the Truth Mean while we declare that Real Presence precisely in it self and without its Attendants is the least of our Controversies about the Eucharist that Adoration Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Retranchment of the Cup and Masses without Communicants seem to us much more important That those Attendants are not according to us Natural Attendants of the Real Presence precisely in it self they are false and evil Consequences which Men have drawn out of it For it is but a bad Reasoning in our Judgment to say The Body of Jesus Christ is Spiritually and Invisibly under the Accidents of Bread and Wine therefore it must be Sacrificed therefore it must be adored and we must retrench the Cup from the People That is it which we shall particularly demonstrate But before that I shall give a Third Advice upon what Monsieur of Condom saith about the importance of the Controversie of the Real Presence It is that granting it to be important he dissembles all the Importance thereof There is nothing saith he that appears more important in our Controversies seeing the question is of the Presence of Jesus Christ himself The Question is not only of that but 1. The Question is Whether we shall oppose all the Lights of our Senses which say that the Signs of the Eucharist are Bread and Wine and if we shall believe that God doth continually offer Illusion to our Senses which is opposite to his Verity and to his Purity 2. The Question is Whether we must suppose that God doth every Moment and without necessity violate the Laws of Nature that are most inviolable which is opposite to his Wisdom 3. The Question is Whether we shall receive a Theology whereof the Consequences destroy all Christian Religion a Theology which confounds Body and Soul and takes away the Bounds that distinguish them A Doctrine which supposing the Flesh of Christ becomes Spiritual Invisible subsisting under a Point confounds the Body with the Soul For I know not how else we can define the Properties of the Soul but in saying She is Invisible without Extension without Space and concluded under a Point This Doctrine also confounds Human Nature with the Divine for it gives to the Flesh of Jesus Christ that which belongs only to his Divinity that is to be in many Places at once and be able to fill Heaven and Earth It destroys the Article of Ascension and robs the Church of that Proof which she made use of against those Hereticks who denied the Truth of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ sor they opposed them by a Proof drawn from thence That during the Life of the Lord Men had always seen in him all the Actions the Motions and Properties of Man This Reasoning will be nothing worth if a Body can be without its Properties and if the Properties of a Body can be without a Body 4. The Question is Whether Men may settle such a manner of Interpreting Scripture which will overthrow all Scripture and will give place to all Heresies if by one passage alone one must explain an hundred others which seem to say the contrary or if by the hundred one should explain that which is alone For for one only passage that saith That that which we see in the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ there are seven or eight others which say formally That it is Bread and Wine The Bread that we break Whosoever shall eat this Bread Whensoever you eat of this Bread Let every one eat of this Bread 5. The Question is to know Whether we will belie our Lord Jesus Christ himself and the Holy Ghost who tells us That we shall not have him always with us that he was going to Heaven that the Heaven must hold him till the restoration of all things 6. The Question is to know Whether to avoid a Natural Figure in these Words This is my Body we shall expose Christian Religion to the scandal of Infidels yea to the greatest Scandal that can be imagined For in fine whilst they shall be able to reproach us That we eat our own God it is certain they will never come to us 7. The Question is Whether we should ruine one of the Sacraments of the Church in destroying the Bread in nullifying the Sign and substituting in its place the Thing signified 8. The Question is to know Whether we should draw down the Lord of Glory from the Throne of his Majesty to nullifie him a second time but with an Annihilation greater than that which he descended into after his Incarnation The Question is to know If this be to respect Jesus Christ our Lord sufficiently to call him down back by the help of three Words ill explained to place him in Impure places to expose him to be trod under feet to be eaten by the Profane to be mingled with Poyson and with Death and to a thousand other Dangers that one dares not express 9. The Question is to know finally If for a Corporal Communion without which one may be saved and wherewith one may be damned and which consequently is not necessary to Salvation we must overthrow all the Rules of Reason of good Sense of Grace and of Nature I know not if after all this any one shall be able to say again Reality and Transubstantiation are not an Affair that should retain you nor hinder you from re-entring into the Roman Church Monsieur of Condom saith thereupon Two things which are to the purpose and which are to be examined The first is That we have shortned our selves those great Spaces of Separation They have approached nearer to us saith he it is because we admit a Presence real It is because our Catechism saith That Jesus Christ makes us partakers of his proper substance and our Confession of Faith That he nourishes us with the Substance of his Body and Blood It is because we say That although Jesus Christ be truly communicated to to us by Baptism and by the Gospel nevertheless it is but in part and not fully Thereupon my Lord of Condom Reasons after his manner and as seems him good Behold then saith he the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ present in our Mysteries by the Grant of Calvinists Behold Jesus Christ received in his proper Substance Jesus Christ is given us in the Eucharist in a manner which suits neither Baptism nor the Gospel and which is wholly proper to this Mystery It follows then that this Participation is not fixed to the Faith seeing that Faith being diffused generally through all the Actions of a Christian is found in the Preaching and in Baptism First I would fain know what Service all this doth to the principal purpose of Monsieur de Condom which is to reapproach us to himself Are we nearer thereto because of some resemblance in the Terms Though we had ill explained our Doctrine and by Incommodious Terms have we then changed it at the bottom And doth not he
Theirs and to make Profession of the Real Presence We have offered only to them in remaining still separate from them as We are both by Assemblies and by some Ceremonies external little important to tolerate them to regard them as our Brethren to receive them when they will come to us without obliging them to an express abjuration of the Doctrines that separate us Behold what we have offered And it is demanded of us That abandoning our Assemblies our Ceremonies and our Doctrines and particularly that of the Real Presence we should re-unite that is to say that we re-enter without any more ado into the Roman Church to believe the Real Presence or at least to make Profession of believing it There is so great difference between tolerating an Errour and to make Profession of believing that Errour that the former may be an action of Charity and the second cannot be but an abominable Hypocrisie The one serves towards Salvation and by the other we evidently hazard our Salvation I can say with assurance that if we should re-enter into the Lutheran Church and that we should bring back our People to them to make their Profession of the Real Presence we should commit a Crime that God would never pardon us After that they would have Ministers to lead back their People into the Roman Church without Mystery to make their Profession of the Real Presence which is a thousand times more dangerous than what we tolerate in the Lutherans 2. We may further tolerate the Real Presence of the Lutherans without tolerating that of the Roman Church because there is a very great difference between the one and the other But before we pass further it is good to remark that what those Doctours say is not true That we regard that Real Presence of the Lutherans as a light Errour It is a great Evil and to cure our Brethren of it we would willingly have given half our own Blood And what we have offered to tolerate them it was principally in hope to bring them back by little and little from their wandring If then we say that their is no Venom in that Opinion we understand it of mortal Venom and a killing One. It is enough to confess some Venom in an Opinion to acknowledge therein some Absurdities which dishonour Reason and blast Christian Religion and we acknowledge it too much in the Real Presence of the Lutherans But it is true that we believe not that it destroys any foundation of Faith We regard it principally in that manner wherein it is expressed in their Confession which saith Touching the Lords Supper they teach that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly present and are distributed to them who eat at the Lords Supper and condemn those who say the contrary There is nothing in these general Words that we might not subscribe to As for the manner of this Presence they are reserved and define it not They say Jesus Christ is there but we know not how If there be any which do pass rashly further in setling what they call Ubiquity that is to say the Presence of Christ's Humanity in all places of the World that passes not among them for a Fundamental Point The Real Presence of the Lutherans doth not destroy the Bread for they confess that the Signs are of true Bread and true Wine and according to that they do not suppose that God offers perpetually an Illusion to our Senses to make us see and feel a Body where there is not a Body They do not destroy the Sacrament seeing they leave the Signs entire The Real Presence of the Lutherans hath not for Attendants the Adoration of the Eucharist and obliges not Men to adore a Creature It doth not induce a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ Among the Lutherans they have not retranched the Cup from the People In fine It is not accompanied with an infinite Number of Worships of Ceremonies and of Doctrines which be incompatible with the purity of the Faith In that Church they do not Worship Images they do not Invoke Saints they do not prostrate themselves before Relicks they serve God in a Known Tongue they acknowledge no Mediator but Jesus Christ no other Satisfaction but his Merit any other Indulgence but his Grace any other Soveraign Authority but his own and that of his Word In a word Let the Roman Church set her Real Presence in the same state as is that of the Lutherans and we will offer to them the same thing which we offer to these so they will not ask us any more that is to say that we will offer them a Toleration so that she will not demand us to re-enter into her Communion For yet once more We never offered to conjoyn with the Lutheran Church whilst they abide in the state wherein they are and we will never do it for any thing in the World 3. I must yet Advertize once more these Gentlemen that for to know the poyson of an Errour one must principally regard it in that which is diffused on practice both of the Worship and of Morality Then for to know how dangerous the Real Presence is we must not regard it in her self but in the Attendants given it that is Adoration the Sacrifice and the Retranchment of the Cup. There it is that the danger lies and that is it that the Lutherans have not No subtilty of the Ministers saith Monsieur de Condom shall ever be able to perswade Men of good Sense that bearing with the Reality which is the most important Point and the more difficult they ought not also to tolerate the rest How can the Ingenuity and Light of Monsieur of Condom permit him to say that What if they tolerate a Speculative Opinion which changes nothing in the Worship and in the Religion shall we be obliged to tolerate the Adoration of a Creature which is of all things most opposite to the Foundations of Faith If a Man be perswaded that God is in the Sun by a presence of Substance greater than that wherewith he is in the rest of the World it would be an absurd Opinion But I know not whether there be any Person that would damn a Man for that alone but if that Man would conclude from that Errour that Men ought to worship the Sun and should himself so worship it what Sentiment should we have of him As for me I would tolerate his Errour as a Visionary Thought but I would abhor him as an Idolater because of his Conclusion If then to perswade Men it may be sufficient to express things with a great Assurance I say there will never be any subtilty or disguise that may perswade Men of good Sense that Toleration for a Real Presence should induce to a Toleration for the Attendants which the Roman Church gives it They say to that That they are not Attendants given thereto but that they are Natural Attendants and that even the
brought them out of Egypt If it be the Intention of Jesus Christ that there shall be in his Church a perpetual Sacrifice of his Body and of his Blood we must not flatter our selves we follow not the Religion of Jesus Christ But if that continual Sacrifice hath not been instituted by the Lord assuredly they make a new Christianism and a new Religion The Question then is to know if without any other Mystery we should pass into a Religion which is Essentially different from ours 2. But it is not only the Question to know If Men should introduce into the Church a new Sacrifice but if Men should Sacrifice the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God It is the greatest Oblation the Noblest and most important in the World And that deserves well methinks to have Reflexion made thereon before we engage to Re-union whereto they invite us If any rash Person would sprinkle with the Blood of Oxen and Sheep their Altars according to the Usage of all People and of the Ancient Church there would not be Thunders enough to crush to death such an Undertaker If such an Impious Man should form a Society wherein they might practice such Sacrifices they would arm all the Powers of Christianism to abolish such a Religion Yet would that agitation be but about the Sacrifices of some Beasts The business is to Sacrifice the God of Heaven the Master of the World and they will perswade us that it is a business of Nothing 3. The Question again is to know Whether they should put into the hands of a Man the GOD of the Universe as an Oblation in the hands of a Sacrificer that is if we should debase the Creatour into the hands of a Creature It is a Truth which good Sense dictates among all Nations and all Ages that the Sacrificer is greater than the Oblation Without contradiction the lesser is blessed of the greater It is the Principle of St. Paul the Priest blesses the Oblation They put the Lord Jesus Christ into the hands of a Priest as an Oblation they then lift up the Priest above Jesus Christ We cannot but have regard to that as to a very good Affair 4. We cannot also keep our selves from seeing that this Doctrine doth annihilate the Priesthood of Jesus Christ by good and legitimate Consequences If the Lord Jesus Christ was to have Successors in his Off ce of Priest he is not then himself an Eternal Priest Either St. Paul's Reasoning is bad or my Proof is invincible For in fine I Reason like him He said If Perfection had been in the Levitical Priesthood was it needful that another Priest should arise after the Order of Melchisedeck and who should not be called after the Order of Aaron The Priesthood being changed there must of need be a change of the Law I say the same If Perfection was found in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ who is the Eternal Priest of Melchisedecks Order why should Men introduce new Priests which much more like to be after the Order of Aaron than after the Order of Melchisedeck And if the setling of a new Priesthood after the Order of Melchisedeck hath overthrown the Levitical Priesthood doth not the Priesthood of these Sacrifices annihilate the Priesthood of Jesus Christ This is your Errour say they you suppose that this is a new Priesthood and it is not so for it is the same it is the Priesthood after the Order of Melchisedeck which is Eternal because it abides still in the Church and without that the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ would not be Eternal after the way of that of Melchisedeck Why would Men oblige us to believe things that are incredible to justifie the Church of Rome They tell us That the Priesthood of their Priests is the same as that of Jesus Christ I know not whether Heaven and Earth are more distant and if Light and Darkness be more different Jesus Christ is God those Priests are Men. Jesus Christ abides for ever those Priests die No Man succeeds Jesus Christ Priests succeed one the other Jesus Christ offered not for himself the Priests offer for their own Sins as for those of the People Jesus Christ is Holy separate from Sinners Priests are often engaged into great Disorders Jesus Christ hath offered once one sole Sacrifice these offer every day and reiterate their Sacrifice Jesus Christ finishes his Sacrifice in the Holy Places not made with hands Priests make their Sacrifices upon Altars of Stone and in Temples made by Mans hand In fine Melchisedeck was a singular Man and only it must needs be therefore that he who was to sustain that Priesthood whereof his was the Figure should be a singular and only Person but the Priests are in great Numbers After that can Men deny that Priests are Sacrificers much rather like the Order of Aaron than that of Melchisedeck And if it be so we say it once more The Establishment of their Priesthood destroys that of Christ by good Consequence Though that should be granted say they it is a disavowed Consequence and which by consequence should not prove an obstacle to the Re-union To that I say Though Men disavow it yet we see it and fear it still because it produces actually its effect It is not in Points of Practise as in those of Speculation In these it is true so the Consequence be disavowed it must not be imputed although it do arise from the Speculative Principles of those that disavow it But when a Practise or Worship destroy by consequence an important Truth that is in vain to disavow the Consequence while People remain in the Worship and in that Practise they are actually guilty of having done prejudice against such a Truth For Example A Pagan doth joyn to the Adoration of God the Sovereign many Inferiour Deities We tell him That by this Worship he offers a great Wrong to the Soveraign God He may Answer That it is a Consequence which he disavows and that his Intention is to render an infinite Honour to this Soveraign God Because he disavows the Consequence is he justified 5. Finally We cannot keep our selves from seeing That the Sacrifice of the Mass doth a great dishonour to the Sacrifice of the Cross for if it be needful to reiterate every day that Sacrifice the first Oblation which was made thereof must have been insufficient We Reason as the Apostle that saith The Sacrifices that are offered every year cannot sanctifie them that have recourse to them otherwise they had ceased them from offering them since the Offerers being once sanctified should have had no more Conscience of Sin We Reason as these Doctors themselves We shall hear one of them presently saying to us If the Mass were infinite it were in vain to offer many Masses Let 's be permitted to say also If the value of the Sacrifice of the Cross were infinite it is in vain to offer so many others It is here that
the Sacrament of the Eucharist they could not retranch one without ruining the whole Sacrament intirely We must not therefore dissemble that we regard not the Communion in the Roman Church as a Sacrament They may not therefore wonder that we cannot Communicate with them while it shall remain in the state wherein it is 4. Finally We must remark that this Retranchment of the Cup which they would reckon for nothing doth oppose and ruine all the Ends for which the Eucharist hath been established We have already seen that it ruins the Efficacy of the Grace of God which he would convey to us in that Sacrament Besides that we must remember that our Lord Jesus Christ did Institute it to be an Image of his death As often as you shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup you shall shew forth the Lords death Now after the Remark of Monsieur de Condom himself the lively and efficacious Representation of the lively Death which our Lord suffered is not found but in that his Flesh and his Blood are mystically separated For indeed a Flesh cannot be living when it is separated from its Blood and for the fit Representation of Jesus as dead we must see his Flesh and his Blood separated It is then very evident that they which give the People but one Sign which give the Flesh and Blood Mystically conjoyned do not give in their Communion the lively and efficacious Representation of the Violent Death which our Lord suffered It is further certain that this Divine Sacrament hath been instituted as a Sacred Repast that should teach us in a Mysterious manner that our Souls shall find in the Lord Jesus Christ compleat Nourishment therefore it hath been established under the two Signs of Bread and Wine which are sufficient to nourish the Body and that signifies that the Grace of Jesus Christ is sufficient to nourish our Souls But is it not evident that in Retranching the Cup they ruine this excellent Mystery Can one live with Bread alone can a Body be sustain'd with Meat without Drink And the Grace of Jesus Christ that makes our Souls to live is it sufficiently represented by a kind of Repast with which one must necessarily die This Sacrament was also instituted to be a common Repaâ—t a Feast of Society among many Brethren for to nourish Charity and entertain the Union of the Faithful Therefore the Ancients said that this Union was mystically represented by the Union of many grains of Wheat which compose one Loaf of Bread and by that of many grains of Raisons which compose one Wine It is then a Family Repast this Sacrament but where was there ever seen a Repast where only Meat is given and not Drink Certainly those Hereticks which St. Cyprian condemns because they would use only Water in the Eucharist were less Cruel and did less ruine the Mysteries of this Sacrament For there at least in their Eucharist there was both Meat and Drink and that is it which is essential to every Repast Thenceforth therefore let them talk no more of this as of a business little important which destroys the Sacrament of the Eucharist which ruins the Efficacy of it and which opposes all the Ends for which it was instituted Monsieur de Condom hath put himself behind a Retranchment wherein he conceives that we cannot force him It is an old wrangle about one Article of our Discipline which permits such as have an invincible aversion for Wine to Communicate under the sole kind of Bread This Example shews that Monsieur de Condom is not very ambitious of speaking always things that are novel and sublime for there is no Missionary so small that hath not treated this difficulty in the very dust of Publick places and that hath not declaim'd thereon from the very Stalks Yet now must we consider it as having somewhat in it seeing a Man of Merit and Weight would have it so They have judged saith he by this Rule that both Kinds were not Essential to Communion by the Institution of Jesus Christ otherwise they must have refused wholly the Sacrament to those that could not receive it wholly entire I wonder that these Gentlemen do not also argue against us that we have dispensed Blind men from Reading God's Word the Deaf from Hearing and the Dumb from Singing the Praises of their Creatour I always thought that no Man was obliged to Impossibilities To hear God's Word and implore his Name are at least as necessary to Salvation as participation of Sacraments yet the Deaf and the Dumb are dispens'd because of Impossibility Our Discipline speaks of Persons which have an invincible Aversion for Wine that can neither Smell nor Taste it and much less swallow it We dispense not those Persons from taking the Wine it is Nature that dispenses them putting into them an insuperable Obstacle from the reception of Wine It 's not therefore We that give this Dispensation nor that divide the Sacrament To explain my self more neatly I say there are two sorts of Commands Some are Negative which ordain the abstaining such as be the Prohibitions for Example of committing Adultery or Murther of falling into Idolatry Some are Affirmative which order us to do for Example Giving of Alms Visiting the Sick Comfort the Afflicted The first sort do always oblige and in all Circumstances for it is never permitted to commit Adultery to Rob or commit Murther But the Affirmatives oblige not but within certain Circumstances and under condition of Possibility The Command of partaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is one of those Commands Affirmative which oblige not but in such Occasions wherein it is possible A Man that hath no Goods is dispens'd from giving Alms. He that hath no Feet cannot Visit the Sick He that hath no Tongue is dispens'd from Comforting the Afflicted Likewise he that cannot absolutely drink Wine is dispens'd by this absolute Impossibility Methinks a Man must be blinded with his Prejudices beyond all that can be said to compare things so different and to say We dispense a particular Man among an hundred Thousand from taking the Cup because he cannot drink Wine therefore it is permitted willingly and without necessity to take away the Cup from all Christian People I am sensible that those Doctours will not be content herewith and that they will say However tell us if what this Man takes that communicates with you under the Sign of Bread without Wine is a true Sacrament If it be a true Sacrament why should not that be One which we present to our People I Answer That what we offer to this Man is a true Sacrament because we offer him both the Signs yea we oblige him to take the Cup in his hand And what the Roman Church presents to their Communicants is not a true Sacrament because she gives them nothing but Bread But they will say What he receives among you that cannot drink the Wine is not
Zeal with Violence So that in the Eyes of Flesh the true faithful Ones do appear Luke-warm and the Euemies of Truth do pass for true Zealots When Human Passions do mingle themselves in those Sentiments of Hearts called Religion there is no Excess that they are not capable of In respect of other Objects in the midst of their greatest Transports they do reproach themselves secretly which stops their fury and steal away some part of their Impetuousness and chiefly when they are allay'd and consider in cold blood their Conduct past they do often accuse their own selves But contrarily here Passions do sollicite and animate themselves they make Merit of their Violence and believe that God and his Church are concern'd in their Justification because they imagine that they have labour'd for the Truth This is one of the Reasons why often Men believe that they see but little Zeal in the true Church while there is so much Fire in the Conduct of Them that endeavour her Ruine But we must needs grant that there is something more The Moderation of the Faithful doth not alway proceed from that Sweet Spirit which is the very Genius of the Gospel It comes often from the coldness of their Zeal God permits it to oblige us to adore in Silence the Mysteries of his Conduct and to confound at the same time the Pride of Mans heart We have much less Love for the Truth than the World and the Devil have of Hatred against it And whilst we act in the Establishment of Religion by a Principle of Self-love we have quite another kind of Ardor than when we have no other prospect than that of the Glory of God The Church doth easily relent the fervour of the Zeal which seeks the Conversion of Others doth not last long It is so hard a thing to seek for Salvation that Men imagine they do enough to labour for their own without charging themselves with the Care of Others And we easily fall into those unhappy Thoughts That God is good enough to do his own Business that he will have a care of his own Interest and that he will not want Means to Convert them whom he hath destined to eternal Salvation Whereas false Zeal doth hold it self up doth persevere and finds it self often more capable to endure greater Labours than the true Devotion It is a thing that confounds us I grant it 's one of the great Temptations which good Souls are to overcome But truly it 's a Thing whereof it 's impossible to deny the Truth if we have any thing of good Faith or Probity Our Lord Jesus Christ himself doth teach us that the Pharisees and the false Doctors of Judaism did compass Sea and Land to make a Proselyte and all their labours did conclude to render Him a Son of Hell likes themselves All those things do make me conclude That the Zeal to make Conversions is not always a certain Sign that the Truth is in that Party It is a favourable Prejudice but after all it 's but a Prejudice and we should not suffer our selves to be conducted by those kinds of Lights which are often deceitful We must be permitted to examine If the Zeal of Religion which causes so many Emotions be a Divine fire or a Passion meerly Humane Now we cannot better know the Nature of that Zeal which seeks for Conversions than by the Means which it employs for it 's an indubitable Principle That true Piety never doth any ill that good may come thereof She seeks the Salvation of Men but she seeks it by ways that are just lawful and rational I. First It is certain that true Zeal doth never employ for Conversion the Sword Fire Violence and Torments Those are ill Commentators of the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ that make him to say Compel them to come in that is to say Constrain them by Violence and by the fear of Death to enter into the Church which is the Wedding Room The Lord cannot suffer in that Wedding Room any but such as are clad with the Wedding Garment and which have a true and solid Piety But those People which are brought into the Church by Fear and Threatnings are Hypocrites and Impious Persons which disrobe their Impiety to the sight of Men Rebels which feign their Submission meditate a Revolt and which always bear the heart of an Enemy The Church hath suffered many Persecutions but never did execute any upon others She overcame Paganism as Paganism had overcome her before but she never did retaliate it She did not use the Authority of Constantine and Theodosius to defile the Temples of the False gods with the Blood of their Worshippers as the Pagans had employ'd the Swords of Nero's Maximius Decius and Diocletian's to bathe the Earth with the Blood of Christians One must be very ignorant in the History of the Church not to know that in all the Contests She had with the Arrians Eutychians and other Hereticks She used only Exhortations Reasons Councils and other such like Arms. Contrarily the Hereticks have carried on their Fury against the living Temples of the Holy Ghost they have employed Sword and Fire and established themselves by the help of the Horrour and of the fear of Death which their Arms did cast into Mens Souls I know not if there be at this day in the Church of Rome any honest People that do not behold those horrid Tragedies which have shed so much Blood in the Ages past but as so many Accesses of Fury and a phrentick Fever during which Christianity arm'd against it self made it a pleasure and a duty to shed its own Blood and thrust the cruel Sword into its own Bowels If mens Souls be to be brought to Christ Jesus by Fear it must be by the fear of Hell and by the dread of Gods Judgments Knowing saith St. Paul the Terrour of the Lord we perswade men to the Faith 2 Cor. 5. II. Hope is also one of the Ways whereby the Souls of Men are more strongly drawn But to bring Men to Jesus Christ no other Hope is to be given them but that which the Lord himself gives them One must promise them exactly what he hath himself promised them that is Eternal life these are the Rewards of Heaven Whosoever shall forsake Father Mother Children Wife goods or house he shall receive an hundred fold in eternal life I find not that he hath presented any other Objects to Men to perswade them to come to him All the World agrees that nothing is more base than to betray the Truth and ones own Conscience for Interest Buy the Truth and sell it not saith the Wise man I speak not only of those Truths which are of the highest import and whereon depends Salvation I speak of Truth in general It 's one of the richest Presents of Heaven seeing it is to the Soul what Light is to the World and to renounce it for a base Interest it 's to despise
adoring what is not God This is what I had to say of Adoration after that I leave it to be judged if it were a business to be ended in a Period It is great Wisdom in Monsieur de Condom to have drawn a Curtain of Silence over a Worship for the Justification whereof nothing was to be said But the Care of our Salvation must oblige us not to abide by that which he hath said unto us for we must consider this Article as being capable of keeping us in an Eternal Separation from the Roman Church though it were that alone about which we could not agree ARTICLE XII Of the Sacrifice of the Mass WE are come at last to the Sacrifice of the Mass This is the place wherein they believe that Monsieur de Condom and the Author of the Advertisement do triumph in Explications and in Sweetnings I wonder how the World do blind themselves without any appearing Reason As for me I never conceived any thing in the Sacrifice of the Mass but what Monsieur de Condom makes us see therein and yet have I always minded that Affair as the greatest that can be between two Religions I always believed that according to the Roman Church the Eucharist was made a true Sacrifice Doth Monsieur de Condom deny it On the contrary he speaks it in Terms as express as may be So the Son of God is put on the Holy Table by virtue of these Words c. Jesus Christ being present doth there renew and perpetuate in some sort the Memory of his Obedience to the death of the Cross So that nothing is wanting there to be a true Sacrifice And a little after A Sacrifice nevertheless most true in that Jesus Christ is truly contained and presented to God under this figure of Death I always conceived that this Sacrifice is not only a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving but that it is truly Propitiatory Dare Monsieur de Condom deny it I think not for they are the very Words of the Council of Trent Docet Sancta Synodus Sacrificium istud verè Propitiatiorum The Holy Council declares that it is a Sacrifice truly Propitiatory And I find that Monsieur de Condom agrees thereto in these Words We think that this Oblation causes God to become mere propitious to us and therefore we call it Propitiatory We present to God the Lord Jesus Christ in a true Sacrifice as our only Victim and our only Propitiation by his Blood Either I understand nothing in these Terms or they signifie that we offer the Lord Jesus Christ in a Sacrifice truly Propitiatory to God to render him propitious to us and to obtain remission of our Sins It is a true Sacrifice according to Monsieur de Condom it is also a Propitiatory Sacrifice according to him There is no need of Logick to conclude then according to him it is a Sacrifice truly Propitiatory In fine I have conceived that in this Sacrifice the Church doth the Office of an Offerer that Jesus Christ is the Victim and that God is he to whom they offer that Oblation truly Propitiatory Have we been mistaken I think not for I believe I see that very thing in these Words of Monsieur de Condom We unite our selves to him in that state and we offer him to God as our only Victim This is the state of the Controversie and I never conceived another To annihilate this Controversie those Gentlemen fain some differences among us that never were The Author of the Advertisement saith That we regard with horrour the Sacrifice of their Altars as if they should make Jesus Christ to die once again We declare that we never had such a thought I conceive not how these Gentlemen have forgotten that one of our Proofs against this Sacrifice is drawn thence That Jesus Christ dieth not there We say there never was a true Sacrifice of a living Oblation wherein the Oblation did not receive death How then should we accuse them to cause Jesus Christ to die on their Altars Monsieur of Condom to cause to reapproach to him amplifies the Terms of Sacrifice and Commemoration which they and we make use of because we agree that the Eucharist is the Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ He concludes that then according to us it is a Sacrifice of Commemoration We must not mistake here there is difference between the Commemoration of a Sacrifice and a Sacrifice of Commemoration as between the Day and the Night In fine Monsieur of Condom labours hard to tell us That they have no design to offer to God a new Payment and that it is not a new Oblation We know it well enough the Council of Trent had told us so and even had said more too It is saith it one single and the same Oblation and he that offers himself now by the Ministry of the Priest is the same that offered himself on the Cross But doth that avail any thing towards the bottom of the Question Be it the same Oblation and the same Sacrifice and consequently the same payment will that hinder the Question from remaining the same viz. If it be just and reasonable to present daily Jesus Christ in a Sacrifice truly Propitiatory for the Sins both of the Living and of the Dead We must presently see whether this be so small a Controversie as they would perswade us and if we can re-enter into the Roman Church whilst this Sacrifice shall subsist there To dispatch this difference I must pray the Doctours to make some Reflexions with me 1. I will suppose a Truth which cannot be gainsaid that is That Sacrifices have always made up the Essence of that which they call the Externals of Religion and consequently they are always an Essential difference among Religions With the Pagans one Religion was made to differ from others by their Sacrifices Paganism was different from the Judaism by their Sacrifices which had another Object another Matter and which were done in Ceremonies very different In fine It seems to me that the Essential difference for the Exteriour between the Religion of the Ancient Jews and that of the Christians consists in that they had Sacrifices and we have none for it is not that we serve another God than that of the Israelites it is that we serve him otherwise That being so is it not true that there is an Essential difference among Christians that have Sacrifices and they that offer none If there had been any Jews who had denied the Necessity of Sacrifices and who had condemned the use of killing Oblations in the Temple of Jerusalem would not those People have been the Abomination of all the rest of the People If they had made a Party if they had separated and that they had built a new Temple where they had offered no Sacrifice to God had Men believed that those People had had the same Religion with the other Jews because they had worshipp'd the same God who
A PRESERVATIVE Against the CHANGE OF RELIGION OR A Just and true Idea of the Roman Catholick Religion opposed to the Flattering Portraictures made thereof and particularly to that of my Lord of Condom Translated out of the French Original by CLAUDIUS GILBERT Batchelor of Divinity and Minister of Belfast LONDON Printed by S. Roycroft for Thomas Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultrey 1683. TO THE Worshipful Soveraign AND THE BURGESSES OF THE Borough of Belfast AND To the Inhabitants thereof Christian Friends THis Learned Piece was lately brought to my Hand by a Signal Providence in its Native French Dress By the renewed perusal thereof I found it to be very Substantial and Seasonable which made me willing to render it more useful by Publishing it in our Vulgar Habit. It hath been found to be of singular Service in its Native Country and may be so among us likewise through God's Blessing Whilst so many Thousand of our Neighbours Houses are daily Fired it 's time for All to awake The multiplied Persecutions of the Protestants in France so causelesly renewed of late should rowze up all Christians round about them In such Infectious Times a Choice ANTIDOTE should be valued and desired of All. Many Reasons might oblige me to recommend this Present to your View and Improvement The choice Ingredients thereof were very Skilfully Composed and Faithfully Dispensed by the Learned Author thereof My Zealous Affections for all Your Prosperous Welfare chiefly in Spirituals and for the Common Interest of all Christians have perswaded Me to this Publication which I desire cordially to commend to the Blessing of the Most High as becomes the Function and Relation of Your Faithfully Devoted in the Lord Jesus for the best Service CLAVDIVS GILBERT Belfast July 3. 1682. THE CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLES Contained in this BOOK ARTICLE I. GEneral Reflexions upon my Lord of Condom's Book pag. 19 Article II. A General Idea of both Religions p. 36 Article III. That we agree not about Fundamental Points p. 45 Article IV. That the Worship forbidden of God cannot terminate in him p. 53 Article V. Of the Invocation of the Saints p. 56 Article VI. Of Images and Relicks p. 78 Article VII Of Justification and Merit of Works p. 87 Article VIII Of Satisfactions Indulgences and Purgatory p. 101 Article IX Of Sacraments in General p. 115 Article X. Of the Eucharist of Real Presence and of Transubstantiation p. 120 Article XI Of the Adoration of the Host p. 137 Article XII Of the Sacrifice of the Mass p. 152 Article XIII Of the Retranchment of the Cup p. 165 Article XIV Of Holy Scripture p. 176 Article XV. Of the Church p. 182 Article XVI Of the Pope and of his Authority p. 189 Article XVII Of the Points which Monsieur de Condom hath forgotten Of the Worship in an Vnknown Tongue Of the Multitude of Ceremonies Of Masses without Communicants Of forced Celibat p. 198 A PRESERVATIVE Against the Change of Religion OR A just and true Idea of the Catholick Roman Religion opposed to the flattering Portraicture which is made thereof and particularly to that of my Lord of Condom NEver were greater Efforts in France to effect what they call Conversions and never was the Truth attack'd by so many Means nor fought with so much Success We see nothing else every where but Scandalous falls therefore they that lay to heart their Salvation ought to be furnished beforehand against the Contagion of this ill Air that reigns at this day It 's time to awake when the house is burning and one may say that if the Zeal of our Reformed in France be not kindled anew they are next to the seeing the ruine of their whole Party The Book of my Lord of Condom is one of the Means which is used with most Success to delude those Spirits that are Wavering and whereof the Piety is ill fixed These Gentlemen have so high an Opinion of that Work and of what it can do that many Bishops cause it to be printed at their own Cost and to be distributed within their Diocess to all considerable Protestants there The Temptation is powerful and the Method which my Lord of Condom hath used is dextrous his Artifices are fine and delicate and it is certain that this Book is able to Corrupt the hearts of those that are inclin'd towards the World and who are seeking out some Pretences to quit a Religion so cruelly attack'd It is then needful that all the World should be taught that every one should keep his Guard well against such a Temptation And as the Roman Church labours to spread my Lord of Condom's Book through all Europe by causing it to be turn'd into all Languages we must also disperse through them all the Answers opposed thereto And when the Publick shall have found one best liked every Particular Person should furnish himself with a Copy thereof that may be still at hand and still read over to be continually upheld against such a Temptation as is never at an end but is uncessantly still renewing Ever since that Loss which the Roman Church had in the beginning of the last Age of so many Millions of Souls which did then separate from her Communion no Endeavours have been omitted to repair that Breach and no Means but have been employ'd to bring back into her Bosom such as have gone away from it We must needs bear them this Witness that never so much Ardor and Zeal was seen in any Enterprize never was a more serious and important Affair undertaken than this design they have laid to hinder the duration and progress of That which they call Schism and Heresie It is indeed a design which cannot be blamed If these Gentlemen are well perswaded that the Religion which we have abandon'd is the only One that may conduct unto Salvation We may not wonder if they labour to bring us back thereto provided that they endeavour it in a good way honestly and by a Principle of Charity and true Zeal But as it often happens that in such a case Men prove the Cullies of their own hearts and that Self-love the Interest of the Flesh and that of the World do delude them all should well examine themselves in that regard and not take it ill that they that are concern'd therein be willing to have their part in such an Examination We should not imagine that all that which is called Zeal for Religion and a design to convert Hereticks should necessarily flow from a good Principle On the contrary God for the Trial of the Faith of his Elect hath almost always permitted that false Religions have had more Zeal for the destruction of the True than the True Religion for the ruine of the Falser When Christian Religion became predominant She did not do that for the ruine of Paganism which had been done against her during the Reign of Pagan Emperours It 's true that true Zeal is always accompanied with Moderation and false
possible to deny it There is no Heresie whereof they would not render us guilty They have said that with Arrius we deny the Eternity of the Son and his Deity that with Nestorius we establish two Persons in Jesus Christ that with Eutyches we confound his two Natures They are two opposite Heresies and which cannot subsist together It matters not all is well enough if we be but calumniated Hath not Bellarmine made a Preface to his Book de Christo expresly to prove that we are Nestorians Sabellians Arrians and Eutychians Hath not Gregory of Valencia made a thick Book de Unitate Trinitate against the Lutherans and the Calvinists asserting that the Lutherans are truly of the Opinion of Servetus and that the Calvinists deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ And doth not Father Cresset say but newly That we hate the Virgin because we hate her Son In regard of Free Will they would have Us to be in the Party of the Manichees who said That Men were by their Nature determined to good or to evil and that they are not carried thereto by Choice and by Will In regard of Good Works they attribute to Us the horrid Opinion of the Gnosticks that said That the Spirital man may plunge himself into the most abominable Crimes of the Flesh without fear of the least Pollution or any Condemnation They say That we deny the necessity of Good Works to Salvation that we make a vile Sinner after a small act of Faith and Repentance as just as the Holy Virgin that we make Men to be Just by the Righteousness of another as if we should make a black Stuff to be white with the whiteness of another Stuff that we do cloath our Just man with an imputed Justice under which are hid the most horrid moral Impurities that we lead men to Salvation by the way of Crimes Murthers and Adulteries that we render the effects of Predestination infallible like the Mahumetans so that a Man Predestinate living like a Devil cannot fail to become happy like an Angel That we would have an Adulterer a Fornicator yea a Man guilty of the Vilest disorders may be as assured of his Salvation as Jesus Christ that our Lord Jesus Christ despaired that he was damned that we are Enemies to the Saints In fine Who could number all the Calumnies wherewith they load us to render us odious That is but a small part thereof And the most terrible of all it 's that though we justifie our selves never so often and tell them we abhor all those Heresies that we detest them that we combat them though we explain our selves never so much and declare that the Words so abused are taken in a Counter-sense though we cry out against the Calumny protest our Innocency formally reject all the Consequences imputed to us that comes to nothing and they still return to the like again We must needs be Hereticks at any rate and they repeat against Us this day all those Calamities with the same air of Confidence as if we had nothing to answer thereto or had never answered the same We should more easily bear with those Excesses if that we had none to complain of but those small Declaimers who do harangue on Shop-boards and who preach in the Markets from the Steps of a Cross If those Outrages were done Us but by those little Scribes who are void of Science Name Spirit Honour and Conscience whereof the World is full But it 's impossible not to lose our Patience when we see Authors that are grave and able learn'd and famous compose great Volumes whereof all the Pages are soiled with those black Slanders whereto we have answered an hundred times When we cannot blame Ignorance and Insufficiency we cannot but complain of unsincere dealings and say that such a Course is not honest It 's an inseparable Character of the false Church Hereticks have always dealt thus with the Orthodox They have still calumniated them and have disfigured by their Imputations the purest and holiest Doctrines we need but to have read a few of the Holy Fathers to be assured thereof But the true Church was always most tender of Sincerity She would never slander her Adversaries and would never disjoyn Zeal from fair dealing Here is another kind of foul dealing that appears less Criminal it 's that which flatters Religion whereof she draws the Picture which dissembles her deformities and gives an air of Innocence and Purity to all This Artifice seems to be innocent every one should be permitted to make himself known by his best sorts and shew its fairest side And this is a Method that hath been extreamly used for some years of late for to defend the Roman Church There are two ways of defending her one is in rejecting the Manage of Policy in using the most ordinary and common Expressions In saying for Example That part of Religious Worship is due to Saints that they may be invok'd as Intercessours with God as they to whom God hath given under himself the Government of the World that Temples may be built Fasts appointed celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass to their Honour make Vows to them and yield to them part of all that which may be called Religion So speaks Vasquez that the Sense of the Catholick Church confirm'd by Tradition and perpetual Use is that there is due to Saints a Sacred Adoration In saying that one may ask of them whatever is ask'd of God Health Protection Remission of Sins Salvation Grace and Glory So that we pray not to them as to the first Authors of these Graces In saying that one must reverence adore and salute the Images of the most holy Virgin Mother of God of the glorious Angels and of all the Saints and that all those that are not of that mind ought to be Anathematized In saying That the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true Sacrifice and so called properly that it 's not a simple Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross but a Propitiatory Sacrifice which is offered for the Pains for the Satisfactions and for other Necessities of the Faithful In thundering out which Anathema's against all that would not receive those Propositions and all others in the very Sense of the Church There is a second Manner of defending the Opinions and Practises of the Roman Church that is in sweetning them In saying for Example That the Worship of Saints is Nothing at the bottom that Invocations addressed to them are not of another Natnre but such as are made to living Saints when we recommend our selves to their Prayers That the Scandal taken from the Worship of Images is a Scandal ill taken that at the bottom they are set in the Church but for the use of Commemoration that human Satisfactions are no prejudice to those of Jesus Christ because they serve only to apply the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ The first Method was in this regard in the way of very
Fathers who made up the Council To that those Gentlemen say It s one thing to interpret what is obscure and doubtful another thing to propound what is clear and use it to destroy false Impressions It seems to me that those Words signifie that it is not true that Glosses have been made on the Council of Trent they have only related its Terms so clear that they are capable of destroying all the false Idea's that Men had of its Doctrine Can that be said in Conscience that they have related only the very Words of the Council It 's said about the Invocation of Saints That we pray to them in that same Spirit that we pray to our Brethren which are on the Earth to pray for us and with us to our Common Master in the Name of our Common Mediator who is Jesus Christ Are those the Words of the Council Doth it say They should not be invok'd but in that manner and in the same Spirit that we pray the Saints that are on Earth to pray for us I would make Judges thereof such as have Eyes and can but read for these be the Words of the Council according to my Lord of Condom 's Version Because that the Saints who reign with Jesus Christ do offer to God their Prayers for Men it 's good and useful to invoke them in a Suppliant manner and to have recourse to their Aid and to their Succour to impetrate of God his Blessing by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who alone is our Saviour and our Redeemer About Satisfactions my Lord of Condom saith That which is called Satisfaction is after all but the Application of the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ And the Council of Trent saith That in suffering and satisfying for our sins we are made conformable to our Lord Jesus Christ who also hath satisfied for our Sins Upon the Subject of Images the Advertisement saith That we serve not Images but serve our selves of Images to raise up our selves to the Originals And the Council saith That Men must render to Images the Respect and Veneration which is due to them that they must be kissed mens Heads be uncovered and prostrate themselves before them These three Examples may suffice to shew that those Gentlemen do not deal fairly when they say That they go not against the Intention of Pius the Fourth his Bull and that they make no Glâ—ss upon the Conncil of Trent But I am not minded that we should draw a Process against them about it Let them avoid the Ordinance of Pius the Fourth I consent Let them interpret the Council against the Intention of the Bull. I do not think we have any right to oppose it Those Gentlemen do make Rules and have such regard to them as they think good That is not our business And after all that Prohibition of Pius the Fourth hath taken but little place A thousand Controversies have been raised or continued since that Council and every one of the Parties hath explained it to his own favour But what we say and have right to say is That we are not obliged to receive the Interpretations of the Council of Trent opposite to those that have been given us by all the Doctors of the School which we daily read in the universal Practice and constant Use of the Roman Church The Author of the Advertisement may well say That we will not believe neither the Council nor its Catechism nor their Confession of Faith nor the Bishops nor the Pope himself We believe our Eyes we believe what we read and what we see Though at this day all the Roman Church should tell us as this Author doth We do not serve Images God forbid but we serve our selves of Images to raise us up to the Originals We would not believe it and would not be obliged to believe it seeing we see every day the contrary What Obstinacy say they the Bishops Cardinals and the Pope himself approve all these Explications of my Lord of Condom and that of the Author of the Advertisement and you 'l believe that Persons of so great a Character are either Cheats that dissemble their Sentiments or Ignaro's that know not their Religion I wish they would not press us about that We do not believe those Gentlemen to be ignorant they know their Religion well enough but prudently men may often say of what they know that only which they think capable of leading them to the End that they aim at They would diminish the Aversion we have for the Worship and the Doctrines of the Roman Church Prudence therefore would have them to keep from our sight that which offends us and that a Curtain be drawn thereon Let 's do those Gentlemen as much Honour as they can ask to my understanding Let 's believe that they deal fairly that is that sincerely they would have things to be as they express them Really we no ways doubt but there are at this day in the Roman Church many Persons who disapprove the Excesses which are practised in that Church about devotion to the Creatures They willingly wish That Images were not served with Religious Worship they would bring a great allay to the Invocation of Saints if they m ght be believ'd yea happily they might go further I grant that my Lord of Condom and the Archbishops and Bishops his Approvers may have this Sentiment and that we may put into the same rank the Cardinals de Bona and Sigismund of Chigy the most Reverend P. Hyacinth Libâ—lli Archbishop of Avignions the most R. F. Capi Suâ—â—â—i Master of the Sacred Palace my Lord Michael Ange Ricci Secretary to the holy Congregation of Indulgences the Father M Laurent Branâ—ari de Laurea the Abbot Gradi the Bishop and Princes of Munster and the Pope himself Innocent the Eleventh now sitting What doth all that but confirm us in the Thoughts that we have reason to condemn the Excesses that are now condemn'd by Persons which had a great interest to justifie them Put can that oblige us not to believe our Eyes not to believe what we see and what we read Before they can have any right to press us thereabout things should be put into that state wherein they say that they are I hope that entring into the particulars we shall clearly shew that things are in that state wherein we conceive them and not in that wherein they would have us regard them Mean while I will say that the Providence of God permits for our Justification that in an Age wherein they would perswade us that White is black there arise from time to time some Father Cressets that do revive all that Alexis of Salo the Bernardine de Bustis and the Salazars have said most excessively and hainously upon this matter Those Works are printed in the Capital of the Kingdom with Approbation with Priviledge and with all the marks of Honour that might possibly be given in the very front thereof
of your Doctors On the contrary They lay before him the Scripture on the Tribunal of the Church They tell him Obey your Leaders suffer not your selves to be conducted by the false Lights of your own Reason Submit to the Mysteries but let not your Submission be blind consult the Scripture read instruct your selves and believe nothing upon the Witness of Men Do not rest but upon the Testimony of God His Word is clear solid sufficient for your Instruction His Authority is Soveraign and Independent of any other He sees not in the Worship of that Religion any strange Language which diffuses Darkness through all which conceals Mysteries from the Eyes of Ignorant Ones all is naked all is open all is simple He sees he hears all that is done all that is said every one Prays in the Tongue he understands and which is understood in the Country where he is This Infidel sees Preachers which exhort him to Repentance to Mortification to renouncing the Vanities and the Idols of the World but they do not impose on him the Necessity of declaring all the Motions of his Soul to a Man they order him to confess primarily to God then they advise him to make choice of a wise Director to discover with Liberty to him the Wounds of his own Conscience and to ask his Advices They tell him That all Human Satisfactions are incapable of paying the Justice of God That our Lord Jesus Christ hath paid for us abundantly That his Merit is granted to us by a gratuitous Mercy and that the true Satisfaction which God requires is the Contrition of the Heart Faith Charity and Amendment of Life They do not charge him with the multitude of External Observations of Fasts of Macerations of Pilgrimages They say to the contrary That bodily Exercise is profitable to little but that solid Piety hath the Promises of this present life and of that which is to come They labour to draw him out of the Security that the Worldlings are plunged in but they seek not to retain him in perpetual Terrours They tell him There is no Salvation for the Sinner that perseveres in Impenitency but that the true Penitent may be assured that God will shew him Mercy They assure him That if his Sins be pardoned him in this life they shall also be pardoned him in the other too and that there is no Purgatory nor Torments through which Men are to pass to arrive to Paradise They confess to him That they have not the power to remit Sins They tell him that that appertains to God only but they tell him That God never refuses that Grace to those that ask it with the Spirit of Humility In fine He sees nothing Pompous in the Government or that may relish of the Spirit of the World No Monarchs no Spiritual Soveraigns He sees none but Conductors that are Men of an equal Authority or if he sees in some places within that Church some Bishops and some Archbishops He understands that those Persons make Profession to have no other Head for the Spirituals but Jesus Christ and no other for their Temporals than those which God hath established in the World by his Providence If this Infidel who hath thus cast his Sight upon these two Religions be wise he will ask time to think of his Choice and will pronounce nothing upon what he hath seen But in Conscience can any Man believe that this Man who hath no other light but that of good Sense can perswade himself that these two Parties make up but one Religion that it is the same thing that their Differences are not Essential In one He sees Altars and Sacrifices in the other he sees none In the one he hears them invoke Saints and Angels in the other he sees they content themselves to reverence their Name and to invoke God In the one he sees Images to be served in the other he sees a mortal aversion for that Worship In the one he understands Nothing in the other he understands all If this Man suffers himself to be conducted by his Natural Lights he will without doubt believe that these two Religions are absolutely different and I cannot imagine that he could believe what my Lord of Condom saith That the Disputes of these two Parties can be nullified by explaining some Terms and that what remains hath nothing Capital and that can hurt the foundations of the Faith ARTICLE III. That we agree not about Fundamental Points BUt happily may some say That this general Review of the two Religions is proper only to make an Illusion because that in this Method Men judge only by appearances Now its true that they are in an Appearance of great distance whereas in examining things in particulars and at the bottom it may be that they would go near to accord about those things and should only dispute about Terms That might happily be and therefore I will not forbear entring into a particular Examen of each Article First My Lord of Condom saith That we all agree about the Foundations of the Faith that the Doctrines which we esteem Fundamental are all believed and professed in the Roman Church He brings for Witness thereof Monsieur Daillé who saith in his Book entituled Faith founded upon the Scriptures That all Fundamental Articles are without Contest that the Roman Church professes to believe them That in Truth we do not hold all the Opinions of that Church but that we hold all their Beliefs or Creances My Lord of Condom lays another Maxim which he draws from our Principles It's That if one agrees with the Foundations and then lays down Opinions which does overthrow those Foundations by Consequences we must not impute those Consequences to him who disavows The Opinion of the Lutherans about the real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist destroys the Human Nature of our Lord Jesus Christ by a lawful Consequence but the Lutherans disavow that Consequence therefore we will not impute it to them He would have us to have the same Equity for his Church For Example She establishes the Sacrifices of the Mass She lays down the Intercession of Saints She ordains Penances and Satisfactions We say That the first of them destroys the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the second prejudices his Mediation that the others are injurious to the Super-abounding fulness of his Merits But they say they are only Consequences which the Roman Church disowns therefore we may not impute the same to them without Calumny I might have many things to say thereabout If I had designed to make a great Book but I will restrain my self within this That this Consideration cannot be a Means of Reunion nor a Reason of our Re-entrance into the Roman Church First Because it 's not true that both Parties agree about all the Protestants esteem to be Fundamental There are Three general Foundations in Religion First That there is a God who is to be adored The
true that these things may be called Consquences and that we may be justified of that Accusation by denying them That is clear by this Example If one divide the Authority of the Prince Soveraign among his Subjects without his Permission I maintain That injury is done to him by that very thing and that one should not be received to say I deny I do injury to my Soveraign in giving one part of his Soveraign Authority to Others That 's a Consequence which I disown The Injury consists in the Act it self that is done and not in a Consequence which arises from the Action So to give a new Sacrifice new Intercessours and new Objects of a Religious Worship it 's directly to offend God the only Object of Religion It 's to oppose the Unity and Perfection of the Christian Sacrifice It 's to do injury to the only Intercessour and that by the very Actions which are done and not by Consequences which arise from those Actions But at least will they say You are obliged to grant that the most part of the Errours of the Roman Church are not Capital Thereupon I say Three things First That it 's enough if there be two or three Capital Errours and even One alone in a Religion to render intolerable that whith otherwise might have been tolerable The Second thing that I say is that the Errours which every one being apart might have been tolerated if they were alone cannot be born with when they are in a great Number A Life that should be wholly charged with those Sins which the Roman Church calls Venial and that should have no good Work at all would undoubtedly lead to Eternal death although every one of those Sins taken apart would not destroy Grace A Religion that should gather an infinite number of Practises of Superstitions and Errours whereof none were Capital could not be suffered nevertheless for it is a Capital Affair to bury the Truth in so great a number of Errours In fine I say that the Roman Church hath rendred Capital those of her Errours that would not otherwise be such since she hath made Articles of Faith of them She obliges under pain of Anathema that is to say Pain of Eternal damnation to believe that the Books of Maccabees are Canonical that Concupiscence after Baptism is no more Sin that the involuntary Motions of that Concupiscence are not Sins that Baptism is of an absolute necessity that Order is a true Sacrament that Marriage is not dissolved by Adultery and an hundred things of this Nature If she had received those Opinions without obliging others to receive them they might have been tolerated but as soon as she hath made them Articles of Faith they become intolerable For it 's a mortal Sin to receive Errours as Verities Fundamental It 's a horrid Crime to condemn to Hell Men that have but light Errours Now the Roman Church by her Anathema's obliges me to damn those who have but light Errours In fine It 's a black baseness to make Profession by Oath to believe as Capital Verities and necessary Ones such Opinions as we know to be Errours And that is it the Roman Church would oblige us to In a word I think to Reason justly in Reasoning thus All the Articles of Faith are Fundamental Points because they cannot be rejected without being Anathema's The Roman Church of those things which we might have considered as light Errours hath made Articles of Faith which may not be rejected without a direful Anathema Then hath the Roman Church in that regard those Opinions that could have pass'd for being of little importance Fundamental Points and in our regard Capital Errours And from thence it seems to me to be clear that after the decisions of the Council of Trent all Reconciliation is impossible with the Roman Church Because the Question is no more of tolerating light Errours but to believe them and make profession thereof and of damning all those that believe them not and that is it which an honest Man and a Christian cannot do ARTICLE IV. That the Worship forbidden of God cannot terminate in him BEhold the Second Principle of that Union which my Lord of Condom propounds it 's That the Religious Worship in the Pag. 17. Church of Rome terminates in God If the Honour she gives to the Holy Virgin and the Saints may be called Religious it 's because it relates necessarily to God He would conclude thence That in retaining our Principle that every Religious Honour is to be related to God we can without hurt to our Conscience partake of the Worship of the Roman Church seeing that she teaches That every Religionâ— Worship is to be referr'd to God as to its necessary End 1. I wish that my Lord of Condom had cited to us some Text of the Council of Trent which might assure us That all Religious Worship is terminated in God I see there that we must invoke Saints because they reign with Jesus Christ and because they intercede for us c. I read there no more I conceive there is a little difference between invoking a Saint for reference to God and terminate a Religious Worship to God It 's true that the Roman Chuch invokes Saints by respect to God that is to say because they are the Saints of God because they govern under God because they have merited with God because they intercede before God for Men. If those Saints should have no relation to God no doubt Men would not serve them But is not this to impose visibly upon the World to say That because of that all Religious Worship is terminated in God Because that a Favourite hath the Princes Ear that he disposes of the places of the State under his Authority that he obtains of him what he will he is courted a thousand Homages are done to him do those Honours terminate in the Prince because of that Is he bound to own them and regard them as if done to himself A Man that would say such a thing would not he render himself ridiculous Who ever heard that Worship doth not terminate in that Person which is the immediate Object thereof Those Gentlemen conceive that they have right to say what they please and that we are bound to believe them on their Word 2. But though it should be the Intention of those that invoke Saints to terminate all their Worship in God would that Intention suffice to effect the thing If it were so there would never have been any Idolaters that is to say Persons that had adored Images or Idols For there was never any Religion so brutish as to terminate their Worship upon Brass or Wood Silver or Gold whereof the Image is compounded If any Person have done it it must not be imputed to the Religion Those Idolaters referr'd their Worship to the Deity which was represented by the Idol The Israelites had not offended God in the Worship of the Golden Calf for it 's as certain
as any thing can be so that their Adoration was referr'd to that God who had brought them out of Egypt whom they had design to adore under the Sign of that Calf In fine A Man that should take a Tree a Dog a Horse and should adore him referring his Worship to God in his Intention would not be guilty for his Worship would terminate in God We must know then that to the end our Adoration may terminate in God it suffices not that it be the Intention of him that adores but God must accept that Adoration Nothing terminates in God but what God is willing to receive It 's useless to have an Intention to serve God by certain Actions if those Actions be condemn'd of God they are against him and not for him Methinks I have read in the very Theology of those Gentlemen That the infinite Baseness of Sin arises from its establishing our last End different from God So every Sin so far as in it lies snatches away God from his Throne in taking away from him the Title of Ultimate End to give it the Creature and that is an infinite Crime But what shall we say to so many Actions Criminal that have God's Honour for their Object Of those Bloody Persecutions which have shed the Blood of the Faithful with the Thought That they did therein Service to God Of so many Superstitions which have been practised to the Honour of the Deity How can those Crimes be accused of setting up another End besides God seing they are done in honour to God It 's nevertheless certain that those Actions do not terminate in God and there is no other reason for it but that he abhors them and hath forbidden them They terminate then in the Vanity of their Imaginations and in the Illusions of the heart of those false Zealots and of that bad Devotion and do not reach God Semblably the Worship that Men render to the Creatures with Intention of referring it to God is carried out to the Creatures themselves because that God suffers it not to reach unto himself Here my Lord of Condom makes a Course into Antiquity and will draw his advantage from thence in that we acknowledge That Men began to invocate Saints about the end of the Fourth Century But that is a Proof and not an Explication I have not obliged my self to follow him through all I 'le only say That then they did not invocate Saints as they do at this day They did not pray to them in the Ordinary Service They constrained none thereto they did not build Temples to them they did not Sacrifice the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ to their honour Moreover we profess that we will only imitate the Apostles and their immediate Successors ARTICLE V. Of the Invocation of the Saints ALL that is general My Lord of Condom begins to descend to Particulars The Invocation and Worship of Saints is assuredly one of the things that doth most separate us from the Roman Church Mean while if he be believed the vain Terrors that we conceive therein proceed only from their having given an ill Turn to an Action the most innocent of all It 's nothing to see that Religious Worship that should be intirely given to God divided between Him and a thousand Creatures It 's nothing to hear Matins Masses Vespers filled with Litanies Songs and Praises that tend to the honour of those Creatures It 's nothing to see those Devoti who having almost wholly neglected the Name of God do cause to resound in their Exercises of Piety only the Names of the holy Mother of God and of other Saints It 's nothing to see the Kalendar crouded with an infinite number of Days dedicated to the honour of Saints whilst that God hath appropriated to himself but fifty or fifty two All Religion is to be for God all first Notions are for that Pietas erga Parentes Religio erga Deum said the Pagans themselves Yet it 's nothing to give Religious Worship to the Creatures and to divide Religion between God and them My Lord of Condom hath prevented that difficulty telling us That this Worship is called Religious only because it terminates in God But I think also we have Answered it sufficiently and have well proved That Worships forbidden of God cannot be referr'd to him Behold another Colour which is diffused thereon The Church in telling us That it 's useful to pray to Saints teaches us to pray to them with the same Spirit of Charity and according to those Orders of fraternal Charity which carries us on to demand the Succour of our Brethren living on the Earth We pray to them in the same Spirit that we pray to our Brethren that are on Earth to pray with us and for us to our Common Master in the Name of our Common Mediatour Jesus Christ Therefore according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent we use two Forms of Prayer very different seeing that whereas in praying to God the proper manner is to say Have mercy on us Hear us We are content to say to the Saints Pray for us There is nothing more specious That is reduced to Two things One That they invoke Saints but in saying to them Pray for us The other That this Prayer is put up with the same Spirit that it 's done to the Saints that are on Earth Those Gentlemen should know that though all that were true yet could not we be satisfied for in matter of Religion we would have nothing but what is founded on Precept or Example God hath not commanded us any where to invocate glorified Saints in the same Spirit that we pray our Brethren that are on Earth to pray for us Besides they being perfectly assured that Souls separate from their Bodies do not understand us Reason would forbid us loading our Service with useless Invocations But it 's a strange thing that they will still produce to us the same Facts with so much confidence without having answer'd the Proofs that we bring to the contrary To see that air of Assurance wherewith these Gentlemen say we say nothing else to the Saints but Pray for us would not one believe that there is nothing more true Yet let him but read the Books of Devotion of the Roman Church to be soon perswaded of the contrary Why then in the Hymn that begins Exultat Coelum laudibus c. do they say to the Apostles You that shut up Heavens by your Word and who open them at your Command loosen us of our Sins we pray you for it You that have power over H alth and Sickness of all heal us of our ill Manners and inspire Vertues into us In the Hymn which begins Lux Mundi beatissima do not they speak thus to the Virgin We pray you with a Suppliant Voice that you would please to be present with us Come sweet Lady deliver us out of all our Evils and bestow on us the Gifts of Heaven In
Saints they are called St. Bonaventure St. Antonine St. Bernardine They dare not publickly condemn what they privately censure So all things do still remain and if any venture to publish any Writing against these Devouts it 's presently censur'd and suppress'd After that they would have us on the credit of four Words drawn out of a Catechism which the Council of Trent never saw nor approved we should belie our Eyes against what we read and what 's daily done before us We ask pardon of my Lord of Condom and of the Author of the Advertisement but we are bound to believe that their Church doth not simply invocate Saints as Intercessours but as Governours and Directors who distribute according to Gods Orders all the Good and Evil that befall the World We will believe that he and many others would fain have things to go otherwise But in fine they go so and apparently they will go so still yet for a long time The Archbishop and the Bishop of such and such a place suffer not that to be done in their Diocess say they to us That may be but an Archbishop and some Bishops are not all the Roman Church and maugre the Care of some Prelates of France the Devotion of Convents and Monks fails not to carry it on upon their Instructors And freely what may be said of Father Cresset's Devoti it 's that they follow the Principles of their Religion they shew it as clear as the day and the others forsake them Behold the second Excuse of my Lord of Condom We pray to the Saints glorified in the same Spirit wherein we pray the faithful which are on the Earth to pray for us This is a thing that I admire I had believed hitherto that a Cause remaining the same should produce the same effects If Men invoke the Saints which are in Heaven in the same Spirit wherein they pray the Saints that are on Earth why should not the same Spirit produce the same Effects In Conscience what would these Gentlemen say should they see a Man invoke one of his Friends or of his Neighbours of whose Sanctity he should have a good Opinion build Temples or Chappels to him name them with his Name erect Altars to him place him or his Images on those Altars prostrate himself at his feet kiss them and make devout Prayers to him consecrate Holy Days to him place him in his Oratories make long Pilgrimages to prostrate himself before him celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass in his honour and request his Merits and his Mediation before God it 's not enough to say That such a Man would pass for a Mad man I am assured he would pass for an Idolater Yet would he say I invoke and I serve this living Saint with the same Spirit wherewith you serve the glorious Saints I have no other End but to oblige him to have care of me in his Prayers Must there be so many Mysteries to sollicite the Charity of Saints who burn with Zeal for the Salvation of the whole Church How can Men say that Conducts more different than day and night should proceed from one and the same Spirit The Illusion which these Gentlemen would put upon us consists then in that they represent this Service which they render to Saints not so much as an Invocation but simply as a Prayer that we would present to a Friend to pray for us And they do not advertize us That the Service which is rendred to Saints is a Religious Service which embraces all the species of Services which are rendred to God Prayer Confidence Love Praises and Kneelings We cannot but complain there is no fair dealing in comparing things that are so different Was there ever any Man which hath called the Prayer presented to a Saint upon Earth for to pray for us a Service how much less a Religious Service My Lord of Condom grants That the Honour rendred to the Holy Virgin and to the Saints may be called Religious Would he also grant the same thing of the honour that is done to a Saint on Earth when he is pray'd to pray God for us If those Gentlemen would but say things as they know them would they not grant that the Worship that Men render to Saints is a kind of Religious Adoration and doth not my Lord of Condom grant it when he saith That in a sense Adoration belongs only to God and to Jesus Christ and that one may in regard of that sense abuse those terms to render their Doctrine odious but if we reduce sincerely those terms to the sense they give to them Objections then lose all their force Do they not distinguish Adoration and Worship in that of Latria Hyperdulia and Dulia The first is for God the second for the Virgin Mary the third for other Saints When a Gender is divided into its Species each of the Species may have the Name of the Genus If Religious Adoration be divided into Latria and Dulia then may Dulia retain the Name of Adoration It 's infinitely distant say they from the Adoration of Latria which is given only to God We are not agreed about that infinite distance but though there were the greatest difference of the one to the other that would not hinder but both the one and the other might bear the Name of Adoration There is a great distance between Man and Beast nevertheless doth this merit to bear the Name of Animal as well as that Father Cresset hath not scrupled that for he saith freely that there are three sorts of Religious Adoration and that one must not only honour the Saints but that he must adore them Finally To convince those Gentlemen the little Equity they shew in comparing the honour which we give to the Faithful when we recommend our selves to their Prayers to that which is rendred to the Saints I would pray them to consider what would be said of a Man that of his own Authority should Canonize a Dead man should build Temples and Altars to him and cause him to be publickly serv'd I am assured that there would not be Thunders enough in the Vatican to strike him down although he were well assured of the beatitude of his Saint by a Revelation For it 's not permitted to set any Person in the Kalendar nor make him to be served and invoked publickly before a solemn Canonization issuing from the Holy Seat But I would also willingly know if Men have need of Patents from Rome for permission to say in all occasions publick or private to a Faithful alive Pray for me There must be many Mysteries towards the one and none to the other Who sees not then that they put a prodigious difference between Serving or Invoking a glorified Saint and recommending One self to the Prayers of a living Saint And that things so different cannot be done in the same Spirit In fine Either let them tell us no more of the Service of the Saints as of a
above her Son that they give her all the glory of our Salvation It 's Father Cresset himself that teaches us that And when should we have done if we would cite all that Father Mainbourg in his History of the Icenoclastae and what so many others have said lately to establish that Worship of the Virgins and of the Saints For in fine Let any one visit the Presses and Libraries of St. Jame's Street or go to Michallet or all the others let him see if ever more Books were printed fit to nourish People in the Worship of Saints and entertain them in those Excesses that Men fain to condemn It 's there that Men shall find the Slavery of the Admirable Mother of God the Worship and Veneration which is due to the Nine Orders of the Celestial Hierarchy the Life of St. Josse and that of St. Peter the Chaplet or perpetual Adoration of the most Holy Sacrament l'Abbriegé del Indulgences the Statutes of the Brothers and Sisters of the Third Order of the Holy Trinity and Redemption of Captives the Mysteries of the Virgin the Panegyricks of St. Rose by the Father Oliva General of the Jesuites All these Books and a thousand others are newly printed and there we find a Theology and Devotions which should cause a true Grief to them that are truly jealous of the Glory of God and of his Honour Nothing is more capable to make us see in what Spirit Men serve and invoke the Saints than the Sacrifice of the Mass which they celebrate to their Honour My Lord of Condom makes an Article thereof and turns the thing to the fairest side let him not take it ill if we examine it in its Native state That they may not accuse us of Calumniating I will represent here the very Words of the Council of Trent If any one maintain that it 's an abuse to celebrate Masses to the honour of Saints and to obtain their Intercession with God as the Church understands let him be Anathema Here is happily the strangest thing in the World and which hath not been well considered of to this day They offer a Sacrifice to the honour of a Creature It 's true that the Council of Trent saith formally that they offer not Sacrifices to Saints But these Gentlemen will permit us to observe that in every Tongue to do Service to some Person or to do it in honour of that Person signifie the same thing We say The Pagans have built Temples to their False gods and to the honour of their False gods They have established Feasts to the honour of Demons and to Demons they have made Sacrifices to Idols and to the honour of Idols We believe then that we say by the second Expression the same thing as by the first Men do not speak otherwise in the World They say Men have erected a Statue to the Prince or to the honour of the Prince they have put up this Triumphers Ark to the King or to the honour of the King Those Gentlemen must make us Vocabularies quite new and advertize us that they are not pleased to speak like all Mankind Let 's a little unravel this confused Idea They may offer the Sacrifice of the Mass to the honour of a Saint by the hand of a Priest That is to say They may offer a God to our God to the honour of a Creature by the hands of another Creature The Victim is God the Son he to whom they offer him is God the Father he to whose honour he is offered it 's a Saint a Creature and he that offers is a Priest that is to say another Creature If that be not called to go against the Order observed in all the Religions of the World I know not how it may be called In every Religion Men observe in all their Sacrifices a certain gradation of Dignity among these Three things The Minister of the Sacrifice the Oblation and he to whose Honour the Oblation is offered The Oblation is always the least excellent for before time they were only Animals He that offered was much more excellent because it was a Man But lastly He to whose honour the Sacrifice was offered was infinitely greater than the Priest seeing they considered him as God And even this Order is found in this admirable Sacrifice of the Cross which seems to be gone beyond all Rules The Human Nature which is the Victim is in the lowest degree of Dignity The Lord Jesus Christ as God and Man together is the Sacrificer and under that regard he is more than the Victim In fine He in whose honour this Sacrifice is offered it is God who is superiour both to the Victim and to the Sacrificer For although the Lord Jesus Christ be equal in all things to his Father by his Divinity yet considered as God and Man he is Inferiour and it s in this regard that he saith The Father is greater than I. But in the Sacrifice which they celebrate to the honour of Saints this Order is turn'd upside down The Victim is infinitely more excellent than he to whose Honour it is offered for they offer the Body of Jesus Christ to the honour of Saints Behold a thing which may yet seem more incomprehensible The Council of Trent saith That Jesus Christ who offered himself on the Cross is the same who offers himself this day by the Ministry of the Priests that is to say that Jesus Christ offers himself he is then properly the Sacrificer His Sacrifice is celebrated to the honour of the Saints thence it follows that Jesus Christ offers himself to his Father to the honour of the Saints To offer to the honour of the Saints it is to honour and to serve them So Jesus Christ who is the Master and the Creator serves and honours the Saints which are the Creatures in Sacrificing himself to their honour Methinks this Consequence comes not far yet it appears to me terrible Here is another that is but little less In all Sacrifices the Sacrificer is the Suppliant and he that demands favours He to whose honour men offer is the Person of whom these favours are demanded and the Victim is the Means by which the Suppliant inclines him of whom he demands Here the end is to implore the Protection of the Saints and to obtain their Intercession with God They are the very words of the Council He that labours to obtain this Grace is the Sacrificer and this Sacrificer is Jesus Christ the Victim by means whereof he essays to obtain this Grace it is his Body and Blood Gather all these things together and say The Son of God God himself blessed for ever offers to God the Sacrifice of his Body and of his Blood to obtain from a Saint his Protection and his Intercession for the Faithful According to that is it not true that Jesus Christ renders himself Mediator and Intercessour with the Saints sor to obtain of those Saints the Grace of their Intercession for
the Faithful Can there be any thing more opposite to the Rules of right Reason 5. Here is a turn of Devotion to obtain something of God which deserves to be admired They present to God a Sacrifice for to obtain the Protection of Saints and their Intercession with God It 's that which is expressed by these Words of the Mass Reverencing the Memory of the glorious always Virgin Mary Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ and also of thy blessed Apostles and Martyrs c. by whose Prayers and by whose Names we pray thee that we may be furnished with the succour of thy Protection Either I comprehend nothing therein or that signifies That one goes first directly to God in offering directly the Sacrifice to him then God moved by the Sacrifice must turn himself towards the Saints and being appeased by the Sacrifice he obtains of the Saints to intercede with Jesus Christ to the intent that in fine the Lord Jesus Christ may intercede with him for them which have offered the Sacrifice Is it not true that this course is a singular one For if God be already moved and appeased by the Sacrifice why must he turn to the Saints for to oblige them to intercede for those People towards whom he is already appeased In a word what I conceive of it is That the Roman Church offers to God their Redeemer and Mediatour Jesus Christ that so God may render himself as Mediatour with the Saints to oblige them to become Intercessours and Mediatours for Men with him I beseech these Gentlemen to regard that with an uninterest'd Eye 6. I cannot finish without returning again to the distinction whereby they believed they might disentangle themselves of all troubles and perplexities It 's that they indeed offer the Sacrifice to the honour of Saints but they offer it to God alone If those Sacrifices be offered only to God I see not what honour redounds thence to the Saint I conceive well that there is a Sense wherein it 's true to say that in honouring the Master men honour the Servant It 's a great honour to a Servant to appertain to a puissant Master to whom all the World pays homage and I consent that we may say in this Sense that in adoring God we honour the Saints But sincerely is that the Sense wherein they say they offer to God the Sacrifice of the Mass to the honour of Saints If that were true all the Prayers and all the Acts of Latria that those Gentlemen present to God should be done to the honour of the Saints Now it 's not so said If the Sacrifice of the Mass were done in honour to the Saints meerly by way of reflexion because the Saints should receive Honour and Joy to have a Master that is adored all the Masses should equally honour all the Saints For they have equally Honour and Joy from all the Acts of Adoration that are rendred to God But this is not the thought of these Gentlemen for there are certain Masses which are offered to the honour of the Saints and others not The Mass of St. Peter is not said to the honour of St. Roch and the Mass of St. Anthony doth not honour St. Paul This Consideration gives us cause to believe that besides the reflex honour which comes to the Saint from the celebration of the Mass there is also a direct Honour that goes strait to him And consequently my Lord of Condom must not think it strange that we look upon that as upon a Capital Affair seeing that all Christians hold this Principle That the honour of Sacrifices is to be reserved to the Deity After this if any be drawn into this Snare That the Invocation of Saints is done in the same Spirit as the Prayers that we make to the Faithful upon Earth to pray for us I 'le say without difficulty that he designs to deceive himself I have been somewhat long upon this Chapter of the Invocation of Saints yet I cannot leave it without making two important reflexions The first is upon the Council of Trent which hath used moderate Terms to establish this Invocation and which do not necessarily carry men to all the Excesses that we have blamed Thereupon I say two things First That the Council of Trent which hath authorized this great Abuse to offer the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ to the honour of Saints by that alone hath authorized all the rest for I esteem all the rest are nothing in comparison thereof The Second That the Council of Trent was assembled expresly to reform all Abuses so that it is judged to have authorized all those which he hath not touched The other Reflexion that I was willing to make it 's upon that saying of my Lord of Condom That the Council of Trent contents it self to teach the Faithful that this practice of invoking Saints is good and useful without saying any thing more Men understand well what that signifies Other Authors have expressed it more clearly and have said We make Profession to believe that it 's useless to invoke the Saints But we teach not as a Christian Verity That all Catholicks are obliged to an actual Exercise of this Invocation For one may be saved without it and may be some Catholicks are saved who never invoked any Canonized Saints in Heaven This is one of the great Snares into which our People are caught they tell them If you like not Invocation of Saints let it alone One may be saved well enough by Invocation of God First I say to that How can one enter into a Church wherein Saints are invoked in the Publick Service without invoking them One must first have retrench'd the Litanies Hymns and one half of the acts of the Publick Devotion One must either deprive himself of the Publick Service or partake of the Invocation of Saints That might have been said if Saints were only invok'd in private That is then a pure Illusion Moreover do they conceive that it 's but disowning the Worship in the Secret of one's Heart for to have no share therein When a Man is by choice of a Religion not willing to take another he hath a share in all the Devotions that are practised and which he approves not When the Publick Minister prays it 's in the Name of all present and who make Profession external of adhering to the Worship perform'd though they should reject it internally In fine I would ask those Gentlemen If Invocation of Saints be not necessary why do they impose it on Christians Why must so many Faithful Ones be scandalized for a Point they can be without Why not to be content with what all the World believes to be necessary viz. Invocation of God without adding that which at least is Superfluous ARTICLE VI. Of Images and Relicks WE pass to Images which is the Fifth of my Lord of Condom's Articles It is a Chapter whereon no fewer things were to be said than upon
are things that will surprize and which would never have been expected It 's good to observe that the Advertisement was made after the Approbations One may say with some assurance that Italy would not have suffered this Word to pass However it be my Lord of Condom may bless himself here that he hath made an Example He is the first that hath dared to write that and happily that hath dared to say it At least I may assure never to have read it in any nor to have heard it from any person though we see daily some of the most moderate Doctors of the Roman Church It 's true that most of these Gentlemen cannot endure to be accused of Adoring Images Thereupon we tell them You are then more scrupulous than the most Catholick Doctors who say That all Catholicks are agreed against Iconomacks That some Worship and Adoration is to be rendred to Images but that there are diversities of Opinions among them about the manner and nature of that Adoration That though it be true That the Image is not to be ador'd but because of the Original yet must it be adored in it self and properly without adoring the Original That the Images of the Cross are to be adored with Adoration of relative Latria That the Image may be ador'd with that Adoration wherewith its Original is ador'd properly in truth but by accicident that we regard the Image as conjoyned to the Original which is ador'd and that because of that one may adore it by Accident Behold already great Names in the Margin and one might without hyperbole add an hundred thereto But we will go on and say You are more scrupulous than the Writers of Port-Royal who are not accused to be Superstitious nor excessively Catholick They make one of their Devouts speak thus I kept my Bed for seven days since that time except that I rose thrice a day to go and adore the Crucifix You are more Catholick than the Popes themselves and than the Books whereof they are the Authors More than the Roman Pontifical which in the Chapter of the Benediction of a new Cross since that the Bishop bending his knees before that Cross adores it devoutly and kisses it More than the Missal which on Holy Friday saith of the Cross Come and let 's worship it In fine we add that this Scruple of not being willing to use this Word of Adoring in speaking of the Service of Images is a refined way unknown to the Councils which have establish'd this Service for the Second of Nice saith clearly by the Mouth of Tarasius That all those that will reverence Images and yet refuse Adoration to them are accused of Hypocrisie by the Holy Father viz. by Anastasius whose Testimony he was just then relating This Council in gross writing to the Emperours Constantine and Irene speaks thus to them We believe c. that Men must adore and salute the venerable Images of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Virgin pure Mother of God and also of the glorious Angels and of all the Saints And if any one be of another Spirit and questions whether Men must adore the holy Images this holy and venerable Coucil doth Anathematize him We see some Authors who being convinced sufficiently that since 800 or 900 years no question hath been made of using this term of Adoring to express the Worship given to Images are willing yet to use it but they distinguish and assure us That they do not worship Images as gods It 's that we willingly believe Happily among the Vulgar are found some stupid and simple Souls that do not well distinguish the Worship given to the Image from that which is to be rendred to God We cannot forbear saying That they who have established this Service of Images shall answer it to God for these Mistakes of the Vulgar But however we impute it not to the Roman Church that they worship Images as gods And I know not whether there ever were any People in the World to whom it may be attributed for I can hardly believe that there hath been any Religion brutish enough to give Divinity to Images of Wood Stone or Mettal These are the Colours that Men have hitherto diffused upon this Worship to render it tolerable to us We serve Images by relation to Originals said they We well know that Figures of Wood Stone and Mettal have no Divinity at all and are in no way worthy to be served What Service we give them is because of Jesus Christ the Holy Virgin and other Saints which they represent My Lord of Condom speaks not thus We serve not Images saith he God forbid You are not then of the Religion of the Second Council of Nice nor of that of the Council of Trent which confirms what was defined by the Decrees of Councils and particularly of the Second Council of Nice against those that opposed Images which saith expresly That Men must have in the Churches the Images of Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saints and render to them the honour and Veneration due Which adds in speaking of the said Images We kiss them we salute them we prostrate our selves before them All that is not to serve Images if we believe my Lord of Condom We see every day before our eyes that Images are cloath'd anew on Feast-days that some are carried in Pomp that Men prostrate themselves before them that they kiss them that they burn to their honour both Incense and Torches that they place them on Altars and after all that they tell us with an air of Assurance We serve not Images God forbid God be witness of the Justice of our Complaint and of the sincerity of this Justification My Lod of Condom saith but one word of Relicks I will not say much more He may turn this Worship of Relicks as pleases him but he shall never make us relish the adoring of Ashes Bones Linnens Wood and such other things I would not pretend to be nicely quarrell'd about that word of Adoring I use it in the same sense that the Gentlemen of Port-Royal who are exact enough in the choice of Terms They say in justifying the Religious Nuns That my Lord Bishop of Toul hath thought good they should follow the Devotion of the People and of many Persons of Condition which came and are still coming to adore this Holy Thorn They relate of a Religious of Maisen Dieu at Vernon That she would be carried to Port-Royal to adore that Holy Thorn And of one Madam Durand That she was cured of a Vomiting which had troubled her for Two years Ten months after having adored and kissed the Holy Thorn They conclude at last It suffices to say That if God did not make his help to be felt or hoped there are no Human Considerations that could carry so many Persons to come to the Towns end to adore this Holy Thorn in the Church of
Dignity of his Person to offer to God a sufficient Satisfaction for our Sins but that He applies to us that infinite Satisfaction in two manners either in giving us an intire Absolution without reserving any Pains which he doth in Baptism or else in commuting that Eternal pain into Temporal pains Pains whereof the Church remains Mistress and when that is relaxed that is called Indulgence Thence must we not conclude say they Neither that Jesus Christ did not intirely satisfie for us nor that we satisfie for our selves for some part of the Pain which is due to our Sins seeing that which is called Satisfaction is only after all this but the application of the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ After this the Author of the Advertisement cries out with an air of Confidence What will they say now If those Gentlemen please to hear us they shall see that we have yet somewhat to say As they have represented their Doctrine about this as they thought good they will permit us to represent it such as it is in effect and that is it we are going to do when we shall have advertized That they must not here recall us to the Council of Trent as they do upon other Matters because the Council says nothing about this I say Nothing literally meant They that have read the History of that Council know that the Prelates and the Theologians that made it up the Ambassadours of Princes which had perceived the uselessness thereof the Pope and the Council of Rome who did maintain the Charges of it and who feared the Decisions thereof All those Persons I say wearied with the long Continuation of the Council after they had finished the Matter of Orders which had held there Ten whole Months and that of Marriage which had occupied them four Months more resolved to end it at any rate So that in three Weeks time they strangled all the Business that remained which might have kept the Council at work as long as it had lasted already and one of those Matters was that of Indulgences about which they contented themselves to Pronounce That the use thereof was saving that the distribution of them was to be done by the Church but that the Abuses thereof were to be retrenched Behold in what manner was terminated in three Words that which all Christendom had conceived to be one of the greatest Affairs of the Council which had been the Scandal of all Europe and the first occasion that caused a Banner to be lifted up against the Roman Church It 's true that Ten or Twelve years before the 14 th Session held under Julius the Third did treat of Satisfaction in treating of Penitence but it said nothing of Indulgences So that they must give us leave to search out the Opinion of the Roman Church about this Affair in the Practise and Decisions of Doctours adding thereto what the Council of Trent hath said of Satisfaction 1. They say That our Sins deserve two sorts of Pain Eternal Pains and Temporal Pains 2. They grant That the Merit of Jesus Christ is infinite and that if God would this Merit could could be applied to nullifie Temporal Pains as well as Eternal Pains 3. But they hold That Jesus Christ would not suffer for to exempt his Elect from Temporal Pains or at least that he leaves absolutely to the Church the application of his infinite Satisfaction with respect to these Temporal Pains 4. They distinguish the Guilt from the Pain and they say That God forgives all the Guilt and retains one part of the Pain The Holy Council declares That it 's false and contrary to the Word of God that the Guilt can never be pardoned unless all the Pain be remitted 5. They say That the Justice of God requires this Reservation That the Sins that follow Baptism be punished by Temporal Pain Divine Justice seems to require That they who have sinned after Baptism be received into Grace otherwise then those who have sinned through Ignorance before Baptism 6. Behold the Uses which the Council finds in these Satisfactions 1. It 's to serve as a Bit and Bridle to Sinners 2. To drive out the ill Habits by the practice of opposite Vertues 3. To turn away the Pains which might be sent from God 4. To render us conformable to Jesus Christ in that we suffer to satisfie our Sins as Jesus Christ hath suffered to satisfie for those very Sins 5. To chasten and punish Sinners for their preceding Sins Is it not an admirable thing that the Council among those Reasons have forgotten none but that of my Lord of Condom according to whom Satisfactions have no other use but to make application of the Infinite Satisfactien of our Lord Jesus Christ The Council as well as he pretends That these Human Satisfactions do no prejudice to the infinite Merit of Jesus Christ But it is because not being able of our selves or sufficient to any thing we receive of Jesus Christ power to satisfie and to bring forth Fruits worthy of Repentance These are the Words of the Council This Reason is not that of Monsieur de Condom and the Council might more briefly have said if they had been in the same Thought The Satisfactions which the Church imposes do no prejudice to the Merit of Jesus Christ because they are but Applications of the infinite Merit of our Saviour 7. They say That these Pains which remain to be suffered after that the Guilt and Eternal Pains have been remitted are the same pain of Sense which the Sinners should have suffered in Hell stripping it only of its Eternity 8. They say That this Infernal Pain being Temporal may be redeemed by Penal Works and that those Works are truly and properly Satisfactory In following the Sense of the whole Church we will labour to prove That by the Penal Works whereof we have spoken Men satisfie truly and properly to God for the Pain which remains to be paid after that the Guilt is remitted 9. They say That the Church is Mistress of these Satisfactory Pains and that she hath the Right of imposing or relaxing them and they are these Relaxations of Pains which they call Indulgences 10. That there is a Treasure of these Indulgences made up of the Satisfactions of Jesus Christ and of those of the Saints which may be applied to them that are obliged to bear the Pain of their Sins after that the Guilt hath been remitted to them by the Sacrament of Penitence 11. That there is in all good Works of the Just a double respect the one of Merit the other of Satisfaction That that of Merit cannot be applied to another because God rewards Works beyond their Merits but that of Satisfaction may be applied to other And that because a Man may do of those painful Works much more than he hath need of or may suffer by the Providence Dispensation or by the Persecution of Men those Temporal Pains which go far
confess himself That the more we explain our selves the more contrary we find our selves to be So all the trouble he takes to convince us by our Principles is more than useless At the most we should only be convinc'd to have spoken in one manner and to have thought in another But we will not yield him that very pleasure of believing that justly We speak as we think and our Expressions are not as they would perswade us an effect of that Politick which is ordinary to such as estrange themselves from the Truth It is that retaining the Sense of the true Church they keep as far as they can possibly her own Expressions We believe a Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Supper as we believe a Real Presence of the Sun upon Earth No man mends to lie nor doth he lie at all when he saith That was done in the presence of the Sun When the Sun is risen he is present to us Yet no Man hitherto hath busied his Head to cause the Sun to descend from Heaven and to shut him up substantially within one of his Beams The Sun is really present by his Light by his Beams and by his Virtue Christ's Humanity is present by its Virtue by its Efficacy by its Merit which are as so many Beams It is a Presence most Real though it be not Corporal And I wonder how my Lord of Condom hath not learn'd it from his Scholasticks They that speaking of the manner wherein Causes do act say that some do act Immediatione Virtutis by an immediate Presence of Vertues and others Immediatione suppositi by an immediate presence of Persons of Suppost or Substance Who should say to those Doctors of the School That their immediate Presence of Virtue is a Chimaera and is not a real Presence I believe they make stir enough about it being so much in love with wrangling We believe sincerely as we speak it that we are made partakers of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ because we are not made partakers of the Substance of another because we receive the efficacy and merit of that Flesh really And that is all that is important to our Salvation in that Flesh for otherwise it's Nerves it 's Fibres it's Bones as such do not Sanctifie nor Justifie The Flesh profits nothing it is the Spirit that gives life If they will repeat to Eternity That it is not possible to make it to be understood that a Body which is not communicated to us but in Spirit and by Faith be really communicated to us and in its proper Substance We cannot help it otherwise than to repeat always also that the Spiritual Actions of the Soul are as real and more real than the Corporal Actions of the Body Though the Spirit alone by Faith do see the Humanity of Christ Jesus in Heaven we believe that that Sight is more real amd less subject to Illusion than that of Bodies which shall see Jesus Christ with the Eyes of Flesh and I can hardly conceive that Men can have their Comprehension of so great hardness as not to be able to comprehend that In fine We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is more fully communicated to us in the Eucharist than in Baptism because we have in the Eucharist that which we have in Baptism what we have in the Word of God and somewhat more It is not that Jesus Christ and his Graces can be divided he that receives Jesus Christ receives him whole intirely Yet the more that Grace is setled in our Souls the more Means God employs to sortifie it there and the more so far do we partake of Jesus Christ Three are more than Two When after having received the Grace of Baptism and Instruction by the Word God doth also add thereto the Sacrament of the Eucharist it is certain that Grace is confirmed augmented and established thereby and that we possess Jesus Christ more closely still Besides that it is certain that Jesus Christ hath promised to communicate to us his Graces in a particular manner and more efficacious in a Communion most devout than in the Word because the Word doth propose Graces but in general and a devout Communion applies them to every particular I will not touch what Monsieur de Condom saith upon these Words of our Catechism That the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ inasmuch as it hath been once offered in Sacrifice to reconcile us to God is now given to us to certifie us that we have a share in that Reconciliation I find what he saith thereon so fine and of so great Subtilty that I am assured that they for whom this principally was written will hardly understand it and that they who have a Spirit Metaphysical enough to enter into these abstracted Reflexions I believe they also will have penetration enough not to entangle themselves therewith The other thing which Monsieur de Condom saith which is to the purpose that we treat of is that we have offered Peace to the Lutherans who believe the Real Presence and that we have declared that this Doctrine hath no Venom at all that it doth not overthrow the Foundation of Faith and that it should not break Communion among Brethren And thereupon they tell us That whatever Evil might be in the Opinion of the Real Presence we have taken from our selves the right of prevailing thereby Seeing that you tolerate it in the Lutherans why should you not tolerate it in Catholicks We oppose thereto that they give Attendants to the Reality which we cannot tolerate Monsieur de Condom Answers That no Subtilty of the Minesters shall ever be able to perswade Men of good Sense that bearing with the Reality which is the Point most important and difficult they should not also bear with the rest He adds That by a secret Providence it hath happened that Calvinists have agreed that supposing that we should take literally these Words This is my Body the Catholicks do Reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans It would be presently a great rashness to hope that we may shut the Mouth of those Gentlemen about this Objection which they have renewed within these 50 years more than a Million of times and whereto Answer hath been made as often without being able to obtain from them a Moment of Equity It is not then to them that I will speak since they are resolved not to hear us it is to them that seek their Salvation with a Spirit of Humility and I pray them to consider 1. That what we have offered to the Lutherans is infinitely different from that which they demand of us at this day We have offered to the Lutherans to tolerate them in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and they demand of us to re enter into the Roman Church to make Profession thereof Have we offered to the Lutherans to re-enter into their Communion to break our Assemblies to incorporate them with
Monsieur de Condom pretends that we are much in the wrong because according to him The Sacrifice of the Mass offers no prejudice to that of the Cross the Reason which he gives is It 's a new Payment of a new Propitiation He saith not that it is not a new Sacrifice yet the Council of Trent insinuates it saying It is the same Oblation and the same Priest and the Doctours say it expresly But it is a terrible Paradox to say That a Sacrifice wherein no Person dies wherein there is no effusion of Blood which is done upon an Altar and which is done at this day towards the end of the World be the same singular Sacrifice which was done almost 1700 Years ago on the Cross whereon Jesus Christ died and did shed his Blood Not only it is not the same singular Sacrifice that it is not a Sacrifice of the same kind for here Jesus Christ dies not Monsieur of Condom tells us That Jesus Christ is upon the Altar but only in a Figure of real Death of the Signs which represent his Death It is natural to conclude that he is there Sacrificed as he dies he only dies in Figure there he is then Sacrificed but in Figure there He dies not there truly he is not then offered in a true Sacrifice However it be one shall never say that will follow the language of Reason That an Action wherein Jesus Christ died really and another wherein he dies but in some Signs be one and the same Sacrifice In fine Although Jesus Christ should be in the Eucharist and that in the Sacrifice of the Cross and of the Mass there should be but one Oblation would it follow that it were but one Sacrifice Doth the Oneness of the Sacrifice depend solely upon the Oneness of the Oblation Doth it not also depend on the Oneness of the Action If God had raised every year that Goat which was offered for the People in the Feast of Propitiation and that it had been killed every year because it had been the same Oblation it could never yet be said that it had been one and the same Sacrifice They say again That it is not a new Payment nor a new Propitiation that they do only apply the Propitiation of the Sacrifice of the Cross that it is the same Jesus Christ who is offered that it is his Merit which is presented What doth all that do We say not that the Sacrifice of the Mass doth wrong to the Merit of Christ Jesus for we know well that have design to offer Jesus Christ and his Merit in the Sacrifice of the Mass But we say That this Oblation reiterated of the same Satisfaction doth accuse of insufficiency the former Oblation Either Jesus Christ hath not sufficiently offered to his Father his Infinite Merit or the Oblation thereof which they repeat every day is useless For if the Oblation done in the Cross be sufficient all other Oblation is superfluous or if the other Oblations be not superfluous certainly that of the Cross is insufficient whatsoever these Doctors say They have a design to make application by this Sacrifice of the Mass of the efficacy of that of the Cross that doth not hinder from being a new Sacrifice in the Church It is most certain that the Mosaical Sacrifices were destined to apply the efficacy of the Death of Jesus Christ and of his Sacrifice to come Mean while they were not the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross And if any this day make application to himself of the efficacy of the Death of Jesus Christ by the death of a Beast it would not be a Sacrifice but a Sacriledge In a word It imports us not why and to what end they present Jesus Christ every day in a true Sacrifice They do it and this Enterprize seems to be very surprizing terrible and absolutely opposite to the declaration of the Holy Spirit who saith That Jesus Christ doth not offer himself several times Whatever Intention Men have God will not be paid with that Intention and will always judge that they have done wrong to that Oblation once made capable of sanctifying for ever those that are sanctified Besides that I would fain know if they can say in Conscience That Jesus Christ died purposely to obtain for us all things for which they offer this Sacrifice of the Mass It is not only for the Remission of Sins it is for the preservation of Health for the Cure of a Disease for the Prosperity of an Enterprize yea and for the finding out of those things that are lost In a word There are but few things though never so base for which they do not celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass by the favour of this Word of the Council of Trent for other Necessities It is impossible we should count for nothing so great an Abuse as that is to offer the Son of God his Flesh and his Blood which the Angels adore for things of this Nature And we cannot comprehend how they can say That it is the same Propitiation of that of the Cross for it is certain that the Lord hath not suffered on the Cross to obtain for Men these sorts of Goods Monsieur de Condom must also give me the permission to ask him how that which is taught in the Roman Church That the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass is Finite can agree with what he saith That it is the same Payment as that of the Sacrifice of the Cross Bellarmine proves very well that the value of the Mass is finite If the Value of the Mass were Infinite it were in vain to offer many Masses to obtain the same thing for if one Mass alone were of an Infinite Price certainly it were sufficient to obtain all Of what use were it to offer others The following Words appear remarkable to me One may prove the same thing by the Sacrifice of the Cross which is singular not to be repeated only because it is of an Infinite Value and that it acquired a Price for all the Sins which are to be pardoned both future and past Can any distinguish more neatly the two Sacrifices and the two Payments that of the Cross and that of the Mass One is Infinite the other limited One is never repeated because it is Infinite the other is daily reiterated because it is of a Finite value Bellarmine will they say hath no design to oppose the Council of Trent and in the same place he proves That the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same Sacrifice with that of the Cross It is true but these Doctors say what they please and they would have us to believe them even when they lay down things incompatible I do not believe it necessary to stay long upon what Monsieur de Condom saith That the Sacrifice of the Mass is an Attendant of the Real Presence If that Reflexion were solid it would do for us and it could not serve but to
give us Aversion for the Doctrine of Reality whose Attendants should be so strange and would tend to establish a New Sacrifice that is to say a New Religion But we cannot agree that the Sacrifice of the Mass be an Attendant of the Real Presence It may be an Issue if Men please because it followed after it and that they have made a Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist only after they had imagined a Real Presence of the Flesh of Jesus Christ But it is an Issue which hath no foundation but in Illusion for in truth it is clear That the Flesh of Jesus Christ in whatever manner it be given us is only given us but to be Eaten and not to be Sacrificed seeing the Lord commands us to Eat his Flesh and never ordains it to be Sacrificed If the Real Presence did necessarily induce the Sacrifice it were because Men should Sacrifice the Lord Jesus Christ wherever he is Were it so he were then to be Sacrificed in Heaven So in this place no more then about Adoration we cannot grant that the Catholick Romans do Reason more Consequentially than the Lutherans because these which hold the Real Presence do not yet make a Sacrifice of the Eucharist Yet once more I have no design either to prove nor refute and I will hold me religiously within the Bounds which I have mark'd out for my self Therefore I will not examine all that Monsieur de Condom saith to expound the Epistle to the Hebrews It is one of his digressions done for swelling his Work He shall say whatever he pleases but he shall never make them believe who shall preserve but a little liberty of the Spirit that this Epistle be favourable to the Sacrifice of the Mass Never will Men comprehend the reason of the Silence of the Apostle upon this matter in a place where he treated to the bottom both of the Sacrifice and of the Christian Priesthood This were a manifest prevarication and if having wherewith to satisfie the Jews who would have by all means Visible Sacrifices he had not put into their hands the Sacrifice of the Mass to impose Silence on them Monsieur de Condom would believe he had done much if he could but draw this Epistle from laying so heavy upon his Party and had proved that it doth nothing against him Also hath he no other end in his Reflexion it is not a thing to be dispatch'd in Eight or Ten little Pages but though he had done it he had yet done nothing to purpose It is not enough to have proved that this Epistle contains not Proofs against the Sacrifice of the Mass They should find therein Proofs for this Sacrifice for it is there that they ought to be if there were any in the Scripture and if they find none in that place it is a prejudgment that they cannot be found in any part ARTICLE XIII Of the Retranchment of the Cup. BEhold the last of the Consequences of Transubstantiation and of the Real Presence it is the Retranchment of the Cup and Communion under one kind Monsieur de Condom finds in his Theology that it is so natural a Consequence thereof and so necessary that those who confess or tolerate Real Presence should find it no trouble to Communicate under one kind If it were true that the Retranchment of the Cup were a necessary Attendant of the Real Presence it were to us a new Reason against the receiving thereof but it concerns me little whether that Consequence be good or bad It is a Controversie which I leave to the Bohemians to dispatch and to the Germans French Bavarians and to so many others who did in the last Age demand with so much instance the Restitution of the Communion under both kinds and who notwithstanding believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence I will say only Two things thereupon The first That the Church which during a Thousand years entire by the Confession of these Doctours Administred the Communion under both kinds did not believe the Retranchment of the Cup were a needful Attendant of the Real Presence seeing that if we believe them that same Church believed also that Real Presence I grant that it is an astonishing thing That during the Ten first Ages Men should not have that Scruple which they have had in the following In those Times when Men accounted it a greater honour to wear on their Face the mark of their Sex than they do this day I know not how then Men should not abhor to see after the Communion a thousand Bodies of Christ Jesus hanging at the Beard of a Mariner They have not thought of a Remedy to be sought for that Scandal but since Berengarius and since the establishing of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation One had need be very dull methink and thick Skulled not to be sensible that these new Precautions which they since that began to be thought of are an evident Proof that there hath been Innovation in the Doctrine The other thing I would say is That I found a Word in the Book of Monsieur de Condom which makes me suspect that himself is but ill perswaded that the Communion under one Kind is an Attendant of the Real Presence In the Consecration saith he the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are mystically separated because that Jesus Christ said separately This is my Body This is my Blood which doth include a lively and efficacious representation of the violent Death which he suffered If the Body and Blood be mystically separated in Consecration why should they not be so in the Communion If Jesus hath said separately This is my Body This is my Blood hath not he also said separately Eat Drink He that eats my Flesh and He that drinks my Blood In fine If the Signs be separated in this Sacrifice to induce a lively and efficacious representation of the violent Death of Jesus Christ why do they not also give them Separately at the Communion seeing they make there the Commemoration of that Violent Death and that Men participate there of the whole efficacy of that Death If Monsieur de Condom would thus Reason upon the Principles which he himself hath laid he should then Reason as Cajetan and many other Able Men have done who did believe Transubstantiation and the Real Presence All that may serve to make it appear that the Lutherans do not Reason so ill as Men would perswade us when they sever the Doctrine of the Real Presence from all those Attendants which they give it in the Roman Church But that is not my principal Affair Here it is It is to make known that Monsieur de Condom hath no reason for desiring to perswade us that this Retranchment of the Cup is nothing important and that it should not hinder us from Reunion to the Roman Church The Christian Religion according to us hath but Two Sacraments and should it be nothing important to us to see ravished from us the Moiety of
one of these Sacraments at one blow I know not how that can be said seeing that according to our Principles he that divides the Sacrament destroys it and he that destroys it robs the Church of it They would have us reckon for nothing an Attempt happily the strangest which was ever seen in Religion All the World agrees that our Lord Jesus Christ hath Instituted this Sacrament under both Species that Antiquity hath so practised it and after Fourteen hundred Years they come to snatch it out of our hands These Doctours who boast of so perfect a Conformity to the Ancient Church do abandon it in this place which is of the chiefest importance They grant it they are not ashamed of it and they would have us like it and that we should account this Enterprize for nothing What can we account for nothing so manifest an Infraction of our Masters Orders which said so expresly Drink ye all of it It will avail nothing here to say That this Command is not addressed to all the Faithful but to the Priest alone It is an Illusion which I have no design to encounter The business is to know whether in our Principles we cannot Communicate under one kind Now seeing that after our Principles these words Drink ye all of it are addressed to all the Faithful we cannot retaining our Principles Communicate under one Kind without being Hypocrites Prevaricators and Rebels against the Orders of our Lord. But to make Men sensible how much this Enterprize is terrible and this Affair important I beseech them who have a Care of their Salvation to make with me the following Reflexions 1. That in all Sacraments and Sacrifices and generally in all Sacred Ceremonies of the Law there were parts so Essential that in ruining them Men had entirely destroy'd that part of Divine Service and of a Sacred Ceremony they had so made a Sacriledge Moses had ordained that every day twice in the Evening and Morning the Holocaust of a Lamb should be offered It is that which the Law called The Continual Sacrifice If they should have offered but one Holocaust at Noon and that they had Sacrificed a Bull instead of a Lamb is it not evident that it would have been a manifest Prevarication and that this Action would have passed before God for an Abomination God had also ordained That on that Solemn day which they called of Propitiations they should present two Goats that one of them should be Sacrificed for an Holocaust and that the other being charged with the Iniquity of the People should be sent into the Desart If they should have presented but One Goat instead of Two is it not evident that the Propitiation had not been made and that God would have considered that as a signal Prevarication And that an High Priest that had been guilty of such an Attempt would have been put to Death without Mercy As for me though I should strive yet cannot I perceive what difference there is between such Facts and This whereof we now treat Jesus Christ hath established us a Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine he saith Eat Drink At a blow suddenly they steal away one Moiety from us they rob us of the Wine consecrate they forbid us to drink thereof and they would have us to regard that as a Sacrament and as the same Sacrament 2. Let 's consider besides that the Efficacy and Virtue of Sacraments depend absolutely on their Institution and the Will of their Author For in fine at the bottom to eat a little of the Flesh of a roasted Lamb to suffer some Violence in ones Flesh by Circumcision to be washed with a little Water in it self cannot be of any Virtue And Ceremonies have no Efficacy but because God hath instituted them and hath promised to accompany them with the Virtue of his Grace and of his Spirit But is it not true that he hath not promised to accompany Sacraments with his Virtue but on Condition that Men should keep close to the Ceremonies that himself hath Instituted Circumcision was to be done in certain Parts if they had done it on the Lips or Ears instead of being a Seal of the Covenant it had been a depravation evident of the Covenant which would have provoked God instead of procuring his Grace They were to roast the Paschal Lamb to eat it with bitter Herbs if instead of that they had roasted a Beef or had boiled the Lamb and that they had eaten this Lamb with a sweet Sawce who can deny but that instead of a Sacrament it had been a Sacriledge God would not have shed any Virtue on that corrupted Ceremony and this Change would absolutely have ruined the Efficacy of the Sacrament If instead of Baptizing with Water any should Baptize with Dirt or any other such thing or in retaining Water any should alter visibly the Sense of the Sacramental Words of Baptism I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost could Men believe that this Sacrament would confer Remission of Sins It is clear that God hath engaged himself to give his Grace with his Sacraments but not with Mens Sacraments When Men change the Institution of a Divine Sacrament they make an Human Sacrament to which God hath promised nothing Therefore it is a most clear Evidence that in retranching the Moiety of the Signs in the Sacrament of the Eucharist they ruine the Efficacy thereof they banish the Spirit of God and estrange his Grace from it For Jesus Christ hath not promised to afford his Grace but to such Sacraments as he hath instituted and as he hath instituted it After that they should have us reckon it for nothing that they take from us one of the Means whereby this Saving Grace and Efficacy are communicated is that Just 3. These same Reflexions make us see with the fullest Evidence that the Retranchment of the Cup destroys and ruins the Sacrament of the Eucharist For a Sacrament is a certain Assemblage of Ceremonies instituted of God and if you take away one part of these Ceremonies it is no more the same Sacrament That appears by what I have said of the Passover Circumcision and Baptism in which if Men should make any notable Change by way of Retranchment they would have ruined them I say by way of Retranchment because one may alter Sacraments by way of Addition without ruining them The vain Ceremonies which the Jews had loaden the Passover with did not absolutely destroy it and the useless Pomp wherewith they have cloath'd the Sacrament of Baptism among Christians hinders not its Efficacy When the Essential parts remain what is added doth incommodate and hurt yea load the Subject but the Essence of that Subject subsists But when they have taken away one of the Essential parts all things which Men add beyond the Institution cannot restore what they have spoiled And thence it is clear that both the Signs being equally Essential in
That in the Letters of Mission whereof the Churches do charge the Deputies which go to Synods there be a Clause of Submission in these Terms We promise before God to submit to all that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy Assembly being perswaded that God will preside by his Spirit c. To that Monsieur de Condom adds a Fact drawn from the Synod of Saint Foy Anno 1578. where some Overtures were made of Reconciliation with the Lutherans and deputed Four Men to whom was given an Absolute Power to terminate that Affair as should seem good to them Behold say they where ends the false delicateness of these Gentlemen They will not receive the Decisions of Councils they make no difficulty to put their Faith into the hands of Four Men who would be weary to be obliged to answer so many things that come to nothing What doth all that I pray you Doth that prove that we hold the Church for an Infallible Judge All that Monsieur de Condom says returns to this Reasoning or it returns to nothing Those who give their Synods power to judge Soveraignly of Points of Faith who promise Submission in the assurance that the Holy Ghost presides there and who retrench from the Communion of the Church those that would not submit to their Decision give to these Synods an Infallible Authority but the Calvinists do that therefore they give to to their Synods an Infallible Authority This Argument supposes false and concludes ill 1. It supposes false for it is not true that we promit our Synods a blind Submission What is said to them That we are perswaded that God will preside in the midst of them by his Spirit is a Clause of Civility whereof the Terms are not to be abused That signifies nothing but that we wish and hope that the Holy Ghost will direct them It is not true neither that the Synod of Sainte Foy have put the Faith of the Protestant Churches of France in deposito into the hands of Four Men for what was committed to them was not to make new Articles of Faith but only to compose a Formulary in general Terms which all the World might receive And they did not so far refer themselves wholly to their Judgment but that they reserved liberty not to follow them if they should chance to make some false Advance 2. This Argument concludes ill for from what Power we give to our Synods to Judge of the Points of Doctrine and do cut off those that will not submit to their Judgment Monsieur de Condom concludes that we attribute to them an Infallible Authority This Reasoning is worth nothing or this is good The Bishops and Archbishops do give Ordinances Councils Provincial and National in the Roman Church decide Points of Faith and cut off those that will not submit therefore they believe themselves Infallible I do not therefore think that the Bishops neither separately nor in their whole Body out of a General Council esteem themselves Infallible Must then the Priviledge of Infallibility be had to have the Power to Judge of a Point of Faith There would then be none but the Pope or the Council that could Judge thereof There must be an Order Every Society is in right of Judging of Controversies which arise in its bosom and that Member thereof that will not submit to that Judgment may be cast out of the Body Therefore we do properly complain That the Roman Church having pronounc'd against us in the Council of Trent after that did cast us out of their Body They used in that the right which appertains to every Society but we complain that they have unjustly condemned us The Question touching the Rights and Authorities of Councils and Synods deserves an Examen much more ample we will leave it as an Incident which Monsieur de Condom hath brought into his Book without necessity and only to entangle the state of the Question It imports nothing at the bottom what Authority Synods may have to know whether the Roman Religion is far distant from the Protestant which is properly the Affair here in agitation ARTICLE XVI Of the POPE and of his Authority I Follow the Order of Monsieur de Condom I finish by the Head of that great Body into which they would have us re-enter that is the Pope Here also after him a Point whereof we have made a stumbling Block without any reason What is the Pope It is the Principle of Unity the Cement of Union It 's a Head whereto all the Members have a relation and who makes the Uniting of the Church for Men know there is no Goverment more solid and that contributes more to the Conservation of States than the Monarchical What hurt then can there be to set upon the Body of the Church a Spiritual Monarch a Visible Head that may watch for its Conservation and may govern it Must not People be very Captious to make of that a cause of Separation I will regard well this Article at first under the same face that Monsicur of Condom doth The Pope is a Visible Head a Spiritual Monarch but who hath appointed this Monarch Is it possible that Men do not feel that this puts a prodigious difference between the Religion of Protestants and the Roman Religion To make it appear I suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ would have the Government of his Church should be Aristocratical and that he hath put it into the hands of such whom he hath called Bishops and Priests whom he hath invested with equal Power I know well that this Principle is contested but once more I am not oblig'd to prove any thing in this Work I am permitted to suppose my Principles and in supposing them I must shew how they are incompatible with those of that Church whereunto they would have us return If then the Lord Jesus Christ hath setled a Government Aristocratick in his Church this kind of Government is of Divine Right and if it be of Divine Right none must be permitted to change it under whatsoever pretence The kind of Government is so much of the Essence of a State That the State changes absolutely loses its Name and its Form when the Government is changed All the World knows that a Kingdom which by a general Revolt shakes off the Yoke of its legal Master and then a Popular Government a Republick which by the violence of an Usurper becomes a Monarchy are no more what they were before and they would that without ruining the Church they may make a Monarchy thereof against the intention and design of Jesus Christ We do not understand that Suppose we also that this Soveraign Power exercised at Rome be an Usurped Power It is the Principle of Protestants Selon ce Principe is it possible that they would oblige us to submit to an Usurped Power If a Tyrant or Rebel had taken the place of the Legal Prince were it not extream baseness and a Crime of