shewing the time when these examples appeared who seeâ— not that this might be referred unto the time immediatly going before in the same Age and would conclude nothing for the three first if nothing were â—o be found in those Ages Howsoeveâ— iâ— be we believe shall we be ablâ— to â—aâ—e appear that never any author of the Fourth Age hath alledged any text of the three former thâ— makes out that in those times they prayed unto Saints The Cardinal Du Perron In the reply unto the King of Great Britain answer 187â— Impress Pâ—aâ— whose art in turning all to his advantage is sufficiently known hath been forced to confess in proper terms that there is not to be found any footstep of the invocation of Saints in the Authors next to the Apostles Age seeking vain slâ—ights and evasions upon this matter Perez a Spanish Bishop Os Tradi pa 197â— more sincere goeth farther confessing that he found not that any Prayd unto Saints before the year 360. See then more than three Ages and aâ— half exempted from the pretensions of the Gentlemen of the Church oâ— Rom by their own confession and what can there be more convincing on the side of Tradition unto those which make if the rule of their Faith against such a worship as this which maks so great a part of the Roman Religion than not to find at all the least step of it in the whole course of 360 years the purest time of Christianity As to what the Bishop of Condom saith that it is not at all likely that Mr. Daille had better understood the opinion of the Fathers of the three first Ages then those of the fourth Age did understand them first it is not here the business to understand or not to understand the opinion of the Fathers of the three first Ages for none of their writings can be alledged which those of the fourth Age have understood iâ— one sense and Mr. Daille in another The onely business is to know iâ— there be any thing in those writings which sheweth that they Prayed unto Saints Mr. Daille affirms that he finds nothing at all Du Perrâ—â— and Perez speaking to the same effect as is already said and the authors of the Fourth Age say nothing contrary But if there were occasion to explain any of the Fathers of the three first Ages it would not possibly be so great a Paradox as the Bishop of Condom imagins to suppose that Mr. Daille has been able to understand them as well as most of the Fathers of the fourth age did understand them Those who amongst all his other works have read his books of the use of the fathers of the Novelty of Roman Traditions of the object of the worship of the Latins and upon the Epistles attributed to St. Ignatius where he had occasion to speak throughly of the Doctring of the three first Ages will acknowledge if they are in the least just and sincere that haply scarce any before him hath either more studied or better understood the Fathers than he and I may credible say here that if the veneration which is to be had for antient things be one day joyned unto the proper excellency of his works and unto the clear reputation in which he lived preached even unto a great age he will be esteemed in after times for one of the greatest most excellent Doctors which the Church ever had The Fathers of the Fourth age lived some in Europe others in Asia and some in Africk Printing not being then in use there was not the same facility to see all the Manuscripts of Forreign parts The Fathers had each their proper Lights and peculiar study of some of the writings of the preceding ages and of their own at this day those who have the time Wisdom Judgment and the knowledge of tongues which are necessary for the well understanding the Fathers may collect not onely all the Fathers works of the three first Ages but also the several Lights of the Fourth and also joyn unto those Lights those of all the following ages unto that wherein we Live day unto day uttereth Speech right unto night sheweth knowledge Who questions but at this time several places of the Holy Scriptures are better understood than they were in the First ages This dispute it self hath served to clear many truths which were not known until these Last times for instance several passages misunderstood by the Fathers which are now better understood in the one and in the other Communion than they were formerly and sundry errours whereinto it is agreed they were fallen from which praised be God we are now delivered Here it is that the Bishop of Condom comes at length to explain the belief of the Roman Church touching the invocation of Saints in particular what he saith may be reduced to this that the Church of Rome teacheth that it is useful to pray unto Saints and that she teacheth to pray unto them in a Spirit of Charity and Brotherly fellowship as we pray to our Brethren that are living upon earth that this Prayer unto Saints doth not any more derogate from the mediation of Jesus Christ than that which we make unto our Living Brethren that the Church of Rome makes a great deal of difference betwixt the Prayers which she addresâ—â—â— unto God and those which she makes unto Saints that unto God she saith have mercy upon us and to the Saints only Pray for us and that this is the sense unto which the Church reduceth all the Prayers unto Saints in whatsoever terms they be conceived that the Council teaching that it is good and useful to call upon the Saints in an humble maner and to fly unto their aid for obtaining benefits of God by his Son Jesus Christ the Bishop of Condom conceives not how we can say that this is to depart from our Lord Jesus Christ Afterwards he adds that the Church doth not offer unto God 〈◊〉 Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the honor of Saints but only so as to name them 〈◊〉 the faithful servants of God to render his thanks for their victory and to pray hiâ— to be inclined by their intercessions moâ—â— over that this is not to advance the creature above its condition to attribute 〈◊〉 them a knowledge of the desires and necessities of which we make sâ—cret â—â—quests unto them in as much as thâ— God hath not refused to reveal things 〈◊〉 come unto the Prophets though they seem to be more particularly reserved unâ—â— his own knowledge that Lastly thâ— Church doth not decide any thing upâ—â— the different meanes which God make use of in imparting this knowledge unâ—â— the Saints whether he doth it by the Ministry of Angels or by a particulâ—â— revelation or whether he discover all unto them in his infinite essence where a truth is comprised This is the sense and as near aâ— may be the Bishop of Condoms verâ— expressions whereby he would sweeten his Doctrines as much
as he could but for all this what might not oâ— say upon each of these propositions if this were a place to handle the question to the bottom But seeing the Bishop of Condom desires not to insist upon refuting of him and also it being not the design of this answer we shall also content our selves almost throughout to set forth simply our beliefe in opposition unto his because it may be thought that there is no more needful as well to judge in general which of the two hath more the character of truth as to make appear that his exposition is always equally contrary to our fundamental points Onely after 〈◊〉 â—â—ample we will touch some reasons upon which we ground our selves for the same consideration which he himself makes where he saith that the knowledge of the principal reasons of a Doctrine doth often make up a necessary part of its exposition The reformed Churches do believe that it is not onely for the Glory of God but that it is his will also as he hath told us in his word that we should worship but one God that we should serve none but God with a religious worship that we should have recourse unto none but God only in our necessities that we should call upon none but God in our Prayers and that invocation according to the very word is a spiritual sacrifice which makes up the chiefest part of the worship due unto God onely We believe that this is the true meaning of the Commandments of the Law and of all the Doctrin of the Gospel which directs us throughout to address unto God our vows our Prayers and our thanksgivings and as for the faithful Servants of God which we esteem to have dyed in his favour we say that we should honour their memories praise their faith their zeal their charity and all other their Christian vertues and propose them for example and imitation unto the faithful This is properly our beliefs and we are perswaded that those who will consider it with a free and equal mind will not onely find it safe and right but also pure and disengaged from abuse from difficulties and uncertainties which accompany that of the Bishop of Condom We will begin to examin this Article of his exposition where he ends it to wit how the Saints know our vows our needs and our Prayers because it is in vain to pray if not understood we have seen that the Bishop of Condom hath declared that never any of his Communion did conceive that the Saints could know our Prayers and desires by themselves that is by their own proper nature that also there is not any immensity attributed unto them and that nevertheless the Church of Rome doth not decide whether it be by the Commerce of Angels or by revelations as were those of the Prophets or whether it be that they see all in God himself But doth not this uncertainty already shew what that Faith can be that hath no surer foundation Is it not a new circuit if our vowes and our Prayers must pass from us unto Angels from Angels to Saints and from Saints to God and is it not yet a new difficulty if we must suppose that Angels themselves know our thoughts and our dâ—sires For although they are Miâ—string Spirits as the Bishop of Condâ—â— alledges when they are sent foâ—â— to attend the Faithful it doâ— not follow that we ought to attribâ— to them the knowledge of hearts which onely belongs to an inâ—nite essence Heb i. 14 Jerem. 17 6 10. Amos 5 7. There is also this diffâ—rence betwixt the Saints and the Prophets that God himself hath said thâ— he revealed things to come unto thâ— Prophets but he never said that 〈◊〉 revealed our thoughts unto Saints and very unlike it is that the knowledge of future things seems to 〈◊〉 more reserved to God than oâ— thoughts and our Prayers as the Bâ—shop of Condom affirms It 〈◊〉 known that the Devils and even mâ— themselves sometimes search iâ— what is to come and that it is properly the knowledge of the hearâ— which God reserves unto himself â—lone Pâ—s 7 10 1 Chro â—6 s 7. It is yet a gulf of difficulties to Imâ—gin that the Saints see all things in thâ— infinite essence of God For is not this to attribute immensity unto them And is it not also to suppose that all things are in God either according to their proper nature or by their Images as they must needs be to be known or seen by the Saints whereas it was never said but that all things were in God only eminently as it is said in the Schools that is to say that the perfection or infinity of his essence comprehends all things and that there is nothing properly without him Besides good heed ought here to be taken that the principal and essential question is not to know how the Saints can understand our thoughts and our Prayers that may be in some sort indifferent but how we may be assured at Least they do know them For if we have only probabilities and conjectures for it this is not sufficient to establish a Religious Worship such as that is nor praying unto the Saints with confidence In the mean while the Church of Rome doth agree that the Saints do not know our desires and our wants by their own nature it were very needful therefore that their should be some very express revelation that might at Least inform us that they do know them though we were ignorant of the means but noâ— having any Likely revelation in this matter it is evident that all this worship of Saints hath no foundation There is yet another difficulty that the Bishop of Condom hath not touched which doth manifestly shew that there can be no assureance that the Saints who are prayed unto caâ— know our desires and Prayers oâ— that they are in a condition of doing what we pray unto them for it is thaâ— we cannot be assured of this it self that the greatest number of the Saintâ— who are prayed unto are in Heaven especially in the Roman Church where they believe a third place For although we ought to judge charitably of them who seem to dye in thâ— Lord yet the judgement of charitâ— is not sufficient to establish such worship as this is The Council nor the Bishop oâ— Condom upon the whole say nothing to these difficulties which yet are essential and preliminaries also as it may be said because it is a most evident truth that no true Religious Worship can be grounded upon uncertain reasons But Lastly having touched what the Bishop of Condom doth not resolve it is time to examin what he explains and that which he saith to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome And First it is a Wonderful thing that in Laying down as he doth so Long a train of Doctrins as hath been mentioned going about to establish so considerable a Worship as the Worship of Saints is in
those Holy Originals neither Commandment nor example to the contrary Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God anâ— him onely shalt thou serve said our Saviour to the Devil that tempted him If Religion were onely an arbitrary Worship St. Aug. lib. 4. contr Faust cap. 11. de Genes cont Manich. li be a p. 1. and that to render it Lawful it were enough to refer all to God the Manichees which adored God the Father Son and Holy Ghost with a Sovereign Worship and who also Worshipped the Sun and Moon by reason of the residence they believed God made in those glorious bodies might have said that they did terminate all in God and in a Word there could be no false Worship superstion or evil action which may not be justified if it were enough to say that all did terminate in God Besides the Church of Rome doth but fairly say that She teacheth that the Worship of Saints ought to refer it self to or terminate it self on God the people will everlastingly terminate it on the Saints on their relicks and on their Images because the same reason which causeth that grosser minds cannot form to themselves any Idea of an Infinie and in visible God as he is doth also make them naturally to stop at Saints and creatures and that they rely more on things which they see or know than on that which they onely know imperfectly They will have as the Jews had Gods to march before them and at all times when Relicks and Images are set before the eyes of the people as is usual their eyes and their hearts far from being lifted up unto God will stop not onely at the saints themselves but at their Images and Relicks The Second Part. The Bishop of Condom doth here descend from the General Proposition touching the nature of Religious Worship Of the Invocation of Saints to the explication of particular Worships which do make part of the Articles of Faith whereunto he reduces the controversies He begins with the Invocation of Saints indeavouring also to sweeten and extenuate this worship of the Church of Rome as well in the Doctrine as in the practice and onely studies colourable means to insinuate his Doctrin in stead of following the natural order of things of the Doctrin it self that is to say instead of establishing before all things that the Invocation of Saints is a Lawful worship instituted by God and by consequence well pleasing in his eyes he indeavours to surprise mens minds by this other general proposition that those of the Pretended Reformed Religion being pressed by the force of the truth do begin to acknowledge that the Custom of Praying unto Saints and to honour their Relicks was established ever since the fourth Century he means that we do acknowledge that this worship did begin to be established at that time This is but a perverting of words for the Bishop of Condom knows very well that it is not now that we do begin to make this acknowledgement and that this acknowledgment is neither new nor forced nor particular to Monsieur Daille as the Bishop of Condom doth seem to take notice Clemnit Casaub â—ossias du Moulin c. Blondeâ— Chamier Bochard in a word all those who have treated throughly of this Subject have agreed upon the time in which Praying unto Saints begun to be introduced This trick of expression from the Biâ—hop of Condom is onely a short wâ—y to insinuate that there hath been a variation betwixt our authors and less sincerity at one time than at another which nevertheless hath not the least ground however his proposition shall be explained that it may not be mistaken It is true that we have always acknowledged that Praying unto Saints began to be practised towards the end of the Fourth Age but we never acknowledged neither do we yet acknowledge that it was an usage then established in the publick service of the Church nor is it true that it was authorised by any Council Onely if it be needful we make appear by convincing proofs not only that there is neither command nor example neither in the Old or New Testament for the Invocation of Saints but also that there is not the least mark in any of the authors of the fiâ—â—â— three Ages which are extant in sâ—ficiently great numbers Mr. Dâ—ille doth not accuse any the Fathers much less St. Augustiâ—â— to have changed the Doctrin in thâ— point from the former Ages for 〈◊〉 Austin hath declared himself the Leâ— of any for these sorts of Prayers 〈◊〉 Saints Mr. Daille doth only complaiâ— of this that they suffered them inseâ—sibly to be brought in upon bad priâ—ciples and doth accuse them of havâ—ing erred in this as the Church 〈◊〉 Rome doth acknowledge that theâ— have all erred in other things If thâ— Bishop of Condom pretend that thâ— is to abandon those great men under colour of acknowledging that the were men subject to errour the millenaries which do yet to this day expect a Kingdom for a Thousand year on earth under the immediate Government of Christ Jesus those whicâ— believe that Souls at their departurâ— out of this Life shall sleep until thâ— day of Judgement and Generally alâ— those that have followed or do yeâ— follow any one of these errours which appeared in the first Ages may as well say that we have abandoned those of the Fathers who followed or taught those matters and by consequence that they are not errors but Doctrines Lawfully established But it will appear very unlikely saith the Bishop of Condom that Mr. Daillé hath better understood the opinions of the Fathers of the three first Ages than those who have gathered as it may be said the succession of their Doctrin and he will be much less believed that the Fathers of the fourth Age where far from perceiving that there was any innovation brought in in their Worship this Minister on the contrary hath produced express texts by which they clearly shew that they pretend in praying to the Saints to have followed the example of those who went before them These kinds of discourses are very uncertain and are properly but Colours If the Bishop of Condom had taken the pains to have mentioned the texts he speaks of it would have been seen that there is not the least in any of them which shews clearly as he would have men believe that the Fathers of the fourth Age did pretenâ— that the invocation of Saints was it use in the three precedent Ages It is known to be the custom of those who have no good ground not Lawful right for what they do to seek to authorise themselves at leasâ— by examples as the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do at this present by the greatest part of their traditions But if it were true that some Author of the Fourth Age had written iâ— General terms that in Praying unto Saints in that Age they followed the example of those that had gone before them not
himself affirms that is to say in the moment that they receive it this is the reason that they admit not the Sacrifice of the Mass and adore not the Sacrament believing that it is not there that Jesus Christ will be adored and that it is sufficient that in receiving the Sacrament they address their adoration unto Jesus Christ himself without circumscription of place as they speak that is to say without considering him precisely as being in the bread The Bishop of Condom goes on God hath even permitted that the Calvinists have declared that this Doctrine of the Reality hath no poyson in it and ought not to cause a separation amongst Brethren This is the Bishop of Condom's third proposition where one may see the continuance of the equivocation upon the word Reality for it is not of the belief of the Reality in general that we have declared that it hath no poyson in it and that it ought not to break communion but it is in particular of the belief of the Lutherans in the terms in which they set it down Therefore ought the Calvinists also to maintain the Sacrifice of the Mass and the adoration of the Host as natural consequences of the Reality This is the consequence of the Bishop of Condom's argument but every one sees that it is a false consequence and besides the Question This falsness is caused by the equivocation of the word and by the ill manner of reasoning for the Reality of the Lutherans which we allow of is not the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass nor of the adoration of the Host as is the Reality of the Roman Church Upon the whole supposing here again that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Reality may â—â—em more consequent than that of â—he Lutherans as the Bishop of Conâ—â—m sayes that our Doctours doe aâ—ree that is to say supposing that we once believe the Real presence of â—e body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament we have reason to believe â—nd to practise the Sacrifice of the Mass and to adore the Host if the Doctrine of the Reality it self be an Errour whether it be understood after the manner of the Lutherans or after the manner of the Church of Rome as it must also be supposed according to us it is not a paradox nor 〈◊〉 subtilty of the Ministers to say an Errour which seems more consequent â—s not more tolerable On the contrary the more consequent an Errour is the more natural also is it that it leades from the truth For example a man that goes out of the right way but after some digression returns back into it suddenly again by another way doth far less go astray than he that having once taken a by way doth a long time go on in a contrary way how straight soever that way seems to be Who can reasonably doubt but that the Errour of the Manichees had been more tolerable if they had rested at the belief that God gave particular marks of his presence in the body of the Sun and of the Moon and that for all that they had not adored the Sun nor the Moon or that those that by Errour should believe that there were some Divinity in Images but yet would not adore them not believing that the Deity would be adored in the Images were not less Idolaters or less faulty than those in whom the motions of the heart did follow the Errour of the mind But to conclude what must be well distinguished here is that we do not receive nor approve the belief of the Lutherans touching the Reality In summe we do onely endure it and blame them for it and we have not admitted them into our communion but through a spirit of peace and of charity when they have desired to be thereinto admitted and according to the conditions mentioned in the Act of our Synod Nâ—w although the Bishop of Condom seems onely here to demand our condescendence to endure also the belief of the Church of Rome it is most certain that in effect he intends all along that we should receive this belief such as it is and that we should profess it as it is professed in the Church of Rome In a word his design is that the Reality or Transubstantiation is the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the adoration of the Host that both the one and the other being consequences of the Reality they should no more trouble our mind than the Reality it self and that to conclude we should receive this Doctrine altogether and not onely swallow it down but also digest it There remains but one Article more of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition XVII The Communion under both kinds touching the Eucharist to examine The title is conceived in these terms The communion under both kinds as if it were the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that we ought to communicate under both kinds of bread and wine in stead of saying The taking away the Cup or the communion under one kind which is properly the thing meant It is plain here that they find it troublesome to say the thing as it is because it cannot be said without shewing at first sight that they have taken away something of the institution of our Lord. However the case stands the Bishop of Condom onely considers this Article as a consequence of the Doctrine of the Real presence a thing which is so far from being a reason to make us to like it that it cannot but more and more increase the just a version which we have for the Doctrine it self upon which are built so many evil consequences Mat. 26 27 28. The Bishop of Condom makes not the least mention of these words of our Saviour Drink ye all of this for this is the bloud of the New Testament which was shed for many which yet are words most essential to this subject and which contain not onely an express command to all to drink of the Cup but also the reason of the command which is that the bloud of the Lord was shed for many Let the Bishop of Condom tell us here why he makes so much reflexion upon the former words of the Institution and that he makes none at all upon this as if they had not not all proceeded equally out of the mouth of our Saviour What is the reason that he takes the former according to the letter and that he takes not these also so which are neither less express nor less clear And wherefore in fine is his Faith which is attentive to the authority of our Lord when he doth but just begin a proposition and doth as yet ordain nothing wherefore I say is not the same Faith attentive to the same authority of our Lord when he doth not onely propose but command and when he commands that we should all drink ot the bloud of the New Testament At other times they pay us with this escape that in the Institution