Holy Ghost which is the first and most fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but at the very same instant She doth teach another Article which is quite contrary according to us when She saith that we ought to Worship and when she doth indeed Worship that which according to us is not God The Church of Rome receives as we do the first Commandment of the Law which forbids having any other God than the Mighty and Jealous God Yet at the same time She calleth upon the Saints which is a Religious worship by their own Confession and according to us it is a kind or part of that worship which we ought not to give but to God onely not to speak here of the excess which is seen in that worship The Church of Rome receives the second Commandment which doth particularly forbid the making Images of any thing that is in Heaven or in the Earth to worship them but at the same time She doth make Images of the very persons of the Trinity and of all the Saints Shee kneels down before them and doth serve them Religiously against the express terms of the Commandment and it is also well known to what excess She hath advanced this worship in the practice The Church of Rome receives as we do the Apostles Creed which is â—n Abridgment of the fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel for those who are well instructed in it and that do understand it in the full force of its expressions But therein it self we do agree no wise touching that which the Bishop of Condom doth suppose that the Church of Rome hath the pure and true understanding of the Creed We pretend that to believe in God the Creator and in Jesus Christ doth mean so to believe in God as to matter of Religion as not to have the Least confidence in any thing else and we believe that the Worshipping of Saints of Relicks of the Cross and of Images especially in the excess and inevitable abuse which follows however the matter is sweetned in disputation is a degree of a Religious confidence in the creature which thereby doth become sharer in what we owe only unto the Creator The Church of Rome with us believes that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven that he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father and that it is he who shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead but she believes at the same time that our Lord Jesus Christ is also every day corporally upon earth though in an invisible State and different from that estate he is in in Heaven Here it might be proved that in effect all these Doctrines of the Roman Church and several others are directly contrary to the fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel but that would be useless in this part of the question where it sufficeth to intimate that we do so believe what follows will shew the reasons which we have to believe so p. 9 a. 1 The Bishop of Condom doth here make the objection against us which is usually made against us touching the Lutherans that the consequences which we draw from their Doctrine do not hinder but that we admit them into our Communion although these consequences do seem to destroy the foundation But there is a great deal of difference betwixt the Lutherans and the Roman-Catholicks in reference unto us in effect we agree that always heed is not to be taken of the consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrin Doubtless we ought to distinguish the consequences contested by him that doth teach the Doctrine and which do not produce any effect in the intention nor Worship from those which are granted by the very persons which teach the Doctrin and which are followed by a sort of Worship which is thought to be evil It is true that Mr. Daille saith of the Lutherans as the Bishop of Condom doth instance that they have an opinion which according unto us doth infer as well as that of the Roman Church the destruction of the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ but it is also very certain that this consequence as Mr. Daille doth add cannot be without great injustice imputed unto them because they do formally deny it and that besides they have nothing in their Worship which doth establish or suppose this consequence This is the reason of this expression of Monsieur Dailles which hath been so urged of late times and which the Bishop of Condom doth here again urge that the opinion of the Lutherans has no venim in it which is notwithstanding a natural expressiâ—n and proper to the Subject for it imports nothing else but what is said bâ—fore that the Lutherans denying the consequences of their Doctrin and believing the humanity of Jesus Christ as it is certain they do their errour touching the Eucharist although it may be gross according unto us may nevertheless be charitably born with for the advantage of Peace and Union But as to the Church of Rome it is not onely by consequences but by a positive Doctrin and by a constant practice as we pretend whatsoever she saith that she doth not sufficiently acknowledge the Soveraignty which is due unto God nor the quality of Saviour and Mediator in our Lord Jesus Christ nor the superabundant fulness of his merits because it appears plainly unto us that she gives unto the creature the Worship which is onely due unto the Creator and that she doth make to concur the satisfactions and merits of men with the satisfaction and merit of Jesus Christ It cannot with justice be said that the Lutherans do not believe the humanity of Jesus Christ but it is no calumny to say that the Church of Rome doth Worship the host and that she doth give a Religious Worship to Saints to their relicks to Images and unto the Cross c. these are not consequences contested but positive Doctrin confirmed by practice The Bishop of Condom having a mind to cover the contrariety we conceive between the fundamental Articles which the Church of Rome holds and those other Worships that we reject passeth over here in silence what should have been spoken touching the adoration of the Host which point alone most openly shews this contrariety He thinks to reconcile all by his Second proposition III. Second proâ—â—ion general of the Bishop of Condom This the Catho Church doth teach that the Religious worshipping of Saints and Images c. terminates it self in God only Mat. 4.10 that the Church of Rome doth teach that all Religions worship ought to terminate it self on God We say more simply and more naturally that all Religious Worship ought to addresse it self unto God because indeed Religion should regard nothing but God and should have only him for its object All Religious Worship should begin with him continue in him and end on him This is it to which only all the Doctrin of the Old and New Testaments doth tend there cannot be shewed in
Bishop of Condom gives this reason himself unawares in effect saith he the taking away the Cup or the communion under one kind is a consequence of Transubstantiation Before Transubstantiation was believed there was a great regard had for the Sacraments of the body and bloud of Jesus Christ but the Irreverencies were not of the same consequence nor so scandalous as they have been since it was caught that the bread and the wine are no longer the same which they are seen to be but that they are the proper body and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ for it is well known that it is onely since Transubstantiation hath passed into an Article of Faith that the Cup also hath been taken away Therefore also whatever hopes the Bishop of Condom seems to give that the Communion under the Form of the wine may be re-establisht for the benefit of peace and re-union in all appearance we are to a wait a long time this re-establishment if it be at all to be expected whilst the Doctrine of Transubstantiation shall subsist The benefit of re-union which hinderd not but that the Council of Trent did elude this re-establishment in a time when it was demanded with so much instance will never in all likelihood prevail against the inconvenience of Irreverencie which will alwayes continue that is to say it will alwayes be a great scandal ever and anon to see spilt that which is believed to be the proper bloud of the Lord and the simple reflexion which may be made on this consequence may alone be capable to open at last the eyes of the people upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self The other consideration which the Bishop of Condom brings for the taking away the Cup is this that he saith our own Synods have not judged that in the Lords Supper we ought to deny the bread unto those who by a natural aversion cannot suffer the smell or taste of wine and that by consequence the communion under both kinds is not essential unto the Sacrament and that it is in the power of the Church to give therein onely one But who sees not the extreme difference that there is betwixt this useage of our Churches and that which the Church of Rome ordains and practises and that there can no good consequence be drawn from the one unto the other Our Synods are so far from allowing to themselves the authority of taking away any thing from the Institution of our Saviour or of making any the least change therein that they have kept themselves so religiously to his words as to have made it a question whether the bread should be given unto them who onely through this natural aversion which they cannot overcome forbear to take the sign of the wine and they give not the bread it self but in the manner which the Bishop of Condom reports causing them who cannot drink wine to make a protestation that it is not through disrespect and obliging them to put the Cup to their lips to avoid scandal The Church of Rome on the contrary takes away the Cup from whole Nations that desire it reseraving his advantage to the Clergy lone or to Princes or other considerable persons whom she thinks good to gratifie and all this apparently as a new means to increase and confirm her authority over Princes and people THE SIXTH PART Behold now at length the Question of the Eucharist dispatcht we leave it unto those who are pleased to take the pains of reading this Answer to make reflexion themselves what the importance of the thing requires I was unwilling to have insisted so long time upon it but this Article alone makes us the moyety of the Bishop of Condom's Treatise it was impossible to clear all and to be shorter We shall make a speedier dispatch with the three points which remain to wit Tradition the authority of the Church and the authority of the Pope as well because they are general matters upon which there are express Volumes as also because the Bishop of Condom himself passeth very lightly over the Questions of Tradition and of the authority of the Pope and that Lastly â—t is known that these three Questions will be treated of throughly by a better hand in a Work which will â—hortly be published and particularly the Question of the Church which is the chiefest upon which in a manner depend the two others We will confine our selves here to examine in a few words what the Bishop of Condom layes down upon each of these three Articles and we are perswaded that we cannot betâ—er confirm our Doctrine in opposition unto that of the Church of Rome than by shewing how weak â—nd vain are the reasons of a person â—f so much address and reputation as â—t is In the first place as to Tradition XVIII The Word writen and unwritten The Bishop of Condom here again â—akes an indirect advantage in â—he expressions in calling it as he â—oth the unwritten Word a name â—hat prejudges the Question by the â—hing it self which is in question He â—ntends to suppose thereby that the Traditions of the Church of Rome which we admit not at all are nothing else but the very Doctrine of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles as well as the Holy Scriptures with this onely difference that the one was put into Paper by the Evangelists and by the Apostles and that the other was committed to the memory of the first faithful from whom the Church of Rome pretends that they have been delivered from hand to hand unto our Age and by consequence that we ought to receive Traditions with the same Faith and submission as the Scriptures for so it is that the Bishop of Condom gives us to understand in two places pa. 159 160. Sess 4 c. Can. Script and that the Council of Trent it self decides it in proper terms Now we have no thoughts of denying that what our Lord and his Apostles said by word of mouth ought to be of the same authority as that which the same Apostles afterwards left in writing that is not at all the question but we say that our Lord having put it into the hearts of the Evangelists and of the Apostles to write the Gospel which they preached these holy Doctours being immediately directed by the Holy Spirit have not done the thing imperfectly or by halves that by consequence at the least they did not omit any thing essential unto Christian Religion and that Lastly their writings do contain all that is necessary for the Service of God and for the rule of our manners St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17 as yet regarding principally the Scripture of the Old Testament said unto Timothy that the Scripture is proper for instruction Mat. 1â— 3.9 for correction for reproofe that the man of God may be perfect and accomplisht unto every good work By greater reason both the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament being conjoined are able to do
those Holy Originals neither Commandment nor example to the contrary Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God anâ— him onely shalt thou serve said our Saviour to the Devil that tempted him If Religion were onely an arbitrary Worship St. Aug. lib. 4. contr Faust cap. 11. de Genes cont Manich. li be a p. 1. and that to render it Lawful it were enough to refer all to God the Manichees which adored God the Father Son and Holy Ghost with a Sovereign Worship and who also Worshipped the Sun and Moon by reason of the residence they believed God made in those glorious bodies might have said that they did terminate all in God and in a Word there could be no false Worship superstion or evil action which may not be justified if it were enough to say that all did terminate in God Besides the Church of Rome doth but fairly say that She teacheth that the Worship of Saints ought to refer it self to or terminate it self on God the people will everlastingly terminate it on the Saints on their relicks and on their Images because the same reason which causeth that grosser minds cannot form to themselves any Idea of an Infinie and in visible God as he is doth also make them naturally to stop at Saints and creatures and that they rely more on things which they see or know than on that which they onely know imperfectly They will have as the Jews had Gods to march before them and at all times when Relicks and Images are set before the eyes of the people as is usual their eyes and their hearts far from being lifted up unto God will stop not onely at the saints themselves but at their Images and Relicks The Second Part. The Bishop of Condom doth here descend from the General Proposition touching the nature of Religious Worship Of the Invocation of Saints to the explication of particular Worships which do make part of the Articles of Faith whereunto he reduces the controversies He begins with the Invocation of Saints indeavouring also to sweeten and extenuate this worship of the Church of Rome as well in the Doctrine as in the practice and onely studies colourable means to insinuate his Doctrin in stead of following the natural order of things of the Doctrin it self that is to say instead of establishing before all things that the Invocation of Saints is a Lawful worship instituted by God and by consequence well pleasing in his eyes he indeavours to surprise mens minds by this other general proposition that those of the Pretended Reformed Religion being pressed by the force of the truth do begin to acknowledge that the Custom of Praying unto Saints and to honour their Relicks was established ever since the fourth Century he means that we do acknowledge that this worship did begin to be established at that time This is but a perverting of words for the Bishop of Condom knows very well that it is not now that we do begin to make this acknowledgement and that this acknowledgment is neither new nor forced nor particular to Monsieur Daille as the Bishop of Condom doth seem to take notice Clemnit Casaub â—ossias du Moulin c. Blondeâ— Chamier Bochard in a word all those who have treated throughly of this Subject have agreed upon the time in which Praying unto Saints begun to be introduced This trick of expression from the Biâ—hop of Condom is onely a short wâ—y to insinuate that there hath been a variation betwixt our authors and less sincerity at one time than at another which nevertheless hath not the least ground however his proposition shall be explained that it may not be mistaken It is true that we have always acknowledged that Praying unto Saints began to be practised towards the end of the Fourth Age but we never acknowledged neither do we yet acknowledge that it was an usage then established in the publick service of the Church nor is it true that it was authorised by any Council Onely if it be needful we make appear by convincing proofs not only that there is neither command nor example neither in the Old or New Testament for the Invocation of Saints but also that there is not the least mark in any of the authors of the fiâ—â—â— three Ages which are extant in sâ—ficiently great numbers Mr. Dâ—ille doth not accuse any the Fathers much less St. Augustiâ—â— to have changed the Doctrin in thâ— point from the former Ages for 〈◊〉 Austin hath declared himself the Leâ— of any for these sorts of Prayers 〈◊〉 Saints Mr. Daille doth only complaiâ— of this that they suffered them inseâ—sibly to be brought in upon bad priâ—ciples and doth accuse them of havâ—ing erred in this as the Church 〈◊〉 Rome doth acknowledge that theâ— have all erred in other things If thâ— Bishop of Condom pretend that thâ— is to abandon those great men under colour of acknowledging that the were men subject to errour the millenaries which do yet to this day expect a Kingdom for a Thousand year on earth under the immediate Government of Christ Jesus those whicâ— believe that Souls at their departurâ— out of this Life shall sleep until thâ— day of Judgement and Generally alâ— those that have followed or do yeâ— follow any one of these errours which appeared in the first Ages may as well say that we have abandoned those of the Fathers who followed or taught those matters and by consequence that they are not errors but Doctrines Lawfully established But it will appear very unlikely saith the Bishop of Condom that Mr. Daillé hath better understood the opinions of the Fathers of the three first Ages than those who have gathered as it may be said the succession of their Doctrin and he will be much less believed that the Fathers of the fourth Age where far from perceiving that there was any innovation brought in in their Worship this Minister on the contrary hath produced express texts by which they clearly shew that they pretend in praying to the Saints to have followed the example of those who went before them These kinds of discourses are very uncertain and are properly but Colours If the Bishop of Condom had taken the pains to have mentioned the texts he speaks of it would have been seen that there is not the least in any of them which shews clearly as he would have men believe that the Fathers of the fourth Age did pretenâ— that the invocation of Saints was it use in the three precedent Ages It is known to be the custom of those who have no good ground not Lawful right for what they do to seek to authorise themselves at leasâ— by examples as the Gentlemen of the Roman Church do at this present by the greatest part of their traditions But if it were true that some Author of the Fourth Age had written iâ— General terms that in Praying unto Saints in that Age they followed the example of those that had gone before them not