THE ANSWER OF The New Converts OF FRANCE, TO A Pastoral Letter FROM A PROTESTANT MINISTER.  
Done out of the French Copy Published there with Permission.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty, for his Household and Chapel. 1686.   

THE ANSWER OF THE NEW CONVERTS OF FRANCE, To a Pastoral Letter from a Protestant Minister.  
IT is not, Sir, to give you an Account of our Conduct that we now write to you; we know you are not in the Circumstance of approving it, and we are much troubled at it. Nor is it to Answer either your injurious Language, or your Menaces; the Holy Ghost confirms us against them both, when he tells us, 
1 Pet. 3.13, 14.  Who is he that can hurt you, if you do only that which is good; but and if you suffer for Justice sake, you shall be happy. Fear not what they would make you fear, nor trouble yourselves; but sanctify our Lord God in your hearts, and be always ready to satisfy every one that asks you a reason of the hope which is in you. It is therefore in obedience to these last words we have now broken that profound Silence, in which the Moderation that our Faith, as yet but tender, inspires into us, would retain us, were we not obliged to render an Account of that Faith, and to hinder the weak from being scandalised at the Reproaches you have cast upon us, and the Church from being dishonoured by those who are not happy enough to know her. We shall not distinguish among us, as you have done, the Libertines, those Christians whom you call cowardly; nor those whom you think you honour by the name of simple Apostates: because we cannot believe, but that Division was rather a Figure and an Artifice than any real Effect of your Sincerity. For we are persuaded there is not one of these three pretended States, tho' never so Impious and Libertine, but your Zeal would willingly draw back again into your Party, and not one but you would rejoice to see become a Martyr for your Religion. The haste you would thereupon make to revoke the Sentence against them, should make you consider with how much rashness you have passed it. Doubtless, Sir, you never thought of this, when you durst pronounce, There was no further sacrifice remaining for their sins, and like a God upon Earth, condemned them to devouring Flames.  
Without examining too nicely this Judgement, God himself lets us see the rashness, of it, 
Psal. 109.  when he assures us the Priesthood of Jesus Christ shall never have an end, because he will offer eternally the Sacrifice of his Cross for the Redemption of Sinners. The transgressions even of the wicked, 
Ezek. 18.22, 23.  say what you will, God will not remember, as the Scripture tells us, from the moment he converts himself from them: for I will not (saith the Lord by the mouth of his Prophet) the death of a sinner, but that he should return from his wickedness and live. But without doubt you will say this Conversion consists in returning into your Church, which in your Letter you invite us to. But can this Proposition move a Christian, if it could not have been proposed to him through every Age. since the Death of Jesus Christ? And could this have been done Two hundred years since, before you had any such thing as a Church? It is of no purpose to tell us, as we have so often heard, That your Church subsisted always, but that it was invisible. For can the Church subsist without Faith; 
Rom. 10.14.  and Faith, saith St. Paul, without Preaching; and Preaching without some Action that is both public and visible? Have not you yourselves taught us, 
Conf. de Foy. 28.  That where the Word of God is not received, and where the Sacraments are not in use, no Man can judge, properly speaking, that there is a Church. All these Consequences have they not made you own, That at that time the State of the Church was discontinued? How then could any one propose to a Neophyte to embrace that Faith which they could not make him know? Nevertheless can we, Sir, believe, that for so vast a time, that according to yourselves is from the Fourth or Fifth Age to this day, in which you tell us the visible Church, which was no other but the Roman, was filled with Errors, or at least since the Tenth Age, when you assure us she was fallen into all manner of Superstitions and Idolatries: Can we (I say) believe, that during so long a space of years, the Gates of Heaven were shut, the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ were ineffectual, the Kingdom of the Saviour of Mankind ceased, and the Empire of the Devil was full, entire, and absolute within the House of the Son of God? Does not Jesus Christ himself teach us to the contrary, 
S. Mat. 16.18. S. Luc. 22.32. S. John 14.16.  That the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church? and that he has prayed for her, that her faith shall never fail; in short, that the holy Spirit shall remain with her for ever?  
We formerly, Sir, believed according to the ancient Principles you taught us, That is was enough to show the truth of these words; That there was a small number of the Faithful who lived according to outward appearances, in the Communion of the Roman Church, but whose Hearts you assured us never adhered to its Worship; But now you not only bid us preserve ourselves from that Illusion, but also tell us, that nothing is more criminal than such a thought; That such a Devotion is injurious to God; That God requires all or nothing; and that since he is the Redeemer of both, he will be glorified by both. For 'tis not enough (say you after St. Paul) to believe in your heart to justice; but you must profess it with your mouth to salvation. We believe you, Sir, and we acknowledge ourselves obliged to you for so kindly contributing to confirm us more and more in the Church we are so lately entered into, by leaving us no further doubt of the newness of yours: For from henceforth where can we believe your Church subsisted during so many Ages, when you had neither Temples, nor Service, nor Assembly, nor Preachers, nor Sacraments, nor Faithful? You have endeavoured hitherto to come off by telling us, as occasion served, sometimes that it was visible, and sometimes that it was invisible. You said your self to M. de Meaux, That before the Reformation, 
P. 120.  the truly Faithful were mingled with the rest in the same outward Profession. But thanks be to Heaven, we are now likewise taught by you, that we cannot believe without Illusion, That one of the Faithful can preserve himself in the outward Communion of the Roman Church, altho' his Heart does not incline to the Worship; and that there is nothing more criminal than such a thought. There remains then no further doubt, but that, according to yourselves, not only the State of the Church, but even the Church itself, to make use of your own Distinctions, was discontinued and abrogated for the space of many Ages, for that it could not maintain itself within the Communion of the Roman, which alone had Churches and public Worship: How can we reconcile this with what the Holy Ghost teaches us, That the Church is the Handiwork of the Son of God; 
Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27.  That she is his most dear and faithful Spouse, that he purchased upon the Cross by the Effusion of his most precious Blood; That he himself is the Head; 
1 Tim. 3.15.  That she is the Pillar and Ground of Truth; That she is to be our Judge in all our Controversies, 
S. Mat. 18.17.  and so Infallible, that whosoever does not submit to her Decisions, is to be esteemed as a Heathen or Publican; in short, That he will never forsake her, and that he will be always with her to the end of the World? A Christian instructed in such Lessons drawn out of the Holy Writ, can he find any difficulty to incline favourably towards the Roman Church, which you yourselves confess has stood from Jesus Christ and the Apostles down to this Day, either in full Purity, or at least with some Alterations that you pretend have crept into it? We will not enter into an Examination of the Errors that you impute to it, that is not now our Business: but we must needs say for our own Justification, That among those that gave us the greatest horror, there are some of them in which we see you had more Obstinacy on your sides then Reason.  
The Real Presence, for Example, of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, was always represented to us as a Rock of Scandal in the Roman Church, as a Shelve to Shipwreck Salvation, and as a Monster in Religion: yet this Doctrine, detestable as it is, was nevertheless received into your Church, and into your Communion with the Lutherans, who never doubted of it, and Preached it publicly. It is in vain to tell us, The Lutherans 'tis true believe that Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament, but they don't adore him: For not only your own Writers, as Calvin, Beza, and others, condemn their Practice in this, but maintain, That if Jesus Christ be in the Bread, he ought to be there adored: And your own Church has declared by the Mouth of Daillé, 
P. 66.  That if the Subject matter which is called the Sacrament of the Eucharist, be in its substance not Bread, as she believes, but the Body of Christ, as those of Rome hold, it is evident that it may and aught to be adored, because the Body of Christ is an adorable Subject: Seeing then according to you it is allowed to believe, that Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament; it ought likewise to be permitted, according to your own Tenets, and according to your own Authors, those who believe him present, are obliged to adore him there. So that properly speaking, the Adoration of the Sacrament is nothing else but a Cavil that you make with the Church of Rome, to colour your Division: As the Communion under one Species is another much more visible, and as ill grounded.  
Every one (say you) ought indifferently to receive the Cup, 
Dim. 53.  according to the Command of Jesus Christ, against which it is unlawful to attempt any thing. By this Article of your Faith we have been always possessed with a belief of the necessity of Communion in both Kind's, and always thought the contrary Practice an overthrowing of the Constitution of the Sacrament: nor should we yet have doubted of it, had not your own Practice at length opened our Eyes, and disabused us. But now when we hear you determine in your Discipline, That the Bread alone ought to be Administered to such as cannot drink Wine, 
Art. 7. c. 12.  provided they make a Protestation that it is not through contempt: Now when we see this Custom established in your own Temples, why do you condemn that in the Church of Rome, which you allow and practise in your own? If the Command of the Cup be positive, it is indispensible; if the Communion in both Kind's be of Divine Institution, it cannot admit of a Modification. But (say you) are we obliged to Impossibilities? Without examining this pretended Impossibility, which you suppose in the Faithful upon very slight Grounds, we will suppose it with you. But ought this want of Possibility in any to receive a Sacrament, destroy the Sacrament? This Infirmity may dispense with a Person from Receiving the Sacrament, and justify his abstaining from it: but it can justify neither Minister nor Church that gives it so divided and separated, if God has declared it indivisible and inseparable. In fine, if the retrenchment of one of the Species be a violation of the Sacrament, and of the Command of Jesus Christ, no Church nor Reason can authorise it. What can we then conclude, when we see your Church, as well as that of Rome, practise the same Retrenchment, but that the Communion in both Kind's is neither of necessity, nor commanded.  
It is much the same concerning the Real Presence. A Man that beholds Christianity divided between the Adherents of Rome; Luther, and Calvin, and finds that by the Doctrine taught in the Churches of the two first, it is absolutely necessary for his Salvation to believe, That Jesus Christ is really and substantially in the Eucharist; and hears you yourselves saying, That this Belief, against which you are such declared Enemies, is no obstacle to Salvation; 
Daillé Apol. p. 43.  that it contains nothing contrary either to Piety or Charity, or the Honour due to God, or the Welfare of Mankind; could this Man determine with himself to follow any other Doctrine then that which he is assured of on all Sides to be absolutely necessary, or at lest no way prejudicial to Salvation?  
Believe us, Sir, these insensible, tho' important Steps of yours, have had greater power over our Consciences, than all the Dragoons, so terrible and so barbarous as your Pen has studied to describe them. But suppose the apprehension of them had made some of us reflect upon these things, which perhaps we had otherwise never so much as thought of; would this conclude any thing but what St. Paul saith, That Kings are Gods Ministers for our good? Can you blame any Christians for Examining the Causes of a Persecution before it comes upon them, since Jesus Christ has promised to recompense only such as suffer for his and for Justice sake? The Spirit of the Gospel, does it oblige us to meet Death boldly for Error, or for Truth? or is it the Suffering, or the Cause for which they suffer, that makes the Martyrs? If the Cause then be found to be Man's, and not that of God's, have you reason to disclaim against those who have only avoided temporal Punishments, to preserve themselves from those which are more terrible and eternal? 'Tis then the proof of this Cause that deserves your nearer application. Do not think to excuse yourselves by reason of the too great extent such an Examination appears to have, to fill us with greater Confusion and Sorrow for leaving your Church; you needed only to convince us of this one Article of your Faith, which saith, 
Art. 31.  That God raised up certain Men in an extraordinary manner, to Model the Church anew, that was fallen into Ruin and Desolation; Convince us, we say, but of this, and we shall always think ourselves miserable for being such Rebels against the Order of Divine Providence, and endeavouring by our Infidelity to destroy the Work of God. But you cry, It is in vain, seeing we can't believe it to be the Work of God, nor have any faith for this extraordinary Mission. 'Tis true, Zuinglius, Luther, 
Luth. Tract. de Ver. Eccl. Reform. Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 4. St. John 5.31.  and Calvin have born that Testimony of themselves: 'Tis true, they have given themselves the Titles of Apostles and Evangelists; but since Jesus Christ has said, speaking of himself, If I bear testimony of myself, my testimony is not true, what credit can that Testimony claim that your Patriarches have only given of themselves? Where then shall we begin to judge? for every extraordinary Mission is vain and useless, if it brings not its Proof and Evidence to those in favour of whom it is sent. Shall we know their Authority by their Miracles, by their Works, or by their Doctrine? Their Miracles were never known; the Works of such as are Enemies to Virginity, to Vows of Chastity, Fasting, Abstinence, Austerities, Penance, Confession of Sins, and to the Pains required for their Expiation, are too opposite to the Spirit of the Gospel, either to persuade or edify. Their Doctrine supposes their Mission, as St. Paul tells us, and therefore proves it not: for How shall they Preach, saith he, 
Rom. 10.15.  unless they be sent? Without so much as Examining this Doctrine to the bottom, their Divisions, and the Contradictions that were between themselves, and remain to this Day among their Followers, in the chief Mysteries of Faith, are they not wholly opposite to Truth, and the Unity of the Spirit of God? Luther will have it, That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, besides the Bread, the Body of Christ is really, truly, and corporeally contained. Calvin denies that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Sacrament, but tells us it is however communicated there, and really and substantially received. Zuinglius on the contrary says, That Jesus Christ is neither contained, nor received, nor communicated in or by the Sacrament, but only the Figure of Christ's Body, and the Effects of his Death and Passion. Did the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ teach after this manner? Do we find among them Contradictions in the Mysteries of Faith, or in their Doctrine? What then, Sir, would you have us think of these three Apostles and Evangelists of your Reformation? Into which of their Countries (for every one of them has his own particular) would you have us go to live in the Profession of the Truth, as you advise us in your Letter? For 'tis in this Sense we understand the Resolution which you cunningly suppose we have made, to stay in the Bosom of Rome only till we have put our Affairs in order. It seldom appertains to any but to God, to penetrate so deep into the Hearts of Men: However, Sir, make use of what time you have to determine to which of your three Evangelists we ought to submit, and which we ought to rely upon. Otherwise be not surprised that we live and enjoy one another in that City, where generally all our Fathers and yours, excepting it may be two or three since Jesus Christ and his Apostles, have been bred up; that we live peaceably in the same Church in which they lived, and therein seek that Salvation we hope they have found.  
Permitted to be Printed.  
Given this Sixth of February, 1686. DE LA REYNIE.  
FINIS.