scripture and Reaſon. I may add too, that notwithſtanding all the pains taken to contrive it as ſtrong as might be, they are forced to leave it with many weakneſſes, which it was impoſſible for them to conceal. Nay, ſuch a Syſteme particularly is This, which contradicts experience, and contradicts it ſo far too, that were the Church of Rome it ſelf, for whoſe advantage it was firſt eſtabliſh'd, to be tryed by theſe Principles that compoſe it, ſhe could not make her party good. Let us, if you pleaſe, venture an experiment upon that principle which aſſerts the perpetuity of the ſame Exterior Body. Will you take the confidence to call that of the three firſt Ages, the ſame Body with the modern Church of Rome, where there is not the leaſt tittle to be found of direct Invocation of Saints and Angels in the publick ſervice of the Church; where there is not the leaſt addreſſing to Images and Pictures in their worſhip; where there is no prohibition of the Cup to the Laity; nor of the uſe of Scripture in the vulgar Tongue, without leave granted by the Ordinary; nor of Praying in a Language which the people do not underſtand; where we find nothing to the contrary, but that the Scripture is the only, and the ſufficient Rule of Faith, in all things neceſſary to Salvation; where we meet with no ſuch number of Sacraments as ſeven, no uſe made of Papal Indulgences, no neceſſity of Auricular Confeſſion, no Elevation of the Hoſt that the people may proſtrate themſelves in adoration to it; no Tranſubſtantiation, nor Real preſence made Doctrines; no mention of the Church of Rome's being the Mother and Miſtreſs of all other Churches, nor of I know not how many things beſides which are of very conſiderable importance? Will you call the Church of Rome, as it ſtands at this day, as it looks upon the opinion of the M • llenaries to be erroneous, as it prohibits giving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to little Children, as it believes the beatifick viſion of God antecedent to the laſt Judgment, as it forbids the Clergy to Marry; will you call this, I ſay, the ſame Exterior Body with the Primitive Church, which believed and practiſed directly the contrary? To call this the ſame Body, is like Theſeus his Ship, which was always called the ſame Ship, tho there was ſcarce a Plank in it all, that had not been changed.

A Second experiment may be made in that Principle which relates to the Succeſſion in Epiſcopal Sees, as theſe Gentlemen are pleaſed to underſtand it: For how can they ever maintain this Succeſſion in the See of Rome, which they look upon as the very Original and Centre of Church-Unity, while they agree, as they do, that many of thoſe Popes were intruders againſt all Law and Cuſtom, and conſequently falſe Popes, ſuch as Baronius calls Baronius, ad Ann. 900 de Stephano ſeptimo. Stephanus Apoſtolcae ſedis invaſo—& paulo poſt, facinoroſus homo, qui que ut fur, & latro ingreſſus eſt in o •• le ovium.—Ad ann. 908. (de Sergio primo) Perpetrata ſunt iſta ab invaſoribus, & intruſis in Apoſtolicam ſedem, Pontificis nomen uſurpantibus, & illegitime thronum Apoſtolicum invadentibus.—ad Ann 912. (de Joanne decimo, qui poſt Landonem Petri cathedram aſcendit, Theodorae, ſcorti tunc temporis potentiſſimi auſpiciis) Quae tunc facies Eccleſiae Romanae? Cum darentur Epiſcopi, intruderentur in ſedem Petri meretricum amaſii Pſeudopontifices, qui non ſint niſi ad conſignanda tantum tempora in Catalogo Romanorum Pontificum ſcripti. Annal. Tom. 10. Edit. Antverp. Violent ſeizers of the Apoſtolick See, unlawful Ʋſurpers of the Papal Name and Chair, Falſe Popes which only ſerved to make the times they lived in notorious? And now ſeeing this intruſion continued for almoſt one whole Age, and the call to all Eccleſiaſtical Functions depends upon the See of Rome, what muſt we think of thoſe which proceeded from theſe falſe Popes, and thoſe that followed after them? How can they make good this Succeſſion in the perſon of Vigilius, who by their own confeſſion was an Uſurper of the See over Sylverius, and a Schiſmatick, excommunicated, he and all his party that adhered to him, by Sylverius the rightful Pope? Which adherents were not only all the Clergy of Rome, but all the Archbiſhops and Biſhops of the Empire, excepting only four Biſhops that were baniſht with Sylverius, and joyned with him in ſigning the ſentence of Excommunication; Sylverius dyed, Vigilius kept the Papacy ſtill, and yet the Excommunication was not taken off. It is acknowledged to be a juſt and valid ſentence, and yet from theſe excommunicated perſons are all the Popes, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbiſhops and Biſhops deſcended ever ſince.

Baronius ad Ann. 540. Se à Pontificatu abdicâſſe Vigilium, ex ſpatio vacationis ſedis Silverii dicendum omnino eſt; nam quomodo potuit, ſecundum Anaſtaſium, ſedes vacâſſe ſex dies, ſi Vigilius, ipſo vivente Silverio, intruſus ſemel, ſedere poſt ejus obitum perſeveràſſet? Annal. Tom. 7. Pag. 301. Edit. Antverp. Baronius in the relation of this Accident, endeavours all he can, to deprive us of the Concluſions we draw from it. He tells us therefore, that he gueſſes Vigilius acted a part all that while, and that being informed of Sylverius his death, he of his own accord reſigned the Popedom uſurped by him before, and at the ſame time got the Clergy of Rome to chuſe him into it again. This conjecture he grounds upon four words in Anaſtaſius, that the See was vacant ſix days. But this is a very idle ſtory: There is not any Author mentions this voluntary reſignation of Vigilius, nor his being choſen in again by the Clergy of Rome, as is pretended; 'tis all a pure fancy of Baronius, without any manner of probability for it; and the five or ſix days which the See continued vacant, are to be underſtood to follow, not Sylverius his death, but the time of his being depoſed by Beliſarius illegally and by force, who took away his Pallium, and compelled him to reſume a Monks habit. He lived after that a year in exile in the Iſland of Palmenia; there he excommunicated Vigilius and his faction, to wit, the Clergy of Rome, that very Clergy which choſe Vigilius to ſucceed him; ſo that the Excommunication being juſt and valid, as Baronius owns it was, we cannot look upon Vigilius and his Clergy, and all the Biſhops in the World then, any otherwiſe than as men degraded, and cut off from the Church: And then according to M. de Meaux's principles, there was no way left, but for Chriſt to come into the World once more, to re-eſtabliſh the call to the Miniſtry. The truth of what I aſſert, may be tryed a third way, in that Principle of the ſupreme Authority, and Infallibility of Councils, and the blind implicit obedience they pretend is due to them. For ſuppoſing this Principle to take place, the Church of Rome hath ceaſed to be a true Church long ago. I ſhall not here produce all thoſe Councils heretofore that decreed in favour of Arrianiſm; ſuch as that of Antioch, of Sardica, or of Philippi, that of Milan, of Sirmium, of Arimini, of Seleucia, or of Conſtantinople. I will not inſtance in the ſecond Council of Epheſus, where the Biſhop of Rome's Legates aſſiſted, which eſtabliſht the Eutychian Hereſy; nor that of Dioſpolis, which acquitted Pelagius the Heretick. Nor will I ſpeak of thoſe which have at ſeveral times determined things directly contradictory to one another, in the matter of Images, ſuch as the Council of Conſtantinople under Conſtantine Copronymus; the ſecond Council of Nice, under the Empreſs Irene, the Council of Franckfort under Charlemagne, and the Council of Paris under Lewis the Debonaire. Nor will I inſiſt upon the Councils held in the Tenth Age, which contradicted one another upon this queſtion, whether Formoſus could be lawfully preferred to the Papacy, contrary to his Oath, which a Pope had diſpenſed with; and whether all the perſons ordained by him ought not to be reordained: Without troubling our ſelves with things ſo far off, we need only deſire theſe Gentlemen to tell us, if they really and ſincerely believe theſe few late Councils to be infallible? That of Rome under Gregory the ſeventh, where Baronius ſays, it was determined, Baronius ad Ann. 1076. Privilegia Apoſtolicae ſedis, & Romani Pontificis Quòd Papae •• eat Imperatores deponere. Quòd ſententia illius à nullo debeat retractari, & ipſe omnium ſolus retractare poſſit. Quòd à fidelitate iniquorum Subjectos poteſt abſolvere. Annal. Tom. 11. Pag. 485. Edit. Romae 1605. That the Pope hath power to depoſe Emperors and Kings; That what he hath once determined, no man can afterwards bring to a rehearing, but that he alone can rehear, and alter the determinations of all other perſons; That he cannot be judged by any man whatever; That he may abſolve the Subjects of wicked Princes from their Oaths of Allegiance. That of Lateran under Alexander the Third, whichRelaxatos autem ſe noverint à debito fidelitatis, & hominii, ac totius obſequii, dum in tantâ iniquitate permanſerint, quicun que illis aliquo peccato, (pacto) tenentur annexi. Conc. Lateran 3. Cap. 27. Anno 1179. Collect. Labbe. Lut. Paris. 1671. Tom. 10. Pag. 1523. relèaſes Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, which they have ſworn to their Governors, if thoſe Governors hold any correſpondence with Hereticks. That of Lateran under Innocent the third, which enjoyns,Si vero Dominus temporalis requiſitus, & monitus Eccleſiâ, terram ſuam purgare neglexerit ab haereticâ foeditate, per Metropolitanum, & caeteròs comprovinciales Epiſcopos Excommunicationis vinculo innodetur. Et ſi ſatiſfacere contempſerit infra annum, ſignificetur hoc ſummo Pontifici, ut extunc ipſe Vaſſallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet abſolutos, & terram exponat Catholicis occupandam, qui eam exterminatis haereticis ſine ullâ contradictione poſſideant. Conc. Lateran. 4. Ann. 1215. Cap. 3. de Haereticis Collect. Labb. Tom. 11. Part. 1. Pag. 148. That if Temporal Princes neglect to root out Hereticks, there ſhall be notice given of it to the Pope, that ſo the Pope may pronounce their Subjects abſolved from their Oaths of Allegiance, and diſpoſe of their Countries to Catholicks who may diſcharge their duty better. That of Lyons under Innocent the fourth See Innocent the fourth's ſentence againſt the Emperor Frederick, paſt in the Council of Lyons. It is at large in Labbe 'sCollection of Councils, Tom. 11. part. 1. Pag. 640. in the Cloſe are theſe words. Nos ſuper praemiſſis—memoratum Principem—omni honore & dignitate privatum à Domino oſtendimus, denunciamus, & nihilo minus ſententiando privamus. Omnes, qui ei Juramento fidelitatis tenentur adſtricti, a Juramento hujuſmodi perpetuo abſolventes, autoritate Apoſtolicâ • irmiter inhibendo, ne quiſquam de caetero ſibi tanquam Imperatori, vel Regi pareat vel intendat. Et decernendo quoſlibet, qui deinceps ei, velut Imperatori▪ aut Regi, conſilium, vel auxilium praeſtiterint, ſeu favorem, ipſo facto excommunicationis vinculo ſubjacere. which depoſed the Emperor. Frederick the Second, releaſed his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and forbid them upon penalty of being Anathematized, to acknowledg or obey him. That of Conſtance, which in the Bull of Martin the fifthUniverſas poteſtates, & dominos temporales, & Judices antedictos exhortando requirimus, & mandamus eiſdem,—ut pro defenſione fidei—inquiſitoribus Haereticae pravitatis—pareant & intendant, praebeant que auxilium, & favorem Labb. Collect. Concil. Conſtant. Bulla. Inter cunctas paſtoralis Curae, &c. Tom. 12. Pag. 259. containing the Clauſe de ſacro approbante Concilio, ſubjects not only Patriarchs, Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, but even Kings and other ſupreme Governors, of what quality ſoever they be, to the judgment of the Inquiſitors, even to a deprivation from their honours, and all other worldly poſſeſſions. That of Lateran, under Leo the Tenth, which ſets the Pope's Authority above that of Cum ſolum Romanum Pontificem, pro tempore exiſtentem tanquam authoritatem ſuper omnia concilia habentem, tam Conciliorum indicendorum—plenum jus & poteſtatem, nedum ex ſacrae Scripturae teſtimonio, dictis ſanctorum Patrum—habere manifeſtè conſtet. Conc. Lateran. 5. Seſſ. 11. Bulla. Paſtor aeternus. Labb. Collect. Tom. 14. Pag. 309.Councils, directly contrary to what was defined by the Council of Conſtance, with the approbation of Pope Martin the Fifth, and to the Council of Baſil, with the approbation of Pope Eugenius the Fourth.

In a word, the endeavouring to aſſert that Councils are infallible, and giving them ſuch an Authority as ſupercedes all examination, is ſo bold an undertaking, that many eminent perſons in the Church of Rome it ſelf, thinking it could never be effected, have not ſcrupled to declare for the other opinion. Among theſe was the famous Abbot of Palerma, principal of the Canoniſts, whoſe words are ſo very conſiderable, that I cannot omit repeating them. Puto tamen quod ſi Papa moveretur melioribus rationibus & authoritatibus, quam Concilium, quod ſtandum eſſet ſententiae ſuae. Nam & Concilium poteſt errare, ſicut alias erravit, ſuper Matrimonium contrahendam inter raptorem & raptam. Dictum Hieronymi melius ſentientis poſtea praelatum fuit ſtatuto Concilii. Nam in concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati praeferendum eſſet dicto Papae, ſi ille moveretur melioribus rationibus novi & veteris Teſtamenti, quam Papa. Nec obſtat, ſi dicatur quod Concilium non poteſt errare, quia Chriſtus oravit pro Eccleſiâ ſuâ, ut non deficeret; quare dico, quod • icet Concilium generale repraeſentet totam Eccleſiam Univerſalem, tamen in veritate ibi non eſt verè Univerſalis Eccleſia ſed repraeſentativè: quia Univerſalis Eccleſia conſtituitur ex collatione omnium fidelium, unde omnes fideles orbis conſtituunt iſtam Eccleſiam Univerſalem, cujus caput & ſponſus eſt ipſe Chriſtus. Papa autem eſt Vicarius Chriſti, & non vere caput Eccleſiae. Et iſta eſt illa Eccleſia, quae errare non poteſt. Unde poſſibile eſt, quod vera fides Chriſti, remanſerit in uno ſolo, ita quod verum eſt dicere, quod fides non deficit in Eccleſiâ, ſicut jus Univerſitatis poteſt reſidere in uno ſolo, aliis peccantibus. Panormitan. ſuper S. Decret. Tit. de Election. Can. Significâſti. Fol. 86. I am of opinion, (ſays he) that if the Pope have better reaſons, and better authorities than the Council, he ought to ſtick to his own judgment. For the Council may, and ſometimes actually has erred, as particularly in the caſe of a Raviſhers marrying with the woman on whom the Rape was committed. Saint Jerom's opinion was preferred before the Decree of a Council, becauſe it was really better. For in matters of Faith, a ſingle private mans judgment ought to be preferred before the Pope's, if this private judgment be grounded upon better reaſons, taken out of the Old and New Teſtament. It ſignifies nothing to alledg the Council cannot err becauſe Jeſus Chriſt hath prayed for his Church that it fail not. In anſwer to this I ſay, that although a General Council do indeed repreſent the Church univerſally, yet it is plain the Ʋniverſal Church is not there really, but only by way of repreſentation. For the Ʋniverſal Church is made up of the company of all the Faithful, ſo that they are the Faithful throughout the whole world, that conſtitute the Church Ʋniverſally, of which Chriſt is the Head, and the Spouſe. The Pope is Chriſts Vicar, but he is not truly the Head of the Church. And this Church it is, that cannot err. Thus then it may ſo happen that the true Faith of Chriſt may continue entire in a ſingle perſon, and then the true Faith would not fail in the Church, as the right of a Community may be preſerved in a ſingle member of it.

See now what the force of truth made one of the greateſt Doctors of his Age ſay: The Catholick Church in his opinion conſiſts only of the Faithful, it is of them only that Chriſt is the Head and the Spouſe, to them alone he hath promiſed that they ſhall abide for ever. Councils may repreſent the Church, but it does not follow from thence that they are the Church. They may fall into Errors. The true Church which refuſes to fall with them, may ſubſiſt in a very few, and theſe few by preſerving the true Faith, will alſo preſerve all the Priviledges of Jeſus Chriſts Church. All this is exactly what we aſſert in this caſe.

The Abbot of Palermo's opinion was likewiſe common to many of the Schools. Occam a famous Doctor among the Schoolmen, of the fourteenth Age hath compoſed a Dialogue on this Subject, where among other queſtions he diſcuſſes theſe ſix principal ones: 1.Occam. Dialog. Lib. 5. Quaeritur, utrum Papa canonice electus haereticari poſſit. cap. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Utrum Collegium Cardinalium poſſit haereticâ pravitate maculari. Cap. 6. &c. Utrum Papa cum Collegio Cardinalium ſimul poſſit hereticâ pravitate maculari. Cap. 10. Utrum Eccleſia Romana ſe • ſedes Apoſtolica valeat in • ici haereticâ pravitate. Cap. 11. Utrum Concilium Generale Eccleſiae in haereticam pravitatem labi poſſit. Cap. 25. Utrum tota multitudo fidelium haereticari poſſit. Cap. 29. Whether a Pope that is Canonically, choſen can afterwards turn Heretick? 2.Whether the Colledg of Cardinals may fall into Hereſie? 3. Whether it be poſſible for the Pope and Cardinals together to fall into it? 4. Whether it be ſo, for the Church of Rome, and Apoſtolick See to fall into it? 5. Whether a General Council may fall into it? 6. Whether even the Body of Chriſtians may fall into it? He affirms, that as many held the Negative in theſe Points, ſo there were a great many too, that held the affirmative; and he gives you the reaſons urged by both ſides for their ſeveral opinions. I know very well, that he was engaged in that ſilly quarrel between John the 22d, and the Franciſcan Friers, which took up almoſt the whole life of that Pope, to know whether the Friers had any proper right to the bread they eat, or only the bare uſe of it; and whether Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles had likewiſe any proper right to the things they uſed. But this is no argument why ſuch an Authors Teſtimony ſhould not be unexceptionable, when he aſſerts as matter of fact that the ſix forementioned queſtions were diſputed pro and con, among the Learned men of his time.

There is likewiſe a teſtimony of John Francis Picus Mirandula, which flouriſhed in the beginning of the Fifteenth Age, which he gives us in his Theoremes concerning the Faith. After having ſaid ſomething to their opinion, who make either a Pope or a Council Infallible, he adds theſe words: Reſtiterunt alii, affirmantes errare poſſe Concilia, & jam errâſſe, ut Ariminenſe illud tam celebriter damnatum, Epheſinum quo que ſecundum, item Conſtantinopolitanum, de ponendis imaginibus, ſed & Aquiſgranenſe cujus ſententiae de Matrimonio raptae Hieronymi determinatio praeponitur. Propterea, ſi haec aberraverunt alia quoque errare poſſe dicunt. Quâ de re fatentur nonnulli, Concilia ea, ſive Univerſales Synodos, in quibus Authoritas Pontificis ſummi non praeſidet, errare poſſe; non autem ea quibus intervenit. Inſtant illi ex adverſo Epheſinum ſecundum legitimè fuiſſe congregatum, praeſidentibus etiam Legatis Pontificis; nihilominus in everſion • m fidei agitatum, & in ejus correctionem à Leone Pontifice Chalcedonenſem Synodum inſtitutam. Rurſus quia dari remedia videntur, dum Concilia diſcrepant cui videlicet ſtandum adhaerendumque magis, innuitur, aiunt, & apertè etiam ſignificatur, aberrare Univerſalia Concilia poſſe. J. Fran. Picus Mirand. de Fide & Ord. Credendi, Theorem. 4. Tom. 2. Pag. 259. Edit. Baſil. Others there are that oppoſe this opinion, by ſaying that Councils may err, and actually bave erred, as for inſtance, the Council of Arimini, the ſecond Council of Epheſus, that of Conſtantinople concerning Images, and that of Aix la Chapelle, about the marriage of Virgins that were forced. And if theſe (ſay they) have erred, others may err as well as they; whereupon ſome hold, that ſuch General Councils as the Pope does not preſide in by his Authority, may err, but thoſe where he does, cannot. To which others return, that the Council of Epheſus was lawfully convened, that the Pope's Legates preſided in it, and yet the Faith was ſubverted there, and the regulation of this very matter was it that moved Pope Leo to call the Council of Chalcedon. They ſay further, that their pretending to find out remedies for knowing when two Councils claſh, whether of the two a man ought to hold to, is an evident ſign that General Councils may err.

It is certain then, that the Doctrine we now aſſert, when we affirm, that even the moſt numerous Aſſemblies are liable to error, that they may conſiſt of ſuch men as ſhall not be of the true Church, and conſequently may fall off from their function, is neither a new Doctrine, nor any opinion we are driven to for the juſtfying our Reformation; but an old Doctrine, which the evidence of Truth hath always ſuggeſted to ſincere and unbiaſſed men. So that if M. de Meaux had but pleaſed to reflect a little upon this, he would not have ſaid, as he did, That it was a Monſter, the birth whereof was reſerved for the time of the New Reformation. It is convenient ſometimes to be a little more adviſed and ſparing in paſſing ones judgment. It would queſtionleſs be very foul to conclude form what hath been juſt now ſaid againſt the abſolute Authority and Infallibility of Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, that we quite caſt off all theſe humane Orders, for the external guidance and government of the Church. To ſix any ſuch opinions as this upon us, would be the unjuſteſt thing in the world. Our Confeſſions of Faith; our Diſcipline, and the Writings of our Authors, as well as our conſtant practice in all places, are a vindication of us in this particular, beyond all ſcruple or exception. Firſt then, we hold the Miniſtry to be of Divine Inſtitution, and conſequently become neceſſary by the neceſſity of a Command; and that tho the uſe of it is not abſolutely neceſſary by the neceſſity of the means, for the Exiſtence of the Church; it is however of ſuch excellent uſe and advantage in order to the preſerving and propagating of the Church, that to go about to take it away, would be a manifeſt impiety. Secondly, We are of opinion, that in matters of Diſcipline relating to the publick, ſuch as the manner and form of Religious Aſſemblies, of Adminiſtring the Sacraments, and others of this kind, theſe ſhould be left to the determination of Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, and provided they bring in no Rite offenſive to the Conſcience, or contrary to the nature of the Evangelical Worſhip, an abſolute obedience is due to them. Further yet, We allow theſe Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies a power of Cenſuring private perſons, and proceeding to the laſt and higheſt Cenſure, that of Excommunication. And although we make no queſtion at all, but this power may ſometimes be abuſed by them, and unjuſt ſentences pronounced, yet we think that out of veneration for the Order, a man ought to ſuffer ſuch to be executed upon him, provided this do not engage us in any thing that may wound a good conſcience.

As for matters of Faith, Worſhip, and general Rules for ordering mens Manners, we are perſwaded that theſe Aſſemblies continuing the ſubordination to one another, may not only attain to the knowledg of them, by the Word of God, but that they muſt and ought to do ſo, for preventing the encreaſe of error, and the preſerving Gods truth in its genuine purity. It is part of their office and buſineſs to reſtrain the exorbitances of mens minds, to help the weak, and to the utmoſt of their power, cheriſh and maintain publick peace in the midſt of this Society. But becauſe on one hand the perſons making theſe Aſſemblies are neither inſpired, nor infallible, nor have any power over mens conſciences; and on the other hand, becauſe no body can be ſure, that they are good men, and will diſcharge their duty faithfully, there being ſo many ſeveral ſorts of by-reſpects that influence men, when the Spirit of God does not guide them; we think it a very faulty indifference, and a manifeſt ſlighting a man's own ſalvation, to reveive their deciſions blindfold, and upon truſt, without any trial or examination of them at all. But ſtill, though we think this examination highly juſt, and indiſpenſably neceſſary, yet we think withal it is to be uſed with abundance of caution. Beſides, that it muſt be undertaken in the fear of God, and with a diſpoſition full of modeſty, and Chriſtian humility; beſides that we muſt beg for grace from above, and not preſume upon our own abilities; beſides that, we muſt bring along with us, not only charitable, but reverent, and reſpectful thoughts of ſuch Aſſemblies, and judg favourably of them, till we have manifeſt conviction of the contrary. Beſides all this, I ſay, the ignorant ſort of people muſt not be too raſh in offering to interpoſe their judgments about matters which either are not plainly expreſt in Scripture, or naturally and neceſſarily deduced from thence. They muſt ſatisfie themſelves with uſing theſe two ways, The Scriptures being ſilent, And the clear and plain inſtructions to be met with there. From its being ſilent, they muſt learn to reject what it does not teach, for ſtrange and novel Doctrines. For whatever is not in Scripture, is not of Divine Revelation, and nothing that is not revealed by God, can be the object of Faith. By the clear and plain Inſtructions to be met with there, they muſt learn to embrace the Doctrines neceſſary for Salvation, and to reject all things contrary to the ſame, as dangerous and deſtructive Errors. And this is ſufficient for the more ignorant ſort of people.

As for other particulars, for which no certain rule can be given, neither from the Scriptures being ſilent, nor from the plain and clear inſtructions contained in it, nor by natural inferences deduced from thence, before they either receive them, or condemn them, they muſt endeavour to get information by ſuch means as God hath diſcovered, and eſtabliſhed in his Church; and in the mean time entertain a good opinion of the Aſſemblies determinations. Thus they will preſerve their Faith incorrupt, and ſufficient for Salvation; they will pay to Aſſemblies their due reſpects, and keep themſelves in the peace and unity of the Church.

If the Gentlemen of the Romiſh Communion are not content with this, but ſtill would have us believe whatever ſuch Aſſemblies may determine blindfold, we muſt beg of them to conſider, That to exclude thus all manner of amendment, is to open a mighty inlet to Error and Superſtition; 'tis an expoſing believers to a manifeſt danger of having their Faith corrupted, and themſelves damned; in a word, 'tis perfectly to ruine Chriſtianity, unleſs the goodneſs of God interpoſe with ſome remedy. Will not theſe Gentlemen, who are ſo ready at exclaiming againſt the inconveniencies that may poſſibly proceed from our principle, at laſt open their eyes, and take a view of what their own hath actually produced already? Tranſubſtantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, Merit of Good-works, worſhipping of Images and Relicks, Service in an unknown Tongue, and a thouſand other devotions, which have no great appearance of wiſdom in them: Theſe are the products of their pretended Infallibility, and all this they are forced to defend now, becauſe they would not loſe the point of an implicit obedience.

And now if I were ſpeaking any thing here concerning the occaſion of this diſpute between the Biſhop of Meaux, and me, or the Circumſtances that went before, or followed after our Conference, the world will eaſily perceive I do it, becauſe this Biſhop hath already been at the trouble of giving the publick a ſufficient account of them. One word only I muſt ſay, which reſpects one of our Auditors, Mr. Cotton, who no doubt would have received a better Character from M. de Meaux, had he been ſo happy, as to be known to him more particularly. Mr. Cotton is a Gentleman of great honour, and wants neither apprehenſion, nor judgment; he underſtands his Religion; and though diſpute be no part of his buſineſs, is well verſed in the main Controverſies between us. If his modeſty, or ſome other conſiderations prevailed upon him to ſay ſomething that lookt like declining to engage in diſpute with M. de Meaux, I do not think he ought to have taken his words in their ſtrict and literal ſenſe.

As for the difference between our two Relations, I leave it as M. de Meaux hath done, to the Reader's judgment. He hath obſerved very wiſely, that let him ſay what he would of me, it was in my power to ſay the ſame of him: That all our Auditors were intereſted on one ſide or other; and that the world hath nothing at all to do with our proceedings. To all which let me add, that I will not give any occaſion for any private quarrel with a perſon I honour to that degree, that I do M. de Meaux.

The only thing I need ſay more, is concerning the method I have obſerved in this Book. It is divided into Two Parts. The firſt contains an Anſwer to the Inſtruction given Mademoiſelle de Duras, by this Biſhop, the day before our Conference; together with an Examination of his Reflexions upon that Anſwer, beginning at the ninth, and going on to the thirteenth, incluſively. The ſecond part contains a Relation of what paſt in our Conference, with an Examination of M. de Meaux's Reflexions thereupon, which are his eight firſt. This method in my opinion is very natural.

And now, as I have made it my buſineſs to be very exact, and paſt nothing in his whole Book over, without giving a direct Anſwer to it; ſo I hope that when he ſhall think fit to ſet Pen to Paper againſt me next, he will be as exact, and apply himſelf as cloſe to the pinch of the Queſtion; and not imagine, as men commonly do, that provided they can but pick up here and there ſome looſe paſſages, and from thence ſtart a few difficulties and objections, there need no more be done, and this muſt go for a full Anſwer. I beſeech God to ſhed forth his Bleſſing upon an undertaking, wherein the only Ends I propoſed to my ſelf, were his Glory, and the Illuſtration of the Truth. Thus much I am encouraged to hope from his mercy; and that as he hath hitherto preſerved his little Ship the Church, in the midſt of the billows and ſtorms of the world, he will ſtill continue to preſerve her, as he hath promiſed, even to the end of the world.

AN ADVERTISEMENT FROM THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER.

WHEN perſons of M. de Meaux's, and Mr. Claude's Character engage, and in a Controverſy ſo important too, as that between the Church of Rome, and thoſe who have ſeparated from her; Men muſt naturally be deſirous to know the management and iſſue of ſuch a debate. For, beſides what expectations the reputation of their Learning and Judgment might raiſe, This is a Cauſe, that ſcarce any body in our part of the World can be ſuppoſed perfectly indifferent in. Every Reader muſt look on Theſe, not only as Diſputants, but Advocates; and even they, who deſign no more than the gratifying their curioſity by peruſing ſuch Conferences, do yet inſenſibly find themſelves affected with ſome degree of Concern.

The particular Argument inſiſted upon here, is likewiſe of the higheſt conſequence; for it cannot but be a mighty help and direction, to know exactly how far we are obliged to comply with the Churches Deciſions in matters of Faith; In what Caſes we may venture to depend upon our own Collections from Reaſon and Scripture; and in what we muſt renounce theſe in deference to a higher Authority; Whether Councils and their pretended Infallibility ought to ſilence all, even the moſt juſt ſcruples, againſt whatever they ſhall pleaſe to determine; or whether Almighty God have not ordered the matter ſo, that without ſome recourſe had to our private Judgments, even Theſe cannot be received as a Rule of Faith to us; but, all imaginable care, and an impartial examination of the thing always preſuppoſed, the deciſive voice does of neceſſity belong at laſt to a mans own ſelf.

M. de Meaux, we ſee, took a great deal of pains by a previous diſcourſe upon this Topick, to prepare his Proſelyte for the enſuing Conference; and he was, no doubt, in the right, to pitch upon this as the main Argument for her Converſion: It being indeed the very foundation and ſupport of all the points in diſpute between us; the beſt and moſt cunningly contrived expedient, to make men firſt embrace, and then perſevere in Error and Superſtition. For Proteſtants are uſually apt to be ſqueamiſh, and cannot digeſt Opinions contrary to Senſe and Reaſon; they ſometimes grow ſo bold too, as to queſtion their Adverſaries integrity: Now what can be more ſatisfactory in ſuch Circumſtances, than to be invited into the Communion of a Church, which you are told, in all, even her moſt abſurd Decrees, is continually aſſiſted with the unerring guidance of the Holy Ghoſt; and put under a happy impoſſibility of deceiving her Members, tho illnatured people ſhould imagine her ſo wicked to deſire and endeavour it. This then being fixed as a firſt principle, the underſtanding is ſufficiently ſubdued; for humane reaſonings to interpoſe afterwards, would be impertinent and ſawcy; and ſo the harſheſt and moſt unpalatable Doctrines go glibly down, by the help of this excellent Vehicle, the Churches Authority and Infallibility.

The ſame method is obſervable among the Miſſionaries here in England, who after having tried us firſt with general ſchemes of the diſputable points, and then endeavoured to eſtabliſh ſome of them particularly, to little or no purpoſe; do now at laſt take ſanctuary in the Churches Deſpotick power, and begin to ſeem ſenſible, that either this or nothing muſt ſtand them in any ſtead. The debate upon this Head firſt began to grow warm upon occaſion of the Royal Papers, which (becauſe bad money is not priviledged to paſs unqueſtioned, tho it have the King's ſtamp upon it) were conſidered with a Judgment and Modeſty becoming both a ſincere zeal for Truth, and a dutiful honour for the Perſon whoſe Royal Name they bore. The ſeveral Anſwers, Vindications, and Replies upon this Subject, have ſince been followed by M. de Condom's account of his Conference, as ſuiting very well the buſineſs then in hand: And when once the World had ſeen That, it was ſo reaſonable Mr. Claude ſhould be heard what he could ſay for himſelf, that I ſhould not think this Tranſlation needed any Apology, or Introduction, were it not for ſome Objections which I foreſee it may be liable to. Theſe therefore I am concerned to remove, that ſo the Book may be read without prejudice, and not expoſe men to miſtaken notions of things, for want of a ſhort, but neceſſary Advertiſement.

In the firſt place I deſire the Reader to take notice, that it is not to be expected Mr. Claude ſhould in every circumſtance expreſs himſelf, as the Church of England would do at this day. The neceſſity of reforming from the Corruptions of Rome, was eaſily diſcerned in ſeveral Countries, and each National Church having ſufficient power to reform it ſelf, was juſt and wiſe in aſſerting that rightful Authority upon ſo emergent an occaſion. But tho all did the thing, yet, all not conferring together, they did it not by the ſame methods, nor with like moderation and prudence. It was enough that they all agreed in the main points, and for the leſs material ones, that they maintained ſuch a Charity, as not magiſterially to cenſure or exclude one another for theſe little differences. This was the very way, whereby the Communion is ſtill preſerved inviolable among the Proteſtant Churches in all Nations, and is a mighty argument, that they retain the true ſpirit of Meekneſs and Chriſtian Candor. Therefore in the writings of Forreigners, we muſt always make allowances for the Genius of that particular Church, whereof they are Members, and not be extremely nice and critical, except where we find a diſagreement in ſome very ſubſtantial point. The Reformed Gallican Church and we are perfectly of one Judgment in all the moſt conſiderable parts of this diſpute, concerning the Authority of the Church. As, That ſhe hath no right at all to require an abſolute and implicit obedience to her determinations; That the Scriptures are the only aud perfect Rule of Faith; That every Man is concerned and obliged to examine by this Rule whatever is impoſed upon him as an Article of Faith; and if he finds the Doctrine conformable thereto, readily and heartily to embrace, and adhere to it; but if evidently repugnant, by all means to reject it: That no Councils, even the moſt General, are to be received any further than they proceed in correſpondence with this Diving Word; That they may, and actually have erred in deviating from it, and conſequently their Decrees ought to undergo ſome Examination before a Man complies with them; But that, notwithſtanding this poſſibility of failing, we ought to entertain very reverend and charitable preſumptions in favour of ſuch Aſſemblies; and, as not to caſt them off without the cleareſt evidence of their having perverted the Truth; ſo, where no ſuch evidence appears, to ſubmit with the moſt reſpectful humility imaginable; looking upon them as excellent means for the preſervation of the Chriſtain Faith in its Ʋnity and genuine Purity.

After ſo punctual an agreement in matters of the greateſt conſequence, what can it ſignify, if in ſome few others of leſs conſideration, and more remote from the main buſineſs, there ſeem a ſmall diſparity? Mens Judgments muſt have ſome room left to exerciſe freely in, and diverſity of Opinions in Circumſtantials, like Diviſions in Muſick, may very well be admitted, without breaking the main Cords, or doing the harmony any prejudice at all. 'Tis confeſt, the Divines abroad have taken up ſome notions diſtinct from ours, and particularly concerning the Church, its Viſibility, Miniſtry, Conſtitution and Diſcipline; and it might well ſeene ſtrange, if Mr. Claude ſhould ſo far forget his Education and Country, as not to ſcatter ſome of theſe in his Writings. But I hope Engliſhmen may enjoy the benefit of his Diſcourſes, without being obliged to ſubſcribe every ſentence, or eſpouſe every punctilio contained in them. Whether the Gentlemen of the Romiſh perſwaſion relying upon the Authority of M. de Meaux his name, called in ſo potent an Auxiliary from beyond the Seas, out of a juſt diffidence of their own ſtrength here, They beſt can tell: This I am ſure of, that it was but Juſtice to Mr. Claude, and the Cauſe he aſſerts, that he ſhould be turned into the field too: And to let the World ſee, that after all M. de Meaux's vain-glorious boaſts of a victory, and bold defiance of all the Doctors in Chriſtendom, neither the Champion, nor the Cauſe, however vilified by him, are yet ſo feeble, that they need fear to encounter this Goliah. As many as underſtand the difference between us and the Reformed Proteſtants in France, are ſenſible, that we ſtand upon the fairer ground by much for an engagement againſt the Church of Rome: But I was willing cur Country-men ſhould have the ſatisfaction of ſeeing, that it is M. de Meaux's misfortune to be reduced to ſtreights, not only by a Church of England Pen, but by a Miniſter of his own Nation, who lay under ſome diſadvantages which we do not; and that for all his Triumphant Preface before the Conference, That could no more eſcape a reply at home, than his Expoſition has done abroad.

Another Objection againſt this Tranſlation may be, That the Conference hath appeared in our Language already. I will not ſay it was in ſuch a dreſs, as was by no means after the Engliſh Mode, and unworthy of ſo good an Original, for fear of provoking a ſeverer cenſure upon the habit I have now clothed it in, to which I I have reaſon to fear it is but too obnoxious. But ſetting aſide all Reflections upon the defects of thoſe who have gone before me, this ſingle conſideration is enough to juſtifie and recommend the preſent attempt, that the Relation which was then Printed alone, is a very ſmall part of the work. And when M. de Meaux's Narrative had appeared in ſuch pomp, introduced by a long diſcourſe upon the Church, and backt with ſo many ſmart Reflexions, M. Claude's memory might have ſuffered extreamly, by concealing his abilities. And particularly, that notwithſtanding the ſtrain of confidence viſible through all the Diſputant's Writings of the Romiſh Communion, he could and did retort to as good purpoſe, and with as much advantage as Modeſty and Reaſon uſually have over Vanity. This may amuſe unthinking people, who are apt to meaſure the weight of an Argument by the bigneſs of the words, and aſſurance of the Arguer; but the other only can prevail upon the Judicious and unprejudiced, and will force a conqueſt by its own ſtrength.

One thing I have augmented this Edition with, which neither the former, nor indeed Monſieur Claude's own Original have taken care of, but 'tis what I though highly neceſſary at this particular juncture. The unſincerity we have ſo often diſcovered in the late Advocates for Popery, makes us wiſh to take as little upon truſt as may be. And therefore ſince our repeated complaints have been ſo ineffectual, I reſolved to try if example would perſwade them to any thing like Fidelity. For this reaſon all the Quotations from Authors have been carefully conſulted, and at large tranſcribed by me in the Margent; where you will alſo find, if the Preſs do me right, the Edition of each Book, and if two have been conſulted, the difference of Chapters in each, as particularly in St. Cyprian; ſo that any man may now ſee at the expence of a very little trouble, whether he be impoſed upon or no. The ſame exactneſs may be taken notice of in many of our late Learned Writers; but ſtill there are a ſort of men that will never ſuffer themſelves to be run down for want of Recrimination, and therefore tax us with negligence in this particular alſo. Whether party better deſerve this accuſation, the Author of Pax Vobis, if they pleaſe, ſhall be the Teſt, who hath the impudence to repeat over and over ſo obvious a thing 〈◊〉 anHe ſays Dialogue 2d, pag. 20. That the Church of England in the 6th Article of their 39. ſays, We have no other Rule of Faith but Scripture, as each perſon of ſound Judgment in the Church underſtands it, and what is proved by it; This he repeats, Dialog. 3. Pag. 30. and ſeveral times afterwards: whereas the words of the Article are theſe;Holy Scripture containeth all things neceſſary to ſalvation: ſo that whatſoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, * is not to be required of any man, that it ſhould be believed as an Article of Faith; or be thought requiſite or neceſſary to ſalvation. Where you ſee the Star, there was in the Form in Edward the 6th's Reign this Clauſe inſerted, although it be ſometimes received of the Faithful, as godly and profitable for an Order and Comlineſs. But where are the expreſſions, or indeed the ſenſe of his Citation in all this? And yet the force of all his Arguments turns ſo much upon this, that the very convincing him of unſincerity in this ſingle allegation, is in effect an Anſwer to his whole Book. Article of our Church, and always by his own additionary Gloſs, make it ſpeak quite another ſenſe, than ever was deſigned for it.

As for the ſtile of this Tranſlation, my care hath been to make it natural and eaſie, rather than elaborate and fine. As I did not enſlave my ſelf to a rendering every where Verbal, ſo I durſt not take upon me to alter much, in order to being elegant.See Anſw. to M. Con • Expoſit. Pag. xxi. &c. and Vindicat. Pag. 13. Having one of the Parties engaged in this Conference for an eminent inſtance, how ſhameful a diſguiſe may be put upon things, and what material Changes may be made even in the main points, only for the greater neatneſs of the Diſcourſe and Style.

I muſt own I have been a little bold in making this Engliſh Book to differ from Mr. Claude's French one in the method: For he, after his Introductory Diſcourſe upon the Church, hath ſubjoyned an Anſwer to M. de Meaux's five laſt Reflections, ſo diſpatching that Subject entirely, and at once: And likewiſe to the Relation of the Conference, annexed a Reply to the other eight, which concern That: But I deſigning chiefly the benefit of thoſe, who either did not underſtand, or could not procure the French, and intending it for a direct anſwer to M. de Meaux in Engliſh, did rather incline to follow the method of that Tranſlation; conſulting herein▪ the Readers eaſe, when he ſhall think fit to compare them both together. And becauſe ſome time hath paſt ſince M. de Meaux appeared here, I choſe rather to divide This, than ſuffer ſo long a delay as the finiſhing of the whole muſt needs have occaſioned. But that men may not be impatient for the remaining Part, that alſo conſiſting of an Anſwer to M. de Meaux's Thirteen Reflections, will, I hope, be ſent after this very ſpeedily.

Laſtly,Eng. Preface. Becauſe M. de Meaux hath rightly obſerved, that the Authority of the Relations will in a great meaſure depend upon the Relator's Credit, I think my ſelf obliged to give this intimation to as many as ſhall peruſe them; That they would do well to remember how many, and what notorious falſifications M. de Meaux hath been charged with lately,Expoſit. of Church of Engl. &c. Defence of Expoſ. and that charge made good a ſecond time, by evident proofs of the thing, notwithſtanding all the pains taken by his Vindicator to bring him off; whereas Mr. Claude, for any thing I ever heard objected to the contrary, is rectus in Curia, clear and unſuſpected of any ſuch ſophiſtical indirect dealing. So that I mightily ſuſpect M. de Meaux would not be able to do any great feats, if both ſides were agreed to put the iſſue of the whole Controverſy upon each Author's Integrity and Reputation.

An Anſwer to Monſieur de MEAUX's Book, &c. SIR,

I Have a long time deſired a ſight of what you have now ſent me. It was told me on all hands, That there was a Writing of Monſieur de Condom's abroad, containing a relation of what paſt, in the Conference I had the honour to have with him at the Counteſs of Roye's; and ſome perſons did even aſſure me, they had heard it read: But ſtill I could meet with no body, capable of giving me the ſatisfaction I lately received by your means. This lays upon me a double engagement, both to return you my thanks for it, and at the ſame time, to gratify the curioſity you have to ſee what I wrote upon the ſame ſubject, the next day after our Interview. M. de Condom having profeſt it was not his deſire, that what paſt between him and me ſhould be publickly talked of, I thought my ſelf under an obligation to confine what I had written, to my own Study; And this hath been hitherto very punctually obſerved by me. But now, ſince he hath thought fit to give out Copies of his, I have reaſon to believe, that in this reſpect he leaves me perfectly to my liberty, and is well ſatisfied I ſhould do the ſame thing with mine. I have too great an opinion of M. de Condom's Wiſdom, not to follow his Example in this particular, and I promiſe my ſelf from his Equity, that he will not find fault with me, for treading in his ſteps.

But becauſe he hath been pleaſed to impart to us that Diſcourſe alſo, which he had with Mademoiſelle de Du • as in private, the day before our Conference, you will think it convenient, that before I tranſcribe my Relation, I ſhould firſt make ſome reflections upon That. Were this a diſcourſe of ſuch a nature, as common occaſions or accidents are uſed to produce, where a man ſpeaks without preparation or deſign, and delivers himſelf with all the freedom imaginable, I confeſs it were unjuſt to examine it ſtrictly, and by rule. But ſeeing this was compoſed by M. de Condom, with a proſpect of obliging Mademoiſelle de Duras to change her Religion, and which ſeems a ſtudied piece; a Diſcourſe, which he hath joyned to the account of our Conference, as a conſiderable part of what paſt in this matter: Laſtly, a Diſcourſe, committed to Writing, upon ſuppoſal that it may be uſeful to others, and, for that purpoſe made in ſome meaſure publick; I cannot forbear looking upon it as a work of premeditation, and returning ſome anſwer to it accordingly. Beſides, that you and I are concerned, as to what Mademoiſelle de Duras hath done, to deſire to know whether ſhe had ſufficient reaſons to forſake your Communion, and embrace the Romiſh; and the examination of this Diſcourſe will be a very proper means of clearing that point to us.

Now it may be reduced to two principal Parts: In the firſt, M. de Condom makes it his buſineſs to ſhew, that the Catholick or Univerſal Church, which we profeſs to believe in the Creed, is a Church thus defined:Conference with Mr. Claude, Page 2, 3. A Society making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and govern it ſelf by his word: Whence he infers, That it is a viſible Society. He pretends alſo to make it appear, that to this Church, thus defin'd, belong all the promiſes found in Scripture. In the Second, He labours to anſwer an Objection, drawn from what happened to the Church of Iſrael heretofore, in which we often ſee the true Worſhip of God to have been changed and corrupted, and both the People and their Guides to have fallen into Idolatry.

Theſe two Parts, Sir, we will proſecute in order, and by applying our ſelves to what is moſt material in them, will endeavour, by the aſſiſtance of God's Grace, to make the Truth ſo evident, as ſhall remove all difficulties.

The firſt Part of M. de Condom's diſcourſe examin'd.

Inſtead of granting the Miniſters (ſays M. de Condom) to believe all the Fundamentals of the Faith,Conference, p. 2. we ſhew that there is one Article of the Creed they believe not, which is that of the Univerſal Church. 'Tis true, they ſay with the mouth, I believe the Catholick or Univerſal Church, as the Arrians, Macedonians, and Socinians ſay with the mouth, I believe, in Jeſus Chriſt, and in the Holy Ghoſt; But as there is reaſon to accuſe them of not believing theſe Articles, becauſe they believe them not as they ought, nor according to their true ſenſe; ſo if we ſhew the Pretended Reformed, that they believe not as they ought, the Article of the Catholick Church; we may truly ſay, that in effect they reject ſo important an Article of the Creed.

You muſt know then, what is meant by this expreſſion, The Catholick or Univerſal Church; and upon this I lay for my ground, That in the Creed, which was only a bare declaration of Faith, this Term muſt be taken in its moſt proper and moſt natural ſignification, and ſuch as is moſt uſed among Chriſtians.Conf. p. 3. Now all Chriſtians by the name of the Church, underſtand a Society, making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and govern it ſelf by his Word. If this Society makes this Profeſſion, 'tis conſequently viſible, That this is the proper and genuine ſignification of the word Church, ſuch as is known by every one, and uſed in common diſcourſe; I deſire no other witneſſes than the Pretended Reformed themſelves.

The ſequel will declare, whether the ſcandal of dealing with that Article of the Univerſal Church, as the Arrians, Macedonians, and Socinians do, would not better agree with the Character of ſuch as follow M. de Condom's Opinion, than the Reformed Miniſters. This we ſhall preſently be able to judge of; and to that purpoſe four Queſtions muſt be examined.

The firſt is, Whether the ſenſe of that Article in our Creed ought to be reſtrained (according to M. de Condom) to the Church here on Earth, or extended farther?

Secondly, Whether this be a good and ſufficient definition of the Church upon Earth; A Society making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and govern it ſelf by his word.

Thirdly, Whether this Church upon Earth be viſible, or inviſible? or whether it be both, conſidered in a different ſenſe, and different reſpects?

Fourthly, To what Church the Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt do belong; whether to that defined by M. de Condom, or to that which we are about to define? Theſe four Queſtions will include, not only all the plauſible things M. de Condom hath ſaid in this firſt part of his Diſcourſe; but likewiſe all the other ſophiſtical Objections that are uſually put to us upon this ſubject.

Queſt. 1. Whether the ſenſe of that Article in our Creed ought to be reſtrained, (according to M. de Condom) to the Church here on Earth, or extended farther?

In order to reſolving the firſt Queſtion, you will pleaſe, Sir, to give me leave, to explain briefly that Article of our Creed, concerning the Catholick or Univerſal Church, and how we underſtand it, that ſo you may be able to judge, whether M. de Condom had reaſon to accuſe us of not taking it in its true ſenſe: And this I ſhall immediately enter upon.

We think then (this being ſuch a profeſſion of Faith, as ought to embrace its object entire, and in the utmoſt extent, and not in any one part only) that by the Ʋniverſal Church muſt be underſtood, not barely the viſible body, or company of the Faithful at preſent upon Earth, but that body or company of all the Faithful, which have been, are, or at any time ſhall be, from the beginning to the end of the World. Thus the Univerſal Church is, That which is already triumphant in Heaven, that which is now militant on Earth, and that which is not yet in the world, but ſhall be in ſucceeding Ages. All theſe three Churches do really make but one, becauſe united together in the eternal purpoſe of God, appointed to know one and the ſame Word, to partake of one and the ſame Spirit, and to inherit one and the ſame Glory. They are but one Family, for they have the ſame Father, the ſame Rights and Priviledges, the ſame Hopes, and are called to the ſame Duties. They are but one body, under the protection and Guidance of Jeſus Chriſt, their only Head, who is, as the Scripture ſays,Heb. 13. 8. The ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever. And this is our ſenſe of the Church, called in the Creed, Catholick, or Univerſal.

The Latitude we here take the Church in, hath diſpleaſed M. de Condom; he ſays we put a wrong ſenſe upon the Article; and to underſtand it thus, is in effect to reject it. He is of opinion it ſhould be confined to this part upon Earth, which he defines, A Society making profeſſion to believe, &c.

But in the firſt place M. de Condom muſt allow us to tell him, that Saint Auguſtine however hath taught us to explain the Church in our Creed after this manner. That Father indeed went farther than we do, for he hath not ſcrupled to include in this notion, the Angels confirmed in Grace. HereEccleſia tota hic accipienda eſt, non ſolum ex parte, quae peregrinatur in terris, à ſolis ortu ad occaſum uſ que laudans nomen Domini, & poſt vetuſtatem captivitatis cantans canticum novum; verum etiam ex illa quae in coelos ſemper ex quo condita eſt adhaeſit Deo. Aug. Enchir. ad Laurent. Cap. 46. (ſays he, and 'tis in his very Expoſition of the Creed, that he ſays it) we muſt take the Church whole and entire, not only for that part of it upon earth, which praiſes the name of God from the riſing of the Sun, unto the going down thereof, ſinging to God a new Song, ſince their deliverance from their former Captivity; but alſo for that other part which is in Heaven, and never was ſeparated from the Divine preſence, the Bleſſed and Holy Angels.Corpus ejus eſt Eccleſia, non autem iſta, aut illa, ſed toto orbe diffuſa. Nec ea quae nunc eſt in hominibus qui praeſentem vitam agunt, ſed ad eam pertinentibus etiam his, qui fuerunt ante nos, & his qui futuri ſunt poſt nos uſ que in finem ſaeculi: Tota enim Eccleſia conſtans ex omnibus fidelibus, quia fideles omnes membra ſunt Chriſti, habet illud caput poſitum in coeleſtibus, quod gubernat corpus ſuum. Aug. in Pſal. 56. The Body of Chriſt (ſays he in another place) is the Church, not this, or that Church, but which is diffuſed over the whole world; not that which is made up of men now alive, but conſiſting of thoſe which have been before us, and thoſe which ſhall come after us even to the end of the world. For the whole Church being compoſed of all the Faithful, in as much as all the Faithful are the Members of Jeſus Chriſt 〈◊〉 Jeſus Chriſt for its Head, and this Head though exalted high in the Heavens, does notwithſtanding ſtill continue to govern his body.

M. de Condom muſt likewiſe allow us to tell him, that the Catechiſm of the Council of Trent hath given this ſenſe of the Church in our Creed. Catech. Conc. Trid. ad Paroch. Par. 1. Art. 9. Numb. 7, 8, 9. Eccieſiae autem duae potiſſimum ſunt partes, quarum altera Triumphans, altera Militans vocatur. Triumphans eſt, coetus ille clariſſimus, & faeliciſſimus beatorum ſpirituum, & corum, qui de mundo, de carne, de iniquiſſimo daemone triumphârunt, & ab hujus vitae moleſtiis liberi, ac tuti, aeterna beatitudine fruuntur. Militans vero Eccleſia eſt, coetus omnium fidel • um, qui adhuc in terris vivunt: quae ideo Militans vocatur, quod illi cum immaniſſimis hoſtibus, mundo, carne, Sathana perpetuum ſit bellum. Neque idcirco tamen duas eſſe Eccleſias cenſentium eſt, ſed ejuſdem Eccleſiae, ut antea diximus, partes duae ſunt, quarum una anteceſſit, & coeleſti patria jam potitur altera indies ſequitur, donec aliquando cum Salvatore noſtro conjuncta in ſempiternâ felicitate conquieſcat.The Church (it ſays, and 'tis in the very Explication of this Article) hath two parts, one of which is called Triumphant, the other Militant. The Triumphant is that illuſtrious aſſembly of the Bleſſed, and all thoſe who have vanquiſhed and triumph'd over the World, the Fleſh and the Devil, and who being now delivered from the miſeries of this life, enjoy everlaſting reſt and felicity. The Church Militant is the company of all the Faithful yet alive upon earth, which is therefore called Militant, becauſe they are engaged in a perpetual war with theſe moſt deadly enemies, Satan, the World, and the Fleſh. Yet muſt we not from hence imagine that they are two diſtinct Churches, but as was ſaid, two parts of one and the ſame Church, one of which is gone before, and already poſſeſt of its Heavenly Country. The other daily following after, till at length, being united with our Saviour, it ſhall reſt above in Eternal happineſs.

Again, We muſt deſire M. de Condom's leave to ſay, that the very Title of Catholick or Ʋniverſal uſed in the Creed, does lead us to this extended notion of the Church. This to me ſeems evident for two reaſons. Firſt, that this Title is given the Church to diſtinguiſh it from all falſe Churches, which do neither exiſt always, nor every where, but ſpring up and die away in ſome particular places, and at ſome certain times, as having no ſound nor laſting principle. Secondly, that this Title was to diſtinguiſh it from particular Churches, which are but members of this great Body collected by Chriſt, and ſeparated from the world, that he might ſanctifie it to himſelf. Whence it follows, that when we ſay the Ʋniverſal or Catholick Church, by this is plainly meant the Church intire, and at large, without exception, or limitation, either as to time or place.

Laſtly, M. de Condom muſt allow us to tell him, that we are brought to this notion by what follows in the Creed, The Communion of Saints, which terms explain this of the Catholick Church. For the Saints are not only perſons now living upon Earth; but thoſe alſo that reign in Heaven, and thoſe which ſhall be to the worlds end; and 'tis with all theſe that we are in Communion. If the Communion of Saints were to be underſtood of ſuch only, as make profeſſion to believe in Jeſus Chriſt, and govern themſelves by his word; This could be no other than an external Communion by living under the ſame Miniſtry, and partaking of the ſame Sacraments, which good and bad men enjoy equally. And certainly this would fall far ſhort of ſo great, ſo Majeſtick an expreſſion, and conſequently could not deſerve a room in our Creed.

But (ſays M. de Condom) in the Creed, Conference, Pag. 2. which was only a bare declaration of faith, this term muſt be taken in its moſt proper and moſt natural ſignification, and ſuch as is moſt uſed among Chriſtians. I own it muſt be taken in its moſt proper and moſt natural ſenſe, but even this ſupplies us with a freſh argument againſt him; it being certain, that the moſt proper and moſt natural ſenſe is to take the Ʋniverſal Church for the company of all thoſe that are truly the faithful, ſeparated from the world by the Word and Holy Spirit of God, according to the purpoſe of his Election from the beginning to the end of all things. I acknowledg the word Church when uſed in a Civil ſenſe, as for inſtance when ſpoken of the people of Iſrael, does moſt properly ſignifie an external and viſible company, and ſo far I am of M. de Condom's mind, both as to what he urges out of the Acts, and from the Septuagint Tranſlation. But ſtill I aſſert, that this word when applied to a Chriſtian Society, does not properly denote a viſible Congregation, or an outward profeſſion of the Faith, and no more; but chiefly an inward calling, a ſpiritual communion, and ſuch as that outward is only a conſequence of, and does depend upon. A man muſt be utterly ignorant of Chriſtianity to deny this truth. The Church then is a name for ſomething within, and not barely to ſignifie what paſſes without; ſo that implying an inward communion, when the Title of Ʋniverſal is put to it, it muſt needs mean the whole body of true and faithful Chriſtians. By the ſame reaſon I affirm this to be its moſt natural ſignification. When we ſay in plain terms the Ʋniverſal Church, nothing can be more natural than to underſtand the whole company of Gods children, as oppoſed to the men of the world, and children of this generation. Nothing more natural to Faith, and eſpecially a Confeſſion of Faith, than to interpret a term expreſſing the object of Faith, not in a reſtrained ſenſe, which gives only a partial Idea of the thing; nor in an ambiguous ſenſe, which gives a confuſed and doubtful one; but in a ſenſe that ſhall be perſpicuous and full.

As to the common uſe of the word, M. de Condom muſt pardon me, if I ſay there is a fallacy in his argument. For ſuppoſing it true (which really it is not) that all Chriſtians of this and ſome ages laſt paſt had confined the term Ʋniverſal Church, to the Church at preſent upon Earth; ſuppoſe the pretended Reformed (to uſe M. de Condom's own expreſſion) did commonly underſtand this term ſo, yet ſtill 'tis a trick to attempt to adjuſt the ſenſe of the Creed, by that which ſome latter ages have fixt upon it. 'Tis juſt as if I ſhould go about to explain the terms of our language by what will be in vogue two or three hundred years hence. For who does not ſee that the acceptation alters, and words are mightily removed from their firſt and genuine ſignification?

What I have alledged from St. Auſtin, and the Trent-Catechiſm, plainly convict M. de Condom of a miſtake either in matter of fact, or point of right. If the matter of fact depoſited before be true, That all Chriſtians underſtand by the Church, a Society making profeſſion, &c. He is out in point of right, for St. Auſtin and the Trent-Catechiſm ſhew, that the Church in our Creed is to be otherwiſe underſtood. But if this Rule hold, that the word in the Creed muſt be taken in ſuch a ſence, as is moſt in uſe among Chriſtians, he errs in matter of fact, for St. Auſtin and the Catechiſm, taking it as we ſee, 'tis manifeſt the Chriſtians of their times did not underſtand it as M. de Condom does, of a Society making profeſſion to believe, &c.

It is queſtionleſs more reaſonable to ſay, that the term Ʋniverſal Church in our Creed, ſhould be interpreted in a way moſt agreeable to Scripture ſtile, but this very thing quite overthrows M. de Condom's pretenſions. For the Scripture when ſpeaking of the Church, as the Creed does, with regard to its Univerſality, does always mean the whole body of the Faithful, and not one part only. Thus St. Paul hath taken it in that excellent paſſage,Epheſ. 22. 23. God hath given Jeſus Chriſt to be the Head of the Church, which is his body, the fulneſs of him that filleth all in all. In the fifth Chapter of that Epiſtle,Chap. 5. he repeats it no leſs than ſix times in the ſame ſenſe:Ver. 23. The husband is the head of the wife, Ver. 24. even as Chriſt is the head of the Church: The Church is ſubject to Chriſt as the wife is to her husband. Ver. 25. Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, Ver. 27. that he might preſent it to himſelf a glorious Church, not having ſpot or wrinkle. Ver. 29. Chriſt nouriſheth and cheriſheth the Church. This is a great myſtery concerning Chriſt and the Church. Ver. 32. Thus again Col. 1. Chriſt is the head of the body the Church, Ver. 18. who is the beginning, the firſt-born from the dead. So laſtly Heb. 12. Ye are come to Mount Sion, Ver. 22. the city of the living God, the heavenly Jeruſalem, and to an innumerable company of Angels, Ver. 23. to the general aſſembly and Church of the firſt-born, which are written in Heaven. For the Apoſtle does not mean the Church Triumphant only, as M. de Condom would perſwade us, but the whole body of thoſe whom God hath enrolled in the Book of his Predeſtination, whether already taken up to Glory, or ſuch as are already juſtify'd and ſanctified upon Earth, but not yet glorify'd, or thoſe whom he will call effectually hereafter, and juſtifie, in order to their Glorification.

I conclude this Queſtion with one obſervation, which ought not to give M. de Condom any offence, becauſe the greateſt demonſtration of reſpect to an adverſary, is the removing every little objection made by him. I obſerve then that his Argument (which contains all this part of his Diſcourſe, neither does, nor according to the rules of reaſoning, can conclude any thing at all. He would know the meaning of Ʋniverſal Church in our Creed, We muſt take this term (ſays he) in the moſt proper ſignification, and ſuch as is moſt in uſe among Chriſtians. I grant it. Now all Chriſtians (as he goes on) by the name of Church underſtand a ſociety, &c. and for this I deſire no other witneſſes, than the Pretended Reform'd themſelves. Who does not perceive that this concludes nothing? He ſhould have ſaid, All Chriſtians underſtand by the Church Ʋniverſal, a ſociety, &c. and of this I deſire no other witneſſes, &c. Thus he ſhould have delivered himſelf, if he would argue regularly. All this while M. de Condom's proof all through the ſequel of his diſcourſe runs not upon the term in his Propoſition, The Ʋniverſal Church; but on that ſingle term the Church, between which there is a wide difference; for the Church may well be taken in a ſenſe, that the Ʋniverſal Church can by no means admit of. Indeed had M. de Condom ſaid, All Chriſtians by the Church Ʋniverſal, underſtand a Society making profeſſion, &c. and of this I deſire no other witneſſes than the Pretended Reformed themſelves, we ſhould have anſwered him, That the Pretended Reform'd never underſtood by the Ʋniverſal Church, a Society making profeſſion to believe, &c. becauſe according to their Tenets, the Church Univerſal roſe a great way further than this Society making profeſſion, &c. So that we ſhould immediately have put a ſtop to his Argument, and he could never have effected what he hoped for from it.

Queſt. 2. Whether M. de Condom's be a good and ſufficient definition of the Church upon Earth, A Society making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and govern it ſelf by his Word.

By this deciſion of our firſt queſtion, I think, Sir, it appears that M. de Condom had no ground for accuſing us of taking that Article of our Creed concerning the Ʋniverſal Church, in a wrong ſenſe. Let us now proceed to the ſecond Enquiry, whether M. de Condom have given a good and ſufficient definition of the Church upon Earth, in calling it, A Society making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and govern it ſelf by his Word.

Now this Queſtion being of ſuch mighty importance, that upon the determination o • it, the whole Controverſie betwixt us and the Roma ••••• touching the Church does entirely depend, I was amazed to ſee, 〈◊〉 he did not think fit to clear it, either to Mademoiſelle de Duras, or 〈◊〉 other Proſelytes for whom the peruſal of this Diſcourſe was 〈◊〉 Methinks, when men go about to make Converts, they ought 〈…〉 pretence of ſaving them a little trouble, to decline any inſtructi ••• 〈◊〉 may be neceſſary for their ſatisfaction; and being perſwaded, 〈…〉 Church of Rome's pretenſions are juſt, ſhould not fear to have the Grounds of them examined, but ſuppoſe they will be found ſtrong and impregnable. How comes it to paſs then that M. de Condom was pleaſed to paſs by ſo fundamental a Queſtion? And how could be ſatisfy himſelf with barely propounding his definition, and ſaying only, that This was what all Chriſtians underſtand by the name of a Church.

However I ſhall be bold to ſay, that this is neither all, nor indeed the main part of what Chriſtians do, or ought to underſtand by it; and that his definition is defective by at leaſt one half; to which therefore I ſhall oppoſe another, which I aſſert to be what all Chriſtians ought to underſtand by the name of Church, viz. A Society of ſuch perſons, as making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, do truly and effectually believe it; and making profeſſion to govern themſelves by his word, do really and effectually govern themſelves by it. Our buſineſs now is to know which of theſe two is a good and lawful definition; whether that given us by M. de Condom in agreement with the Doctors of his Communion, or this of mine, in agreement with all Proteſtants? That is to ſay, we are concerned to know, whether the nature and eſſence of the Church conſiſt barely in externals and appearances; or whether ſomething of reality be not required? whether Hypocriſy, and ſuperficial Cheats can make men true members of the Church? or whether ſomething of truth be not neceſſary alſo, to know whether wicked men, worldlings, and reprobates, provided they make an outward profeſſion, and can but diſſemble handſomely, are real members of Chriſt's myſtical body, or whether this priviledge do not belong to thoſe that are truly the Faithful? Here lies the pinch of the Queſtion, which in my opinion would have reſolved it ſelf, had but M. de Condom propounded it fairly: For methinks 'tis very hard to acquieſce ſo far in his definition. But not to inſiſt on this firſt prejudice, let us examine the matter throughly.

I. The Scripture repreſents the Church to us, as the product and execution of God's eternal decree of Predeſtination, or Election; and beſides it teaches us, that God in electing and predeſtinating men, does it not to a mere outward profeſſion of Faith and Holineſs, but to an effectual Faith, and true Holineſs: And conſequently, effectual Faith and Holineſs are of the nature and eſſence of the Church, and not an outward profeſſion only. The conſequence is manifeſt; For the beſt way to diſcover the nature and eſſence of any thing, is to take it according to its own Author's firſt Idea and deſign; ſuppoſing that he does not (as we are all agreed God does not) ſwerve at all from his deſign in the execution of it. The Church then being God's own work, the ſureſt means to diſcern what that is, will be to inform our ſelves of God's deſign, if we can but find out that.Epheſ. 1. 3, 4. Now this we find in the Election, Bleſſed be the God and Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, (ſays St. Paul in the name of the whole Church) who hath bleſſed us with all ſpiritual bleſſings, in heavenly places in Chriſt; According as he hath choſen us in Him, before the foundation of the world. Verſ. 10, 11. And a little after, He gathers together in one all things in Chriſt, both which are in heaven, and which are in earth, even in him; In whom we have obtain'd an inheritance, being predeſtinated according to the purpoſe of him, &c. To this relates that ſaying of Chriſt,Joh. 17. 9. I pray not for the world, but for them which thou haſt given me, for they are thine. Where by oppoſing the world, for which he does not pray, to thoſe whom his father had given him, 'tis plain he underſtands the Church; and his meaning is, that the Father hath given them to Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe it was his by his purpoſe of Election. This appears further,Ver. 10. from the words that immediately follow, And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; for this mutual reciprocation of Good between his Father and Him (if I may ſo term it) is capable of no other ſenſe but this, in the ſequel of his diſcourſe. My Church are thine Elect, and thy Elect are my Church; they who are mine, as my people, are thine, as thy Elect; my Communion, and thy Election, have the ſame meaſures, the ſame extent, and do both comprehend the ſame perſons: So that the Election is nothing elſe but God's deſign and project of the Church; and the conſtituting of a Church, is the putting that deſign of Election in Execution.Pſal. 65. 3. Bleſſed (ſays David) is the man whom thou chuſeſt, and cauſeſt to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts. Theſe Courts are the Church of God, and men enter into them only by vertue of God's Election.2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath ſaved us (ſays the Apoſtle) and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpoſe and grace, which was given us in Chriſt Jeſus, before the world began. We muſt therefore come to the knowledg of the Church by his Eternal purpoſe, and to know that,Epheſ. 1. 4, 5, 6. we muſt conſult his Holy Word. He hath choſen us (ſays St. Paul) that we ſhould be holy, and without blame before him in love. Having predeſtinated us to the adoption of children by Jeſus Chriſt to himſelf; and, that we ſhould be to the praiſe of the glory of his grace. He does not ſay a bare profeſſion of Holineſs, but a real Holineſs; he does not ſay an appearance of adoption, but a true adoption; he does not ſay an external converſion, but an internal; That is, ſuch as may illuſtrate the glory of God. God hath predeſtinated us to a true Faith, and not an appearance of Faith; to a ſincere and ſubſtantial Regeneration, not to a ſhadow or colour of it. 'Tis paſt a doubt then, that a mere outward profeſſion cannot give us a full definition of the Church; but true Faith and Regeneration are neceſſary parts of the Idea we have of it.

II. The Scripture, when ſpeaking of the Church with reference to God, gives it ſuch appellations as can by no means be reſtrain'd to a more profeſſion, or allow us to think it can be compoſed of wicked perſons. It calls the Church,Gal. 4. 26. Jeruſalem which is above, Heb. 12. 22. the Heavenly Jeruſalem, the City of the living God, Pſ. 2. 6. the Holy Hill of Sion, Gal. 6. 16. the Iſrael of God, 1 Pet. 2. 9. A Holy Nation, a peculiar people; Pſal. 28. 9. the inheritance of God, Epheſ. 2. 22. the habitation of God through the ſpirit, 1 Tim. 3. 15. the houſe of God, 1 Cor. 3. 17. the temple of God, 1 Pet. 2. 5. His holy Prieſthood, His ſpiritual houſe, Ibid v. 9. His royal Prieſthood, Eph. 1. 14. His purchaſed poſſeſſion, 1 Pet. 2. 10. the people of God. Tell me now, I pray, if the energy of theſe expreſſions is not admirably anſwered, by being reduced to a bare external profeſſion? Would God have ſent us a new Jeruſalem, a new Sion, a new City from above, and make this up of Righteous and Wicked, Hypocrites and true Believers indifferently? Does not the Apoſtle underſtand it ſo, when he ſays, thatGal. 4. 26, 31. 30. 25. Jeruſalem is free, that her children are not in bondage; i. e. thoſe who are the Children by promiſe, that they ſhall not be caſt out like Children of the bondwoman, but ſhall be Heirs; and that there is the ſame difference between this and the other Jeruſalem, that was between the two Wives of Abraham, Sarah and Agar? Would God make him a new Tabernacle, a new Houſe, a new Temple, and build it of holy and profane materials indifferently? St. Peter 1 Pet. 2. 5. did not intend it ſo, You (ſays he) as lively ſtones are built up a ſpiritual houſe. Would God ſeparate to himſelf a new people, a new Iſrael, a new Nation, from all other Nations, and require from it no more than an outward profeſſion, which alone works no regeneration at all? To ſhew that God himſelf never intended this, obſerve how himſelf ſpeaks,Jer. 31. 32. This ſhall be the covenant that I will make with the houſe of Iſrael, After thoſe days (ſaith the Lord) I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they ſhall be my people. We muſt take notice, that all theſe names above mentioned, are derived from the old figures of the Moſaical diſpenſation; this the very reading of them plainly teſtifies. Now this very thing makes directly againſt M. de Condom's definition: For as it is eſſential to a figure, to conſiſt of ſomething External and Corporeal, ſo is it equally eſſential to the thing figured, to conſiſt of ſomething Internal and Spiritual. The Church therefore is no longer a Jeruſalem, an Iſrael, a people linked together by outward bands only; this would correſpond well enough with the figures of the old Law; but it is a people, an Iſrael, a Jeruſalem, united and compacted by the inward hands of the ſame Faith, and the ſame Sanctification. This very term [the Church] is of it ſelf ſufficient to confirm this truth; M. de Condom acknowledges the Chriſtians had it from the Jews, Conf. p. 5. which is true. He ſays the Jews made uſe of it to ſignify the viſible Society of God's people, the Aſſembly which makes profeſſion to ſerve him. I agree with him in that too. He adds, That the Chriſtians have kept it in the ſame ſenſe. I am not of that opinion. This word, when applied to the figure, can ſignify no more than a viſible outward Aſſembly; but when to the thing figured, it muſt of neceſſity imply ſomething more, it muſt denote an inward community, a company, not of Bodies only, but Souls too;Rom. 10. 10. for it is not enough that a confeſſion be made with the mouth, men muſt alſo believe with the heart unto Righteouſneſs.

III. This will be yet more evident, if you reflect on ſome other applelations given to the Church, with relation to Jeſus Chriſt. For it is called, His flock, his ſheep, his ſpouſe, his ſiſter, his dove, his well-beloved, his body, a Body whereof He is the head, a Body that is his fleſh and his bones, a houſe built upon him, as upon a Corner-ſtone, the ſanctified in Jeſus Chriſt, the Children which God hath given him, and other expreſſions like theſe. Now who can ever imagine theſe glorious Titles ſhould import no more than an outward profeſſion? or that profane perſons and reprobates can have any ſhare in them? Luke 12. 32. It is his flock, but what flock? Fear not little flock, for it is your Father's good pleaſure to give you the kingdom. They are his ſheep,Joh. 10. 27, 28. but how, My ſheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life, and they ſhall never periſh, neither ſhall any man pluck them out of my hand. It is his Spouſe, and his Siſter, but in what reſpect? Cant. 4. 9. Thou haſt raviſhed my heart, my ſiſter, my ſpouſe, thou haſt raviſhed my heart.Cant. 6. 9. It is his Dove, but why his Dove? My dove, my undefiled is but one, the daughters, ſaw her, and bleſſed her. She is his well-beloved, but Wherefore his Well-beloved? Cant. 2. 2. As the lilly among therns, ſo is my beloved among the daughters.Epheſ. 4. 12, 13. It is his Body, but how his body? The edifying of the body of Chriſt; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the ſon of God, unto a perfect man, unto the meaſure of the ſtature of the fulneſs of Chriſt.Ibid. v. 16. He is its Head, but what ſort of Head? From him the whole body fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joint ſupplieth, maketh increaſe of the body, to the edifying of it ſelf in love. It is his fleſh and his bones, but how theſe? Eph. 5. 29. No man ever hateth his own fleſh, but nouriſheth, and cheriſheth it, even as the Lord the Church. It is a ſtructure built upon him, but how? In him all the building fitly framed together,Eph. 2. 21. groweth into an holy temple in the Lord. They are the ſanctified in Jeſus Chriſt, but how ſanctſied? They are ſuch as in every place call upon the name of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord.1 Cor. 1. 2. They are the Epiſtle of Jeſus Chriſt,2 Cor. 3. 3. but in what regard the Epiſtle? Written not with Ink, but with the ſpirit of the living God; not in tables of ſtone, but in fleſhy tables of the heart. It is his People, but what kind of people? Thy people ſhall be willing in the day of thy power,Pſ. 110. 3. in the beauties of holineſs. They are the Children which God hath given him; But wherefore were they given him? To exhibit them one day, Heb. 2. 13. ſaying, Behold I, and the children which thou haſt given me.Joh. 17. 2. Thou haſt given me power over all fleſh, that I ſhould give eternal life to as many as thou haſt given me. Can any man after all this grant, that the Church ſhould be defined, A Society making profeſſion to believe, &c. or imagine that Hypocrites belong to this myſtical Divine Body?

IV. If we ſearch the Scripture yet further, we ſhall find other Arguments in confirmation of this Truth. Among theſe I reckon the predictions concerning the Church of Chriſt, to be met with in the Prophets. Thus it is deſcribed by Moſes; Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy ſoul,Iſa. 34. 8, 9. that thou mayeſt live. There ſhall be (ſaith Iſaiah) a high-way, and a way, it ſhall be called the way of holineſs, the unclean ſhall not paſs over it, but it ſhall be for thoſe; the wayfaring men, tho fools, ſhall not err therein: No lion ſhall be there, nor any ravenous beaſt ſhall go up thereon; it ſhall not be found there,Iſa. 54. 13, 14. but the redeemed ſhall walk there. And in another place. All thy children ſhall be taught of the Lord, and great ſhall be the peace of thy children, In righteouſneſs ſhalt thou be eſtabliſhed. In the ſame ſenſe Jeremiah ſpeaks of it, They ſhall teach no more every man his neighbour,Jer. 31. 33. and every man his brother, ſaying, Know the Lord, for they ſhall all know me, from the leaſt of them unto the greateſt of them, for I will forgive their inquity, and I will remember their ſin no more.Ezek. 36. 25, 26, 27. Ezekiel ſays as much; I will ſprinkle clean water upon you, and ye ſhall be clean. I will give you a new heart, and a new ſpirit will I put within you: and I will take away the ſtony heart out of your fleſh, and I will give you a heart of fleſh. And I will put my ſpirit within you, and cauſe you to walk in my ſtatutes,Joel 3. 17. and ye ſhall keep my judgements. In like manner Joel, Then (ſays he) ſhall Jeruſalem be holy, and there ſhall no ſtrangers paſs through it any more. Likewiſe Zechariah,Zech. 14. 21. In that day there ſhall be no more the Canaanite in the houſe of the Lord of hoſts. What can all theſe great and wonderful promiſes mean? This Circumciſion of Heart? This way of Holineſs where the unclean ſhall not paſs over? This keeping out of Lions and ravenous beaſts? This being taught of God? This univerſal knowledg, joyned with a pardon of ſins? This pouring out of the ſpirit, which ſhall take away the hearts of ſtone, and change them for hearts of fleſh? This Holineſs of Jeruſalem, ſo as to ſuffer no ſtranger, nor Canaanite in the midſt of her? I ſay, What ſignifies all this, if the form and eſſence of a Church conſiſt in a bare profeſſion; and if this Communion can be compoſed of unjuſt, as well as juſt, of Bad as well as Good men?

V. St. Paul in his firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, endeavours to make us apprehend the Church aright,1 Cor. 12. 12, 13: by reſembling it to a man's body. As the body (ſays he) is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many are one body, ſo alſo is Chriſt. For by one ſpirit are we all haptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink into one ſpirit. I need not here obſerve, that by Chriſt he means the Myſtical body of Chriſt, That is, his Church; this is manifeſt of it ſelf,Verſe 27. and he explains himſelf ſo afterwards: You (ſays he) are the body of Chriſt, and members in particular. All we have to do, is to enquire, what he makes to be the principle and • and of this unity here attributed to the Church, and with reſpect to which he likens it to the body of a Man. And this is eaſily underſtood; for in his opinion it is the ſpirit, and conſequently not a bare profeſſion. But ſtill it may be doubtful what Spirit this is: Is it a ſpirit of direction only, that attends upon the Clergy, and prevents their giving erroneous determinations, and publickly profeſſing any ſuch, how wicked ſover the perſons exerciſing this Authority be? By no means. It is the ſpirit which the faithful receive, and whereof Baptiſm is a ſign: For (ſays the Apoſtle) we are all haptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink into one ſpirit. Thus you ſee the band and principle of the Churches Unity. The evident conſequence whereof is, that inward regeneration is eſſential to it, and that as many as have not been waſhed by, nor made to drink into this heavenly ſpirit, cannot be parts of this body.

VI. But the Apoſtle carries on his Argument yet further; for he takes notice, that although God had put a difference between the members, as there is likewiſe in thoſe of the Church; yet he had ſo qualified this difference, That there ſhould be (ſays he) no ſchiſm, 1 Cor. 12. 25, 26. or diviſion in the body, but that the members ſhould have the ſame care one of another; ſo that whether one member ſuffers, all the members ſuffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoyce with it. From hence it is plain, that according to St. Paul, there is as real an agreement between the members of the body of the Church, as there is between thoſe of a humane body, without any contrariety or diſcord, and that this good correſpondence is founded on that Unity which makes each part to have one and the ſame common intereſt. Now what true agreement, or common concern can there ever be, between the members of Chriſt, and members of the Devil? Or in St. Paul's own phraſe, What fellowſhip between light and darkneſs? What continual enmity on the contrary muſt there needs lurk under the Covert of ſuch an untoward ſeeming Peace, as a bare outward profeſſion may make? Every one aims at advancing his own Maſter's honour, ſo that the ſentiments, deſigns, and methods of the Servants muſt of neceſſity carry as great oppoſition as there is between the Maſters they ſerve.

VII. In his Epiſtle to the Galatians he gives us another deſcription of the Church very like this:Gal. 3. 27, 28, As many (ſays he) as have been baptizeed into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Chriſt Jeſus. Thus far reſpects Communion with the ſame Chriſt, which is the very thing that conſtitutes the Unity of the Church, and is the eſſential form of it; ſo that perſons out of this Communion are not of the Church, becauſe they have no part in the Churches Unity. If you would now Know what kind of Communion this is,V. 29. attend to what follows. If ye be Chriſt's, Ye are Abraham's ſeed, and heirs according to promiſe. So that St. Paul does not treat of a Communnion conſiſting in a bare outward profeſſion, but ſuch a one as makes men Myſtical Children of Abraham, and heirs of God.

VIII. In his Epiſtle to the Romans, Rom. 8. 1. he thought it not enough to ſay, They that are in Chriſt Jeſus, walk not after the fleſh, but after the ſpirit, which yet is intimation ſufficient,V. 9. what nature that Communion is of, that makes this Myſtical Body of Chriſt the Church; but he goes further, and is expreſs afterwards, If any man have not the ſpirit of Chriſt, he is none of his. Words of ſuch ſtrength as will not allow us to acknowledg wicked men belong to the Church unleſs we ſhould make a Church that is not Chriſt's. If the Church formally, and as ſuch, be Chriſt's, this muſt be true of all that are of the Church, and participate of that which conſtitutes it ſuch. Now according to M. de Condom's definition, wicked men and reprobates may be of the Church; therefore in his opinion they may be Chriſt's. Notwithſtanding St. Paul avers, that they that are Chriſt's, live not according to the fleſh; and that as many as have not Chriſt's ſpirit, are none of his; ſo that he is of a judgement different from M. de Condom's. If an outward profeſſion alone be the common band, and that which conſtitutes the Church, we are driven to maintain one of theſe three things: Either that ſuch a profeſſion does confer the ſpirit of Chriſt; Or, without Chriſt's ſpirit one may ſtill be his; Or, that the things which make it to be a Church, do not yet make it to be Chriſt's. The firſt of theſe would be abſurd. For what more ſo, than to aſſert,' That a bare profeſſion of Chriſtianity confers the Spirit of Chriſt? At this rate every Hypocrite is a partaker of that Holy Spirit. The ſecond, That one without Chriſt's Spirit may ſtill be his, directly contradicts Saint Paul's aſſertion, which poſitively declares, That he who hath not Chriſt's Spirit, is not his. And for the third, That the things which make it to be a Church, do not yet make it to be Chriſt's; it may be M. de Condom may not like this himſelf. I for my part look upon it as a very ſtrange poſition. For can one ſay, that what preciſely conſtitutes the Church, does not make it Chriſt's? This is as much as to ſay, that the Church is not his Body, nor his Spouſe, nor his well-beloved, nor any of all thoſe things the Scripture calls it. In a word, 'tis to ſay, that it is not conſidered in this quality any part of his concern. If M. de Condom frame to himſelf ſuch a Church as this, let him at leaſt give us leave to enquire why he does afterwards appropriate the promiſes to it. For what right can the Church have to theſe, if, as ſuch, it be not Chriſt's, nor hath Communion with him? Theſe two Propoſitions are evidently deſtructive of one another. If the Church as ſuch be not Chriſt's, it has no ſhare in his promiſes; if it hath, then it is his, as a Church. Let him chuſe which he pleaſe; if the firſt, our Controverſie is at an end, for to what purpoſe ſhould we diſſpute of a Church, which he ſays, is Jeſus Chriſt's; and yet is not his, nor hath any title to the promiſes? If the ſecond, let him not talk any more of a Church conſidered as ſuch, being conſtituted by a bare outward profeſſion: For this not conferring Chriſt's Spirit, cannot make the Church his; or if it can, St. Paul does not ſay true, when he tells us expreſly, That if any man have not the Spirit of Chriſt, he is none of his.

IX. The ſundry paſſages of Scripture concerning Hypocrites, who cloak themſelves with ſuch an outward profeſſion, abundantly prove them not to be of Chriſt's Church.1 Joh. 2. 9. He that ſaith, he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkneſs. 1 Joh. 3. 10. And a little after, In this the children of God are manifeſt, and the children of the Devil, whoſover doth not righteouſneſs is not God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 1 Joh. 4. 8. Again afterwards, He that loveth not, knoweth not God, Jud. v. 12. for God is love. St. Jude ſpeaking of theſe Hypocrites, calls them, Spots in our feaſts of charity, clouds without water, trees without fruit, twice dead, Mat. 7. 23. plucked up by the Roots. Jeſus Chriſt himſelf ſays, In the laſt day he will profeſs unto them, he never knew them. What colour then have we for making ſuch members of the Church, which is Chriſt's Body? But that place of St. John removes all the difficulty,1 Joh. 2. 19. They went out from us, but they were of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us, but that they might be made manifeſt, that they were not all of us. What a plain difference is here made between being among us, and being of us; being among us, is proper for Hypocrites, that are mixed with the Faithful, and joyn in the ſame profeſſion: Being with us, is ſincerely and truly to be of the Church; for which ſomething more than an outward profeſſion is requiſite.

X. We read in Scripture of a twofold Call, one by the meer Preaching of the Word, commonly termed an outward Call; the other by the Preaching of the Word, and the Holy Spirit both, ſtiled an inward Call. Of the firſt our Saviour ſpeaks,Mat. 22. 14. when he ſays, Many are called, but few choſen. Of the ſecond St. Paul, Whom he did predeſtinate, them he alſo caſed, and whom he called, Rom. 8. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 them he alſo juſtified. Now the Church, whoſe very name implies a Call, muſt needs have been the effect of one of theſe two juſt mentioned. But if defined by a bare profeſſion, it cannot refer to one or other of theſe, nor can it anſwer the deſign of either. It does not fulfil the end of the firſt, for the Preaching of the Goſpel does not call men to a meer Profeſſion of believing Jeſus Chriſt's Doctrine. A Hypocrite is ſo far from complying with this Call, that he rejects and mocks at it. It does not refer to the ſecond Call, becauſe the Spirit which calls with the Word, is a Spirit of Regeneration, and not bare profeſſion. What Call ſhall we refer it to then? I know not any third, the Scripture mentions not any, and the nature of the thing will not admit of any. We can conſider God in ſuch a caſe but according to two different capacities, either as a Law-giver, commanding, exhorting, promiſing and threating, or as an abſolute diſpoſer of Events, and ſo bringing to paſs in us the thing he commands us.

But whether commanding us, or whether working in to, he never ſtops at a bare profeſſion; he goes on to the truth of Holineſs and Faith, his Word enjoyns it, his Spirit produces it. So that whether ſoever of theſe two Calls you ſuppoſe the Church to obey, it muſt either proceed to a true Converſion, or be no Church, for the proper and natural ſignification of the word is a Called Society, but no one ever called it to an outward profeſſion, and no more.

XI. I ſuppoſe it is a maxim among all Chriſtians, That Jeſus Chriſt hath no more Churches than one, and that this on Earth, together with that in Heaven, make but that one; thus much we learn from the Trent-Catcchiſin it ſelf. A ſure method then of diſcovering the true nature and eſſence of the Church upon Earth, would be to ſearch into that in Heaven; for it is plain, were theſe of different natures, they would be no longer one, but two Churches of a ſeveral ſpecies. Thus much, I think, muſt be granted, and ſo likewiſe muſt the Concluſion I deduce from it, viz. That either the nature of the Church Triumphant, muſt exiſt in a bare profeſſion, or that of the Church Militant cannot. If the Churches Unity here below, be a Unity of Profeſſion, an external Unity only, and the internal one be but accidental, then the Unity of the Church above muſt be External too, and no more, and that Internal one reſulting from the agreement of hearts and wills, no more eſſential to it, than to this below. Otherwiſe (as was ſaid before) they muſt be two different Churches. Let them be ſo kind then to clear this Point, Whether we muſt believe that a true Piety, true Regeneration, and true Holineſs, are not really eſſeential parts of the Church in Heaven, for to this hour I never heard any ſuch thing maintained.

XII. Thoſe who deſire to be informed what the Church, and its Unity is,Joh. 17. 20, 21, 22. need only conſider what Jeſus Chriſt ſays in that admirable Prayer related by St. John, Neither pray I for theſe alone (his Apoſtles) but for them alſo which ſhall believe on me through their word. That they may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they alſo may be one in us. The Glory which thou gaveſt me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one. The Churches Unity is formed after the pattern of that between the Father and the Son. This is a kind of reſemblance, a draught of that which hath ſome of the ſtrokes, though not all the livelineſs and perfection. It is therefore a Real Internal Unity, a Unity not of outward Profeſſion only, but in ſome ſort of nature and eſſence, a Unity of Regeneration, a Unity of the ſame Faith, and the ſame Righteouſneſs; and to reſtrain this to a meer External Union, ſuch as is common to both good and bad men, would not only weaken, but utterly evacuate the force of Jeſus Chriſt's expreſſion.

XIII. To all that hath been now alledged, might be added almoſt innumerable paſſages of the Primitive Fathers, who whenever they ſpoke of the Church in its true and genuine ſenſe, Joh. 6. 68, 69. did always deliver themſelves as we do. I will here inſtance in ſome of them: S. Cypr. in his 55 Ep. hath this paſſage, Petrus ait, Domine ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes, & nos credimus cognovimus, quoniam tues filius Deivivi: Significans ſcilicer & oſtendens, eos qui à Chriſto receſſerint culpâ ſuâ perire. Eccleſiam tamen, quae in Chriſtum credat, & quae ſemel id quod cognoverit teneat, nunquam ab eo omnnino diſcedere, & eos eſſe Eccleſiam, qui in domo Dei permanent. Plantationem vero plantatam à Deo patre non eſſe, quos vidimus non frumenti ſtabilitate ſolidari, ſed ta • quam paleas diſſipantis inimici Spiritu ventilari: De quibus & Joannes in Epiſtolâ ſuâ dicir, ex nobis exierunt, ſed non fuerunt ex nobis, ſi enim fuiſſent ex nobis, manſiſſent utique nobiſcum, Cyprian. Edit. Oxon. 1682. Where this is the 59th Epiſtle.Lord, ſays St. Peter, to whom ſhall we go, thou haſt the words of eternal life; and we believe and are ſure that thou art that Chriſt the Son of the living God. Shewing hereby that ſuch as depart from Chriſt, periſh through their own default; but the Church which believes in him, and conſtantly perſeveres in the Truths ſhe hath received, does never depart from him; and ſuch as continue in the Houſe of God are his Church. Such as want the ſubſtance and ſolidity of good corn, and are ſcattered abroad with the breath of the Enemy, like chaff with the wind, are not of Gods planting. With relation to whom it is, that St. John in his Epiſtle ſays, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. In another place, having ſaid before, that the water mixt with their winc in the Euchariſt repreſented the people, as the wine did the Blood of Chriſt, he adds, Quando autem in calice vino aqua miſcetur, Chriſto populus adunatur, & credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur & conjungitur. Quae copulatio & conjunctio aquae & vini ſic miſcetur in calice Domini, ut commixtio illa non poſſit ab invicem ſeparaj. Unde Eccleſiam, id eſt, plebem in Eccleſiâ conſtitutam ſideliter & firmiter in eo quod credidit perſeverantem nulld res ſeparare poterit à Chriſto, quo minus haereat ſemper & maneat individua dilectio. Cypr. Ep. 63. Pag. 154. Edit. Oxon. When therefore the water is mixed with the wine in the Chalice, the people are united to Jeſus Chriſt, and the company of believers joined to him on whom they believe. Now this water and wine are ſo mixt in the Cup, that they cannot be parted any more: Whence it follows, that nothing can ſeparate between Chriſt and his Church; that is, the perſons that are in the Church, conſtantly and cloſely adhering to what they have believed; nor break off the inviolable love they bear to one another. So that wicked men and Hypocrites are not of the Body of the Church, ſeeing an outward profeſſion is not ſufficient to make men ſuch.

St. Jerom ſays the very ſame thing: Eccleſia Chriſti glorioſa eſt, non habens maculam, neque rugam, aut quidiſtinſmodi. Qui ergo peccator eſt, & aliqua ſorde maculatus, de Eccleſia Chriſti non poteſt appellari; nec Chriſto ſubjectus dici. Poſſibile autem eſt, ut quomodo Eccleſia, quae prius rugam habuerar. & maculam, in juventutem & munditiam poſtea reſtituta eſt, ita & peccator currat ad Medieum, quia non habent opus ſani Medico, ſed male habentes, & curentur vulnera ipſius, & fiat de Eccleſia, quae corpus eſt Chriſti. Hieronym. in Epheſ. 5. Tom. 9. Edit. Baſil. 1537. The Church of Chriſt is a glorious Church, having neither ſpot nor wrinkle, nor any ſuch thing. He therefore that is a ſinner, and ſtained with any pollution, cannot be ſaid to be of Chriſt's Church, nor in ſubjection to Chriſt. It may happen indeed, that as the Church which had heretofare its ſpots and wrinkles, was after reſtored to youth and purity; ſo a ſinner may come to the Phyſician, for thoſe that be well, need not a Phyſician, but thoſe that be ſick, and ſo having his maladies healed, be made a member of the Church, which is Chriſts Body.

St. Ambroſe explaining thoſe words of the 36th Pſalm, Let not the hand of the ungodly caſt me down; Et manus peccatorum non moveat me. Etenim ſieut ſancti membra ſunt Chriſti, ita impii membra ſunt Diaholi. Manus peccatorum non moveat me; id eſt, Actus eorum qui peccant non me de juſtitiae ſtatione dimoveant. Piernmque enim dum videmus peccatores proſperis abundare ſucceſſibus, nutamus affectur & qaaſi quadam peccatorum manu de radice virtutis avellimur. Ambroſ in Pſal. 35. Edit. Pariſ. 1529. ſays, As the Saints are members of Jeſus Chriſt, ſo wicked men are members of the Devil. Let not the hand of the ungodly remove me; that is, Let not the actions of Sinners tempt me to depart from the way of righteouſneſs, for we are apt to ſlip when we ſee the proſperity of Sinners, and ſo the hand of Sinners does in ſome ſort ſhake and looſen us from the root of vertue. If wicked men are members of the Devil, there little probability that hypocriſie ſhould be able to make them members of Jeſus Chriſt.

But of all the Fathers, there is not any that treats of this Subject with ſuch exactneſs and perſpicuity, as St. Auſtin does; a Man might compile a whole Volume of what he hath written about it. This Father explaining that of St. Jehn, They went out from us, but they were not of us. Ex nobis exierunt, ergo plangimu • damnum. Audi conſolationem: Sed non erant ex nobis. Omnes haretici, omnes Schiſmatici ex nobis exie runt, id eſt, ex Eccleſia exeunt. Sed non exirent ſi ex nobis eſſent, antequam exirent ergo non erant ex nobis. Si antequam exirent non erant ex nobis, multi intus ſunt, non exierunt, & tamen Antichriſti ſunt. Audemus hoc dicre? ut quid? Niſi unuſquiſq que cum intus eſt non ſit Antichriſtus.—Nunc interrogare debet unuſquiſq que conſcientiam ſuam, an ſit Antichriſtus. Latine enim Antichriſtus contrarius eſt Chriſto—Eos autem qui non ſunt Chriſto contrarii, foras exire nullo modo poſſe, qui enim non eſt Chriſto contrarius in corpore ipſius haeret, & membrum computatur. Nunquam ſibi ſunt membra contraria, corporis integritas univerſis memberis conſtat; & quid de concordia dicit Apoſtolns? Si patitur unum membrum, compatiuntur omnia membra, & ſi glorificatur unum membrum, congaudent omnia membra. Si ergo in glorificatione membri caetera membra congaudent, & in paſſione omnia member patiuntur, concordia membrorum non habet Antichriſtum. Et qui ſunt intus, certe ſunt in corpore Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti, quandoquidem adhuc curatur corpus ipſus, & ſanitas perfecta non erit, niſi in reſurrectione mortuorum. Sic ſunt in corpore Chriſti, quomodo humores mali, quando evomuntur, tunc relevatur corpus, ſic & mali quando exeunt, tunc Eccleſia relevatur; & dicit, quando eos evomit, at que projicit corpus, ex me exierunt humores iſti, ſed non erant ex me. Quid eſt, non erant ex me? Non de carne mea praeciſi ſunt ſed pectus mihi premehant, cum ineſſent. Ex nobis exierunt, ſed nolite triſtes eſſe, non erant ex nobis. Unde probas? Quod ſuiſſent ex nobis, permanſiſſent utique nobiſcum. Hinc ergo videat Charitas veſtra, quia multi, qui non ſunt ex nobis, accipiunt nobiſcum Sacramenta. Accipiunt nobiſcum Baptiſmum, accipiunt nobiſcum, quod novunt fideles ſe accipere, Benedictionem, Euchariſtiam, & quicquid in Sacramentis ſanctis eſt. Ipſius altaris communicationem accipiunt nobiſcum, & non ſunt ex nobis. Tentatio probat, quia non ſunt ex nobis. Quando illis tentatio venerit, velut occaſione venti volant foras, quia grana non erant. Auguſtin. Tom. 9. Tractar. 3. in Epiſt. Jonnis. Edit. Pariſ. 1531.They went out from us, (ſays he) we lament the loſs: But hear the comfort, they were not of us. All Hereticks and Schiſmaticks go out from us; That is, depart from the Church; but were they truly any of outs, they would not have departed. They were not therefore out members even before they went out, and if ſo, then there are many within, who, tho they have not yet gone out, are Antichriſts. May we dare to eſſert this? Yes, why not? Let every man conſult his own Conſcience, to know if he be not Anticriſt. The meaning of Anticriſt is, contrary to Chriſt. Whence it is clear, that none but Antichriſts can go out; for ſuch as are not contrary to Chriſt, will by no means do ſo, for they continue in the body, and are reckoned among the members of Chriſt. The Members are never contrary to one another; The intire compoſition of a body conſuis in having all its members; and you know what the Apoſtle ſays upon this matual agreement of the Members, If one member ſuffer, all the members ſuffer with it; and if one be honoured, all ſhall rejoyce with it. Now if all the Members ſuffer in the grief of one, and rejoyce at the honour done to one, there is nothing that ſavours of Antichriſt in this mutual agreement. Thoſe that are within, are the body of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. For this body is ſtill in a ſtate of healing, and will never enjoy perfect health and ſandneſs, till the reſurrection of the dead. Theſe Antichriſts are in the body of Chriſt like ill humours, the voiding of which eaſes the body: Thus when the wicked go out, the Church finds refreſhment; and when the body throws them out, ſhe ſays, theſe noxious humours are gone out of me, but they were no part of me; that is, they were not cut away from my fleſh or ſubſtance, but oppreſt my ſtomach while they lay there. They are gone from us then, but be not troubled at it, they were not ours. But how do you prove this?1 Joh. 2. 19. St. John ſays, If they had been of us, they would have continued with us. So that you ſee, many people receive the Sacraments with us, which yet are not any part of us; They have Baptiſm adminiſtred to them, they receive that benediction which the ſaithful are ſenſible they receive truly and effectually, the Euchariſt, and whatever is in the Sacraments. They communicate of the ſame Altar with us, and yet are no parts of us. Templation diſcovers them to be none. When that ariſes they are carried away, as with a ſtrong wind, becauſe they are not the true ſolid Corn. Nothing can be more expreſs. Evil men, tho within the pale of the Church; That is, making an outward profeſſion, yet are not of his Body, nor ought to be reckoned among his Members. Theſe are diſtempered humours within the Body, but not at all of the ſubſtance of the Body, ſuch as do but annoy the Body, and muſt be evacuated in order to give its relief. So that St. Auguſtine's ſenſe of the Church was, That it conſiſted only of Righteous perſons, and true Believers, and that inward vertues were eſſential to it, and ought to make a part of its definition.

Obſerve again what he delivers in his Treatiſe of Baptiſm, againſt the Donatiſts. Aug. de Bapt. contra Donar. Lib. 1. Cap. 17. • Itaq. ſive intus verſari videantur ſive aperte ſoris ſint, quod caro eſt, caro eſt, ſive in areâ ſuâ ſterilitate perſeveret, ſive occaſione tentationis tanquam vento, extra tollatur, quod palea eſt, palea eſt: & ſemper ab illius Eccleſiae, quae ſine maculâ & ragâ eſt, unitate diviſus eſt; etiam qui congrgatione ſanctorum in carnali obduratione miſeetur. De nullo tamen deſperandum eſt, ſive qui intus talis apparet, ſive qui foris manifeſtius adverſatur. Whether evil men be ſeemingly within the Church, or evidently out of it, ſtill that which is fleſh is fleſh. Whether the barren Chaff continue in the floor, or be ſcattered by the blaſt of temptation, it is ſtill but Chaff. Carnal and obdurate perſons, tho they mix with the Saints in the ſame Aſſemblies, are ſtill ſeparated from the Unity of that Church which is without ſpot or wrinkle. Yet muſt we not deſpair of any, either ſuch as being within the pale paſſes for Friends, or ſuch as being without, betrays a more manifeſt contraricty to us. And lower in the ſame Treatiſe,Baptiſmus corrumpi & adulterari non poteſt, etſi à corruptis & adulteris habeatur, ſicut & ipſa Eccleſia incorrupta, & caſta, & pudica eſt, & ideò ad eam non pertinent avari, raptores, foeneratores, quos non rantum foris, ſed etiam intus eſſe, multis literarum ſuarum locis Cyprianus ipſe teſtatur. Aug. de Bapt. contra Donatiſt. Lib. 4. Cap. 2. Baptiſm it ſelf cannot be corrupted, tho adminiſtred to corrupt perſons; any more than the church, which is incorruptible, chaſt and innocent. To which Covetous perſons, Robbers, and Uſurers do not belong; ſuch as Cyprian in many of his Epiſtles ſays, are not only without, but even within the pale. Preſently after,Nec iſti Eccleſiae devoti ſunt, qui videntur eſſe intus, & contra Chriſtum vivunt, id eſt, contra Chriſti mandate faciunt; nec omnino ad illam Eccleſiam pertinere judicandi ſunt, quam ſie ipſe mundat lavacro aquae in verbo, ut exhibeat ſibi glorioſam Eccleſium, non habentem maculam, aut rugam, aut aliquid hujuſmodi: Quòd ſi in iſti Eccleſia non ſunt, ad cujus membra non pertinent, non ſunt in Eccleſiâ, de quâ dicitur, una eſt columba, una eſt matri ſuae, ipſa eſt enim ſine maculâ & rugâ: aut aſſerat qui poteſt, hujus columbae membra eſſe, qui ſaeculo verbis non factis renunciant. Ibid. Cap. 3. Such as live contrary to Chriſt, that is, in the breach of his Commandments, tho they ſeem to be in the Church, are not really ſo. We muſt not imagine they belong to that Church, which Jeſus Chriſt cleanſes by the waſhing of water, and the word, to make of it a glorious Church, without ſpot or wrinkle. And if they be not of that Church, whoſe members they are not, then neither are they of that, concerning which it is ſaid, My dove is but one, the only one of her mother. For this is ſhe that is without ſpot or wrinkle; and let them ſhew us how theſe are members of this Dove, who have renounced the World, in words only, and not in works. And a little after that, Nos autem, ſecundum id quod in praeſenti eſt cui que hominum, quaerineus, utrum in illius Eccleſiae membris, quae una columba dicta eſt, & ſponſa Chriſti ſine maculà & rugâ, hodie deputandi ſunt, de quibus dicit Cyprianus in Epiſtolâ ſua quam commemoravi: quòd viam Domini non tenerent, nec data ſibi ad ſalutem coeleſtia mandata reſervarent, quòd non facerent Domini voluntatem, patrimoniorum luero ſtudentes, ſuperbiam ſectantes, aemulationi & diſſenquiſ que vacantes, ſupplicitatis & ſidei negligentes, ſeculo ſolis verbis & non factis renunciantes, unuſquiſ que ſibi placentes, a omnibus diſplicentes. Quòd ſi eos in ſuis membris nec illa columba cognoſcit, & talibus, ſi in eadem perverſitate permanſerint, dicturus eſt Deus, Non novi vos, diſcedite à me qui operamini iniquitatem, videntur eſſe in Eccleſià, ſed non ſunt, imò & contra Eccleſiam faciunt. Ibid. I would ask with reſpect to every man's preſent condition, whether ſuch men are now to be reckoned for members of that Church, which is the Dove, the Spouſe without ſpot or wrinkle, as Cyprian deſcribes in his Epiſtle. Men that kept not to the way of the Lord, nor the Heavenly receptes given for their Salvation, that did not perform the Will of God, but wholly addicted themſelves to worldly gain; proud, envious, contentious perſons, that neglected Hooneſty and Faith, renounced the World in words only, not in deeds; every one ſtudying his own pleaſure, and the diſſatiſfaction of all others. If this Dove refuſe to own ſuch for her Members; if God ſhall one day ſay to ſuch wretches, that continue in their perverſe courſes, I know you not, depart from me ye workers of iniquity; tho they ſeem never ſo much to be in the Church, they are not in truth of the Church, but act in direct contrariety to her. And in another place of the ſame Treatiſe;Etiam ſi diſcedendi occaſiones ipſis deſint, qu •• intus videntur▪ abilla inviſibili charitatis compage ſeparati ſunt; unde Joannes dicit, ex nobis exierunt, ſed non erant ex nobis, nam ſi fuiſſent ex nobis man • iſſent utique nobiſcum. Non ait quod exeundo alieni facti ſunt, ſed quod alieni erant, propter hoc eos exiiſſe declaravit. Aug. de Bapt. contra Donatiſt. Lib. 3. Cap. 19. Such as oppoſe brotherly love, whether they are plainly without, or whether ſeemingly within, are divided from that inviſible Aſſembly which Charity knits together. Therefore St. John ſays, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. He does not ſay they alienated themſelves by going out, but that they were aliens, and that this was the reaſon why they went out. Thus far this Father does not diſſemble his opinion; He will by no means own any but the Saints to be Members of the Church, he totally excludes wicked men and hypocrites; he uſes no ſuch nice diſtinctions between dead and living members, as our modern Controvertiſts do; in the contrary, he explains what he ſaid, That wicked men were in the Church, by ſaying, that they ſeem to be in it; but they only ſeem to be ſo, for in very deed they are more foreigners, and ſuch as the Church does not acknowledg for hers.

In the fifth Book of the ſame Treatiſe, he ſays,In Cantico Canticorum Eccleſia ſic deſcribitur, Hortus concluſus, ſoror, mea ſponſa, fons ſignatus, puteus aquae vivae, paradiſ • s cum fructupomorum. Hoc intelligere non audeo niſi in ſanctis & juſtis, non in avaris, & fraudatoribus, & raptoribus, & foeneratoribus, & ebrioſis, & invidis, quos tamen cum juſtis baptiſmum habuiſſe communem, cum quibus communem non habebant uti que charitatem—docemus. Nam dicat mihi aliquis, quomodo irrepſerint in hortum concluſum, & fontem ſignatum, quos ſaeculo ſolis verbis, & non factis renunciâſſe Cyprianus, & tamen intus fuiſſe teſtatur. Si enim intus ſunt, & ipſi ſponſa Chriſti ſunt, itane vero talis eſt illa ſine maculâ & rugâ, & illa ſpecioſa columba tali membrorum parte turpatur? An iſtae ſunt ſpinae in quarum medio eſt illa ſicut lilium, quod in eodem Cantico dicitur? In quantum ergo lilium, in tantum & hortus concluſus, & fons ſignatus, in illis videlicet juſtis, qui in occulto Judaei ſunt circumciſione cordis: Omnis enim pulchritudo filiae regum intrinſecus, in quibus eſt numerus certus Sanctorum, praedeſtinatus ante mundi conſtitutionem. Illa verò multitudo ſpinarum, ſive occultis, ſive apertis ſeparationibus, forinſecus adjacet ſuper numerum. Annunciavi inquit & locutus ſum, multiplicati ſunt ſuper numerum. Numerus ergo ille Juſtorum, qui ſecundum propoſitum vocati ſunt, de quibus dictum eſt, Novit Dominus qui ſunt ejus, ipſe eſt hortus concluſus, fons ſignatus, puteus aquae vivae, paradiſus cum fructu pomorum. Aug. de Bapt. contra Donatiſt. Lib. 5. Cap. 27. The Church is deſcribed in the Book of Canticles, as Chriſt's Garden incloſed, his Siſter, his Spouſe, his ſealed Fountain, his Well of living waters, his Orchard of Pomegranates. This I dare underſtand of none but the Saints and Righteous perſons; not of the Covetous, the Defrauders, the Extortioners, the Uſurers, the Drunkards, and the Envious, which have indeed the ſame common Baptiſm with the juſt; but not the ſame Charity. Let them tell me how the men that have renounced the world in words only, and not in deeds, got in to this incloſed Garden, this ſealed Fountain: For if theſe men are really in it, if theſe are the Spouſe of Chriſt, how can that Spouſe be without blemiſh or without ſpot? How can ſhe be the beautiful Dove, when ſtained with ſuch a parcel of Members as theſe? Are not theſe the Thorns in the midſt of which ſhe as the Lilies, according to that expreſſion in the Canticles? In what reſpect then ſhe is a Lilly, Cant. 2. 2. in the ſame is ſhe an incloſed Garden, a ſealed Fountain; That is, with regard to thoſe juſt men, who are Jews inwardly, by the Circumciſion of the heart. Rom. 2. 29. For the King's daughter is all glorious within, and among theſe are the ſet number of Saints predeſtinated before the foundation of the World:Pſ 45. 13. But for that multitude of Thorns, whether their ſeparation be undiſcerned, or whether it be open, they are added over and above, as the Scripture ſays, they are multiplied above meaſure. This number therefore of the juſt, called according to the Election of God, theſe of whom it is ſaid,2 Tim. 2. 19. The Lord knoweth them that be his, They are his incloſed Garden, his ſealed Fountain, his Well of Living Waters. This Holy Doctor thought it not enough to allow wicked men and hypocrites no place in his notion of the Church, and to make it up of juſt men only, but he does beſides ſhew wherein the very eſſential form, that Unity which conſtitutes a Church, does conſiſt; to wit, not in any thing external, but in the internal graces. In the Circumciſion of the heart, and the Glory within: He goes farther ſtill, and makes the Church to conſiſt of the predeſtinated only, The number, ſays he, of God's Elect, are his incloſed Garden, and ſealed Fountain, that is, the Church of Chriſt. How ſhall we reconcile this Doctrine with M. de Condom,'s who diſtinguiſhes between the Church of Chriſt, and the predeſtinate, as between a whole and it's part; who counts the reprobates in too, and blames us for reſtraining the Church to the number of God's Elect alone?

This being a point of conſequence, and able to determine all our Controverſy concerning the Church, I hope it may not be tedious to hear what St. Auguſtin ſays further upon it. After having recited a paſſage taken out of • t. Cyprian's Epiſtle to Magnus, he goes on thus.Haec verba beati Cypriani indicant eum etiam intelleniſſe decorem domus Dei, quam domum ex unanimis & concordibus conſtare a •• irmavit, & docuit teſtimonio Prophetarum, & ſignificatione Sacramentorum. In quâ utique domo non erant illi invidi, & ſine charitate malevoli, qui tamen baptizabant. Ex quo apparet & in eis eſſe poſſe, at que ab eis dari poſſe Sacramentum Chriſti, qui non ſunt in Eccleſia Chriſti, in qua non niſi unanimes & concordes habitare Cyprianus ipſe teſtatur. Ne que enim hoc ſaltem dici poteſt, tunc baptiſare poſſe cum latent, quoniam illi Paulum Apoſtolum non latebant, quos in Epiſtola ſua ve raciſſimus teſtis notat, & gaudere ſe dicit, quoniam & ipſi Chriſtum annunciabant. De his quippe ait, ſive occaſione, ſive veritate Chriſtus annunciatur, & in hoc gaudeo, ſed & gaudebo. Quibus omnibus conſideratis, puto me non temere dicere, alios ita eſſe in domo Dei, ut ipſi etiam ſint eadem domus Dei, quae dicitur aediſicari ſuper petram, quae unica columba appellatur, quae ſponſa pulchra ſine macula & ruga, & hortus concluſus, fons ſignatus, puteus aquae vivae, paradiſus cum fructu pomorum. Quae domus etiam claves accepit, & poteſtatem ſolvendi & ligandi: Hanc domum ſi quis corripientem contempſerit corrigentemque, ſit tibi, inquit, tanquam Ethnicus & publicanus. De hac domo dicitur, Diliexi, Domine, decorem domus tuae, & locum habitationis gloriae tuae. Et qui habitare facit unanimes in domo. Et jocundatus ſum in his quae dixerunt mihi, in domum Domini ibimus. Et, beati qui habitant in domo tua, Domine, in ſaeculo ſaeculorum laudabunt te; & innumerabilia talia. Haec domus etiam triticum dicitur, ſive tricenum, ſive ſexagenum, ſive centenum fructum afferens cum tolerantia. Haec domus eſt in vaſis aureis, & argenteis, & lapidibus pretioſis, & lignis imputribilibus. Huic dom • i dicitur, ſufferentes invicem in dilectione, ſtudentes ſervare unitatem Spiritus in vinculo pacis. Et, templum enim ſanctum Dei eſtis vos. Haec quippe in bonis • idelibus eſt, & Sanctis Dei ſervis ubi que diſperſis, & Spiritali unitate devinctis, eadem communione Sacramentorum, ſive ſe facie noverint, ſive non noverint. Alios autem ita dici conſtat eſſe in domo, ut non pertineant ad compagem domus, nec ad ſocietatem fructiferae paciſicae que Juſtitiae. Sed ſicut palea eſſe dicitur in frumento, Paulo Apoſtolo dicente, in magna autem domo non ſolum aurea vaſa ſunt, vel argentea, ſed & lignea, & fictilia, & alia quidem ſunt in honorem, alia vero ad contumeliam. Aug. de Bapt. contra Donatiſt. Lib 7. Cap. 50. The words of bleſſed Cyprian ſhew, that he rightly underſtood the beauty of God's Houſe, in that he declares, and proves both by the teſtimony of the Prophets, and the ſignification of the Sacraments, that this Houſe is compoſed of men living in Peace, and unity of Heart. So that thoſe envious uncharitable Wretches were not in this Houſe, notwithſtanding they were baptiſed. And by conſequence Chriſt's Holy Sacrament may be both adminiſtred, and received by men not in the Church of Chriſt; becauſe, as appears by the Teſtimony of Cyprian, none but the peaceable live in this Church. It will not ſerve the turn to ſay, they might baptize while they were hid; they were not hidden from St. Paul, when he ſaid in his Epiſtle,Phil. 1. 18. he rejoyced, that Chriſt was preached even by ſuch; whether in pretence or in truth (ſays he) Chriſt is preached, and I therein do rejoyce, yea, and will rejoyce. Upon theſe conſiderations I do not think it reſhneſs in me to affirm,Mat. 16 18. that ſome are in the Houſe of God, ſo, as that they are themſelves the very Houſe, Matt. 16. 19. that which is ſaid to be built upon a Rock, called, his Dove, his only One, his beautiful Spouſe, without ſpot or wrinkle, the incloſed Garden, the ſealed Fountain, the Well of living Water, the Orchard with Pomegranates, Mat. 18. 17. and which HAth received the Keys, the power of binding and looſing; this Houſe it is, whoſe corrections if any man contemptuouſly behave himſelf againſt, he is ordered to be to us, as an Heathen and a Publicar. Pſ 26. 8. Of this it is ſaid, Lord I have loved the Beauty of thy Houſe, Pſ. 68. 6. and the place where thine Honour dwelleth. He maketh men of one mind in an houſe. Pſ. 122. 1. I was glad when they ſaid unto me, we will go into the Houſe of the Lord. Pſal. 84. 4. Bleſſed are they that dwell in thy Houſe, they will be alway praiſing Thee; Matt. 13. 23. and a world of ſuch like paſſages. This Houſe is called the good ſeed, Luk. 8. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 20. bringing forth fruit with patience, thirty, ſixty, and a hundred fold. This Houſe conſiſts of Veſſels of gold and of ſilver, of precious ſtones, and incorruptible wood. To this Houſe 'tis ſaid, Bear up one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the ſpirit in the bond of peace. Epheſ. 4. 2, 3. And, the Holy Temple of God are ye. 1 Cor. 3. 17. For this conſiſts of the true Believers, and holy Servants of God diſperſed throughout the Univerſe, and all knit together in a ſpiritual Unity, by the participation of the ſame Sacraments, whether perſonally known to one another, or not. As for the reſt, they are ſaid to be in the Houſe, but it is in ſuch a manner, that they belong not at all to the building, nor have any part of that fellowſhip which brings forth the fruit of righteouſneſs and peace. They are here as the Chaff is among the Corn; for we cannot deny that they be contained in the Houſe,2 Tim. 2. 20. becauſe St. Paul ſays, In a great houſe are veſſels, not only of gold and ſilver, but alſo of wood and of earth, and ſome to honour, and ſome to diſhonour.

I cannot imagine how St. Auguſtin'S ſight came to differ ſo mightily from M. de Condam'S. If we believe the latter, by the Church muſt be underſtood, a Society compoſed of good and bad men; for he tells you, to ſuch a Society only are thoſe paſſages of Scripture applicable.Conference page 5, 7, 8, 9. Ʋpon this rock will I build my Church. Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might make it a glorious Church without ſpot or wrinkle, &c. If he refuſe to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen, &c. Whatſoever ye ſhall bind on earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven, &c. But if St. Auguſtin be to be believed, we muſt take the Church in a quite different ſenſe; for a Society made up of none but righteous perſons, and true Believers; becauſe to ſuch a one, and no other, do theſe paſſages belong. In his Opinion the juſt alone are the Houſe built upon a Rock, the Spouſe without ſpot or wrinkle, they only have the keys and power of binding and looſing, 'tis their cenſures only that men ought not to deſpiſe, if they would not be looked upon as Heathens and Publicans. M. de Condom deduces his Arguments from theſe paſſages; St. Auguſtin deduces his from the very ſame, and yet their Concluſions are oppoſite to one another: All that we have left to do then, is either to correct St. Auguſtin by M. de Condom, or M. de Condom by St. Auguſtin, and of the two, methinks the latter is the more reaſonable.

Upon this ground then I will once more introduce that Father ſpeaking thus:Nec ideò putandi ſunt eſſe in corpore Chriſti, quod eſt Eccleſia, quia ſacramentorum ejus corporaliter participes fiunt. Illa enim & in talibus ſancta ſunt, & eis indignè tractantibus & ſumentibus ad majus judicium valebunt. Ipſi autem non ſunt in illâ Eccleſiae Chriſti compage quae in membris Chriſti per connexum & contactum creſcit in incrementum Dei. Illa quippe Eccleſia in petrâ eſt, ſicut Dominus dicit, ſuper hanc petram aedificabo Eccleſiam meam. Illi autem in arenâ aedificant, ſicut idem Dominus dicit, Qui audit verba mea, & non facit ea, aſſimilabo eum viro ſtulto, qui aedificat domum ſuam ſuper arenam. Sed ne putes Eccleſiam quae in petrâ eſt, in unâ parte eſſe terrarum, & non diffundi uſ que ad fines terrae, audi ejus vocem de Pſalmo gementis, inter mala peregrinationis ſuae. Ait enim, A finibus terrae ad te clamavi, dum angeretur cor meum. In petrâ exaltâſti me. Videre quemadmodum à finibus terrae clamat. Non eſt ergò in ſolâ Africâ—. Videte quemadmodum in petrâ exaltetur, Non ergò in eâ deputandi ſunt omnes qui aedificant in arenâ. Aug. contra Literas Petilian. Lib. 2. Cap. 108. We muſt not ſuppoſe that wicked men belong to Chriſt's body, i. e. the Church; becauſe they do partake of the Sacraments corporally. The Sacraments themſelves are holy in ſuch perſons, but they do but increaſe their condemnation, becauſe they adminiſter and receive them unworthily. Epheſ. 4. 16. Now they are not of that Company of Chriſt's Church, which conſiſts of his Members compacted together by bands and joynts, and increaſeth with the increaſe of God. Col. 2. 19. For this Church is built on a Rock, according to that of our Saviour,Matt. 16. 16. Ʋpon this rock will I build my Church: But thoſe build on the Sand, as the ſame Saviour ſaid, Whoſo heareth my Words, and doth them not, Matt. 7. 27. I will comapre him to a fooliſh man, that built his houſe upon the ſand. Now leſt you ſhould fancy that the Church built upon a Rock, is in any one particular place; or that it is not extended over the whole Earth,Pſ. 61. 2, 3. obſerve her complaint in the Pſalm, From the ends of the Earth have I cryed unto thee, when my heart was in heavineſs, Thou haſt ſet me up upon a rock. She cries from the ends of the Earth, therefore ſhe is not in Africa and no where elſe; ſhe is ſet up upon a Rock, therefore thoſe muſt not be eſteemed of her, who build upon the Sand. There is ſome probability St. Auguſtin knew what he ſaid, and yet you ſee a paſſage of Scripture, Epheſ. 4. abuſed by M. de Condom, in favour of his Church, made up of a mixture of good and bad men, which this Father explains of the Church of the Juſt only, as well as that other of St. Matt. 16. Ʋpon this Rock will I build my Church.

He teaches the ſame Doctrine in his Book concerning the Unity of the Church.Haec autem Eccleſia corpus Chriſti eſt, ſicut▪ Apoſtolus dicit, Pro corpore ejus, quae eſt Eccleſia. Unde uti que manifeſtum eſt; eum qui non eſt in membris Chriſti, Chriſtianam ſalutem habere non poſſe. Membra verò Chriſti per unitatis charitatem ſibi copulantur, & per endem capiti ſuo cohaerent. Auguſt. de Unitat. Eccleſ. Cap. 2. The Church is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, according to that of the Apoſtle,Epheſ. 5. for His body the Church; whence it is evident, that ſuch as are not accounted his Members, cannot obtain Salvation. Now the Members of Jeſus Chriſt are united by Love, both to one another, and to him their Head. A little further, anſwering the Donatiſts Cavils againſt the Catholicks, for having perſecuted them, for having burnt their Bibles, for having ſacrificed to Idols;Breviter reſpondeo quod ſaepe reſpondi, aut falſa dicitis, aut ſi vera ſunt, non ad frumenta Chriſti, ſed ad eorum paleam pertinent iſta quae dicitis. Non inde perit Eccleſia, quae optimo judicio ventilata iſtorum omnium ſeparatione purgabitur. Ego ipſam Eccleſiam requiro ubi ſit, quae audiendo verba Chriſti, & ea faciendo, aedificat ſuper petram, & audiendo, & faciendo tolerat eos, qui audiendo, & non faciendo, aedi • icant ſuper arenam. Ubi ſit triti • um, quod inter zizania creſcit uſ que ad meſſem, non quid fecerint vel faciant zizania. Ubi ſit proxima Chriſti in medio • iliarum malarum, ſicut lilium in medio ſpinarum, non quid fecerint vel faciant ipſae: ſpinae: Ubi ſunt piſces boni, qui donec ad littus perveniant, tolerant piſces malos pariter irretitos, non quid fecerint vel faciant ipſi piſces mali. Ibid. Cap. 16. I return the ſame anſwer, (ſays he) which I have often done already, That what you ſay either is not true, or if it be, it concerns not Chriſt's good Corn, but the Chaff. The Church does not periſh for this, which ſhall be throughly purged from theſe men at the laſt exact judgment. I enquire after the true Church, That is, where ſhe is that hears the words of Jeſus Chriſt, and does them; that builds upon a Rock; that thus hearing and doing, does yet bear with thoſe that hear and do not, and ſo build upon the Sand. I enquire where the Corn is which muſt grow among Tares till the Harveſt, Matt. 13. not what the Tares have done, or do. I enquire where Chriſt's Well-beloved is, ſhe who is among the wicked Daughters, as the Lily among Thorns, Cant. 2. not what the Thorns have done, or now do. I enquire where the good Fiſh are, Matt. 13. which till they are drawn to ſhore, muſt be content to lye in the ſame Net with bad ones, not what the bad Fiſh have done, or now do. Afterwards again,Cum igitur boni & mali dent & accipiant Sacramentum baptiſmi, nec regenerentur ſpiritaliter, in corpus & membra Chriſti non coaediſicentur niſi boni, profecto in bonis eſt illa Eccleſia, cui dicitur, ſicut lilium in medio ſpinarum, ita proxima mea in medio filiarum. In his eſt enim qui aedificant ſuper petram, id eſt, qui audiunt verba Chriſti, & faciunt; quia & Petro confi • enti ſe Chriſtum ſilium Dei ſic ait, & ſuper hanc Petram aediſicabo Eccleſiam meam. Non eſt ergò in eis qui aedificant ſuper arenam, id eſt, qui audiunt verba Chriſti, & non faciunt. Ipſe enim dixit, Qui audit verba mea, & facit ea, ſimilabo eum viro ſapienti, qui aedificat domum ſuam ſuper petram. Ibid Cap. 18. Seeing both good and bad adminiſter, and receive the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and the good only are ſpiritually regenerated, become his true Members, and make up the building of Chriſt's Body, 'tis plain that Church conſiſts of the good only, to which it was ſaid, As the lily among thorns, ſo is my beloved among the daughters; Cant. 2. For it conſiſts of thoſe that build upon a Rock, that is, that hear the Word of God, and do it. For this Reaſon, when St. Peter acknowledged Jeſus to be the Chriſt, the Son of God, he ſaid unto him, Matt. 16. And upon this Rock will I build my Church. This is not therefore thoſe who build upon the Sand, i. e. they that hear Chriſt's Words, and do them not. For the ſame Chriſt hath ſaid, Matt. 7. He that heareth my words, and doth them, I will liken him to a wiſe man, that built his houſe upon a rock. And a little before the end of the Book, Multi tales ſunt in ſacramentorum communione cum Eccleſiâ, & tamennon jam ſunt in Eccleſiâ Alioquin, ſi tune quiſquam praeciditur, cùm viſibíliter excommunicatur, conſequens erit, ut tunc rurſus inſeratur, cum viſibiliter communioni reſtituitur. Quid ſi ergo fictus accedat, at que adverſus veritatem & Eccleſiam animum inimiciſſimum gerat, quamvis peragatur in eo illa ſolennitas, nunquid reconciliatur? nunquid inſertur? Abſit. Sicut ergo jam denuo communicans nondum inſertus eſt ſic & antequam viſibiliter excommunicatur, quiſquis contra veritatem quâ convincitur, & arguitur, inimicum geſtat animum, jam praeciſus eſt. Ita fit, ut & ſemen bonum, & ſemen malum utra que per agrum creſcant, uſ que ad meſſem; id eſt, & ſilii regni, & ſilii maligni. Ibid. ſub ſinem lib. There are many who communicate with the Church in the Sacraments, yet are not in the Church. Elſe if when one is excommunicated viſibly, he be then only ſeparated from the Church, when he is reſtored to the Communion, we muſt ſay, that he is actually ſtated in the Church again. But ſuppoſe his return be hypocritical, That he bring a heart inveterate againſt the Truth, and the Church; muſt we own that ſuch a one is perfectly reconciled, and become a true member of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe the outward formalities of receiving him in, have paſt upon him? God forbid. As therefore he is not really of the Church, tho readmitted into the Communion; ſo if before Excommunication, he had a Soul at enmity with the Truth, he was in truth ſeparated even then. And thus it is, that the good and I bad ſeed grow together in the ſame common Field until Harveſt, that is, the Children of the Kingdom, and the Children of the wicked one. If after all this, M. de Condom ſhall ſtill maintain that an outward profeſſion and participation of the Sacraments are ſufficient to make men members of the Church; we may take the confidence to tell him, that his Authority is not yet advanced ſo far with us, as to be reckon'd of equal weight with St. Auguſtin's.

In his Book againſt Creſconi • s,Tingere ergo poſſunt boni & mali, abluere autem conſcientiam non niſi ille qui ſemper eſt bonus. Ac per hoc etiam neſcients Eccleſiâ propter malam pollutam que conſcientiam damnati à Chriſto, jam in corpore Chriſti non ſunt, quod eſt Eccleſia; quoniam non poteſt Chriſtus habere membra damnata, proinde & ipſi extra Eccleſiam baptizant. Omnia quippe iſta monſtra abſit omnino ut in membris illius columbae unicae computentur. Abſit ut intrare poſſint limites horti concluſi, cujus ille cuſtos eſt, qui non poteſt falli. Aug. contra Creſconium, Lib. 2. Cap. 21. Good and bad men (he ſays) may baptize, but God alone who is eternally good can purifie the conſcience. The wicked are condemned of Chriſt without the Churches knowledg, as having an evil and a polluted conſcience, and are not even now in Chriſt's body the Church. For Chriſt cannot have ſuch for his members as are condemned; and therefore they Baptize even while they are out of the Church themſelves. God forbid ſuch monſters ſhould be reckoned among the members of the only Dove: God forbid ſuch ſhould enter into the incloſed garden, whoſe keeper can never be impoſed upon.

In like manner does this holy Father ſpeak in his Book of the Chriſtian Doctrine. Tichonius the Donatiſt haveing buſied himſelf in laying down ſome Rules for the underſtanding of Scripture, St. Auguſtine takes them into examination, and this is what he ſays to the ſecond of them: Secunda eſt de Domini corpore bipartito, quod quidem non ita debuit appellari. Non enim revera Domini corpus eſt, quod cum illo non erit in aeternum. Sed dicendum fuit de Domini corpore vero at que permixto, aut vero at que ſimulato, aut quid aliud. Quia non ſolum in aeternum, verum etiam nunc hypocritae non cum illo eſſe dicendi ſunt, quamvis in ejus eſſe videantur Eccleſiâ. Unde poterat iſta regula & ſic appellari, ut diceretur de permixtâ Eccleſiâ. Aug. de Doctr. Chriſt. L. 3. Cap. 32. His ſecond Rule concerns the twofold Body of Chriſt, that is an improper term, for in reality none are his body, who ſhall not continue with him for ever. He ſhould rather have expreſt it concerning our Lords true or mixt body, or true and counterfeit, or ſome ſuch like term. For though hypocrites ſeem to be of the Church, they are ſo far from being with him to all eternity, that they are really not with him now. He might then be allowed to lay down this Rule, but he ſhould have phraſed it concerning the mixt Church.

And afterwards, Septima Ticonii regula eſt, eademque poſtrema, de Diabolo & ejus corpore. Eſt enim & ipſe caput impiorum, qui ſunt ejus quodammodo corpus, ituri cum illo in ſupplicium aeterni ignis; ſicut Chriſtus caput eſt Eccleſiae, quae eſt corpus ejus, futurum cum illo in regno & gloria ſempiterna. Sicut ergo in prima regula, quam vocat de Domino & ejus corpore, vigilandum eſt ut intelligatur, cum de una eademque perſona Scriptura loquitur, quid conveniat capiti, quid corporis ſic & in iſta noviſſima aliquando in diabolum dicitur, quod non in ipſo, ſed potius in ejus corpore poſſit agnoſci, quod habet non ſolum in eis, qui manifeſtiſſimè foris ſunt, ſed in eis etiam, qui cum ad ipſum pertineant, tamen ad tempus miſcentur Eccleſiae. Ibid. Cap. 37. Tichonius his ſeventh and laſt Rule is concerning the Devil and his body. For the Devil is the head of the wicked, and they in ſome ſort his members, appointed to undergo with him the puniſhment of everlaſting fire; as Chriſt is the head of the Church, which is his body, and appointed to eternal glory with him. As therefore in the firſt Rule, entituled, Of the Lord and his body, when the Scripture ſpeaks of one and the ſame perſon, we muſt diſtinguiſh carefully, what belongs to the Head, and what to the Body; ſo as to this laſt Rule, we ſhall find things ſpoken of the Devil, which do not ſo much belong to Him and his Body. Now that Body of his is compoſed not only of ſuch as are viſibly without, but thoſe alſo who though in truth they belong to him, yet continue for a time mixed with the Church.

I make no doubt but ſo many paſſages of St. Auguſtine, together with thoſe other proofs I inſtanced in before, for the reſolving this queſtion, may make M. de Condom a little uneaſie, though he think never ſo well of his own principle. But in ſhort, it concerns not only this Biſhop, but all others that take this diſpute into conſideration, to know once for all, what mighty difficulties they muſt overcome, before they can eſtabliſh the pretended Authority of their Church. That is to ſay in one word, it is fit they know that in order to compaſs this deſign, they muſt triumph over Scripture, triumph over Reaſon, triumph over the Fathers, but above all they muſt declare open war with St. Auſtin particularly. The Throne of Rome's Hierarchy is never capable of being ſet up, but upon theſe foundations, or to ſpeak more properly, upon theſe ruins.

Qu. 3. Whether the Church upon Earth be viſible, or inviſible, or whether both together, conſidered in a different ſenſe, and under different reſpects.

Thus much I think, Sir, may ſuffice to give a reſolution of the ſecond queſtion, which was, whether the Biſhop of Condom's definition of the Church upon Earth was a good and ſufficient definition, viz. A Society making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and govern it ſelf by his word; or whether it was defective, and required ſomething elſe to be added to it. You ſee the neceſſity of handling this ſubject with ſome exactneſs; for it being our buſineſs to know what Society we muſt be of, to obtain Salvation, and both ſides agreeing that it is the true Church; being it concerns us to know to what Society the Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt are to be applied, and both ſides agreeing that it is the true Church: The firſt thing in reaſon to be done, is to form an abſtracted Idea of the true Church, before it be applied to any particular ſubject, that ſo this may ſerve for a Rule, and direct us to know at leaſt what that true Church is, which we enquire after. We know in general that there is one true Church; we know alſo, that this Church is a Religious Society; but when we come to define it particularly, every one knows his own method of doing it. This therefore is the firſt thing to be determined, not only to avoid equivocation, but to prevent a continual deviation, which may otherwiſe happen through the whole diſpute, by means of a miſtake in the beginning; and this having given occaſion to the ſecond queſtion, the diſpatching that already will mightily facilitate our enquiry into the third. The thing then to be examined is, whether the Society of true believers, who only are the Church, be viſible or inviſible, or whether both in ſome ſenſes and reſpects.

For the reſolution of this Query, I ſhall not ſay that this true Church being a Society of men, and ſo a body that hath its external order, as all other Societies have, hath likewiſe conſequent to that a viſibility common to it with all other bodies. Thus much is neceſſarily ſuppoſed, for the Believers are not Angels, nor inviſible Spirits, but in this reſpect like the reſt of mankind. But this viſibility being ſuppoſed, we muſt further enquire, Whether there be not yet another, which gives it the Character of Jeſus Chriſt's true Church; ſo that a man may ſay, That the body we ſee, and which is the object of our ſenſes, as the true Church of Chriſt.

In this there would not be the leaſt difficulty, had not God's deſign, as to his Church, been diſturbed by the enemy of our Salvation. For ſince God calls true Believers only, and ſince, as we have already ſhewn, ſuch alone conſtitute the Church; were it not for what happens from ſome other thing, there would not be among the outward Profeſſors of Chriſtianity, either Hypocrites, or Hereticks, or Superſtitious, or worldly, or profane perſons And thus none but ſuch as are truly the faithful being to be found among them, this outward profeſſion would be a ſure means, and an univocal Character to know the true Faith and Regeneration by, and conſequently to know the true Church of Jeſus Chriſt as ſuch. So that we need ſay only thus much, That although the Church were not immediately viſible by its inward and cſſential form, becauſe none can immediately ſee mens hearts but God only; yet it would be viſible by its external form, as by a ſure diſtinguiſhing Character. For it might be ſeen by its Miniſtery and profeſſion of Faith in Chriſt, and known to ſuch a degree that a man might infallibly and poſitively ſay, That is the Church.

But we all know, that is Jeſus Chriſt ſowed his good ſeed in the field of the world,Matt. 13 ſo to uſe the expreſſions in the Parable, the enemy hath likewiſe ſown Tares. That is, that with the true Believers are intermixt vaſt numbers of men, who 〈◊〉 no more than the appearance and outſide of Chriſtianity, and ſo make the outward profeſſion to be a note ſubject to mighty uncertainties and equivocation. This God hath permitted for reaſons known to his own wiſdom, and hence have riſen on one ſide falſe Churches, and on the other falſe members of the true, I mean whole Communities who have wrongfully aſſumed to themſelves the title of a Church; and ſingle perſons who wrongfully aſſumed the title of the Faithful. So that the Church now, like all other things liable to hypocriſy and diſſimulation, cannot be truly known without much difficulty. And whereas, according to the nature of the thing, the Churches viſibility and inviſibility ought to lye here, that its eſſential and internal from cannot be ſeen immediately, and of it ſelf, but may by the mediation of its external form; inſtead of this, they do now conſiſt further, in a diſcerning between true and falſe, a diſtinguiſhing betwixt that which is real and ſincere, and that which is counterfeit.

We muſt therefore examine, how this diſtinction is to be made, becauſe in it conſiſts the viſibility or inviſibility of the true Church. Whether we muſt make it between ſeveral external bodies, differing from one another, or between ſeveral perſons externally incorporated into the ſame Body. I b • gin with the former, and affirm, that the diſcerning between ſeveral bodies, depends upon ſome certain marks, or characters, whereby that body on whoſe ſide the true Church is, may be diſtinguiſhed from another where it is not. I ſhall not now ſhew what thoſe Characters are, for this is another diſpute between the Church of Rome, and us, which we need not here engage our ſelves in.

It is enough we are all agreed, that ſuch marks there are, and that by them this diſtinction muſt be made. That which moſt concerns us to take notice of, and which I deſire you would obſerve with a very particular attention, is, that after we have found this Body, or external Society on whoſe ſide the true Church is, we may, and in reality do form to our ſelves two notions of it, one proceeding from a mere Judgment of Charity, the other from a Judgment of Reflection. By the Judgment of Charity, we look upon all within the Body to be true Believers, indifferently; For the ſearching of hearts being not in our power, but peculiar to God, Charity makes no diſtinctions, but ſuppoſes that things are in truth what they ſhould be; and upon this ſuppoſition, we call all that ſociety the viſible Church, ſpeaking ſimply, and abſolutely. By the Judgment of Reflection, having conſulted the Rules of Scripture, and the light of Experience, we come to know that there are Tares mixed with the Wheat, and that it is paſt a doubt, that among theſe outward Profeſſours, are abundance of hypocritical, ſuperſtitious, ambitious, and prophane people. Hence we correct our firſt notion, and term this Society, a viſible mixt Church. Thus in the ſame external body, we diſtinguiſh two different Bodies, one of true Believers, which we look upon as the true Church of Jeſus Chriſt; the other of hypocrites and worldlings, who have only the ſhadow, and ſhell of Faith and Regeneration, and conſequently do not belong to Jeſus Chriſt's true Church.

This is the original of all that ambiguity betwixt the Romaniſts and us. M. de Condom, according to the principles of Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron, and moſt of the Doctors of his Communion, does in this Diſpute judge of the true viſible Church, by that notion of Charity, which without making any difference, includes bad and good, true and falſe Believers. And we judge of the true viſible Church, by that other, termed the notion of Reflection, which excludes hypocrites and worldlings, and confines it ſelf to true Believers only. He ſuppoſes without offering any proof for it, that there is no other viſible Church, than this whole Body of Profeſſors, and that That of the true Believers is inviſible; which we deny. He proves that the true Church of Chriſt, to whom the promiſes belong, is a viſible Church, which we grant. We muſt take leave therefore to tell him, that he ſuppoſes, what he ſhould prove, and proves what he ought to ſuppoſe; which muſt needs entangle the matter in diſpute, and render it mighty intricate and obſcure.

But what great matter is it (you'l ſay) as to this Diſpute, whether a man judges of the true viſible Church by the notion of Charity, or that of Reflection? I anſwer, if the matter had concerned only the Duties incumbent on the Church, or exhorting and inſtructing men in thoſe Duties, it would ſignify very little which of theſe two notions we followed. For the duties incumbent on beth good and had, are much the ſame, they all hear the ſame Word, partake of the ſame Sacraments, and are all under the ſame Obligations. But the preſent controverſy does not concern the duties and exhortations to them, but the inveſting the Church in ſome particular rights and priviledges allowed her, and applying to her the promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt: So that it highly concerns us in this caſe, not to follow a notion which may lead us into miſtakes, and give away theſe priviledges and promiſes to men that have no manner of right to them. It nearly concerns us not to follow a notion, which may occaſion our falling into errour, under pretence of that name, the Church. There is an abſolute neceſſity of clearing an ambiguity, which if not cleared, may prejudice our Conſcience, and put our Salvation upon a hazard.

Now, Sir, let us ſee I beſeech you, whether of theſe two notions is rather to be received in this diſpute? And this will eaſily appear, if we conſider; That the notion followed by M. de Condom is groſly falſe in one of its parts, as taking for true Believers, perſons who really are not ſo, and can pretend to truth no further, than as it is conformable to this ſecond notion. That it is not grounded upon an exact knowledg of its object, but merely upon a charitable ſuppoſition, which if niecly look'd into, is not true it ſelf: And ſo there can be no robable argument for allowing evil men and hypocrites a part in Chriſt's Promiſes, Thoſe falſe plants, which our heavenly father hath not planted, Matt. 15. Thoſe tares which the Lord hath not ſown in his field, Matt. 13. but the enemy r • ſe by night to caſt in privily, Men not at all concerned in that Idea of the true Church which Scripture gives us, and conſequently not of it. In a word, this will eaſily appear, that the notion we follow is the moſt exact, the moſt certain, the moſt agreeable to the Idea's given in Scripture, and the only one that can bear any proportion to the Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt, and the dignity of the true Church.

But it may be ſaid, Was not M. de Condom in the right, to ſay, there was not actually any viſible Church, but that which he def •• es, A Society making profeſſion to believe the Doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and govern it ſelf by his word? And ſo no other than that which comprehends good and bad, true Believers and Hypocrites? And was it not fair then to make uſe of this notion in the Controverſy? I anſwer, the true Church conſiſting of true Believers only, is not indeed viſible, by any certain and diſtinct ſight we can have of it, ſo as to affirm poſitively and perſonally, ſuch or ſuch are of the true Church. When we would carry on this diſtinction to particular men, diſguiſe and hypocriſie put a ſtop to it, ſo that in this ſence the true Church will always continue inviſible, till Jeſus Chriſt come to make a full and perfect ſeparation betwixt his own Corn and the Enemies Tares, which ſhall not be done till the end of the World. Thus it is not viſible, not only immediately by its internal form in mens hearts, but even by theſe external Characters, as to certain and diſtinct viſibility, becauſe diſſimulation and deceit often makes theſe marks to be doubtful. All this I grant.

But for all this, we may and muſt ſay, that the true Church is viſible, truly viſible, in other ſenſes and reſpects. For firſt of all; it cannot be denied that it is viſible at leaſt materially, as they ſay, becauſe the true Believers that appear viſibly in publick Aſſemblies, partake of the ſame Sacraments, and live in the ſame external Order: The faithful do not conceal themſelves, nor decline the Holy Exerciſes of Religion, but on the contrary frequent them, and ſhew themſelves more than other men, remembring that of St.Heb. 10, 25. Paul, Not forſaking the aſſembling of our ſelves together. Beſides, It is plain, that tho the true Church be mixt with wicked men in the ſame profeſſion,Matt. 1 • . yet is it viſible in this very mixture, as the wheat is viſible, tho in the ſame field with the tares, and the good fiſh in the ſame net with the bad, according to the parables in the Goſpel; or as true Friends are viſible, tho mixt with diſſemblers and flatterers. This mixture indeed hinders us from an exact diſtinction of perſons, but ſtill we may with great certainty diſtinguiſh and diſcern two ſorts of perſons. We are not ſure which particular men are true Believers, and which Hypocrites, but we are ſure that there are true Belivers as well as Hypocrites; and this is enough to prove the Church viſible, according to the Scriptures, and t. Auſtin's Hypotheſis. Nay, I will go further yet; for 'tis true that upon ſome occaſions Hypocrites do plainly diſtinguiſh themſelves from true Believers, and upon ſome other occaſions true Believers do plainly make a perſonal diſtinction of themſelves from Hypocrites. For inſtance, when we ſee men drowned in vices inconſiſtent with true Faith, when we ſee them throw themſelves into Superſtitions and Errors, that are contrary to the true Doctrine and Worſhip of God, tho they abide ſtill in the ſame Congregations with others, and communicate in the ſame Sacraments; yet this makes a negative diſtinction, ſo as we may ſay, theſe are not the true Believers, that is, not of the true Church. On the other ſide, when we ſee men undergo long ſharp tryals, without being removed, either from the profeſſion of the true Doctrine and Worſhip, or from that of Righteouſneſs and Holineſs, in this reſpect here is made a poſitive diſtinction, and ſuch as makes us acknowledg, that theſe perſons are of the true Church of Jeſus Chriſt. I confeſs theſe diſtinctions are not always, either ſo certain as never to admit of miſtakes, nor ſo univerſal as not to confound one with another. For a man may judg raſhly of both ſorts, either for want of knowing mens particular circumſtances, and the motives they went upon; or ſome other way; and it is never ſeen, that all Hypocrites diſcover themſelves at once. But however, there is great uſe to be made of this diſtinction, and ſuch a viſibility of the true Church reſults from it, as is in ſome ſort perſonal, according to our Hypotheſis.

Now, Sir, you ſee, whether M. de Condom was in the right to take it for granted, as if it were a certain truth, that there was no viſible Church, but ſuch a one as he defined, that comprehends good and bad, true Believers and Worldlings, contrary to the Scriptures, and St. Auguſtin's ſenſe. You ſee too whether he was in the right, to maintain in this firſt part of his diſcourſe,Confer. page 10. that we deny the Churches viſibility. The Pretended Reform'd (ſays he) will not have the viſible Church to be that which is called Jeſus Chriſt's Body. Which is then that Body where God hath eſtabliſhed ſome Apoſtles? &c. Which is that Body where God hath placed ſeveral Members, and different Graces, Rom. 12. 4. the Grace of Miniſtry, the Grace of Teaching, the Grace of Exhortation and Conſolation, the Grace of Ruling? Which, I ſay, is that Body, if it be not the viſible Church? We never denied the viſible Church upon Earth to be Chriſt's Body; not the whole Body indeed, for there is one part of it collected in Heaven, and another not yet in being, but ſtill that part upon Earth is Jeſus Chriſt's Body, ſo the Scripture calls it, and we are ſo far from thinking as he ſaies, that quite contrary, we prove Hypocrites and Worldlings to be really no part of the true viſible Church, by this very Argument, that it is called in Scripture the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. For this reaſon the viſible Church is thus defined in the 27th Article of our Confeſſion of Faith. I will here ſet down the whole Article to give the Reader more full Satisfaction in this matter. Credimus ſummo ſtudio & prudentia diſcernendam eſſe veram Eccleſiam, cujus nomine nimium multi abutuntur. Ita que affirmamus ex Dei verbo, Eccleſiam eſſe fidelium coetum, qui in verbo Dei ſequendo, & purâ religione colendâ conſentiunt, in quâ etiam quotidie proficiunt; creſcentes & confirmantes ſe mutuò in Dei timore, ut qui quotidiano progreſſu & profectu indigeant, quos etiam quantumcun que promoveant, oporteat tamen aſſidue ad remiſſionem peccatorum confugere. Minimè tamen inficiamur, quin fidelibus hypocritae & reprobi multi ſint permixti, ſed quotum malitia Eccleſiae nomen delere non poſſit. Harmonia confeſſion. Sect. 10. Gallic. Confeſſ. Edit. Genev. 1531. The company of the Faithful agreeing to follow the Word of God, and that pure Religion grounded thereon, and who conſtantly make proficiency therein. Now, this Company of the Faithful thus deſcribed, is, and is called the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. If M. de Condom had been at the pains to read Calvin, he would find him ſpeaking of the viſible Church, in the 4th Book of his Inſtitutions, Chap. 1. thus,Non vulgaris etiam laus, quod, electa, ſegregata que dicitur à Chriſto, in ſponſam, quae eſſet ſine rugâ & maculâ, corpus & plenitudo ejus. Calvin Lib. 4. Inſtitut. Cap. 1. Sect. 10. Edit. Genev. 1588. It is no ordinary commendation the Scripture gives it, when 'tis ſaid, Epheſ. 5. 26, 27. that Chriſt hath choſen it, and ſeparated it for his ſpouſe, to make her without ſpot and wrinkle, his body, and his fullneſs.

M. Meſtrezzat ſpeaking of the viſible Church in the ſame ſenſe, ſays; Les Organes, deſquels Dienſe ſert pour l' edifier & conſtruire, ſont les Paſteurs & Miniſtres de ſon Evangile, ſelon que dit S. Paul, Epheſ. 4. Il a donné les uns pour érre Apôtres, les autres pour étre Prophetes, les autres pour étre Evangeliſtes, les autres pour étre Paſteurs & Docteurs, pour l'aſſemblage des Saints, pour I'oeuvre du Miniſtere, pour I'edifier du corps de Chriſt. Meſtrezzat de I'Egliſe, Livre 1. Cap. 3. Pag. 31. Edit. Genev. 1649. The inſtruments made uſe of by God to build his Church, are the Paſtors and Miniſters of his Goſpel, Epheſ. 1. 23. according to that of St. Paul, Epheſ. 4. He hath given ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, and ſome Evangeliſts, and ſome Paſtors and Teachers, for the gathering together the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtry, for the edifying of the Body of Chriſt.

And a little after,Ainſi un même corps de Chriſt, qui eſt inviſible quant à l'election de Dieu, & à la ſanctification du coeur, jouit du Miniſtere viſible de la parole, & en recoit le fruit du Salut. Car il ne faur pas chercher l' Egliſe de Dieu hors de l'état viſible du Miniſtere de la parole. Meſtrezzat. Ibid. Pag. 33. The ſame Body of Chriſt which is inviſible as to the Election of God, and inward ſanctification of the heart, enjoys the viſible Miniſtry of the Word, and from it brings forth fruit unto ſalvation. For we muſt not look for the Church of God, out of this viſible ſtate of the Miniſtry of the Word. The ſame thing I ſay with relation to that other paſſage of St. Paul, where he ſays, Epheſ. 5. 25, 26, 27. Jeſus Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might ſanctify and cleanſe it, with the waſhing of water by the Word; That he might preſent it to himſelf a glorious Church, not having ſpot or wrinkle. They will not have it poſſible, (ſays M. de Condom, Conference, Page 5.) for this place to be underſtood of the viſible Church, not yet of the Church on Earth. He muſt pardon me if I ſay he is miſtaken; for tho we underſtand by this, the Church already in Heaven, yet do we beſides underſtand the viſible Church upon Earth, and M. Meſtrezzat ſpeaking of this paſſage, ſaies expreſly,Ainſi Epheſ. 5. il propoſe pour l'Egliſe, un même corps recevant la grace, & la gloire, & repreſente la gloire, comme l 'accompliſſement de la grace. Meſtrezzat Livre 1. Cap. 5. Pag. 50. That St. Paul there ſets forth the Church as one and the ſame Body, receiving Grace, and Glory, and makes Glory to be the perfection and accompliſhment of Grace. It is evident then, that the viſible Church is in our Opinion Jeſus Chriſt's Body, or which comes all to one, that the Body of Chriſt, which is the true Church upon Earth, is viſible.

I ſhould now conclude my Third Enquiry, did I not think my ſelf under an obligation to remove ſome difficulties, which may be ſtarted upon it. For it may be ſaid, the Miniſtry is common to good and bad, and conſequently it makes a Church compoſed of good men and bad. I anſwer, that the Miniſtry and the uſe of it is common both to good and bad, comes to paſs only by accident, and from the treachery of the Enemy. Of right it belongs to true Believers only, and its genuine deſign was for them. Jeſus Chriſt gave it for the aſſembling of the Saints, and inſtituted it to increaſe and cultivate his good Corn. If the Tares uſe it, or to ſpeak more truly, abuſe it, this is contrary to his intention. For his hand never ſowed theſe, but the enemy's, who roſe by night for that purpoſe. It is ſure then that the Miniſtry of it ſelf does not make up a Church compoſed of good and bad men, becauſe ſuch only as it was intended to gather, are to be reckoned of his viſible Church. Now the Miniſtry is deſigned to gather the true Believers, and truly Righteous, not the worldlings and hypocrites in the leaſt. If they thruſt themſelves into the Aſſemblies, it is not the Miniſtry that calls them, but the ſpirit of the world that ſends them thither. An invincible argument that there is no other viſible Church, but what conſiſts of true Believers, becauſe they are the only perſons call'd to Religious Aſſemblies; and it is not Jeſus Chriſt, but Jeſus Chriſt's enemy that thruſts others into them.

To give you yet further ſatisfaction as to this Point, permit me, Sir, to interpoſe between M. de Condom and St. Auguſtin; not to ſet them at difference, but endeavour to reconcile them. M. de Condom aſſures me, that Jeſus Chriſt in that paſſage,Confer. p. 7. Tell it the Church, ſpoke of a viſible Church, a Church viſible by the exerciſe of the Miniſtry;Matt. 18. St. Auguſtin on the other ſide aſſu • es me, that he ſpeaks of the Church conſiſting of true Believers only; I reconcile theſe two by inferring, That the Church of true Believers only is a Church made viſible by the Exerciſe of the Miniſtry. M. de Condom tells me St. Paul ſpeaks of a Church viſible by the uſe of the Miniſtry,Conference, pag. 5, 6. when he ſays, Chriſt loved it, and cleanſed it, with the waſhing of water by the word. Epheſ. 5. St. Auguſtin tells me, The Church of true Believers only is ſpoken of in this paſſage; I can reconcile theſe two no other way, than by concluding, that then the Church of true Believers only, is a Church viſible by the uſe of the Miniſtry.Confer. p. 8, 9. M. de Condom teaches me, that in this paſſage, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, Jeſus Chriſt denotes a Church viſible, by the Exerciſe of an External Miniſtry; St. Augustin inſtructs me, that it denotes the Church of true Believers; How ſhall theſe two be made agree, but by concluding, that the Church of true Believers then is a viſible Church, exerciſing an external Miniſtry? If you ſtill deſire an Argument of more ſtrongth, remember that the viſibility attributed to the Church in Scripture, cannot poſſibly be any other than that we aſſign it. For as on the one hand we are taught there, that the true Church conſiſts of true Believers only; ſo do we learn there alſo, that true Believers are mixt with wicked men and hypocrites: It is there we find the ſimilitudes, of Chaff amongſt the good Corn, of bad Fiſhes jumbled together with the good, of Tares ſown among the good Wheat. Now whatever we deliver concerning the Churches viſibility and inviſibility, is grounded entirely upon theſe two principles.

The ſecond difficulty that may be ſiarted is, whether the viſibility we aſſign to the Church, be ſufficient to maintain Chriſtian Fellowſhip, to comfort the Faithful, and bring them to Salvation. I anſwer, that this would not be ſufficient indeed to eſtabli • h the Church of Romes pretenſions, ſuch as abſolute authority over mens Conſciences, Infallibility of Councils, a blind obedience to their Determinations, and this very inſufficiency as to that ſhews us the injuſtice of ſuch pretenſions. But I ſay, that in its kind this viſibility is ſufficient, either for the maintenance of external Communion, or for the joy and conſolation of the Faithful, and the bringing them to Salvation. In order to that, we need only know ourſelves to be in Communion with the truly Faithful. For tho we know that there is a mixture of ill men among theſe, yet ſhall we ſtill continue in the external Communion with them, out of reſpect to God's Elect: We ſhall ſtill bear the diſorders and offences given by others patiently; we ſhall ſtill receive the ſame Sacraments, and partake of other fruits of the Miniſtry with comfort, as knowing that the efficacy of theſe acts does not depend upon the wicked, but are bleſſings that belong to the righteous. And our not being able to make certain and perſonal diſtinctions of men, will add to our caution, that we ſuffer not our ſelves to be ſurpriſed into any ſuperſtitions and errors, that would inſinuate themſelves under the plauſible title of the Church. And thus the viſibility we allow the Church is abundantly ſufficient.

It might further be demanded, whether it can ſo happen, that the Church may at any time loſe the viſibility of its Aſſemblies, and ſo become in this reſpect perfectly inviſible? I anſwer, that although we acknowledg Almighty God can, whenever he pleaſes, utterly diſperſe the perſons of the Faithful, and ſtill keep them in this wretched condition by the methods of his own Providence; yet we do not think this ever did ſo happen. The Chriſtian Church hath lain under great perſecutions, but tho they were never ſo great, ſhe hath conſtantly had ſome where or other ſome Aſſemblies, and ſome exerciſe of the Miniſtry, publick or private; and however her Martyrs and Confeſſors have all along made her viſible, ſo that ſhe cannot be ſaid abſolutely, ever to have diſappeared quite from the ſight of men; Yet we muſt own, that in this reſpect there have been ſeveral degrees of her viſibility, that is, the Church hath been more or leſs viſible, as her Aſſemblies have been held, and her Miniſtry exerciſed with more or leſs freedom. We muſt own too, that not any particular Church upon Earth can promiſe it ſelf a perpetual viſibility, no nor ſo much as a perpetual ſubſiſtence. God removes his Candleſtick from the midſt of a people at his pleaſure, and he does it then, when he hath no more Elect to call there. There have been many inſtances of this in the World, particularly in the Churches of Africa, once ſo beautiful and flouriſhing; but theſe are only the puttings out of ſome particular light, and do not at all prejudice either the ſubſiſtence, or viſibility of the Chriſtian Church in general.

The laſt difficulty to be urged is, whether the Church can at any time loſe the viſibility of its Characters, (I mean that viſibility) whereby without deſcending to perſonal diſtinctions, we are enabled to conclude that there are true Believers in this mixed Society; ſo far as that we can not judge whether ſuch be there or no? I anſwer, It not only may, but often hath happened, that the Characters by which we ſhould in this reſpect come to know the true Church, have been ſo mightily obſcured, that a man could not without much trouble and difficulty affirm, that In this particular body it was, that God nouriſhed and ſuſtained his true Believers; and we ſhall find hereafter that M. de Condom himſelf owns enough to eſtabliſh the truth of this aſſertion. But ſtill, tho this be unconteſtable, as proved to be plain matter of fact, we do notwithſtanding acknowledg, that the Church did never abſolutely and entirely loſe their viſibility in this reſpect; becauſe, as was ſaid in anſwer to the Prejudices, we do not think that ever ſo total an Eclipſe happen'd, that it could not in ſome meaſure be ſaid, This is the Society wherein God preſerves ſome true Believers.

And here I cannot but complain of what M. de Condom does afterwards in his Diſcourſe accuſe us of,Confer. pag. 10. Pag. 12. ſaying, that the viſible Church ſometimes ceaſes to be. They are conſtrained (ſays he) to ſay, that the viſible Church ſometimes ceaſes to be upon Earth. And in another place, This is the Church, which your Miniſters know not: They teach you that this viſible and exteriour Church may ceaſe to be upon Earth. But this is urging his charge againſt us too far: So far are we from believing, the viſible Church ceaſes to be, that we do not ſo much as ſay, it ever abſolutely ceaſes to be viſible: And yet there would be a mighty difference, between ſaying ſhe ceaſes to be viſible, and that ſhe ceaſes to be at all. The Sun, the moſt viſible thing in the World, is often not viſible to our eyes, but yet he ceaſes not to be. In the point of Real preſence, M. de Condom will own, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt ceaſes to be viſible; but he would not be well-pleaſed for that reaſon to be taxed with ſaying, he ceaſes to be there at all. But however, let M. de Condom put what ſenſe he pleaſe upon our words, it is certain we acknowledg the Church to be perpetually viſible, in the meaning I explain'd juſt now: And M. de Condom could never have ſpent his time to leſs purpoſe, than in taking ſuch pains to confute an opinion which, we never held againſt him.

Queſt. 4. What Church the Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt belong to, whether that defined by M. de Condom, a Society making profeſſion to believe, &c. or that which we define, A Society which making profeſſion to govern it ſelf by Chriſt's Word, does really govern it ſelf by it?

M. de Condom ſpeaking of us in one place of his Diſcourſe, ſays, They have not the Conſolation which the Catholicks have, Confer. p. 8. to ſee Jeſus Chriſt's promiſe viſibly accompliſht, and maintain'd, during ſo many Ages. They cannot ſhew a Church which has ever been ſince Jeſus Chriſt came to build it on the Rock: and to ſave his word, they are obliged to have recourſe to a Church of the Predeſtinate, which neither themſelves; nor any elſe can ſhew. After having cleared the perpetual viſibility of the Church, as you lately ſaw, judg you, Sir, what ground there is for his ſayings we have not the conſolation of ſeeing Jeſus Chriſt's Promiſe viſibly accompliſh'd and maintain'd during ſo many Ages; and whether we have not more than it is poſſible to have, according to the Church of Romes principle. M. de Condom according to his Principle, ſees the duration of a Church, whoſe whole eſſence conſiſts in an outward profeſſion. What is there in this more than human? We ſee the duration of a Church, whoſe eſſence conſiſts in true Faith and Regeneration, What is there in this that is not all Divine? M. de Condom ſees the duration of a Church ſupported by politick methods, by paying a blind obedience to the injunctions of great men, and thoſe perhaps Hypocrites too, What is there in this more than human? We ſee the duration of a Church preſerved in ſpight of confuſion, and all the froward malice of men: What is there in this leſs than Divine? They cannot (ſays he) ſhew a Church which hath ever been ſince Jeſus Chriſt came to build it on the Rock. Yes, we ſhew this Church built on the Rock; for when we ſhew the Body in which God nouriſhes and breeds up his true Believers, we ſhew at the ſame time thoſe true Believers, which are his Church built on the Rock, tho mixt with ſuch as build on the Sand. When we ſhew the held where Jeſus Chriſt ſowed his good Seed, we ſhew the Wheat, tho there be Tares among it. But let M. de Condom tell us, if he think fit, how he can ſhew us a Church built on the Rock, making, as he does, the eſſence of the Church to conſiſt entirely in an outward profeſſion. If he call this a Church upon the Rock, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf will reply for that ſuch only are built upon a Rock, who hear this word, and do it; whereas all beſides are built upon the Sand. To ſave Chriſt's Word (continues he) they are obliged to have recourſe to a Church of the Predeſtinate. Does M. de Condom blame us for ſeeking the accompliſhment of Jeſus Chriſt's Promiſes, in the body of his Elect, and true Believers? Pray where ſhould we look for it elſe? In a croud of Hypocrites and Reprobates, that have no Faith, no Holineſs, no Piety, but in outward appearance only? Such as God never call'd, and Jeſus Chriſt ſhall one day tell, he never knew them? Is not this of Cardinal Bellarmin's, Perron's, and M. de Condoms, a curious Church, to the conſtituting whereof no inward virtue is neceſſarily required, but merely an outward profeſſion of Faith, and communicating in the Sacraments? A Church, whoſe Unity, the formal eſſence of it, is that of an external Vocation, not that of Predeſtination, nor internal Faith, nor a Ʋnion of Souls by the works of Love: In a word, a Church defined, not by believing, and governing it ſelf by God's word, but by making profeſſion to believe and govern it ſelf by God's VVord? Is not this putting a mighty value upon Jeſus Chriſt's Promiſes, to apply them not only to profane and worldly men, as well as the Saints and regenerate; but to ſuch a Church as would remain entire, tho there were no true believers, nor righteous men in it; and not ceaſe to be the true Church of Chriſt, tho it were compoſed of Hypocrites, and none elſe?

Thus far, Sir, there is no great perſpicacity required, to diſcern, that the queſtion in hand reſolves it ſelf, there being little probability that Jeſus Chriſt was ſo laviſh of his Promiſes. But however let us examine the matter a little more cloſely. The firſt paſſage M. de Condom preſents us with,Confer. p. 5, 6. is that of St. Paul, Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might cleanſe it with the waſhing of Water by the Word, that he might make it a glorious Church, Epheſ. 5. 25, 26, 27. 29, 30. having neither ſpot, nor wrinkle, nor any ſuch thing, but that it might be holy and without blemiſh. And a little after, No man hateth his own fleſh, but nouriſheth and cheriſheth it, even as the Lord the Church; For we are members of his body, of his fleſh, and of his bones. We ſee in theſe words, the obligation Jeſus Chriſt put himſelf under, to ſanctify his Church, to make it a glorious Church, without ſpot or wrinkle, holy and without blemiſh, to nouriſh and cheriſh it, as his own fleſh and bones. Our buſineſs is to know, whether this obligation can upon any pretence whatever reſpect Hypocrites and wicked men; And who will be perſwaded it does?Confer. p. 6. This Church, M. do Condom ſays, is glorious, becauſe ſhe glorifies God, becauſe ſhe declares to all the Earth the Glory of Jeſus Chriſt's Goſpel and Croſs. Now as to the wicked, of whom we are here treating, there need but this one word be added, That they glorify God and the Goſpel in hypocriſy and diſſimulation, but in their hearts deny it. Then ſee what God himſelf hath ſpoken as to this matter.Pſal. 50. 16. Ʋnto the ungodly ſaid God, why doſt thou preach my laws, and takeſt my Covenant in thy mouth? This Church (M. de Condom tells us) is holy, Conf. p. 6. becauſe ſhe always, conſtantly, and without varying teaches the Holy Doctrine. Add here, But as for the wicked, if they teach the holy Doctrine, this is but with their lips, and in ſhew only;2 Tim. 3. 5. then ſee what St. Paul ſays, They have a form of godlineſs, but deny the power thereof, from ſuch turn away. This Church (according to M. de Condom) hath neither ſpot nor wrinkle, becauſe ſhe hath neither any evil Error, nor any evil Maxim, and becauſe ſhe inſtructs, and contains in her boſom the Elect of God. Add, But as for ſinners, They follow Truth and Right only in pretence.Matt. 7. 22. Then ſee what Jeſus Chriſt ſays of ſuch, Many will ſay unto me in that day, Lord, have not we propheſied in thy name, and in thy name have caſt out Devils, and in thy name have done many wonderful works? Then will I ſay unto them, I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. And can any man after all this allow them a propriety in the Promiſes of Chriſt?

The ſecond paſſage M. de Condom makes uſe of,Matt. 18. 17, 18, 19, 20. is that of Jeſus Chriſt, which I will here ſet down at length. Tell the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man, and a Publican; verily I ſay unto you, whatſoever ye ſhall bind on earth, ſhall be bound in heaven; and whatſoever ye ſhall looſe on earth, ſhall be looſed in heaven. Again I ſay unto you, that if two of you ſhall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they ſhall ask, it ſhall be done for them, of my father which is in heaven; For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midſt of them. Jeſus Chriſt, M. de Condom ſays,Conf. p. 7. uſed the word Church to ſignify this viſible Society. I agree with him, that the Church there ſignifies a viſible Church; I ſay further, that it ſignifies a Church repreſented by the Paſtors, by whom it binds and looſes, by whom it asks the Father; I am ſtill of opinion, that thoſe excellent Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt, that God will ratify what they have bound and looſed, that he will grant what they ask, and that the Lord himſelf will be in the midſt of them, are all made to the Church taken in this ſenſe. But then I ſay withal, that this viſible Church is that of the true Believers only, and that Hypocrites have no ſhare at all in it. It is to the true Believers alone, that this Miniſtry belongs, they are the perſons repreſented by the Paſtors, they the only people that ask and obtain, that are gathered together in Chriſt's name, and in the midſt of whem he is. And yet it often happens, that the Miniſters of this Church, tho they be in this function, and do the buſineſs of it, are not yet true Members of it themſelves.Aliquando 〈…〉 tacit, ut qu • dam pertinentes ad civitatem Babyloniam, adminiſtrent res pertinentes ad Jeruſalem. Omnes de quibus dictum eſt, Quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt, nolite facere, cives ſunt Babyloniae adminiſtrantes Remp. civitatis Jeruſalem. Si enim nihil adminiſtrarent civitatis Jeruſalem, unde eſt, Quae dicunt facite? Unde, In Cathedrâ Moyſi ſedent? Rurſus ſi cives ſunt ipſius Jeruſalem, qui regnabunt in aeternum cum Chriſto, unde Quae faciunt, facere nolite? Aug. in Pſal. 61. It often falls out, ſays St. Auguſtin, by reaſon of this mixture here upon Earth, that people really belonging to Babylon, adminiſter the things belonging to Jeruſalem. All they, of whom it is ſaid, whatſoever they bid you obſerve, obeſereveand do, Matt. 23. 3. but do not ye after their works, are Citizens of Babylon, that rule the Commonwealth of Jeruſalem. For if they had no charge belonging to Jeruſalem, why ſhould it be ſaid, They ſit in Moſes ſeat, therefore what they bid you obſerve, that obſerve and do? Again, if they were true Citizens of Jeruſalem, who ſhould reign with Chriſt for ever, What occaſion was there for adding, But do not ye after their works? It is not then to the Miniſters that the Promiſes belong, but to the Body they repreſent, and whoſe Offices they diſcharge. Now this body is the New Jeruſalem, which ſhall reign with Chriſt for ever; That is, the true Believers.

M. de Cendom's third paſſage is this,Confer. p. 8, 9. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt it. Jeſus Chriſt (ſays he) would ſhew ſomething illuſtrious and clear, when he ſaid, that his Church, maugre the oppoſition of Hell, ſhould be always invincible: he would, I ſay, ſhew ſomething clear and reſplendent, which might ſerve in all Ages, for a ſenſible and palpable aſſurance of the immutable certainty of his Promiſes. He adds, The Church of which Chriſt ſpeaks, is then a confeſſing Church, a Church that publiſhes the Faith, and conſequently an exteriour and viſible Church. He ſays further, That it is a Church, to which an exteriour Miniſtry is given; for 'tis added, I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on Earth ſhall be bound in Heaven, and whatſoever thou ſhalt looſe on Earth ſhall be looſed in Heaven. I anſwer, The Church ſpoken of in this paſſage is really a Confeſſing Church, a Church that publiſhes the Faith, a Church to whom Chriſt hath given an exteriour Miniſtry; a Church that uſes the Miniſtry of the Keys, that binds and looſes, and by Conſequence an exteriour and viſible Church. The Queſtion is, whether wicked men, let them diſſemble never ſo well, and carry never ſo fair an outſide, do truly belong to this Church, or whether it conſiſt of ſincere Believers only. 'Tis a Church exteriour and viſible, I acknowledg it, but it is alſo a Church interiour, and real; otherwiſe it would differ nothing from a Phantome, a cheating apparition. 'Tis a Confeſſing Church, and publiſhes the Faith, but it is likewiſe a Church believing in what it confeſſes and publiſhes. 'Tis a Church, to which not only St. Peter's Confeſſion muſt be attributed, but alſo the principle and ground of that Confeſſion.Matt. 16. 17. Bleſſed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for fleſh and blood hath net revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven: And therefore whoſe Confeſſion proceeds not from Fleſh and Blood, but from Grace and Divine Illumination. 'Tis a Church built upon a Rock, and not upon the Sand, therefore not a Church that Hypocrites are of. 'Tis a Church built by Jeſus Chriſt; a Church therefore of true Believers only, becauſe ſuch only are built by Chriſt. 'Tis a Church to which this Promiſe of the Gates of Hell never prevailing againſt it, belongs; And can we with any pretence to modeſty ſay, that the Gates of Hell do not prevail againſt the wicked ingulfed in v • ce? Can we ſay thoſe admirable words carry no ſtronger importance, than the preſervation of a mere exteriour profeſſion? But this is a Chruch which hath, and exerciſeth ſuch a Miniſtry. Who queſtions it? But does this Miniſtry belong to the wicked and hypocrites? No. It belongs only to true Behevers, the reſt have no part in it; only as they ſometimes exerciſe the external Offices, without any true right to them; or receive them unworthily, under the covering of hypocriſy, and being intermixt with good Chriſtians. But M. de Condom ſays further, Jeſus Chriſt promiſed ſomething illuſtrious and clear, which might ſerve in all Ages for a ſenſible and palpable aſſurance of the immutable certainty of his Promiſes. Theſe words want a little unfolding; If they underſtand hereby a temporal proſperity, a perpetual viſibility promiſed to the Church, in pomp and luſtre, I deny that Chriſt promiſed any ſuch thing. If they underſtand an Earthly Dominion, a worldly Greatneſs under the title of Hierarchy, I deny ſtill that Chriſt ever promiſed any ſuch thing. If they underſtand a conſtant unblemiſht purity in the Miniſtry, in the Matters of Doctrine and Worſhip, of moral Rules, and orderly Government, This again I deny that Chriſt ever promiſed. If they underſtand Believers perſeverance in Faith and Holineſs, ſo far forth as is neceſſary to Salvation, in deſpight of all temptations to the contrary, from Hell, the World, and their own Infirmities, This I own our Lord hath promiſed. Now this in my opinion is a thing ſufficently illuſtrious and clear, to ſerve for a ſenſible and palpable aſſurance, of the immutable certainty of his Promiſes. For when we ſee our Brethren dye, and do our ſelves dye in the boſom of Truth and Piety, this denotes Jeſus Chriſt's Grace ſenſibly enough. If they underſtand over and above this, a perpetual ſubſiſtence of the Miniſtry, in ſuch a condition as is ſufficient for the Salvation of God's Elect, mangre all the oppoſitions of Hell, or the diſorders of the Miniſters themſelves, this I do likewiſe acknowledg to be promiſed by Jeſus Chriſt, and herein we have a ſenſible and palpable aſſurance of the immutable certainty of his Promiſes. For in the midſt of ſo many infirmities as the Faithful are liable to, in the midſt of ſo many Thorns as encompaſs and incumber the Lilies of the Son of God; in the midſt of ſo many ſuperſtitious, profane, heretical, deſigning, worldly-minded, lukewarm and indifferent people, that are exteriour Profeſſors, and often Officers in the Church; that God ſhould ſtill preſerve the Miniſtry, ſo far as is neceſſary for nouriſhing and cheriſhing his Elect, and true Believers, and to bring them ſafe to Heaven; is a ſenſible indication of the ſtrength of our Saviours Words, That the Gates of Hell ſhould not prevail againſt it. He does not ſay, the Gates of Hell ſhall never fight againſt it, nor that they ſhall never get any advantages over it; He ſuppoſes that they ſhall encounter it, that they ſhall very much endamage it, that they ſhall ſometimes reduce it to great extremities; But he aſſures us, they ſhall not prevail. In this the Aſſiſtance and perpetual Providence of Chriſt is the more gloriouſly illuſtrated, that the Church can ſay of her ſelf,Pſ. 129. 2. Matt. 28. Many a time have they vexed me from my youth up, but they have not prevailed againſt me.

M. de Condom alledges next,Confer. p. 9. thoſe words of our Saviour, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the ſon, and of the holy ghoſt: Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you; And to I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Upon which Text M. de Condom puts this Comment. Teaching with you, Baptizing with you, Inſtructing with you my Faithful, to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded, conſequently exerciſing with you in my Church and exteriour Miniſtry. 'Tis with you, 'tis with thoſe who ſhall ſucceed you, 'tis with the Society aſſembled under their Conduct, that I ſhall be from this preſent, even to the conſummation of the World, alway, without interruption; For there ſhall not be any one moment in which I will leave you, but tho abſent in Body, I will be always preſent by my holy Spirit. I own that Chriſt ſpeaks there to his Church, that he orders it to Baptize, to Teach, and conſequently gives it a Miniſtry, which he commands to be exerciſed therein. I acknowledg moreover, that he promiſes to be with it, to Teach with it till the conſummation of the World, without interruption; but this is not the point in controverſy. All our buſineſs is to know, what Church this is; M. de Condom will have it all that Society that makes profeſſion to believe, &c. we think it to be that, which making profeſſion to believe, does ſo really and ſincerely. He ſuppoſes his Propoſition without offering Arguments for it; but we prove ours. For no man can ſay, that Chriſt is with wicked men and hypocrites, by the preſence of his Holy Spirit, always, without interruption; that there is never any moment when he leaves them, even to the Conſummation of the World. This can be affirmed of none but the Society of true Believrs: Such a Society there will always be, and Jeſus Chriſt always in the midſt of them, baptizing, and inſtructing with them; For tho the mouth and hand of his enemies may often exerciſe the outward acts of the Miniſtry, and often with abundance of impurity and diſorder; yet Jeſus Chriſt does for ever preſerve his faithful under the Miniſtry which is rightfully theirs, he does ever baptize, and teach them even by wicked Miniſters, ſo as by his wonderful Providence, never to ſuffer ſo fatal a corruption in the Miniſtry, as ſhould render it inſufficient to cheriſh the Faith of his Elect, even to the concluſion of the World.

To the ſame purpoſe it is manifeſt St. Paul ſpeaks of the deſign and duration of the Evangelical Miniſtry. Epheſ. 4. Jeſus Chriſt hath given ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, and ſome Evangeliſts, and ſome Paſtours and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Miniſtry, for the edifying of the Body of Chriſt. Till we all come in the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledg of the Son of God,Confer. p. 9, 10. unto a perfect man, unto the meaſure of the ſtature of the fullneſs of Chriſt. That is, ſays M. de Condom, the Eccleſiaſtical Miniſtry ſhall laſt without any diſcontinuance till the general Reſurrection.

I ſay once again; this is not the Point in Controverſy. The Miniſtry ſhall laſt to the end of the World, and in ſuch a degree and condition too, as may ſuffice for the edifying of the Body of Chriſt, for the conducting all his Elect, and true Believers to that perfection St. Paul ſpeaks of. Our concern is to know two things, The firſt, whether This ſhall be conſtantly preſerved from corruption and impurity, and continue in the ſtate wherein Chriſt and his Apoſtles left it us; or whether the Tares ſown by the Enemy in the Lord's Field by night, ſhall not vitiate it? The ſecond, whether its uninterrupted continuance muſt wholly conſiſt in being ordinarily tranſmitted from one Miniſter to another, in the way we call exteriour or perſonal ſucceſſion; or whether it may not happen, that the Church ſhould ſometime take away her Miniſtry from them, who have palpably abuſed it; and commit it to others, who ſhe may hope will uſe it better? Each of theſe two are the matters in diſpute, and not that which M. de Condom was pleaſed to determine from that place of St. Paul.

Give me leave, Sir, to run over theſe wonderful Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt to his Church, and ſome others of the ſame nature once more. The Gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt her.Matt. 16. He will preſent her without ſpot or wrinkle,Epheſ. 5. holy and without blemiſh. He will love and cheriſh her as his own fleſh and bones.Epheſ. 4. He will bring her in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledg of the Son of God,Matt. 18. to the meaſure of a perfect man. He will be in the midſt of her at ſolemn Aſſemblies.Matt. 28. He will continue with her to the end of the World. He will give his ſpirit to abide with her for ever.Joh. 14. He will redeem her from all iniquity, and purify her,Tit. 2. Epheſ. 2. that ſhe may be a peculiar people zealous of good works. He will build her upon himſelf, to be an holy Temple, an habitation of God through the ſpirit.Jev. 31. He will wrde his laws in their hearts, and engrave them in their minds. He will take away the heart of ſtone,Ezek. 36. and give them an heart of fleſh, a new heart, and a new ſpirit.

How is it poſſible, that nothing of all this ſhould ſurpriſe the Doctors of the Romiſh Communion, nor ſtagger their confidence, of finding theſe Promiſes fulfilled, as well in the bad as the good, the juſt as well as unjuſt? For in ſhort, if wicked men, who have no more than external profeſſion, become by virtue of that profeſſion, really and truly Members of the Church; the Promiſes concern them, and they have a right to them in common with others; for certainly they concern as many as make up the Body of Chriſt. Now ſhall we ſay, that notwithſtanding theſe are drowned in vice, Yet the Gates of Hell ſhall never prevail againſt them, provided they can but counterfeit dexterouſly? Shall we ſay, that tho gangrened and putrified from the crown of the head to the ſole of the foot, it matters not; They ſhall be without ſpot or wrinkle, holy and without blemiſh, ſo they do but continue in an external profeſſion? Shall we ſay, that tho they have no Faith, no Juſtice, no Piety, they need not trouble themſelves, Jeſus Chriſt will be with them alway by the preſence of his Holy Spirit, provided they can but maintain a fair outſide? Shall we ſay, that although they proſtitute themſelves to all wickedneſs and villany, they need not be ſo much concerned, Jeſus Chriſt will not fail to redeem them from all iniquity, and to make of them a peculiar people, zealous of good works, provided they be not wanting in diſſimulation? Here is no invidious aggravation in all this. The Promiſes of Chriſt are plain matters of fact, delivered expreſly in Scripture in favour of the Church. The defining of the Church by a bare external profeſſion, is another plain matter of fact, to be ſeen through all the Writers of that Communion, and particularly this diſcourſe of M. de Condom. The applying theſe Promiſes to the Church thus defined, is what M. de Condom. ſtitly contends for, and makes it an inducement to peoples converſion. So that I do not in the leaſt exaggerate, nor do I ſee what reply they can make. To talk of two true Churches even in Chriſt's ſight, one to which the Promiſes belong as ſuch, viz. That of True Believers; and another to which they do not belong as ſuch, viz. That, whoſe eſſence conſiſts in the external profeſſion; beſides that it would be advancing a notion contrary to Scripture and Reaſon, which inform us but of one true Church; would be to argue to no purpoſe; for wherefore ſhould we argue about a Church to which the Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt have no relation? Why ſhould we inveſt with ſuch glorious and divine priviledges, a Church to which Chriſt hath promiſed nothing at all? Or what reaſon have we with a blind obedience to ſubmit to a Church, where it may happen, that wicked men, and Enemies of God, may get the upper hand, and the Spirit of Chriſt bear no Rule in it?

To ſay we ought to diſtinguiſh between two kinds of Promiſes, one ſuch as reſpect inward Sanctification, and Salvation, the other reſpecting the perpetual Viſibility of the Miniſtry, and its Infallibility in the external profeſſion of the Truth; and that the firſt ſort are peculiar to the Elect and true Believers in the Church, but the other belong to the whole Body of that Society making Profeſſion; beſides that this would be to ſtart a Diviſion of the Promiſes, which the Scripture divided not, for all made there, are made to one and the ſame Body, to one and the ſame Church, without diſtinction: beſides, that this would be to frame Promiſes that never were given, ſuch as a perpetual Infallibility of the Miniſtry in the external Profeſſion of the Truth, as we lately ſaw: Beſides this, I ſay, it is plainly to ſuppoſe that the Church, as a Church, hath no promiſes made her of Sanctification, and Salvation, and ſo conſequently, 'tis to oppoſe Scripture, which makes them to her formally under the name and title of a Church.Matt. 16. The Gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt my Church, ſays Chriſt.Epheſ. 5. Chriſt loved the Church, ſays St. Paul, and gave himſelf for it, that he might ſanctifie it, and preſent it to himſelf a glorious Church, having neither ſpot, nor wrinkle, nor any ſuch thing, but that it ſhould be holy and without blemiſh. The Lord (ſays the Apoſtle) nouriſhes and cheriſhes the Church; all theſe Promiſes imply Sanctification and Salvation. What can we then with reaſon ſay to this matter? except what was ſaid upon the foregoing Queſtion, to wit, That we ſometimes form an Idea of the Church, by a Judgment of Charity, ſo looking upon all external Profeſſors in general to be true Believers, and by this Judgment we include in our Notion abundance of People who really and indeed are not of the Church, and conſequently have no title to the Promiſes of Jeſus Chriſt. But this Notion is rectified by a Judgment of Reflection, Exactneſs, and Truths formed from the Idea's which Scripture and right Reaſon give us of the true Church, reſtraining it to true Believers only; and that the Promiſes of Scripture muſt be applyed to it in this laſt, true, exact Notion only. Add to this, that this true Church being intermixt with the counterfeit, is not indeed ſo diſtinctly viſible, that we can ſay with certainly, this or that particular man is a true Believer; for this is proper to God alone; but that it is however viſible, in a ſure, though indiſtinct manner, which will go ſo far as to affirm, That there are true Pelievers in ſuch an external Profeſſion: Add further, that this Church thus viſible, becomes more or leſs ſo, according as Corruptions and Diſorders are more or leſs predominant in their exteriour Society; and that ſometimes it is mightily celipſed, partly through the prevalence of worldly, ſuperſtitious, and ſuch like Perſons; partly through the infirmities of moſt true Believers; but ſtill that it never was abſolutely inviſible: Add once more, that this Church now upon Earth, together with that in Heaven, and that which ſhall ſpring up in ſucceeding Ages, are all three that Ʋniverſal Church, we profeſs to believe in our Creed: Add, I ſay, theſe three laſt Propoſitions to the two foregoing, and ſo you will compriſe all I have advanced hitherto; you will be furniſhed with certain unconteſtable Principles grounded upon Scripture, upon Reaſon, upon the Fathers, and upon experience; by the help of which you will be able with great eaſe to throw off all thoſe difficulties uſually ſtarted by the Romaniſts upon this Subject. This will be further evidenced by what I am in the next place about to ſay.

Natural and neceſſary Conſequences of the foregoing Principles.

THE firſt Conſequence, Sir, to be drawn from what I ſaid, is, that M. de Condom hath been very unjuſt, in upbraiding us, as if we dealt with that Article of our Creed concerning the Univerſal Church, as the Arrians and Macedonians do with thoſe that relate to Jeſus Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt; which is to confeſs them with the mouth, but in effect to reject them, by not believing them as we ought. Thoſe Hereticks evacuate the Articles concerning Jeſus Chriſt, and the Holy Ghoſt, becauſe they allow them a Divinity, which is but a ſeeming, and imaginary one only; and thus they rob Jeſus Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt of their Real Eſſence. Can any man ſay we do thus by the Church? we make it eſſentially to conſiſt in true and ſolid Faith, and Regeneration. Is not this to make it real? what may be ſaid of ſuch as make it eſſentially to conſiſt in a bare outward Profeſſion? Is not this to make it no better than a Phantome, a Shadow? Is not this to confeſs with the mouth, but in effect to reject it? Does not this make all thoſe great and noble Ideas given of it in Scripture dwindle into nothing? Judge you, Sir, if you pleaſe, to which of theſe two Parties M. de Condom's reproach is moſt applicable.

II. By all I have ſaid concerning the Viſibility or Inviſibility of the Church, you may know what an unjuſt accuſation they load us with daily, of making the Church utterly inviſible, upon pretence that we place it in true Believers only; for if this accuſation were true, it would fall not upon us, but upon Scripture, upon the Fathers, and particularly upon St. Auguſtine, whoſe Principles we follow intirely. But as St. Paul never thought of making a Church perfectly inviſible,2 Tim. 2. 19. though he ſaid, The foundation of God ſtandeth ſure, having this ſeal, the Lord knoweth them that are his; and let every one that nameth the name of Chriſt depart from iniquity; ſo neither do we pretend to ſpoil her of her Viſibility, when we ſay the ſame thing he did. As St. Auguſtin hath not made her inviſible, though he ſaid all that was related out of him; the ſame thing muſt be ſaid for us. But what can we think of this method of diſputing, which ſuppoſing the charge upon tryal, to be a granted confeſt thing, falls ſtrongly upon proving the Church's Viſibility; and ſo Proſelytes men upon this falſe ſuppoſition, and thoſe uſeleſs Arguments? Do not you look upon this, as a very fair way of proceeding?

III. Hence likewiſe you may perceive, how unjuſtly they put that queſtion to us, Where our Church was before the Reformation? For if the Church conſiſt of true Believers alone, as we have ſhown, ours was then juſt where it is now, i. e. in the common Field, where Jeſus Chriſt hath ſown his Wheat, and the Enemy by Night his Tares. There is only a twofold difference obſervable. One, that before the Reformation, that part of the Field where the Corn was ſown, was wider, whereas now it is contracted into leſs room, becauſe in many places the Tares have driven away the Wheat, and remain alone; another, that then in the places where Wheat and Tares grew together, the Wheat was thinner, and got leſs nouriſhment, and the Tares quite contrary; whereas now the Wheat is thicker, and better cultivated.

The Field is the World (as Chriſt ſays) the good Corn are true Believers, the Tares are the Children of this World. Before the Reformation, the true Believers were mixt with the reſt in the ſame exteriour Profeſſion, as they are ſtill; but they were, if I may ſo ſay, ſtifled as it were with the great number of the other ſort, and the ſpiritual life they led had much of uneaſineſs, by reaſon of the Corruptions in the Miniſtry, which ſtinted them in their neceſſary Food, and beſides mixt many ſuch things with it, as were not only incapable of ſuſtaining life, but even prejudicial to it: Whereas, ſince the Reformation theſe ſame Believers being ſeparated from the reſt, are by this means much disburdened of that which oppreſt them; they are more at liberty, the Miniſtry allows them the Food of heavenly life in a much larger proportion, and gives it them more pure, and free from ſtrange mixtures; and though they ſtill continue among worldly men, yet now they do not find near ſo much prejudice from them.

IV. Another Inſtance of this nature is commonly given us, and how injurious it is, you may diſcern by the Principles laid down before. They bid us ſhew them theſe true Believers before the Reformation, ſingle them out, ſay they, tell us their names, were they viſible or inviſible? If even at this time, when things are not near ſo confuſed, none but God only can know diſtinctly and infallibly, what particular men are the true Believers; If their viſibility conſiſt only in ones being able to ſay with certainty, there are true Believers, and not in ſaying ſuch or ſuch are the men; is it not a very unjuſt demand to examine us of paſt Ages, when things were ſo ſtrangely in the dark? Would not any man of equity think it enough, that we can ſhew how far ſoever the Miniſtry was corrupted, that ſtill the true Believers might ſubſiſt under it? and is not this very thing a viſible indication of the Churches perpetual Viſibility, that God hath not forſaken us?

V. Another neceſſary Conſequence of the Principles now eſtabliſht, is, that in an exteriour Society carrying the name of a Church, it may ſo happen according to the Notion we frame of it, from a Judgment of Charity, that the Miniſtry, Eccleſiaſtical Dignities, and Chairs, as they are termed, may come to be filled by Hypocrites, Superſtitious, Worldly, and intereſted Perſons, and that there ſhall be a great many more ſuch as theſe in Office, than good men. For ſeeing God only can have a diſtinct and perſonal knowledge of true Believers, and ſince he does not beſtow theſe Offices immediately, and by his own hand; it may without queſtion come to paſs, that both thoſe that confer, and thoſe that take upon them theſe Offices, may be the Tares ſown in the Lord's Field. A man cannot have any abſolute certainty, that this ſhall not be ſo; becauſe there is not any promiſe to the contrary; and becauſe on the other hand, there are inſtances that it hath been ſo already. To pretend this cannot be, becauſe it would hinder the Churches ſubſiſting for ever, is no Argument at all; for if the Church conſiſt properly of true Believers, as hath been undeniably proved, the perpetual ſubſiſtence of true Believers, does not depend on the faithfulneſs of the Miniſters, nor the untainted purity of the Miniſtry; except we ſuppoſe the Principle of a blind Obedience to the Miniſters, which is a falſe Principle, and deſtructive of Religion, as hath been made appear in the defence of the Reformation.Part. 1. ch. 7, 8. Indeed this ground being laid, when once the Miniſtry is corrupted, it muſt needs follow, that the faithful are corrupted too, becauſe bound to receive implicitely whatever is delivered to them by their Miniſtry. But reject this principle, and there is no reaſon why the Faithful may not ſeparate the good from the bad, and why they may not ſubſiſt under ſuch a Miniſtry, by the help of that diſtinction which the Grace of God enables them to make. And here, Sir, allow me to wonder a little at the pleaſant double which the Doctors of the Romiſh Communion make when they diſpute. Our firſt and main queſtion is, whether we ought to acquieſce in the Council of Trent's Determinations? Yes, ſay they, you muſt yield an implicit obedience to the Decrees of the Prelates aſſembled in a Body. But why an Implicit Obedience? Becauſe (ſay they) the Church cannot ſubſiſt without it. But why cannot it ſubſiſt without it? Cannot it ſubſiſt by reſuming the Miniſtry out of ſuch hands, and putting it into better? Cannot it, without going ſo far, ſubſiſt by ſeparating between good and bad food? No; they tell you, it cannot, becauſe it is obliged to receive implicitely whatever the Prelates in a Body ſhall deliver. What way of diſputing call you this, if it be not quite to ſwerve from good ſenſe and reaſon, and to be loſt in an impertinent maze? For is not this a perfect round, firſt to prove an Implicite Obedience, becauſe the Church cannot otherwiſe ſubſiſt; and then to prove the Church cannot otherwiſe ſubſiſt without this Obedience, becauſe men ought to obey implicitely?

VI. But let us proceed in drawing our Conſequences. And being we hit upon the point of the Implicit Obedience they exact to the deciſions of Biſhops, and that Sovereign and Abſolute Authority wherewith they would inveſt them, let us try, if this can agree with the Principles we have eſtabliſh'd. I meddle not now with thoſe other reaſons that might be made uſe of; you will find them in part in the Book I quoted juſt now. All I ſhall ſay is, that ſince no man can have a diſtinct knowledg of the True Believers, and that the True Church conſiſts of ſuch alone; no man conſequently can be ſecure, that this Body of Prelates, whether conſidered ſingle, or whether as convened in a Council, are the true Church. Yes, but ſays one, they repreſent the true Church. I agree with you; ſo far as the True Believers are ſtill under their Miniſtry: But repreſenting the True Church does not preſently endue them with its Opinions and Affections. The true Church in conferring her Miniſtry upon men, does not confer upon them withal, either true Faith, or true Regeneration, much leſs perfect Infallibility. Hence, whatever determinations they give, are ſtill ſubject to an examination. If theſe prove confermable to God's Word, it is our duty, not only to embrace them, but further to reſpect • he Body of Miniſters, as the true Church Repreſentative; becauſe they have expreſt her ſenſe; and Charity will carry us ſtill further, and incline us to eſteem them true Believers, becauſe they have acted as ſuch. But when their diviſions are found to diſagree with God's Word, we are to look upon them as men that have abuſed their miniſtry. If this happen in things not plainly intereſting the Conſcience, their miniſtry muſt be born with, and the liberty of ſeparating the clean from the unclean, natural to every Believer, made uſe of: If they do intereſt the Conſcience, we groan under their miniſtry, we pray to God, we implore ſuccors from above, ſtill uſing the Liberty of Conſcience to refuſe the Evil, and retain the Good. But if this Body of Prelates-proceed to violent taking away this neceſſary and indiſpenſable Liberty of Conſcience, and reduce the faithful to this hard ſtreight, either to be damned for falſe Doctrine, in ſlaviſhly following their Miniſters errors, or damn'd for diſſimulation in pretending to follow them; Then the true Believers ought to look upon them as men that have ſtript themſelves of the right of the Miniſtry, to oppoſe them, to take it from them, and repoſe the truſt in other hands. It is evident then, the ſupreme Authority we contend about, cannot take place, becauſe it is continually in danger of being inveſted in worldly men, to whom it cannot in any caſe belong. And ſo we ſhould be continually in danger of miſtaking That for the Church Repreſentative, which neither is really, nor can poſſibly be ſo.

VII. The ſeventh Uſe to be made of what we have advanced, is the right apprehending of ſome expreſſions uſed by us, viz. That the Church is corrupted, that the ſtate of the Church hath been interrupted, and the like, ſo as to reconcile theſe with Jeſus Chriſt's Promiſes: which import not only the perpetual exiſtence, but alſo the perpetual holineſs and incorruption of the Church. Now for that corruption attributed by us to the Church, I ſay, that whereas the Promiſes of Chriſt concern the true Church, that is, True Believers only; our expreſſion on the contrary reſpects the Church, according to that Idea of Charity we form of it, including all external Profeſſors, which are ordinarily call'd the Viſible Church. 'Tis of the Church taken in this laſt notion, that we ſay, ſhe is corrupted; for the whole Body being made up, as we have ſeen, of good and bad man, it hath come to paſs, that the wicked are mightily increaſed, and the ſpirit of the World, which is a ſpirit of error and ſuperſtition, ſhewed it ſelf in an eminent manner. But we do not underſtand true Believers to be corrupted, only ſo far forth as they may poſſibly have contracted ſome tincture of infirmity, by converſing with the others. And for that interruption of the ſtate of the Church, mentioned in our Confeſſion of Faith, where we ſay,Art 31. In the 31. Article of the Gallican confeſſion, ſpeaking of an extraordinary vocation to the Miniſtry in times of neceſſity, theſe words are inſerted. Quoniam interdum, ut noſtris etiam temporibus, interrupto Eccleſiae ſtatu, neceſſe ſuit, nonnullos eſſe qui Eccleſiae collapſae ruinas inſtaurarent. That the ſtate of the Church being interrupted, it was neceſſary it ſhould be raiſed up again out of its ruines and deſolation: The meaning of thoſe expreſſions is, not what M. de Condom pretends, that the true Church ceaſes to exiſt, or that its Miniſtry was quite extinct in thoſe times which we call times of deſolation and ruine, for we make a diſtinction between the Church, and the ſtate of the Church. The Church is the true Believers making profeſſion of Truth, and Chriſtian Piety, and a real Holineſs, under a Miniſtry, which diſpenſes all nouriſhment neceſſary for ſpiritual life, without keeping back any; Its natural and proper ſtate is to be freed, as much as its militant condition can admit, from the impure mixture of prophane worldly men; not to be covered over, and as it were ſwallowed up with this Chaff and Tares; to have a pure Miniſtry, not incumbred with errors, with falſe worſhip, ſuperſtitious cuſtoms; a Miniſtry in the hands of good men, who are in poſſeſſion of it by honeſt methods, and ſet a good example to others. This State is what we think hath been interrupted, having ſeen ſtrange opinions brought into Religion, Superſtitious propagated, the Miniſtry invaded by men neither deſerving, nor capable of it, and that were advanced by ſcandalous and unlawful methods; having ſeen vices openly predominant among Churchmen, the Pulpits more zealous for Tales and Legends, than the Word of God; The Schools buſying themſelves with ridiculous Queſtions and Curioſities, the Sacraments burdened with ſtrange Ceremonies, the inſtruction and edification of mens Souls wretchedly neglected; and in a word, the Goſpel liberty changed into a temporal ſlavery. This is what we mean by the ſtate of the Church being interrupted; this the ruine and deſolation we bewail. The Church hath not ceaſed to exiſt, nor did ſhe perfectly loſe her viſibility, or her Miniſtry, God forbid: But both ſhe and her Miniſtry have ſeen the natural ſtate they ought to continue in, changed and interrupted.

VIII. Apply theſe principles now to our Reformation, and then, Sir, you will diſcern, that granting this ſuppoſition to be true, that the Body of the Prelates inveſted in the miniſtry of the Church in our Fathers days, and aſſembled in the Trent Council, ſuppoſing, I ſay, that they delivered ſuch determinations in points of Faith, as are incompatible with Salvation; Granting it to be true, that they took away Chriſtian Liberty by Anathematizing all who ſhould refuſe to believe, and ſubmit to thoſe determinations as they did; and by adding to all this violence and compulſion, our Fathers had reaſon to look upon them as Miniſters that had juſtly deprived themſelves of all right to exerciſe their Miniſtry over them by ſuch ill conduct, and to give that power of the Miniſtry to others. They had reaſon to look upon the party that adhered to theſe Prelates with ſuch obſtinate ſtiffneſs as a Body or Society of which a man could not poſitively ſay, That is the particular Body wherein God nouriſhes and cheriſhes his Faithful and Elect.

IX. Hence likewiſe it follows, that our Fathers are wrongfully charged with making a Schiſm, and ſeparating from the Church. For it being ſure, that the Church conſiſts of the Faithful only; and beſides, that we are of opinion, the Trent Biſhops themſelves broke the band of external Communion with ſound Believers, and brought things to ſuch a paſs, that our Anceſtors could not poſſibly joyn with them in the ſame Aſſemblies; it is evident, They were the Beginners of the Schiſm, the Authors and makers of this lamentable diviſion.

X. It ſignifies nothing to alledg, that they were poſſeſt of the Miniſtry by an exterior and ordinary ſucceſſion; for the Miniſtry is not ſuch a thing, as men when once poſſeſt of, can never forfeit their right to, tho they abuſe it never ſo much. They enjoyed it by an external ſucceſſion, 'tis confeſt; but this ſucceſſion with reſpect to mens perſons continues no longer than we can ſay, The faithful are under their Miniſtry. When we cannot be ſure of that any more, from thenceforth the Prelates have loſt their right; and ſuch a ſucceſſion afterwards, would be but as the ſucceſſion of death to a diſeaſe, or of night to twilight. I do not ſay the Miniſtry it ſelf is extinct, God forbid; but I ſay in ſuch a caſe it devolves of right to that other part of the Society where the Faithful are. The reaſon of which Truth is this: That the Miniſters are naturally the Church Repreſentative; And all their Authority is derived from the Body of the Faithful; When therefore it happens that they break the band of external communion which joyns them to thoſe Faithful, it is plain they repreſent them no longer; and the holding their Authority over them afterwards, is a force and uſurpation.

XI. Laſtly, From the Principles we have eſtabliſhed, it appears, how vain and ungrounded a ſcandal it is, which the Controvertiſts of the Romiſh Communion are continually upbraiding us with, of ſetting up a new Church. For being the Church, according to Scripture, ſound ſenſe, and the opinions of the Fathers, is nothing elſe but the Society of true Believers: To have ſet up a new Church, we muſt have brought in a new Faith, different from what Jeſus Chriſt delivered to the World. If they can convict us of being guilty in this point, we are heartily content they ſhould not only ſay we have formed a new Church, but that we have formed a falſe, perverſe, naughty Society, and draw all the conſequences againſt us, that can be naturally drawn from that Conceſſion. But if we on the contrary have only rejected new Doctrines, a worſhip that Chriſtian Religion never was acquainted with; and Errors brought into the Church ſince it was firſt eſtabliſhed; if we have only refined the Miniſtry, and reſtored the Goſpel to its natural luſtre, they ought to be juſt in acknowledgment, that God hath made uſe of us, for the preſervation of his true, Ancient, Primitive Church, and the reſcuing it from oppreſſion. If it be true, that the Trent Council have made Articles of Faith of ſuch Doctrines and Practices as were never revealed to us by Chriſt, may we not ſay that That hath ſet up a new Religion, and conſequently a new Church? Let us judge of one another by this Rule of right reaſon, and conſcientiouſly examine the truth of what hath been done on both ſides; for upon ſuch an examination the juſtice or injuſtice of taxing us with Novelty, will depend.

THE SECOND PART OF Monſieur de CONDOM's Diſcourſe EXAMINED.

THUS much I thought fit to ſay in Anſwer to the Firſt part of M. de Condom's Diſcourſe; The Second will not detain us very long. Confer. p. 16. They made me (ſays he) ſome Objections concerning the frequent revolts of the people of Iſrael, who had ſo often forſaken God, the Kings, and all the people, as the Holy Scripture ſpeaks; during which, the publick worſhip was ſo extinct, that Elijah thought himſelf the only ſervant of God, till he learnt from God himſelf, that he had reſerved to himſelf ſeven thouſand men which had not bowed the knee unto Baal. To this I anſwer'd (proceeds he) that for what regarded Elijah, there was no difficulty, ſince 'twas apparent from the very words, that it concern'd only Iſrael, where Elijah propheſied; and that the Divine Worſhip was ſo far from being at that time extinct in Judah, that 'twas there under the reign of Joſaphat in the greateſt luſtre it had been ſince Solomon's time.

I ſhall not ſay here, that the Divine Worſhip under the reign of Joſaphat, was not in ſuch great luſtre neither, but that the Scripture informs us, The high places were not taken away; 1 King. 2 • . 43. for the people offered ſtill, and burnt incenſe in the high places, which was a worſhip forbidden by God. But not to inſiſt upon this, I ſay in the firſt place, This inſtance is a very good proof, that the greateſt part of this exteriour Society, profeſſing themſelves to be the people of God, that is, ten tribes out of twelve, were corrupted to that degree, that Elijah complain'd he only was left. Which ſhews, that we muſt not always conclude Truth and Purity to be of that ſide where the number is moſt; nor ſuppoſe it impoſſible, for what we call the Viſible Church, to be corrupted, at leaſt as to the greateſt part of Profeſſors. Secondly, I could heartily have wiſht, that M. de Condom would have reflected a little upon the uſe St. Paul made of this inſtance of Iſrael in Elijah's time; becauſe it is exactly the ſame with what the Proteſtant Miniſters make of it now. It was objected to the Apoſtle, that from his Principles it would follow, that God had caſt away his people, in as much as the whole Body of that people had crucified Jeſus Chriſt, and walked contrary to his new Religion; if therefore he would undertake to maintain his new Religion was the Right, he muſt at the ſame time own, that God had forſaken his Church.Rom 11. 2, 5. No, (ſays he) God hath not caſt away his people, for there is a remnant through the election of Grace; and hereupon he alledges what happened to Iſrael heretofore in Elijah's time, when God reſerved to himſelf Seven thouſand men in ſecret, that had not bowed the knee to Baal. What can be more exactly parallel than the uſe he makes of this paſſage, and that the Proteſtants make? 'Tis objected to us, that from our Principles it follows, God hath caſt away his Church, becauſe the whole Body of that Church condemns our Reformation, and walks contrary to our new Religion.Confer. Page 12. They teach that this viſible exterior Church may ceaſe to be upon Earth, ſays M. de Condom. No ſuch matter, ſay we, God hath not deſerted his Church, there is a remnant according to the Election of Grace, and in proof of this we urge the inſtance of Iſrael heretofore, in Elijah's time. If to charge the Proteſtants with unſincerity for alledging this, were at the ſame time to charge St. Paul. If the exception of Judah, where the worſhip in Elias his time was in great luſtre, were good, and to be admitted againſt us, the ſame was alſo good and to be admitted againſt the Apoſtle. For what do we more than he did? or what do we ſay, but what we have learnt from Him ought to be ſaid in this Caſe? Let St. Paul then acquit himſelf, and he ſhall in doing ſo, acquit us. Now this is done without any difficulty, for he need only Anſwer, that the exception does not make at all againſt him. The buſineſs is to know, which is the true people of God, his true Church which he never forſakes. Now it is plain by God's anſwer to Elijah, that this is not the Croud, the vaſt Number, not the party of greateſt ſtrength, or which makes moſt noiſe in the World, but ſome perſons reſerved, a remnant according to the election of Grace, theſe are his true people, and his true Church. Tho Judah had ſtill maintain'd the Divine Worſhip in its greateſt luſtre, yet does not this detract from the truth of God's declaration made to Elias, viz. that his true people, his true Church conſiſts of this Remnant, or theſe Perſons reſerved. This is all St. Paul deſires; this is likewiſe all the Proteſtants deſire to make of it. Lord, ſays Elijah, they have broken down thine Altars, 1 Kings 19. 14. and ſlain thy Prophets with the ſword, and I only am left. Had God made his Church to conſiſt in an exterior Body of men, who ſhould preſerve his worſhip in a conſtant uninterrupted purity, what could have been more natural than to return this anſwer, Wherefore doſt thou complain, have I not ſtill my Church in Judah? The Cardinal du Perron would have replied exactly thus, and from him it is that M. de Condom hath borrowed this ſhift. Yet God anſwers in a very different manner, he fixes his true Church, not in the exterior Body, but in the Perſons he had reſerved. The Apoſtle takes the advantage of an Argument againſt what the Jews in his time objected, and we in like manner take the ſame advantage againſt what is objected to us now.

Afterward M. de Condom frames to himſelf an Objection drawn from the Diſorders and horrible Corruptions predominant in Judah during the Reign of Ahaz, 2 King. 16. and Ch. 21. who ſhut up the Temple of God, and cauſed Ʋrijah the Prieſt to ſacrifice unto Idols; and afterward under Manaſſeh, whoſe Impieties tranſcended thoſe of Ahaz. To which he anſwers, firſt, That Iſaiah,Confer. Page 16. who lived during all the Reign of Ahaz, for all theſe abominations of the King, of the Prieſt Urijah, and almoſt all the People, never ſeparated from the Communion of Judah; which ſhews, that there is always a People of God, from whoſe Communion 'tis never lawful to ſeparate. Laying aſide, for one minute the buſineſs of Separation, we muſt in the mean time of neceſſity grant, that this exterior Society, called the People of God, were prodigiouſly corrupted in matters of Faith and Worſhip, that their Corruption was publick and general, diffuſed, not among ſome private Perſons only, but through the whole Body of the ordinary Miniſtry. So that the true Church, that to which the Promiſes of God belong, that which muſt not be interrupted, nor totally fail, muſt be acknowledged to conſiſt, not in the whole Body of this exterior Society, but merely in the Body of true Believers, who it is poſſible may ſometimes be reduced to a very inconſiderable number of this Society, and ſcarce make any Figure at all in it. We muſt likewiſe acknowledge it poſſible, for ſuch an univerſal Corruption to happen in this Society, that there ſhall be no longer any thing perfectly ſound and entire in it, that is, nothing in the publick Worſhip without ſome tincture of impurity. For at the ſame time that Ahaz Reigned in Judah, and the Corruption was general there, Pekah was King in Iſreal, 2 Kings 15. 28. who (ſays the Scripture) did evil in the ſight of the Lord, and departed not from the ſins of Jeroboam who made Iſrael to ſin. So that the publick Worſhip was then corrupted every where, as well in Iſrael as Judah. What then became of M. de Condom's exterior Church, which he ſays can never err in her Determinations? Where was then that Church, which does not only maintain ſome truth, but teaches and maintains all truth? Confer. Page 16. Well, but ſtill M. de Condom tells us, Iſaiah never ſeparated from the Communion of this People, no more than did the reſt of the Prophets. Now this very thing ſtrengthens our Argument, and renders it impregnable; becauſe, from hence it neceſſarily follows, that there was not in any place of the World beſides, any publick Worſhip, nor any Exterior Body at all, little or great, that ſerved God in perfect Purity. So that we muſt inevitably allow one of theſe two things; Either that the Church was at that time utterly extinct, or that it was preſerved in this Remnant, which we ſee God ſpoke of to Elijah. The firſt of theſe deſtroys the Promiſes of God; the ſecond eſtabliſhes our Opinion, and quite overthrows that of the Romaniſts.

Let us now examine how Iſaiah and the other Prophets, not ſeparating from the Body of the People, is to be underſtood. Can we ſuppoſe them to have been partakers of the Wickedneſſes that then prevailed in the publick Worſhip?Confer. Page 17. By no means. Theſe Prophets, M. de Condom ſays, reprehended and deteſted the impieties of the People, but ſeparated not from the Communion. The meaning of which is, that they ſeparated negatively, tho not poſitively; they refuſed to partake of the Impieties in the publick Worſhip; but they did not ſet up another ſort of publick Worſhip diſtinct by themſelves: I grant it. But then we muſt alſo grant, that when the Worſhip is corrupted, the Church may ſubſiſt by means of ſuch a Negative Separation, and that this is ſufficient for its preſervation. Now this is exactly what we are of Opinion was done, during the Corruptions of the Latin Miniſtry all along before the Reformation. But ſtill it may be ſaid, Theſe Prophets never proceeded ſo far as a poſitive Separation, and you have. I anſwer, The Reaſon they never ſeparated poſitively, was peculiar to themſelves, as M. de Condom himſelf acknowledges, to wit, that over and above the real and ſpiritual Covenant, God had entred into with ſuch as were true Believers among that People; there was beſides another Exterior and Temporal one, in which the whole Nation were concern'd, founded upon their being the Blood and Progeny of Abraham, and all bearing about them the Mark of this Covenant (to wit, Circumciſion) in their Fleſh; ſo that the true Believers were obliged upon this account to continue in Communion with the People, and could not ſeparate from them poſitively, by reaſon of that common Covenant which they might not break. But the caſe is otherwiſe with the Chriſtian Church, which hath but one Covenant with God, and that a real and ſpiritual one, of true Faith, and ſincere Regeneration; when, therefore we can no longer maintain this Covenant, by living amongſt a People, and under a Miniſtry which is become contrary thereto, there lies a neceſſity upon us of ſeparating by a poſitive Separation.

And yet M. de Condom pretends to make ſome advantage of this very thing. Confer. Page 17. He ſays, The Succeſſion of that Ancient People was kept up by carnal Generation,—and ſo, tho the Prieſts, and almoſt all the People ſhould have prevaricated, the State of Gods People ſubſiſted always in an exterior Form, whether they would or no.—But 'tis not ſo with the new People, whoſe exterior Form conſiſts in nothing but the Profeſſion of Jeſus Chriſt's Doctrine: So that if the Confeſſion of the true Faith ſhould be extinct for one only moment, the Church, which has no Succeſſion but by the Continuance of this Profeſſion, would be wholly extinct, without any poſſibility of ever riſing again, either in its People or Paſtors, but by a new Miſſion.

I confeſs, That carnal Generation was in that Ancient People, enough to keep up their Succeſſion in Quality of Gods People, with Relation to that temporal Covenant common to them all. Tho it be true too, that this Quality was but very imperfectly diſcerned in times of general Prevarications; becauſe, if they were then Gods temporal People, they were a vicious and prevaricating People. But, I ſay, that carnal Generation was not enough to maintain among them a Succeſſion, with reſpect to the ſpiritual Covenant; becauſe the Succeſſion here, could be preſerved no other way, but by a Participation of the ſame Faith, and the ſame Charity. Now the Covenant in which the new People live, is not any longer a carnal one, but purely and ſolely Spiritual; and conſequently, the Succeſſion in it, can only conſiſt in this perpetual Participation of one and the ſame Faith, and one and the ſame Charity. In this particular, the Condition of both old and new People are alike. As therefore in that Ancient People, there did ſtill continue a Succeſſion of Faith and Charity, tho the publick Worſhip and ordinary Miniſtry were full of ſtrange Corruptions; in like manner hath ſuch a Succeſſion always continued in the new, even in the midſt of all Corruptions. God had then his methods of teaching the reſerved, and keeping them from partaking in the publick Prevarications; the ſame he hath ſtill, and uſeth to the ſame purpoſe, altho the Miniſtry and publick Worſhip have not preſerved their Purity. I confeſs, ſhould a full and perfect deſertion of Chriſtianity ever have happened throughout all the Chriſtian World, and not one true Believer be left upon the face of the Earth, a man might ſay, the Church had been utterly extinct. But bleſſed be God, it never came to that. We acknowledg that God hath all along preſerved his Remnant, according to the Election of Grace. We acknowledg too, that the publick Miniſtry was never ſo totally corrupted, but ſtill all that was neceſſary for the Inſtruction of Believers, was ſo far kept up, that the ſpiritual Succeſſion was always preſerved intire, by receiving from the Miniſters hands nouriſhment ſufficient unto ſpiritual Life on the one hand, and caſting away all the evil and impure Mixtures of the Miniſtry on the other hand; and this is that negative Separation we ſpoke of before. The exterior Form of Jeſus Chriſts true Church, does not ſo abſolutely conſiſt in the Miniſtries making profeſſion of Faith pure, and void of Error, that it cannot otherwiſe ſubſiſt any longer. I confeſs, when this is done, the Church is in a happy Condition, and (if I may ſo ſay) a Condition of Health. But when this is not done, the exterior Form does not preſently periſh upon that account, becauſe this conſiſts in our being able to ſay, That is the Body where God nouriſhes and cheriſhes his true Believers, as I have already ſhewn when treating of my ſecond queſtion. Could we no longer ſay thus, the Church would have loſt its external Form, and its Succeſſion have ceaſed to be viſible. But this might at all times be ſaid, even when the Miniſtry and publick Worſhip was moſt corrupted, and ſo the Churches viſible Succeſſion was never quite loſt. It hath indeed been mightily leſſened and obſcured, in Proportion to the Errors that prevailed in the Miniſtry; and this was the Churches Condition of Miſery, it's ſick and languiſhing Condition, which nevertheleſs went not ſo far, as to hinder this Succeſſion.

M.Confer. Page 17. de Condom goes on. I will not ſay the true Faith, and true Worſhip of God, could be wholly aboliſht in the People of Iſrael, ſo as that God had no more any true Servants on Earth. But I find on the contrary, 'tis clear, that maugre the Corruption, God ſtill reſerved to himſelf a ſufficient number of Servants, who participated not in the Idolarty. Herein we agree; for neither do we ſay, That the true Faith, and true Worſhip could ever have been wholly aboliſht among Chriſtians; but on the contrary, that maugre the Corruption, God hath always reſerved to himſelf a ſufficient number of Servants, who have not participated in the Prevarications of the reſt. So far the caſe is the ſame. 'Tis not to be imagined, proceeds he, that Gods Servants, and the true Faith, were preſerved only in ſecret; but that in all the Succeſſion of the Ancient People,Confer. Page 17, 18. the true Doctrine always ſhone forth. For there was a continual Succeſſion of Prophets, who inſtead of adhering to the Peoples Errors, or diſſembling them, roſe up againſt them with force; and this Succeſſion was ſo conſtant,2 Chron. 36. 15. that the Holy Ghoſt fears not to ſay, That God roſe up Night and Morning,Jer. 11. 7. xxv. 3, 4. and daily admoniſht the People by the Mouth of his Prophets.

M. de Condom muſt give us leave to make ſome Obſervations upon this Paſſage. The firſt of which is, that in the Corruptions of Iſrael heretofore, when the publick Worſhip, and ordinary Miniſtry, ſuffered ſuch Depravation, there was not any where in the World another publick Worſhip, or another Miniſtry, that was preſerved in Purity and Perfection: So that if men muſt needs have lookt for the Church in the Body of the Peoples living under their ordinary Paſtors, and in the publick worſhip (as he is of opinion we now muſt under the Goſpel) there could not have been any longer a Church upon Earth; becauſe his own Principle maintains that,Confer. Page 12. if this viſible and exteriour Church compoſed of Paſtors and People, do not keep and teach all truth, (that is, if She teach any thing that is falſe) She is not the Church.

I obſerve, ſecondly, That in the very ſame place, where God is ſaid to riſe up Night and Morning, and daily admoniſh the People by the Mouth of his Prophets; it is alſo ſaid, That all the chief of the Prieſts, and the People treſpaſſed wonderfully, 2 Chron. 36. 14, 16. according to all the Abominations of the Heathen, and polluted the Houſe of the Lord, which he had ſanctified in Jeruſalem. It is ſaid further too, That they mocked the Meſſengers of God, and deſpiſed his Words, and miſuſed his Prophets. Which ſhews that both People and Prieſts were generally corrupted, and the Church reduced to a Remnant. I confeſs, ſome certain Perſons of this Remnant did not keep ſilence; but inſtead of adhering to, or diſſembling the Peoples Errors, oppoſed them ſtrongly. But beſides, that a great many more, no queſtion, ſighed in ſecret for theſe things; it is manifeſt, that this Remnant did not make a ſeparate Body by themſelves, nor exerciſe any publick Worſhip different from the reſt. And conſequently the Churches viſibility, tho not wholly extinct, yet was mightily darkned and diminiſhed, and that is all we would infer from hence.

My third Obſervation is, That there was indeed, in that Ancient People, a continued Succeſſion of Prophets; and as M. de Condom ſays, a Prophetical Miniſtry ordinary with the People, Confer. Page 19. where the Prophets made an Order always ſubſiſting, whence God continually drew Divine Men, by whoſe Mouth he ſpake loudly and publickly to all his People. But then we muſt ſay withal, that the Body of this Order of Prophets were every whit as corrupt, as the Prieſts and People. This cannot be denied, for the Scripture affirms it expreſly.Jer. 2. 8. The Prieſts ſaid not, where is the Lord; and they that ſhould Miniſter the Law knew me not; the Paſtors alſo offended againſt me, and the Prophets propheſied in Baal.Jer. 5. 8. The Prophets proheſie lies, and the Prieſts bear rule by their means, and my People love to have it ſo. I have heard what the Prophets ſaid, Jer. 23. 25, 26, 27. that Propheſie lies in my Name, ſaying, I have dreamed. How long ſhall this be in the hearts of the Prophets, that Propheſie lies? Yea, they are Prophets of the deceit of their own heart. Which think to cauſe my People to forget my Name by their Dreams, which they tell every Man to his Neighbour, as their Fathers have forgotten my Name for Baal. And a vaſt number of Paſſages to the like purpoſe. So that we cannot ſay, there was at that time any viſible Body that oppoſed the Corruptions, or maintained the Worſhip of God in its genuine Purity. The Prophets, by whom God ſpoke ſo loudly and publickly, were only lookt upon as private Perſons, of an Opinion different from the generality of the Society. And therefore, how loudly and publickly ſoever they ſpoke, if in order to the conſtituting a Viſible Church, it be neceſſary to find a Body or Society of Men, making Profeſſion of pure Doctrine, M. de Condom muſt acknowledg, that there was not then any Viſible Church in the World.

And now, Sir, give me leave, I beſeech you, to ask, with what pretence to Reaſon men can ſtill cavil at this inſtance of the Corruptions in Iſrael heretofore, and not own it for a ſenſible Proof, that confirms moſt of the Truths eſtabliſhed in the former part of this Letter. In it you ſee the ſeveral Bodies that made up the ordinary Miniſtry, all of them enſnared in Idolatry, and falſe Worſhip. In it you ſee the whole Body of the People blindly following the exorbitancies of their Guides. In it you ſee the true Church of God ſubſiſting, not in an exterior Society, enjoying its Miniſters, Aſſemblies, and publick Worſhip peculiar to its ſelf; but in ſome reſerved Perſons, that ſtill maintained their Integrity in the midſt of all theſe Confuſions. In it you ſee God himſelf, and after him, St. Paul, making his true People to conſiſt in theſe Perſons ſo reſerved. All this proves, and proclaims to the World, That the true Church conſiſts of true Believers only; That this Church is not otherwiſe viſible, but as mixt with wicked Men and Reprobates; That this mixture does ſometimes ſo obſcure it, that it is very difficult to come to a knowledg of it; That it does nevertheleſs ſtill ſubſiſt even in that ſtate of obſcurity; And, that in theſe true Believers, and Perſons whom God has reſerved, he does fulfil the Promiſes of Perpetuity made to the Church.

I cloſe this Letter with ſincere Proteſtations, That it is much to my diſſatisfaction, that I find my ſelf obliged to put Pen to paper, in a Diſpute againſt M. de Condom. I have all along had, and ever ſhall have, not only all the Reſpect for him, which is due to his Quality and Station; but more eſpecially, I eſteem his Virtue ſo univerſally acknowedged, and admire his Perfections, and the excellent Gifts God hath imparted to him, as they really deſerve. In our Conference, I obſerved in him, a Wit lively and piercing, a clear Apprehenſion, a proper and eaſy way of Expreſſion; and eſpecially, an extraordinary Candour and Civility of Behaviour. He maintain'd his Principles with all the ſtrength and advantage imaginable, made them look as fair and ſpecious, as it was poſſible for any man, and managed them with abundance of Skill and Addreſs. In a word, I was ſtrangely taken with the Accompliſhments of his Perſon, and did often feel ſuch kind Inclinations and Wiſhes, as Men ſhould do upon ſuch Occaſions. My Sentiments of Honour and Reſpect for him are ſincere, but the more they are ſo, the more frequent I muſt complain of one thing, inſerted by him in his Diſcourſe with Mademoiſelle de Duras, Confer. Page 15. and that is, That in our Religion we believe, there is a point of time when a Chriſtian is obliged to doubt whether the Scripture was inſpired by God, whether the Goſpel is a Truth, or a Fable; whether Jeſus Chriſt was a Deceiver, or a Teacher of the Truth. This Diſcourſe, I confeſs, was by no means agreeable to the Character of his Temper; and I was amazed to find that a Prelate, who deſires to be thought a man of Equity towards us, could entertain ſuch an Opinion of us. In which of our Books hath he met with ſuch an abominable Doctrine? I know indeed, this is a conſequence he pretends to deduce from our Principles; but I ſhall venture to ſay, His conſequence can never be made out with ſuch evidence, as may allow him peremtorily to affirm, without any other warrant for it, That in our Religion we believe there is a point of time when a Chriſtian is obliged to doubt whether the Scripture was inſpired by God; whether the Goſpel is a Truth, or a Fable; whether Jeſus Chriſt was a Deceiver, or a Teacher of the Truth.

When he ſhall think fit to conſult us upon this Point, we ſhall declare to him with one Conſent, that we do not only not believe this Propoſition, but that we have a perfect Abhorrence of it; and whenever he ſhall pleaſe to let us know how he underſtands this to be deduced from our Principles, we ſhall make it appear to him, that he is under a great miſtake, and that the quite contrary muſt be inferred from them.

I am, Sir, &c.

FINIS.

AN ANSWER TO M. de MEAƲX's BOOK. ENTITULED, A Conference with Mr. CLAUDE. A Relation of what paſt in the Conference held by the Biſhop of Condom, Preceptor to the Dauphin; and Monſieur Claude, the firſt of March, 1678. At the Counteſs of Roye's Houſe, the Counteſſes of Lorge, and Roye, Mademoiſelle de Duras, the Marqueſs of Miremont, Mademoiſelle de Roucy, and Mr. Cotton, being there preſent.

SOME Days before this Conference, Mademoiſelle de Duras going to viſit Mr. Claude, let him know▪ that ſhe was under ſome ſcruples upon the account of her Religion, and took out of her pocket a Paper lately put into her hands, in which were contained ſome Paſſages out of St. Auguſtine concerning the Euchariſt: To which Mr. Claude replyed, and then by other Paſſages of the ſame Father, demonſtrated to her, that his opinion as to this particular, was directly the ſame that is taught at Charenton: And thereupon ſhe ſeemed to be well ſatisfied.

The next Day after Mr. Claude ſeeing her at the Counteſs of Roye's, ſhe after a long Diſcourſe told him, that ſhe was mighty deſirous he would admit of a Conference with ſome Doctor of the Romiſh Perſwaſion at a time when ſhe might be by. Mr. Claude returned, that this was not uſual; that ſuch Conferences might be of very ill conſequence, and that ſhe could not but be ſenſible that the preſent Circumſtances of the Reformed in France, and eſpecially at Paris, required they ſhould behave themſelves with much prudence and caution. But (ſays ſhe) how would you behave your ſelf if you ſhould light upon one of theſe Gentlemen accidentally, and be put upon matters of Religion? You would not deſert your Cauſe? I would in ſuch a caſe, ſays Mr. Claude, decline entering into Diſputes as much as I could; but if I were conſtrained to it, I would give an account of my Faith; and upon ſuch ſudden occaſions we are not uſed to run away. But Madam (proceeded he) what reaſon is there for asking me this? We are not going about any ſuch thing.

Two Days after the Counteſs of Roye told Mr. Claude, ſhe underſtood there were ſome pains taken to procure a meeting that ſhould ſeem accidental between him and M. de Condom, and ſhe thought it convenient to give him this notice. Were I deſirous to meet any man (ſaid he) I had rather it ſhould be M. de Condom than another, becauſe he is a Perſon of Wiſdom, Honour, and Judgment, and one for whom I have a particular Reſpect and Eſteem; but in regard of the Publick Capacity I am in, methinks this buſineſs deſerves ſome Conſideration. A little while after he imparted it to two of his Friends, and all three together paying a Viſit to a Perſon of Quality of extraordinary Merit and great Prudence, it was generally agreed, that Mr. Claude's beſt way was to decline this meeting with M. de Condom. The Reaſons alledged were theſe, That it was already known Mademoiſelle de Duras was perfectly diſpoſed to alter her Religion; that in all probability ſhe deſired a Conference only for the greater Pomp and formality of the thing, and to make uſe of this as a pretence; that let the iſſue be what it would, ſhe would moſt certainly go over, and pretend it had not given her ſatisfaction, and that this would certainly be a piece of the next publick News.

The Perſon of Quality whoſe advice was asked, undertook to Viſit the Counteſs of Roye, and make her ſenſible of theſe Reaſons. She indeed ſhewed her ſelf apprehenſive of them, and eaſily ſaw their ſtrength and drift. But all that could be done was too weak to bring Mademoiſelle de Duras off from her firſt Deſign. The Lady complained extremely of her being deſerted, and that this was the very thing ſhe had often been upbraided with, that the Reformed Miniſters durſt not ſhew their heads before the Catholick Doctors. By this, and the addition of Tears too, ſhe endeavoured all manner of ways to move her Siſter, ſolemnly proteſting, that, did but People know what a world of good this would do her, they could not certainly deny her ſo great an act of Charity.

This engaged the Counteſs of Roye to concern her ſelf for the bringing about a meeting between Monſieur de Condom and Mr. Claude, and ſhe did it ſo very well, that Mr. Claude found himſelf under a neceſſity of conſenting to it, that ſo he might not expoſe himſelf to the inſolence of thoſe of a different perſwaſion. She aſſured him M. de Condom deſired this meeting ſhould ſeem merely by chance, that the World ſhould not be acquainted with it, and that they ſhould not make it their buſineſs to talk of it on one ſide nor other.

On Tueſday the firſt day of March, about two in the Afternoon, Mr. Claude went all alone to the Counteſs of Roye's, and a little after came in the Mareſchall de Lorge, Mademoiſelle de Duras, the Marqueſs of Miremont, and Mr. Cotton. About a quarter of an hour after, came in M. de Condom by himſelf.

When the firſt Complements were paid, and the Company had taken their Seats, M. de Condom directed himſelf to Mr. Claude, and told him, That he had for ſome time longed to ſee him to offer ſome things which were practiſed by men of his Religion, but ſuch as he apprehended to be directly contrary to their Principles. That theſe conſiſted, firſt in an Article of their Diſcipline, which injoyns, that in caſe any difference ariſe in points of Doctrine, the Queſtion ſhall be decided in the Conſiſtory, and by the Word of God: If they do not aquieſce in the Judgment of this Court, it ſhall be referred to a Provincial Synod, and from thence to a National Synod, where a full and final reſolution of the caſe ſhall be given by the Word of God; and ſuch as refuſe to ſubmit to this, ſhall be excommunicated. Secondly, he produced a formulary of a Letter Miſſive to the National Synods, framed in the Synod of Vitre, and which was to be a pattern for all the Provinces to follow for the future, by which they promiſe ſubmiſſion to all the reſolutions of that holy Aſſembly, to obey and execute every particular of them, as being perſwaded (ſays the Formulary) that God will preſide there, and lead you into all truth and equity by his Holy Spirit, and by the Rule of his Word, Beſides that, he produced an Act of the National Synod held at Charenton in the Year 1644. where the Independents opinion is condemned, who will not allow that particular Congregations ſhould depend upon the Authority of Colloquies and Synods, but that every one ſhould be governed by Laws within it ſelf. Now this Act expreſly declares, that that Sect opens a door to all manner of irregularities and extravagances, that it deprives men of all means of remedying diſorders, and would, if admitted, make as many ſeveral Religions, as Pariſhes. Laſtly, he produced an Act of the National Synod at Sainte-foy, by which, upon occaſion of ſome overtures for a re-union with thoſe of the Ausburg Confeſſion, the Synod aſſigns Deputies to go and confer with them; to whom full power is granted, to agree upon, and determine whatever points ſhould be debated, whether in matters of Doctrine, or any other thing that might concern the Good and Peace of all the Churches, even ſo far as to conſent, that their Deciſions ſhould be inſerted in their Confeſſions of Faith. From all which he inferred, That even thoſe of Mr. Claude's Religion, did acknowledg a neceſſity, that in order to the preſervation of Unity in the Church, men ſhould ſubmit their Judgments, and pay an entire and abſolute obedience to Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, without leaving themſelves at liberty to examine their determinations, or judg whether they were agreeable to the Word of God or no; and that upon refuſal of this Obedience, it was juſt to proceed to Excommunication. That this was exactly what the Church of Rome would have, and that ſhe deſired no more; But that we nevertheleſs in our diſputes with her, advance a quite contrary Principle. He therefore entreated from Mr. Claude a diſtinct anſwer to this Point, and would quietly hear what he could ſay to it. Adding moreover, that Mr. Claude ought to be the more ready to reply upon this ſubject, becauſe no new thing was propoſed to him, the ſame Acts, and the ſame conſequences that he now deduced from them, being to be found in his Expoſition of the Catholick Doctrine.

Mr. Claude firſt of all replied, That although his coming thither was not with intentions to hold a Conference ſtrictly, and by rule, yet he was extreamly glad that he had now an opportunity given him, of teſtifying to M. de Condom how much he eſteemed his perſon; and that having no particular worth of his own, he thought it a great honour, that a Prelate of M. de Condom's Character ſhould ſingle him out, to engage in Controverſy with him. That he would endeavour to give him ſatisfaction in each of the points now propounded to him; and that, if in the following part of the Diſcourſe any expreſſion ſhould eſcape from him which might be offenſive to M. de Condom, he proteſted before-hand, that it ſhould be much againſt his will and deſign.

To this M. de Condom replied in very civil and obliging terms; and Mr. Claude then reſuming the diſcourſe, told him; That in general, whatever he had alledged juſt before, did by no means infer ſuch a blind and entire ſubmiſſion to the determinations of Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, as the Church of Rome pretends to impoſe; That we muſt diſtinguiſh between two ſorts of Authorities, the one ſupream and unlimited; the other limited and depending; to the former we owe a full and perfect obedience; to the other a conditional one only. The former M. de Condom was ſenſible, is by the Proteſtants attributed to God alone, ſpeaking to us in the Holy Scriptures; and that the ſecond was it they allowed the Paſtors of the Church, conſidered either ſingle and by themſelves, or met together in a Synod or Council. That their Authority, being only Miniſterial, is reſtrained two ways; one is, That they muſt frame their deciſions, not of their own heads, nor after their own fancies, but according to the Word of God; the other, That they muſt always allow the perſons under their Juriſdiction the priviledg of examining thoſe deciſions, that ſo they may know, whether they be really agreeable to God's Word: Whence it follows, that the obedience due to them ever goes upon this condition, that they have not ſwerved from the Word of God; That the Authority of Paſtors, and Aſſemblies compoſed of ſuch, cannot extend further, than that of our Parliaments in the State of France, who are not empowered to alter old Laws, and enact new ones; and whom we are priviledged, nay, obliged to diſobey, ſo oft as their Injunctions are prejudicial to the King's Service, and the Allegiance we owe him: That the Authority of Church-Aſſembles can at moſt be, but as that of Fathers over Children, becauſe both God and Nature have inveſted Fathers with it; The Fathers have a right to Act in their Childrens names, becauſe they have a right of Educating and Commanding them; and the Scripture frequently enjoyns to Children, a readineſs to learn, and obedience to their Fathers; yet does it not follow from hence, that Children are not priviledged and obliged to examine their Fathers Inſtructions and Commands, whether they be true or falſe, juſt or unjuſt, and what ſhall appear to be falſe and unjuſt, that to reject. That nevertheleſs the Authority of Paſtors and their Aſſemblies, is really very great, as is likewiſe that of Parliaments and Fathers, notwithſtanding their Authorities are under ſome limitations. That the Paſtors are as publick Truſtees for the keeping God's Word, appointed to ſtudy, and meditate upon it continually, thence to deduce neceſſary truths for the peoples improvement, and to ſave private men a labour, which they cannot always attend to, becauſe diverted and perplexed by the buſineſs of the World. That ſo long as the Paſtors diſcharged this Duty well, the people were obliged to obey and ſubmit to their words; but when they deviated from it, they were to be looked upon as falſe and treacherous perſons.

Afterwards he came particularly to thoſe Acts M. de Condom had urged, and told him; That the Clauſe of Submiſſion contain'd in the Letters Miſſive to National Synods, muſt be underſtood according to this Principle, and under theſe Limitations, becauſe grounded upon this Suppoſal, That all things would be managed there according to God's Word. For thoſe expreſſions, Being perſwaded, that God will preſide among you, and lead you into all Truth by his Holy Spirit, and by the rule of his Word, do imply a perſwaſion of Charity and Equity; for we ought always to preſume the beſt of ſuch Aſſemblies, and hope that God will preſide over them, and that they will acquit themſelves of their duty, till experience ſhews the contrary: But all this does not imply ſo entire a ſubmiſſion, as for a Man to deprive himſelf of all right to examine their Reſolutions. As to that Act which condemns the Independents, it is (ſaid he) extreamly Juſt. For tho Aſſemblies do not arrive at an Infallibility, yet are not they preſently to be utterly aboliſhed. 'Tis a human Order indeed, but yet ſuch an Order as God himſelf hath ſettled for the preſervation of his Church, and to deſert it therefore is criminal. And yet we do not think it follows from hence, that the determinations of the Aſſemblies exact a blind and implicit Obedience; nor that the Synod of Charenton intended any ſuch thing. And then for the Synod at Saintefoy's deputing four perſons to confer with thoſe of the Ausburg Confeſſion, and the full power given them, you can make no advantage of it. For thoſe Deputies were in the nature of Ambaſſadors, who are ſent by the King with full Commiſſion to offer Propoſals, hold Treaties, and agree upon Concluſions; or as Plenipotentiaries ſent to negotiate a Peace. Let their power be never ſo full, or call them Plenipotentiaries as long as you pleaſe, ſtill this condition is conſtantly and naturally underſtood, that they do nothing againſt the intereſt of the perſons that commiſſioned them, and to theſe their Acts muſt of neceſſity return, for the obtaining their approbation and ratification, without which their Treatings would ſignify nothing at all. And this was the meaning of that full power conferr'd by the Synod upon their Deputies, to hear thoſe of the Confeſſion of Ausburg, to hearken to their Propoſals, their Complaints, their Offers, and in return to make others to them; to receive from them Explications of difficulties in Controverſy, and to give them back theirs; nay, to come to an agreement with them if they could, yet not ſo, as either to become abſolute Maſters of their Faith, or blindly receive whatever they ſhould agree upon. For in all affairs of this kind, there is naturally implied, a Clauſe of recurring to the Judgment of the perſons Commiſſioning, and a neceſſity of their ratifying them. Mr. Claude added beſides, this Conſideration. Suppoſe the true ſenſe of an Act of the Church of Rome were called in Queſtion, (a Canon of the Council of Trent for inſtance) M. de Condom would think it more reaſonable, that the ſence ſhould be taken from him than Mr. Claude, becauſe the Queſtion is put concerning the ſenſe of a Church that M. de Condom is a Member of, and therefore in all probability he muſt underſtand it better than one of another Church. Therefore, Sir, ſaid he, I expect the ſame Juſtice from you, in taking the ſenſe of theſe Acts now in Diſpute from me, provided the ſenſe I put upon them do not diſagree with the Doctors of my Communion, or be not manifeſtly falſe, and contradictory to the reſt of our Principles. Now if the ſenſe I put upon theſe Acts be not any of theſe, you have not, in my opinion, any right to refuſe it, or to frame to your ſelf any other different from it.

M. de Condom replied, ſaying, that he would begin where Mr. Claude left off, becauſe that what he had urged juſt before, carried ſome appearance of Truth, and made a quick impreſſion upon the mind, but had not really any thing of ſolid Argument in it. That, were the matter in hand any Explication of their particular Rites and Ceremonies, in Preaching the Word, and Adminiſtring the Sacraments, what Mr. Claude ſaid might be allowed for Truth, and in that point he would believe him, as a perſon better acquainted with the matter; Nay, that he did not go about to debar him the liberty of explaining the ſenſe of thoſe that compiled the Diſcipline and the forementioned Acts after his own way; That he was ſenſible they denied an entire ſubmiſſion to the Church, and ſuch as precludes all Examination; But this he would ſay, that the very men who denied this abſolute ſubmiſſion in Speculation, were forced to own and eſtabliſh it in their practice. That ſo they contradicted themſelves, and that this was the thing he pretended to prove, and in which he was by no means bound to believe Mr. Claude. For if the matter in hand now, were to demonſtrate any Contradictions in the opinions of the Catholick Church, he would not deſire that His Explications might be thought of Authority ſufficient, nor deny Mr. Claude the freedom of making what inferences he thought fit from the Council's own words.

M. de Condom ſtopping there, Mr. Claude replied, That, ſince it was evident, that the perſons who made thoſe Acts, denied any ſubmiſſion was due to the determinations of Church-Aſſemblies, without any Examination at all, the advantage was thus far at leaſt on his ſide, that M. de Condom himſelf had acknowledged, His Explanation of thoſe Acts was agreeable with the Principles of the Proteſtants which made them, ſo that there was more reaſon for his accepting that ſenſe, than for the framing to himſelf another, and ſuch a one as contradicted theſe Principles; That, ſuppoſing the buſineſs in Controverſy to be an Act of the Romiſh Church, he ſhould not ſcruple to admit M. de Condom's explanation, provided the words of the Act did not oppoſe it, and in that caſe he might be allowed to infer a Contradiction. That if M. de Condom would proceed thus, as to the Acts before urged, he ſhould be glad to ſee what grounds he had for this pretended Contradiction.

M. de Condom ſaid, this would eaſily be made appear. That he would ſhow this Contradiction with relation to their Diſcipline, which on one ſide ordains, That differences in Doctrine ſhould be decided in the Conſiſtory by the Word of God; that it was alſo her meaning, that this deciſion was made by the Word of God in the Provincial Synod, as well as the National; and yet on the other ſide, if men do not acquieſce in the determination of a Conſiſtory, or a Provincial Synod, it orders, things ſhould continue as they were till a National one be convened; in which it ſays, a full and final reſolution ſhall be given by the Word of God, and if they ſubmit not to this, they ſhall be cut off from the Church. Whence it is evident, that the ſubmiſſion required to a National Synod, was not founded on the Word of God, conſidered abſtractedly as ſuch, becauſe both Conſiſtory and Provincial Synod were ſuppoſed to determine by the Word of God, and yet an Appeal from them was allow'd; But that it was founded on the Word of God, ſo far forth, as That was explained and interpreted by the laſt judgment of the Church; that is, becauſe this is the laſt and final reſolution; and conſequently upon the Authority of the Aſſembly, conſidered by it ſelf. Now this, ſaid he, evidently contradicts that Principle, which denies there is an abſolute ſubmiſſion due to the ſentence of the Church. Of this the Diſcipline it ſelf was a confirmation, in that it appointed no Excommunication for ſuch as ſtood out againſt the determinations of a Conſiſtory and Provincial Synod, and yet did, for ſuch as refuſed to ſubmit to the decrees of a National one.

The ſame (proceeded he) is plain from that Letter Miſſive to the National Synod. For how can men promiſe and ſwear ſubmiſſion to whatever ſhould be agreed upon, and yet not ſuppoſe a full and perfect Submiſſion owing to the Church? To urge, this Submiſſion proceeds from a perſwaſion, that God will preſide in it by his Spirit, and his Word; and to ſwear upon this account, is to urge, that this perſwaſion is grounded upon God's expreſs Promiſe, to direct his Church in her laſt determination, by his Holy Spirit, and after an Infallible manner. This very thing, ſaid he, is plain from the National Synod of Charenton's Act againſt the Independents. The Reaſon they make uſe of, that ſuffering their Principle to take place, might produce as many ſeveral Religions as Pariſhes, concludes for an abſolute Obedience to the deciſions of Synods; ſince allowing private perſons to examine the laſt determinations, there might ſpring not only as many ſeveral Religions as Pariſhes, but as many as there are perſons, and conſequently no means would be left for preſerving the unity either of the Faith, or of the Church.

For what relates to the Deputies nominated by the Synod of Saintefoy, to go and confer with thoſe of the Ausburg Confeſſion; he ſaid, he did ſincerely acknowledg, that the Synod, tho it gave them never ſo large a commiſſion, did not however intend it ſhould ever be in their power to ſubvert all, and if I may ſo ſay, to turn things topſy turvy; That he believed the Synods meaning was really, that whatever was done by the Deputies ſhould be referred to them, and that there is a neceſſity all things of this nature ſhould be ratified. But ſtill it was very amazing, and a thing which Mr. Claude had not anſwered to, that they ſhould proffer to inſert their Deputies concluſions with the Lutherans, in their publick Confeſſions of Faith. For this argued them doubting as to their Confeſſion of Faith, which yet, they tell us, contains nothing but the pure Word of God, and in that there can be nothing that requires a change, &c. Do you think Sir ſaid he, that the Articles of your Confeſſion of Faith may be changed?

When M. de Condom had left off ſpeaking, Mr. Claude ſaid, he would anſwer to each particular of his diſcourſe, and intreated he would pleaſe to hear him quietly. And firſt of all he ſaid, That M. de Condom put a wrong conſtruction upon that Article of the Diſcipline, which declares, that if men do not acquieſce in the deciſions of a Conſiſtory, nor thoſe of a Provincial Synod, Things ſhall continue in the ſame poſture, till a National one be convened, in which a full and final reſolution ſhall be given by the Word of God; and they who refuſe to acquieſce in This, ſhall be cut off from the Church. For the reaſon of This, ſaid he, is not, either that there ought not to be the ſame care taken, that the Conſiſtories, or Provincial Synods determinations ſhould be made by the word of God, as well as thoſe of the National; nor that this Word hath not as much Authority at one time as another, whether declared in a conſiſtory, or Provincial Synod, or a National one; nor that a full and perfect obedience is not due to this only, preciſely conſidered as ſuch: But this method of proceeding (added he) was conſtituted for two reaſons, very different from what you pretend. Firſt, becauſe it is highly probable, that the ſearch made into Gods Word concerning the matter in controverſy, may be leſs exact and ſagacious in a Conſiſtory, than it would in a Synod compoſed of all the Miniſters in a whole Province; and ſo again by the ſame reaſon, leſs exact and ſagacious in a Provincial Synod, than in a National, which is uſually made up of all the moſt ingenious and learned men in the Kingdom. The other Reaſon is, That men may poſſibly be prepoſſeſt againſt a Conſiſtory, ſo as not to hearken to it ſo readily and impartially as they ſhould; which is not ſo likely in reſpect of a Provincial Synod, which will be thought leſs apt to be ſway'd by intereſt, paſſions or perſonal prejudices, and conſequently they will be more quietly heard; Laſtly, theſe kind of paſſions and private Intereſts being ſtill leſs likely to happen in a National Synod, conſiſting of perſons living remote from one another, and coming from all quarters of the Kingdom, 'tis very probable men will not be prepoſſeſt againſt them, and conſequently, that they will receive the Word of God at their mouths, that they will be more ready to learn, and better diſpoſed to obey them. He ſaid therefore, that this method was taken for the avoiding as much as was poſſible two inconveniences; one was to prevent the laſt determinations being given lightly, inconſiderately, or with any mixture of humane paſſion and Intereſt▪ The other, that the parties concerned might not be hindred by any perſonal prejudices, from hearing and receiving the Word of God, with that obedience and faithful ſubmiſſion which is owing to it. But it could by no means be infer'd from hence, that, according to the meaning and intention of the Diſcipline, it was not always God's Word, as ſuch, but the Authority of the Aſſembly, to which that Obedience muſt be paid. And moreover, that the deciſion of a National Synod, was for this reaſon called, the laſt and final deciſion, becauſe according to humane methods, and the preſent courſe of things, there is nothing beyond it, to which we can have recourſe.

As for the Letter of Miſſion to the National Synods, he replied, that did not infer an abſolute ſubmiſſion, any more than the Act of their Diſcipline did, becauſe there was in it the expreſs condition of Judging according to the Word of God, in theſe words, Being perſwaded, as we are, that God will pr • ſide over you, by his Holy Spirit, and his Word.

As to the Reaſon which the Synod of Charenton urged againſt the Independents, this, he ſaid, did not at all imply a blind and implicit obedience. That the dependence which particular Churches have upon Colloquies and Synods was an external Order, which, tho it had not any ſure and infallible means of preſerving the Church in the unity of the Faith, was however of mighty convenience and uſe towards the doing it: And we ought always to take it for granted, that God's Bleſſing will go along with it, as being an order conſtituted by himſelf. That the Independents by throwing off this Order, do deprive themſelves of theſe means, and wilfully expoſe themſelves to the great inconvenience of having as many ſeveral Religions as Pariſhes; ſo that the Synod had good grounds for upbraiding them with it, as they did. That the Proteſtants principles were not liable to the ſame objection, who though they diſown a blind obedience, and entire ſubmiſſion, do yet retain ſuch external means as are moſt proper and expedient, for preſerving the unity of the Faith. And whereas M. de Condom pretended, that without entire obedience, it was poſſible, that as many ſeveral Religions might ſtart up as there are Pariſhes; 'tis confeſt, this may come to paſs, if we ſpeak with reſpect to men only, notwithſtanding the Order and Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies be kept up, becauſe the mind of man is of its ſelf ſubject to infinite Errors. But in reſpect of God, this cannot fall out ſo, for he, by his bleſſing on this external Order, and the Communication of one and the ſame ſpirit to his true Believers and Elect, does by this ſure and infallible means preſerve them in the unity of the ſame Faith, and conſequently of the ſame Church. That Faith being not an humane, but a Divine thing, none but God alone can either produce, or preſerve it in mens hearts. And this he infallibly does in the hearts of his Elect, by his Spirit, and ſuch external means of the Miniſtry, as himſelf hath appointed;1 Cor. 36. For Paul planteth, and Apollo watereth, but God giveth the increaſe.

Next he came to ſpeak of the Deputies nominated by the Synod of Sainte-foy, to confer with the Lutherans; and ſaid, That he was extreamly pleaſed, with what M. de Condom had confeſt even now, That they never intended to give them a power of turning all things topſy turvey, as he had ingeniouſly expreſt it; but that recourſe muſt be had to the perſons commiſſioning, and their ratification obtained. That he very humbly thankt him for this ſincere acknowledgment, which, as to this particular, reſolved the whole Queſtion, ſo that this Act could not now be alledged any more, for the blind obedience pretended to be infer'd from it. That beſides this, his accuſation againſt the Synod, for conſenting to change their Confeſſion of Faith, if taken in M. de Condom's ſenſe, vaniſhed into nothing: For there ought a diſtinction to be made, between what is eſſential in it, and what is not. The eſſential part of the Confeſſion conſiſts in the things themſelves▪ called Articles, or points of Faith; and that which is not eſſential conſiſts in the terms and modes of expreſſion. That the Synod had Authority to conſent, that the expreſſions in the Confeſſion ſhould be altered, that other things might be inſerted which might illuſtrate and explain it, if this appeared to be uſeful, for the reducing men that had deviated from it: But the Synod never took upon them to alter any eſſential part of the Confeſſion, for it continues in this reſpect unalterable, ſo far forth as it is agreable to the Word of God.

Mr. Claude concluding his diſcourſe, M. de Condom replied in the firſt place, that, notwithſtanding what Mr. Claude ſaid a little before, concerning the Order obſerved by the Diſcipline, it did however enjoyn, that ſuch as refuſed to acquieſce in the deciſions of a National Synod, ſhould be cut off from the Church; and that the Synod of Dort had actually cut off the Arminians; he deſired therefore to know of Mr Claude whether they were juſtly and lawfully cut off. Mr. Claude anſwered, that in his opinion the Synod of Dorts proceedings were very juſt. M. de Condom told him. This was all the Church of Rome deſired; that ſhe alſo acknowledged her ſelf under an Obligation to judg according to the word of God, but this was not the matter in diſpute. The main buſineſs was about the Senſe and Explanation of that word, and that it was the Churches Province to give this Explanation, and private men's to reſt ſatified with it; and if they did not, the Church dealt juſtly in excommunicating them. That it was thus the Proteſtants had been excommunicated in the Council of Trent.

As concerning the Letter of Miſſion to the National Synods, is it not (ſaid he) a plain trick to ſwear Submiſſion to them upon ſuppoſal or condition, that their Determinations ſhall be agreeable to Gods word? This is all mere trifling. What ſay you to it, Sir? Mr. Claude ſaid, there was no trick at all, and he could diſcover nothing that was irregular in it. If I have a right notion of your Doctrine, replied M. de Condom, you hold, that a private Perſons may doubt of the Judgment of the Church, even when given in its laſt and higheſt Court of Juriſdiction. We do hold, ſaid Mr. Claude, that no man can have an abſolute certainty of Faith, that an Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly ſhall give right Determinations, and upon this account that men may be allow'd to doubt. But withal, that men ſhould notwithſtanding, preſume in favour of ſuch an Aſſembly, and in this reſpect we cannot properly call it doubting, as hoping, and believing that it will judg a right. For Jeſus Chriſt hath promiſed, all that ſeek ſhall find,Mat. 7. and we ought to take it for granted, that they will diſcharge their duty in ſeeking aright, till Experience ſhews the contrary. There is therefore, an aſſurance of Charity and Equity, that in ſome Senſe excludes doubt. But when we ſee Aſſemblies governed by Factions, Cabals, and temporal Intereſts, then ſure we have a great deal of reaſon to doubt; as ſeeing men that have forſaken their Duty, and conſequently are ſuch, as cannot hope for any advantage from the bleſſing of God upon them. Let me beg of you Sir, ſaid M. de Condom then, That we may let alone what is good for nothing, but to caſt duſt in our Eyes. What you ſaid juſt now of Cabals and Factions, and private Intereſts, is of no uſe in the World, and only ſerves to perplex the matter. I would know of you, put the caſe there appeared nothing at all of Factions, Cabals, nor Intereſt in an Aſſembly; but that all their proceedings were orderly, and regular; whether its Deciſions ought to be received without examining them? No Sir, ſaid Mr. Claude. Why then Sir, ſaid he, I was in the right, to tell you that all your talk of Factions and Cabals ſignifies nothing. That does not follow neither (repli'd Mr. Claude) for notwithſtanding there appear not any thing to weaken a mans Preſumptions, that the Aſſembly will diſcharge their duty faithfully; and that for ought we can diſcover to the contrary, all things are carried regularly; yet, ſtill this is no more than a humane Preſumption, not able to give any certainty of belief, and conſequently not precluding our Examination. But when we ſee Diſorder and Corruption manifeſtly prevail in an Aſſembly, we can no longer preſume in favour of ſuch a one, and inſtead of hoping the beſt, we muſt fear the worſt that can come from it. So that it is not without ground, that I ſpoke of Cabals and Factions. Here M. de Condom reſuming the former method of his Diſcourſe, ſaid, It was falſe that the Independents did abſolutely throw off all Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies; for they themſelves held one, he ſaid, at London in the year 1653. ſo that the Synod of Charenton could not condemn them upon that account; but merely for refuſing to acknowledg that an entire Dependence and Submiſſion was owing to Synods.

As for the Synod of Sainte-foy, proceeded he, if all the buſineſs had been no more than illuſtrating and explaining their Articles, as Mr. Claude would have it, what need theſe have been inſerted in the Confeſſion of Faith? Could not this be done by an Act of a Synod without altering the Confeſſion? It is ſure their deſign was to expreſs that Article concerning the Lord's Supper in ſuch ambiguous terms as both ſides had agreed upon, and each might interpret to his own advantage, which hath been an expedient often attempted, but to no purpoſe. Now this is in reality, not barely to explain and illuſtrate the Confeſſion of Faith, and by that means ſettle a mutual Toleration, but down right to alter it. And now (added he) all that men have to do is but to conſider with themſelves what opinion they ought to entertain of a Confeſſion of Faith, which a whole National Synod conſented to alter. That the matter between Mr. Claude and him, was at laſt come to ſuch a paſs, that the truth muſt preſently appear on one ſide or other. That the Principle aſſerted by Mr. Claude was a Principle of Pride and intolerable Preſumption. For is not this the very extremity of Pride, that mere ſingle private Perſons ſhould fancy themſelves wiſer and better able to underſtand the Scripture than a whole Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly, a whole Council put together? And yet this was the unavoidable conſequence of his opinion, which allowed private Perſons a Priviledge and Freedom to examine the deciſions of Councils. That an entire ſubmiſſion to the Church's judgment, and a full and implicite Obedience to that, was much more reaſonable, and argued more of Chriſtian Humility, than mens taking upon them to amend its Deciſions.

It being now Mr. Claude's turn to ſpeak, he told them, That their Diſcipline did indeed order ſuch as refuſed ſubmiſſion, to be Excommunicated, after the laſt and final reſolution had been given according to the Word of God in a National Synod Aſſembled: But it was no part of the Diſcipline's meaning that this ſubmiſſion was due to the Authority of that Aſſembly abſtractedly and as ſuch; but, as he had before obſerved, to the Authority of Gods Word, according to which the Aſſemblies deciſion was to be formed, and this ever implies an Examination. The Excommunication therefore was juſt only upon ſuppoſal, that the Word of God had been followed, and never elſe. That the Excommunications pronounced by Councils had not really any thing of Juſtice or Efficacy, except when their determinations were founded on God's Word; and when they were not ſo, their ſentences of Excommunication were unjuſt, and returned directly upon the head of thoſe that thundered them out, according to St. Paul's Maxime, If we, Gal. 1. 2. or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Goſpel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accurſed. That, if the Church of Rome pretended to no more than this, our diſpute with her would be at an end; becauſe then every man would ſtill be priviledged, nay, obliged to examine whether the Deciſions be agreeable to God's Word or no; and conſequently whether the Excommunications upon them be juſt or unjuſt. That it was with this temper of mind that the Synod of Dort had condemned, not the men whoſe Perſons they never anathematiz'd at all, but their Errors, by demonſtrating they were contrary to expreſs Texts of Scripture. That for his own part, he lookt upon that as a very juſt Excommunication, but the reaſon why he did ſo, was, that he ſaw it was founded upon Scripture, and not upon the Authority of the Aſſembly themſelves.

That it was true the Independents had once an extraordinary Aſſembly in the Year 1653. for the adjuſting their Confeſſion of Faith; but however they did commonly diſavow the uſe of Colloquies and Synods; and for this very reaſon the Synod of Charenton condemned them, and not for refuſing a blind and abſolute Obedience to what the Aſſemblies ſhould decree in matters of Faith, as by the Act it ſelf is abundantly evident.

For the Synod of Sainte-Foy, I cannot imagine (ſaid he) why you will needs have it to intend an alteration in the Confeſſion of Faith, I mean as to any eſſential part of it; for National Synods are not at all impowered to do this, and if that at Sainte-Foy had ever attempted it, all the Proteſtants in the Kingdom would have diſclaimed the thing. I own they had power to put illuſtrations and explanations into an Act, and you muſt own too, that they had the ſame power to put them into the Confeſſion; and when the ſame thing is capable of being done different ways, men are free to make choice of that which they eſteem the moſt fitting and convenient. Here M. de Condom interrupting Mr. Claude, told him, it was certain that Synod had thoughts of couching the Article of the Lord's Supper in ambiguous expreſſions, and this was the deſign of the Mediators. That there was mentioned a power to decide all points of Doctrine, which had a manifeſt relation to the Real Preſence, as held by the Lutherans. Mr. Claude replyed, that to tax the Synod with a deſign of agreeing upon ambiguous expreſſions, was a mere conjecture of M. de Condom, for which he offered not the leaſt proof; and that he for his part gueſſed the quite contrary; that he did not at all queſtion but the Synod intended to do all that could be done for reducing the Lutherans to a full knowledge of the truth; and this was the meaning of that power given them to decide all Doctrinal Points with them, that is, to do it by the Word of God.

Then reſuming the method of his Diſcourſe, he made anſwer to what M. de Condom alledged, that it was intolerable Pride for mere ſingle private Perſons to fancy themſelves wiſer and better able to underſtand Scripture than a whole Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly together. He told him then, that ſingle and private Perſons ought by no means to think ſo highly of themſelves, as to fancy they were wiſer and better able to underſtand Scripture than a whole Aſſembly together. That on the contrary, they ſhould preſume favourably of an Aſſembly, and retain a diſpoſition to be taught by it. But ſtill this was no Argument, that they ſhould not continually have their Eyes open to diſcern whether an Aſſembly had really diſcharged their duty: imitating herein thoſe • eraeans, of whom it is ſaid, that they compared what St.Acts 17. 11. Paul Preached with the Scriptures, ſearching whether thoſe things were ſo. That we muſt diſtinguiſh between a Judgment of humility and charity, which concludes 〈◊〉 probably, and a perſwaſion of Infallibility, which concludes neceſſarily and certainly. Th •• according to the Judgment of Charity and Humility, we muſt think the beſt of an Aſſembly, nay even of a private Doctor; but in as much as both Aſſemblies, and private perſons, are liable to miſtakes, a man muſt not carry on this Judgment of Charity and Humility ſo far as that he ſhould ſuffer himſelf to be blinded by it; and when an Aſſembly or Doctor have really erred, not to ſee it; for this would be to ſtretch things beyond their due bounds. For inſtance, ſaid he, in the capacity I am in over my Flock, it is mens duty to preſume favourably of me, that I underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than plain private Perſons; but for all that, they are by no means bound to think me infallible, nor fancy it impoſſible I ſhould ever be miſtaken in a point of Doctrine; and in ſuch a caſe a plain private Perſon is priviledged to think he could underſtand the Scripture better than I. Private Doctors, ſays Al de Condom, are not at all concerned in our Diſpute, all the World knows private Doctors may err, and conſequently they can have no title to an abſolute obedience. The Controverſie is concerning the whole Body of an Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly, and I expect from you a clear diſtinct anſwer to this particular; whether you believe ſingle private men can underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole Body of the Church convened in a Council.

Mr. Claude replied, That he only mentioned private Doctors as an Argument that Chriſtian Humility ſhould not be abuſed, nor made a pretence for men to deny themſelves the benefit of their own Eyes, that ſo they might avoid Pride and Preſumption. For, if by M. de Condom's own Confeſſion, private Doctors have no right to an abſolute Obedience, it is neither a proud, nor preſumptuous Imagination, that it may poſſibly happen, we ſhould underſtand Scripture ſometimes better than they; tho for the main we are bound to preſume in favour of them, and that in probability it will be otherwiſe. The caſe is the ſame with Aſſemblies; for even theſe, being not Infallible, ought not to challenge an abſolute Submiſſion, and ſuch as God alone hath a juſt right to. That no leſs a Perſon than St.Paul hath declared,2 Cor. 1. 24. That he had no Dominion over the Corinthians Faith.

M. de Condom ſaid, that quotation was impertinent, and deſired to know of Mr Claude, whether he was not of opinion, that an abſolute obedience was due to St. Paul. The abſolute obedience (replied Mr. Claude) which was due to St. Paul, was ſo to his Divine Doctrines, and not his perſon. No more, ſaid M de Condom, do we pretend, that men ought to pay this obedience to the perſons of men whereof the Councils conſiſt, but to the Holy Ghoſt, by which they are guided, according to that profeſſion of the Council at Jeruſalem, It ſeemed good unto the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 15. and to us. When the Holy Ghoſt appears in the determinations of Councils, as he did in St. Paul's Doctrine, and that of the Jeruſalem Council, then ſaid Mr. Claude, this Obedience muſt be paid, never elſe. And this appearance of the Holy Ghoſt conſiſteth in the Councils deciſions, being framed according to the Word of God. Still M. de Condom urged. that the diſpute was not concerning the Word of God, but the true meaning of that Word. That diſtinction, ſays Mr. Claude, ſignifies nothing at all, becauſe the true meaning of the Word of God, and the Word it ſelf, are but one and the ſame thing.

Then M. de Condom returned to the buſineſs of the Independents, and urged, that according to Mr. Claude's principle, there was no remedy for the avoiding Independency, nor any prevention, that there ſhould not be as many different Religions as Pariſhes, nay, as many as there be ſingle perſons. That the Independents did not caſt off Aſſemblies, ſo far as concerned inſtruction, only they did not allow them in any Authoritative deciſions, and that in this the Pretended Reformed agreed with them. He beat upon this over and over again for a long time together, to all which Mr. Claude return'd the ſame anſwer he had done before, viz. That there was not indeed any humane means of Certainty and Infallibility, which could prevent the exorbitant errors of mens minds; but there was a certain and infallible Divine one, even the Holy Spirit of God, imparted to his True Believers; That Synods and other Aſſemblies, were means of mighty uſe, and very proper for this purpoſe, and the Independents condemnation was for rejecting theſe laſt, and not for refuſing to Aſſemblies a full and Abſoute Power of determining matters in Controverſy. That although the Proteſtants did not allow ſuch Aſſemblies a ſupreme and unbounded Authority, yet they did allow them as much, as the Miniſters and Diſpenſers of God's Word are capable of.

At this rate, ſaid M. de Condom then, we ſhall never have done diſputing. I ask you therefore once more, Sir, whether you believe that ſingle and private perſons can underſtand the meaning of God's Word, better than the whole Church convened in Council? Mr Claude told him, he had anſwered that Queſtion already, to wit, that it does not uſually fall out ſo; and that further, 'tis our duty to hope the beſt of an Eccleſiaſtical Aſſembly; but ſtill it might come to paſs, that through the prevalency of mens paſſions, and worldly Intereſts, the deciſions of ſuch Aſſemblies might be contrary to Truth. You muſt not run back thus to Intereſts and Paſſions, ſaid M. de Condom, but anſwer my queſtion in one word, by ſaying either Yes, or No. Mens Paſſions, and worldly Intereſts, ſaid Mr. Claude, are premiſed here with a great deal of Reaſon, becauſe theſe are the main things that occaſion erroneous determinations; but ſince you are not willing to hear of them, my anſwer muſt be with this diſtinction, That God does not ſuffer it commonly ſo to be, but abſolutely ſpeaking, it is poſſible it ſhould be ſo, M. de Condom ſaid, that was as much as he deſired, and that it was the moſt abſurd thing in the World, to believe it ſo much as poſſible, for a ſingle Man, and a private perſon, to underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole Church met together in Council.

Mr. Claude replied, that he was amazed to hear M. de Condom cry out upon That as ſuch a mighty abſurdity, which reſulted merely from the freedom uſed by God in diſpenſing his Grace. That ſuppoſing the Controverſy to concern ſuch means of knowledg as are purely humane. it would indeed be abſurd to ſay, that a ſingle and private perſon ſhould be wiſer than a whole Aſſembly, and that this would be then a principle of pride and preſumption. But the matter now treated of is,Joh. 3. 8. the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which bloweth where it liſteth, and God can give it to a private ſingle perſon, and yet not give it to a whole Aſſembly. That of this there was an eminent inſtance in our Saviours time,Matt. 11. 215. as he himſelf ſaid, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, for that thou haſt bid theſe things from the wiſe and prudent, and haſt revealed them unto babes. That the whole Jewiſh Church had in their Aſſemblies declared Jeſus Chriſt a Deceiver. That nevertheleſs this was not only a Church, but the one ſole Church in the World at that time, inveſted with the Authority of God, who had founded, nouriſht, and brought it up till that time. That God had taught it by his Prophets, and depeſited his Holy Oracles there. That this Church laid a juſt claim to a ſucceſſion of Two thouſand years continuance, and valued her ſelf upon it. That ſhe held formal ſolemn Aſſemblies, and ſuch as Jeſus Chriſt himſelf acknowledged. They ſit, Matt. 23. 2, 3. ſays he, in Meſes ſeat, All therefore whatſoever they bid you obſerve, that obſerve and do. And yet this very Church determin'd the greateſt and moſt heinous Error that ever could be in the World, even that Jeſus Chriſt was to be rejected as a wicked man and a Deceiver. That we cannot avoid affirming that at that time ſi • gle and private perſons might underſtand the Scripture better than the whole Body of the Church met together; and that in allowing M. de Condom's Principle to be true, viz. That men ought to yield an abſolute obedience to the deciſions of Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, without taking upon them a right to examine what is ſo decided; we do condemn Jeſus Chriſt, and as many as then believed in him. For according to this principle, Jeſus Chriſt ought not any more to have taught the people publickly, after the Church had paſt ſuch deciſions againſt him, nor ought the people to have given him their attention any more, becauſe they were not ſuffered to examine thoſe deciſions. And yet, proceeded he, Jeſus Chriſt did not forbear Preaching to the people, and converting many of them; nor did they withdraw their attention, not withſtanding all the deciſions given againſt him. This principle then of a blind and implicit obedience, is conſequently falſe, and contrary to the conduct of Jeſus Chriſt and his Diſciples.

To preclude this Argument, by urging that Jeſus Chriſt wrought ſuch miracles as did evidence his Authority to be Divine, is here of no ſignificancy at all.2 Theſſ. 2 For there are two ſorts of Miracles, the one true, the other falſe; the one, that men may believe a lye, the other to convince them of the truth. This diſtinction was made by God himſelf in the 13th Chapter of Deuteronomy, where he tells the Iſraelites, That if a Prophet give them a ſign or a wonder, and would perſwade them to go after other Gods. They muſt not hearken unto him, for the Lord their God proveth them. Jeſus Chriſt alſo hath himſelf owned the truth of this diſtinction. Now, ſaid he, if M. de Condom's principle had taken place, the people had nothing to do to make this diſtinction, after once the Church had determined that Jeſus Chriſt wrought his Miracles by the help of Beelzebub, and not by the Power of God. They muſt not any more, according to M. de Condom, ſo much as open their eyes to ſee theſe Miracles, or ſuffer the leaſt impreſſion to be made upon themſelves by them. And by conſequence this principle is falſe, and deſtructive of the Chriſtian Religion.

Hereupon M. de Condom interrupted Mr. Claude, telling him, that this Inſtance of the Jewiſh Church ought not to have been produced in the preſent caſe. For, ſaid he, the Synagogue was to fall, thus the Prophets had foretold, and therefore the people ought not then to pay ſuch an obedience to their Guides, as is now owing to the Church of Chriſt, which muſt never fail: To which Mr. Claude return'd, That ſeeing the Synagogue was to fall, it might conſequently ſo fall out, that ſingle and private perſons ſhould underſtand the meaning of Scripture better than the whole body of a Church met together in its ſolemn Aſſemblies, which was the very point in debate; and from hence it follows clearly, that it was neither pride, nor preſumption, for private people, either to believe it poſſible for them at ſome time to underſtand Scripture better than the whole Body of an Aſſembly; nor upon this principle to take their deciſions into examination. And that this was all he deſired.

Beſides, ſaid he, This Reaſon could have no manner of influence upon the Jews, becauſe the Synagogue were not only not agreed upon it, but quite contrary, aſſerting that it ſhould never fail, they produced in their own behalf ſeveral promiſes, which, at firſt bluſh, ſeemed to have a great deal of ſtrength. 'Tis but loſt labour to urge in defence of this, the Prophets who foretold its fall; for the meaning of thoſe Propheſies was the thing then in queſtion, and the Synagogue having explained theſe in a ſenſe that made for them, according to M. de Condom's principle, it was the people's duty to ſtick cloſe to that explanation, without examining it at all. In a word (ſaid he) this fall of the Synagogue, does not make their Aſſemblies differ at all from thoſe of the Chriſtian Church, with relation to the matter now in diſpute between us. For what Promiſes ſoever the Church of Jeſus Chriſt may have, that ſhe ſhall ſubſiſt for ever, there is not any thing in Scripture gives us aſſurance, that the Aſſemblies of Councils ſhall never fail.

Here M. de Condom took up the Diſcourſe, and ſaid, That Mr. Claude's Argument concerning the time of the Synagogues fall, was the moſt impertinent thing in the World. For at that time it could not be ſaid that there was any viſible Authority upon Earth, to which men were neceſſarily obliged to ſubmit; becauſe Jeſus Chriſt himſelf was there, that is, the very Truth appearing viſibly among men, to whom God had given teſtimony from Heaven, and who wrought Miracles. Do but you, proceeded he, bring again Jeſus Chriſt Teaching, Preaching, doing Miracles among us, and we ſhall have no further occaſion for the Churches Authority. My Argument, ſaid Mr. Claude, was not only the moſt pertinent to our preſent purpoſe, but the cleareſt and moſt concluding Argument in the World; and I hope you your ſelf will grant it to be ſo, after I have entreated you to conſider, that the viſible Authority of the Son of God was the very point in diſpute between the Synagogue and Jeſus Chriſt, and that this very point the Synagogue had determined in the negative; That the main buſineſs was to know, whether Jeſus Chriſt were a Deceiver or not, whether his Miracles proceeded from God or Beelzebub. That Jeſus Chriſt's viſible Authority could not decide that queſtion in the peoples minds; for no Authority can decide a doubt till it be firſt received; and Jeſus Chriſt's Authority was not as yet received, for the main controverſy then depending was, whether it ſhould be received, or rejected: So that there remained only the Authority of the Church, and this had determined againſt him. According then to M. de Condom's Principles, private perſons ought conſequently to have ſtuck to that, and rejected Jeſus Chriſt. M. de Condom called this Argument of Mr. Claude's a Jewiſh Argument. Mr. Claude returned, that this ought not to be called a Jewiſh Argument, becauſe it concluded in favour of Chriſtianity; but the contrary principle rather deſerved this name, becauſe it favoured the Cauſe and proceedings of the Jews.

Afterwards Mr. Claude ſaid, That if he would have recourſe to Hiſtory, it will be no difficult matter to demonſtrate, that many Councils have fallen into Error, and been miſtaken in their Determinations. Particularly among others, the Council of Arimini, which condemned the Conſubſtantiality of the Son, that is, his Eternal Divinity. M. de Condom cried out, Whether are you carrying us now, Sir? To the Council of Arimini? When ſhall we have done, if all thoſe Hiſtories muſt be diſcuſt? Do not you know that the Council of Arimini was a forced, packt Aſſembly? You urge my very argument for me, ſaid Mr. Claude, which is, that a General Council may be packt. Here is an inſtance of one, conſiſting of four hundred B • ſhops that was ſo. M de Condom anſwered, That thoſe Biſhops were compelled by the Emperors Authority, who had ſent Soldiers among them; but afterwards, when they were every one returned home, they diſclaimed what had been done, and expreſt their remorſe for it. Mr. Claude replied, That many of them, it was true, did acknowledg they had done amiſs; but that very acknowledgment of, and repentance for a Fault, which M. de Condom affirms they ſhewed, is a Confirmation of their committing it; and 'tis of no great moment to know, upon what motives they committed it, ſince it is plain, that it was really committed. And further, every particular man's returning from his Error, is a plain Indication, that each of them thought himſelf under no Obligation of acquieſcing in what had been determined, when they were all met together in Council.

M. de Condom cried out, That there was no neceſſity of medling with all theſe Hiſtorical Points, and that it would divert them too much from the main buſineſs. There is, ſays he, an eaſier way of deciding the matter. The Subject of our Controverſy, is the firſt Principle of Faith in particular Perſons. This in your Opinion is the Holy Scripture; in ours, the Churches Authority. Put the caſe in a young Child, who hath been baptized, but hath not yet read the Scripture; I would know by what Principle this Child believes the Scripture to be Divine; Particularly the Book of Canticles for inſtance, which hath not a word of God in it. Now this Child who is a Chriſtian, who hath received the Holy Ghoſt, and Faith conveyed into him by Baptiſm, and who is a member of the Church, does either doubt of the Scriptures Divine Authority, or he does not; If he does not doubt, then he believes it Divine upon the Churches Authority, which is the firſt Authority he lives under. If he does doubt, then a man may be a Chriſtian, and yet doubt whether the Scripture be true.

Mr. Claude returned, That he could ſay ſomething to that ſuppoſal of M. de Condom, That every baptized Child receives the Holy Ghoſt; but was unwilling to ſtay upon a thing by the by, or deviate from the main matter in diſpute. He would therefore ſatisfie himſelf, with making a few Reflections upon what M. de Condom urged laſt. The firſt ſaid he, is, That the firſt knowledg of the Catholick Church given by the Holy Spirit to this Child, is in all probability given by his Creed, where he finds I believe the Holy Catholick Church. And yet in the Creed, that Article is placed after ſeveral other Articles of Doctrine. For it begins with God the Father Almighty, goes on with the Son Jeſus Chriſt, and the Holy Ghoſt, and after theſe comes in the Catholick Church. Now this is a manifeſt proof, that the belief of Doctrines is not wholly derived from the Churches Authority, for elſe the Creed ought to be put together after another method, and the firſt thing ſaid, ſhould be, I believe the Catholick Church, and by the Catholick Church, I believe in God the Father, and ſo on.

My ſecond Reflection, ſaid he, is, That you ought not to take it for granted, as you do, that the firſt Authority a Child begins to live under, is that of the Catholick Church. It being manifeſt, That the firſt Authority a Child lives under, is his Father or Mother, or if you pleaſe his Nurſes; and that the Churches cannot take place till afterwards, but does in ſome meaſure depend upon the other. The Conſequence whereof is, That the firſt Authority, which is the Paternal, can as well lead the Child to Scripture, as it can to the Church.

Then, Thirdly, ſaid he, It is the eaſieſt thing in the World to retort your own Argument back upon your ſelf, thus; The baptized Child either doubts of the Churches Authority, or he does not; if he does not, then he believes it upon the Authority of Scripture, for there is no other way for him to believe it with a Divine Faith: And conſequently, it is not the Church that induces men to believe Scripture, but Scripture that induces the belief of the Church, which is the thing we contend for. If he does doubt, then there is a Chriſtian that hath received the Holy Spirit, and Faith conveyed to him by Baptiſm, and is a Member of the Church, and yet is in a ſtate of doubt which is that firſt Authority whereupon all the reſt of his Faith depends. Now that the Child cannot with a Divine Faith believe the Churches Authority any other way, but by the Authority of Scripture, I prove thus. If it be not by Scripture that he believes the Church and its Authority; then 'tis either by way of immediate Inſpiration, and Enthuſiaſm, or by his Fathers, or Mothers, or Nurſes Authority, or by Argument taken from the very nature of the Church. This could not be by Enthuſiaſm, becauſe the Holy Ghoſt does not proceed in ſuch a method. Nor by his Fathers, or Mothers or Nurſes Authority, for you diſcern the inconveniences of advancing ſuch kinds of Authority for the firſt Principle of Faith. Nor can it be by proper Proofs and Arguments taken from the nature of the Church; becauſe as you in your Argument ſuppoſe the Child not yet to have read the Scripture; ſo do I likewiſe in mine, ſuppoſe him not to have conſidered the nature of the Catholick Church, and to know no more of it, than barely the Name. It remains therefore, that the Child either believes the Catholick Church by the Scripture, which you will not grant; or that he does not believe it at all, but doubts of it; and ſo you • all into the ſame inconvenience as to the Church, which you labour to reduce me to, with relation to Scripture.

It may be ſaid very truly, That upon this Pinch a man might diſcern M. de Condom's Wit was not in the condition it uſed to be, and that his natnral freedom of Argument and Repartee, plainly ſlagg'd. He put himſelf upon maintaining that the firſt Authority the Child lived under, was that of the Church, and not his Fathers or Mothers. Mr. Claude returned, That this was a thing too evident to be denied, that the Fathers and Mothers, and thoſe who take the firſt pains about educating the Child. is the firſt Authority with reſpect to Religion, and that he muſt at firſt of all learn from them, that there is ſuch a thing as a Catholick Church, into which he muſt enter himſelf, or ſuch a thing as the Scripture, which was from God and to which he muſt yield Obedience. That being upon enquiry by what mean the Child can come to believe the Catholick Churches Authority, there is a neceſſity for fixing, either upon Inſpiration, or the Paternal Authority, or the Scriptures, which informed him concerning it. M. de Condom anſwered, That the Childs Faith in the Churches Authority was a Divine Faith, becauſe it was the Holy Ghoſt that wrought it in him. Mr. Claude replied, That the queſtion was not concerning the efficient Cauſe, which produced this Faith in the Child, but concerning the Motive or Argument, by which it was produced. If M. de Condom's meaning were, that the Holy Ghoſt wrought Faith in this Child, without any Argument or Motive at all, this were a ſort of Enthuſiaſm, and the Holy Ghoſt does not Influence People at that rate. M. de Condom ſaid, there were indeed Motives of Credibility. Mr. Claude returned hereupon, That if he would allow the Child ſo much time, as to examine thoſe Motives of Credibility for the Authority of the Church, and perceive their ſtrength, He himſelf would in like manner allow the ſame Child time to examine the Motives of Credibility for the Authority of Scripture, and perceive the ſtrength of them; but in this caſe he muſt forego his Argument, which proceeds upon a Suppoſition, that the Child never yet read the Scripture.

But, is not this true, ſaid M. de Condom, That in theſe circumſtances the Child either does or does not doubt of the Scriptures being Divine? And is it not as true, ſaid Mr. Claude, That in theſe Circumſtances, the Child either does, or does not doubt of the Churches Authority? For if you take the Child before he have read the Scripture, I will look upon him too, before he knows what Motives of Credebility there are for the Churches Authority. It is your part to anſwer my Argument, and the very ſame anſwer you give, will ſerve me againſt yours. But do you, as you think fit; I however will not ſcruple to give a direct anſwer to your way of reaſoning. The Child then may be lookt upon with Diſtinction, as to three ſeveral times; either, before his Father have ever ſhewed him the Bible, and informed him that this Book came from God, or after his Father have told him thus much, but before he himſelf have read it; or laſtly, after that he hath read the Book himſelf. As to the firſt of theſe times, which is that your Argument looks upon him in, it cannot well be ſaid, that then he either does or does not doubt, for neither the one, nor the other is ſtrictly true, according to your meaning. Not to doubt of any thing, ſignifies to be well aſſured of it. Now, before a man can be ſaid, to doubt, or to be well aſſured that any thing is ſo, or ſo; he muſt firſt have ſome knowledge of the thing it ſelf. I can neither doubt nor be aſſured, that ſuch a Perſon is King of Spain, unleſs I firſt have ſome knowledg of the Perſon. So that your reaſoning is by no means good, that a Child either does, or does not doubt of the Scripture's being Divine: For there is a medium between theſe two, to wit, ſuch as conſiſts in a ſtate called, An Ignorance of pure negation. He knows not as yet what the Scripture is, nor hath ever heard talk of it. To doubt, or not doubt whether Scripture be Divine, a Man muſt have ſome knowledg, and form ſome Idea of the thing: But the Child can never form any Idea of a Book he never heard once mentioned. At the ſecond point of time, when his Father hath ſhowed him the Bible, and told him, that Book is the Word of God, but the Child hath not yet read it himſelf; he believes it to be the Word of God, but this he does, not by a Divine, but humane Faith, becauſe his Father hath told him ſo: And this is the caſe of a Catechumen. At the third point of time, when he is ſuppoſed to have read the Book himſelf, and felt the virtue and efficacy of it, he believes it to be God's World, but this he does not now by a humane Faith, becauſe his Father told him ſo, but by a Divine Faith, becauſe he hath found the Divinity and Efficacy of it upon himſelf; and this is the condition of a Believer.

M. de Condom laid hold of the word Catechumen, and ſaid, that this was a Chriſtian, one already Baptized, and actually admitted into Covenant with God. Mr. Claude anſwered, that by the word Catechumen he meant nothing elſe but a Child after Baptiſm, at the time of his being inſtructed in the firſt Rudiments of Religion. M. de Condom beat again upon almoſt the ſame things that had been ſaid before, conſtantly affirming it to be the Churches Authority, that the Child received the Scriptures as Divine; and that having received them as ſuch from the Church, he did afterwards receive the meaning and interpretation of them from thence alſo.

Pray, Sir, tell me, ſaid Mr. Claude then, when a Child learns at firſt of all, that there is a Catholick Church, Is it barely a general Idea, which conſiſts in knowing only that there is ſuch a thing as a Catholick Church, without knowing where, or which it is? or does it determine him to that Church whoſe publick Aſſemblies he ſees? For if it be the former of theſe, this, as you would make it, is a mighty wild and inſignificant principle of Faith. I know that there is a Catholick Church to whoſe Authority it is my duty to ſubmit, but I cannot tell where that Church is, nor which is ſhe; this would be but an odd principle of Faith. The Child, ſaid M. de Condom, does certainly determine this Idea to the particular Church, whoſe Aſſemblies he ſees, and in which he himſelf bears a part, and does believe that to be the Catholick Church, and not barely that there is ſuch a Church. Let us imagine then, ſaid Mr. Claude, a Child born within a Church that is Heretical, or Schiſmatical, the Aethiopian Church ſuppoſe, the firſt principle of Faith in this Child will be from the Aethiopian Church, looking upon that as the Catholick. From this Church then, and from her Authority, according to your Tenet, he will receive the Scripture as Divine; from her likewiſe he will receive the meaning and interpretation of Scripture; and he muſt never afterwards believe himſelf priviledged to examine the determinations of his Aethiopick Church, for fear of falling into the inconvenience and abſurdity of fancying it impoſſible for him, a private ſingle perſon, to underſtand the true meaning of Scripture better than the whole body of the Church. Tell me now, Sir, whether according to this principle, this Child be not obliged always to abide within that Heretical, or Schiſmatical Church? Tell me what means you will contrive for him to get out of it? It is evident then, that your principle would ſerve as well to continue a Jew in his Judaiſm, a Pagan in his Heatheniſm, and a Heretick in his Hereſy, as an Orthodox Chriſtian in the true Church.

To this M. de Condom replied, that in the perſwaſion of that Aethiopian Child, we muſt make a difference between that part which proceeded from the Holy Spirit, and that which is the effect of prejudice and humane prepoſſeſſion. That the Holy Spirit's dictate was in general, that there was a Catholick Church ſomewhere or other; but his ſuppoſal, that the Church in which he was born was that Catholick Church, proceeded from humane prepoſſeſſion. It is true, he did from this Church receive the Scriptures, and belived them to be Divine, for no other reaſon but upon its Authority: But afterwards, as he was reading the Scriptures, the Holy Ghoſt raiſed in him ſome ſcruples about the Church he was born in, and by this means he came off from the Hereſy and Schiſm he found himſelf inſnared in.

Mr. Claude returned, that M. de Condom muſt of neceſſity either retract his principle, or confeſs what he now alledged to be utterly impoſſible. Becauſe this Aethiopian neither can, nor muſt be allowed to underſtand the Scriptures any otherwiſe than in the ſenſe and interpretation of his own Church, by whoſe Authority it is that he believes them to be Divine, and from whoſe hands he receives their meaning; ſo that when he reads Scripture, there can never ſtart up any ſcruples in his mind againſt the truth of his own Church, becauſe he never expounds any Text of Scripture but in agreement with the ſenſe of that Church about it. Now if on the other ſide your meaning be, that this perſon expounds Scripture of his own head, and according to his own judgment, ſo taking it in a ſenſe different from that of the Church, you at the ſame time make him forego the principle that you have all this while been contending for; and it is not you only that make him forego it, but you do beſides maintain, that the Holy Ghoſt himſelf makes him forego it, and all thoſe mighty inconveniences you exclaimed againſt, vaniſh into nothing. He added moreover, that what M. de Condom ſaid laſt, juſtified the meaſures the Proteſtants had taken in relation to the Church of Rome; for altho that had been believed to be the Catholick Church in the time of our Infancy, tho we had received the Scriptures from her, and believed them to be of Divine Authority; yet muſt we not be blamed for making a difference between that part of this belief which proceeded from the Holy Ghoſt, and that which was the effect of humane Prepoſſeſſion and Prejudice: We cannot be found fault with, for having admitted ſome Scruples againſt the Truth of this Church, as we read the Scriptures, and for having upon this accout withdrawn our ſelves from her Communion.

M. de Condom ſaid, the Caſes did ſtill differ in this circumſtance, That the Ethiopian, when he left his own, would betake himſelf to the Catholick Church, whereas the Pretended Reformed have not put themſelves into any other Communion at all. You courted indeed Jeremy's the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, but he would have nothing to do with you. The ſeparation was not from our ſelves, ſaid Mr. Claude, and that is enough to ſhew that we have not ſeparated from the true Church. If Jeremy the Patriarch of Conſtantinople would have nothing to do with us, as you ſay, that was to his own loſs, and he did not do as he ſhould have done in it.

Upon this the Company roſe, and the Conference which laſted ſome time longer, grew a great deal more confuſed; ſeveral things were then ſpoken of. M. de Condom exaggerated much, and pretended to draw a parallel between the ſeparation of the Proteſtants, and that of the old Hereticks, particularly the Arrians and Macedonians, that ſet up new Churches by themſelves. Mr. Claude compared the Proteſtants behaviour, to that of Chriſt's Apoſtles, when they ſeparated from the Jews; that, as the Apoſtles relied on Scripture againſt the Jews, who relied upon Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies and their Authority, the Proteſtants did the ſame againſt the Church of Rome. He ſaid, the Arrians maintained, that the Conſubſtantiality of the Son of God determined by the Nicene Council, was a Novel Doctrine, and that many other perſons had in truth expreſt themſelves very unadviſedly concerning the Divinity of the Son; among others he inſtanced in Origea, Juſtin Martyr, and the Council of Antioch. As for Origen, M. de Condom ſaid he was a ſuſpected Author, and the Council of Antioch ſaid he, was an Arrian Council; to which Mr. Claude replied, that he was much miſtaken; for that Council was held before Arrius his time, and yet rejected the Term Conſubſtantial. As to Juſtin Martyr, How, Sir, ſaid he, a Martyr ſpeak amiſs of the Divinity of the Son of God! I will never believe a word on't. You may believe what you think ſit, Sir, ſaid Mr. Claude; but for all that, the thing is even ſo.

Afterwards M. de Condom put himſelf upon the Invocation of Saints, and Prayers for the Dead: For the firſt of theſe, he told them Mr. Daille had allowed it to be Thirteen hundred years old; and Mr. Blondell acknowledged the ſecond to be of great Antiquity. Mr. Claude replied, it was no great wonder, if the Church of Rome, which had collected, and Cononized the Errors and Superſtitions of former Ages, had picked up ſome that were of a good old ſtanding. But he ought to have ſaid withal, that Mr. Daille had made it appear, that for Three hundred years together there was not to be found the leaſt footſteps of Invocation of Saints, and eſpecially, that there was not any manner of ground for it in Scripture. That he acknowledged Prayer for the Dead to be one of the oldeſt ſuperſtitions; but there was a mighty difference between the practice of the Primitive Chriſtians, and the modern devotions of the Romiſh Church. And after all, it was an Error contrary to the principles of Scripture.

M. de Condom betook himſelf again to the Compariſon between the Proteſtants and Hereticks of old; inferring from thence, that they and their Church was new and upſtart. Mr. Claude ſhewed him, that this prejudice was extremely unjuſt, and of very pernicious conſequence. Unjuſt, becauſe on one hand it placed the advantage on the ſtrongeſt ſide, and thoſe that have moſt of their party; whereas the Scripture teaches us quite contrary,Exod. 23. That we muſt not follow a multitude to do evil: For the ſtrongeſt ſide are continually taxing others with making a new Body, and a new Church. Unjuſt, ſecondly, becauſe a falſe Antiquity may be miſtaken for a true, an Antiquity of ſome Ages ſtanding, which is really no better than a Novelty, for an Antiquity of all Ages of the Church; which in the buſineſs of Religion is the higheſt injuſtice imaginable. He added moreover, that this prejudice was of very pernicious conſequence; becauſe at this rate, when once Errors and Superſtitions had by inſenſible degrees crept into Religion, and Cuſtom, or the Schools had given them countenance, there would no poſſible means be left of expoſing or extirpating them: For the maintainers of them will be continually objecting againſt thoſe that endeavour it, that they ſet up a new Church, and a new Religion. Thus it was,Matt. 15. that the Phariſees accuſed Jeſus Chriſt for an Innovator, upon pretence that his Diſciples kept not the Traditions of the Elders, which were indeed but Innovations themſelves. Thus the Jews taxed St. Paul for a Mover of Sedition among them through the whole world, Acts 21. and being a Ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes, which they lookt upon as a new Sect. Thus all the Apoſtles were charged by the Heathens, for being diſturbers of the publick peace, and bringers up of New things, becauſe they endeavoured to root out the old Errors out of mens hearts, and bring them to the worſhip of the one only true God, maker of Heaven and Earth.

M. de Condom replied, That Jeſus Chriſt was new, that the Jews expected the Meſſias; that John Baptiſt, Anna the Propheteſs, Simeon, and the wiſe men had owned him. True, ſaid Mr. Claude, he was not really new, for he is the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever: Heb. 188. But he was new to that whole Nation which expected a temporal Meſſiah, and did not ſee in him any ſign of what they expected. He was new in their opinion, in that he condemned the old Traditions. His Church was new to them, becauſe it ſeparated from the Body of the Jews, and made a diſtinct body which they had never ſeen before. And as for John Baptiſt, Anna the Propheteſs, Simeon, and the wiſe men, what were theſe ſingle private perſons, if compared to the whole body of Prieſt; Phariſees and Lawyers, and the whole Body of all the Jews in general, which never owned him, but lookt for an earthly Meſſias. It is plain then, that this prejudice of Novelty, forbidding men to examine things to the bottom, and not diſtinguiſhing between a true and a counterfeit Antiquity, accounting that old which was practiſed yeſterday, and every thing new that is contrary to what was in vogue yeſterday, is a very ill and dangerous prejudice. It fortifies Jews and Heathens againſt the Chriſtian Religion, and indeed, was continually made uſe of by Celſus, and the reſt of them that oppoſed Chriſtianity.

I own, ſaid M. de Condom, that the Heathens did upbraid the Chriſtians with their Novelty, but the Chriſtians demonſtrated to them, that the Jews always believed in the ſame God they worſhipped, and did expect the ſame Meſſias they pro • eſt. What you ſay, anſwer'd Mr. Claude, is a further confirmation of my opinion, to wit, that you ought not out of prejudice conclude for what appears to be new, but ſearch things throughly, to know certainly whether what appears to be new, be ſo in truth. The Heathens accuſation proceeded from your prejudice, and the Chriſtians defence of themſelves is according to my principle. For it was by an exact examination of things, that the Chriſtians demonſtrated they were not new, tho the World looked upon them ſo, and that what they oppoſed in the Heathen ſuperſtitions, was really new, tho taken to be old.

The Conference having laſted a very great while, near upon five hours, and being carried on with abundance of earneſtneſs in the diſputants on both ſides, and of attention from the ſtanders by, the Company now began to interpoſe, and ſo the diſpute broke off. After which Mr. Claude applied himſelf to M. de Condom, with a great deal of civility and reſpect, and intreated him, that the difference between their Religions and Opinions, might not incline him to think leſs kindly of him. That he for his part ſhould ever retain a very high value and eſteem for ſo deſerving a perſon. M. de Condom returned him this very obliging anſwer, That he had ſome knowledg of him before by his Writings, but was exceeding glad to know his perſon now by this Conference, in the management whereof, he had done all that could poſſibly by done for the vindication of his Cauſe; and that whenever any opportunity of ſerving him offered it ſelf, he would very willingly and heartily lay hold on it.

Preſently after M. de Condom went away; and Mr. Claude having firſt returned thanks to the Company, particularly to the Lady Mareſchalleſs de Lorge, for their patience and attention, took his leave of Mademoiſelle de Duras in words to this purpoſe, That he had vindicated the Truth before her; and all that was now left for him to do, was only to beſeech Almighty God in her behalf; and to exhort her, that ſhe would improve what ſhe had now heard, to the ſettling her more firmly in that Religion which God had called her to, and not ſuffer her ſelf to be ſhaken by any temptation: And theſe things he would not fail to requeſt of God for her. Mademoiſelle de Duras thank'd him very kindly for the trouble he had been at, and very paſſionately begged his Prayers: Which Mr. Claude having promiſed, preſently withdrew.

THE END.

ERRATA.

IN the Preface, Pag. xi. for Palmenia, read Palmeria; p. xviii. l. 1. f: were, r. wave. In the Anſwer, p. 2. l. 3. f your, r. our; p. 7. in the Marg. r. Epheſ. 1. 22, 23. p. 8. l. 18. f roſe, r. goes; p. 10. l. 14. f Good, r. Goods; p. 23. l. 17. f. in, r. on, p. 24. l. 10. after ſhe, r is; p. 31. l. 23. f. knows, r. follows; p. 32. l. 1. f. as, r. is; p. 35. l. 13. dele That; p. 42. l. 2. after for, •• us; ibid. l 3. for this, r. his; p. 60. l. 20. dele If, p. 67. l. 1. f. frequent, r. freely.