SECT. I. The Design of this Treatise.

AFter a Contestation, for above an Age, with those of the Pretended Reform'd Religion; Matters from whence they took the ground of their Separation ought to be sufficiently cleared, and their minds disposed to a right conception of the Sentiments of the Catholic Church. So that to me nothing seems more proper, then to propose her Tenets plainly, and simply, and to distinguish them right from those which have been falsely imputed to her. In effect, I have, upon several occasions, taken notice, that the aversion which these Gentlemen have to most of our Sentiments, is grounded upon some false Ideas, which they have formed to themselves, con­cerning them; or else upon some certain words, which are so offensive to them, that they immediately stop there, and never [Page]come so far as to consider the grounds of things. Upon which account, I thought nothing could be more beneficial, than to explicate to them what the Church has defined in the Council of Trent concerning those points, which keep them at farthest distant from us; without medling with that which they are ac­customed to object either against particular Doctors, or against those Tenets which are neither necessarily, nor universally re­ceived. For all Parties agree, and M. Daille himself is of that Opinion,Apol. c. 6. that it is a very unreasonable thing to attribute the Senti­ments of particular Persons to a whole body; and he adds, that no separation ought to be but upon the account of Articles authen­ticly established, to the belief and observance of which all Persons are obliged. I will not meddle then with any thing but the Decrees of the Council of Trent; because in them the Church has given her Decision upon these matters now in agitation: and what I shall say for the better understanding of those Decisions, shall be what is approved of in the Church, and shall manifestly appear conformable to the Doctrine of this Council.

This Exposition of our Doctrine will produce two good effects. The first, that many disputes will wholly vanish, be­cause it will appear thev are only grounded upon some erroneous explications of our belief. The second that those disputes, which remain, will not appear, according to the Principles of the Pre­tended Reform'd, so Capital, as at the first they endeavoured to represent them; and that, according to the same Princi­ples, they contain nothing any ways injurious to the grounds of Faith.

SECT. II. Those of the Pretended Reform'd Religion acknowledg, That the Catholic Church embraces all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion.

ANd to begin with the fundamental and principal Articles of Faith; these Gentlemen of the Pretended Reform'd Religion must of necessity acknowledge they are believed and professed in the Catholic Church.

If they will have them to consist in believing that we must [Page 3]adore one only God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that we must put our trust in God alone, through his Son, who became man, was Crucified, and rose again for us; they know in their Consciences that we profess this Doctrine: and if they add those other Articles which are comprehended in the Apostles Creed; they do not doubt also but that we receive them all with­out exception, and that we have a pure and true knowledge of them.

M. Daille has writ a Treatise, intituled Faith founded upon the Scriptures, in which after having exposed all the Articles of Faith held by the Pretended Reform'd Churches, he tells us, they are beyond all contestation; Part 3. [...]. 1. that the Roman Church professes to be­lieve them; that in reality they do not hold all our Opinions, but that we hold all their Articles of Faith.

This Minister then cannot, unless he destroy his own Faith, deny but that we believe all the principal Articles of the Chri­stian Religion.

But tho' M. Daille had not granted thus much, the thing is manifest in it self, and all the world knows, that we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental; so that sincerity it self demands they should without dispute grant, that we have not really rejected any of them.

The Pretended Reform'd, who see the advantages we may draw from this acknowledgment, are desirous to deprive us of them, by saying that we destroy those Articles, by interposing others contrary to them. This is what they endeavour to per­swade by Consequences drawn from our Doctrine; but the same M. Daille (whose authority I alledge once more, not so much to convince them by the Testimony of one of their most Learn­ed Ministers, as because what he says is in it self evident) tells them what they ought to think of such kind of Consequences, supposing ill ones might be drawn from our Doctrine. See what he writes in his Letter to M. Monglat, upon account of his A­pologie. Altho' the Opinion of the Lutherans as well as that of Rome does, according to us, infer the distruction of the Humanity of JESUS CHRIST, yet this Consequence cannot be attributed to them without Calumny, seeing they do formally reject it.

There is nothing more essential to the Christian Religion, then the reality of the Human Nature in JESƲS CHRIST: and yet tho' the Lutherans hold a Doctrine, from whence is inferred the de­struction of this Capital verity, by Consequences, which the Pre­tended [Page 4]Reform'd judge to be evident; yet they have not scrupled to offer to Communicate with them; because their Opinion has no poyson in it, Chap. 7. as M. Daille tells us in his Apologie; And their National Synode, held at Charenton 1631, admits them to the Holy Table, upon this ground, that they agree in the principal and Fundamen­tal points of Religion. It is then a certain Maxim established a­mongst them, that they must not in these cases look upon the Consequences, which may be drawn from a Doctrine, but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges, who teaches it.

So that when they infer by Consequences, which they pretend to draw from our Doctrine, that we do not sufficiently acknow­ledg that Soveraign Glory which is due to God, nor the quality of Saviour and Mediator in JESƲS CHRIST, nor the infinite value of his Sacrifice, nor the superabundant Plenitude of his Merits: we may defend our selves without difficulty from such Consequences, by this short answer of M. Daille, and tell them that the Catholic Church disavowing them, they cannot be imputed to her without Calumny.

But I will go yet further, and show these Gentlemen of the Pretended Reform'd Religion, by the sole Exposition of our Do­ctrine, that the Catholic Church is so far from ruining the Fundamental Articles of Faith, either directly or indirectly; that on the contrary she establishes them after so solid and evident a manner, that no one can question her right understanding of them without great injustice.

SECT. III. Religious Worship is terminated in God alone.

TO begin with that Adoration which is due to God alone; the Catholic Church teaches us, that it consists principally, in believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things, and in ad­hering to him with all the Powers of our Soul, by Faith, Hope and Charity, as to him alone who can render us happy by the Communication of an infinite Good, which is himself.

This interiour Adoration, which we render to God in Spirit and in Truth, has its exteriour marks; of which the principal is Sacrifice, which cannot be offered to any but to God; because a Sacrifice is established to make a publick acknowledgment, and a solemn protestation of Gods Soveraignity, and our absolute de­pendance.

[Page 5] The same Church teaches us, that all Religious worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end; and that if the honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin, and to the Saints may, in some sence, be called Religious, it is for its necessary Relation to God.

But before we explicate any further in what this honour consists, it will not be unuseful to take notice, how those of the Pretended Reformation (obliged by the strength of truth) begin to acknow­ledge that the custom of praying to Saints, and honouring their Reliques was established even in the fourth age of the Church. Monsieur Daille grants thus much, in that book he published a­gainst the Tradition of the Latin Church about the object of Religious worship, and accuses St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. Hierome, St. John, Chrysostom, St. Augustin, and many more of those fa­mous Lights of Antiquity who lived in that Age, and above all St. Gregory Nazianzen, who is called the Divine by excellence, of having altered, in this point, the Doctrine of the three fore­going ages. But it will not appear very likely, that M. Daille should understand the Sentiments of the Fathers of the first three Ages, better then those who gathered, as I may say, the succession of their Doctrine after their deaths; and this will be so much the less credible, because the Fathers of the fourth Age were so far from perceiving that they introduced any novelty in that worship, that this Minister, on the contrary, has quoted several express Texts, by which he shows clearly, that they pretended in Pray­ing to Saints, to follow the example of their Predecessors. But without any further examination what might be the Sentiments of the Fathers of the three first ages, I will content my self with what M. Daille is pleased to grant, who allows us so many great men who taught the Church in the fourth age. For tho' he has taken upon him, twelve hundred years after their deaths, to give them in derision the name of a kind of Sect, calling them Re­liquarists, that is to say, Relique honourers; yet I hope those of his Communion will have more respect for these great men. They dare not at least accuse them of falling into Idolatry, by praying to Saints, or of destroying that trust which Christians ought to put in JESƲS CHRIST: and it is to behoped henceforwards they will not reproach these things to us, when they consider they cannot do it without accusing at the same time these ex­cellent men, whose sanctity and learning they profess a reverence [Page 6]for, as well as we. But seeing our design is here to expound our belief, rather then to show who were the defenders of it, we must continue our explication.

SECT. IV. Invocation of Saints.

THe Church in teaching us, that it is profitable to pray to Saints, teaches us to pray to them in the same Spirit of Charity, and ac­cording to the same order of fraternal society, which moves us to demand assistance of our brethren living upon Earth; and the Catechism of the Council of Trent concludes from this Doctrine, that if the quality of Mediator,Cat. Rom. part 3. tit. De Cultu & Invoc. Sanct. which the Scripture gives to JESƲS CHRIST, received any prejudice from the Intercession made to the Saints, who Reign with God, it would receive no less from the Intercession made to the faithful who live with us.

This Catechism shows us clearly the extream difference be­twixt our manner of imploring God's assistance, and that of im­ploring the aid of Saints: For (saith it) we pray to God, ei­ther to give us good things, Part 4. tit. Quis oran­dus sit. or to deliver us from evil; but because the Saints are more acceptable to him than we are, we beg of them to undertake our cause, and to obtain for us those things we stand in need of. From whence it comes to pass, that we use two very diffe­rent forms of Prayer; for to God the proper manner of speaking is to say, HAVE PITY ON ƲS, HEAR OƲR PRAYER; where­as we only desire the Saints TO PRAY FOR ƲS. From whence we ought to understand, that in what Terms soever those pray­ers, which we address to Saints, are couched, the intention of the Church, and of her faithful, reduces them always to this form, as the Catechism presently after confirms.Ibid.

But it is good to consider the words of the Council it self, which prescribing to Bishops how they ought to speak of the Invocation of Saints,Sess. 25. Dec. de Invoc. &c. obliges them to teach, that the Saints who reign with JESUS CHRIST, offer up to God their prayers for men; that it is good and profitable to invocate them after an humble manner, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid and assistance to obtain of God his Bene­fits through our Lord JESUS CHRIST his Son, who is our sole Saviour and Redeemer. After which the Council condemns those who teach a contrary Doctrine. We see then, to invocate the Saints, according [Page 7]to the sense of this Council, is to have recourse to their prayers for obtaining benefits from God through JESƲS CHRIST. So that in reality we do not obtain those benefits, which we receive by the intercession of the Saints, otherwise then through JESƲS CHRIST and in his name; seeing these Saints themselves pray in no other manner than through JESƲS CHRIST, and are not heard but in his name. This is the Faith of the Church, which the Council of Trent has clearly explicated in few words. After which we cannot imagine that any one should accuse us of forsaking JESƲS CHRIST, when we beseech his members, who are also ours, his Children, who are our Brethren, and his Saints, who are our first fruits, to pray with us, and for us to our common Master, in the name of our common Mediator.

The same Council explicates clearly and in few words, what is the intention of the Church, when she offers up to God the dreadful sacrifice to honour the memory of his Saints. This ho­nour which we render them in Sacrificing, consists in naming them in the prayers we offer up to God, as his faithful servants; and in rendring him thanks for the victories which they have gained, and in humbly beseeching him that he would vouchsafe to favour us by their intercession. St. Augustin has told us twelve hundred years ago,8. de Civ, c. 27. that we ought not to think any sacrifices were offered to the Holy Martyrs, altho' the practice of the universal Church in that time was to offer Sacrifice upon their holy bodies, and at their Memories; that is to say, before those places where their pretious reliques were conserved. This Father has moreover added,Tract 84. in Joh. Serm. 17, in verb. Apost. that they made a commemoration of the Martyrs at the Holy Al­tar, in the Celebration of the Sacrifice, not to pray for them as they do for other persons who are dead; but rather, that they might pray for us. I relate the sentiments of this Holy Bishop, because the Council of Trent makes use of his very words almost to teach the Faithful, that the Church does not offer Sacrifice to the Saint, Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 3. but to God alone, who has crowned them; that the Priest also does not address himself to St. Peter and St. Paul, saying, I OFFER UP TO YOU THIS SACRIFICE; but rendring thanks to God for their victories, he demands their assistance, to the end those whose memory we celebrate upon earth, would vouchsafe to pray for us in Heaven. It is after this manner we honour the Saints, that we may obtain the Graces of God by their Intercession; and the Principal of those Graces we hope to obtain, is that of imitating them: to which we are excited by the [Page 8]consideration of their admirable Examples, and by the honour which we render in the presence of God to their happy memories.

Those who will rightly consider the Doctrine we have proposed, will be obliged to grant us, that as we do not rob God of any of those perfections peculiar to his infinite essence: so we do not attribute to Creatures any of those qualities, or operations proper to God alone: which distinguisheth us so fully from Idolaters, we cannot com­prehend why that Title should be given us.

And when these Gentlemen of the pretended Reformation object to us, that by addressing our Prayers to the Saints, and honouring them all the world over as present, we attribute to them a certain kind of Immensity, or at least the knowledg of the Secrets of hearts, which God has nevertheless reserved to himself, as it appeares by so many testimonies of Scripture; they do not sufficiently reflect upon our doctrine. For, in fine, without examining what grounds may be had to attribute to the Saints some certain degree of know­ledg as to those things which are acted amongst us, or also of our secret thoughts, it is manifest that to say a Creature may have the knowledge of these things, by a light communicated to him by God, is not to elevate a creature above his condition. The Ex­ample of the Prophets justify this clearly, God having not disdained to discover future things to them, tho they appear much more par­ticularly reserved to his own knowledg.

Moreover, never any Catholic yet thought the Saints knew our necessities by their own Power, no nor the desires which move us to address our secret Prayers to them. The Church contents herself to teach with all antiquity these Prayers to be very profi­table to such who make them, whether it be the Saints know them by the ministry and communication of Angels, who, according to the testimony of Scripture, know what passes amongst us, being established by Gods order, as administring Spirits, to cooperate with us in the work of our Salvation; whether it be that God himself makes known to them our desires by a particular Revelation; or lastly whether it be that he discovers the secret to them in his divine Essence in which all truth is comprised. So that the Church has not decided any thing about these different methods, which God might be pleased to make use of for that end.

But let these means be what they will, it is always certain the Church does not attribute to the Creature any of the divine per­fections, as the Idolaters did; seeing she permits us not to acknow­ledge [Page 9]even in the greatest Saints, any degree of Excellency which does not proceed from God; nor any acceptableness in his sight, but by their vertues; nor any vertue, which is not a gift of his Grace; nor any knowledge of human affairs, but what is communicated to them; nor any power to assist us, but by their prayers; nor, in fine, any felicity, but by a submission and a perfect conformity to his divine will.

It is therefore true, that by examining what are our interiour sen­timents concerning the Saints, it will be found we do not raise them above the condition of Creatures; and from thence one ought to judge of what nature that exteriour honour is, which we render them, exteriour veneration being established to testify the interiour sentiments of the mind.

But because this honour, which the Church renders to the Saints, appears principally before their Images and holy Reliques, it will be proper to explicate her belief concerning them.

SECT. V. Images and Reliques.

AS for Images,Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Dec. de In­voc. &c. the Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any divinity or vertue in them, for which they ought to be reveren­ced; to demand any favour of them, or to put any trust in them, and or­dains that all the honour which is given to them should be referred to the Saints themselves which are represented by them.

All these words of the Council are like so many characters to distinguish us from Idolaters, seeing we are so far from believing with them any divinity annexed to the Images; that we do not attribute to them any other vertue but that of exciting in us the re­membrance of those they represent.

Upon this it is the honour we render Images is grounded. No man, for example, can deny but that when we look upon the fi­gure of JESƲS CHRIST crucified, it excites in us a more lively re­membrance of him, who loved us so as to deliver himself up to death for us. While this Image, being present before our eyes,Gal. 2. causes so pre­tious a remembrance in our souls, we are moved to testify by some exteriour signs how far our gratitude bears us; and by humbling our selves before the Image, we show what is our submission to our Sa­viour. So that to speak precisely, and according to the Ecclesiastical [Page 10]Stile, when we honour the Image of an Apostle or a Martyr, our intention is not so much to honour the Image, Pont. Com. de Bened. Imag. Sess. 25. Dec. de Inv. &c. as to honour the Apo­stle or the Martyr in presence of the Image. Thus the Roman Pon­tifical tells us, and the Council of Trent expresses the same thing when it say, the honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent; that by the means of those Images which we kiss, and before which we kneel, we adore JESUS CHRIST, and honour the Saints whose Types they are.

In fine, one may know with what intention the Church honours Images, by that honour which she renders to the Cross and to the Bible. All the world sees very well, that before the Cross she a­dores him who bore our Iniquities upon the wood; and that if her children bow the head before the Bible,1 Pet. 2. if they rise up out of re­spect, when it is carried before them, and if they kiss it reverently, all this honour is referred to the eternal Verity which it proposeth to us.

They must have but little Justice who treat with the term of Idola­try that Religious Sentiment, which moves us to uncover our heads, and bow them before the Image of the Cross, in remembrance of him who was crucified for the love of us; and it would be too much blindness not to perceive the excessive difference betwixt those, who put their trust in Idols, out of an opinion that some divinity, or some vertue was, as I may say, tyed to them, and those who declare, as we do, that they will not make use of Images, but to raise their minds towards heaven, to the end they may there honour JESƲS CHRIST or his Saints, and in the Saints God himself, who is the Author of all Sanctity and Grace.

After the same manner we ought to understand that honour which we pay to Reliques, after the example of the Primitive Church; and if our Adversaries would but consider that we look upon the bodies of Saints, as having been Victimes offered up to God either by Martyrdom or by Penance, they would not think the honour which we pay them upon this account could alie­nate us from that which we render to God himself.

We may say in general, that if they would but consider how the affections which we bear to any one propagates it self, without being divided, to his children, to his friends, and after that, by several degrees, to the representation of him, to any remains of him, and to any thing which renews in us his remembrance; If they did but conceive that honour has the like progression, seeing honour is nothing else but Love mixed with respect and Fear; in [Page 11]fine, If they would but consider, that all the exteriour worship of the Catholic Church has its source in God himself, and returns back a­gain to him: they would never believe that this worship which he himself alone animates, could excite his Jealousie. They would on the contrary see, that if God, as Jealous as he is of the love of men, does not look upon us as dividing our selves betwixt him and Crea­tures, when we love our neighbour for the love of him; the same God, tho Jealous of the honour which his faithful pay him, cannot look upon, them as dividing that worship which is due to him alone, when, out of respect to him, they honour those whom he had ho­noured.

It is true nevertheless, that seeing the sensible marks of reverence are not all of them absolutely necessary; the Church might without the least alteration in her doctrine, extend these exteriour practices more or less according to the different exigences of times, places or occurrences, being desirous that her Children should not be slavish­ly subject to sensible things, but only excited, and, as it were, adver­tised by their means to fly to God, and to offer up to him in Spirit and in the truth that rational service, which he expects from his creatures.

One may see by this doctrine how truly I affirmed, that a great part of our Controversies would vanish by the sole understanding of the Terms, if these points were but discussed with charity; and if our adversaries would but with moderation consider the foregoing Expli­cations, which comprehend the express doctrine of the Council of Trent, they would cease to accuse us of injuring the mediation of JESƲS CHRIST, of Invocating the Saints, and adoring Images after a manner which is peculiar to God alone. It is true, that seeing, in one sense, Adoration, Invocation, and the name of Medi­ator are only proper to God and JESƲS CHRIST, it is no hard matter to misapply these terms, whereby to render our doctrine odious. But if they be strictly kept to that sence in which we use them, these objections and accusations will lose their force; and if any other less important difficulties remain to these gentlemen of the pretended Reform'd Religion, sincerity will oblige them to acknow­ledg they are satisfied as to the principal subject of their complaints.

Furthermore, there is nothing so unjust as to accuse the Church of placing all her piety in these devotions to the Saints, seeing, as we have already observed,Sess. 25. Dec. de Inv. &c. the Council of Trent contents it self to teach the Faithful, that this practice is good and beneficial, without saying [Page 12]any more of it. So that the intention of the Church is only to con­demn those, who reject this practice, either out of disrespect or Error. She is obliged to condemn them, because She is obliged not to suffer any practice which is beneficial to salvation to be despised, nor a doctrine authorised by antiquity to be condemned by novel­lists.

SECT. VI. Justification.

THE doctrine of Justification will shew yet more clearly how many difficulties may be ended by a plain exposition of our sentiments.

Those who are never so little versed in the history of the pre­tended Reformation, are not ignorant that the first Authors pro­posed this Article to all the world as the principal of all the rest, and as the most essential cause of their seperation; So this is the most necessary to be well understood.

We believe in the first place that Our sins are freely forgiven us by the divine mercy, Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 9. for JESƲS CHRIST's sake. These are the ex­press terms of the Council of Trent, which adds, that we are said to be justified gratis,Ibid. c. 8. because none of those acts which precede Justification, whether they be Faith or good works, can merit this Grace.

Seeing the Scripture explicates the remission of sins, by sometimes telling us that God covers them, and sometimes that he takes them away,Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. and blots them out by the Grace of his Holy Spirit which makes us new creatures, we believe that, to form a perfect Idea of the Justification of a sinner, we must joyn together both these Ex­pressions. For which reason we believe our sins not only to be covered, but also entirely washed away by the Blood of JESƲS CHRIST, and by the grace of regeneration; which is so far from obscuring or lessening that Idea which we ought to have of the merit of this Blood, on the contrary it heightens and augments it.

So that the Justice of JESƲS CHRIST is not only imputed, but actually communicated to the faithful, by the operation of the Holy Spirit; in so much that they are not only reputed, but rendred just by his grace.

If that Righteousness which is in us were only such in the eyes of men, it would not be the work of the holy Ghost: It is then a [Page 13]righteousness and that before God, seeing it is God himself who produces it in us, by pouring forth his charity in our hearts.

Nevertheless it is too true, that the flesh rebels against the Spirit, Gal. 5.17. and the Spirit against the flesh, and that we all offend in many things. Jam. 3.2. So that, tho our Justice be truly such, by the infusion of his Charity, yet it is not perfect Justice; because of the combat of Concupiscence: In so much that the continual sighings of a soul, penitent for her offences, is the most necessary duty of a Christian righteousness, which obliges us to confess humbly with St. Augustin, that our Justice in this life consists rather in the remission of sin, than in the perfection of Vertues.

SECT. VII. Merits of Good Works.

AS to the merit of Good works,Sess. 6. c. 16. the Catholic Church teacheth us, that eternal life ought to be proposed to the children of God, both as a Grace, which is mercifully promised to them by the mediation of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, and as a recompence which is faithfully ren­dred to their good works, and merits, in vertue of this promise. These are the proper terms of the Council of Trent. But least human pride should flatter it self with an opinion of a presumptuous merit, the same Council teacheth us, that all the price and value of a Chri­stians works proceeds from the sanctifying grace which is given us gratis in the name of JESƲS CHRIST, Ibid. and that it is an effect of the continual influence of this divine Head upon its Members.

Really the Precepts, Exhortations, Promises, Threatnings and Reproaches of the Gospel show clearly enough, we must work out our salvation by the cooperation of our wills together with the grace of God assisting us: But it is one of our first Principles, that the free-will can act nothing conducing to eternal happiness, but as it is moved and elevated by the Holy Ghost.

So that the Church knowing it is this divine Spirit which works in us by his Graces all the good we do; she is obliged to believe the good works of the Faithful very acceptable to God, and of great consideration before him: and it is just she should make use of the word Merit with all Christian antiquity, whereby she may principal­ly denote the value, the price and the dignity of those works which we perform through grace. But seeing all their Sanctity comes from God, who produces them in us, the same Church has in the Council [Page 14]of Trent received these words of St. Augustin, as a doctrine of Ca­tholic Faith, that God crowns his own gifts in crowning the merits of his Servants.

We beg of those who love Truth and Peace, that they would be pleased here to read a little more at length the words of this Council, to the end they may once for all disabuse themselves of those false inpressions which has been given them concerning our doctrine. Although we see, Sess. 6. c. 16. say the Fathers in this Council, that holy writ esteems Good works so much; That JESUS CHRIST himself promises that a glass of cold water given to the poor shall not want its reward; and that the Apostle testifies how a moment of light pain endured in this world shall produce an eternal weight of Glory: nevertheless God forbid a Christian should glory in himself, and not in our Lord, whose bounty is so great to all men, that he will have those gifts which he bestowes upon them to be their merits.

This doctrine is dispersed throughout the whole Council, which teacheth us in another Session,Sess. 14. c. 8. that we, who can do nothing of our selves, can do all things with him who strengthens us, in such sort that man has nothing of which he may glory, nor for which he may confide in himself; but all his confidence, and all his glory is in JESUS CHRIST, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we satisfy, bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance, which draw their vertue from him, and by him are offered to his Father, and accepted of by his Father through him. Wherefore we ask all things, we hope all things, we render thanks for all things, through our Lord JESƲS CHRIST. We confess aloud we are not acceptable to God but in and by him, and we cannot comprehend why any other thought should be attributed to us. We so place all the hopes of our salva­tion in him, that we dayly make use of these words to God in the Sacrifice: Vouchsafe O God to grant to us sinners, thy servants, who hope in the multitude of thy mercies, some part and society with the Blessed Apostles and Martyers — into whose number we beseech thee to be pleased to receive us, not looking upon our merits, but gratiously pardoning us in the name of JESUS CHRIST our Lord.

Will the Church never be able to perswade her Children, now become her adversaries, neither by the Exposition of her Faith, nor by the Decisions of her Councils, nor by the Prayers in her Sacrifice, that her belief is, that she can have no life but in JESƲS CHRIST, and that she has no hope but in him? This hope is so firm, it makes the Children of God who walk faithfully in his wayes, to find a [Page 15]peace which surpasseth all understanding, as the Apostle tells us.Phil. 4.7. But tho this hope be stronger than the promises and menaces of the world, and sufficient to calm the troubles of our Conciences; yet it does not wholy extinguish Fear: for tho we be assured God will never abandon us of his own accord, yet we are never certain we shall not lose him by our own fault, in rejecting his inspirations. He has been pleased by this saving fear to mitigate that confidence which he has infused into his children, because, as St. Augustin tells us, such is our infirmity in this place of Temptations and dan­gers, that an absolute security would produce tepidity and pride in us, whereas this fear, which, according to the Apostles command, makes us work out our salvation with trembling, Phil. 2.12. renders us more vigilant, and makes us rely with a more humble dependance upon him, who works in us by his Grace both to will, and to do, according to his good pleasure, as the same St. Paul expresses it.

Thus you have seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification;Ibid. 13. and our Adversaries would be very unreasonable, if they should not confess that this Doctrine suffices to teach Christians they ought to refer all the glory of their Salvation to God through JESƲS CHRIST.

If the Ministers after this should go about to move questions about subtilties it is good to advertise them, that it becomes them not now to be so scrupulous in our behalfs, after having granted what they have done to the Lutherans, and their own brethren concerning Pre­destination and Grace. This their conduct towards them, ought to have taught them in this matter to reduce themselves to what is abso­lutely necessary for the establishment of the foundations of Chri­stian piety.

But if they could but once resolve to prefix these limits to them­selves, they would be presently satisfied, and they would cease to accuse us of annulling the Grace of God, by attributing all to our good works; seeing we have shown them, in such clear terms of the Council of Trent, these 3 points, so decisive as to this matter: That our sins are pardoned us out of pure mercy, for the sake of JESUS CHRIST; That we are indebted for that Justice which is in us by the holy Ghost to a liberality gratis bestowed upon us; and that all the good works we do are but so many gifts of his Grace.

And indeed we must acknowledge, that the learned of their Party do not contend so much of late about this Subject, as they did for­merly, and there are but few who do not now confess, there ought [Page 16]not to have been a breach upon this point. But if this important difficulty about Justification, upon which their first Authors laid all their stress, be not looked upon now as essential by the wisest per­sons amongst them, we leave them to think what they ought to Judge of their separation, and what hopes there would be of an uni­on, if they would but overcome their prejudice, and quit the Spirit of contention.

SECT. VIII. Satisfactions, Purgatory, and Indulgences.

VVE must farther explicate after what manner we believe we can make satisfaction to God through his grace, to the end we may not leave any doubt upon this matter uncleared.

Catholics unanimously teach, that JESƲS CHRIST, God and Man, was solely capable through the infinite dignity of his Person, to offer up to God a sufficient satisfaction for our Sins. But having satisfied superabundantly, he could apply this infinite satisfaction after two manners: either by an entire remission, without reserving any punishment: or else by changing a greater punishment into a less, that is, an eternal pain into a temporal. This first manner being more compleat and more comformable to his goodness, he makes use of it immediately in Baptism: but we believe that he makes use of the second in the pardon he grants to those who fall after Baptism, being carried in some manner to it by the ingratitude of those who have abused his first gifts; so as they are to suffer some temporal pain tho the eternal be remitted.

It must not be hence concluded that JESƲS CHRIST has not fully satisfied for us, but on the contrary, that having obtained an obsolute dominion over us, by the infinite price which he has given for our salvation, he grants us pardon, upon what condition, what law, or with what restriction it pleases him.

We should be injurious and ungrateful to our Saviour, should we dare to deny the infinite value of his merits, under pretence that when he pardons us the sin of Adam, he does not at the same time free us from all the consequences of it, but leaves us still subject to death, and so many other corporal and spiritual infirmities, which this sin brought upon us. If suffices that JESƲS CHRIST, has once paid the price by which we shall be one day entirely freed [Page 17]from the evils which overwhelme us; it is our parts to embrace with humility and thanksgiving every part of his benefits, by con­sidering by what progress it pleases him to procure our deliverance, according to that order which his wisdom has established for our good, and for a more clear manifestation of his bounty and Justice.

Upon the like account we ought not to think it strange, that he who has shown us so great mercy in Baptism, should be more severe towards us, after our having violated our holy promises. It is just, yes and beneficial to our salvation, that God in remitting our sin, together with the eternal pain which we deserved for it, should exact of us some temporal pain to retain us in our duties; lest if we should be too speedily freed from the Bonds of Justice, we should abandon our selves to a temerarious Confidence, abusing the facili­ty of the Pardon.

It is then to satisfy this Obligation, we are subjected to some pain­ful works which we must accomplish in the Spirit of Humility and Penance; and it was the necessity of these satisfactory works which obliged the primitive Church to impose upon Penitents those pains called Canonical.

When therefore she imposes upon Sinners painful and laborious works, and they undergo them with humility, this is called Satis­faction; and when, regarding the fervour of the Penitents, or some other good works which she has prescribed them, she pardons some part of that pain which is due to them, this is called Indul­gence.

The Council of Trent proposes nothing else to be believed con­cerning Indulgences,Contin. sest. 25. Dec. d. Indulg. but that the powe to grant them has been given to the Church by JESUS CHRIST, and that the use of them is beneficial to salvation; to which this Council adds, That this power ought to be retained, yet nevertheless used with moderation, lest Ecclesiastical di­scipline should be weakned by an over great facility: which shows the manner of granting Indulgences to regard discipline.

Those who depart this life in Grace and Charity, but neverthe­less indebted to the divine Justice some pains which it reserved, are to suffer them in the other life. This is what obliged all the Pri­mitive Christians to offer up Prayers, Alms deeds and Sacrifices, for the faithful who departed in peace and communion of the Church,Sess. 25. de Purga­tor. with a certain faith that they may be assisted by these means. This is what the Council of Trent proposes to us to believe [Page 18]touching the Souls detained in Purgatory, without determining in what their pains consist, or many other such like things, concerning which this Holy Council demands great moderation, blaming those who divulge what is uncertain or suspected.

Such is the innocent and holy Doctrine of the Catholic Church touching Satisfactions, which has been imputed to her as so great a crime. If after this Explication, those of the pretended Reform'd Religion accuse us of injuring the satisfactions of JESƲS CHRIST, they must have forgotten what we told them, that our Blessed Savi­our payed the full price of our Redemption; that nothing is wan­ting in this price, because it is infinite and how these remaining pains, of which we have spoken, come not from any defect in the pay­ment, but from a certain order which he has established to retain us in a saving discipline by just apprehensions.

But if they also tell us, we believe we can of our own selves satis­fy for some part of the pain due to our sins, we can with confidence assure them, the contrary appears by the maxims we have esta­blished. Which maxims make it clearly appear, that our Sal­vation is no other but a work of Mercy and Grace; that what we do by the Grace of God is no less his work, then what he dos a­lone by his absolute power; and lastly, that what we give to him, appertains no less to him, that what he gives to us. To which we must add, that what we call Satisfaction, following the Ex­ample of the primitive Church, is after all nothing but the ap­plication of the infinite satisfaction of JESƲS CHRIST.

This very consideration ought to appease those who are offen­ded when we tell them, that God is so well pleased with fraternal charity and the communion of Saints, that he frequently also accepts of those Satisfactions which we offer up one for another. It seems these men do not conceive how much all we are belongs to God, nor how all the favours, which his Goodness makes him have for the faithful, the members of JESƲS CHRIST, are necessarily re­ferred to this divine head. But certainly those who have read and considered how God himself inspires his servants with a desire to afflict themselves with fasting, hair-cloth and ashes, not only for their own sins, but also for the sins of all the people, will not be astonished if we say, that being touched with the delight he has to gratify his friends, he mercifully accepts of the hum­ble sacrifice of their voluntary mortifications, in abatement of those chastisements which he prepared for his people: which shows that [Page 19]being satisfied by these, he renders himself more mild towards the others, by this means honouring his Son JESƲS CHRIST in the communion of his members, and in the holy society of his mystical body.

SECT. IX. The Sacraments.

THE Order of Doctrine requires that we now speak of the Sacra­ments, by which the merits of JESƲS CHRIST are applyed to us. Seeing the disputes we have concerning them, if we except the Eucharist, are not so hot as the others, we will in the first place clear in short the cheifest difficuties which are raised concerning the other, and reserve the Eucharist, which is the most important of all the rest, till the last.

The Sacraments of the new Covenant are not sacred signs only, which represent Grace, nor seals which confirm it to us; but the Instruments of the Holy Ghost, which serve to apply it to us, and which confer it upon us by vertue of the words which are pro­nounced, and the exteriour action which is performed, upon con­dition that we put not not any Impediment by our not being rightly disposed.

Whilst God annexes so great Grace to exteriour signs, which have not of their own nature any proportion with so admirable an effect, he shows us clearly, that besides all we can do interiourly of our solves by our good dispositions, there must necessarily intervene, be­fore we can be justified, a special operation of the Holy Ghost, and a peculiar application of the merit of our Saviour, which is exhibited to us by the Sacraments. So that this Doctrine cannot be rejected without injuring the merits of JESƲS CHRIST, and the operation of his divine power in our regeneration.

We acknowledg seven sacred signs or Ceremonies established by JESƲS CHRIST, as the ordinary means for the Sanctification and perfection of the new man. Their divine institution appears in the holy Scripture, either by the express words of JESƲS CHRIST, who established them, or by the Grace which, according to the same Scripture, is annexed to them, and necessarily shows a divine institution.

SECT. X. Doctrine of the Church touching the real presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist, and the manner how the Church understand these words, This is my Body.

VVE are come, you see, at the last to the Question of the Eu­charist, where it will be necessary that we explicate our Doctrine more fully, however without exceeding too much the bounds we have prescribed our selves.

The real presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is solid­ly established by the words of the Institution, which we understand literally; and there is no more reason to ask us, why we fix our selves to the proper and literal sense, then there is to ask a Travel­ler why he follows the high Road. It is their parts, who have re­course to the figurative sense, and who take by-paths, to give a reason for what they do. As for us, who find nothing in the words which JESƲS CHRIST makes use of for the institution of this mystery, obliging us to take them in a figurative sense, we think that to be a sufficient reason to determine us to the literal. But we are yet more powerfully engaged, when we come to consider in this Mystery the intention of the Son of God, which I will explicate after the plainest manner I am able, and that by Principles which I think our adversaries themselves cannot deny.

[Page 23] I say then, These words of our Saviour Take eat, Math. 16. Luc. 22. this is my body gi­ven for you, show us, that as the antient Jews did not in Spirit only unite themselves to the Immolation of the Victim which was of­fered for them, but that in reality they eat the sacrifised flesh, which was to them a mark of their partaking of that oblation: So JESƲS CHRIST becoming himself our Victim, would have us really eat of the flesh of his Sacrifice, to the end the actual com­munication of this adorable flesh might be a perpetual testimony to every one of us in particular, that it was for us he took it, and for us he immolated it.

God had forbidden the Jews to eat of the sin-offering, to teach them the true expiation of their crimes was not to be accomplished in the Law, nor by the blood of Beasts: all the people lay,Levit. 6.30. as it were, under an interdiction by this prohibition, without being able to have any actual participation of the remission of Sins. By a con­trary reason it was necessary the Body of our Blessed Saviour, the true Host immolated for sin, should be eaten by the Faithful, to show them by this eating that the remission of sin was accomplished in the new Testament.

God also forbid the Children of Israel to eat Blood;Levit. 17.11. and one of the reasons for this Prohibition was, because the Blood was given us for the Expiation of our Souls. But on the contrary, our Bles­sed Saviour gives us his Blood to drink,Math. 26.28. because it is shed for the re­mission of Sins.

So that the eating of the Body and Blood of the Son of God is as real at the Holy Table, as the Grace, the expiation of Sins, and the participation of the Sacrifice of JESƲS CHRIST is actual and real in the new Covenant.

Nevertheless, seeing he desired to exercise our Faith in this My­stery, and at the same time, to free us from the horror of eating flesh, and drinking Blood in their proper Species, it was convenient he should give us them cloathed under another Species. But if these Considerations have obliged him to make us partake of the flesh of our Victim after another manner than the Jews, he was not for that obliged to deprive us in the least of the reality of his Substance.

It appears then, to accomplish the antient Figures, and to put us in actual Possession of the Victim offered for our Sins, that JESƲS CHRIST had intention to give us really his Body and Blood. Which is so evident, that our Adversaries themselves would have [Page 24]us to believe they are in this of the same opinion with us, perpetu­ally repeating how they deny not the actual Presence, nor the real Participation of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist. This we will examine hereafter, where we think it necessary to represent their Sentiments, after we have finished the Explication of those of the Church. But in the mean time we will conclude, that if the plainness of our Saviours words has forced them to acknowledg, his express Intention was to give us in reality his Flesh, when he said, This is my Body, they ought not to be astonished, if we can­not consent to understand these words only in Figure.

In reality, the Son of God, who was so careful to explicate to his Apostles what he taught them under Parables and Figures, having said nothing here to explicate himself, it appears he left these words in their natural Signification. I know these Gentlemen pretend the Nature of the thing explains it self sufficiently, because we see very well, say they, what he presents us is nothing but Bread and Wine; but this reason vanishes, when we consider, he who speaks has an Authority which over-rules the Senses, and a Power which has Dominion over universal Nature.

The Son of God has no more difficulty to render his Body present in the Eucharist, by saying, This is my Body, than to Cure a Wo­man of her Infirmity,Luc. 13.12. by saying, Woman thou art freed from thy In­firmity; or to preserve the Life of a young Man, by saying to his Father,John 4.50. Thy Son liveth; or to forgive the Sins of the Man sick of the Palsy,Mat. 9.2. by saying to him, Thy Sins are forgiven thee.

So that, not troubling our selves how he will execute what he has said, we rest precisely upon his words. He who does what he will, by speaking does what he pleases; and it was more easy for the Son of God to force the Laws of Nature to verify his word, than it is for us to accommodate our Understandings to these kind of violent Interpretations, which break the Laws of common Discourse.

These Laws of Discourse teach us, that a sign which represents a thing naturally, receives often the name of the thing represented, be­ing as it were its nature to bring the Idea of the thing into the Mind. The same also happens, tho with some restriction, to instituted Signs, when they are received, and Persons accustomed to them. But that, in establishing a Sign, which has no relation to the thing, as for exam­ple, a Morsel of Bread to signify the Body of a Man, the name of the thing signified should be given to it with out any Explication, and before any agreement, as JESƲS CHRIST has done in his last Supper, is a thing unheard of, and of which we find no exam­ple [Page 25]in holy Writ, not to say in any Language. Neither do the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reform'd Religion so fix themselves to the figurative Sense, which they would give to these words of JESƲS CHRIST, but that they do at the same time acknowledge, he had intention in pronouncing them to give us in reality his Body and Blood.

SECT. XI. Explication of these Words, Do this in remembrance of me.

AFter having proposed the Sentiments of the Church, touch­ing these words, This is my Body, we must explicate what she thinks of those others, which JESƲS CHRIST added, Do this in remembrance of me. It is manifest, the intention of the Son of God is to oblige us by these words,Luc. 22.19. to remember the Death which he has endured for our Salvation,1 Cor. 1 [...].24. and St. Paul concludes from these same words, that we declare the Death of our Saviour in this Myste­ry. But they must not perswade themselves,2 Cor. 11.26. that remembrance of our Saviours Death, excludes the real Presence of his Body: on the contrary, if they consider what we have lately explicated, they will clearly understand this Commemoration to be grounded upon the real Presence. For as the Jews in eating of the Peace-Offerings remembred they had been immolated for them; in the same manner in eating of the flesh of JESƲS CHRIST, our Victim, we ought to remember he died for us. This very flesh then, eaten by the Faithful, not only renews in us the memory of his immolation, but confirms also to us the reality of it. And we are so far from having reason to say, that this solemn Commemoration, which JESƲS CHRIST ordains us to make, excludes the Presence of his Body, that, on the contrary, we see this tender remembrance which he would have us to make at the Holy Table of him, as immo­lated for us, is grounded upon this; that this very flesh ought to be there taken really, seeing in effect it is not possible for us to forget it was for us he gave his Body in Sacrifice, when we see he daily gives us the same Victime to eat.

Must Christians under pretence of celebrating in the Lords Sup­per, the memory of the Passion of our Saviour. deprive this Pious Commemoration of what it has most efficacious and tender in it? Ought they not to consider, that JESƲS CHRIST does not com­mand [Page 26]them only to remember him, but to remember him in eat­ing of his Flesh and Blood? Consider the Connexion, and the force of his words. He does not say simply, as those of the Pretended Re­formation seem to understand him, That the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist should be to us a Memorial of his Body and Blood; but he advertises us, that in doing what he has prescribed, that is, in re­ceiving his Body and Blood, we should remember him. What is there in reality more powerful to make us remember him? And if Children do so tenderly remember their Parents, and their Boun­ties towards them, when they approach the Tombs where their Bodies are interred; how ought our Remembrance, and our Love to be excited, when we possess under these sacred Vails, under this mystical Sepulchre, this living and Life-giving Flesh, and this Blood yet flowing with his Love, and full of Spirit and Grace? But if our Adversaries continue to tell us, That he who commands us to remember him, does not give us his proper Substance, we must in fine, desire them to agree amongst themselves. They profess not to deny the real Communication of the proper substance of the Son of God in the Eucharist. If their words are serious, if their Doctrine be not an illusion, they must necessarily say with us, the remembrance does not exclude all kinds of Presence, but only that which strikes the Senses. Their Answer shall be ours, seeing that tho we affirm JESƲS CHRIST to be present, yet we acknowledg at the same time, that he is not present after a sensible manner.

And if it should be demanded, how it comes to pass, that belie­ving as we do, the Senses to have nothing to do in this Mystery, we should not believe it sufficient that JESƲS CHRIST should be present by Faith: It is easie to answer, and to clear this Equivo­cal Objection. It is one thing to say, the Son of God is pre­sent to us by Faith, and another thing to say, we know by Faith that he is present. The first manner of speaking, imports only a moral presence; but the second signifies to us a very real one, because our Faith is most real; and this real Presence known by Faith,Habac. 2.4. is sufficient to work all the forementioned Effects in the Just Man, who lives by Faith.

SECT. XII. Exposition of the Calvanists Doctrine concerning the real Pre­sence.

BUT to remove all the Equivocations which Calvinists make use of in this matter, and show at the same time, how near they have approached to us, it will be convenient to add here, the exposition of their Sentiments, tho I only undertook to explicate the Doctrine of the Church.

Their Doctrine has two parts; the one speaks of nothing but the Figure, and the other of nothing but the Reality of the Body and Blood. We shall see each of these parts in order.

They tell us first, This great Miracle of the real Presence, which we admit, is useless; that it is enough for our Salvation, JESƲS CHRIST died for us; that his Sacrifice is sufficiently ap­plied to us by Faith; and that this application is sufficiently cer­tified to us by the Word of God. They add, That if this Word must be clothed with sensible Signs, it is enough to give simple Sym­bols, such as the Water of Baptism, without any necessity of fetch­ing the Body and Blood of JESƲS CHRIST from Heaven.

There seems to be nothing more easie than this manner of ex­plicating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Nevertheless, our Adversaries themselves do not think it ought to suffice them. They know such kind of Imaginations made the Socinians deny the great Miracle of the Incarnation. God might have saved us, say these Hereticks, without so much difficulty; he had nothing to do, but to pardon out faults, and might have instructed us sufficiently, as well in Faith, as in Manners, by the Preaching and Examples of a Man full of the Holy-Ghost, without any need of making him a God. But the Calvinists, as well as we, see the weakness of this Argument, which appears first from its not appertaining to us to deny or affirm Mysteries, according as they appear to us useful or unprofitable to our Salvation. God alone knows the Secret; and it is our business to render them useful and saving to us, in belie­ving them as he proposes them, and in receiving his Graces after the manner he bestows them upon us. Secondly, not to enter into the question, whether it was possible for God to save us by any other means than the Incarnation, and Death of his Son, and not to meddle [Page 28]with that unnecessary dispute, which the Pretended Reform'd Re­ligion treats of so at length in the Schools, it suffices, we have learnt from the Scriptures, that the Son of God has been pleased to testifie his Love to us by incomprehensible Effects. This Love has been the Cause of this so real an Union, by which he was made Man. This Love moved him to immolate the same Body for us, as really as he united himself to it. All these designs are consecu­tive, and this Love maintains it self in all things with the same vi­gour. So that, when it shall please him to make each of his Children experience the goodness which he has testified to all in ge­neral, by giving himself to them in particular, he will find out a method to accomplish his Desires, by no less efficacious means, than those by which he had already accomplished our Salvation. Upon which account we must not be hereafter astonished, if he give to each of us the proper Substance of his Body and Blood. He does it that he may imprint this in our Hearts, that it was for us he took them, and for us he offered them up in Sacrifice. That which preceded, makes all that follows credible to us; the order of his Mysteries dispose us to believe all this; and his express word permits us not to doubt of it.

Our Adversaries saw very well, that simple figures and signs of his Body and Blood would not content Christians, who are accustomed to the Bounties of a God, who gives himself to us so really. Where­fore they will not suffer us to accuse them of denying a real and sub­stantial participation of JESƲS CHRIST in their Supper. They affirm,Cat. Dim. 53. as well as we, that he makes us there Partakers of his pro­per Substance; they tell us, that he nourishes and quickens us with the substance of his Body and Blood; Conf. of Faith, art. 36. and judging that it would not be enough to shew us, by some sign, that we are partakers of his Sacrifice,Cat. Dim. 52. they say expresly, that the Body of our Saviour, which is given us in the last Supper, assures us of it: words very remark­able, which we will examine by and by.

Behold then the Body and Blood of JESƲS CHRIST present in our Mysteries, by the acknowledgment of the Calvinists: for what is communicated according to its proper substance, must be really present. It is true, they explicate this Communication, by saying, it is in Spirit, and by Faith: but it is true also, they will have it real. And because it is impossible to make it intelligible how a Body, that is communicated to us only in Spirit, and by Faith, can be communicated to us really, and in its proper substance, [Page 29]therefore they have not been able to continue firm in the two parts of a Doctrine so contradictory, and they have been obliged to ac­knowledg two things which cannot be true, but by supposing what the Catholic Church teacheth.

The first is, That JESƲS CHRIST is given to us in the Eucharist after a manner whch neither agrees with that of Baptism, nor the Preaching of the Gospel, but is peculiar to this Mystery. We shall see by and by the Consequence of this Principle: but let us first see how it is granted us by those of the Pretended Reforma­tion.

I will not here alledge the Authority of any particular Author, but the proper words of their Catechism, where it explicates what concerns the last Supper. It does not only tell us in express terms, that JESƲS CHRIST is given us in the Supper, in reality, and according to his proper Substance; but that,Dim. 53. tho he be truly commu­nicated to us, both by Baptism, and the Gospel, yet nevertheless, it is only in part, and not fully. From whence it follows, that he is given us in the Lords Supper fully, and not in part.

There is a vast difference betwixt receiving in part, and receiving fully. If then we receive JESƲS CHRIST every where else in part, and it be only in the Lords Supper we receive him fully; it follows, by the consent of our Adversaries, that we must look out for a participation in the last Supper which is proper only to this Mystery, and which does not agree with Baptism and Preaching; but at the same time it follows also, that this participation is not annexed to Faith, because Faith being generally dispersed through all the Actions of a Christian, is found in Preaching, and in Bap­tism, as well as in the Lords Supper. In reality, it is remarkable, that what desire soever the Pretended Reformers had to render Baptism and Preaching equal to the last Supper, because JESƲS CHRIST is there truly communicated to us, they durst never af­firm in their Catechisms, that JESƲS CHRIST is given us, in his proper Substance, by Baptism and Preaching, as they say he is given in the Eucharist. They saw then, they could not avoid at­tributing to the Eucharist a manner of possessing JESƲS CHRIST peculiar only to this Sacrament; and that Faith, which is com­mon to all the Actions of a Christian, could not be this particular manner. But this peculiar manner of possessing JESƲS CHRIST in the last Supper ought also to be real, seeing it gives to the Faith­ful the proper substance of the Body and Blood of JESƲS [Page 30]CHRIST. So that we must conclude, from what they grant us, there is in the Eucharist a real manner of receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour, which is not performed by Faith; and this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

The second thing granted by the Pretended Reformers, is taken out of that Article which immediately follows that which I have already cited out of their Catechism;Dim. 52. which is, That the Body of our Lord JESUS, for as much as it was once offered up in Sacrifice to reconcile us to God, is now given to assure us, we have a part in that Reconciliation.

If there be any Sense in these Words, if they be not an useless found, and a vain amusement, we ought to understand by them, that JESƲS CHRIST does not give us a Symbol only, but his proper Body, to assure us, we partake of his Sacrifice, and of the Reconciliation of Mankind. But if the reception of the Body of our Lord, assures us of our participation of the Fruits of his Death; this participation of the Fruits must necessarily be distinguished from the reception of the Body, seeing one is the pledg of the other. From whence, to proceed, I say, If our adversaries are forced to distinguish in the last Supper the participation of the body of our Blessed Saviour, from the participation of the fruits of his Grace in his Sacrifice, they must also necessarily make a distinction between the participation of this Divine Body, and all kinds of Spiritual participation by Faith. This latter participation will never furnish them with two distinct Actions, by one of which they receive the Body of our Saviour, and by the other, the benefit of this Sacri­fice; no man being able to conceive what difference there is betwixt partaking by Faith of the Body of our Saviour, and partaking by Faith of the Fruit of his Death. They must therefore acknowledg, that besides the Communion, by which we spiritually partake of the Body of our Saviour, and also of his Spirit, by receiving the fruit of his Death; there is also a Real Communion of the Body of the same Saviour, which is to us a certain Pledg of the others being assured to us, if we put no impediment to such a Grace by an evil Disposition. This is necessarily included in the Principles they admit, and they will never be able to explicate this Truth, with the least shadow of Solidity, if they return not to the Senti­ments of the Church.

Who will not here admire the force of Truth? All the consequen­ces which follow from the acknowledged Principles of our adver­saries, [Page 31]are perfectly understood in the sentiment of the Church. Catholicks, the meanliest instructed, without difficulty con­ceive, that in the Eucharist there is a Communion which JESƲS CHRIST, which is not to be found any where else. It is no diffi­culty for them to understand his Body is given us, to assure us we partake of his Sacrifice and of his Death. They distinguish clearly betwixt these two necessary manners of uniting or selves to JESƲS CHRIST; the one in receiving his proper flesh, the other in re­ceiving his Spirit; the first of which is granted us, as a certain pledge of the second. But seeing these things are inexplicable in the sentiments of our adversaries, tho on the other hand they cannot deny them, we must necessarily conclude, that errour has thrown them into a manifest contradiction.

I have been often astonished they did not explicate their Do­ctrine after a more plain manner. Why did they not always, without so many formalities, persevere to say, that JESƲS CHRIST having shed his Blood for us, represented to us this effusion, by giving us two distinct signs of his Body and Blood; that he was pleased indeed to give to these signs the name of the thing it self: that these sacred signs were pledges to assure us of our partaking of the fruit of his Death, and that we were spiritually nourished by the vertue of his Body and Blood? After so many endeavours to prove that signs often receive the names of the things signified, and that for this reason the sign of the Body might be called the Body, all this connection of Doctrine obliges them naturally to fix there. To render these signs efficacious, it sufficed the Grace of Redemption was annexed to them, or rather, according to their Principles, that it was in them confirmed to us. They needed not have tormented themselves, as they have done, to make us understand we receive the proper Body of our Saviour, to assure us we partake of the Grace of his Death. They were well enough satisfied to have the water of Baptism a sign of the Blood which washeth us; and it never entred into their fancies to say, we there received the proper substance of the Blood of our Blessed Saviour, to assure us his vertue is there diffused upon us. If they had argued after the same man­ner as to the Eucharist, their Doctrine would have been less em­broyled. But those who invent and innovate, cannot express all they have a mind to. They find certain truths, and maxims established which incommode them, and force a violence upon their imaginations. The Arians would gladly have resused our Blessed [Page 32]Saviour the name of God, or the only Son of God. The Nestori­ans did not admit, but with reluctance, that kind of I know not what unity of person in JESƲS CHRIST, which we find in their writing. The Pelagians, who denied Original sin, would also willingly have denyed that Baptism was given to little children for the remission of sins: for by that means they would have been freed from the argument which Catholicks drew from this practice to prove that original defect. But, as I just now said, those who find some truths firmly established, have not the boldness, or rather impudence to overthrow all. Let the Calvinists ingenuously confess the truth; they would have been well pleased to acknowledge in the Eucharist the Body of our Blessed Saviour only figuratively, and the sole participation of his Spirit in effect, laying aside those great words of Participation of his proper substance, and the many others which import a real presence, and serve only to perplex them. It would have been more to their humour, to have acknowledged, in the Lords Supper, no other communion with JESƲS CHRIST, but what is also common to Preaching and to Baptism, without tell­ing us, as they have done, that in the Lords Supper he is received in plentitude, and every where else only in part. But however this was their inclination, yet the very force of the terms opposed them, our Blessed Saviour having said so precisely of the Eucharist, This is my body, This is my Blood; which he never did of any other thing, nor upon any other occasion: what likelihood was there of rendring that common to all the Actions of a Christian, which his express word had annexed to one particular Sacrament? And far­ther, the whole order of divine providence, the connexion of Do­ctrine and Holy Mysteries, the intention of JESƲS CHRIST in his last Supper, the words themselves which he uttered, and the impres­sion which they naturally form in the minds of the Faithful, give us nothing but the Ideas of his real presence. Therefore it was necessary our adversaries should find out some expressions, the sound of which might, at least, give us a confused Idea of this reality. When a Man fixes himself either entirely upon Faith, as Catholicks do; or entire­ly upon humane Reason, as Infidels do, it is easie for him to esta­blish a connected and uniform model of Doctrine. But when a man goes about to make a composition of one and the other, he al­ways says something which he would not say, and afterwards falls into opinions, the sole contrarieties of which shew the manifest falsity of them.

[Page 33] This is what has hapned to these Gentlemen of the pretended reform'd Religion; and God has so permitted it to facilitate their return to Catholic unity. For, whereas their proper experience shows them, they must necessarily express themselves as we do, to speak the language of Truth; ought they not to judge it necessary to think as we do, to understand it right? If they observe in their own belief many expressions, which have no sence but according to our tenets; is it not sufficient to convince them, that Truth is not in its full perfection but amongst us? And those unconnected parts of Catholick Doctrine, which are scatered here and there in their Catechisms, but which, as I may say, require to be united to the whole, ought they not to excite them to search, in the Communion of the Church, a full and entire explication of the Mystery of the Eucharist? They would, no doubt of it, be brought to it, did not humane Reflections trouble and perplex their Faith, which has too much dependance upon Sence. But having shown what Fruit they ought to reap from the Exposition of their Doctrine, let us finish the explication of our own.

SECT. XIII. Of Transubstantiation and Adoration, and in what sence the Eucharist is said to be a Sign.

IT having been convenient, as it was said before, that the Senses should not perceive any thing in this Mystery of Faith, it was necessary nothing should be changed, in respect of them, in the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. Upon which account, being we see the same Species, and feel the same Effects as before in this Sacrament, we must not wonder, if the same name be given to them sometimes, and in some certain Sense. Yet notwithstand­ing, Faith being attentive to his word, who performs what pleas­es him in Heaven, and on Earth, acknowledges here no other Sub­stance, but what is designed by the same word, that is to say, the proper Body and Blood of JESƲS CHRIST, into which the Bread and Wine are changed; this is what we call Transubstantia­tion.

However, That real verity, which is interiorly contained in the Eucharist, hinders not the exterior and sensible part from being [Page 34]a sign; but a sign of such a Nature, that it is so far from exclud­ing the reality of the thing signified, it bears it necessarily along with it, seeing that in effect, these words, This is my Body, pro­nounc'd upon that matter, which JESƲS CHRIST himself made choice of, is to us a certain sign that his Body is present, and though the Symbols appear always the same to our Senses, yet our Mind judges otherwise of them, and not according to Sense, because a Superior Authority interposes. So that, whereas certain Species, and a certain sequel of natural impressions on our Senses, have been accustomed to design to us the substance of Bread and Wine, the Authority of Him, in whom we believe, causes these same Spe­cies to begin to shew us another substance. For we give ear to him who said, that this, which we receive and eat, is his Body; and such is the force of these words, they hinder us from referring those exteriour appearances to the Substance of Bread, and induced us to refer them to the Body of JESƲS CHRIST there present: Inso­much that the presence of such an adorable Object being rendered certain to us by this sign, we are not afraid to pay it our adora­tions.

I will not dwell upon the point of Adoration, because the most learned and the most intelligent of our Adversaries have long since granted us, those who are perswaded of the real Presence of JE­SƲS CHRIST in the Eucharist ought to pay him in it their Ado­rations.

In fine, being once convinced, the all-powerful words of the Son of God operate whatever they declare, we believe that in the last Supper, they had their effect as soon as they were pronounced by him; and by a necessary Consequence we acknowledg the real Presence of his Body, before our receiving of it.

SECT. XIV. Sacrifice of the Mass.

THese things being supposed, there remains no particular diffi­culty about the Sacrifice which we acknowledg in the Eu­charist.

We have observed two actions in this Mystery, which cease not to be distinct, the one of them has a Relation to the other. The [Page 35]first is the consecration, by which the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood; and the second is the receiving, by which we partake of them.

In the Consecration, the Body and the Blood are mystically sepe­rated, because JESƲS CHRIST said separately, This is my Body, this is my Blood; which includes a lively and efficacious Represen­tation of the violent Death he suffered.

So that the Son of God is placed upon the Holy Table, in vertue of these words, cloathed with those signs which represent his Death, this is effected by consecration; and this Religious action, carries with it an acknowledgment of Gods Soveraignty, in as much as JE­SƲS CHRIST there present, renews and perpetuates in some sort, the remembrance of his being obedient, even to the Death of the Cross: So that there is nothing wanting to render this a true Sacrifice.

We cannot doubt but this Action, as distinct from that of Com­municating, is of it self acceptable to God, and makes him look upon us with a more propitious Eye, because it represents to him that voluntary Death which his beloved Son has suffered for us Sin­ners, or rather places before his Eyes, that very Son of his, under the signs of this Death, by which his Wrath had been appeased.

All Christians will confess the sole Presence of JESƲS CHRIST to be a most Powerful Intercession before God for all mankind; according to the saying of the Apostle, That JESƲS CHRIST presents himself and appears for us before the Face of God. Heb. 9.24. So that we believe that JESƲS CHRIST, being present upon the Holy Table, under this Figure of Death, intercedes for us, and represents continually to his Father that Death which he has suffered for his Church.

It is in this Sense we say, JESƲS CHRIST offers up himself to God for us in the Eucharist; it is after this manner we conceive this Oblation renders God more propitious to us, and there­fore we call this a Propitiatory Sacrifice.

When we consider what it is, JESƲS CHRIST operates in this Mystery, and that we see him by Faith present upon this Holy Ta­ble, together with these Signs of Death, we unite our selves to him in this Estate; we present him to God, as our only Victim, and our sole Propitiator by his Blood, confessing we have nothing to of­fer up to God but JESƲS CHRIST, and the infinite Merit of his Death. We consecrate all our Prayers by this Holy Oblation, and in presenting JESƲS CHRIST to God, we learn at the same [Page 36]time, to offer up our selves to the Divine Majesty in him, and by him, as living Sacrifices.

This is the Sacrifice of Christians, infinitely different from what was offered up in the Old Law: a Spiritual Sacrifice becoming the New Covenant, in which the presence of the Victim is only per­ceived by Faith; in which the Word of God is the Spiritual Sword which makes a Mystical separation betwixt the Body and the Blood; in which by consequence the Blood is only shed My­stically, and in which Death only intervenes by representation: and yet however a most real Sacrifice, in as much as JESƲS CHRIST is there truly contained, and presented to his Father, under this Figure of Death: But a Commemorative Sacrifice, which is so far from taking away our adhesion to the Sacrifice of the Cross (as it is objected to us) on the contrary, it fixes us the firmer to it by all its circumstances; seeing it has not only an en­tire relation to it, but in reality, has neither being nor subsistence but by this relation, from whence it deriveth all the Vertue con­tained in it.

This is the express Doctrine of the Catholic Church in the Council of Trent, which teaches, that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross; Sess. 22. c. 1. to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the World; and to apply to us the saving Vertue of it for the remission of those sins which we commit every day. So that the Church is so far from believing, that something wants to perfect the Sacrifice of the Cross; on the con­trary, she thinks it so perfect, and so fully sufficient, as what is added, is only instituted to celebrate the memory, and apply its Vertue.

By which the same Church acknowledges, that all the merit of the Redemption of Mankind depends upon the Death of the Son of God; and it ought to be understood, from all we have already expounded, that when we say to God in the Celebration of the Di­vine Mystery, We offer unto you this Holy Host, we pretend not by this Oblation, to make, or present to God a new payment of the price of our Salvation, but to offer up to him in our behalfs, the Merits of our Blessed JESƲS there present, and the infinite price which he once paid for us upon the Cross.

The Gentlemen of the Pretended Reform'd Religion do not think they offend JESƲS CHRIST, by offering him to God as present to their Faith; and if they believed him to be really there, [Page 37]what repugnance could they have to offer him up as truly present; So that the whole dispute ought indeed to be reduced to the real presence alone.

From hence forwards, all those false Ideas, which these Gentle­men of the Pretended Reform'd Religion form to themselves of the Sacrifice which we offer, ought to be effaced. They ought freely to acknowledge Catholics pretend not to make a new propitiation to appease God anew, as if he had not been sufficiently satisfied by the Sacrifice of the Cross; or to make some addition to the Price of our Salvation, as if it were imperfect. All these things have no place in our Doctrine; because all that is here done, is intended by way of Intercession and Application, after the manner which we have now explicated.

SECT. XV. The Epistle to the Hebrews.

AFter this Explication, those mighty Objections drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and so much enforced against us, will appear to have little reason in them: and it is in vain our Ad­versaries strive to prove, from the sentiments of the Apostle, that we annul the Sacrifice of the Cross. But because the best way to prove that two Doctrines are not opposite to one another, is to shew, by explicating them, that no proposition of the one is con­trary, to any of the propositions of the other; I think I am bound in this place to propose in short the Doctrine of this Epistle.

The Apostle intends in this Epistle to teach us, that a sinnner could not avoid Death, but by substituting some one in his place to die for him; that whilst Men substituted only Beasts to be killed in their places, their Sacrifices operated nothing, but a pub­lick acknowledgment of their having deserved Death; and that, seeing the Divine Justice could not be satisfied by so unequal an exchange, they begun again every day to slay new Victims; which was a certain mark of the insufficiency of that substitution: But that, since JESƲS CHRIST had vouchsafed to die for Sinners, God being satisfied, by a Person substituting of himself, so condignly sufficient, and nothing more to exact for the price of our Re­demption. From whence the Apostle concludes, we ought not on­ly to offer up no more Victims after JESƲS CHRIST, but that [Page 38] JESƲS CHRIST himself ought to be but once offered up to Death for us.

Let the Reader then, who is solicitous for his Souls Salvation, and a lover of Truth, reflect a little upon what we have said concern­ing the manner how JESƲS CHRIST offers up himself to God for us in the Eucharist; I am certain, he will not find any Propositi­on contrary to those which I have here related from the Apostle; or which weakens his Argument; so that nothing can be objected to us, but his silence upon this point. But those who would but consider the wise distribution which God makes of his secrets in the several Books of Scripture, would not oblige us to receive, from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews, all our instructions concerning a matter which was not necessary to the Subject of that Epistle; see­ing the Apostle intends to explicate in it, the perfection of the Sacri­fice of the Cross, and not the different manners which God has in­stituted to apply it to us.

And to remove all equivocation, if we take the word Offer in the sence it is made use of in this Epistle, as implying the actual Death of the Victim, we will publickly confess, that JESƲS CHRIST is now no more offered up, neither in the Eucharist, nor any where else. But because this word has a larger significati­on in other places of Scripture, where it is often said, We offer up to God what we present before him; the Church, which forms her Language, and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the He­brews, but from the whole Body of the Holy Scripture, is not a­fraid to say, that JESƲS CHRIST offers up himself to God whereever he appears before his Face upon our behalf, and that by consequence, he offers up himself in the Eucharist, according to the Holy Fathers expressions.

Now to imagine this manner, by which JESƲS CHRIST pre­sents himself to God, should injure the Sacrifice of the Cross, is what cannot in any kind be supposed without overthrowing the the whole Scripture, and particularly this Epistle, which is so ve­hemently objected against us. For it must, by the same reason, be concluded, that when JESƲS CHRIST offered up himself to God, In entring into the World, Heb. 10.5. to substitute himself in place of those Vi­ctims which could not please him, he injured that Action by which he offered up himself upon the Cross,Heb. 9.24. that when he continues to appear before God for us, Heb. 9.26. he weakens that Oblation, by which he ap­peared once, Heb. 7.25. by the immolation of himself; and that not ceasing to in­terceed [Page 39]for us, he accuses of insufficiency that intercession which he made in dying with so many tears, and such an exclamation. Heb. 5.7.

All this would be ridiculous. We must therefore understand, that JESƲS CHRIST, who once offered up himself to be the humble Victim of the Divine Justice, does not cease to offer up himself always for us; that the infinite perfection of the Sacrifice of the Cross consists in this, that whatsoever preceded it, as well as what follows it, has an entire reference to it: that as what pre­ceded it, was a preparation to it; so that which follows it, is the consummation and application of it: that in reality the payment of the price of our Redemption is no more reiterated, because it was fully discharged the first time; but that what applies that Re­demption to us continues without ceasing; that lastly, we must make a distinction betwixt those things which are reiterated as im­perfect, and those which are continued as perfect and necessary.

SECT. XVI. Reflections upon the preceding Doctrine.

WE conjure all those of the Pretended Reformation, to make some little Reflection upon what has been said concerning the Eucharist.

The Doctrine of the Real Presence has been the necessary foun­dation of it. This Foundation is impugned by the Calvinists. There is nothing appears more important than this in our Con­troversies; seeing the Question is concerning the real Presence of JESƲS CHRIST himself. There is nothing our Adversaries find more difficult to believe. And there is nothing in which we are so directly opposite, as in this.

In most other Disputes, when these Gentlemen hear us with Calm­ness, they find the difficulties to vanish, and that they are more of­fended with words, than with the things themselves. On the con­trary, upon this Subject, we agree more about the manner of speaking; because both sides use the words of Real Participation, and the like: But the fuller we explicate our selves, the more we find our selves opposed; because our Adversaries do not receive all the consequences of those truths which they admit, being discou­raged (as I said) by the difficulties which Sence and Human Rea­son find in these consequences.

[Page 40] This is therefore, to speak truly, the most difficult of all our Controversies, and that in which we are the most opposite to one another.

Nevertheless God has permitted the Lutherans should adhere to the belief of the real Presence as well as we: and he has also permit­ted the Calvinists should declare this Doctrine to have no poison in it; that it does not subvert the foundations of Salvation and Faith; and that it ought not to break communion betwixt Brethren.

Let those of the Pretended Reform'd Religion, who think seri­ously of their Salvation, render themselves here attentive to that Order, which the Divine Providence makes use of to bring them insensibly nearer to us and Truth. One may either intirely dis­sipate all the other grounds of their complaints, or at least reduce them to very few Heads, with a little explication. In this, where we cannot hope to conquer by this Method, they have themselves removed the chief difficulty, by declaring this Doctrine to con­tain nothing in it contrary to Salvation, or to the fundamentals of Religion.

It is true, the Lutherans, tho they concur with us in the ground of the reality, yet admit not all the consequences of it. They put Bread together with the Body of JESƲS CHRIST; some of them reject the Adoration; and they seem to acknowledg the real Pre­sence only in the Act of receiving. But all the subtilty of the Mi­nisters can never perswade ingenuous and understanding Persons, but that, if they maintain the real Presence, which is the most im­portant, and the most difficult point they ought also to maintain the rest.

Moreover the same Providence, which labours secretly for our nearer Union, and lays the foundations of Reconciliation and of Peace in the midst of Bitterness and Disputes, has farther per­mitted the Calvinists to allow, that supposing these words, This is my Body, ought to be taken in a literal sence, Catholics reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans.

If I relate not the passages which have been so often cited on this account, I hope I shall easily be excused, because all those, who are not obstinate, will grant us without difficulty, that the reeal Presence being supposed, our Doctrine is that which most naturally follows.

It is then an established Truth, that our Doctrine in this point contains nothing but the real Presence rightly understood. But [Page 41]we must not stop there; and we beseech the Pretended Reformed to consider, we make use of no other things to explicate the Sacri­fice of the Eucharist, but only such as are necessarily included in this reality of presence.

If it should be asked us after this, how it comes then to pass the Lutherans, who believe the real presence, should nevertheless reject the Sacrifice, which is, according to us, only a consequence of it: our answer is in one word, that this Doctrine must be numbred a­mongst the other consequences of the real presence, which these Lutherans have not understood, and which we have penetrated much better then they, as the Calvinists themselves confess.

If our Explications persuade these last, that our doctrine about the Sacrifice is included in that of the real presence, they ought to see clearly that this mighty dispute of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which has filled so many Volumes, and occasioned so many In­vectives, ought from henceforwards to be retrenched from the body of their controversies, because this point has not now any par­ticular difficulty, and (which is much more important) because this Sacrifice, against which they have so great repugnance, is no other but a necessary consequence and a natural explication of a Do­ctrine, which, according to them, has no venom in it. Let them now examin themselves, and after this, try before God whether they have so much reason, as they imagine, to withdraw them­selves from those Altars, where their fore-fathers received the Bread of life.

SECT. XVII. Communion under both kinds.

THere remains one other Consequence of this doctrine to be examined, which is, that JESƲS CHRIST being really pre­sent in the Sacrament, The Grace and Benediction is not annexed to the sensible species, but to the proper substance of his flesh, which is living, and life-giving, because of the Divinity which is united to it. Upon which account, all those, who believe the real pre­sence, ought not to have any difficulty to communicate under one sole species, because they there receive all that is essential to this Sacrament, together with a plenitude so secure, because there being now no real seperation betwixt the Body and the Blood, (as hath [Page 42]been said) we receive entirely, and without division him, who is solely capable to satiate us.

This is the solid foundation, upon which the Church, interpre­ting the precept of Communion, as declared, we may receive the Sanctification, which this Sacrament carries with it, under one sole species, and if she have reduced her Children to this sole species; it was not out of disesteem of the other, seeing, on the contrary, she did it to hinder those Irreverences, which the confusion and negli­gence of people had occasioned in these later ages, reserving to her self, the re-establishment of communion under both kinds, ac­cording as it should become more advantagious to Peace and Unity.

Catholic Divines have made it appear to those of the pretended Reformation, that they have themselves made use of several such like Interpretations, in what belongs to the use of the Sacrament; but above all they had reason to remark this which is taken out of the 12 chap. of their discipline, Title of the Lords Supper, art. 7. where we find these words: The Bread of the Lords Supper ought to be administred to those who cannot drink wine, upon their making pro­testation, that it is not out of contempt, and endeavouring what they can possibly, to obviate all Scandal even by approaching the cup as neer their mouths as they are able. They have judged, by this regulation that both species were not, by the institution of JESƲS CHRIST, essential to the Communion: otherwise they ought to have abso­lutely refused the Sacrament to those, who could not receive it whole and entire, and not to give it them after a manner contrary to that which JESƲS CHRIST had commanded; in which case their disability would have been their excuse. But our adversaries conceived it would be an excessive rigour, not to allow at least one of the species to those, who could not receive the other; and as this condescendence has no ground in Scripture, they must acknow­ledge with us, the words, by which JESƲS CHRIST proposes to us the two species, are liable to some interpretation, and that this interpretation ought to be declared by the authority of the Church.

But it might seem as if this article of their discipline, which was made in the Synod of Poitiers held in the year 1560, had been re­formed by the Synod of Vertueil held in the year 1567. where it is said the company is not of opinion, the bread should be administred to those who would not receive the Cup. These two Synods neverthe­less are no ways opposite. That of Vertueil speaks only of those [Page 43] who will not receive the Cup; And that of Poitiers of these only who cannot. In effect, notwithstanding the Synod of Vertueil, this ar­ticle remains in their discipline, and has been also approved by a latter Synod then that of Vertueil, by the Synod of la Rochell in 1571, where this article was review'd, and put into that stare in which it now is.

But supposing the Synods of the pretended reform'd Religion had differed in their sentiments, it would only follow that the matter in question regards not Faith, and that it is of the number of those, which are at the Churches disposal according to their own Principles.

SECT. XVIII. The written and unwritten Word.

THERE remains nothing more now, but to explicate what Ca­tholics believe touching the Word of God, and the Authori­ty of the Church.

JESƲS CHRIST having laid the Foundation of his Church by Preaching, the unwritten Word was the first Rule of Christianity; and when the Writings of the New Testament were added, this un­written Word did not upon that account lose its Authority: which makes us reiceive with equal veneration all that was ever taught by the Apostles, whether by Writing, or byword of Mouth, as St. Paul himself has expresly declared. And it is a most certain sign,2 Thes. 2.14. a Do­ctrine comes from the Apostles, when it is universally embraced by all Christian Churches, without any possibility of shewing its beginning. We cannot chuse but receive all that is established after this manner, with the submission due to Divine Authority; and we are persua­ded those of the Pretended Reformation, who are not obstinate, are in the bottom of their Hearts of the same Opinion; it being im­possible to believe a Doctrine, received from the beginning of the Church, can flow from any other source than that of the Apostles. Wherefore our Adversaries ought not to wonder if we, who are careful to gather together all our Fathers have left us, should con­serve the Depositum of Tradition as well as that of the Scrip­tures.

SECT. XIX. The Authority of the Church.

THE Church being established by God to be the Guardian of Scripture and Tradition, we receive the Canonical Scrip­tures from her; and let our Adversaries say what they will, we doubt not but it is her Authority which principally determines them to reverence as Divine Books, the Canticle of Canticles, which has so few visible marks of a Prophetical Inspiration; the E­pistle of St. James, which Luther rejected; and that of St. Jude, which might appear suspected because of some Apocriphal Books cited in it. In fine, it can only be from this Authority they re­ceive the whole Body of Scripture, which all Christians accept as Divine, before their reading of it has made them sensible of the Spirit of God in it.

Being then inseparably bound, as we are, to the Holy Autho­rity of the Church, by means of the Scriptures which we receive from her Hands, we learn Tradition also from her; and by the means of Tradition we learn the true sence of Scripture. Upon which account the Church professes, she tells us nothing from her self, and that she invents nothing new in her Doctrine: she does nothing but declare the Divine Revelation, by the interiour di­rection of the Holy Ghost, who is given to her as her teacher.

That Dispute, which was raised in the very time of the Apo­stles, upon account of the Ceremonies of the Law, shews clearly, that the Holy Ghost explicates himself by the Church; and their Acts have by the method by which that first Contest was decided, taught all succeeding Ages, by what Authority all other differences are to be ended. So that as often as there shall happen any Dis­putes to cause a Division amongst the Faithful, the Church will in­terpose her Authority, and her Pastors assembled will say after the Apostles,Act. 15.28. It his seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. And when she has spoken, her Children will be taught, they ought not to begin again to examine those Articles once so resolved on; but are bound humbly to receive her Decisions, In this we shall follow the example of St. Paul and Silas, who carried this first Sentence of the Apostles to the Faithful, and were so far from permitting a new Discussion of what had been decided, that on the contrary, [Page 45] They went from place to place, Acts 16.4. teaching them to observe the Ordi­nances of the Apostles.

Thus it is the Children of God acquiess in the Judgment of the Church, believing that from her Mouth they hear the Oracle of the Holy Ghost; and upon account of this belief it is, that after having said in our Creed, I believe in the Holy Ghost, we add im­mediately, The Holy Catholic Church: by which we oblige our selves to acknowledg an infallible and perpetual verity in the uni­versal Church, because this very Church which we believe exi­stent in all Ages, would cease to be the Church, if she ceased to teach the truth revealed by God. So that those who apprehend least she should abuse her Power to establish a Lye, have no Faith in him by whom she is governed.

And if our Adversaries would but look upon these things in a more mild and candid manner, they would be obliged to ac­knowledg, the Catholic Church is so far from making her self Mistress of her Faith, as they have accused her, that on the con­trary, she has done what she could to bind, and deprive herself of all the means of Innovation, seeing she not only submits her­self to the Holy Scriptures, but to the end she might for ever banish all arbitrary Interpretations, which make Mens Imaginations pass for Scripture, she has obliged herself to interpret them, in what re­lates to Faith and Manners,Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. according to the sence of the Holy Fathers; from which she prosesseth never to depart; declaring in all her Councils, and (in all the Professions of Faith she has pub­lished) that she does not receive any Doctrine, which is not con­formable to the Tradition of all preceding Ages.

Moreover, if our Adversaries consult their Consciences, they will find the name of the Church has more Authority over them, than they dare avouch in their disputes: and I do not think there is any one Prudent Man amongst them, who finding himself the only Person of a Perswasion, tho it appeared to him never so Evi­dent, but would abhor that Singularity; so true it is, that Men have need in these matters to be supported in their Tenets, by the Authority of some Society, that is, of the same opinion with them. And for this reason, God who created us, and who knows what is most proper for us, hath ordained for our Good, that all Particulars should be subject to the Authority of his Church, which of all other Authorities, is without doubt the best Establish­ed. In effect, it is established not only by that Testimony, which [Page 46]God himself gives of it in the Holy Scriptures, but also by the marks of his divine Protection, which are no less visible in the in­violable and perpetual subsistence of it, than in its miraculous E­stablishment.

SECT. XX. The Sentiments of those of the Pretended Reform'd Religion, concerning the Authority of the Church.

THIS Supream Authority of the Church is so necessary to regulate the differences, which arise in matters of Faith, and about the Sense of Scripture, that our Adversaries themselves, af­ter having decryed it, as an unsupportable Tyranny, have been at last obliged to establish it amongst themselves.

When those who are called Independents, declared openly, that each one of the Faithful ought to follow the light of his own Con­science, without submitting his Judgment to the Authority of any Body, or Ecclesiastical Assembly, and upon this Ground refused to submit toany Synods; That of Charenton held 1644. censured this Doctrine upon the same Reasons, and for the same Inconveni­encies, for which we reject it. This Synod observes in the first place, that this Error of the Independents consists in this, that they teach, Every Church ought to be governed by her proper Laws, with­out a dependance upon any Person in Ecclesiastical Matters, and with­out any Obligation to acknowledg the Authority of Conferences and Sy­nods for her regulation and conduct. After which this Synod deter­mines, that this Sect is a prejudicial to the State as to the Church, that it opens a door to all sorts of Irregularities and Extravagancies; that it takes away all the means of applying any remedy to it; and that if it took place, there might be as many Religions framed as Parishes or particular Assemblies. These last words shew it is principally in matters of Faith, this Synod would establish a Dependance; seeing the greatest Inconvenience into which it observes the faithful would fall by an Independence, is, that there might chance to be as many Re­ligions formed as Parishes. Every Church then (according to the Doctrine of this Synod) and much more every private Person, must necessarily depend, in what concerns matters of Faith, upon some o­ther superior Authority, which resides in some Assembly, or in some Body; to which Authority all the Faithful submit their Judgments. [Page 47]For the Independents do not refuse to submit to the Word of God, according as they think it ought to be understood; nor to accept the decisions of Synods, when, after having examined them, they judg them reasonable. What they refuse to do is to submit their Judg­ments to that of any Assembly for its sake; because our Adversaries have taught them, that every Assembly, even that of the Universal Church is a Society of men, subject to Error, and to which by conse­quence a Christian ought not to submit his Judgment, that submissi­on being only due to God. From this pretention of the Independents it is, those inconveniences follow, which the Synod of Charenton so well observed. For let a man make what Profession he pleaseth to submit himself to the word of God, if every one think he has a right to interpret it according to his own Sense, and against the Te­nets of the Church declared in her last Sentence, this pretention will open a door to all sorts of Extravagancies; it will take away all the means of applying a remedy; because the decision of the Church is not a remedy to those, who think themselves not obliged to submit to it; in fine, it gives way to the framing as many Religions, not only as there are Parishes, but also as there are Persons.

To avoid these inconveniencies, from whence the ruin of Chri­stianity would follow, the Synod of Charenton finds her self obliged to establish a Dependence in Ecclesiastical matters, and that even in Points of Faith; but this dependence will never hinder those per­nicious consequences which they desired to prevent, if they do not, with us, establish this Maxim, that every particular Church, and much more every particular person amongst the faithful, ought to believe themselves obliged to submit their private judgment to the Authority of the Church.

Thus we see in the 5th. chapter of the discipline of the pretended reform'd Religion, under the title of Consistories, Art. 31. that go­ing about to prescribe a means to end debates, which might arise upon any point of Doctrine or Discipline, &c. they ordain first the Consis­tory shall endeavour to appease the whole without noise, and with all the sweetness of the word of God; and after having established a Con­sistory, a Conference, and a Provincial Synod, as so many diffe­rent degrees of Jurisdiction, coming at last to a National Synod, above which, amongst them, there is no Authority, they speak of it in these terms. There the entire and final resolution shall be given by the word of God, to which if they refuse to acquiesce in every point, and with an express disavowing of their errours, they shall be cut off from the [Page 48]Church. It is manifest those of the pretended Reformation do not attribute the authority of this last sentence to the word of God taken in it self, and without dependence upon the authority of the Church, for tho this word was made use of in their first Judgements, yet notwithstanding they permitted an appeal. It is then this word as interpreted by the soveragin tribunal of the Church, which gives this final resolution, to which whosoever refuses to submit in every point, altho he boast he is authorized by the word of God, is no more re­puted but as a prosane person who corrupts and abuses it.

But the form of those Letters of deputation which were addres'd to the Synod of Vitre in the year 1617, to be observed by the Provin­ces when they were to send their Deputies to a National Synod, has yet something more express; it is in these terms. We promise before God to submit our selves to all that shall be concluded and resolved of in your holy Assemblis, to obey them, and put them in execution to our utmost power, being persuaded, as we are, that God will preside in it, and lead you by his holy spirit into all Truth and equity, by the rule of his word. Here the point is not about receiving the resolution of a Synod, after they have found it to speak according to Scripture; they submit to it even before it is assembled; and they do it be­cause they are persuaded the Holy Ghost will preside in it. If this per­suasion be only founded upon a human presumption, can a man in conscience promise before God to submit to all that shall be there con­cluded and resolved of, to obey, and execute them to the utmost of his power? And if this Persuasion has its foundation in a certain belief of the assistance, which the Holy Ghost gives to the Church in her final decisions, Catholics themselves require no more.

So that the proceedings of our Adversaries shew them to agree with us in this supreme Authority, without which it is impossible ever to put an end to any difficulty in Religion; and tho whilst they were desirous to cast of the yoak of obedience, they denied the Faithful to be obliged to submit their Judgments to that of the Church, yet the necessity of establishing an order, has since forced them to grant what their first undertakings had made them deny.

They have gone yet much further in the National Synod held at Saint Foy in the year 1578. There was some overture made of a Reconcilement with the Lutherans, by means of a general form of a profession of Faith common to all their Churches, which was proposed to be drawn up. Those of this Kingdom were invited to send to an Assembly, which was to be held upon this account, Vertuous per­sons, authorised by all the said Churches, with an ample Procuration, [Page 49]TO TREAT; AGREE UPON, AND DECIDE ALL POINTS OF DOCTRINE, and other matters concerning that union. Upon this Proposall, see in that terms the resolution of the Synod of St. Foy was couched. The National Synod of this Kingdom, after having given God thanks for such an overture, and commended the care, dili­gence, and good advice of the forementioned persons convocated, and APPROVING THE REMLDIES WHICH THEY HAVE SUGGESTED, that is to say principally that of framing a new Confession of Faith, and to give power to some certain persons to compose, it, has ordained, That if the copy of the above named Con­fession of Faith be sent in time, it shall be examined in each Provincial Synod, or otherwise, according to the convenience of each Province; and in the mean time has deputed four Min sters, the most experienced in those affairs, to whom express charge has been given to be present at the place and day appointed, with the Letters and full Procurations of all the Ministers, and Elders, Deputies of the Provinces of this Kingdom, as al­so of the Lord Viscount Turenne, to do all things above said: yea even, incase that MEANS COULD NOT BE FOUND OUT TO EXAMINE IN EVERY PROVINCE THE SAID CONFES­SION, it should be referred to their prudence and sound judgement to agree and CONCLUDE all the points which shall be brought into de­liberation, as well FOR DOCTRINE, as for other matters concern­ing the benefit, union, and peace of all the Churches. It was to this, in fine, that this seeming tenderness of Conscience of these pretended Reformes tended. How often have they reproched to us, as a weak­ness, that submission which we pay to the Decisions of the Church, which say they, is nothing else but a company of men lyable to error? and yet nevertheless, being assembled in a Body in a National Synod, which represented all the Churches of the pretended Reform­ed in France, they are not afraid, by mutual consent, to leave their faith to the arbitration of four men, with so absolute an abandoning of their own sentiments, that they gave them full power to change the very Confession of Faith it self, which they do at this very day propose to the whole Christian world as a Confession of Faith, which containeth nothing but the pure Word of God, and for which, as they said in presenting it to our Kings, an infinite number of people were ready to shed their Blood. I leave the prudent Reader to make his reflections upon the Decree of this Synod; and shall in a few words finish the Explication of the Churches Tenets.

SECT. XXI. The Authority of the Holy See of Rome, and of Episcopacy.

THE Son of God, being desirous his Church should be one, and and solidly built upon Unity, hath established and instituted the Primacy of St. Peter to maintain and cement it. Upon which account, we acknowledg this Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles, to whom, for this cause, we owe that Obedience and Submission, which the Holy Councils and Fathers have al­ways taught the faithful.

As for those things, which we know are disputed of in the Schools, tho the Ministers continually alledg them to render this Power odi­ous, it is not necessary we speak of them here, seeing they are not Articles of the Catholic Faith. It is sufficient we acknowledg a Head established by God to conduct his whole flock in his paths; which those who love Concord amongst Brethren, and Ecclesiastical Una­nimity, will most willingly acknowledg.

And certainly if the Authors of the Pretended Reformation had loved Unity, they would neither have abolished Episcopal Govern­ment, which was established by JESƲS CHRIST himself, and which we find in force even in the times of the Apostles; nor have despised the Authority of St. Peter's Chair, which has so solid a Foundation in the Gospel, and so evident a succession in Tradition; but they would ra­ther have carefully conserved Episcopal Authority, which establish­eth unity in particular Churches, and the Primacy of St. Peter's Chair, which is the common Center of all Catholic Unity.

SECT. XXII. Conclusion of this Treatise.

THIS is the Exposition of the Catholic Doctrine, in which, that I might tye my self to the most principal, I have left some questions untouched, which those of the Pretended Reform'd Re­ligion do not look upon as lawful matter for a Separation. I hope those of their Communion, who shall impartially examin all the Parts of this Treatise, will be better disposed by the reading of it, to give ear to those proofs upon which the Faith of the Church is esta­blished, [Page 51]and will in the mean time acknowledg many of our Con­troversies may be ended by a sincere explication of our Tenets; that her Doctrine is Holy, and that, according to their own Princi­ples, no one of her Articles destroys the grounds of Salvation.

If any one should think fit to answer this Treatise, he is desired to consider, that to accomplish his intent, he must not undertake to re­fute the Doctrine contained in it, seeing my Design was only to pro­pose it, without going about to prove it; and that if in some Pla­ces I have hinted at some of the reasons which establish it, it is because the knowledg of the principal reasons of a Doctrine, is often a ne­cessary part of it's Explication.

It would also be a quitting of the design of this Treatise, to exa­min the different methods, which Catholic Divines make use of to establish or explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, and the different Consequences, which particular Doctors have drawn from it. To urge any thing solid against this Treatise, and which may come home to the point; it must be proved that the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded, and that by Acts which the same Church has obliged herself to receive; or else it must be shown, that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force, and all the Disputes untouched; or, in fine, it must be precisely shown in what this Doctrine subverts the Foundations of Faith.