AFTER more then I a whole Age's contestation with those of the Pre­tended-Refor­med Religion, Designe of this Treatise the matters, vpon which they have groun­ded their breach, may be con­ceiued sufficiently explayned, and their minds disposed to a right vnderstanding of the Ca­tholique [Page 2] Churche's Perswa­sions: so that it seemes we can doe nothing better then propose them sincerely, and distinguish them from those, which have bin wrongfully imputed; for in effect, I haue observed in diuers occurren­cyes, that the auersion those persons expresse for the most part, of our Doctrines, is de­riued from the false ideas that they haue figured of our tenents, and most commonly drawn from certain expres­sions, which offend them so much, as resting at first sight vpon them, they neuer passe forward to the enquiry of the grounds of the matter. Whereupon I haue conceiued nothing could be more vsefull then to ex­plaine [Page 3] to them what the Church hath defined in the Councel of Trent touch­ing those points which remo­ue them the most from our Communion, I will not the­refore stay vpon what they commonly obiect to our pri­uate Doctors, or vpon those matters which are neither inioyned, nor vniuersally ac­cepted, since all parties agree and Mr Daille him'self, Apol. c. 6. that it is vnreasonable to impute the perswasions of particular persons vnto a whole body; and he goes further, confessing that one ought not to make a separation, but vpon Arti­cles Authentically establis­hed, and whereof all sorts of persons are obliged vnto the Beleefe & obseruation. I will [Page 4] not therefore fix vpon any, but the decrees of the Coun­cel of Trent, since it is there the Church speakes Decisi­uely of the matters in ques­tion and what I shall offer to facilitate the right vnder­standing of those Decisions, is approued by the same Church, and shall appear ma­nifestly conformable to the Doctrine of that holy Coun­cel.

This explication of Doctri­ne will produce two good effects: the first, that diuers disputes will entierly vanish, by reason they will be discer­ned, as grounded meerly vpō wrong explications of our Beleefe; the second, the dis­putes remaining will not ap­pear (euen according to the [Page 5] principles of the Pretended-Reformers) so capitall, as they at first sight haue sought to qualify them; and that, euen by their owne princi­ples, they contein nothing that offendeth the grounds of Faith.

And to begin with these II Fundamētall articles of Chri­stian Faith, Those of the Pretended-Reformed Religion confesse that the Catholique Church pro­fesseth all the Funda­mentall Ar­ticles of Christian Religion. the Pretended-Reformes must needs confess that they are beleeued and professed in the Catholique Church.

If they state them in the beleefe of adoring one single God, Father, Sonne, and Ho­ly Ghost; and the confiding in God only by his sonne incar­nate, crucified, and raysed from the dead for us, they are conuinced by their own [Page 6] conscience, that we protest the same Doctrine: and if they will add the other Articles contayned in the Apostles Creed, they doubt as little of our professing them intier­ly, without exception; and doe not question our hauing a pure and right vnderstand­ing of them.

Mons ^r Daillé hath writt a treatise intitled Faith groun­ded vpon the scripture, where­in after having exposed all the articles of Faith profes­sed by the Pretended-Refor­med Church, he Saith that They are without contest; the Church of Rome professeth the beleife of them, and, true it is, that they hold not all our opi­nions, but that we hold all their beleefs,

[Page 7]Wherefore this Minister cannot deny our beleeuing all the principall articles of Christian Religion, vnless he will destroy his own Faith.

But had not Mons ^r Daillé graunted this, the matter proues it self, since all the world knowes that we pro­fess the beleife of all those ar­ticles, which the Caluinists call Fundamentalls, so that an ingenuous syncerity would allow vs without dispute this Assertion, that we haue not waued or declined any of the Essential perswasions.

The Pretended-Reformers discerning the aduantages we may draw from this conces­sion, seeke to disapoint vs by alledging that we destroy those articles, by asserting [Page 8] others which are inconsistent with them. This is what they labour to euince by conse­quences they inferr from our doctrines: but the same M ^r Daillé whome I produce to them (not so much to con­uīce them by the testimony of one of their most learned Mi­nisters as) in regard that what he saith being euident in it self, teacheth them what they ought to beleiue of those sorts of consequences, supposing that ill ones might be deri­ued from our Doctrine. This is what he saith in his letter to Mons ^r de Monglat vpon the occasion of his Apologie; Although the opinion of the Lu­therans in point of the Eucha­rist, inferres, according to vs, as well as that of Rome the de­strūction [Page 9] of the humanity of CHRIST JESVS, yet that consequence, cannot be obiec­ted to them without calumnie, considering that they doe for­mally reiect it.

There is nothing more Es­sentiall to Christian Religion then the verity of the Huma­ne Nature of JESVS-CHRIST; and yet (notwithstanding the Lutherans hold a doctrine from which is inferr'd a des­truction of this Essentiall ve­rity by consequences, the Pretended-Reformers ac­count euident) they haue not scrupuled to offer them their communion, in respect that their opinion hath no poyson in it, as M ^r Daillé attesteth in his Apologie: and their Nationall Synod held at Cha­renton [Page 10] in 1631 admits the Lu­therans to their Communion vpon this ground, that they agree in the principles and fun­damentall points of their Reli­gion. It is therefore a maxime constantly established amōgst them, that we ought not in this matter to consider the consequences which may be drawne from a Doctrine, but simply what the party main­taineth, and what he stateth who professeth it.

So that when by conse­quences they pretend to de­duct from our Doctrine, that we can not sufficiently ac­knowledg the souueraine glory due to God, nor the qua­lity of Saviour and Mediator in CHRIST JESVS, nor the infinite dignity of Sacrifice, [Page 11] nor the superaboundant ple­nitude of his merits; we may easily defeate those con­sequences by this short ans­wer, which M ^r Daillé him­self furnishes vs with, by say­ing, that the Catholique Church disclaiming them, they can not be imputed to vs without calumny.

But I will vndertake fur­ther, and clear to the Pre­tended-Reformers by the sin­gle explication of our Doc­trine, that so farr it is from ouerthrowing the Fundamen­tall articles of Faith either directly, or by any just conse­quence, that quite contrary our Doctrine hath established them in a manner so solide & so euident, that without pal­pable injustice the aduantage [Page 12] of a right vnderstanding them can not admit a question.

III And to begin with the ado­ration due to God; All Religi­ous worsh­ip endeth in God alone. the Ca­tholique Church teacheth that it consists principally in beleiuing that he is the Crea­tor & Lord of all things, and in adhering to him with all the powers of our soule by faith, hope, and loue, as to him who alone can conferr our Eternall happinesse by com̄u­nication of the infinite Good, which is himself.

This interior adoration which we render to G'od in spirit and in truth, hath its exterior markes, of which the principall is Sacrifice, which can not be offered but to God alone, by reason the homage of Sacrifice is established in order to a publike confession, [Page 13] & a solemne protestatiō of the soueraingnity of God, and of our absolute dependance on him.

The same Church teacheth that Religiōs Worship ought to terminate in God, as be­ing the necessary end and ob­iect thereof; and if the ho­nour she renders to the Bles­sed Virgin and the Saints may be termed an Act of Religion, it is upon the ground that it relateth necessarily vnto God.

Before I explaine further in what this honour consis­teth, it will be vsefull to ob­serue, that the Pretended-Reformers being press'd by the power of euident truth, begin to acknowledg that the practise of praying to Saints, and honoring their reliques, was established in the Church [Page 14] euen in the fourth Century. M. Daillé making this ack­nowledgment in the booke he writt against the Latine Church touching the obiect of Religious Worship, accu­seth S. Basile, S. Ambro­se, S. Hierome, S. John Chrysostome, S. Augustin, and diuers other great lights of Antiquity which did shine in that age; and aboue all the rest S. Gregory Nazianzen who is styled the Deuine as a note of his excellency: he taxeth all these with hauing changed in this point the do­ctrine of the preceding ages. But surely it will seeme very improbable that M. Daillé should have better vnders­tood the sentiments of the three first ages, then those who did as it were inherite [Page 15] their doctrine, immediately vpon their death; and it is by so much the lesse to be beleiued, by reason that the fathers of the fourth age we­re so farre from perceauing any introduction of new doc­trines in this Act of Religion, that this Minister himself ci­teth expresse texts by which they shew clearly, that they pretended, in praying to Saints, to follow the example of their Predecessors. But not to examin any longer the iudgments of three primitiue ages, I rest satisfyed with the graunt of M. Daillé who yealds to vs so many emi­nent Doctors who did instruct and discipline the Church in the fourth Age. For though it is an easy matter twelue hun­dred years after their death [Page 16] to taint them by way of scorne with the title of a Sect, cal­ling them Reliquarists, as per­sons who honored Reliques, I will hope that those of his Communion will beare more respect to those eminent per­sonages: they will not pre­sume at least to object that theyr praying to Saints, and honoring their Reliques ren­dred them guilty of Idola­try, or that they ouerthrew the confidence that Christians are to haue in IESVS-CHRIST: and we may hope that hence forward they will forbeare those reproaches when they consider they can not apply them to vs without laying the same imputation vpon so many excellent persons, whose Doctrine & Sanctity [Page 17] they professe to reuerence. But since it is my worke to exhibite here our Beleif, ra­ther then produce the Man­tainers of it, we must persue the explication of it.

The Catholique Church IV teaching the vtility of Prayer to Saints, Inuocation of Saints. Rom. Ca­tech. p. 3. tit. de cultu▪ & Inuoc. sanct. aduiseth vs to pray in the same spirit of charity, and according to that order of fraternall society, which moues vs to request the suc­cors of our bretheren liuing vpon the earth; and the Ca­techisme of the Councel of Trent concludeth of this do­ctrine that if the quality of Mediator which the holy Scripture attributeth to CHRIST IESVS did receiue any preiudice by the inter­cession of Saints who reigne [Page 18] with God almighty, that it would haue the same dimi­nution by the offices and me­diations of the faithfull who are liuing with us.

This Catechisme infor­meth vs clearly of the extre­ame difference between the manner of our imploring the succour of God, p. 4. tit. quis sit o­randus. & that of our solliciting the contribu­tions of the Saints, for thus it says: We pray to God ei­ther to giue vs good things, or to deliuer vs from ill; but by reason the Saints are more ac­ceptable to him then we our selfs, we request of them their protection, & sue to them they would obteyn for vs these things we stand in need of. And hence it is that we vse two kinds of prayer very diffe­rent; [Page 19] since when we address to God, the proper style is, HAVE PITTY ON VS & BE­PLEASED TO HARKEN TO VS: but we account it sufficient when we recurr to Saints, to beseech them to PRAY FOR VS. Whereby we must vn­derstand, that in what termes soeuer the prayers we offer to Saints are styled, the in­tention of the Church, & of the Supplicants reduceth them alwayes vnto this for­me, as the same Catechisme confirmeth in the processe of that discourse.

But it will not be amisse to consider the words them­selfs of the Councel which intending to prescribe to the Bishops in what manner they should speake of the inuoca­cation [Page 20] of Saints, obligeth them to teach that the Saints who reigne with CHRIST IE­SVS offer to God their prayers for men; Sess. 25. dec. de In­uoc. &c. that it is good and vsefull to inuoke them by way of supplication, and to haue recourse to their succours & assistances to obtayne of God his benefits through his Sonne our Lord CHRIST IESVS who alone is our Sauiour & Redee­mer. And in order to this de­claration, the Councel con­demneth those who teach a contrary doctrine; whereby it is euident that to inuoke the Saints according to the intent of this Councel, is to resort to their prayers, for the obteyning the blessings and benefits of God by CHRIST IESVS. And in truth [Page 21] what we obteyne by the in­teruention of Saints, we ac­quire only by CHRIST IESVS, and in his name; since the Saintsthemselfs intercede but by CHRIST IESVS, and ob­teyne their graunts but in his name. This is the Faith of the Catholique Church wh ^ch the Councel of Trent hath cleerly explained in few words: after which euidence we cannot conceaue how it can be obiected, that we de­part, & remoue our selfs from CHRIST IESVS, when we supplicate his members, which are also ours; his chil­dren who are our brothers; and his Saints who are our first fruits, to ioyne their prayers to ours, offering them both to our common Master, [Page 22] in the name of our common Mediator.

The same Councel explai­nes cleerly in few words the meaning of the Church, when it offers to God the holy sa­crifice, to honor the me­mory of the Saints. That ho­nor we render them in the act of Sacrifice consists in mentioning their names, as of the faithfull seruants of God, in the prayers we ad­dresse to him, thankes-gi­uings, and prayses for the victories they haue obtey­ned, and in humbly mouing his condescending in our fa­uor by their Intercessions, Lib. 8. de Ciu. c. 27. S. Augustin hath declared 1200 years past that none ought to conceiue the Sacrifice as offered to the holy Martyrs, [Page 23] although by the custome in practise euen in those tymes vniuersally by the Church, the Sacrifice was offered vpon their holy bodies, & vnto their memories, that is to be vnderstood, before the places wherein their preti­ous Reliques were conser­ued; and the same father sayth further, that comme­moration was made of the Martyrs at the holy table at the celebration of the Sa­crifice, Tract. 28. in Joan. serm. 27. de verbis A­postoli. not intending to pray for them as we doe for other dead, but rather in order to their praying for vs. I all­edge the perswasion of this holy Bishop by reason the Councel of Trent vseth al­most the same words to in­struct the faithfull, Cōc. Trid. sess. 22. c. 3. that the [Page 24] Church offers not the Sacrifice vnto the Saints, but to God alone, who hath crown'd them: and that the Priest doth not adresse himself to S. Peter or S. Paul saying: I OFFER VNTO YOV THIS SACRIFICE, but praysing God for their victories, he implores their as­sistance, to the end that they, whose Commemoration we celebrate vpon Earth, may be moued to pray for vs in Hea­uen. This is the manner wherein we honour the Saints, to obteyne graces and benefits from God by their Mediation, and the cheifest of those fauors we hope to procure is that of being inabled for their imitation, to which we are excited by contemplation of [Page 25] their admirable precedents, and by the honour we pay in the presence of God to their blessed memories.

Whosoeuer shall rightly consider the doctrine we ha­ue proposed, will be forced to auowe, that as we substract from God none of the per­fections peculiar to his infi­nite essence, so we doe not ascribe to Creatures any of those properties or operati­ons the which can not sort but with God alone: which doth so absolutely distin­guish us from Idolaters, that we can not conceiue vpon what ground they lay that imputation.

And when the Pretended Reformers obiect, that in our addressing our prayer to [Page 26] Saints, and in honouring them as if they were present all ouer the earth, we attribute to them a kind of Immen­sity, or at least the knowledge of the secret of harts, which appears reserued singly to God by so many testimonies of the Scripture; in this ob­iection they doe not appre­hend our doctrine right: for in fine abstracting from the ground we may haue to attribute to the Saints some certain degree of knowledge of such occurrencies as passe amongst vs, or euen of our secret thoughts, it is euident, that it is no eleuation of the creature transcending its condition, to affirme that it hath some notion of things by the light which God in­fuseth [Page 27] by his communication. The example of the Prophets attests this clearly, God ha­uing vouchsafed to discouer to them future euents, al­though they seeme to be re­serued, much more special­ly, to the Omniscience of God.

But besides this, neuer any Catholique conceiued that the Saints by themselues did discerne our wants, nor euen the desires for which we ad­dresse particular prayers. The Church is content to teach, concurrently with all Anti­quity, that such prayers are very beneficiall to those who practise them, whether the Saints apprehend them by the ministery & commerce of Angels, which, according [Page 28] to the profession of the Church, know what passeth amongst vs (as being appoin­ted by God's order as mi­nistring spirits to concurre in the worke of our Saluation) or be it that God himself acquainteth them with our desires by a speciall reuela­tion; or be it that God re­ueileth to them that secret in his diuine essence, where­in all truths are comprehen­ded: so that the Church vpon these different manners hath not determined by which of them God is plea­sed to make this communi­cation to his Saints.

But by what means soeuer this knowledge is imparted, it is very certain that it is farr from ascribing to the [Page 29] creature any of the diuine perfections, as the Idolaters did, since it doth not permit our attributing euen to the greatest Saints any degree of excellence, which is not de­riued from God, nor accep­tablenesse in his eyes, but as deriued from their virtues, nor any virtue but what is the free guift of Grace, nor any information of humane passages but such as God is pleased to communicate, nor any capacity to assist vs, but only by their prayers, nor in fine any felicity, but by a perfect submission and con­formity to the diuine plea­sure.

It is therefore most cer­tain that vpon penetration into our interior sentiments [Page 30] directed to the Saints, it will be euident that we doe not raise them aboue the condi­tion of Creatures, and from this ground one ought to be possess'd of the true na­ture of that honour and re­uerence which is intended by our exterior demonstra­tions, the apparent religious offices being appointed to testify the interior sentiments of our minds.

But by reason that the ho­nour which the Church of­fers to Saints appeareth most notoriously before their Ima­ges, and their holy Reliques, it is requisite to explaine the Churches syncere doctrine in this Religious Act.

V In point of Images the Councel of Trent forbids Images and Reliques. [Page 31] expressely to beleeue any Di­uinity Conc. Trid. sess. 25. decr. de Inuoc. &c. or power in them, for which we ought to reuerence them, or to sue for any fauor, or to place any confidence in them: and ordains that all the honour should relate to the Originalls they represent.

All these words of the Councel are so many cha­racters which serue to dis­tinguish vs from Idolaters, since we are so farr from be­leeuing with them any Di­uinity residing in the Ima­ges as we attribute no vir­tue to them, but this, of exciting in vs the remem­brance of their originalls.

Vpon this it is that the honour we render to Ima­ges is grounded: for exam­ple, can one deny that the [Page 32] figure of IESVS-CHRIST cru­cified, when we behold it, doth not excite a more liue­ly remembrance of him who loued vs so as to deliuer him­self vp to death for vs? Gal. 2. As long as the present Image possessing our eyes enter­tains so pretious a notion in our minds, we are mo­ued to expresse by some ex­terior markes, the feruor and extent of our gratitude, and we declare by our hu­miliation before the Image how profound our submission is respectiue to the Original. Wherefore speaking strictly according to the style of the Church, when we render any honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our ayme is not so much to ho­nour [Page 33] the Image, as the A­postle or Martyr in pre­sence of the Image. To this purpose the Roman Pontifi­call declareth, Pontific. Rom. de Benedict. Imag. and the Coun­cell of Trent expresseth the same intent, when it saith, that the honour we render to Images, Cōc. Trid. Sess. 25. dec. de In­uoc. &c. is so referr'd to the Originalls, that by the means of the Images we kisse, and before which we kneele, we adore CHRIST IESVS, and ho­nour those Saints which they represent to vs.

In fine we cleerly discer­ne in what Spirit the Church honoureth Images, by the ho­nour it renders the holy Crosse, or the booke of the Gospel. All the world sees cleerly that before the Crosse the Church adoreth him who [Page 34] did beare our sinn's vpon that wood; 1. Pet. 2. and that when her children bow their heads be­fore the bookes of the Gos­pel, when they stand vp in respect at theyr passing by them, and kisse them reue­rently, all this honour ter­minateth in the Eternall Ve­rity which is exposed to vs by that Instrument.

There must then be very little equity in calling Idola­try that Religious sentiment, which moueth vs to vncouer and bow our heads before the Images of the Crosse, in reflection vpon him, who was crucyfi'd for our sakes; and one must be starke blin­de, not to discerne the ex­treame difference between those who confided in Idols, [Page 35] vpon this opinion, that some Diuinity or some virtue was at is were fastned vnto them: and them who professe, as we doe, that they intend not to make any vse of Images, but simply to raise their spi­rit vp to heaven with the intent of honouring CHRIST IESVS, or his Saints, and in them God himself who is the author of all grace and Sanctification.

Vnder the same notion, the honour we pay to Reli­ques is to be apprehended, following the stepps of the primitiue Ages; and if our Aduersaries did reflect, that we consider the bodies of Saints as hauing bin victi­mes to God either by Mar­tyrdome, or Pennance, they [Page 36] would not conceiue that the honour we render them, v­pon this motiue, can depart or remoue vs from that we owe to God himself.

And we may say in gene­rall, that if they would com­prehend in what manner the affection we beare to so­me one body extendeth (without deuiding it self) to his children, to his fre­inds, and successiuely by de­grees to all that represents that person, to all that re­mains of him, or any thing that receiueth the memory of him; if they did compre­hend that our honouring ma­kes such a progress, since in effect our honouring is noth­ing else but loue mixt with feare and respect; in fine if [Page 37] they did comprehend that, all the exterior worship of the Catholique Church riseth, and springeth in God him­self, and that it reuerts thi­ther, they would neuer sus­pect that those Religious acts (which God alone doth animate) could provoke his iealousy. They would per­ceiue the quite contrary, and find that if God, as iealous as he is of the loue of men, doth not account that we de­uide between him and the Creature when we loue our Neighbour for his sake: the same God, as iealous as he is of the duties of his ser­uants, doth not conceiue them to share or part the worship which they owe to him alone, when from the [Page 38] motiue of the dutys they owe him, they honour tho­se who haue bin honoured by himself.

Yet true it is that as the sensible markes of reuerence are not all of absolute ne­cessity, the Church, without any alteration in the Doctri­ne, may haue extended more or lesse those exterior practi­ses, suting to the diuersity of times, places, and other occurrencies, not intending that her children should be seruilly subiected to visible matters, but only that they might be excited, and as it were aduertised by their means to apply themselfs to God, to offer him in spirit and truth that reasonable and due seruice he expecteth from his creatures.

[Page 39]It may easily be discerned by this Doctrine with how much truth I have asserted, that a great part of our Con­troversies would vanish by an only right vnderstanding of termes, if these were dis­cussed with Charity; and if our Aduersaries did consider calmely the precedent expli­cations, which comprehend the expresse Doctrine of the Councel of Trent; they would forbeare to obiect to vs that we injure the Me­diation of CHRIST IESVS, and that we inuoke Saints, adore Images in a manner peculi­ar to God himself. It is gran­ted by reason that in some sense Inuocation, Adoration, and the name of Mediator are competent only to God [Page 40] and CHRIST JESVS, that it is easy by a perverse vse of those termes, to traduce our Doctrine and render it odious; but if they are ingenuously receiued in that sense we haue exhibited, these obiections loose all their force; and if there re­mayne in the minds of the Pretended Reformers any lesse important difficultyes, naturall equity and syncerity will oblige them to auowe themselues satisfy'd in the principall exceptions.

Besides this, there is nothing more vniust then to charge the Church with the stating of all piety in this de­votion to Saints, since as we haue already euinced, the Councel of Trent iudgeth [Page 41] it sufficient to informe and teach Catholiques that this practise is Good & Vsefull without advancing it fur­ther, so that the Churches intent is, to condemn such as reiect this practise either by Contempt or Miscon­struction: and the Church is obliged to condemn them by reason that she ought not to indure the condemning of salutary and usefull practises, nor that a Doctrine, which all Antiquity hath authori­sed, should be reiected by the Nouellists Doctors.

The matter of iustification VI will manifest yet a greater light how many difficulties may be avoyded by a syn­cere exposition of our opini­ons. Iustification.

[Page 42]Those who are never so little acquainted with the history of the Pretended Re­formation can not be igno­rant, that those who were the first Authors of it, did propose this Article to all the world as the principall, and as it were the most es­sentiall ground of their se­paration; so that this seemes the most necessary point to be rightly understood.

First we beleeve that our sinns are forgiuen freely by the divine mercy for JESVS-CHRIST'S sake: Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 9. these are the expresse termes of the Coun­cel of Trent, which addeth further that we are said to be iustified freely, ibid. c. 8. because none of those things which precede our iustification, either [Page 43] our faith or our works, can merit this grace.

And by reason the holy scripture explains to us the remission of our sinns expre­ssing it some times, by say­ing that God couers them; and others, that he takes them quite away and effa­ceth them by the grace of the holy Ghost, which ren­ders vs new creatures, we conceiue that we are to combine all these expressi­ons to forme a compleate Idea or notion of the iustifi­cation of a sinner; we doe therefore beleeue that our sinns are not only couered, but intirely effaced by the blood of CHRIST IESVS, and by the grace by which we are regenerated: and this [Page 44] perswasion is so farr from detracting from that image we ought to frame of the merit of that blood, as quite contrary it indeareth and eleuateth the value of it; for by this meanes the righte­ousnes of Christ is not sim­ply imputed, but actually imparted to the faithfull, by the operation of the holy Ghost, in so much as they are not only imputed, but euen rendered righteous by the grace of Christ.

If our righteousnes were only in the sight of man, it would not be the operation of the holy Ghost: it must then be iustice euen before God, since it is God him­self who produceth it in vs by an effusion of his charity vpon our harts.

[Page 45]It is notwithstanding but too true that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, Gal. [...]. 17. and the spi­rit, against the flesh: Iac. 3. 2. and we all offend in many things. Wherefore albeit our righte­ousnes be a true one, by the infusion of Charity, yet is it no perfect one by reason of the combat between it & our concupiscence: so that the sighing and sorrowing of a soule repenting her sinns, performes the most necessary duty of Christian righteous­nes, which obligeth vs to confesse with S. Augustin that our righteousnes in this life consists rather in the remis­sion of our sinns, then in the perfection of our virtues.

Wherefore as to the point VII of Merit Merits of good wor­kes. imputed to our [Page 46] workes, Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 16. the Catholique Church teacheth that Eter­nall life ought to be proposed to the children of God, both as a Grace mercifully promi­sed by the meanes of our Sa­uior IESVS CHRIST, and as a Reward which is faithfully rendred to their good workes, and to their deserts in virtue of that promise: these are the expresse termes of the Coun­cel of Trent; but least the pride of humane nature should be flattered by the opinion of a persuming Me­rit, the same Councel de­termineth, that all the worth and value of Christian good workes is deriued from that sanctifying grace, which is freely conferr'd vpon vs in the name of CHRIST JESVS, [Page 47] and that is an effect of the continuall influence of that diuine head vpon his depen­ding members.

True it is indeed that the exhortations, the promises, the menaces, and reproaches of the Gospel doe declare sufficiently, that we are to worke our saluation by the motion & actings of our own wills, concurring with the Grace of God which assists vs, but it is a fixt prin­ciple that free will can per­forme nothing in order to Eternall beatitude, but by the same degrees it is mo­ued and eleuated by the ho­ly Ghost.

Whereupon the Church knowing that it is the holy spirit which worketh in vs [Page 48] by his Grace all the good we doe, she ought to rest per­swaded that the good wor­kes of the faithfull are very acceptable to God, & of great estimation in his sight, and she doth rightfully vse the terme of Merit concur­rently with all Christian An­tiquity, cheefly to signify the value & dignity of our workes, which we performe by the motion of his Grace. But by reason all their sanc­tity is deriued from God, who workes them in vs, the same Church hath receiued from the Councel of Trent, as the Doctrine of the Catho­lique Faith, this saying of S. August. that God crowns his own Gifts when he crowns the Merits of his seruants.

[Page 49] We intreate all such as loue truth & peace to be pleased to read the whole context of the Councel of Trent's words, that they once be disabused, and deli­uered from those wrong im­pressions, which are sugges­ted to them, of our Doc­ctrine. Notwithstanding we discerne cleerly ( say the fa­thers of that Councel) that the holy scriptures esteeme so much Good woorks, Cōc. Trid. sess. 6. c. 16. that IE­SVS-CHRIST himself promi­seth, that a cupp of cold wa­ter giuen a poor body, shall not want its reward: and that the Apostle declareth, that a moment of light payne suf­fered in this world, shall pro­duce an Eternall weight of glory; yet God forbid that a [Page 50] Christian should trust & glo­ry in himself, and not in our Lord, whose goodness towards Man is so aboundant, that he allowes his own Guifts to them to be accounted their Me­rits.

This Doctrine is spread through the whole Councel which teacheth in an other session, Sess. 14. c. 8. that we who are not sufficient to doe any thing alo­ne by our selues, can doe euery thing by him who inableth vs; so that Man hath nothing wherein he can glorify him­self, nor any cause to confide in himself, but that all his confidence and his glorying is in CHRIST JESVS, in whom we liue, and in whom we merit, in whom we satisfy bearing worthy fruits of repen­tance, [Page 51] which deriue their po­wer from him, and by him are offered to God the Fa­ther, & in him are ac­cepted by the Father. So that we preferr all our sui­tes, place all our hopes, ren­der all our thanks by our Lord IESVS-CHRIST. We proclaime in a loud voice that we are acceptable to God only in him & by him; and we can hardly conceaue how any other intent or applica­tion can be imputed to vs. We fix in him alone so in­tirely all the hope of our saluation, as we present to God euery day those words in the Sacrifice: Vouchsafe ô God to graunt vnto vs sin­ners, your seruants, who hope in the multitude of your Mer­cys, [Page 52] some part and fellowship with your blessed Apostles and Martyrs ... into which we humbly beg to be admitted, not considering our Merit, but forgiuing vs by your Mer­cy, for our Sauiour's sake CHRIST IESVS.

Shall the Church neuer be able to persuade her chil­dren, now become her enne­mies, neither by the expli­cation of her Faith, nor the decisions of her Councells, nor by her most solemn prayers presented in her Sa­crifices, that she doth not owne any life, nor conceaue any hope, but in the merits of IESVS-CHRIST alone; and this hope is so powerfull, that it imprints in the chil­dren of God, who walke [Page 53] faithfully in his ways, Phil. 4. 7. that peace which passeth all vnder­standing, as the Apostle assures vs. But yet although this hope be stronger then the promises or menaces of the world, and be sufficient to calme the terror of our conscience, yet doth it not suppresse intirely our feare, by reason that, though we are assured that of himself he neuer doth abandon vs, we can neuer be certain that we shall not depart from him by our own faylings in reiecting his inspirations: and God hath bin pleased to temper & allay by this sauing feare, that confidence he in­spireth into his children: for as S. Augustin saith, such is our weakenesse in this seate [Page 54] of perills & temptations, that an entire assurance would produce in vs slacknesse and presumption; whereas this fear, which in the Apostle's mind makes vs worke our saluation with fear and trem­bling, Phil. 2. 12. renders vs more vigi­lant, and moueth vs to fasten our selues by an humble de­pendance on him who wor­keth in vs by his grace the will, ibid. 13. and the acting accor­ding to his good pleasure as the same S. Paul declares vnto vs.

This is what is most necessary to be held and practised in the Doctrine of iustification, and our Adversaries must be very vnreasonable, and per­verse not to confesse that this Doctrine is sufficient to in­struct [Page 55] Christians in their duty of attributing to God by CHRIST IESVS all the glory of their saluation.

If the Pretending-Refor­mers after this exposition fly vnto nice & subtile questions, it is not amisse to aduise them that, it is not now proper to raise, or insist vpon needlesse difficultys, reflecting vpon what they haue condescēded vnto, towards an vnion with the Lutherans, and what they have graunted to their own fraternity in the points of Grace & Predestination. That proceding ought to ha­ve instructed them to restrain & confine their inquiries, in this matter, to that singly which is of absolute necessity [Page 56] to establish the foundation of Christian piety.

And if they could once resolue to bound themselues within those limits they would quickly be satisfied, & soone would desist from their obiecting to vs our nullify­ing the Grace of God by our ascribing all to good workes: since we haue euindenced to them in so cleer termes of the Councel of Trent these three points so decisive in this matter, viz. That our sinns are pardon'd by pure mercy for CHRIST JESVS his sake. That we owe vnto a free & graci­ous liberality the righteousnesse infused into vs by the holy Spi­rit. And that as many good workes as we performe, are so many free guifts of grace.

[Page 57]And we cannot but con­fesse that the most Learned of their party doe not now con­tend so much in this point as they did at the beginning of the Schisme, and there are few that will not auowe, that a Separation ought not to haue bin made vpon this Controversy. But if this so important difficulty, in the point of Iustification, of which their first Authors rai­sed their strongest fort, is no longer accounted so capitall by the most intelligent and sufficient persons of their party, we desire them to re­flect, what iudgment ought to be made of their Separa­tion, and how much we might hope a Reconciliation, if they would raise their [Page 58] minds from vnder all pre­possession, and renounce the spirit of Contention.

VIII It will not be amisse that I explaine further in what manner we conceaue our selues capable to satisfy God by his Grace, Satisfacti­ons, Purga­tory, & In­dulgences. in order to the leauing no doubt or scruple in this matter.

The Catholiques doe vna­nimously professe & teach that CHRIST IESVS only, God & Man vnited, was suffici­ently qualifyed, by the infi­nite dignity of his person, to make satisfaction for our sinns; but hauing supera­boundantly satisfyed, he had power to apply vnto vs an entire abolition, without re­seruing any punishment: or by commutation of a grea­ter [Page 59] into a lesser penalty; that is, exchanging an Eternall paine into Temporall suffe­rances: and by reason that this first sort of mercy is the most compleat, and most suting to his goodnesse, he hath taken that course in our Baptisme: but we main­taine that he vseth the se­cond manner in the remis­sion he graunteth to those, who after Baptisme relapse into sin, being in a manner forced to it by the ingrati­tude of those who haue abu­sed his guifts: so that such offenders are condemned to some temporall paines, al­though the Eternall punish­ment be remitted.

But from hence it ought not to be inferr'd that IESVS-CHRIST [Page 60] hath not fully sa­tisfyed for vs, but rather the contrary, viz, that he hauing purchased an abso­lute right and title of pro­priety in vs, by the infinite price of his blood pay'd for our saluation, he graunteth our pardon with what con­dition, and vnder what law and reseruation he pleaseth to impose.

We should be very vn­gratefull & iniurious to our Sauiour, should we presume to question the infinitenesse of his merit by this pretext, that hauing pardoned vs the sin of Adam, he did not de­liuer and free vs at the same tyme from all the conse­quences of it, leauing vs still subiect to death, and to so [Page 61] many corporal and spiritual infirmities, vnto which that sin hath sentenced vs. It is surely grace enough that IE­SVS-CHRIST hath once pay'd the price for which we shall one day be deliuered from all the miseries which oppresse vs; it is our part to receiue with humility and gratitude euery part of his benefit, considering the mo­tion whereby he is pleased to carry on our deliuerance in that order his wisedome hath designed for our happi­nesse, and for a more eui­dent manifestation of his own Iustice and Mercy.

And for the like reason we ought not to maruaile if he who hath giuen vs so easy a deliuery by Baptisme [Page 62] becomes more seuere to vs after we haue violated our holy promises, made vpon that remission; and it is not only iust, but euen beneficial to vs, that God forgiving vs the sin, and remitting the Eternal punishment we haue incurr'd, should impose some temporal penalty to reteyn vs within our dutyes, least we being deliuered too soone from the bonds of his iustice, we should abandon our selues vnto a temerari­ous confidence, abusing the facility of his Indulgence.

It is therefore in order to our discharging that obliga­tion that we are subiected to some workes of Pen­nance, which we are bound to perfome in the spirit of [Page 63] humility & repentance; and the necessity of these satis­factory workes, was the mo­tiue that induced the primi­tiue Church to impose vpon Penitents those pennances called Canonical.

So that when the Church inflicteth vpon sinners payn­full & laborious iniunctions, and they vndergoe them with humility, that act we call Satisfaction: and when either in regard of the zeale and feruor of the Penitent, or other good workes per­formed, which the Church hath prescribed, she releaseth some part of the Pennance, which was owing, this re­mission is call'd Indulgence.

The Councel of Trent pro­poseth no more to our Faith Sess. 25. de­cr. de In­dulg, [Page 64] then this in point of Indul­gences, that the power of gran­ting them hath bin giuen the Church by CHRIST IESVS, and that the vse of them is very beneficial; whereunto the Councel addeth; that the grant of them ought to be dispensed with caution, least the Ecclesiasticall discipline should be weakned, and ener­uated by an excessiue facili­ty, which aduice declareth that the manner of dispo­sing of Indulgences apper­taineth to Church-disci­pline.

Such as depart out of this world in Grace & Cha­rity, but yet owing those sufferances, which the Di­uine Justice hath reserued, discharge them in the next [Page 65] life, and this perswasion hath obliged all the Chris­tian Antiquity to offer pray­ers, almes, and sacrifices for the faithfull departed in the peace and communion of the Church, with an assu­red faith that such suf­ferers may be eased by these applications: this is what the Councel of Trent propo­seth to be beleeued concer­ning the soules deteyned in Purgatory, without deter­mining the special manner of their paines, or declaring any thing vpon many the like debates, vpon which the holy Councel aduiseth a great referuednes, blaming such as expose what is not only vncertain, but may be vnfound.

[Page 66]This is the holy and the harmelesse Doctrine of the Catholique Church in point of Satisfactions: from the mis-construction whereof so many wrongfull imputations have bin cast vpon her; and if after this explanation the Pretended-Reformers doe obiect to vs the detracting from the satisfaction made by IESVS-CHRIST, they must needs haue forgot what we haue professed to them, that our Saviour hath pay'd the entire price of our Redemp­tion, and that there is no­thing wanting in the value, since it is in it self infinite, and that the reservation of those payns, we have asser­ted, proceeds not from any disproportion in this pay­ment, but from a certain [Page 67] order Christ hath designed, to restraine vs by iust apprehen­siōs, and healthfull discipline.

And in cafe they should yet obiect to vs the beleefe that we are sufficient of our selues to satisfy for some part of the paine due to our sinns, we may reply with great assurance, that the contrary is manifested by those maxi­mes we haue established, since they proclaime cleerly that our whole Saluation is but a worke of Grace & Mer­cy: that what we act by the Grace of God is no lesse to be ascribed to him then what he effecteth singly by his absolute pleasure: Parum me mouent quae in veterum scriptis de Satisfactio­ne passim oc­currunt; vi­deo quidem eorum non­nullos (di­cam simpli­citer, omnes ferè quorum libriextant) aut in hac parte lapsos esse, aut ni­mis asperè ac durè lo­cutos. Calu. Inst. l. 3. cap. 4. and in fine whatsoeuer we present him, belongs no lesse to him then what he freely bestows vpon vs: to which we must [Page 68] adioyne (in conformity to the whole ancient Church) this profession; that what we terme Satisfaction is but in effect an application of the infinite Satisfaction pay'd by CHRIST IESVS.

This same consideration ought to appease those who seeme offended when we af­firme that fraternal chari­ty, and the Communion of Saints is so acceptable to God, that he doth often re­ceaue euen the Satisfactions we offer one for another. It seemes these Pretending Re­formers doe not conceaue how intirely, whatsoeuer we are, belongs to God, nor how much all those regards which his goodnes produceth in fauour of the faithful, who are mem­bers [Page 69] of CHRIST IESVS are necessarily relating to that Divine head. But surely such as haue read and consi­dered that God himself in­spired into his servants the zeale of afflicting themselues, by fastings, and other mor­tifications, not only for their own sinns, but for those also of the whole land where they liued, wil not wonder if we affirme, that God being mo­ved by the pleasure he takes, to gratify those he vouchsa­feth to call his friends, doth mercifully accept the hum­ble Sacrifice of their volun­tary mortifications for an abatement of those punish­ments he had designed for his criminal poeple: which declareth, that being satis­fyed by one part, he will be [Page 70] softned & sweetned to the other, honouring by this me­ans his sonne CHRIST IESVS in the communion of his members, and in the holy society of his mystical body.

IX The order of our Doctrine requireth that we expose in the next place that of the Sacraments, The Sacra­ments. by which the merits of our Sauiour CHRIST are apply'd vnto vs. And since the disputes we haue in rela­tion to them (excepting that of the Eucharist or Commu­nion) are not persued with much heate, we will in the first place cleare in few words the principal difficulties whi­ch are obiected concerning the other Sacraments; re­serving that of the Blessed [Page 71] Sacrament for the last, as the most important.

The Sacraments of the new Alliance are not simply holy signes, which doe but signify the Grace of CHRIST, nor only seales which con­firme it, but also instuments of the holy spirit, which serve to apply it vnto vs, and which confer Grace by the virtue of the words pro­nounced, and the exteriour action apply'd vnto vs, in case we interpose no impe­diment by our own indispo­sition.

When God annexeth so great a Grace vnto exteriour signes, which in their own nature hold no proportion with so admirable effects, he signifieth to vs cleerly, that [Page 72] besides what we can confer to it by our interiour contri­bution, there is required a special intervention of the holy spirit to effect our sanctification, and a singular application of our Sauiour's merits, which are imparted to vs by the Sacraments. So that this Doctrine can not be reiected without iniuring the Merits of CHRIST JESVS, and detracting from the effi­cacy of the diuine power in our Regeneration.

We acknowledg seauen si­gnes, or sacred ceremonies established by CHRIST JESVS, as the ordinary meanes & instruments of sanctification and perfection of the new man. Their diuine institution is extant in the holy scripture, [Page 73] either by the expresse words of CHRIST, who established them; or by that Grace, which, by testimony of the same scripture, is annexed vnto them, and inferreth ne­cessarily God's ordayning them.

By reason that infants can not supply their own want of Baptisme, Baptisme. by the acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, nor by their vows & desire of receauing this Sacrament, we beleeue that if they doe not actually receaue it, they haue no part of communica­tion of the Grace of our Redemption, and conse­quently dying in Adam, they haue no part in JESVS-CHRIST.

It is fitt to obserue here, [Page 74] that the Lutherans concurr with the Catholique Church in holding the absolute ne­cessity of Baptisme for In­fants, and withall wonder that any one hath presumed to deny a truth, which no one before Caluin had euer dared to call in question, so deeply was it imprinted in the minds of all the faith­ful.

Notwithstanding this, the Pretended-Reformers make no scruple willfully to lett their children dye, as the In­fidels doe, without bearing any marke of Christianity, and depriued of all the grace that belongs to it, if the death of the child hap­pen before the day of their Congregation.

[Page 75]The imposition of hands practised by the Apostles (in order to the confirming Confirma­tion. & fortifying the faithfull against persecutions, Act. 8. 15. 17. deriuing the principall efficacy from the internall descent of the ho­ly Ghost & the infusion of his guifts) ought not to haue bin reiected by our Aduer­saries, vpon this pretext, that the holy spirit doth no longer descend visibly vpon vs, no more then it is by all the Christian Churches, who haue religiously conti­nued it euer since the Apo­stles, and make vse also of the holy Chrisme, to de­monstrate the virtue of that Sacrament by a more ex­presse and sensible repre­sentation of the interiour [Page 76] Vnction of the holy spirit.

We beleeue CHRIST IESVS hath bin pleased to ordaine that those who haue subie­cted themselues to the Au­thority of the Chruch by their Baptisme, Pennance and Sacra­mentall Con­fession. and after this engagement haue trans­gressed the lawes of the Gos­pel, should be bound to vn­dergoe the iudgment of the same Church at the tribunal of Pennance, where she doth exercise the power con­ferr'd vpon her to remitt, or to reteyn sinns. Math. 18. 18. The termes of the commission granted to the Churches Ministers to absolue sinns are so large and general, Io. 20. 23. that without great temerity the power can not be restreyned only vnto publick and notorious [Page 77] offences: and when they pro­nounce Absolution in the name of CHRIST JESVS, since they doe but follow the expresse termes of their commission, the sentence is reputed as giuen by CHRIST himself, in whose place they are appointed as Iudges. It is this inuisible High-Priest who absolueth interiourly the Penitent, whilst the Priest exerciseth the exteri­our ministery.

This Penitentiall iudi­cature being so necessary a curbe for our licentious­nesse, so aboundant a spring of pious and prudent adui­ses, so sensible a consolation to soules afflicted for their sinns, when Absolution is not only declared to them [Page 78] in generall termes (as the Protestant Ministers doe pra­ctise) but giuen them in par­ticular, and the Penitent effectualy absolued by the commission of CHRIST IESVS, vpon a perfect exa­mination, and a right vn­derstanding of the case, we can not possibly beleeue that our Adversaries can contem­plate so many good conse­quences, without resenting their losse, and feeling some shame of such an abusiue Reformation, which hath abrogated so holy, & so be­neficial a practise.

The holy Ghost hauing an­nexed vnto Extreame-Vncti­on, Extreame-Vnction. by the testimony of S. Iames, Iac. 5. 14. 15. an expresse promise of remission of sinns, and ease vnto the sick party, [Page 79] there is nothing wanting vnto this most holy ceremony, to­wards the cōstituting it a true Sacrament. We must only obserue that, according to the Doctrine of the Councel of Trent, Sess. 14. c. 2 de sac. Ex­tr. Vnct. the sick are more releeued in respect of their soules then their bodyes; and the spiritual benefit is alwayes the principal ayme & obiect of the new law; it is that also we ought abso­lutely to expect from this holy Vnction, supposing we are rightly disposed for it; whereas our corporal eases and releifs in our infirmitys are afforded vs, only as re­lating to our eternal health, according to the secret and hidden dispositions of Diuine Prouidence, and the seueral [Page 80] degrees of preparation and faith, which are already acting in the soules of the faithful.

When we shall seriously cō ­sider, that IESVS-CHRIST hath induced a new forme into the state of Marriage, Marriage re­ducing this holy society vnto two persons immutably & indissolubly vnited; Math. 19. 5. when we shall reflect that this insepa­rable coniunction is made the signe of his Eternall vnion with his Church, [...]ph. 5. 32. we shall find little difficulty to comprehend that the Marri­age of the faithfull is accom­panied with the Grace of the holy Spirit, & we will easily praise the Diuine good­nes, which hath bin pleased to sanctify in this manner [Page 81] the spring and deriuation of our birth.

The imposition of hands which the Ministers of holy matters receaue, Holy Orders being ac­companied with so present and actual a virtue of the holy Ghost, 1. Tim. 4. and so intire an infusion of Grace, 2. Tim. 1. is duly reckoned in the number of the Sacraments, and we must confesse that our Aduersa­ries doe not absolutely ex­clude the Consecration of Ministers, but they reiect it only from the number of the Sacraments, Cor. faitl 35. which are common to the whole Church.

We are now at last come X to the question of the Eu­charist, Doctrine the Church touching the reall presen­ce of the Bo­dy and Blo­od of IESVS-CHRIST in the Blessed Sacrament; & the man­ner where­in the Chur­ch vnder­stands these words, this is my Bo­dy. or Blessed Sacrament; wherein it will be requisite to explaine more amply our [Page 82] Doctrine, and yet not pas­sing farr beyond the bounds, which we haue prescribed to our selues.

The reall presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in this Sacramēt is solidy esta­blished by the words of the institution, which we vnder­stand litterally; and there is no more reason to aske vs why we tye our selues to the proper & litterall sence, then to question a traueller why he followeth the great high-way. It is their part that resort to figuratiue sen­ses, and choose such by­paths, to shew a reason of this their deuiation. As for vs who perceaue nothing in the words which CHRIST IESVS vsed for the institution [Page 83] of this Mystery that obligeth vs to take them in a figura­tiue sense, we conceaue this reason sufficient to settle and determine our receauing them in their proper and litterall signification. But we find our selues yet more strictly tyed vnto it, when we considerately examine the intention of the sonne of God in this mystery, which I will explaine in the clee­rest, and easiest termes I can possibly, and by such principles as I conceaue our Aduersaries can not disa­gree in.

I say then that these words of our Sauiour Take, Math. 26. and eate, this is my Body gi­uen for you, Luke 22. shew vs, that as the ancient Iews did not [Page 84] simply vnite themselues in spirit vnto the immolation or killing of the victimes which were offered for them, but did effectually eate of the Sacrificed flesh, which was a signe of the part they had in that oblation: so CHRIST IESVS, hauing made himself our Offering, did intend we should really eate the flesh of this Sacrifice, to the end this actual commu­nication of that adorable flesh should remayne a per­petual testimony to euery one of vs in particular, that it was for our sakes he assu­med, and for vs he sacri­ficed his mortal flesh and blood.

God had forbiden the Ie­ws to eate of the Sacrifice [...]uit. 6. 30 [Page 85] which was à Sin-Offering, with intent to teach them that true expiation of crimes was not obteyned in the Law, nor by the blood of beasts. All the poeple stood as it were interdicted by this restraint, not being capable to partake actually of the re­mission of sinns. Now, for the quite contrary reason, it was requisit that the Body of our Sauiour, the true Host offer'd vp for sin, should be eaten by the faithful, in or­der to the teaching them by this true eating that the for­giuenes of sinns was ac­complished in the New Tes­tament.

God did likewise forbid the people of the Iews the ea­ting of blood; and one of [Page 86] the reasons of this restraynt was, that the blood is giuen for the expiation of our soules. Leuit. 17. 11 Quite contrary our Sauiour proposeth the drinking of his Blood, Math. 26. 28. because it is shed for the remission of sinns. So that the eating of the Flesh & drin­king the Blood of the Sonne of God at the holy table is as Reall, as Grace, the ex­piation of sinns, and the participation of the Sacrifice of CHRIST IESVS is actual and effectiue in the New Alliance:

Notwithstanding which truth, by reason he intended to exercise our Faith in this Mystery, and at the same time to deliuer vs from the horror of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood in [Page 87] their own kinds, it was fit and convenient to exhibite them unto us couered under an other species. But if these considerations did oblige him to ordaine our eating the Flesh of our Offring in a different manner from that of the Iews, yet he ought not in that respect to depriue vs of the Reality and the Substance of it.

It is apparent therefore that to accomplish the figures of the old Law, and to putt vs in actual possession of that Victime offred for our sinns, CHRIST IESVS did designe the giving vs Realy & truly his Body and Blood; which point is so euident, that our Aduersaries themselues de­sire we should be perswa­ded, [Page 88] they haue the same be­leefe as we professe, since they doe continually presse & vrge to vs, their not denying the true and Real participa­tion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Eucharist; which pretence of theirs we will examine in the sequent discourse where we con­ceave it will be proper to expose their sentiments, after hauing fully explicated the beleefe of the Church. In the meane tyme we may conclude, that if the faire and natural signification of the words, vsed by the sonne of God compelleth them to graunt that his expresse in­tention was to giue Really his Flesh when he said, This is my body, they ought not [Page 89] to wonder, that we can not consent to the vnderstanding these words as spoken meer­ly in a figuratiue sense.

And surely the sonne of God who was so carefull to explaine to his Apostles what he taught vnder the vailes of parables and figures, ha­uing said nothing in this point to explaine himself further, seemes cleerly to haue left these words in their natural signification. I know that our Aduersaries pre­tend, that the matter it self explains sufficiently the mea­ning, because, say they, it is cleer that what he expo­seth, is but Bread and Wyne; but the cloude of this argu­ment vanisheth, when we reflect that he who speaketh [Page 90] is of an Authority which ought to ouerrule our senses, & hath an Omnipotēce trans­cending all nature. It is no harder for the sonne of God to effect his body's presence in the Eucharist, saying, This is my body, then to cure a woman of her infirmity by saying, Luke 13. 12. Woman thou art freed from thy infirmity; or to preserue the Centurion's sonne by saying, Io. 4. 50. Thy sonne liueth; or in fine to effect the forgiuenes of the sinns of the bed-rid paralytique by uttering only, Math. 9. 2. Thy sinns are forgiuen thee.

We hauing therefore no reason to trouble our selues how CHRIST will effect what he saith, we fix our beleefe precisely on his words. He who makes whatsoeuer he [Page 91] willeth, by his words, effecteth whatsoeuer he saith; and it was much easier for the sonne of God to force the laws of nature to veri­fy his word, then it is for vs to conforme our vnder­standings vnto such violent & strayn'd interpretations, as destroy all the laws of discourse.

The laws of language and discourse tell vs that the signe which naturally repre­senteth, doth very often take the name of the thing it self, because it is natural to it to recall the idea or image of it into the mind. The same hapens to signes by institution; but then it is vpon condition that they be receiued and acknowledged for signes, and that the par­ties [Page 92] be accustomed to them. But that in instituting a signe, which of it self hath no rap­port to the thing, (as for example a peece of bread to signify the body of a man) one should giue it that name without explaining of it, and before agreement made con­cerning it, as JESVS-CHRIST our Lord did in the last sup­per, is a thing vnhear'd of, and whereof we finde no example in holy scripture, and I might say, none in hu­mane language.

Whereupon the Preten­ding Reformers themselues doe not so fixe vpon the fi­guratiue sense which they ascribe to the words of CHRIST JESVS, as not to ack­nowledge at the same time, that when he vttered those [Page 93] words, he intended to giue vs Truly his Body and his Blood.

After hauing proposed the XI sense of the Church, Explicati­on of the words, doe this in re­membrāce of me. tou­ching these words, This is my body, it is fitt to exhibite her perswasion concerning the words which CHRIST did adioyne vnto them, Doe this in remembrance of me. Luke. 22. 19. It is euident that the intention of the sonne of God was, 1. Cor. 11. 24 to oblige vs by these words, vnto a retention and remem­brance of the death he had suffered for our redemption; and S. Paul concludeth out of these very words, that we announce the death of our Lord in this mystery: 1. Cor. 11. 26. we must not then perswade our selues, that this remembrance of the death of our Lord [Page 94] excludeth the Reall presence of his Body, but quite contrary, if we consider right­ly what we haue here ex­plicated, we shall discerne cleerly that this Commemo­ration is grounded vpon the Reall presence; for in the same manner as the Iews eating of the Peace-Offe­rings did reflect that they had bin offer'd vp for them, so we eating the Flesh of CHRIST JESVS our Victime, are bound to remember, that he suffered death for vs. It is therefore the very same Flesh eaten by the faithfull, which not only reuiueth in vs the memory of his immo­lation, but doth besides con­firme to vs that verity. And we are so farr from hauing [Page 95] reason to say that this so­lemne Com̄emoration IESVS-CHRIST hath ordained vs to make, doth exclude the Reall presence of his Flesh, that the contrary is euident, that this tender reflexion he would haue vs make at the holy table on him, as offered vp for vs, is grounded vpon his Flesh's being Really re­ceaued, since in effect it is not possible for vs to forget, that he hath giuen his Body vp in sacrifice for vs, when we finde that he continueth still to giue vs dayly that victime for our orall mandu­cation.

Shall Christians vpon pre­tence of celebrating in the Supper the Memory of our Sauiour's Passion, retrench [Page 96] from this pious Commemo­ration that part which is the most affectiue and most effi­cacious therein? Ought they not consider, that CHRIST IESVS doth not command that we should barely re­member him, but that we should remember him by feeding on his Flesh and Blood? Lett vs reflect vpon the consequence, and power­fulnes of the words: Christ saith not simply, as the Pre­tending Reformers seeme to vnderstand him, that the Bread and the Wine of the Eucharist should be a Me­morial of his Body and Blood: but the telleth vs that in doing what he prescribed, that is, in taking his Body and his Blood we should be [Page 97] Mindful of him. And can there be any thing in effect more powerful to produce in vs the remembrance of it? If children reflect so ten­derly vpon their father and his kindenes when they ap­proach the tombe where his body is enclosed; how power­fully ought our loue and memory to be excited and indeared, when we possesse vnder those sacred couerings, and vnder that mystical tom­be, the Flesh it self of our Sa­uiour immolated for vs, that liuing and life-giuing Flesh, and this Blood still war­me by the feruor of his loue, and full of spirit and grace. If our Aduersaries persist to alledge, that he who com­mandeth vs to remember [Page 98] him, doth not giue us his proper Substance; we may desire them to agree amongst themselues. They professe not to deny the Reall com­munication of the proper Substance of the sonne of God in the Blessed Sacrament; if their profession be serious, if their Doctrine be not a meere delusion, they must needs auowe with vs, that Re­membrance doth not ex­clude all manner of Presence, but only that which moueth the senses, and so their ans­wer is the same with ours, since when we affirme that IESVS-CHRIST is present, we accord at the same time that he is not existing in a sen­sible manner.

And if we are ask'd, the reason (we beleeuing, as [Page 99] we doe, that there is nothing to satisfy our senses in this mystery) why we doe not grant, that it is sufficient CHRIST IESVS should be present in it by our Faith; we may very easily answer, & cle­are this equivocal demande. It is one thing to say that the son̄e of God is present to vs by Faith; and an other to say, that we know by Faith that he is present. The first manner of speaking imports only a Mo­ral presence, the second doth signify a very Reall one, be­cause our Faith is most cer­taine, and this Reall presen­ce, known by our Faith, suf­ficeth to worke in the iust who liueth by Faith all the effects which I haue specified. Habac. 2. 4.

But to defeate at once all [Page 100] XII the equiuocations, Exposition of the Cal­uinists do­ctrine about the Reallity. vnder which the Caluinists couer their opinions in this point, and to discouer at the same time how neere they appro­ach to vs, although I haue vndertaken only to deliuer and explicate the Doctrine of the Catholique Church, it will not be amisse here to in­sert theirs.

Their Doctrine is deuided into two partys or sects: the one speaks only of the Figure of the Body and Blood: the other of nothing but the Re­ality of them both; we shall examine in their due orders each one of these different parties.

In the first place they al­ledge that this great miracle of the Reall presence, which we admit, is no way need­ful: [Page 101] that it sufficeth for our saluation, that IESVS-CHRIST dyed for vs, that this Sacrifice is sufficiently apply'd by our Faith; and this application is fully certified by the word of God: they and further, that if this word ought to be cloath'd with sensible signes, the giuing vs simple and bare Symboles, such as water in Baptisme, would haue bin sufficiēt, with­out the necessity of drawing down from heauen the Body and Blood of CHRIST IE­SVS.

Nothing seemes more easy then after this manner to explicate the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, and yet our Aduersaries themselues haue not iudged that they [Page 102] ought to rest and acquiesce in this exposition. They know that the like imaginations haue drawn the Socinians to deny the miracle of the In­carnation. Those Heretiques alledge that God could haue saued vs without going so farre about; he had nothing to doe but forgiue our sinns; he could haue instructed vs suf­ficiently both in point of Doctrine and Manners, by the Words, and by the Exam­ple of a man fill'd with the holy Ghost, without being obliged for that effect to make a God of him. But the Caluinists, as well as we, haue discern'd the weake­nesse of this argument, which is euident; first, by reason that it is not our part to de­ny [Page 103] or assure the mysteries of Religion according to our own iudgment of their being vsefull or vnnecessary for our saluation. God alone is pos­sess'd of the secret, and our part is the rendring them profitable and beneficiall to vs, by beleeuing them such as God promiseth them, and in receauing his graces and fauours in the same manner as he bestoweth them. Se­condly, without entring into this question, whether it was possible for God to saue vs by any other meanes then the Incarnation and Death of his sonne, and embroyling vs in that vselesse dispute (which the Pretending Re­formers debate so teadiously in their schooles) it sufficeth [Page 104] to haue learnt by the holy scriptures, that the sonne of God hath bin pleased to de­monstrate his loue by effects, which to vs are incompre­hensible. This loue was the motiue of that so Reall v­nion, by which he made him­self Man. This loue perswa­ded him to immolate and offer vp for vs his body as Really as he assumed it. All these designes are conse­quent to one an other, and this infinite loue holds the same height throughout all the strayns & motions there­of. So that when he shall be pleased to bring each sin­gle child of his (by vniting himself to him particularly) to tast and partake the good­nesse, which he hath express'd [Page 105] to all in generall, he will find meanes to accomplish his will by things as power­full and efficacious as those which he hath already ful­fill'd for our saluation. We ought not therefore to won­der at his giuing vnto euery one of vs the Reall Substance of his Flesh and Blood. He intends by it to imprint in our harts this verity, that it was for our sakes that he assumed them, and offered them vp in Sacrifice. This preceding goodnes renders all the sequence easy to be beleeued; the order of his mysteries disposeth vs to cre­dit all this, and his expresse word doth not allow vs any doubt of it.

Our Aduersaries did well [Page 106] discerne that simple figures and bare signes of the Body and Blood would not satisfy Christians vsed & accustomed to the Grace and Goodnesse of a God, who giues himself so Really to vs. So that vpon this ground they seeke to de­cline the being taxed with their denying a Substantiall and Reall participation of IESVS-CHRIST in the Com­munion. They affirme with vs, that he makes vs parta­kers of his proper Substance. Cat. Dim. 53. They say that he feedeth vs with the Substance of his Bo­dy and his Blood: Conf. of faith. art. 36. and con­ceauing that his shewing vs by some signe that we did partake of his Sacrifice would not be sufficient, they de­clare expressely, that the Bo­dy [Page 107] of our Sauiour, Cat. Dim. 52. which is giuen vs in the Communion, doth ascertaine vs of it. These words are so important, as we will presently examine them.

Now then we see the Bo­dy and Blood of CHRIST present in our Mysteries, by the grant of the Caluinists: for what is communicated according to the proper Sub­stance of it, must needs be Really present. True it is that they explaine this Com­munication, saying it is effe­cted by the Spirit and by Faith; but it is also certain that they will haue it to be Reall: and because it is not possible to render this intel­ligible, that a Body commu­nicated to vs only in Spirit [Page 108] & by Faith, should be impar­ted to vs Really and in its proper Substance, they haue not bin able to remain fix'd in both parts of a Doctrine of such a Contradiction; and so they haue bin forced to grant two things, which the Catholique Church teacheth. The first is, that CHRIST IESVS is giuen vs in the Eucharist in such a manner as doth not sute either with Baptisme, or Preaching the Gospel, but is peculiarly proper to this Mysterie. We shall discerne presently the consequence of this princi­ple, but lett vs first consider, how it is allowed & granted by the Pretended-Refor­mers.

And in this point I will [Page 109] not alledge the testimony of any particular Authour, but the very words of the Cate­chisme in that place, where it explicateh what relateth to the Lord's-Supper. It pro­nounceth in expresse termes not only that CHRIST IESVS is giuen vs Really and truly in the Sacrament, Dim. 53. and in his own Substance but being as­ked the question, what ad­uantage we haue by the com­munication in the Supper, aboue that in Baptisme or Preaching, they answer; Dim. 52. al­though he be truly communi­cated to vs by Baptisme, and by the Gospel, yet in them it is but Partly, and not Enti­rely. From whence it followes, that in the Lord's-Supper they teach he is not giuen vs [Page 110] Partly but Compleatly.

There is an extreame dif­ference between receauing in Part, and receauing Plena­rily. So that if we partake of JESVS-CHRIST in all other com̄unications of him, but in Part, and that in the Lord's Supper singly, we receaue him Entirely, it followeth euen by the Confession of our Aduersaries, that we must seeke in the Commu­nion a participation special and peculiar to this mystery, which can not appertaine to Baptisme or Preaching: and at the same time it followes also that this partaking is not annexed vnto Faith, since our Faith spreading & exten­ding it self through all the acts of Christianity doth exist [Page 111] and operate in the Preaching of the word, and in Baptisme as well as the Lord's-Supper. And indeed it is to be ob­serued, that notwithstanding all the earnestnesse the Pre­tending-Reformers haue ex­pressed to render Baptisme and Preaching equal to the Eucharist, vpon this account; that CHRIST JESVS is truly com̄unicated to vs by them, they neuer durst venture to assert in their Catechismes, that CHRIST was giuen vs in his proper Substance ei­ther in Baptisme, or in Prea­ching of the Gospel, as they haue affirm'd it of the Eu­charist. So that they haue bin conuinced they could not decline the ascribing to the Lord's Supper such a manner [Page 112] of possessing CHRIST, as is peculiar to this Sacrament, and that our Faith, which is common to all the actions of a Christian, could not be that distinct & singular man­ner. Now this singular man­ner of possessing CHRIST IESVS in the Eucharist must needs be Reall, since it gi­ueth to the beleeuer the ve­ry Substance of the Body and Blood of our Sauiour, which is not done by Faith, and this is what the Ca­tholique Church holds & teacheth.

The second point granted by the Pretending Refor­mers is drawn from the Ar­ticle following immediately what I haue allready cited out of their Catechisme, [Page 113] which is this, that the Body of our Sauiour, Dim. 52. in regard it was once offer'd in Sacrifice to reconcile vs vnto God, is now giuen vs to assure vs that we partake of that reconciliation.

If these words haue any meaning in them, if they are not an empty sound only, & a meere vaine amusement, they must needs suggest to our vnderstanding that CHRIST JESVS doth not giue vs a simple signe or symbole, but his proper Body, to assure vs that we partake of his Sacrifice, and the Reconci­liation of Mankind. If then the receauing of the Body of our Sauiour assureth vs of our participation of the fruite of his Death, it fol­lowes of necessity that this [Page 114] partaking of the fruite must be a distinct thing, from the receauing of his Body, be­cause the one is the pledge and security for the other; from which supposal aduan­cing further, I say that if our Aduersaries are forced to distinguish in the Lord's-Supper the partaking of the Body of our Sauiour, from the hauing part in the fruite and grace of his Sacrifice, they ought likewise to distin­guish the participation of that Diuine Body from all that participation thereof, which is conferr'd Spiritual­ly and by Faith; for this last partaking (namely by Faith) will neuer afford them two distinct actions, by one of which they receaue the Bo­dy [Page 115] of our Sauiour, and by the other the fruite of his Sacrifice; no body being able to conceaue what difference there is between partaking, by Faith, of the Body of our Sauiour, & partaking, by Faith, of the fruite of his Death. They must therefore yeald that besides the Com­munion by which we par­take Spiritually of the Body of our Sauiour, and of his spirit coniointly in the recea­uing the fruite of his Death, there is yet an other Reall Comunion of the Body of the same Sauiour, which is a se­cure pledge to vs that the other (namely the benefit of his death) is assured to vs, if we doe not frustrate the ef­fects of so great a grace, by our own opposite dispositi­ons. [Page 116] This consequence is ne­cessarily included in the prin­ciples to which they agree; nor can they euer be able to explicate this verity in any solide way, vnlesse they re­turne to the sense of the Ca­tholique Church.

Who can choose but ad­mire in this point the power of Truth? All that is conse­quent to the principles gran­ted by our Aduersaries is cleerly vnderstood in the sense of the Church: euen the least instructed Catholiques easily conceaue that in the Eucharist there is a Com̄uniō with CHRIST IESVS, which is not to be found any where else. It is easy for them to vnderstand that his Body is giuen vs, to assure vs [Page 117] that we partake in his Sacri­fice, and in his Death. They distinguish cleerly these two manners necessary to vnite vs to CHRIST IESVS; the one is by taking his proper Flesh; the other by receauing his Spirit: the first thereof is granted vs as a pledge and security of the second: but by reason things can not be explicated in the opinions held by our Aduersaries, though on the other side they can not disauowe them, we can not choose but conclude that their Error hath cast them into a manifest Contra­diction.

I haue often wondred why they did not deliuer and ex­plaine their Doctrine in a more familiar and simple [Page 118] manner. Why haue they not persisted in saying (without so many artifices) that CHRIST IESVS hauing shed his blood for vs, had re­presented to vs this effusion, by giuing vs two distinct signes of his Body and his Blood; and that he had bin pleased to giue to these two signes the names of the thing it self; and that these sacred Symbols were pledges and securities of our partaking the fruite of his death; and that we were nourished spi­ritually by the virtue of his Body and Blood: after hauing strayned so hard to proue that the signes receaue the name of the thing it self, and that for this reason the signe of the Body may be [Page 119] call'd the Body, the whole frame of this Doctrine did oblige them naturally to set­tle and rest there. And to render these signes effica­tious, it would serue suffi­ciently to haue the grace of our Redemption annexed to them; or rather, according to their principles, that it were confirmed to vs in them. They needed not to haue troubled themselues so much, as they haue done, to gett vs to conceaue that we receaue the very Body of our Sauiour, to this end only, viz, to assure vs that we partake of the Grace of his Death. These Pretended-Reformers did content themselues with hauing in the water of Bap­tisme [Page 120] a signe of the Blood which cleanseth vs, and they neuer thought of saying, that we receaue the Substance it self of our Sauiour's Blood, to ascertaine us that the vir­tue thereof is therein diffused vpon vs. If they had argued, and concluded so in the matter of the Eucharist, their Doctrine would haue bin easier and lesse incombe­red with Contradictions. But they who inuent and inno­uate can not say all they haue a minde to: they en­counter apparent verities, and establish'd maximes, which disapoint them, and oblige them to restrayne their own conceptions. The Arians would haue wisht, not to haue bin obliged to qualify [Page 121] our Sauiour with the name of God and his only Sonne. The Nestorians did admit but with great constraint a kinde of Unity of Persons in CHRIST JESVS, which we finde in their writings. The Pelagians who denyed Originall sin, would as wil­lingly haue reiected the mi­nistring the Sacramēt of Bap­tisme to Infants in order to the remission of sin, by which meanes they would haue bin deliuered from that argu­ment the Catholiques drew from this practise, to proue Originall sin. But, as I come from obseruing, they who finde a thing firmely establish­ed haue not the boldnes, or rather impudence, to ouer­throw all at once. Let the [Page 122] Caluinists auowe ingenuously the truth; they would haue bin very willing to haue ac­knowleged in the Eucharist the Body of IESVS-CHRIST meerly Figuratiuely, and the partaking only of his spirit. in effect, setting a side those big words of partaking of his proper Substance, and many others, which import a Reall Presence, and doe but in­tricate & perplexe them. It would haue suted better to their mindes, not to haue confessed any other Commu­nion with CHRIST JESVS in the Lord's-Supper, then such an one as is imparted in Preaching the Word, and in Baptisme, without telling vs, as they doe, that in the Eu­charist CHRIST is receaued [Page 123] Intierly and elsewhere only in Part. But though this was their wish and inclination, yet the powerfulnes of the termes resisted their profession of it, our Sauiour hauing affirmed so positiuely of the Eucharist, This is my Body; This is my Blood; which he never said of any other thing, nor in any other occasion. And what appearence of rendring that common to all the ac­tions of a Christian, which his expresse word hath an­nexed specially to one par­ticular Sacrament? Besides, the whole order of the diui­ne counsels, the conne­xion of the holy mysteries, of the doctrine and inten­tion of CHRIST IESVS in his last supper, the words [Page 124] themselues which he vsed, and the impression they na­turally make in the minds of the faithfull; all these sug­gest nothing but images and notions of Reality: and for this reason our Aduersaries haue bin faine to finde out some words, the sound where­of, at least, might raise some confused idea of this Reali­ty. When a man fastens him­self either intirely vnto Faith, as the Catholiques doe, or absolutely rest on humane Reason, as the Infi­dels doe, one may establish firme consequences, and make, as it were, an vnifor­me draught or designe of Doctrine: but when one will frame a compound of them both together, one is driuen [Page 125] to say somewhat more then he would willingly doe, and in the persuite, to fall into opinions, the apparent Con­tradictions whereof manifest­ly discouer their Falsities.

This is the case of the Pre­tended-Reformers, and God hath permitted their delu­ding themselues in this man­ner, to facilitate their retur­ne to the Vnity of the Ca­tholique doctrine. For since their own experience con­uinceth them that they must speake as we doe, to speake the language of truth, ought they not to iudge they must thinke as we doe to vnder­stand it right? If they ob­serue in their own beleefe some things that can haue no sense but in ours, is not this [Page 126] sufficient to conuince them, that the Truth is not intire & compleate but in our Church? And those loose parts of Catholique doctrine which are scattered here and there in their Catechisme (but would, as one may say, faine be reunited to their whole body) ought not they perswade them to seeke in the Com̄union of the Church the full & intire explication of the Mysterie of the Eu­charist? They would certain­ly be brought to it, did not humane reasonings trouble & perplex their Faith, which is too much adhering to their senses. But now after hauing represented to them what benefit they may draw from the exposition of their Do­ctrine, [Page 127] let vs proceed and end the explaining of our own.

Since it was convenient (as XIII hath bin obserued before) that our senses should dis­cerne nothing in this myste­ry of Faith, Of Transub­stannation, & Adorati­on; and in what sense the Eucharist is said to be a Signe. it was requisit there should be no alteratiō, as to their obiect, in the Bread & Wine of the Eucha­rist. Whereupon by reason that the same species conti­nue as our obiect, and we feele the same effects in the Sacrament, as were sensible before the Consecration, we ought not to wonder if some times, and in some certain sense, it is express'd by the same name. Neuerthelesse our Faith being attentiue to his word, who effecteth what [Page 128] euer he pleaseth in heauen and on earth, doth acknow­ledg in this case no other Substance remaining, but that which is designed by the same word, viz the proper Body and Blood of CHRIST IESVS into which the Bread and the Wine are changed, which is what we terme TRANSVBSTANTIATION.

And notwithstanding this, yet the Reality which the Eucharist contains, in regard of the interiour part, is no impediment to the being a Signe in respect of what it re­tains of exteriour and sensi­ble: but yet a Signe of such a nature as is so farre from excluding a Reality, as it carieth it of necessity along with it, since in effect this [Page 129] speech This is my Body being pronounced vpon the matter CHRIST IESVS hath cho­sen, is an assured signe, that he is Present, and although the matters seeme to our senses to remayne the same, yet our spirit iudgeth other­wise of them then it would doe, if a superiour Authori­ty did not interuene: so that although those species, and a certaine sequence of natu­rall impressions, which are made on our bodies, are vsed to suggest to vs the Substance of Bread & Wine, yet in this case his Authority, whome we beleeue intirely, preuai­les so much vpon vs, that the same species begin to de­signe to vs an other Substance; for we beleeue CHRIST [Page 130] who sayth, that which we take, and that which we eate is his Body; and such is the efficacy of his word, as it keeps vs from ascribing to the Substance of Bread these exteriour appearances, and moueth vs to referr them to the Body of CHRIST being present vnder them, so that the presence of so Adorable an obiect being once ascer­tain'd to vs by this signe, we make no question of offring to it our Adorations.

I doe not enter into the point of Adoration, by reason that the most learned and sober of our Aduersaries haue long since granted vs, that the pre­sence of CHRIST IESVS in the Eucharist ought to im­pose Adoration vpon those who are of that perswasion.

[Page 131]In fine being once conuin­ced that the omnipotent words of the sonne of God effect whatsoeuer they pro­nounce, we beleeue vpon good grounds that in the last Supper they produced their effect as soone as they were vttered, and vpon a necessary consequence we acknowledg the Reall presence of the Body before our receauing it.

These preceeding points XIV being supposed, Sacrifice of the Masse. the Sacrifice, which we assert and maintain in the Eucharist, retayns no longer any particular diffi­culty.

We haue obserued two actions in this Mystery, which cease not to be distinct, al­though the one relateth to the other: the first is the [Page 132] Consecration, by which the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood: the second is the Eating, by which we communicate and partake of them.

In the Consecration the Body and Blood are mysti­cally separated by reason that CHRIST IESVS said seuerally, This is my Body, This is my Blood; the which includeth a liuely and effectuall repre­sentation of the violent death he suffered.

And so the sonne of God is sett vpon the holy table, by vertue of those words, couered with signes that re­present his death▪ This is what is effected by Conse­cration, and this Religious act carieth with it, the pro­testation [Page 133] of the Soueragnity of God, by reason that CHRIST IESVS being pre­sent reneweth, and in some sort perpetuates the memo­ry of his obedience, euen to the death of the Crosse; so that indeed there is no­thing wanting here, towards the rendring it a True Sa­crifice.

Without all question this Religious act, as it is distinct from that of the Communi­on, must needs be of it self acceptable to God, and must inuite him to looke vpon vs with a more fauorable and propitious eye, by reason it presenteth to his sight the voluntary death which his wellbeloued sonne hath suf­fer'd for sinners, or rather [Page 134] replaceth before his eyes euen his own sonne, vnder the signes of that death, whereby he hath bin appea­sed, and reconciled to Man.

All Christians confesse that the single presēce of CHRIST IESVS is a most powerfull manner of Intercession be­fore God for all mankind, according to this saying of the Apostle, CHRIST IESVS presenteth himself and appea­reth for vs before the face of God: Hebr. 9. 24 and thereupon we be­leeue that CHRIST IESVS being present vpon the holy table in this figure of death intercedeth for vs, and re­presenteth continually to his Father the death he hath suf­fered for his Church.

[Page 135]It is in this sense we affir­me, that IESVS-CHRIST offereth himself for vs to God in the Eucharist; and in this manner it is we con­ceaue that this Oblation in­uiteth God to become more fauorable and propitious to vs, and for this reason we call it Propitiatorie.

When we reflect vpon what CHRIST IESVS worketh in this mystery, and when we looke vpon him, by our Faith, as actu­ally present vpon the holy table with the signes of death, we ioine our selues to him in that estate, and we present him to God as our only Victime, and as our sole Pro­pitiator by the merit of his Blood, protesting that we [Page 136] haue nothing to offer vnto God but IESVS-CHRIST, and the infinite merit of his death. We consecrate all our prayers by this Diuine Obla­tion, and by our presenting CHRIST IESVS to God, we are taught to offer vp our selues at the same time to the Diuine Maiesty, in him, and by him, as liuing Sacrifices.

Such is the Sacrifice of Christians, and infinitely differing from that which was practised in the Law, being a Spirituall Sacrifice, & wor­thy of the New Couenant, wherein the presence of the Victime is not perceaued but by Faith; where the word of God is the instrument that separateth Mystically [Page 137] the Body & the Blood, and cōsequently where the Blood is shed but Mystically, and where death interueneth but by Representation; and yet a most Reall & True Sacrifice for this reason that CHRIST JESVS is truly contained, and presented to God in it, vn­der this figure of death, and therefore a Sacrifice also of Commemoration; which is so farre (though obiected) from parting & loosening vs from our application to the Sacrifice of the Crosse, as it fi­xeth vs the faster, by all its cir­cūstances, vnto it, since it doth not only relate intirely vnto it, but in effect it hath nei­ther being nor subsistance but by this relation, from when­ce it deriueth all the virtue it contains.

[Page 138]This is the expresse Do­ctrine of the Catholique Church in the Councel of Trent, which teacheth, that this Sacrifice is instituted only to the intent of represen­ting that, Sess. 22. c. 1. which was once perfected vpon the Crosse; and to preserue the Memory of it vnto the end of all ages, and apply vnto vs that sauing vir­tue for the forgiuenes of sinns which we dayly commit. Wherefore so farre we are from beleeving that some­what is wanting to the Sacri­fice of the Crosse, as quite contrary, the Church holds, that it was so perfect, and so fully sufficient, as all which followes it, is but ordain'd in order to the celebrating the Memory, and applying [Page 139] the Virtue of that Oblation.

Whereby the same Church professeth, that all the merit of the Redemption of man­kind is annexed to the Death of the son̄e of God; & certainly by all that hath bin already said, it ought to haue bin vnderstood, that when we say to God in the cele­bration of the divine Myste­ries, We offer you this holy host, we doe not pretend by this oblation to make, or present to God a new paye­ment of the price of our Sal­uation, but to employ to­wards him the merits of IESVS CHRIST there present, and the infinite price he hath at once pay'd for our Redemp­tion vpon the Crosse.

The Professors of the Pre­tended-Reformed [Page 140] Religion doe not beleeue that they offend CHRIST IESVS in offring him to God, as pre­sent by their Faith: as in case they did beleeue he were truly and Really present, what repugnance could they haue to offer him as being Effectually present? So that to argue ingenuously, the dispute in faire dealing ought to be reduced singly to his being Present.

This supposed, all the false images and conceptions, the Pretended-Reformers frame to themselues about the Sacrifice we offer, ought to be effaced; they should in iustice acknowledge faire­ly, that the Catholiques pre­tend not to frame for them­selues [Page 141] a new Propitiation to appease God againe, as if he were not sufficiently reconci­led by the Sacrifice of the Crosse, or in order to make some new supplement to the price of our Saluation, as if it were imperfect. All these imaginations haue no admis­sion into our Doctrine, by reason that all this is intended by way of Intercession, and Application in that manner I come from deliuering & explaining.

After this cleer explication, XV those great obiections drawn out of the Epistle to the He­brews, The Epistle to the He­brews. which our Aduersaries seeke to enforce so much against vs, will appear weake, & vnreasonable; & that it is in vaine they strayne themselues [Page 142] to proue, by the meaning of the Apostle, that we nullify the Sacrifice of the Crosse; but as the most certain proof that can be had that two Doctri­nes are not opposite to one an other is to discouer, in the expounding them, that no proposition of the one is Con­tradictory to the proposalls of the other, I conceaue my self inuited in this occasion to expose, in short, the Do­ctrine of the Epistle to the He­brews.

The Apostle designed in this Epistle the teaching vs, that a sinner could not escape from death other wayes, then by subrogating in his place one that should dy for him: that while men did supply, in their stead, but the Blood­shed [Page 143] of Beasts, their Sacri­fices had no other operation, but the making a publick pro­fession, that they had deserued to dy; and that by reason the divine Iustice could not be satisfied with so dispropor­tionate an exchange, those Bloody Victimes were euery day offer'd and repeated, which was a certain proofe of the insufficiency of that ex­change and subrogation: but that since CHRIST IESVS had bin pleased to dy for sinners, God being fully satisfyed by the voluntary substitution of so worthy a person, could no more require the price of our ransome; from whence the Apostle concludes, that we ought not only to cease from offring any other Victi­me [Page 144] after CHRIST IESVS, but that CHRIST himself was to be offer'd vp to death but one single time.

Let the Reader then, who is sollicitous of his Saluation, and is a freind to truth, re­colect seriously what we haue deliuered of the manner wherein CHRIST IESVS offe­reth himself to God for vs in the Eucharist, and I am con­fident he will not find in it any propositions contrary to those of the Apostle, which I come from delivering, or any that infirme his proofes, so the most can be vrged against vs is his Silence. But such as will consider the wise distributions God maketh of his secrets in the many and seuerall bookes of his Scrip­ture, [Page 145] would not surely restrai­ne vs to receaue from the sin­gle Epistle to the Hebrews all our instruction concer­ning a matter, which did not necessarily relate to the sub­iect of that Epistle; since the Apostle intendeth in it to explaine the perfection of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, and not the different meanes God hath giuen vs to apply it vnto our selues.

And to preuent all Equi­uocall sense, if we take the word offer, as it is vnder­stood in this Epistle, in that sense which implyeth the Actual death of the Victime, we confesse aloud, that IESVS-CHRIST is no longer offer'd so, neither in the Eucharist, nor any where else. But as [Page 146] this same word hath a larger signification in other places of Scripture, where it is often said, that one Offereth to God, what one presenteth before him, the Church, which doth not frame her lan­guage & her doctrine by the single Epistle to the Hebrews, but by the whole body of the Scriptures, doth not scruple to affirme that CHRIST JESVS offereth himself to God in all places where he ap­peareth for our sakes before him, and consequently that he offereth himself vp in the Eucharist, according to the expression of the holy Fa­thers of the Church.

Now to conceaue that this man̄er, wherein CHRIST IESVS presenteth himself to God, can at all detract from the [Page 147] Sacrifice of the Crosse, is what can not possibly be in­ferr'd; vnlesse one will ouer­throw the whole Scripture, and especially that Epistle which they seeke so much to straine against vs. For by the same reason we ought to conclude, that when CHRIST IESVS vowed himself to God, entring into the world, Hebr. 10. 5▪ to sub­stitute himself instead of tho­se Victimes, which were not pleasing to him, that he iniured the action by which he de­uow'd himself vpō the Crosse; and so, Hebr. 9. 24 when he continueth to appeare for vs before God, he detracteth from the Oblation, in which he appeared once by the Immolation of himself; Hebr. 9. 26. and that, not ceasing to inter­cede for vs, Hebr. 7. 25. he accuseth that [Page 148] Intercession of Insufficiency, which he made at his Death with so many teares, Heb. 5. 7. and so great cryes.

Would not all these infe­rences be ridiculous? We must therefore vnderstand, that CHRIST IESVS, who did offer vp himself once, to be­come the humble Victime of the Diuine iustice, doth continue still offering him­self for vs: that the infinite perfection of the Sacrifice of the Crosse consisteth in this, that whatsoeuer preceded it, as well as what follows it, are intirely relating vnto it: that as what preceded, was its Preparation; so what doth follow, is its Consummation, and Application: that true it is, the payment of the price of our ransome is not reite­rated, [Page 149] by reason it was fully discharged the first time, but what Applieth that Redemp­tion, is incessantly continued & repeated; and in fine we must know to distinguish those acts, which are reite­rated, as being imperfect, from such as are perpetuated as being perfect & necessary.

We coniure the followers of the Pretended-Refor­med XVI Religion, Reflection vpon the preceding doctrine. to make some little reflection vpon what I haue said concerning the Eu­charist.

The doctrine of the Reall Presence hath bin the neces­sary foundation thereof. This ground-worke is impugn'd by the Caluinists; there is no point that is euidently more important in our Con­trouersies, [Page 150] since the question is of the Reall presence of CHRIST himself; there is no­thing our Aduersaries find more difficult to beleeue; and there is no Cōtrouersy which setts vs more directly Oppo­site.

In most of our other dis­putes, when they reflect calmely vpon them, they find difficulties grow much eue­ner, and that very often they are more offended with the termes, then with the mat­ters: but quite contrary in this subiect we agree best in the manner of speaking, be­cause on both sides we heare the same termes of Reall Participation, and other such like words; but the more exactly we enter into the exa­mination, [Page 151] the further we find our selues distant from one an other, by reason that our Aduersaries doe not admitt the consequences of those verities they haue acknow­leged, being, as I haue al­ready said, discouraged and auerted by the difficulties which occurr to their senses and humane reason in those consequences.

This is therefore, to speake truly, the most impor­tant and most difficult of all our Controuersies, & where­in we are in effect most re­moued from one an other.

Neuerthelesse God, hath bin pleased to suffer that the Lutherans should remaine as firmely adhering to the be­leefe of the Reality as we, [Page 152] and hath permitted also that the Caluinists should auowe, that this Doctrine hath no venome in it, that it doth not subuert the Foundation of sauing Faith, and that it ought not to breake the Communion of Christian fra­ternity.

Let me request the follo­wers of the Pretended-Re­formed Religion, who apply themselues seriously to their saluation, to reflect atten­tiuely vpon what course the Diuine Prouidence taketh to draw them imperceptibly neerer vs, and the truth: one may either intirely dissipate all the other grounds of their complaints, or at least re­duce them to very inconsi­derable differēces by a meere [Page 153] expounding them: and in this particular, which we could not expect to ouer­come by this way, they haue of themselues voyded the principall difficulty, by de­claring that this doctrine is not incompetent with our Salvation, nor incōsistent with the Foundamentalls of Reli­gion.

True it is that the Luthe­rans, albeit they concurr with vs in the maine point of the Reality, doe not embrace all the consequences thereof: they ioyne the Bread to the Body of CHRIST IESVS: some of them reiect the Adoration; and they seeme to confesse the Presence only in the act of receauing it. But no art or subtility of their Ministers [Page 154] can ever perswade solide & vnderstanding cōsiderers that accepting the Reality (which is the most important, and most difficult point) they ought not assent vnto the rest of our proposalls.

Besides, the same Provi­dēce, which worketh couert­ly to draw vs neerer, and layeth the foundations of peace & reconciliation in the midst of all our sharpnesses and dissentions, hath further permitted the Caluinists should allow, that supposing these words, This is my Body, are to be taken litterally, the Catholiques argue & cōclude more consequently then the Lutherans.

If I doe not repeate the passages that haue bin so fre­quently [Page 155] cited in this subiect, I shall easily be excused, since all such as are not very ob­stinate, will easily graunt us, that the Reality supposed, our doctrine is that which fol­lows by the best consequēce.

This is therefore an es­tablished Truth, that our Do­ctrine in this point containeth nothing but the Reality rightly vnderstood. But we must not be content with this; we further intreate the Pre­tending Reformers to cōsider, that we doe not employ any thing to explicate the Sacri­fice of the Eucharist, but what necessarily is included in the Reall Presence.

If vpon this a question then be putt to vs, how the Lu­therans, who beleeue the [Page 156] Reality, come notwithstāding to reiect the Sacrifice, which, according to our Doctrine, is a consequence of the first; we answer in a word, that we must put this Doctrine amōgst the other consequences of the Reall Presence, which those Lutherans haue not vnderstood, and which we haue penetrated much better then they, by the confession of the Calvinists themselves.

If our explications per­swade these last, that our Doctrine about the Sacrifice is included in that of the Reality, they ought to dis­cerne cleerly, that this Con­trouersy of the Sacrifice of the Masse, which filleth so many volumes, and hath oc­casioned so many inuectiues, [Page 157] should hence forward be re­trenched from the body of their Controversies, since this point retaineth no lon­ger any peculiar difficulty, and (which is more impor­tant) since this Sacrifice, against which they expresse so much repugnance, is but a necessary sequence, & a naturall explanation of a Doctrine, which, by their own concession, hath no Ve­nome in it. Let them then examine themselues now, and after that try in the pre­sence of God whether they have as much reason on their side, as they imagin, to depart from the Altars, where their fathers haue bin nourished with the bread of life.

[Page 158] XVII There remaineth still one consequence of this Doctrine to be examined, Communion vnder both kindes. which is, that CHRIST IESVS being Really present in this Sacra­ment, the Grace & the bles­sing is not annexed to the Sensible Species, but to the propre Substance of his Flesh, which is living, and inlive­ning, by reason of the con­junction of the Divinity: vpon which ground those who beleeue the Reality, ought to haue no payne to com­municate singly in one Spe­cies; by reason they receaue all that is essentiall to that Sacrament, in a fulnesse and entiernes by so much the mo­re assured, by as much as the separation of the Body and the Blood not being [Page 159] Reall (as hath bin said) one receaueth intierly & with­out diuision him, who alone is capable to satisfy & reple­nish us.

This is the solide founda­tion, vpon which the Church, interpreting the precept of the holy Communion, hath declared that we may rece­aue all the Sanctification this Sacrament conferreth, vnder one single Species; and if the Church hath reduced her children to this one Species, it was not out of disesteeme of the other, since it proceeded from a quite cōtrary motiue, which was to preuent the irreuerences, & indecen­cies, the confusion & negli­gences of the people had oc­casioned in the latter times, [Page 160] the Church reserving the rees­tablishment of the Commu­nion in both kindes, accor­ding as it should become useful for the peace & union of her children.

Catholique Diuines haue made appear to those of the Pretended-Reformed Reli­gion, that they themselues haue made vse of diuers in­terpretations like this, in what belongs to the vse of the Sacraments. But most especially they had reason to remarke this, which is taken out of the 12. chap. of their Discipline. tit. of the Lord's-Supper. art. 7. Where these words are written; The bread of the Lord's-Supper ought to be administer'd to such as can not drinke wine, vpon their [Page 161] protesting, that it is not out of contempt, but endeauoring all they can, and euen putting the Cupp to their mouth as closse as they are able, to preuent all scandal. They haue con­cluded by this regulation, that both kindes were not essentiall to the Communion by the institution of CHRIST; for otherwise they would haue bin bound, absolutely to refuse the Sacrament to such as were not able to re­ceaue it compleat, and not to giue it them in a manner contrary to that CHRIST JESVS had commanded; and in that case their disability would haue sufficiently ex­cused them. But our Aduer­saries haue conceaued that such a rigour would be ex­cessiue, [Page 162] if they did not allow at least one of the Spe­cies to such as were not ca­pable to receaue the other; and since this condescenden­ce hath no ground in the Scripture, they must needs confesse with vs, that the words whereby CHRIST IE­SVS hath proposed to vs the two Species are liable to some interpretation, and that the right vnderstanding of them ought to be declared by the Authority of the Church.

But it might seeme that this Article of their Disci­pline, which is of the Synode of Poytiers held 1560, had bin reformed by the Synode of Vertueil assembled in the year 1567, where it is said, [Page 163] that the company is not of opi­nion the Bread should be giuen to those who would not re­ceaue the Cupp. These two Synodes neuerthelesse are not at all opposite to one an­other; that of Vertueil spea­keth of those, who Will not receaue the Cupp, and that of Poytiers of such, as Can not take it. And indeed, not­withstanding the Synode of Vertueil, that Article remai­neth in their Discipline, nay more, hath bin approued by a Synode later then that of Vertueil, namely by the Sy­node of Rochelle in 1571, where the Article was re­newed, and putt into that state which it now remai­neth in.

But supposing the Synodes [Page 164] of the Pretended-Reformers had differr'd & varied in their opinions, that would serue only to manifest, that the matter in question is not a point of Faith, but of that kind which the Church may order & dispose of, accor­ding to their own principles.

XVIII There remaineth now no­thing but to expose what the Catholiques hold touching the Word of God, The written & vnwrit­ten Word. & con­cerning the Authority of the Church.

CHRIST IESVS hauing lay'd the foundation of his Church vpon the Preaching of his Disciples, the Vnwritten Word was the first guide & rule of Christianity, & when the writings of the New Te­stament were adioyned to [Page 165] them, the former Word did not for all that loose its Au­thority, which causeth vs to accept with the same vene­ration all that was taught by the Apostles, be it by wri­ting, or by word of mouth, according to what S. Paul himself hath expresly inioy­ned. 2. Thess. 2. 14. And the certain proofe that a Doctrine comes from the Apostles, is, its being accepted and embraced by all Christian Churches whilst its beginning can not be pointed & mark'd out. We can not choose but receaue all that is establish'd in this manner with the submission due to the Diuine Authority; and we are confident that such persons of the Preten­ded-Reformed Religion, as [Page 166] are not very obstinate, haue the same perswasion in the bottome of their harts, it being impossible to beleeue that a Doctrine setled and receaued from the be­ginning of the Church, can flow from any other spring then that of the Apostles. Wherefore our Adversaries ought not to wonder, that we, being zealously carefull to inherit all that our Fathers haue left vs, doe conserue the Deposite of Tradition, as well as that of the Scriptures.

XIX The Church being ordained by God to be the Deposita­ry of the Scripture, The Church's Authority. & of Tra­dition, we receaue from her hands the Canonicall Scrip­tures, and we beleeue (what­euer our Aduersaries say) [Page 167] that it is principally the Church's Authority that de­termineth vs to reuerence as Diuine writt, the song of Sa­lomon, which hath so few sensible markes of Propheti­call inspiration; and likewise the Epistle of S. Iames, which Luther reiected; and that of S. Iude, which might be suspected, by reason of some Apocriphall bookes cited in it: in fine there can be no motiue, but that Authority, to perswade the receauing the whole body of the holy Scriptures, which Christians accept as Diuine, euen before the reading hath wrougt any feeling of the Spirit of God in those bookes.

Being then inseparably bound, as we are, to the [Page 168] Authority of the Church, by meanes of the Scriptures, which we receaue from her hand, we are taught al­so by her Tradition, and by the help of Tradition the true sense of the Scriptures. So that the Church professeth to say nothing, meerly of her self; and likewise that she inventeth nothing new in her Doctrine; that she doth but follow and declare the Diuine Reuelation by the interiour direction of the ho­ly spirit, which is giuen her for her Teacher.

That the holy Ghost expresseth himself by the Church, the dispute raised about the Ceremonies of the Law, euen in the time of the Apostles, doth euidence; [Page 169] and their Acts haue directed all succeeding ages (by the manner that first contest was decided) by what Autho­rity all following differences are to be determined: so that whensoeuer any dis­pute happens to deuide the faithfull, the Church will interpose her Authority, and the Pastours assembled will say after the Apostles, Act. 15. 2 [...]: It hath seemed good to the Ho­ly Spirit and vs. And when the Church hath pronounced and determined, her chil­dren will be taught not to examine a new the Articles resolued vpon, but that they are bound to accept with all submission the Church's De­cisions. And in this methode we follow S. Paul and Silas, [Page 170] who deliuered to the faith­full the first iudgment of the Apostles; and were so farr from allowing a new discussion of what had bin decided, as they trauell'd through the townes teaching to obserue the ordinances of the Apostles. Act. 16. 4.

In this manner the chil­dren of God acquiesce in the iudgment of the Church, beleeuing that by her mouth they hear the Oracle of the Holy Ghost, and it is vpon the ground of this perswa­sion, that after hauing pro­fess'd in the Creed, I beleeue in the Holy Ghost we ioine next to it, The Holy Catho­lique Church, by which pro­testation we oblige our sel­ues to acknowledge an In­fallible [Page 171] and Perpetuall Veri­ty in the Catholique Church; since the same Church, which we beleeue perseue­ring throughout all ages, would cease to be a Church, if it left to teach the Truth reuealed by God: so that such as apprehend least she should abuse her power by introducing Falsities, haue little Faith in him, by whose hand she is held and con­ducted.

And if our Aduersaries would consider & discusse these matters in a fairer and more humane manner, they would be forced to auowe that the Catholique Church is so farre from affecting to render herself Mistresse of her Faith (as her Aduersaries [Page 172] charge her) that quite con­trary she hath laboured with all her power to binde her self, and to exclude all means of In̄ouation, since she doth not only submitt to the holy Scriptures, but, to ba­nish for euer all Arbitrary interpretatiōs, (which would make the conceipts of men passe for Scripture) decla­reth herself obliged to vn­derstand them, Cōc. Trid. seff. 4. in what re­lateth to Faith or Manners, conformably to the sense of the holy Fathers; from which she professeth neuer to de­part, declaring by all her Councells, and by all her Professions of Faith, already published, that she admit­teth no point of Doctrine, which is not conformable [Page 173] to the Tradition of all pre­ceeding ages.

Moreouer, if our Aduer­saries will examine their Con­sciences, they will discerne, that the name of the Church hath more authority ouer their minds, then they dare auowe in their disputes: and I am perswaded there is not any one prudent & iudicious man amongst them, who finding himself alone in his perswasion, (how euident soeuer it might seeme to him) that would not be frightned with that Singula­rity; so manifest it is, that men haue need in these mat­ters to be supported in their opinions by the Authority of some Society, that is of the same iudgment. And for [Page 174] this reason God, who hath created vs, and knoweth what is most proper for vs, hath ordained for our benefit, that all particular subiects should render obedience to his Church, the Authority whereof, is of all others vn­doubtedly the best establish­ed, not only by the testi­mony which God himself renders in proofe of it in the holy Scriptures, but likewise by the euidencies of his Di­uine protection, which is ma­nifested no lesse in the most inuiolable & perpetuall sub­sistence, then it was in the miraculous establishment thereof.

XX This Soueraigne Authority The opinion of those of the Preten­ded Refor­med Reli­gion concer­nig the Au­thority of the church. of the Church is so necessa­ry to regulate the differences [Page 175] which arise vpon points of Faith, and the right vnder­standing of the Scripture, that our Aduersaries them­selues, after hauing discredi­ted & decryed it, as an in­supportable Tyranny, haue bin at last necessitated to au­thorise & establish it amongst themselues.

When those, who are cal­l'd Independants, maintained openly, that euery indiui­duall of the faithfull ought to follow the light of his conscience, without being obliged to submitt his iudg­ment to any body, or Eccle­siasticall assembly, and that vpon this ground they refu­sed to subiect themselues to Synodes; that of Charenton held 1644. censured this [Page 176] Doctrine vpon the same rea­sons, and in regard of the same inconueniences, which moued vs to reject it. That Synode obserueth in the first place, that the Error of the Independants consisteth in their holding, that, euery single Church ought to gouerne it self by her own lawes, without dependance vpon any person, in Ecclesiasticall af­fairs, and without any obli­gation to conforme to the Au­thority of Conferences, and Synodes, in point of their con­duct & regulation. And in order thereunto the same Synode determineth that this Sect is as preiudiciall to the State as to the Church; that it setteth open a dore to all sorts of irregularities and extraua­gancies; [Page 177] that it cutts off all means of applying any reme­dy; and if it tooke place, there might be as many Religions inuented, as there are parti­cular parishes or assemblies. These last words shew cleer­ly that it was principally in point of Faith that this Synode intended to establish a Dependance, since the great est inconuenience, it obser­ues the faithfull would be lyable to, by this indepen­dency, is, that there might be as many Religions formed and professed as there are pa­rishes. It followeth then of ne­cessity, by the Doctrine of this Synode, that euery par­ticular Church (and much more euery priuate person) ought to Depend (in what [Page 178] belongs to Faith) vpon a Superiour Authority, which resides in some Assembly, or Body of men, to which Au­thority all the Faithfull sub­iect their priuate iudgments; for the independants doe not refuse to submit vnto the Word of God, in that sense they conceaue they ought to vnderstand it, nor to accept the Decision of Synodes, when, after they haue exa­mined them, they conclude them reasonable, and fitt to be obserued: what they re­fuse to yeald vnto, is, to re­signe vp their priuate iudg­ment vnto that of an Assem­bly, vpon this ground, which our Aduersaries haue lai'd for them, viz, that all Assem­blies euen that of the Vni­uersall [Page 179] Church, is a compa­ny of Men subiect to Error, vnto which consequently a Christian ought not to sub­iect his iudgment, since he oweth his resignation but to God alone. It is from this pretension of the Indepen­dants, that all those incon­ueniences are inferr'd, which the Synode of Charenton hath so well obserued: for what profession soeuer be made to submit vnto the Word of God, if euery one thinketh he hath right to vn­derstand it according to his own iudgment, though it be contrary to the sense of the Church declared in a Finall decree, this pretension will open the way to all sorts of extrauagancies, and exclude [Page 180] all means of applying any re­medy, since the Decision of the Church is no restraint to such, as doe not conceaue themselues bound to submit vnto it; and in fine it will open the way to frame as ma­ny Religions not only as there are parishes, but euen as there are priuate heads.

For precaution against these incōueniencies, from whence would ensue the ruyne of Christian Religion, the Sy­node of Charenton is forced to constitute a Dependance in Ecclesiasticall matters, and euen in points of Faith. But this their designed Deference will neuer retrench those per­nicious consequences, they haue proposed to themselues the preuenting, vnlesse they [Page 181] settle, conformably to vs, this maxime, that euery par­ticular Church, and much more each single person, ought to beleeue himself ob­liged to submit his priuate iudgment vnto the Autho­rity of the Church.

And so we see likewise in the fifth chapter of the Dis­cipline of the Pretended-Re­formed Religion, tit. of Con­sistories. art. 31. that desiring to prescribe an expedient to determine the debates which might arise vpon any point of Doctrine or Discipline, they decreed first, that the Con­sistory shall endeauor to ap­pease all without noise, and with all the sweetnes of the Word of God: and after ha­uing sett, and rank'd the [Page 182] Consistory, the Conference, and the Prouinciall Synode, as so many distinct degrees of Iurisdiction, coming at last to the Nationall Synode (aboue which there is no Au­thority amongst them) they speake of it in these termes; There it is that the Entier & Finall resolution shall be ta­ken, according to the Word of God; to which if they refuse to acquiesce in euery point, and with a direct renouncing of their Errors, they shall be cutt off from the Church. Is it not then euident that the Pretended-Reformers doe not attribute the Authority of this Finall iudgment to the Word of God taken alone by it self, and without de­pendance on the Authority [Page 183] of the Church; since the Word hauing bin employ'd and consulted in the first con­clusions they haue made vpō it, they doe neuerthelesse admit an Apeale from it? It is the Word, as interpreted by the Soueraigne tribunal of the Church, that frameth this last and Finall resolution, vnto which whosoeuer refuseth to acquiesce from point to point, though he boasteth his being authorised by the Word of God, is no longer reputed but as a profane abuser and Corrupter thereof.

But the forme of those Letters of deputation which were drawn vp, & agreed vpon at the Synode of Vi­tré in the year 1617. to be obserued by the Prouinces, [Page 184] when they were to send de­puties to the Nationall Sy­node, is yet more positiue: it runns in these termes. We promise before God, to submit to all that shall be concluded and resolved in your holy As­sembly, and to obey & exe­cute it with all our power, being perswaded, as we are, that God will preside in it, and conduct you by his holy Spirit into all truth and equity by the rule of his Word. Here the point is not the recea­u [...]ng of the resolution of a Synode after hauing discer­n'd, that it hath ordain'd ac­cording to the Scripture, but here is a submission made unto it euen before the as­sembling of it; and this is done by reason they are per­swaded [Page 185] that the holy spirit will preside in it. If this per­swasion be grounded vpon a humane presumption, can one in conscience promise before God to submitt to all which shall be resolued and concluded; and to obey & exe­cute it to the utmost of ones power? And if this perswa­sion be grounded vpon an assured beleef of that assis­tance the holy Ghost affor­deth the Church in her Finall ordinances, the Catho­liques themselues require no more of them.

Thus the proceedings of our Aduersariers doe mani­fest, that they concurr with vs in the necessity of a Su­preme Authority, without which there can neuer be [Page 186] a Finall decision of any doubt in Religion: and although, when they cast of the yoke of Obedience, they denied that the faithfull were obliged to resigne their iudgment vp to that of the Church, yet the necessity of settling some or­der among themselues hath forced them, in processe of time, to acknowledg, what their first engagement had moued them to contradict.

Nay they haue gone much farther in the National Sy­node held at Sainte Foy in the year 1578. There was some ouerture made of a re­concilement with the Luthe­rans by means of a forme of profession of Faith general and common to all the Churches, which was proposed to be [Page 187] concerted and drawn vp. The Churches of this Kingdome were inuited to depute vnto an Assembly, to be held for that purpose, virtuous per­sons, approued, and authori­sed by all the forenamed Chur­ches with an ample Procura­tion TO TREAT, AGREE VPON, AND DECIDE ALL POINTS OF DOCTRINE, and other matters concer­ning the vnion. Vpon this pro­position, the resolution of the Synode of Sainte Foy was agreed vpon in these termes. The National Syno­de of this Kingdome, after having giuen God thanks for such an ouerture, and com­mended the care, and dili­gence, as well as the good counsels of the fore-mentioned persons conuoked, APPRO­VING [Page 188] THE REMEDIES THEY HAVE SVGGESTED, viz prin­cipally that of framing a new Confession of Faith, and gi­uing power to some certaine persons to compose it, hath ordained that in case the copie of that aboue-named Confes­sion of Faith shall be sent time enough, it shall be examined in euery Prouinciall Synode, or after some other manner, according to the conueniency of each Prouince; and in the mean time hath deputed four Ministers, the best experien­ced in affairs of that nature, to whome expresse order hath bin giuen to render themsel­ves vpon the places, and at the day, with letters and ample Procurations of all the Mi­nisters, and ancient Deputies of the Prouinces of this King­dome, [Page 189] together with those of the Viscount of Turene, to doe all things aboue mentioned; and euen, in case that MEANS COVLD NOT BE FOVND TO EXAMINE THE SAYD CONFESSION BY ALL THE PROVINCES, it is referr'd to their prudence and sound iudg­ment to agree and CONCLVDE all the points which shall be brought into deliberation, as well FOR THE DOCTRINE, as for any other matter, con­cerning the benefit, vnion, and quiet of all the Chur­ches. This in fine is the re­sult of that feigned tender­nesse of Conscience in the Ministers of the Pretended-Reformed Religion. How often haue they reproached to us, as a weakenesse, that Submission we professe to the [Page 190] iudgment, and Decrees of the Church, which is, say they, but a company of men subiect to Error? and yet they, being assembled them­selues in a Body at a Natio­nall Synode, which repre­sented all the Pretended-Re­formed Churches of France, haue nor scrupuled to leaue their Faith to the Arbitra­tion of four persons, with so Absolute a Resignation of their Iudgments, that they transferr'd vpon them a full power to change the very Confession it self, which they propose, euen to this day, to all Christian people as a Con­fession of Faith, which con­taineth nothing but the pure Word of God; and for which (in presenting it to our Kings) they haue said, that [Page 191] an infinite number of people were ready to shed their blood. I leaue the prudent Reader to make his reflecti­ons vpon the Decree of this Synode, and will conclude in few words my explication of the perswasions &, tenents of the Catholique Church.

The sonne of God hauing bin pleased that his Church should remaine one, and be solidly built vpon this Vnity, hath instituted & founded the XXI Primacy of S ^t Peter, The Autho­rity of the holy see of Rome, and of Episcopacy▪ to main­taine and cement it: where­upōwe acknowledgethe same Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles, vn­to whome vpon that title we owe that Submission & Obe­dience, which the holy Coun­cells & Fathers haue taught, and inioyn'd the faithfull.

[Page 192]As for those points, which are so vsually disputed in the Schooles, although the Mi­nisters doe cōtinually alledge them, to asperse, and render that Authority odious, it is to little purpose to mention them in this discourse, since they are not points of Catho­lique Faith. It is sufficient here to confesse a Head esta­blished by God: which will freely be accorded by all such as affect Vnion & Concord of Christian Fraternity, & Ec­clesiasticall Vnanimity.

And certaine it is, that if the Founders of the Preten­ded Reformation had loued Vnity in the Church, they would neuer haue abolished Episcopall Gouernement, which we finde established [Page 193] by IESVS-CHRIST him­self, and which we see im­power'd & authorised euen in the dayes of the Apostles; nor would they haue despi­sed the Authority of S. Pe­ter's seate, which hath so so­lid a foundation in the Ghos­pel, and so euident a conti­nuation in Ecclesiasticall Tra­dition: they would rather haue zealously maintain'd Episcopall Iurisdiction, which setleth & preserueth Vnion in particular Churches, and the Primacy of S. Peter's Chaire, which is the common center of all Catholique Vniō.

This is the exposition of the Catholique Doctrine, XXII wherein, Conclusion of the Trea­tise. to tye my self to what is most important in it, I haue declined some ques­tions, [Page 194] which the Pretended-Reformers themselues doe not account a legitimate mo­tiue for a Breach, or Separa­tion: and I may hope that those of their Communion, who shall examine fairely & with Christian equity all the parts and consequences of this Treatise, will by the reading thereof, be better disposed to accept, and ac­quiescevnto those proofs, vpō which the Faith of the Chur­ch is established, and will at least auowe that many of our Controuersies may be decided by a syncere expli­cation of our perswasions, and that our Doctrine is Holy; and that, euen by their own principles, none of the Ar­ticles of our Beleef ouerthrow the Foundations of our Eter­nall [Page 195] Beatitude.

If any one shall conceaue it requisite to reply to this Treatise, I must desire him to consider, that to aduance any thing towards his intent, he must not attempt to re­fute the Doctrine it contai­neth, since my designe was to Propose it only, without Supporting it by any Proofs; and if in some passages I haue touched part of the grounds, & reasons which establish it, the reason was because the knowledg of the principall grounds of a Doctrine, doth often beare a part necessary for its explication.

It would be also a great digression from the designe of this Treatise to dicusse the different ways, methodes, motiues, and arguments whi­ch [Page 196] the Catholique Diuines make use of to establish, or illustrate the Doctrine of the Councel of Trent; and the various consequences parti­cular Doctors haue deduced from them. To vrge any thing solide against this Trea­tise, and that cometh home to the point, it must either be proued by some acts, which the Church hath engaged herselfe to receaue, that her Faith is not here faithfully deliuered; or be shewed, that this explanation leaueth all the Aduersaries Obiections in their full force; or in fine it must be exposed directly wherein this Doctrine sub­uerteth the Grounds and Foundation of Faith.