preuent all scandal They haue concluded by this regulation that both kindes were not essentiall to the Communion by the institution of CHRIST for otherwise they would haue bin bound absolutely to refuse the Sacrament to such as were not able to receaue it compleat and not to giue it them in a manner contrary to that CHRIST JESVS had commanded and in that case their disability would haue sufficiently excused them But our Aduersaries haue conceaued that such a rigour would be excessiue if they did not allow at least one of the Species to such as were not capable to receaue the other and since this condescendence hath no ground in the Scripture they must needs confesse with vs that the words whereby CHRIST IESVS hath proposed to vs the two Species are liable to some interpretation and that the right vnderstanding of them ought to be declared by the Authority of the Church But it might seeme that this Article of their Discipline which is of the Synode of Poytiers held 1560 had bin reformed by the Synode of Vertueil assembled in the year 1567 where it is said that the company is not of opinion the Bread should be giuen to those who would not receaue the Cupp These two Synodes neuerthelesse are not at all opposite to one another that of Vertueil speaketh of those who Will not receaue the Cupp and that of Poytiers of such as Can not take it And indeed notwithstanding the Synode of Vertueil that Article remaineth in their Discipline nay more hath bin approued by a Synode later then that of Vertueil namely by the Synode of Rochelle in 1571 where the Article was renewed and putt into that state which it now remaineth in But supposing the Synodes of the Pretended-Reformers had differr'd varied in their opinions that would serue only to manifest that the matter in question is not a point of Faith but of that kind which the Church may order dispose of according to their own principles There remaineth now nothing but to expose what the Catholiques hold touching the Word of God concerning the Authority of the Church CHRIST IESVS hauing lay'd the foundation of his Church vpon the Preaching of his Disciples the Vnwritten Word was the first guide rule of Christianity when the writings of the New Testament were adioyned to them the former Word did not for all that loose its Authority which causeth vs to accept with the same veneration all that was taught by the Apostles be it by writing or by word of mouth according to what S. Paul himself hath expresly inioyned And the certain proofe that a Doctrine comes from the Apostles is its being accepted and embraced by all Christian Churches whilst its beginning can not be pointed mark'd out We can not choose but receaue all that is establish'd in this manner with the submission due to the Diuine Authority and we are confident that such persons of the Pretended-Reformed Religion as are not very obstinate haue the same perswasion in the bottome of their harts it being impossible to beleeue that a Doctrine setled and receaued from the beginning of the Church can flow from any other spring then that of the Apostles Wherefore our Adversaries ought not to wonder that we being zealously carefull to inherit all that our Fathers haue left vs doe conserue the Deposite of Tradition as well as that of the Scriptures The Church being ordained by God to be the Depositary of the Scripture of Tradition we receaue from her hands the Canonicall Scriptures and we beleeue whateuer our Aduersaries say that it is principally the Church's Authority that determineth vs to reuerence as Diuine writt the song of Salomon which hath so few sensible markes of Propheticall inspiration and likewise the Epistle of S. Iames which Luther reiected and that of S. Iude which might be suspected by reason of some Apocriphall bookes cited in it in fine there can be no motiue but that Authority to perswade the receauing the whole body of the holy Scriptures which Christians accept as Diuine euen before the reading hath wrougt any feeling of the Spirit of God in those bookes Being then inseparably bound as we are to the Authority of the Church by meanes of the Scriptures which we receaue from her hand we are taught also by her Tradition and by the help of Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures So that the Church professeth to say nothing meerly of her self and likewise that she inventeth nothing new in her Doctrine that she doth but follow and declare the Diuine Reuelation by the interiour direction of the holy spirit which is giuen her for her Teacher That the holy Ghost expresseth himself by the Church the dispute raised about the Ceremonies of the Law euen in the time of the Apostles doth euidence and their Acts haue directed all succeeding ages by the manner that first contest was decided by what Authority all following differences are to be determined so that whensoeuer any dispute happens to deuide the faithfull the Church will interpose her Authority and the Pastours assembled will say after the Apostles It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and vs. And when the Church hath pronounced and determined her children will be taught not to examine a new the Articles resolued vpon but that they are bound to accept with all submission the Church's Decisions And in this methode we follow S. Paul and Silas who deliuered to the faithfull the first iudgment of the Apostles and were so farr from allowing a new discussion of what had bin decided as they trauell'd through the townes teaching to obserue the ordinances of the Apostles In this manner the children of God acquiesce in the iudgment of the Church beleeuing that by her mouth they hear the Oracle of the Holy Ghost and it is vpon the ground of this perswasion that after hauing profess'd in the Creed I beleeue in the Holy Ghost we ioine next to it The Holy Catholique Church by which protestation we oblige our selues to acknowledge an Infallible and Perpetuall Verity in the Catholique Church since the same Church which we beleeue perseuering throughout all ages would cease to be a Church if it left to teach the Truth reuealed by God so that such as apprehend least she should abuse her power by introducing Falsities haue little Faith in him by whose hand she is held and conducted And if our Aduersaries would consider discusse these matters in a fairer and more humane manner they would be forced to auowe that the Catholique Church is so farre from affecting to render herself Mistresse of her Faith as her Aduersaries charge her that quite contrary she hath laboured with all her power to binde her self and to exclude all means of In̄ouation since she doth not only submitt to the holy Scriptures but to banish for euer all Arbitrary interpretatiōs which would make the conceipts of men passe for Scripture declareth herself obliged
r Daillé hath writt a treatise intitled Faith grounded vpon the scripture wherein after having exposed all the articles of Faith professed by the Pretended-Reformed Church he Saith that They are without contest the Church of Rome professeth the beleife of them and true it is that they hold not all our opinions but that we hold all their beleefs Wherefore this Minister cannot deny our beleeuing all the principall articles of Christian Religion vnless he will destroy his own Faith But had not Mons r Daillé graunted this the matter proues it self since all the world knowes that we profess the beleife of all those articles which the Caluinists call Fundamentalls so that an ingenuous syncerity would allow vs without dispute this Assertion that we haue not waued or declined any of the Essential perswasions The Pretended-Reformers discerning the aduantages we may draw from this concession seeke to disapoint vs by alledging that we destroy those articles by asserting others which are inconsistent with them This is what they labour to euince by consequences they inferr from our doctrines but the same M r Daillé whome I produce to them not so much to conuīce them by the testimony of one of their most learned Ministers as in regard that what he saith being euident in it self teacheth them what they ought to beleiue of those sorts of consequences supposing that ill ones might be deriued from our Doctrine This is what he saith in his letter to Mons r de Monglat vpon the occasion of his Apologie Although the opinion of the Lutherans in point of the Eucharist inferres according to vs as well as that of Rome the destrūction of the humanity of CHRIST JESVS yet that consequence cannot be obiected to them without calumnie considering that they doe formally reiect it There is nothing more Essentiall to Christian Religion then the verity of the Humane Nature of JESVS-CHRIST and yet notwithstanding the Lutherans hold a doctrine from which is inferr'd a destruction of this Essentiall verity by consequences the Pretended-Reformers account euident they haue not scrupuled to offer them their communion in respect that their opinion hath no poyson in it as M r Daillé attesteth in his Apologie and their Nationall Synod held at Charenton in 1631 admits the Lutherans to their Communion vpon this ground that they agree in the principles and fundamentall points of their Religion It is therefore a maxime constantly established amōgst them that we ought not in this matter to consider the consequences which may be drawne from a Doctrine but simply what the party maintaineth and what he stateth who professeth it So that when by consequences they pretend to deduct from our Doctrine that we can not sufficiently acknowledg the souueraine glory due to God nor the quality of Saviour and Mediator in CHRIST JESVS nor the infinite dignity of Sacrifice nor the superaboundant plenitude of his merits we may easily defeate those consequences by this short answer which M r Daillé himself furnishes vs with by saying that the Catholique Church disclaiming them they can not be imputed to vs without calumny But I will vndertake further and clear to the Pretended-Reformers by the single explication of our Doctrine that so farr it is from ouerthrowing the Fundamentall articles of Faith either directly or by any just consequence that quite contrary our Doctrine hath established them in a manner so solide so euident that without palpable injustice the aduantage of a right vnderstanding them can not admit a question And to begin with the adoration due to God the Catholique Church teacheth that it consists principally in beleiuing that he is the Creator Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our soule by faith hope and loue as to him who alone can conferr our Eternall happinesse by com̄unication of the infinite Good which is himself This interior adoration which we render to G'od in spirit and in truth hath its exterior markes of which the principall is Sacrifice which can not be offered but to God alone by reason the homage of Sacrifice is established in order to a publike confession a solemne protestatiō of the soueraingnity of God and of our absolute dependance on him The same Church teacheth that Religiōs Worship ought to terminate in God as being the necessary end and obiect thereof and if the honour she renders to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints may be termed an Act of Religion it is upon the ground that it relateth necessarily vnto God Before I explaine further in what this honour consisteth it will be vsefull to obserue that the Pretended-Reformers being press'd by the power of euident truth begin to acknowledg that the practise of praying to Saints and honoring their reliques was established in the Church euen in the fourth Century M. Daillé making this acknowledgment in the booke he writt against the Latine Church touching the obiect of Religious Worship accuseth S. Basile S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. John Chrysostome S. Augustin and diuers other great lights of Antiquity which did shine in that age and aboue all the rest S. Gregory Nazianzen who is styled the Deuine as a note of his excellency he taxeth all these with hauing changed in this point the doctrine of the preceding ages But surely it will seeme very improbable that M. Daillé should have better vnderstood the sentiments of the three first ages then those who did as it were inherite their doctrine immediately vpon their death and it is by so much the lesse to be beleiued by reason that the fathers of the fourth age were so farre from perceauing any introduction of new doctrines in this Act of Religion that this Minister himself citeth expresse texts by which they shew clearly that they pretended in praying to Saints to follow the example of their Predecessors But not to examin any longer the iudgments of three primitiue ages I rest satisfyed with the graunt of M. Daillé who yealds to vs so many eminent Doctors who did instruct and discipline the Church in the fourth Age. For though it is an easy matter twelue hundred years after their death to taint them by way of scorne with the title of a Sect calling them Reliquarists as persons who honored Reliques I will hope that those of his Communion will beare more respect to those eminent personages they will not presume at least to object that theyr praying to Saints and honoring their Reliques rendred them guilty of Idolatry or that they ouerthrew the confidence that Christians are to haue in IESVS-CHRIST and we may hope that hence forward they will forbeare those reproaches when they consider they can not apply them to vs without laying the same imputation vpon so many excellent persons whose Doctrine Sanctity they professe to reuerence But since it is my worke to exhibite here our Beleif rather then produce the Mantainers of it we must persue the explication of it The Catholique Church teaching the
desires by a speciall reuelation or be it that God reueileth to them that secret in his diuine essence wherein all truths are comprehended so that the Church vpon these different manners hath not determined by which of them God is pleased to make this communication to his Saints But by what means soeuer this knowledge is imparted it is very certain that it is farr from ascribing to the creature any of the diuine perfections as the Idolaters did since it doth not permit our attributing euen to the greatest Saints any degree of excellence which is not deriued from God nor acceptablenesse in his eyes but as deriued from their virtues nor any virtue but what is the free guift of Grace nor any information of humane passages but such as God is pleased to communicate nor any capacity to assist vs but only by their prayers nor in fine any felicity but by a perfect submission and conformity to the diuine pleasure It is therefore most certain that vpon penetration into our interior sentiments directed to the Saints it will be euident that we doe not raise them aboue the condition of Creatures and from this ground one ought to be possess'd of the true nature of that honour and reuerence which is intended by our exterior demonstrations the apparent religious offices being appointed to testify the interior sentiments of our minds But by reason that the honour which the Church offers to Saints appeareth most notoriously before their Images and their holy Reliques it is requisite to explaine the Churches syncere doctrine in this Religious Act. In point of Images the Councel of Trent forbids expressely to beleeue any Diuinity or power in them for which we ought to reuerence them or to sue for any fauor or to place any confidence in them and ordains that all the honour should relate to the Originalls they represent All these words of the Councel are so many characters which serue to distinguish vs from Idolaters since we are so farr from beleeuing with them any Diuinity residing in the Images as we attribute no virtue to them but this of exciting in vs the remembrance of their originalls Vpon this it is that the honour we render to Images is grounded for example can one deny that the figure of IESVS-CHRIST crucified when we behold it doth not excite a more liuely remembrance of him who loued vs so as to deliuer himself vp to death for vs As long as the present Image possessing our eyes entertains so pretious a notion in our minds we are moued to expresse by some exterior markes the feruor and extent of our gratitude and we declare by our humiliation before the Image how profound our submission is respectiue to the Original Wherefore speaking strictly according to the style of the Church when we render any honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our ayme is not so much to honour the Image as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image To this purpose the Roman Pontificall declareth and the Councell of Trent expresseth the same intent when it saith that the honour we render to Images is so referr'd to the Originalls that by the means of the Images we kisse and before which we kneele we adore CHRIST IESVS and honour those Saints which they represent to vs. In fine we cleerly discerne in what Spirit the Church honoureth Images by the honour it renders the holy Crosse or the booke of the Gospel All the world sees cleerly that before the Crosse the Church adoreth him who did beare our sinn's vpon that wood and that when her children bow their heads before the bookes of the Gospel when they stand vp in respect at theyr passing by them and kisse them reuerently all this honour terminateth in the Eternall Verity which is exposed to vs by that Instrument There must then be very little equity in calling Idolatry that Religious sentiment which moueth vs to vncouer and bow our heads before the Images of the Crosse in reflection vpon him who was crucyfi'd for our sakes and one must be starke blinde not to discerne the extreame difference between those who confided in Idols vpon this opinion that some Diuinity or some virtue was at is were fastned vnto them and them who professe as we doe that they intend not to make any vse of Images but simply to raise their spirit vp to heaven with the intent of honouring CHRIST IESVS or his Saints and in them God himself who is the author of all grace and Sanctification Vnder the same notion the honour we pay to Reliques is to be apprehended following the stepps of the primitiue Ages and if our Aduersaries did reflect that we consider the bodies of Saints as hauing bin victimes to God either by Martyrdome or Pennance they would not conceiue that the honour we render them vpon this motiue can depart or remoue vs from that we owe to God himself And we may say in generall that if they would comprehend in what manner the affection we beare to some one body extendeth without deuiding it self to his children to his freinds and successiuely by degrees to all that represents that person to all that remains of him or any thing that receiueth the memory of him if they did comprehend that our honouring makes such a progress since in effect our honouring is nothing else but loue mixt with feare and respect in fine if they did comprehend that all the exterior worship of the Catholique Church riseth and springeth in God himself and that it reuerts thither they would neuer suspect that those Religious acts which God alone doth animate could provoke his iealousy They would perceiue the quite contrary and find that if God as iealous as he is of the loue of men doth not account that we deuide between him and the Creature when we loue our Neighbour for his sake the same God as iealous as he is of the duties of his seruants doth not conceiue them to share or part the worship which they owe to him alone when from the motiue of the dutys they owe him they honour those who haue bin honoured by himself Yet true it is that as the sensible markes of reuerence are not all of absolute necessity the Church without any alteration in the Doctrine may haue extended more or lesse those exterior practises suting to the diuersity of times places and other occurrencies not intending that her children should be seruilly subiected to visible matters but only that they might be excited and as it were aduertised by their means to apply themselfs to God to offer him in spirit and truth that reasonable and due seruice he expecteth from his creatures It may easily be discerned by this Doctrine with how much truth I have asserted that a great part of our Controversies would vanish by an only right vnderstanding of termes if these were discussed with Charity and if our Aduersaries did consider calmely the precedent explications
celebrating the Memory and applying the Virtue of that Oblation Whereby the same Church professeth that all the merit of the Redemption of mankind is annexed to the Death of the son̄e of God certainly by all that hath bin already said it ought to haue bin vnderstood that when we say to God in the celebration of the divine Mysteries We offer you this holy host we doe not pretend by this oblation to make or present to God a new payement of the price of our Saluation but to employ towards him the merits of IESVS CHRIST there present and the infinite price he hath at once pay'd for our Redemption vpon the Crosse. The Professors of the Pretended-Reformed Religion doe not beleeue that they offend CHRIST IESVS in offring him to God as present by their Faith as in case they did beleeue he were truly and Really present what repugnance could they haue to offer him as being Effectually present So that to argue ingenuously the dispute in faire dealing ought to be reduced singly to his being Present This supposed all the false images and conceptions the Pretended-Reformers frame to themselues about the Sacrifice we offer ought to be effaced they should in iustice acknowledge fairely that the Catholiques pretend not to frame for themselues a new Propitiation to appease God againe as if he were not sufficiently reconciled by the Sacrifice of the Crosse or in order to make some new supplement to the price of our Saluation as if it were imperfect All these imaginations haue no admission into our Doctrine by reason that all this is intended by way of Intercession and Application in that manner I come from deliuering explaining After this cleer explication those great obiections drawn out of the Epistle to the Hebrews which our Aduersaries seeke to enforce so much against vs will appear weake vnreasonable that it is in vaine they strayne themselues to proue by the meaning of the Apostle that we nullify the Sacrifice of the Crosse but as the most certain proof that can be had that two Doctrines are not opposite to one an other is to discouer in the expounding them that no proposition of the one is Contradictory to the proposalls of the other I conceaue my self inuited in this occasion to expose in short the Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews The Apostle designed in this Epistle the teaching vs that a sinner could not escape from death other wayes then by subrogating in his place one that should dy for him that while men did supply in their stead but the Bloodshed of Beasts their Sacrifices had no other operation but the making a publick profession that they had deserued to dy and that by reason the divine Iustice could not be satisfied with so disproportionate an exchange those Bloody Victimes were euery day offer'd and repeated which was a certain proofe of the insufficiency of that exchange and subrogation but that since CHRIST IESVS had bin pleased to dy for sinners God being fully satisfyed by the voluntary substitution of so worthy a person could no more require the price of our ransome from whence the Apostle concludes that we ought not only to cease from offring any other Victime after CHRIST IESVS but that CHRIST himself was to be offer'd vp to death but one single time Let the Reader then who is sollicitous of his Saluation and is a freind to truth recolect seriously what we haue deliuered of the manner wherein CHRIST IESVS offereth himself to God for vs in the Eucharist and I am confident he will not find in it any propositions contrary to those of the Apostle which I come from delivering or any that infirme his proofes so the most can be vrged against vs is his Silence But such as will consider the wise distributions God maketh of his secrets in the many and seuerall bookes of his Scripture would not surely restraine vs to receaue from the single Epistle to the Hebrews all our instruction concerning a matter which did not necessarily relate to the subiect of that Epistle since the Apostle intendeth in it to explaine the perfection of the Sacrifice of the Crosse and not the different meanes God hath giuen vs to apply it vnto our selues And to preuent all Equiuocall sense if we take the word offer as it is vnderstood in this Epistle in that sense which implyeth the Actual death of the Victime we confesse aloud that IESVS-CHRIST is no longer offer'd so neither in the Eucharist nor any where else But as this same word hath a larger signification in other places of Scripture where it is often said that one Offereth to God what one presenteth before him the Church which doth not frame her language her doctrine by the single Epistle to the Hebrews but by the whole body of the Scriptures doth not scruple to affirme that CHRIST JESVS offereth himself to God in all places where he appeareth for our sakes before him and consequently that he offereth himself vp in the Eucharist according to the expression of the holy Fathers of the Church Now to conceaue that this man̄er wherein CHRIST IESVS presenteth himself to God can at all detract from the Sacrifice of the Crosse is what can not possibly be inferr'd vnlesse one will ouerthrow the whole Scripture and especially that Epistle which they seeke so much to straine against vs. For by the same reason we ought to conclude that when CHRIST IESVS vowed himself to God entring into the world to substitute himself instead of those Victimes which were not pleasing to him that he iniured the action by which he deuow'd himself vpō the Crosse and so when he continueth to appeare for vs before God he detracteth from the Oblation in which he appeared once by the Immolation of himself and that not ceasing to intercede for vs he accuseth that Intercession of Insufficiency which he made at his Death with so many teares and so great cryes Would not all these inferences be ridiculous We must therefore vnderstand that CHRIST IESVS who did offer vp himself once to become the humble Victime of the Diuine iustice doth continue still offering himself for vs that the infinite perfection of the Sacrifice of the Crosse consisteth in this that whatsoeuer preceded it as well as what follows it are intirely relating vnto it that as what preceded was its Preparation so what doth follow is its Consummation and Application that true it is the payment of the price of our ransome is not reiterated by reason it was fully discharged the first time but what Applieth that Redemption is incessantly continued repeated and in fine we must know to distinguish those acts which are reiterated as being imperfect from such as are perpetuated as being perfect necessary We coniure the followers of the Pretended-Reformed Religion to make some little reflection vpon what I haue said concerning the Eucharist The doctrine of the Reall Presence hath bin