A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England: Being a Further VINDICATION OF THE Bishop of CONDOM'S Exposition of the Doctrine of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.  
With a second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux.  
Permissu Superiorum.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel; And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Blackfriars. 1687.   

THE PREFACE.  
THEY who consider seriously the mischief which Heresy and Schism bring along with them, 
§. 1. The mischief of Heresy and Schism.  not only to the individual persons that are guilty of them, but also to the Nations in which they are propagated, will certainly commend the endeavours of those Sons of Peace who labour to Establish Truth and Unity, and condemn theirs who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other.  
They also who cast an Eye upon the Controversies about Religion which have been agitated in this and the last Age, and the miserable Broils, and other worse consequences that have attended them, cannot but deplore the unhappy fate of Europe, which has for so long time been the Seat of this Religious War. And they who will but impartially consider matters, will find, 
Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace.  that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the most advantageous means to procure this Christian Peace, tho' to their grief they have still been hindered from effecting this good work, by the ignorance of some, and the malice or self-interest of others.  
The Defender tells us in the beginning of his Preface, that several Methods have been made use of in our Neighbouring Nation to reduce the pretended Reformed to the Catholic Communion; but that this of the Bishop of Meaux was looked upon as exceeding all others, in order to that end. This shows indeed the great Zeal those persons bad for the Salvation of their Brethren. And tho' the Defender is pleased to call those excellent Discourses of the Perpetuity of the Faith, and the Just Prejudices against Calvinists, and M. Maimbourg's peaceable Method, etc. Sophistical, and to represent M. de Meauxes Exposition, as either palliating or perverting the Doctrine of his Church; Yet seeing he only asserts the former, without going about to prove it, and has been so unsuccesful in the later charge (as I shall fully show in the following Treatise) I hope the judicious Reader will suspend his Judgement till he has examined things himself, and not take all for Gospel that is said with confidence.  
He tells us also, that the Great design of these several Methods, 
Pag 4.  has been to prevent the Entering upon particular Disputes; And pretends it was because Experience had taught us, that such particular Disputes had been the least  to us of any of them.  
But the Truth is, 
§. 2. We neither decline particulars, nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons. We Appeal to Scripture.  we have never declined fight with them at any Weapon, nor refused upon occasion to enter upon each particular; neither need we go to France for Instances, we have enough at home.  
Some even amongst the first pretended Reformers, appealed to Scripture only; neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils; and tho' these very persons, who were for nothing but what was found in Scripture, were convinced, by the following Sects, that their Reformation was defective, if Scripture alone was to be the Rule of Reformation; every Year almost, since the first Revolt, producing some new Reform of all those that had gone before; And tho' Catholics might justly decline to argue from Scripture only, till Protestants had proved it to be the Word of God by some of their own Principles; yet were they not afraid to join Issue with them all, even in the Point of Scriptures clearness for our Doctrines, abstracting from the Primitive Fathers and Councils. And thereupon, besides several Catechisms, the Catholic Scripturist and other excellent Books, two Treatises were published here in England, and never, that I heard of, Answered. The first, 
An Anchor of Christian Doctrine, wherein the principal Points of Catholic Religion are proved by the only Written Word of God. in 4 Volumes in 4ᵒ. Anno 1622. The other,  
A Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrine with the express words of Scripture, being a second part of the Catholic Balance. Anno 1631. 4ᵒ.  in which was shown, that in more than 260 Points of Controversy, Catholics agree with the Holy Scripture both in words and Sense, and Protestants disagree in both.  
Other Protestants perceiving they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture, 
§ 3. To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages.  and despairing of Fathers and Councils of later Ages, pretended at least to admit the first four General Councils, and the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years. But how mere a pretence this was, appeared by the many Books Written abroad upon that Subject, as Coccius his Thesaurus, Gualterus his Chronology and others; and at home Dr. Pierce found it too hard a task to make a reply to Dean Crecy 's Answer to his Court Sermon; and the present nibbling at the Nubes Testium, show how hard a task they find it to elude their plain expressions.  
A third sort of Protestants ventured to name Tradition as an useful means to arrive at the True Faith; 
§. 4. To an uninterrupted Tradition.  but many excellent Treatises have shown, that no other Doctrines will bide that Test, but such as are taught by the Catholic Church. For Novelty (which is a distinctive mark of Error) appearing in the very Name of Reformation, an uninterrupted Tradition can never be laid claim to by them who pretend to be Reformers. And indeed the exceptions which they usually make, and the General Cry against Fathers, Councils and Tradition, show how little they dare rely upon them.  
Nay there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against our Faith, or to justify their Schism, but what has been abundantly Answered and refuted; and yet the same Sophisms are returned upon us as Current Coin, notwithstanding they have been often brought to the Test, and could not stand it.  
Moreover, Catholics have so far complied with the infirmities of their Adversaries, that they have left no Stone unturned to reduce them to Unity of Faith, and that by meekness, as well as powerful reasonings.  
They have not only condescended to satisfy the curiosity of them who have most leisure, by Writing large Volumes upon every particular Controversy, proving what they hold by Scripture, Councils, Fathers, Reason, and all other pressing Arguments; but because most persons cannot get time to peruse such vast Treatises, they have gone a shorter way to work, and some have manifested the Truth of our Doctrine from the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ, against which he had promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail: Others shown it from the nature of Truth and Error, and the impossibility that an Universal Tradition could fail, especially when God had promised, 
Isa. 59.20, 21.  that the words he would put into their Mouths, should not departed out of their Mouths, nor out of the Mouth of their Seed, nor out of the Mouth of their Seeds Seed, from henceforth and for ever. Others again, as the Protestant Apology, 
And show the truth of our Doctrines from Protestants own Concessions.  proved the innocence and Antiquity of our Doctrine from the Testimony of Learned Protestants themselves, of whom one held one Article and another another; from whence they hoped at least to make our Doctrines be looked upon as less offensive.  
But Protestants finding it a very difficult task to elude such strong Reasons as have and might be brought for the necessary and unerrable Authority of the Church; 
§. 5. But Protestants fly to particular disputes; and in them to the particular Tenets of Schoolmen.  still as if they were uneasy, by all means endeavoured to shuffle off such Arguments as would make short work of the business, and flew out at every loophole to particular Disputes, and the private Opinions of the Schools, where they knew they could enlarge, and talk so long, that Years might pass before they could be silenced, during which time they hoped the Readers as well as Writers would be tired, and by that means they might get their ends.  
And whereas Catholics all along desired them to inform themselves first, what the Church held to be of necessary Faith, before they entered into Dispute or Writ against us, and thereupon to take their Doctrines from the Councils and Universally received Practices, 
And at the last to downright railing.  and not from Private Doctors, or actions of particulars; it was impossible to obtain of them to do it with calmeness: but when ever any Argument pinched, they fell to railing, and began to blacken our Faith, to misrepresent our Doctrines, Caluminate our Practices, and Ridicule our Ceremonies.  
And, as the World goes now, he that could Rail the most, being looked upon as having the better end of the Staff, and Calumnies sinking deeper into the Memories of the Vulgar than solid Reasons, Catholics grew by degrees to be looked upon as bad as Devils, and their Doctrines as the Dictates of Hell itself.  
Hence it was, 
§. 6. Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrine was thought necessary.  that others again thought it necessary to deliver our Doctrine according to the  and approved Sense of our Councils, and abstracting from the private Disputes of Schoolmen, insist only upon those Doctrines which were universally and necessarily received: Neither was the Bishop of Condom the first or only Man that did it. Verron had preceded him in France, and in the beginning of Queen mary Days an Exposition was Published here in England much what of the same Nature, tho' in a different Method.  
To these I might add the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and many others Published in every Country.  
So, 
2 Tim. 4.  that we may justly say, we are now fallen into such like times as those which were foretold by St. Paul, in which People will not endure sound Doctrine, but, having itching Ears after Novelties, choose to themselves Teachers according to their own Desires. Only this is our comfort, that we have not been wanting in our Duty, we have Preached the Word of God, we have been instant in Season, and out of Season, we have reproved, we have rebuked, we have exhorted, with all long-suffering and Doctrine; but they have turned away their Ears from the Truth, and believed Fables. We have used all the means we can to calm the minds of People, that being United in one Faith we might prove ourselves to be the followers of Christ; but hitherto all has been ineffectual through the ignorance of some whose credulity made them believe every Cry against Popery; and the malice of others, whose interest prompted them to defame us.  
The Truth of which will appear more clearly, 
§. 7. A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors, from the first Conversion of this Nation, till H. the 8ths. Schism.  whilst I give a brief account of our Controversies in general, and of that betwixt the Defender and me in particular. In order to which I hope it will not be looked upon as too tedious, if we cast an Eye backwards upon the Religion of our Ancestors.  
It is not denied by our Adversaries, 
Catholic Religion early Established in our Nation.  but that the Christian Religion took very early Root in this Nation, and some Remains of it were found when St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk was sent hither by St. Gregory the Great, to reduce the Pagan Idolaters to the Faith of Christ. St. Bede, who Writes the History of his coming, tells us, there was carried before him a Banner, with the Effigies of Christ upon the Cross; and that he came in with a Procession, Singing the Litanies, etc. He tells us also, that notwithstanding the long want of intercourse with Rome and the Members of that Communion, occasioned by great Oppressions and Persecutions during the Reign of Pagan Kings; yet had there not many Errors crept into this Christian part of the Nation: for St. Augustin only found two Customs amongst them, which he could not Tolerate, 
St. Augustin and the Britain's agree in all things but keeping Easter and some Ceremonies about Baptism.  the one their keeping Easter at a wrong time with the Quartodecimani; and the other some Errors in the Ceremonies of Administering Baptism: these two he earnestly solicited them to amend; but they were obstinate, and would not suffer any Reformation in those two Points, till God was pleased to Testify his Mission, and the Authority he came with, by the Authentic Seal of Miracles.  
Our Adversaries also do most of them acknowledge, that when St. Augustin came into England, he taught most, if not all, the same Doctrines the Roman Catholic Church now Teaches, and introduced those Practices which they now are pleased to call Superstitions; But these Doctrines and Practices, were either then Taught and exercised by the British Christians also, or they were not; If they were not taught by them, certainly we should not have found them so easily submit to such Practices and Tenets as our Adversaries call plain and downright Superstitions and Idolatries; and if they were then taught also by the British Christians, they were certainly of a much longer standing than St. Augustins' time; and our Adversaries, who pretend the reason why they separate from the Church of Rome is, because she has introduced Novelties in matters of Faith, may be from thence convinced of the Antiquity of those Doctrines they now call Novelties; and must either grant they were introduced by the first Preachers of the Gospel here, or show evidently some other time before St. Augustin when this Church embraced them.  
This Faith and these Exercises Taught and Practised by St. Augustin, 
§. 8. This same Faith was delivered by continual Succession, till in these later days, it was weakened by H. the 8ths. Schism.  were propagated down, even till King Henry the 8ths. time: whose Lust and Rapines as they were insatiable; so were the Actions, which he did in order to the fulfilling of them, unparallelled.  
Every one, who has Read any thing of our Histories, knows that his first breach with Rome was, because his Holiness would not allow him to separate from his Lawful Wife Queen Catharine, that he might Marry Ann Daughter of Sir Tho. Bullen; and that having once caused this Schism, 
Millia dena unus Templorum destruit ann●s.  he propagated it by Sacrilege, pulling down Religious Houses, turning the Inhabitants to the wide World, giving their Lands and Revenues to Parliament-men and Courtiers, by which rewards he gained their consent to what he designed.  
It is sufficiently known also, that he approved not of the new Doctrine, that was brought in by Luther during his Reign, neither would he permit such a pretended Reformation, so that the whole contest during that time was only about the Supremacy of St. Peter's See. But as Schism is most commonly followed with Heresy; so in King Edward the 6ths' time, 
Edward the 6th.  the Protector, who was tainted with Zwinglianism, a Reform from Luther, endeavoured to set it up here in England; and from that time the Catholic Doctrine which had been taught by our first Apostles and propagated till then, begun to be rejected and accused as Erroneous, Superstitious and Idolatrous, and they who Professed it, Persecuted.  
But this King's Reign being but short, 
Queen Marry.  Catholic Religion begun again to bud forth under Queen Mary; but that Bud being early nipped by her Death, Queen Elizabeth, by the advice of the new Council which she chose, 
Queen Elizabeth.  and to secure herself in the Throne, resolved to destroy the Catholic Interest, and set up a Prelatic Protestancy which might have the face of a Church; but other pretended Reformers opposed her Prelates and called their Orders Anti-christian, and would needs have the Rags and Remnants of Popery, as they called 'em, taken away, telling them, that if the Word of God was to be the sole Rule of Reformation, such things as were not to be found in that Rule, were certainly to be rejected.  
From that time this Nation has been variously agitated with Disputes, 
The first pretended Reformers, accused the Catholic Church with all bitterness imaginable.  and tho' they could not agree amongst themselves, yet they set up unanimously their Cries against the Catholic Church, as if she had been the Common Enemy; and they were looked upon to be the best Subjects that could bring the most plausible Arguments against her Doctrines; or move the Common People most to reject her Practices.  
During this time the Pope was accused as Anti-christ, the Church of Rome as the Whore of Babylon; neither was there any thing committed by the Heathens worthy reprehension, that was not laid to the charge of the Catholic Church; so furious was their rage against the Truth.  
But things growing calmer in King James, 
They were more calm in K. & K. Ch. the firsts time.  and King Charles the firsts time, such Calumnies and Accusations were looked upon by the more Learned party as the effects of Passion, and Moderation taught them to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Mother Church, that Salvation was to be had in her, that many of those accusations which were brought against her were but the Dreams of distracted Brains; and the more moderate persons begun to look upon her with a more  Eye; but still the aversion which the Vulgar and less knowing People had imbibed, from so long continued Slanders, could not be taken away; and the arising Factions in the State blew up the Coals afresh, and pretended this Moderation was nothing but an inclination to Popery, which so frighted the Mobile, that they were ready to join with any party that pretended to suppress such a Monster, as they thought it to be; from hence came Rebellions and the horrid Murder of King Charles the first.  
After which the Prelatic Party here in England were as much run down as the Catholic, and underwent a common Banishment, during which they entertained a fair Correspondence; the Protestant finding by Experience, that Catholics were Loyal Subjects, conscientious Dealers, and constant Friends.  
This fair Correspondence abroad was the cause of a no less pleasing Union after the happy Restauration of King Charles the second, 
King Charles the second.  during the beginning of whose Reign, Catholics were not otherwise much molested by the Governing party, but only kept out of Employments; till Shaftsbury and his Adherents invented a malicious Calumny, laying a pretended Plot to their charge, by which they put the Nation into such a Flame, that Papists were become the most odious People in the World, and Popery the greatest Crime.  
But the Truth of this Sham-Plot being detected by a subsequent real one; the Innocent sufferings of Catholics raised Compassion in the more moderate Church of England Men, and they seemed to be willing they who had suffered so unjustly should enjoy something a greater liberty; but still the Laws enacted against them being in force, there were persons enough ready to put them in Execution.  
In this posture were Affairs, 
King James the second.  when it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty: No sooner was his present Majesty Ascended upon the Throne, but he declared himself a Catholic, to the unspeakable joy of the Catholic Church, and grief of others, who did not stick to affirm, that they saw nothing wanting in his Majesty fitting for a King, but only (as they thought) a better Religion.  
At his coming to the Crown, his Majesty was pleased to declare, that he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon Loyal Principles, and that he would protect her; this (as it might well) gained the hearts of that party, who little expected such a gracious Declaration from one, whom they had always looked upon as a Member of the Catholic Church, whose Principles they had been taught were too cruel to make use of such Lenitives; and this being again Repeated at the opening of the first Parliament, had so much Power upon the minds of the Loyal party, that notwithstanding the conclusion of a Sermon Preached before them, 
Dr. Sherlocs' Sermon May 29. 1685.  in which it was declared, that an Englishman might be Loyal, but not a Papist, that Parliament testified its Loyalty to such a Degree as will never be forgotten; and would, I am confident, have proceeded in the same manner, had not some factious Spirits animated the Pulpits Zeal, and thrown fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were  in their Religion.  
Indeed, this Sermon to the House of Commons was the occasion of our following Controversies, 
§. 9 The rise of the Present Controversies.  as being the first thing, that appeared in Print against Roman Catholics, (tho' the Author of the Present State of the Controversies, would not take notice of it.) And they who seriously considered the timing of it, the persons to whom it was spoken, the severity of the accusation, and the manner of Publishing it, made their conjectures then, that it was like a throwing out the Gauntlet, and bidding defiance to all the Catholics in England.  
Some short remarks were made upon this Sermon, in a Paper called a Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament. This occasioned the Doctor's reply, in which he not only endeavoured to vindicate himself, but threw all the dirt he could upon the Catholic Church, laying all the faults of particulars at the Church's Door, after such a manner, as shown him neither to understand our Doctrine, nor the Principles we go upon.  
It appeared from hence, that nothing was to be expected but clamour, insincerity, and misrepresentation; and therefore tho' an Answer was prepared and approved of, yet was it thought fit (by those who were to be obeyed) to let the Controversy die, rather than stir up a Religious Litigation, upon a Point, which not only the protestations of Catholics, but their Practices had justified them in.  
However, seeing the Doctor's Vindication as well as all the other Books Written since the Pretended Reformation, had been chief filled up with mistakes or misrepresentations of our Doctrines, all which were taken upon trust, as Real Truths, not only by the Vulgar; but by many, who tho' pretending to Learning, had (as appeared) never Read any but their own party, or at least but superficially; Charity prompted a good Man to show our Doctrines truly as they are in themselves, without the Mixtures of the particular Opinions of Schoolmen, or the Practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received.  
And in order to this he Published a Book under the Title of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented, 
Papist Misrepresented and Represented.  in which the Judicious and Learned Author showed in one Column what was commonly received amongst the Vulgar as the Doctrine of Papists; and in the opposite the true Doctrine of the Catholic Church was represented with all the sincerity and candour imaginable.  
All moderate persons, who would give themselves the liberty to Read and think, acknowledged that Catholics and their Religion had been strangely misrepresented, and were apt to lay great faults upon their Leaders, who had, even from their Pulpits, seconded the common Cry.  
But that party being loath to be thought to have any faults, could not endure to be looked upon as Misrepresenters, and therefore notwithstanding they could not deny, but all that was there exposed under the Title of a Misrepresenter, was at least according to the common Notion People had of Popery, yet was it not to be called Misrepresenting; and tho' they could not deny but all Catholics believe according to that Doctrine which the Representer expresses, yet must this pass for new Popery and we must be accused as if we receded from the Faith of our immediate Predecessors, whilst we affirm that any change from the Faith delivered by a continual Succession from Christ and his Apostles must needs be damnable.  
This occasioned several Tart Answers and replies, till at last the Controversy dwindled into nothing but a Verbal Dispute, whether telling the World that Popery is Idolatrous, Disloyal, bloody-minded, etc. be properly speaking a Misrepresentation or some other word?  
During this dispute two Books were Published, with the same Charitable, and as was hoped, inoffensive intention. The first the  
Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685. concerning Religion, 
Acts of the General Assembly.  together with the complaint of the said General Assembly against the Calumnies, Injuries and Falsities which the pretended Reform have, and do, every day publish in their Books and Sermons against the Doctrine of the Church.  
The Design of which Book was the same with that of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented, with this only difference, that in Representing the Tenets of Catholics, it made use only of the words of the Council of Trent and the Profession of Faith extracted out of it; and in Representing the Calumnies form against our Doctrines observed Religiously the expressions of Protestant Authors, whose very words were cited in the Margin.  
This was so clear a proof of what the Representer had said, that 'tis supposed his Adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample Testimonies.  
The other was the Bishop of Meaux 's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in matters of Controversy. 
The Exposition.   
A Book received by all persons in the Catholic Church of all Ranks and Degrees, as containing nothing in it but the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church. But all the Repeated Testimonies of his Holiness and the Cardinals, Prelates and Doctors of the Church were not enough to make our Adversaries believe it to contain our Doctrines truly; so strangely had they been Misrepresented to them. And therefore out comes presently another.  
Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, etc.  
In the Preface of which Book the Author pretended to show that the Bishop of Meauxes design was only to palliate or pervert the Doctrines of his Church, because (forsooth) his Manuscript Copy (or if you will the Real first tho' not Authenticated impression) differed in some points from what was Printed and allowed of as the first Impression.  
But let us suppose for a moment, if he will, that what he says were true; that the Bishop of Meauxes Manuscript was defective in some points, and differently expressed from what it is now in others; suppose the Bishop had permitted an impression to be made, or (as Cardinal Peron is said to have done, and which it may be was all the Bishop did) had caused a dozen or fourteen Copies to be Printed off, to show them to his friends before he would put the last hand to his Book; nay (if you will) let us suppose, that some of the Doctors of Sorbonne were of the number of those friends to whom he Communicated those Copies, and that they had made some Corrections, Observations or Additions; what is all that (as the Bishop says) to the Book as it is at present? We send them not to the Manuscript, nor to the first Impression (if a few such Copies could be properly called an Impression) but to the Book as it is now Printed and and approved of, as containing the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  
As for the Refutation of all the Defenders Arguments upon this head, I shall refer my Reader to the Bishops own Letter Published in the Appendix: Only whereas the Defender in his Preface to the Exposition, page 2. insinuates, that the late Marshal de Turenne did not owe his Conversion to that Book, but to some other personal Conferences or Papers to them unknown; I must tell him the Marshal has more than once expressed the just esteem he had for that Book, as for that which first opened his Eyes and gave him satisfaction, and did frequently recommend it to others, assuring them, that if they considered it with diligence, it would work the same effect in them. If the Defender doubt of the truth of this, the Right Honourable the Lord John Bellassise, His Majesty's Commissioner for the Treasury, will assure him, that he had it from his own mouth.  
In the Body of the Book he runs through all the Points mentioned by the Bishop, 
§. 10. The Controversy betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender.  still laying such Doctrines to our charge, and backing them with such weak Reasons, and falsified Authorities, that I thought it my Duty (as having Published the Bishop's Exposition in our English Tongue) to detect the fallacies and lay open the falsifications; this I did in my Vindication showing him upon all occasions, that what he opposed as our Doctrine either was not at all our Doctrine, and the Authorities he brought to back his Assertion falsified or misunderstood; or else if it was the Doctrine of some particulars, yet was it neither universally nor necessarily embraced by the Church, and therefore not esteemed by us as of Catholic Faith.  
To this he has made a Reply in his  
Defence of the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
In which they, who Examine nothing but the bold Assertions of an Author, will think that he had much the better of it, and that the Vindicators Arguments were but silly, and that the falsifications, etc. lay at his own Door: But they who will either take the pains to examine matters throughly, or Read this following Reply without prejudice, will I hope, see the matter cleared, and that, notwithstanding all our Defenders pretences, he has not so much as vindicated one of his falsifications, nor brought any one Argument, but which is merely a fallacy, against our Doctrine.  
I shall not go about to prevent the Reader by running through the whole, 
§. 11. The state of the Controversy in particulars.  but it will not be amiss to show him wherein the chiefest difficulties of our Controversies lie that he may pass over when he Reads any of our Adversaries Books (of which there is so great a glut) what does not make against us, tho' it be never so plausible or pleasing; for I dare be bold to say, that if our Adversaries would but take care of this, and write against nothing but what is truly our Doctrines, our Controversy would be quickly at an end, and all the large Volumes that are now Written would dwindle into single sheets.  
How do some People labour to prove, 
§. 12. Honour due to Saints.  that we Adore Men and Women, Stocks and Stones in the utmost propriety of the phrase, and show a great deal of Reading and an excess of Zeal in speaking against Idolatry and Superstition, whereas it is not where to be found, but in their false accusations.  
For we assure them, that we Adore none but God in the utmost propriety of the phrase; 
We honour but adore them not.  but if you take Adore for Honour in an Inferior Degree, we acknowledge that the Saints and Angels may be honoured with such an Inferior honour, nay all animated Creatures whatever according to their Dignity. If you deny it to be lawful to give this Inferior honour to the Saints, prove it and you write against us, otherwise all your labour is but spent in vain.  
As to Images, we say, that what we call Veneration for them is no other than an honour paid, 
§. 13. Images.  where we truly own it, to those for whose sake we use such things otherwise then common things. We have a Veneration for Images as for Sacred Utensils Dedicated to God and the Church's Service, and that too in a less Degree than for our Chalices, etc. every one being permitted to handle an Image or a Crucifix, but not those Vessels which have been rendered venerable by touching the Sacrament of the most precious Body and Blood of our Redeemer. We look upon them as proper Ornaments for a Sacred place; as beneficial for the instruction of the ignorant; and helps to keep our Minds from wand'ring, or our Affections from being cooled. In presence of them we pay our respect to the persons whom they Represent; Honour to whom Honour, Adoration to whom Adoration, but not to the Images themselves, which can Challenge nothing of that nature from us; because, as St. Thomas says, inanimate Creatures are not capable of any honour. If you dislike this, produce your Arguments and you shall be heard. But run not to any hard expressions of the Schools, as of Absolute and Relative Latria, etc. if you be Sons of Peace; all which tho' they may be perhaps defended in the Sense meant by them, yet ought not to be the Subject of our present Controversy, which should be only upon those Points which are universally and necessarily received. Our positive Answer therefore to the 
(a) Pref. pag. 20.  Defenders Question (abstracting from the School Language which he calls Gibberish, and containing ourselves in the necessary Doctrine and Language of the Church in her Councils) is, that the 
(b) See this proved at large by Estius from the seventh General Council. lib. 3. dist. 9 ●. 3.4.  Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross is upon no account whatsoever to be Worshipped with Divine Worship: That Worship being only due to God. I say however, these expressions of the Schools may be easily defended when they explicate their own Sense, if we consider also what they acknowledge to be necessary Articles of our Faith.  
Thus in this particular our necessary Doctrine is that God alone is to be Adored with Divine Worship, This all persons consent to: When therefore Scholastics speak of Adoration given to Images, their expressions are to be interpreted, so that they shock not this their first Principle. They tell you indeed of a Relative Adoration, but when they explicate what they mean by it, it is no more than what our Defender himself must Practise; for certainly when he makes an Act of Adoration to God or Jesus Christ, he Forms an Idea or Image in his Mind (for he will not I suppose say, he has at those times the Beatifical Vision) but that Image tho' it be only a faint Representative, yet is in its Representative nature one with the Object which it Represents, and the Adoration which he pays to God he pays to him as Represented by that Image, without making at all times a reflection of the difference betwixt that Image and the Object that it Represents; and that Homage which he there pays is Divine Adoration, not Absolute to the Idea or Image, but Relative in Presence of the Idea to the Object which it Represents. And thus, say they, we may Adore Jesus Christ in Presence of a Material Image, neither is there any other difference betwixt the Idea and this Material Image, than, that the one is in our Mind by something which was formerly in our Senses, and the other is in our Mind by something which at that time strikes our Senses; but the Adoration which is there performed is neither in the one nor in the other to the Image, but to God whom it Represents. And this is all that Scholastic Divines, and that Cardinal Capisucchi mean in that passage which our Defender citys from him, which I give you entirely in the Margin 
* Ex his constat in Concili. Niceno secundo, & in Tridentino, alijsque, Latriam duntaxat idosala ricam sacris Imaginibus denegari, qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent, ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis & propter ipsas exhibeitur, quaque Imagines sen Numina aut Divinita●em continentia more Gen ilium colamur; de hujusmodi enim Latriae Controversia crat cum Judaeis & Haereticis qui hae ratione nos Imagines colere asserchant. Caeterum de Latria illa quae Imaginibus S. Triritatis, Christi Domini aut S●●ratissimae Crucis exhibetur, ratione rei per eas repraesentatae, & quatenus cum re repraesentatú unum sunt in esse repraesentativo, nullamque Divinitatem Imaginibus tribuit, aut supponit, nulla unquam suit aut esse poruit Controversis. Nara li●jusmodi Latria Imaginibus Exhibetur non propter seipsas, nec in iysit sistendo, sed propter Exemplar, in quod Adoratio illa transit: unde sicut Purpura Regis, etsi non sit Rex, honoratur tamen codem honore quo Rex, quatenus est conjuncta Regi, & cum Rege facit aliquomodo unum; & humanitas Christi etsi sit Creatura, adoratur aderatione Latriae, quia est unita personae Verbi, & unum Christum cum persona Verbiconstituit; ita Imago Christiquia in esse representativo est unum & idem cum Christ, adoratur eadem Adoratione qua adoratur Christus.  whose Sense is in other & more intelligible words what the Bishop of Meaux says, that we do not so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr as the Apostle or Martyr in Presence of the Image.  
If the Bishop of Meaux chose rather to speak in such intelligible terms and according to the Language of the Church in her Councils and Professions of Faith, leaving the harder expressions of the Schools, it does not follow that he and Cardinal Capisucchi differ in the true meaning, neither is it a mark, that Papists (as he says) think it lawful to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrines they dislike. I have shown him in what Sense that may be true, (tho' it seems he did not understand it) that is, when the Principles in those Books touch only probable opinions, or Philosophical conclusions, they may approve what they dislike: But I told him, that in matters of Faith, they do not think it lawful to set their hands to or approve the Principles they dislike; neither can our Desender show one Instance without wresting it to a Sense not intended by them.  
What I have said of Images may be said of Relics. 
Relics.   
As for Justification, 
§. 14. Justification.  if persons would but rightly understand things, there can be no Controversy betwixt them and us, the Council of Trent having declared so plainly, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 8.  that we are Justified Gratis, and that none of those Acts which precede our Justification whether they be Faith or good Works can Merit this Grace; but if after such a Declaration they will not believe us, we can only pity them and Pray to God to make them less obstinate.  
Again, 
Merit. Sess. 6. can. 26.  for Merit of good works done after this Justification, we say with the Council of Trent, that the just may expect an Eternal reward from God through his Mercies, and the Merits of Jesus Christ, 
The just may expect a reward for their good works done in Grace.  if they persevere to the end in doing good and keeping the Commandments. But the Council tells us nothing at all of the School questions, as whether this Merit be of Justice or Fidelity or Condignity or Congruity, and therefore they ought to be excluded from our disputes as being no necessary matters of our Faith.  
As to Satisfactions for Temporal punishments due to sin; 
Satisfaction. We satisfy by Christ's satisfaction.  it is not of Faith (as appears by the Conncils silence in those Points) that our satisfactions are of Condignity or of congruity, by justice, or by mercy: But it is of Faith, that through the Merits of Christ we satisfy for such pains, 
Sess. 14. can. 13.14.  and that by Jesus Christ we satisfy for our sins by the help of his satisfactions, which Merits of Christ proceed merely from his mercy towards us. Oppose this last then only and our Controversy will be shorter.  
What a deal of stuff have we seen of late concerning Purgatory, even by those who acknowledge, 
§. 15. Purgatory.  that all the Council of Trent determins is, that there is a Purgatory [or middle state] and that the Souls that are detained there, are helped the suffrages of the Faithful, but principally by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar. It is not what Bellarmin looks upon as Truths, that we ought to maintain; but only what is of necessary Faith, and that is defined by the Council. It is therefore no Article of necessary Faith (without the belief of which we cut ourselves off from the Communion of the Faithful) that there is a Fire in Purgatory, 
A short summary of the Principal Controversies, etc. pag. 42.  neither has the Council of Florence defined it, tho' a late Pamphlet says it did. It is not defined what the pains are, nor how grievous nor how long they shall last. Had those Authors therefore let these Points alone, and only Written against such a middle state, the Printer would have got less by them, but the People more.  
Separate also what is not of Faith from Indulgences, and the Controversy will be brought to this; whether the Power of Indulgences hath been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ, 
Indulgences.  and whether the use of them be beneficial to Christian People or no; so that we should have nothing to do in our disputes about the Treasure of the Church, nor about Indulgences whereby the punishment due in the Court of God sin remitted may be taken away, or the pains in Purgatory; but only about a Power to remit to Penitents some part of their public Canonical Penances, if their life and laudable Conversation seemed to deserve it.  
We affirm only, 
§. 16. Sacraments.  that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments in the New Law Instituted by Jesus Christ, and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind, tho' not all to every one. And our Advesaries say, there are two only generally necessary to Salvation, but dare not positively exclude the others from being a kind of particular Sacraments. And seeing the Scripture mentions not the number either of three or seven, why should not the voice and constant practice of the Church be heard before particular clamours?  
As to the matter of the Eucharist, if People would but once take a right notion of what we mean by a Real Presence, and rightly understand what we mean by the Terms Corporal and Spiritual, we should not have such large Volumes Written by those who pretend to believe all that Christ has said.  
And in our disputes about the Church, 
The Church.  and its Authority, what perpetual mistakes are their committed for want of considering what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church, and by her Infallibility?  
In a word, 
§. 17. The Rule of Faith.  would People take notice, that we affirm the Total and only Rule of Catholic Faith, to which all are obliged under pain of Heresy and Excommunication, to be Divine Revelation delivered to the Prophets and Apostles, and proposed by the Catholic Church in her General received Councils, or by her universal Practice as an Article of Catholic Faith, and that if either this Divine Revelation to the Prophets and Apostles, or this proposal by the universal Church be wanting to a Tenet, it ceases to be an Article or Doctrine of Faith, 
Protestants will not distinguish betwixt faith and private opinions.  tho' it may be a truth which it would be temerarious to deny; would they (I say) take notice of this, and then examine what are those Doctrines which we hold to have been thus taught and proposed, we should not only find our Controversy brought into a narrow Room; but all the odious Characters of Popery and the Calumnies that are thrown upon us, with the ill consequences of fears and jealousies, etc. would be removed, and we might hope for Peace and Unity.  
Whereas by the methods by which we see Disputes now carried on, 
But prolong disputes upon unnecessaries.  one would think our Adversaries had no other end in all their Controversial Books or Sermons, but to cry down Popery at any rate, lest they should suffer prejudice by its increase, which they are conscious it would do, if what is of Faith were separated in all their Discourses from Inferior Truths or probable opinions.  
And because I am not willing to prolong disputes, 
§. 18. Which the Vindicator resolves to decline.  I do here declare, that if the Defender do hereafter meddle with such points as those which are not of necessary Faith, I shall not think myself obliged to answer him, tho' after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last word.  
But if he please to answer any thing positively to those Doctrines acknowledged by all Catholics to be of Faith, or to the Arguments I have brought in the XXIII. and and XXIV. Articles to prove the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the true Orthodox Catholic Church, and that the voice of the Church in every Age is the best way to know what is Apostolical Tradition, upon finishing which two last disputes all our Controversy would be ended; he shall have a fair hearing.  
But I may be bold to foretell, without pretending to be a Prophet, that nothing of all this will be done; and that if he vouchsafe an Answer, he will as to the first either still fly to the private Tenets and Practices of Particulars, or Misrepresent our Doctrine; and as to the others either fob my Arguments off with such an Answer as he thinks is sufficient against Monsieur Arnauld's Perpetuity, 
defence Pref. pag. 11.  that is, calling it a Logical subtlety, which wants only Diogenes 's, Demonstration, to expose its Sophistry; A pretty quirk indeed, were the case parallel, or that it could be made out as clearly, that the Church has erred, as it could be shown that Diogenes moved; but what is the Point in Question must be always supposed as certain in our Defenders Logic; or else he will send us to his beloved friends Monsieur Daille, or Monsieur Claude, as he has upon the like occasions; or lastly endeavour to expose us by some contemptible Raillery, as he has done the Bishop of Meaux to the Defenders own confusion amongst thinking Men. For  
It is not enough to Men of Sense to speak contemptibly of solid Arguments, excellent Discourses, or persons of known integrity. Monsieur Arnauld 's Perpetuity of the Faith, and the just Prejudices against the Calvinists will not lose their esteem amongst the Learned and Judicious because our Defender tells us they have been outdone by Huguenots; neither will the Bishop of Meauxes credit be any ways impaired, or his Exposition less esteemed because the Defender, and such as he, have endeavoured to traduce him, and make the World believe him to be Insincere or ignorant.  
But such things as these are now a-days put upon the World without a blush, and they who are this day ingenious, Learned and honest Men, shall be to morrow time-servers, blockheads and knaves if they chance but to cast a  look towards Popery, and hated, abhorred, and oppressed with injurles if they forsake their Errors to embrace the Truth, even by those who pretend that Conscience ought not to be forced.  
I must conclude this Preface with begging pardon of my Readers for the length of this work which will I fear deter some from the perusal of it, but I hope, they who are desirous to search for the True Faith, which is but one amongst so many, and without which it is impossible to please God, will not think it much to spend a little time for their satisfaction; which if they do I hope it will open their Eyes and they will see how much they have been hitherto kept in ignorance by those who pretend to be their guides, but show themselves by their Writing either to be blind, or which is worse, malicious. For if they know our Doctrines and yet Misrepresent them to their People, they must be convinced of Malice; and if they know them not, we are ready to inform them; if they think we palliate or pervert our Doctrines to gain Proselytes, it shows how little they understand our Tenets; For when they see us ready to lose our Estates, our Liberties, and our Lives, rather than renounce one title of our Faith, how can a reasonable Man be persuaded we would renounce it all to gain a Proselyte, who, the very first time he should see us Practise contrary to our Doctrines, would be sure to return and expose our Villainy?   

BEcause the Defender has been pleased to ask this Question in the close of his Discourse, page 84. Where are the Vnsincere deal, the Falsifications, the Authors Miscited or Misapplied! I thought it might not be amiss to refer the Reader to some of them, as they are detected in this following Treatise. And tho' the Defender had not the sincerity to acknowledge them, yet I dare refer myself to any  Readers Judgement in the case betwixt us.  

Calumnies, pag. 3.32, 36, 47.  
Falsifications, pag. 31.37, 50, 54, 62, 70, 126, 155.  
False Translations, pag. 42.48.  
Unsincerities.  
Uncharitable Accusations.  
Wilful mistakes of our Doctrine.  
Affected Misapplications of Equivocal words.  
False Impositions.  
Authors Misapplied.  
Plain Contradictions, pag. 46.86.   
In almost every Article.   

A CATALOGUE OF AUTHORS Cited in the following BOOK, With their Editions.  

A  
ACts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy, Engl. 1685.  
S. Ambros. Basileae, 1567. Aquinatis Summa Theol. fol. Parisiis, 1632.  
S. Athana. Ex Officina Commeliniana, An. 1601.  
S. Augustini Opera Basileae, 1569.  
S. Augustini Opera Imperf. Cont. Julian.   

B  
S. Basilei Opera Paris. 1618.  
Bellarm. de Scrip. Eccl. Colon. 1622.  
Bellarm. Opera Lugduni, 1587.  
— Col. Agrip. 1619.  
Biblia Sacra vulgat.  
English Protestant Bible.  
Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniae. 1618.  
Brereley Protestant Apology. 1608.  
— Liturgy of the Mass. Col. 1620.  
Breviarium Monasticum Paris. 1675.   

C  
Card. Cajetan in D. Thomam Venetiis, 1612.  
Card. Capisucchi Capit. Theol. Selec.  
Cassandris Opera Paris. 1616.  
Ejusd Consultatio. vid. Grotii via ad Pacem.  
Catechismus Romanus Antverpiae ex Officina Plant. 1606.  
Chemnitii Examen Concil. Trid. Francof. 1574.  
Sti. Chrysostomi Epistola ad Caesarium.  
Sti. Chrysost. Edit. Commelian 1596. item 1603.  
— Frontoduc. 1616.  
The Book of Common-Prayer, London, 1686.  
Summa Conciliorum Bail fol. Par. 1675.  
Concilia Binii Paris. 1636.  
Concilia Gen. & Provinc. Colon. 1578.  
Concilium Tridentinum Paris 1674.  
Cressy against Dr. Pierce 's Court Sermon, 1663.  
Sti. Cypriani Opera Paris, 1648.  
Cyprian Angl. 2d. Edit.   

D  
Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, 1686.  
Dionys. Areopag. Eccles. Hierarch. Paris, 1644.  
Durandus in Sententias. Lud. 1569.   

E  
Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, 1686.  
S. Ephrem Edit. Ger. Vossii Colon. 1616.  
Error Nonplussed, 1673.  
Estius in 4 Libros Sententiarum Parisiis, 1672.  
Eusebii Historia Ecclesisastica Basileae.   

G  
The Guide in Controversy, 1673.  
Sti. Gregor. Mag. Paris, 1533.  
Sti. Gregorii Opera.  
Sti. Gregor. Nazianzeni Opera Paris. 1609.  
Sti. Greg. Nyssen Paris. 1615.  
— Antwerpiae, 1572.  
Grotii via ad pacem. cum Consult. Cassandris, 80. 1642.  
Gualteri Chronologia. Lugduni, 1616.   

H  
Hist. Anglic. Harpsfeldei. Duaci, 1622.  
Book of Homilies, fol. 1673.  
Hen. Huntingdoniensis Hist. Francofurti, 1601.   

I  
Sti. Irenaei Adversus Haeres. Colon. 1596.  
Sti. Justini Mart. Parisiis, 1615. item Edit. Commel. 1593.   

L  
Lombardi Sentent. apud Scotum.   

M  
Maimburg. Hist. de l' Arianism Edit. Paris. 4ᵒ. 1673.  
Maldonat in Evang. fol. Mogunt, 1611.  
— In Prophet as Minores 40. Mongutiae, 1611.  
Monsieur de Meaux Exposition Eng. 4ᵒ. by Hen. Hills, 1686.  
— French 5 Edit. 12o. A Paris, An. 1681.  
— Traité de la Communion sous les deus especes 12o. A Paris, 1682.  
Missale Romano Monasticum. Paris. 1666.   

N  
Nubes Testium, 1686.   

O  
Origines old Character, 1512.   

P  
Du Perron Replique a la Reponse du Roy de la Grande Bretaigne, fol. Paris. 1620.  
— De l'Eucharistie, fol. Paris. 1629.  
Plain Man's Reply, 1687.  
Polyd. Virgilius Hist. Anglic. Basileae, 1534.  
Pontificale Romanum, fol. Romae, 1645.  
Protestant Apology, 1608.   

R  
Roman Catholic Doctrine no Novelties; See Cressy against Dr. Pierce Court Sermon.  
Rufini Historia Basileae   

S  
Scotus in Magistrum Sententiarum. Antverp, 1620.  
sherlock's Sermon before the House of Commons, 1685.  
A short Summary of the Principal Controversies, 1687.  
Sixti Senensis Bibl. Sancta Coloniae, 1576.  
Socratis, Sozomen, etc. Histo. Basileae.  
Sparrows Collections, of Cannons, London 1675. 4ᵒ.  
Suarez Venetiis, 1597.   

T  
Tertulliani Opera Regaltii Paris. 1664.  
Theodoreti Historia Basileae.  
Thorndike just Weights and Measures 4ᵒ. London, 1662.  
— Epilogue fol. London, 1659.   

V  
Vasques Antwerp. 1620.  
Vindication of the Church of England from Schism and Heresy, 1687.  
Vindication of the Bishop of Condoms Exposition 1686.    

A REPLY TO THe DEFENCE OF THE Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England.  


ART. I. INTRODUCTION.  
THat he who accuses another of Great and Heinous Crimes, 
§. 1. Def. p. 1.  aught to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself, of those Faults which he condemns in others, is certain: But whether this Author of the Defence, or I, have governed ourselves by this Maxim, is to be cleared; and I suppose the Judicious Readers will neither take his nor my bare assertion for a proof; and therefore to avoid more words I commit the whole to their Examen in the following Articles.  
I shall pass by also what he says concerning the Authority of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston, etc. which he equalizes to a Permissu Superiorum (tho' I hope he will not contend with those Testimonies which are given to the Exposition) and proceed to the Point in question.  
If Calumny and unsincerity be now the Catholic Cry, 
§. I.  it is because Idolatry, 
Idolatry and Superstition Prot. Cry and Calumnies, at present.  Superstition, and I know not what more harsh names, are now the Protestants.  
There was a time (as this Author knows) in which the  Sons of the Church of England excused the Roman Catholic Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry, and acknowledged the Doctrine of the Church (as to that particular) to be innocent. 
Dr. Jackson, Dr. Field, Archbishop I and, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Thern 〈◊〉 Dr. Hammand, etc.  He knows too, that some persons (never Excommunicated nor censured by the Church of England for it) have maintained, that the Sons of the Church of England cannot defend the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, without denying that Church to be a true Church, 
Other Protestants thought the charge unjust.  and by consequence, without contradicting themselves; without going against the intention of the Reformation, which was not to make a new Church, but to restore a Sick Church to its Soundness, a Corrupted Church to its Purity; 
Thorn like Just weights and measures, Chap. 1.2. Chap. 1.3. Chap. 2. p. 9  without casting the Sin of Schism at their own Doors, and being answerable for all the Ill consequences of it: Nay more, that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist, and the Papists for Idolaters, can never weigh by his own Weights, and meet by his own Measures, till he hate Papists worse than Jews or Mahometans; of which the Presbyterian and the Puritan have been guilty, but the Clergy and Gentry of the Church of England have been hitherto more Christian.  
I would gladly therefore know how it comes to pass, 
Defence p. 88  that at this time (when he acknowledges there was never more cause to hope for an Union, and wishes that all such things as heighten our Animosities, might on all sides be buried in eternal Oblivion,) An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England should be ushered in with that odious Imputation of Adoring Men and Women, Crosses and Images, etc. Where does he find the Church of England in her Thirty Nine Articles or public Testimonies of her Dogmatical Doctrine, charging the Church of Rome with such Idolatry? We find indeed that their Twenty second Article tells us, that the Invocation of Saints is one of those Practices which are fond things, vainly invented, etc. but it proceeds not so far as to call it Idolatrous. And if the Book of Homilies (to which he flies upon other occasions when he is pressed to show the Doctrine of his Church) be more severe, he is little versed in his own Doctrines, if he be ignorant that several Eminent Divines of his own Church do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the public Dogmatical Doctrine of the Church of England, 
Bishop Montague Dr. Heylin, Mr. Thorndike.  tho' they be all obliged to subscribe to it as containing a wholesome Doctrine.  
I wish then there be not something more in the bottom of this than what appears at first sight. Dr. Heylin tells us, 
§. 2. The charge of Idolatry begun in Queen Eliz. time.  that when Queen Elizabeth beheld the Pope as her greatest Enemy in reference to her Mother's Marriage, her own Birth, and consequently her Title to the Crown of England, Books were filled with bitter Revile against the Church of Rome and all the Divine Offices, Ceremonies and performances of it; 
Cyprian. Angl. pag. 342. 2d Edit.  but that in the next Ages the dangerous consequences of the Charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome, began to be more calmly and maturely considered; 
Rejected in King Charles the first's time.  in so much that Archbishop Laud thought it necessary to endeavour with diligence to hinder the reprinting of those Books. And what, must the same Apprehensions be now again raised in the People's minds? Must the Pope pass now for our greatest Enemy? And must the common People be taught to hate Papists worse than Jews and Mahometans, 
Renewed at present to make us odious.  that the Pulpits ring again with such horrid accusations, and every Book (tho' pretending moderation) brings now the charge of Idolatry along with it? If this Author had not this design, (for I dare not accuse him of being a leading Man) he might at least have foreseen the ill consequences which would follow in the Nation, and for which I fear He and Those that set him on, will one day answer before the Tribunal of the God of Peace and Unity.  
But he thinks himself clear at least of Calumny, 
Defence pa. 2.  if he can show that our Authors allow all that he has charged us with. 
Calumny.  Not too fast: I must in this also beg his pardon: The consequence does not follow, that because some particular Members of the Church of Rome may have taught such Doctrines, therefore the Church is guilty of them. He has been often told (and that according to all reason) that we have nothing to do here with the Doctrine of the Schools; that he must take our Doctrines from the Councils, which contain the Public, Authentic and universally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church; otherwise he touches not the necessary terms of Communion. 
Des. Pref. p. 19  But tho' he acknowledges this to be my Catholic Distinction, yet he takes little or no notice of it throughout his whole Book, but flies still to particular Authors to maintain his charge.  
But what if our Authors allow not those things which he charges them with, will he then acknowledge himself guilty of Calumny If he cannot bring any of our Authors that say, Divine Worship is to be given to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed (unless their expressions be miserably distorted) or any persons that do practice it; if our Missals and Pontificals do not command us to adore the Cross taking the word Adoration in that strict Sense; and if I show him in the following Articles that he mistakes the Doctrine of the Council of Trent about the Sacrisice of the Mass, and the Church's Tenet about Merit; I hope he will be so ingenuous as to confess; that we deserve not so ill a Character; and if he be so sensible of the account which must be given for idle words, 
Close pag. 86.  I hope he will likewise consult the Salvation of his Soul, and repent and make satisfaction for those which are injurious to the reputation of a Church, to which (if he be what he professes) he must acknowledge he owes some obligations as to a Mother.  
But I charged him also with unsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics and Protestants, 
Unsincerity.  and this also touches his reputation. I must confess I would willingly be tender of it; but where so great a concern as the reputation of an Innocent Church is joined with his single Honour, I think I may be excused, if I let the dirt fall where it ought, when by wiping it off from one, it must necessarily stick upon the other.  
That which I condemned in his stating of the Question was, 
§. 3. Catholics affirm that Protestants hold not all Fundamentals.  that he represented us as allowing them to hold the Ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. I told him that we do not allow that Proposition, especially if he mean all Fundamentals; 
Pag. 24.  and that tho' the Bishop of Meaux has a Section to show, how those of the Pretended Reformed Religion acknowledge the Catholic Church to embrace all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion, 
Protestants grant that Catholics hold all Fundamentals.  yet it does not from thence follow, that Catholics reciprocally grant them also to hold the same. And what, I pray, is his answer to this? That whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meauxes arguing from Monsieur Daille's Concessions, 
Defence pa. 4.  as to this Point, will find it clear enough, that he did; if the Foundation consist of Fundamental Articles. But really I have again and again considered what Monsieur de Meaux says in that Section, and can find no such thing in it; but that his is only Argumentum ad hominem, 
M. de Meaux sense perverted by the Defender.  an Argument drawn from the Concessions of Monsieur Daillé, and from what is manifest to every one, viz. That we believe all those Articles which Protestants call Fundamental: But he neither says, nor insinuates, 
Expos. Sect. 2. pag. 3.  nor so much as shows it to be his Opinion, that the Protestants hold all those Articles which Catholics call Fundamental. But he who can find That in the Bishop's Argument, 
The Vindicators sense perverted by the Defender. Def. pag. 5.  can find also that I myself confess that the Articles which we hold and they contradict, do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental. I know not with what Spectacles he Reads, but I think any judicious Reader will grant that I never said any such thing. 'Tis true, I tell him, 
Vindic. pa. 23.  that were the Doctrines and Practices which he alleges the plain and confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, he would have reason to say they contradict our Principles: But I tell him also, that we renounce those Doctrines and Practices, that we detest the very Thoughts of them; and that we see no more Connexion betwixt the Consequences of Idolatry and Superstition, which he draws from our Doctrine (if he take it in its right sense) than there is betwixt the same Consequence which Dissenters draw from their bowing to the Altar and at the Name of Jesus, 
Catholics no more Idolaters than Protestants.  etc. But he takes no notice of this Parallel, when given him in such modest Terms, and storms at the Method of giving it in the Dissenters Language, which shows he has little to say to the Justice of the thing itself.  
But he tells me, 
Pag. 5.  that I have mistaken the Question betwixt him and me: For his business was only to give a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. Indeed had he followed that Design according to the Title of his Book, and kept himself entirely to it without those wild Excursions against the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, or only abstained from misrepresenting them, I should not have undertaken to Vindicate the Bishop's Exposition. But perhaps he will say that he did it with Charity and Moderation, and that if he had known any thing in his Book, 
Expos. Doct. C. of E. Pref. pa. 18.  that without dissembling the Truth might have been omitted, he sincerely professes he would most willingly have done it. As if it were Charity and Moderation to begin with an accusation of our adoring Men and Women, 
Protestant Charity and Moderation.  Crosses, Images and Relics, etc. Or as if this and the like did so belong to the Doctrine of the Church of England, that he was necessitated in expounding her Doctrine to fix them upon us, and could not omit them without dissembling the Truth. If he had consulted the Learned of his own party, they would have taught him more Charity and Moderation.   

ART. II. That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone.  
OUr Author of the Defence tells us, 
§. 4.  he is but little concerned in this Article; 
Def. pag. 6.  neither is it (he says) his business to examine whether I have truly distinguished betwixt that Honour which we pay to God, and that which we give to Saints. But really I think, considering the stress he has put upon the word ADORATION, in his following Discourse, 
A necessary distinction not taken notice of by the Defender.  he ought to have taken notice of the distinctions which I here gave. But he knew that had he done this, all his Quotations out of our Liturgies, etc. would have signified just nothing; neither could he have made so plausible an excuse for his Calumnies and Falsifications, and therefore he thought it better to leave the true Explication of the Terms, and the necessary distinctions betwixt Honour and Honour, Worship and Worship, Adoration and Adoration, etc. to others, and make use of them still in his own confused Sense, as if nothing had been said to rectify his mistake.  
I see then I must be forced to open the matter a little more plainly: Which having once done, I hope the Judicious Reader will take notice of what I say, tho' he who opposes me may not think it for his purpose.  
And first I must again tell him with Monsieur de Meaux, that seeing in one Sense Adoration, Invocation, and the Name of Mediator (I might add Justification, Prayer, etc.) are only proper to God and Jesus Christ, it is no hard matter to misapply those Terms, whereby to render our Doctrine odious. And I must here conjure him not to obstruct the hopes of a more Christian Unity (which he thinks is now in a fair way to come on) by a future misapplication of those Terms: To prevent which, I must desire him to consider,  
Secondly, 
Respect, Honour, Worship, Service, Adoration, Veneration, etc. are equivocal terms and are misapplied by the Defender.  That tho' we would willingly appropriate peculiar Names or Expressions to signify the intention with which we do our actions, calling that Honour which we pay immediately to God, Divine Adoration, or Latria; That which we pay to Men upon account of natural or naturally acquired Excellencies, only Civil; and that which we pay to Saints, Angels and Holy things, Doulia, or a Religious Honour, not in the strictest Sense of the word, but because it has a reference to God who is the Centre of all Religious Honour, to whom it ought finally to tend, and in whom it is ultimately terminated; yet the Terms, Respect, Honour, Worship, Service, Adoration, Veneration, etc. have been so variously used by our Forefathers, both in our Native, and in the Sacred Languages, that it is impossible to make them speak uniformly. Thus at this very day, tho' we affirm that God is only to be Worshipped (meaning with Divine Worship) yet in the Protestant Common-Prayer Book, in the Ceremonies of Marriage, the Man says to the Woman with my Body I thee Worship. And our Language teaches us to give the Titles of Worshipful or Right-Worshipful to Men of Quality. Thus in the Sacred Scriptures Abraham is said to Adore the Children of Heth, Josue an Angel, etc.  
What I have said of words is likewise to be understood of the exterior actions of the Body, Bowing, Kneeling, Prostrating, 
§. 5. Bowing, Kneeling, Prostrating, etc. are variously used.  Kissing &c. all which are not so appropriated to God, but that they are and have been in all Ages made use of to testify our respect to our Kings, Parents, or Magistrates.  
Lastly, I must desire him to consider with us, 
§. 6. The Honour paid by those words or actions is distinguished by the Object.  that this Bowing, Kneeling, Prostrating, etc. these Terms of Veneration, Adoration, Worship, Honour, etc. tho' so promiscuously used, are yet distinguished according to the Excellency of the Object on which they are Terminated; for if the Excellency be Natural or Naturally or Extrinsical, as Nobility, Riches or the like, the Honour which is due is only Civil, or Human: But where the Excellency is Supernatural we term the Honour Religious, that is, such an Honour as Faith and Religion teacheth. Now Faith and Religion teacheth us also to make a distinction in Religious Honour, according as the Supernatural Objects themselves are distinguished. For the Supreme Independent Being is to be Worshipped with a Sovereign unlimited Religious Honour, and this Honour which, (when we speak strictly) we call Latria, 
Divine honour called Latria only due to God.  is only due to him. But as God bestows his Supernatural Gifts upon his Creatures, some in one degree some in another, so is there an Honour due to them according to their several Degrees; and tho' this Honour may be properly called Religious, because of its Religious Motive, 
Inferior honour called Doulia, may be given to Creatures.  and because it has God for its Ultimate Object, for whose sake, and upon account of whose Gifts we Honour them; yet is it in a Degree Infinitely Inferior to that which we pay to God, because the Object which it Regards is Infinitely Inferior to him. This Inferior Honour we (when we speak in proper terms) call Doulia, 
The distination of Latria and Doulia is acknowledged by sober Protestants to have its use, Vostus, etc. nothing hinders them to be taken as no ds of art use to be taken to signify peculiar conceptions in Christianity. Thorndike, Epilogue lib. 3. c. 30. pag. 364.  for Hyperdoulia signifies nothing but a higher Degree of this Inferior Honour, the highest Degree bearing still no proportion to that which we call Latria, the one being paid to an Infinite increated Object, the other to a finite Created Being.  
This Inferior Religious Honour is sometimes also paid to Inanimate things. 
§. 7.  As in the Old Law to the Ark, to Aaron's Rod, etc. and now in the New, to the Sign of our Redemption, to the Bible, to the Altar, etc.  
If this distinction betwixt Supreme Religious Honour or Worship, called Latria, and inferior Religious Honour or Worship called, Doulia, and that which we call Civil, do not please him, but that he will admit only of the two Extremes, and reject that Middle inferior Honour, I must ask him what he will call that Honour which was paid to the Ark in the Old Law, before which King 
a 2 Reg. 6.  David Danced, for the touching of which Oza was slain, and the 
b ● Reg. 6.19.  Bethsamites to the Number of 70 Men and 50000 of the Populace for having only looked into it? and which was 
c Psal. 98.5. compared with the 1 Paral. 28.2.  Commanded by the Royal Prophet to be Adored. Nothing of Religion here? Nothing of Reverence? what will he call that Reverence which God himself Commanded to be done to his Sanctuary, Levit. 19.30. Must it not be called Religious? Certainly the Church of England, as I take it, implies at least as much, when amongst her Canons she enters this as one, That Churches be not profaned: Seeing, nothing can be profaned, but what hath a Religious Respect. What will he call that Honour which 
* Sum Prine●pt exercitus Dominl— Cecidit Josue pronus in terram. Es Adorans alt. Josue 5.14. Protestants pay an inferior Religious Honour to mere Creatures.  Josue paid to the Angel after he had told him that he was only Prince of the Army of the Lord, when his own Translation says, he fell on his Face to the ground, and WORSHIPPED? I will not urge their Adoration before the Altar, nor their Kneeling at the Communion, because he will perhaps say, they Reverence not the Altar, but God, and Honour not the Elements of Bread and Wine, but Jesus Christ represented by them: However, tho' they are loath to confess it, for fear of giving advantage; yet they must needs allow a Religious respect to both, seeing I hope he will grant, that both the Altar and the Elements may be profaned: Is this Respect a Religious Honour, or is it only Civil? If he cannot for shame say it is only Civil, nor dare not say it is Divine, he must admit of a Middle sort of Honour, which how he will Term I know not, if he call it not Religious in an inferior Degree.  
These Notions being Cleared, I hope where ever he meets with the Words Worship or Adore, he will not immediately judge God or an Idol to be the object of that Cult, or that a Sovereign and Divine Honour is meant by those Words; but that he will give a right distinction, according to the different objects, 
Qui bene distimguit, bene decet.  to which those Words and Actions are Appropriated: which if he do, I hope I shall easily make him understand our Doctrine in the following Articles.  
What I have here said, 
pag. 90.  Clears Maldonat's Expression Cited in the close. And as to what he tells us from the Index Expurgatorius, that it has ordered these Words that God only is to be Adored, and that no Creature is to be Adored, to be Blotted out of St. Athanasius and other Authors in which they do occur; I wish he had Weighed and Examined well what he Writ: For tho' I have not seen the Index Expurgatorius which he mentions, 
In libris autem Catholicorum veterum, nihil mutere fas sit, nisi ubi aut fraud. Haereticorum, aut Typographi incurpa manifestius error irrepserit.  yet I have Consulted the Rules Appointed at the end of the Council of Trent for the Correction of Books, and the 4th § de Correctione orders, that nothing be Corrected in old Catholic Authors, but where a manifest Error has crops in, either by the deceit of Heretics or the negligence of the Printers: And the Books of Origen and Tertullian, etc. 
Si quid autem majoris momenti, & animadversione dignum accurrerit, liceat in novis editiquibus, vel ad margins, vel in Scholiis adnotare; ca inprimis adhibiea diligentis, an ex Dodrina, locisque collatis, ejusdem auctoris sentenlia difficilior illustrari, ac mens ejus planius explicari possit.  which are Printed by Catholics without any Castigations, are a plain proof of our Integrity; and therefore I doubt not but that our Defender is either out in his Citation, or that the word Adore is taken by them in a less strict Sense, and only inserted in the Margin or Indices of St. Athanasius, contrary to his Sense and Meaning.   

ART. III. Invocation of Saints:  
THis being one of those Points in which (as he says) he has promised to show, 
§. 8.  that we adore Men and Women by such as Invocation, as cannot possibly belong to any but God only; and that we make the Merits of our Saints to run Parallel with the Merits of Christ; it will be necessary, that I show him wherein his Mistake lies, and the injustice of that Imputation.  
In order to which, 
Prayer, Invocation, etc. are equivocal terms abused by the Defender, Epilogue— Of the Laws of the Church, c. 30. pag. 353.  as in the last Article I shown, That the terms of Honour, Respect, Worship, Adoration, etc. were equivocal; so must I here also First premise, that the words Prayer, Invocation, calling upon, Address, etc. are (as Mr. Thorndike himself says, whose Testimony I all along allege, not so much (as the Bishop of Condom says of Mr. Daille) to convince them by the Authority of their most Learned Ministers, who were never, that I heard of, censured by their Church, as because what he says is in itself evident) or may be, in spite of our Hearts, equivocal; that is, we may be constrained, unless we use that Diligence, which common discretion counts superfluous, to use the same words in signifying requests made to God and to Man— neither are they so proper to God, but that whether you will or not, every Petition to a Prince, or a Court of Justice is necessarily a Prayer, and he that makes it, Invocates, or calls upon that Prince or Court for Favor or for Justice.  
2. 
jid. Saints may be Honoured.  I must also with the same Mr. Thorndike say, that to dispute whether we are bound to Honour those whom we call properly Saints, or not, were to dispute whether we are to be Christians, and to believe this, or not; For if God hath said, I will Honour those who Honour me, it becomes as certainly to Honour them too. And that whether this Honour be Religious or Civil, becomes disputable only for want of words, vulgar use not having provided proper terms to signify all conceptions which come not from common sense.  
3. I suppose Mr. 
Saints pray for us.  Thorndike (as in them) spoke also the sense of his Church, when he tells us, and proves it from undeniable 
(a) Apoc. v. 8. viij. 3. Gen. xxvi. 5.24. Exod. xxxii. 13. Deut. ix. 27. 1 Kings xi. 1.32, 33, 34. xv. 4, 2 Kings viij. 19 nineteen. 34. xx. 6. Esd. xxxvii. 35. 1 Kings xviii. 36. 1 Chron. xxix. 28.  Texts of Scripture, and 
(b) St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, St. Leo, St. Gregory, and many more which he could bring.  passages of the Fathers, 
Ibid. pag. 354. Ibid. pag. 355. Whether they be our Mediators Intercessors or Advocates is only a contention about words.  That it is not to be doubted, that the Saints in Happiness pray for the Church Militant— and that therefore whatsoever may be disputed, whether Saints or Angels in this regard may be counted Mediators, Intercessors, or Advocates between God and us, will be mere contentions about words, which I intent to avoid, if I can, in all controversial Discourses.  
So that the difference betwixt Catholics and moderate Protestants, is not Whether Saints or Angels are to be Honoured with an inferior Honour, or whether they pray for us; but Whether it be lawful for us to Pray to them; not in that Sense as if we intended by that Prayer to do that to them, which they do to God for us, for that as the same Mr. 
Ibid. pag. 356.  Thorndike well observes (still really and actually, as the same Author notes, apprehending them to be creatures, which prevents Idolatry;) could not be said without Idolatry; but Whether it be lawful for us to beseech or entreat them to pray for us. And the question betwixt the Defender and us is, 
We may desire them to pray for us.  Whether such kind of Addresses as these, are of such a Nature as to make Gods (as he calls them) of Men and Women; a very disrespectful Term, for the Saints who reign with God, whom we acknowledge to be our fellow-creatures, however exalted to such a glorified State.  
Perhaps he will here tell me with the same Mr. Thorndike, 
§. 9  That there may be three sorts of Prayers to Saints. 
Three for is of Prayer to Saints accordidg to Mr. Therndike. Ibid.  The first of those that are made to God but to desire his blessings by and through the Merits and Interecession of the Saints. The second of those Prayers which are reduced to an Or apronobis: And the third, when one desires immediately of the Saints the same Blessings Spiritual and Temperal, 
Ibid. pa. 357.  which all Christians require of God: That as to the first, he acknowledges it to be utterly agretable with Christianity; Tho' he cannot go so far with Mr. Ther●●●●, as to allow of the word Meris in those Prayers, which he thinks makes the Merits of our Saint's r●● Parallel with the Merits of Christ That the second had the Beg●●●ing in the ● flourishing vines of the Church after Constantine, 
* This is Mr. Thorndikes assertion, who affirmas, that the lights of the Greek and Letin Churches, Bassi, Nazlanzen, Nyssene, Ambrose, Jerom, Augustin, Chrysostom, both the Cyrlls, Theodoret, Fulgeutlus, Gregory the Great, Leo more, or rather all after that time, have all of them spoken to the Saints departed and desired their assistance. Ibid. pag. 358.  but that they were rather 〈…〉 and Rhetorical Flights then direct Prayers; and that in them they begun to departed from the practice and Tradition of the three Ages before them.; But as to the third, that he has sufficiently shown in his Appendix to this third Article, that the Church of Rome's Devotions to the Saints are such, and that therefore she adores Men and Women. To all which I will as briefly as I can, give him positive Answers, and examine his grounds, because he taxes me with negligence in that Point.  
And First, 
§. 10.  As to what he says, that Monsieur Daillè himself had the same Notion he has of the Expressions of the Primitive Fathers of the Fourth Age, viz. that they were rather Innocent wishes and Rhetorical flights than Prayers, I do not doubt of it; but I think the Rhetoric lies at his door who flies to such a poor shift. It seems these were some of the Duriores loci, more difficult passages which some only nibbled as others could not digest, and he only shifts off under the notion of Rhetorical flights or novelties. And therefore Monsieur de Meaux was not out (as this Gentleman seems to Insinuate) when he said, 
Exposit. Sect. 3. page 4.  that Protestants in General (obliged by the sirength of Truth) begin to acknowledge the Custom of Praying to Saints, and Honouring their Relics, was Established even in the Fourth Age of the Church; 
protestants grant Praying to Saints to have been established in the fourth Age.  or that M. Daillè grants as much; For certainly, his accusing the Fathers of that Age of altering in that Point the Doctrine of the three foregoing Ages, and his mincing the Boldness of his Assertion by his Neque 〈◊〉 à vere long aberr aturum puto; and his ferè sunt bujus generis, shows that he could not deny, but that many of them could not pass for such. 
Defence pa. 7.   
Howeves the Defender is of Monsieur Daillè's Religion in this 
§. 11.  point, and tells us, that these Addresses were really of this lined, ●nd proves it first from two Examples of St. Gregory Natianzen, ●nd from the opinion of those Ages, that the Saints departed were ●t admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their Decease.  
But his first Argument is altogether insufficient: 
The Prayers of the Primitive Fathens to Saints were not Rhetorical slights only.  For 
a I say suppose, for, with leave of the Greek Scollast, the patticle If does not always denote ● doubt, but rather takes it for granted. So in this place, if St. Gregory iustead of, hear O Great Soul of Constintint (if live last hear me) had sald; as this Author would have him, hear O Grease Soul,— but I know not ●●better thou dost or no, the Rhetotlcal slight had been spoilt. How much rather than may we sup●e that the Sense of this Pather was, Hear us (since we are certain thou dost) Hear O happy Saint, if thou hast any regead ●●ur afairs, (as we are sure thou hast) if such he the hener done by God to the Spirits of Holy persons te have a Sense 〈◊〉 concerits (as we are sure it is) accept of our Funeral Oration instead of many Funeral ●ites don● thee: And thus the ●ticle If is taken both in profane and Sacred Writ, as might be shown by many Examples.  suppose ●at Father had at two several times made use of an Apostrophe, ●ust all the other Addresses, which he and the roast of that Age ●ake, needs pass for such? What Rhetoric was Justina the Vir●in guilty of, when in danger of being seduced by St. Cypria●, ●en a Heathen, as the same Cregory Nazianten 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Naz. Oras. in S. Cypr. Tom. 1. Orat. 18. p. 379. D. 280. A.  relates she beg●d of the Virgin Mary to help her a Virgin in the midst of danger? ●as the Address with which he finished that Oration only a piece 〈◊〉 Rhetoric? 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. infi●s pa. 286. B.  Look down on us from Heaven with a propitius Eye; ●ide our Works and Life, feed this Holy Flock, govern it with us, directing others as far as it possible to what is best. Cast out importune ●●d trouble some Wolves that cavil and catch at Worse and Syllables, vouchsafing us the perfect and clear splendour of the Blessed Trinity, with ●hom thou art already present. Was that Address which he makes 〈◊〉 the end of his Oration upon St. Athanasius of the same kind? but thou (says he) 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Orat. 〈…〉 pag 397.8. Lut●●. Pari●●orum, Anno 1609. fol.  look upon us sweetly from on High, and direct ●is Holy People, Adorer of the Blessed Trinity, who is seen and Worshipped in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and in case of peaceable ●…nes Rule and Govern this Flock with me; but in case of trouble, educe or, assume us, and place us with thyself, and those who are like un●ther, who what I crave be great.  
That also to St. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Idem. Orat. 20. in laudem, S. Basil. in fine. Tom. 1. pag. 373. A.  Basil, O Divine and Sacred Head, behold 〈◊〉 from above, and the instigation of our Flesh given us as an Instruction from God, either assuage with thy PRAYERS, or move us to bear courageously, and direct all our life to that which is most beneficial: And receive us also after our departure out of this life there in thy Tabernacles.  
Were the Addresses of St. Ephrem, who lived Anno 365. and whose Writings, 
Hìer. lib. de Script. Ecclès. Apud. Bellarm. de Script. Eccl. p. 88  as St. Jerom Testifies, were of such repute, that they were publicly Read in Churches after the Holy Scripture; were they I say, only innocent wishes or Rhetorical flights or rather do they not equal any Roman Hymns or Antiphons' 
e Sed te jam nos, O pura & I nonaeul its, eademque benedilla Virgo, magni filii ivi, universorumque Dei mater imulpata, integra, & sacrosanctissima, desperantium a que reorum spes, collaudamus. Tibi, ut gruia plenissiu●● bcu dicimus, quae Christum genuisti Deum & hominem: Omnes tibi procidimus: Omues te invocamus, & auxilium tuum imploran● Eripe nos, O Virgo Sancta, atque intemerata, a quacunque necessitate ingruente, & a cu●ilis tentationibus diab●● Nostra conciliatrix & advocata in hora mortis, atque Judicii este: Nosque a futuro inextinguibili igne, & tenebris 〈◊〉 rioribus libera: Et silti tui nos gloris diguare, O Virgo, & mater dulcissima ac clementissima. Tu siquidem unica 〈◊〉 Deum Christianorum, spes nostra es securissima, & Sanctissima. Cull [Deo] Gloria & honour, decus atque imper●●… in Sempiterna saecula s●culorum, Amen. S. P. Ephraem Sylli Threnl (i e.) Lament. Glor. Virg. M. Marlae super. passione Dontini in sine pa. 698. Edit. Ger. Vessie Coloniae, 1616.  We all (says he) fall down before thee, we all implore thee. Free us, O undefiled [Virgin,] from all our necessities, from all the Temptations of the Devil: Be thou our Reconciler and Advocate in the hour of Judgement: Deliver us from future Fire and Darkness And vouchsafe [to obtain for] us, O Virgin, the Glory of thy Son. See his whole Sermon in praise of the Mother of God; in which he not only prays to her, but gives her almost all those Titles which are now mentioned in her Litanies.  
What were those Epressions of St. 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Basil in his Homily upon the forty Martyrs, who calls them not only the Patrons and Protectors of their Country, but exhorts those who are in Tribulation to fly to them; them who are in joy to have recourse to then; those, that they may be freed from their troubles; and these, that they may be presereed in prosperity Here, continueth he, the Pious Mother is found Praying for her Children, the Wise here asks a safe return for her absent Husband, and health for him that is sick. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. Tom. 1. Hom. in 40. Martyr, Rom. 20. pag. 534. A.  Let your Prayers be made together with the Martyrs.  
What were those of his Brother St. Gregory Nyssen, upon the same forty Martyrs, as also those in his Oration upon 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nyssen. Tom. 2. d. St. Theod. Mart. pa. 1017. c.  St. Theodorus Martyr? But I think what I have here mentioned is sufficient.  
He knows very well, that I might bring him a multitude of Examples of this nature, and such, that if a Cardinal Bona or a ●ther Crasset had expressed themselves in the same manner, he would have made them pass for Adorers of Men and Women; but I suppose the respect he bears to these great Saints and Lights of antiquity, will make him pass a more  Sentence of them; and he is loath I remember to censure them, he is the wiser.  
As for his Argument drawn from the Opinion of the Fathers, 
§. 12. The Ancient Fathers held, Saints departed were admitted to the sight of God, tho' not to perfect Bliss till the day of Judgement.  That the Saints departed were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease, I did not think it of such force as to require being taken notice of. For first, I am neither engaged as a Catholic, nor as a Controvertist, to defend every Argument that Bellarmin or Suarez brings, (tho' he make it pass for the Church's reason) especially when many of our Polemic Writers think them unconclusive. For, supposing, not granting, it were true (as he from Blondel and Daille affirms) that St. Basit, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin were of this opinion, 
Expos. of the Doct. of the Church of Eng. pag. 8.  That the Souls of the Saints departed do not enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgement; yet seeing it is true, and confessed by the most 
* Chemuitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 3. de Invoc. SS. Vossius disp. 2 Thes. 1. Bishop Forbes commends Bishop Montague's candour in acknowledging S. Augustin to allow Invocation of Martyrs, and censures Bp. Andrews for denying it. Lib. de Invocat. Sanctorum c. 4. n. 3. Dr. Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristol— pag. 5. Spalatensis Repub. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12. n. 25. affirms the same of St. Augustin and several others. These are cited by S. C. in his answer to Dr. Pierce's Court Semon, pag. 192. 198. 199. See also Thorndike cited before pag. 14.  ingenuous Protestants, that they also held it lawful to invocate the Saints, that they not only prayed to them themselves, but exhorted others to do the sam●; and this without ever giving them the least caution, that their Expressions were only Rhetorical Flights, it necessarily follows, that Beauties' Argument would have been of no force with them, as indeed it was not with St. Augustin, who tho' he durst not decide, whether it was the Saints, themselves who appeared sometimes at the Memorials, and who heard the Prayers, or the Angels for them; yet made no difficulty to pray to them himself, and to record the many benefits which others obtained by Praying to them, as may be seen throughout his whole 22d. Chapter of his 8th. Book, De. Civitate Dei.  
But it seems our Adversaries are forced to great Straits, when they are constrained to catch hold of every little Argument which they think ill Managed; and rather than not maintain their Novelities, cast Dirt in the Face of all the Ancient Fathers, and accuse that Primitive Church itself (whose Purity they profess to imitate, and acdording to whose Doctrine they say they have Reform) not only of such gross Errors as are contrary to express Texts of Scripture; but of such Ignorance, that they held Opinions, not only incoherent, but even 
(a) This is one of the Protestants usual amusements, to make St. Augustin quarrel with St. Augustin, St. Chrysostom. with St. Chrysostom, etc.  contradictory to several other expressions in their own Writings. How much more Christian like had it been for him to have imitated 
(b) Proinde cum apud priscos Ecclesiae Doctores legis Justorum animas vivere aut in sinu Abrabae, aut in Paradisi nemore, aut sub Altare Dei, aut in abditis recepriculit, lbique expectare suiurae gloriae praemia; non statim suspiceris animas Sancterum carere divini intuitus Gleria: Sed intellige eas nondum potiri perfecta & consummats illa felleitate, quam post corporis resurrectionem expectant. Bibl. Sancta Lib. 6. Annot. 345. pag. 621.1.  Sixtus Senensis (whom he citys) who after having related the several obscure passages of the Father, affirming The Souls of the Just to remain till the day of Judgement in the shades of Paradise, under the Altar of God, or in hidden receptacles expecting the Future Reward of Glory, tells us, We must not presently imagic they intent as if the Souls enjoyed not the Beatifical Vision, but only that they did not yet possess that entire Felicity which they expect after the Resurrection of the Body.  
What if some of the Fathers believed that Saints departed were not admitted to the highest Heaven immediately upon their deceases? Does not our Lord himself tell us, there are many Mansions in his Father's House; and Saint Paul, that as the Stars do differ in Glory, so do the Saints in Heaven? We need not inquire how one may be subordinate to another, as the degrees of Angels are; Let us let that alone till we come thither. However let Monsieur Daillè and this Gentleman take heed, lest while they deny any Invocation of the Saints, they stumble not upon Purgatory. Certainly what ever sense may be put upon the Primitive Father's Writings, the constant practice and Tradition of the Church shows, that she always believed some persons to enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after their departure out of this life, though there remains a further compliment of their Glory at the general Resurrection, when Soul and Body shall be united.  
Another piece of the like Veneration for the Ancient Fathers follows, 
§. 13. Primitive Fathers calumniated by the Defender.  where he accuses those of the 4th Age of departing from the practice and Tradition of the Ages before them, and endeavours to prove it from the profound Silence of the Fathers of the Three first Ages, from whom he challenges me to bring him any one Instance of such Intercession.  
Had he consulted his Brethren the Centurists of Magdeburg, 
§. 14. Prayers to Saints within the 1st. 300. years.  he would not have made so bold a Challenge; for they acknowledge that Origen who lived Anno 226. 
(*) The Centurists of Magdeburg Cent. 3. col. 83. lin. 49. allege Origen saying, O Beat Job, or a pronobis miseris.  Prayed to Holy Job, and admitted the (d) Invocation of Angels; they affirm also, that there are manifest steps of the Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that Ancient Age. Had he also consulted Cardinal Perron, whom he citys, he would have seen that the Fathers of the 4th Age were so far from departing from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them, that they make mention of that foregoing practice. Thus St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon upon the Aniversary of St. Cyprian, 
(a) Again, Cent. 3. col. 75. line 29. they say, Angelos etiam Origines invocenlos putavit. Hom. 1. in Ezech. I 'em cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83. line 47. Videat in Dectorum hujus saeculi scriptis non obscura vestigia invecationis Sancterum. Apud Protestnat Apology Tr. 2. sect 3. subd 7. pag. 95 in margin n. 26, 27, 28.  who flourished in the year 250, not only prays to him, but relates a History how St. Justina being in danger of making Shipwrac of her Chastity by the Magical Art of St. Cyprian, before he was converted to the Catholic Faith, had recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, begging of her to assist her, whose Virginity was in danger. By which relation, whether he was mistaken in the Cyprian he mentions, or no, it matters not; he at least plainly shows, that the practice did not arise in his time, but was the common Custom of the precedent Age.  
What then if the few Writings of the Ancients of the First 300 years, which remain, be silent in this particular; does it follow, that they approved not the practice? or is there nothing now to be believed in the Church, but what must be found in their Writings? This indeed might be a Socinians plea: but I did not think those of the Church of England (as by law Established) would have stood upon it, when an Act of Parliament obliges them to Venerate the 4 first General Councils, 
Stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1.  so far as not to judge any matter or cause to be Heresy, but such as have been condemned by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first 4 General Councils: and when so many of their Writers endeavour to persuade the People, 
Bp. Jewel, Dr. Pierce, etc.  that they are ready to stand by the Fathers of the first 400, 500, nay some of them 600 Years; that is, till the 4th General Council inclusively. But it seems our Author acknowledges, with Dr. Fulk and others, the vanity of that Claim, and therefore will only stand to the first 300, which I believe he will at last also be forced to quit for the Purer Protestant plea of Scripture alone.  
Had this Custom of praying to Saints been only introduced in the 4th Age, and been so dangerous as our Moderns endeavour to persuade the World it is, certainly the succeeding General Councils would have taken notice of it, or some one of the Fathers would have written against it: But on the contrary, we find the 
* Planianus post merten vivit, Martyr pro nobis oret. Conc Chal. Mt. 11. To. 1. Conc. p. 495. Edit. Colon. 1578.  4th General Council allowing this Invocation in the 3d Person, whose words are these, Let Flavian be had in everlasting memory: Behold Vengeance, [i. e. on his Murderers] Behold the Truth! Flavian lives after Death, Let Flavian the Martyr PRAY FOR US.  
But that which seems to me the most extravagant, is, that Protestants should thus demand us to show them some Testimonies of the Fathers of the first 300 Years, who lived under Persecution, whose Writings are lost and destroyed; and yet reject the Fathers of the 4th Age, who wrote, when the Church began first to be in a flourishing condition. Can any one Imagine, that the Church, when in Grotts and Caverns taught one thing, and when she came into the Light practised another? Can we think, that when 
* Chrisost. Hom. Antioch. & Hom. 26. in 2 Corinth. c. 12. pag. 920. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Edit. Commelint. 1596.  St. Chrysostom tells us, that the Emperor who is clothed with Purple, takes a Journey to visit these Sepulchre, [of St. Peter and St. Paul] and laying aside his Pomp, presents, himself to make Supplications to them, to the end that they may intercede to God for him; he whose Temples are encompassed with a Diadem, prays to a maker of Tents and Fishermen, as his Protectors: Can we, I say, think that this which was so publicly performed in his time, even by the Emperors, was not privately done in Grots before by other Christians?  
Were our Question, Whether the Saints prayed for us or no; or Whether it were not lawful to beg of God to hear their Prayers for us, (which is all we do in our Liturgies) he (I suppose) knows that I might furnish him with many Examples out of the Ancient Liturgies, and Fathers, even within the first 100 Years: But I know he will elude that, and say he called for express Invocations of the Saints themselves. 
Dion. Arop. Eccles. Hierarch. c. 7. § 6. pa. 355. B.  To comply therefore with his desire, I will not cite St. Denys the Areopagite, who is express, because he will not, it may be, allow him to be Author of that Book. He will not, it may be, think St. Justin the Martyr to speak plain enough, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Just. Mart. Apol. ad Autoninum Pium lmp. non longo ab initio. pa. 56. B.  when making an Apology for the Christians who were accused in his time, as Atheists, by the Heathens, because they did not Adore their Gods; he tells them, that we do not only Adore God and his Son Christ Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, who taught those things; but venerate in Words and in Truth all the Army of Good Angels, and those that follow him, and teach this, as we have been taught, to others. He will also, it may be, find an evasion for the expression of St. 
* Sient illa seducta est. uteffugeret Deum: Sic baec suasa est obedire Deo, uti Virgins Evae Virgo Maria sieret Advocata. Iren. lib. 5. c. 19 pag. 464. A.  Irenaus in the same Age, who tells us, that the Virgin Mary was made an ADVOCATE for the Virgin Eve; but however let him take care in his Exposition, that he establish not Prayers for the Dead.  
But I suppose he will not deny, that Origen, who lived Anno 226. prayed formally to his 
a Omnia Angelie plenasunt: Veni Angelo, sus●ipe sermone conversun● ab errore pristinos, à docirina Demoniorum, ab iniquitate in altum loquente & suscipiens eum, quasi medicus bonus coalove, atque institute: parvulus est, hodie nascitur senex repuerascens: Et suscipe tribuens ci baptismum secunde regenerationis, & advoca tibi alios soclos ministerii tui, ut cuncti pariter eos, qui aliquando decepti sunt, erudiatis ad sidem, etc. Orig. Hom. 1. in Ezech. scls. 133. b. circa. med. lit. E. 2.  Angel Guardian to receive him then converted from his former Errors and the Doctrine of Devils— to comfort and strengthen him like a Good Physician— and to call together the rest of his Companions in that Ministry, that all of them together might instruct those in the Faith, who had been deceived. I hope he will not deny, that he begged of Holy 
b O Beat Job, vivens in perpet●um a●ud Deum & victor permanens in conspeciou Regis Demini, Ora pro nobis miseris:  etiam nos terribilis Dei misericordia protegat in omnibus tribulationibus, & eripiat ab omnibus oppressionibus maligni: Et connumeret nos cum justis: Et conscribat nos cum his qui salvi siunt: Et requiesccre nos faciat cum illis in regno suo, ubi perpesuo cum sonitis illis magnificemus illum, Idem. lib. 2. Job. in fine Tom. 2. fol. 33. a. c.  Job to pray for him; That he made his Addresses to 
c Incipiam me genibus prosternere, & deprecari universos Sanctos, ut mihs non audenti petere Deum propter nimietatem peccati, succurrant. O Sancti Dei, vos lachrymis & sleru pleno dolore deprecor, ut procidatis misericordils ejus pro me misero. Idem in Lamento. Tom. 2. fol. 158. b. init.  all the Saints in general, and particularly to 
d Hei mihi, Pater Abraham, deprecare pro me, ne de Simbus tuhaliener, Ibid. circa finem. pag. 159. b.  Abraham, in the midst of his sorrow and lamentation for his sins.  
Neither will he, I suppose, deny 
e Salvein ●lernum indesinens nostra laeutia, Dei Genitrix virgo: ad te enim rursus accurrimus. Tu festi nostri principium, in mdeium, tu fin●, pretiosissima regni margarita: Tu verè omnis saorificis pinguedo ● tu animatum panis istius vitae altar. Salve amoris Dei Patris" Thesaure; salve silii erga gews humanum fons propensionis; salve Sancti spiritus mens inumbrate.— Prepterea te deprecamur paestantissimam omnium, matrisque honore libere gloriantem, memoriam indesinen 'em nostre retine, sanctissima Dei genitrix; nostri, inquam, qui in te ornamur, bymuisque divinis memoriam tui nullo lempore desituram, sed perpetvo victuram, celebramus. Tu etiam senex honorate Symeox, piae nossrae religiovis primè suscepior, resurrectionisque fidelium exarrator, intercede pro nobis apud Deum & servatorem, quem ulnis tuis excipere dignus fuisti. apud Mag. Biblooth. PP. Method. Epise. Hom. in Festo Purif. B. M. pag. 362. F.  St. Methodius' Addresses to our Belssed Lady and Holy Simeon, to be asformal as any in the Breviary, nor say he lived not in the time he limits. I am certain if he had found such, or the like Addresses, in our Prayers, he would have put them upon the stretch, and perhaps have made them pass with his Learned Auditory for little less than Blasphemies: But it may be he will have some respect for Antiquity, and give a more  construction to these Father's Expressions; which when he has once learned to do, I hope he will in Charity extend it also to the Church, which accustoms herself to speak the Language of Scripture and Primitive Fathers, and is not willing to change her Expressions, which may be taken in a good sense, because some few find fault with them.  
His next Argument is, 
§. 15. Defence p. 9  That the Maxims of those Ancient Father's concerning Prayer were such, as are utterly repugnant to such an Invocation; seeing, they defined Prayer as due to God only; and made it their great Argument to prove our Saviour to be God, because he was prayed to. This Argument arises, I am afraid, from an affected misapplication of the word Prayer: So that tho' the Defender know it well enough, yet I must tell the less circumspect Readers, that Prayer is a word which may be taken in a double Sense: In one, it is only due to God, and in this Sense it is, 
An affected misapplication of the word Prayer.  that St. Thomas defines it, Elevatio mentis in Deum, an Elevation of the Mind to God; such a Prayer as this being always paid as a debt due to our Blessed Saviour; it was a convincing proof against the Arians, that he is God; and is so to this day against the Socinians. But taking Prayer, Invocation, etc. in another Sense, it is only due to Creatures; and of this nature, is that which we address to Saints, desiring them to Pray for us, help or assist us by their Prayers, etc. Akind of Prayer, says the Bishop of Meaux, 
Advertisement pag. 10.  which by its own nature, is so far from being reserved by God to himself, who is an Independent Being, that it can never be Addressed to him: For we cannot without injury to God and Christ, Address ourselves to them with an, Ora pro nobis.  
I cannot think, but that this Author knew this well enough, but it served his turn to make a Cry; and because I did not then Answer such frivolous Objections as these, he was willing some of his Learned Admirers should think them unanswerable. Another piece of the like Artifice is his bold pretensions of what they have to say for themselves; indeed (as he says) they have repeated things so often, that the World grows weary of them, seeing they are nothing but what has been Answered and Objected, Objected and Answered, every year almost since the pretended Reformation.  
But since he pretends they have such clear proofs from Scripture and Fathers; 
§. 16. Protestants destitute of Scripture proofs against the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints.  he would have done well to have brought some convincing one's from either of them; such I mean, as say it is, unlawful to desire the Saints who Reign with God, to join their Prayers with ours; and not to affirm, that every Text of Scripture, that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone, is a Demonstration against us, as if we gave Divine Worship to the Saints; (which if he would speak his Conscience, he knows we do not, tho' he sometimes, as I hear, tells his Auditory we do:) Nor bring us passages of Scripture, which make nothing against us, unless he will always take Prayer, Invocation, Calling upon and Believing, in that strict Sense in which they are Duties, only to be paid to God. To say, we must Pray to God and God only, is a true Proposition, if we take Prayer in that strict notion; and so it is to say, we must Worship God and God only, Serve God and him only, Honour God and God only, Love God and God only, Fear God and God only; but seeing our Defender cannot deny, but that we may Worship, Serve, Honour, Love, Fear and Obey, our fellow Creatures, with an Inferior Degree of Worship, Service, Honour, etc. why may we not also make Inferior kinds of Addresses to them, such as are far from robbing God of one jota of his Prerogatives?  
What I have here said, will be enough, I hope, to silence all those cavils, that are raised against our Doctrine; but if nothing will do but Holy Writ, let him show us those plain Texts he pretends, till than we are in Possession. A Possession by his own, and our Adversaries acknowledgement of above 1300 years, and by consequence a Possession which no Man in his wits would relinquish his right to, because this Author does not know how to distinguish betwixt those Prayers and Addresses which are made to God, and those Petitions which are made to his Servants.  
What follows in the Appendix, 
Pag. 11.  is grounded upon the same voluntary fixing the words, which are Equivocal to an Univocal Sense. If the Gentleman, who pretends so much to be a Christian and a Scholar, had only like either of them, taken notice of what Monsieur de Meaux has said in this Article, and repeated in his Advertisement, 
Art 4. pag. 5.  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, PRAY FOR US, 
All our Prayers to Saints are reduced to an Ora pro nobis.  he would have saved himself the labour of amassing such a Specimen, and the Reader the trouble of perusing it to as little purpose: For what if the Church in her Hymns, Antiphons', or Versicles, make her Addresses to the Saints for Protection, Power against our Enemies, help assistance, etc. does it not appear manifestly to any one, who is not wilful in his mistakes, that these are reduced to a bare Ora pro nobis, and that (as the Bishop well observed) it is a kind of Aid, 
Advert. pag. 11.  Succour and Protection to recommend the Miserable to him, who alone can comfort them. This Author however, needed not to have quarrelled with these, or the like expressions; he knows well enough (if he would be but so ingenuous as to acknowledge it) that several of the Fathers of the first 400 years, some of which I have before shown, had as affective expressions to the Saints, even in their Sermons, and Catechistical Discourses, as any now used by the Church, even in her Hymns, and if he can Interpret them to be in the Ancient Fathers only, Innocent wishes, and Rhetorical flights, why can he not Interpret the Hymns after the same manner, where there has been always more Poetical Licence taken?  
Neither are these expressions so contrary to the Scripture phrase; 
§. 17. The Church imitates the Scripture phrase in her Prayers to Saints.  For tho' our Blessed Jesus be our only Saviour and Redeemer, the only Rock and Foundation of his Church, the sole and only Judge of the Quick and the Dead; our Hope, our Joy, our Crown of Glory, etc. Yet we find 
a Judge 3.9.  Othoniel graced in Holy Writ, with the Title of Saviour, 
b Act 7.35.  Moses called a Redeemer and a 
c Gal 3.19.  Mediator: St. Paul tells St. 
d 1 Tim 4.16  Timothy, that by doing those things which he prescribes, he shall save himself and those that hear him: 
e Math 16 28  St. Peter is Termed the Rock and Foundation upon which God would Build his Church: The 
f Marth. 19.28.  Apostles and others shall sit as Judges with Christ, Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel. And St. Paul calls the 
g 1 Thes. 2.19.  Thessalonians, his Hope, his Joy, his Crown of Glory. Grace and Peace are the Proper Gifts of God; and yet St. John says 
h Age 1.4. This equals a Nos cum prcle pia ben dicat Virgo Maria.  to the Seven Churches in Asia, Grace be unto you, and Peace from him which is, and which was, and which is to come, and from the SEVEN SPIRITS, which are before the Throne. Nay the very Name of God which is peculiar to the Almighty, is in Holy Writ given to the Priests and Rulers of his People; Ego dixi Dii estis. Those then, who Reading these expressions in Scripture, can by a moderate Interpretation reconcile them, with that Duty which we own to God alone; would do well also, if in a Spirit of Charity, they would not put all our expressions upon the Rack, to force them to a Sense, which neither the Church nor her faithful have intended.  
As for those extravagant kind of Expressions which he confesses Bellarmin and some others are ashamed of, It may suffice to tell him, that if they crept into some corner of the Church, they are now expunged, and therefore I hope he will not have the whole to be answerable for them, at this day.  
His next Cavil is at the word Merit, 
§. 18. Merit.  which we use in our public Prayers; desiring God by the Merits of his Saints to grant us our Requests, or accept our Sacrifices; and this he thinks to be of such a nature, that it makes the Merits of our Saints run parallel with the Merits of Christ. 
Defence pag. 10.  Is the word Merit never to be used, but it must signify that we do by our own natural force alone deserve the reward of Grace and Glory? 
The word Merit equivocal, and often misapplied by the Defender.  or must Catholics be always represented as taking it in that strict sense? If indeed the Word cannot be taken in any other sense, he has reason to accuse us: But if the Word may be taken otherwise, so that we intent no more than that the Works of Christians may be said to Merit, because they apply the Merits of Jesus Christ to us, and are the means by which we attain eternal life, in virtue of the promises of God and Merits of our Blessed Redeemer (which even Mr. 
Thern like Epilogue lib. 2. of the Covenant of Grace cap. ult. pag. 307.  Thorndike acknowledges to be the sense of the Latin Fathers) what Injustice is it to impose another sense upon us, whereby to render us odious to the undistinguishing Multitude? The moderation of the aforesaid Writer, would, me thinks, have suited him much better, who tells us, That as concerning the term of Merit, perpetually frequented in these Prayers; 
Idem lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church. cap. 30. pag. 357. The Mass more ancient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers. An unjust cavil.  it has been always maintained by those of the Reformation, that it is not used by the Latin Fathers in any other sense than that which they allow: Therefore the Canon of the Mass (saith he truly and judiciously) and probably other Prayers which are still in use, being more ancient than the greatest part of the Latin Fathers; there is no reason to make any difficulty of admitting it in that Sense.  
But, that we may further see the Injustice of this Cavil, let us consider those Prayers, which are all of them reduced to this Form, that God would be pleased not to regard our unworthiness, but (the Merits of our Redeemer presupposed) respect the Merits of his Saints also, and for their sakes hear our Prayers, or accept our Sacrifices, solemnly concluding with what I told you, was presupposed PER DOMINUM NOSTRVM JESUMCHRISTUM, FILIUM TWM QVI, etc. in which style they always end. So that this is no more than to beg of God Almighty, that he would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious actions and sufferings of his Saints, performed in and by his Grace, and upon those accounts accept our Sacrifices, 
The word Merit in our Prayers conformable to the language of Holy Writ.  consonant to his regvealed Will in that matter, or hear our Prayers: For that this kind of Prayer is conformable to Holy Writ, is manifest to any that is pleased to observe how God tells Isaac, 
* Gen. 16.4, 5.  that he will bless him, that he will give all those Countries to his Seed; nay, that all Nations of the Earth shall be blessed in it; and what is the reason, but Because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my Commandments, my Statutes and my Laws? He again tells him, 
Pers. 24.  that he will multiply his Seed, for his Servant Abraham's sake. Then did not 
(a) Exod. 32.23. Deut. 9.17.  Moses pray to God for the People, desiring him to remember Abraham Isaac and Israel, and not to look upon the stubborness of the People, nor to their wickedness, nor to their Sin? Did not God show mercy to 
(b) 3 Reg. 11.12, 32, 33, 34.  Solomon for his Father David's sake, and because (again) he kept his Commandments and his Statutes? So also to the City of Juda 
* 4 Reg. 8. 19-19.34-20.6. Isa. 37 35.  In another place? Were not the same, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob mentioned by 
(c) 3 Reg. 18.36. Tornudike lib. 3. of the Laws of the Church cap. 30. pag. 383.  Elijah, in his Prayer at the Evening Sacrisice? Certainly, fromt these Passages the same Thorndike concludes thus: As our Saviour argueth well, that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are alive and shall rise again, because God is not the God of the Dead: so is the consequence as good, that what God doth for their Sakes, he doth it for their Mediation or Intercession [I may add, for their Merits;] unless he mean to set that on their Score which they desire not [I may say, deserve not] at his hands. But of this more expressly in its proper Article.   

ART. IV. Images and Relics.  
HHaving already shown in the 2d Article, 
pag. 2.  how Respect, Honour, Worship, Service, Adoration, Veneration, etc. are equivocal, sometimes used as only belonging to God, and sometimes peculiar only to Creatures: Having also shown, how the exterior Actions of the Body, as Bowing, Kneeling, Prostrating, Kissing, etc. are of the same nature: And further, it being certain, that Catholics as Catholics are obliged only to acknowledge those things to be of Faith, which are delivered down to them, either by universal Tradition and Practice, or the express Desinitions of their General Councils, and not every thing which is expressed in a Rubric by a Scholastic Term, I might pass over this Article without any farther consideration: But the Defenders intention in this being to Demonstrate us to be Idolaters; and he having taken such a Method in it, as will be apt to circumvent the Vulgar, whose Applause he courts; I must be necessitated once more to clear the difficulties he proposes: In order to which I will show in short,  
First, 
§. 19  the benefit of having Images and Representations in Churches.  
2ly. That there is now no danger of Idolatry in that Practice; and then  
3ly. Examine our Author's Objections.  
And first, I suppose he will not deny, but that Pictures and Images are very useful to inform the Ignorant; 
I. The Benefit of Images.  they being by the ancient Fathers termed, as every body knows, the Books of the unlearned, where they learn by the Office of the Eye in one moment, and without Discourse, that which is more 
* Seguius iritant anttuios demissa per Aures, Quam quae fert oculis subi●cta pidelibus—  slowly instilled by the Ear, or gathered out of Books, by a longer and more studious Survey.  
2ly. These silent Orators are no less apt to increase in us the Love of God and his Saints, and blow up the dying Coals of our Affections into a Flame of Devotion. 
7 Syn. act. 4. Tom. 5. cone. pag. 613. F. Greg. lib 7. Fp. 53. pag. 229. F.  Thus the 7th Synod mentions, that St. Gregory Nissen was wont to weep when he had looked upon Abraham Sacrificing his Son Isaac; and thus St. Gregory the Great sent the Picture of our Blessed Saviour to the Abbot Secondinus, telling him, I know thou longest for our Saviour's Image, that looking on it thou mayst burn the more with the Love of thy Lord.  
3ly. These Representations of Holy persons and of their glorious actions, do, by their powerful Eloquence, inflame us toward the imitation of their graces and virtues: a Truth undeniable by all but the Obstinate; for as immodest and uncivil Pictures are apt to raise unchaste and wanton desires in the sensual Breasts of Libertines; so do devout, and pious representations move the Beholders to Piety and Devotion, and to Copy them in their lives and conversation.  
4ly. They renew in us afresh the memory of the persons whom they represent, which must needs be no small benefit; for certainly whilst we daily call to mind our Blessed Saviour's sufferings on the Bloody Cross for our Sins, we cannot but detest those Sins which were the occasions of his bitter Passion. When we see him represented as an innocent Lamb led to the Slaughter, without opening his Mouth, how can we but admire his Meekness and resolve to imitate his Humility and his Patience? And when we see the Effigies of our fellow-creatures, who have traced out unto us the way to Happiness, by a good and Holy life, how can we but rouse ourselves to a pious imitation of those whom God raised up for our Examples?  
And lastly, when we see these Pictures, they must necestarily raise in us a Reverence and Respect for the persons the reprepresent; which Reverence and Respect are not temrinated on the Picture, but pass from thence to the Original, to whom the Honour, which is done to the Picture, does redound: For as St. 
Ambr. Serm. in Ps. 118.  Ambrose says, He who crowneth the Picture of the King, does Honour to the King, whose Image it is: 
Polidor. l. 7. Hist. Anglor. pag. 132 l. 20. Harpesield Ecclis. Hist. Saeculo 11. c. 2. pag. 215. Henry Hunt. Hist. Angler. lib. 6. p. 364.  And when our devout and Victorious King Canutus took the Diadem which he used to wear, from his own Head, and crowned therewith an Image of our Crucified Saviour, which was in his days kept in the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul at Winchester, never after permitting a Crown to come upon his Head; it was not to the Cross itself, but to his Crucified Lord he paid that humble Reverence.  
But 2ly, 
§. 20. II. No danger of Idolatry now from the use of Images.  all these Benefits which these helps to Piety afford he devouter Christians, are now by the subility of the Devil (who hates any thing that excites Devotion) branded with the horrid note of Idolatry; and Catholics are every where represented as if they paid the Act of Adoration to the Images themselves. A Calumny so black, that I wonder it can enter into the minds of Men of Common sense to conceive it possible, 
The nature of Christianity.  that in the clear Light of Christianity, where all persons, are taught is but one God to whom Adoration is only due, any persons who are capable to understand the abstruser Mysteries of our Faith, as the Trinity, Incarnation, Real presence in the Sacrament, etc. should yet be so dull and blockish, that notwithstanding they read the contrary obligations in their Catechisms, and hear them frequently explicated from the Pulpits, they should yet fall down and adore a Stock or a Stone, and pay divine Honour to it.  
I say then, it is almost impossible any persons, who are capable of being instructed in the common Articles of our Faith, should so wilfully and grossly err after such instruction, as to give divine Honour to an Image, or to think any divine Virtue annexed to them, for which they ought to be adored. The difference betwixt Christians at this day and the ancient Heathens, or former Jews, is so great in this matter, that there is no Comparison; for the Heathens were brought up in a Belief of a plurality of Gods; and the practice of adoring them was such in those days, that the Jews (who were apt to look upon nothing but an exterior Happiness,) seeing those Nations prosper, who adored those feigned Deities, were ready to imitate their practices, hoping by that means to obtain the like temporal Blessings. But now since plurality of Gods hath been banished from the World, the Jews themselves, formerly so addicted to Idolatry, sinned not the least Temptation to it. And for any one to think, that the most flourishing Christian Church should be guilty of it in her constant Practice, is such a contradiction, that none but they who are willing to let themselves be persuaded of any thing, so it render the Papists odious, can be guilty of it.  
Yet the perpetual Clamour is, 
§. 21.  that Roman Catholics Kneel and Pray before the Crucifix and Images of their Saints, and bow, etc. to them, and that must needs be Idolatrous. I wish they who accuse us in that manner, knew what rash judgement is, or reflected upon the punishment which God has reserved for those who are guilty of it; Rash judgement, I say, which from an exterior innocent action judges the inward intention to be wicked. I wish also they would reflect upon the nature of Idolatry, 
The Nature of Idolatry.  and consider that three things are required to make that Honour, which we pay to any thing, become Idolatrous. First, the Understanding must acknowledge an Excellency in the Object truly Divine, and worthy of Adoration in the strictest sense, where really there is nosuch Excellency. Secondly, the Will must have a propension and inclination to it, as such, and pay that Honour to it; And lastly, the Body must pay the exterior Obeisance of bowing, kneeling, prostrating, kissing, etc. in pursuance of that interior Love and Knowledge. Now no Man can judge of this interior Affection to, or apprehension of the Objects Excellency, by the exterior action; because those exterior actions being common to many Objects, do not only signify a different Respect, according to the dignity of the Object; 
It is a rash judgement to accuse Catholics as Idolaters.  but may also be used as well in signs of mockery, as in testimony of our Honour: Which we see they were when the Jews Adored our Saviour, saying, All Hale, King of the Jews. From whence it follows, that they who accuse Catholics of Idolatry, as Adorers of Images, must either pretend to know the Secrets of their hearts, when their manifest Declarations profess the contrary, or be convinced to pass an uncertain, nay a rash Judgement against their Fellow Christians.  
3. Now the Arguments the Defender brings against our Doctrine, 
§. 22. iii. Objections Answered.  are taken from St. Thomas of Aquin, the Pontifical, the Good-Fryday's Service, and Hymns of the Church; to all which I gave him such Answers as have been satisfactory to all, but those who have a mind to cavil; but not withstanding these clear Answers, he again proceeds to enforce the same Objections by only amplifying the Difficulties, without taking notice of any Distinctions which I gave; so that I must be forced to repeat them here again, and show him, that they are full, and (if he will but take notice of them) unanswerable.  
And first as to St. Thomas, I premised we were not to defend every Scholastic Opinion; 
§. 23. St. Thomas.  we were only to answer for the Doctrine of the Church, and not of the Schools; so that had St. Thomas erred never so much in his Opinion, Catholics, as Catholics were not to answer for it. But withal I intimated to him, that if he would calmly interpret that great Doctor, and take his Argument entirely, he would find the meaning of his Conclusion, not to be so Heterodox as he represents it. What new Argument does he now bring against what I said, but only to repeat this Doctor's Conclusion in words at length, and tell us, it is plain and positive, and neither to be reconciled with the Vindicators Fancy, nor eluded by his Sophistry? He would have done well to have considered also, that other 
* Estins lib. 3. dist. 9  Schoolmen (and those Disciples of St. Thomas) have as plain and positive Conclusions to the contrary, viz. That the Cross of Christ is not to be adored with Latria or Divine Adoration. He would have done also justly to have considered, how it is that his Followers explicate their Master, showing by other express 
* The same St. Th●m●n. upon the 11th. Ch. of the Hebrews, lect 5. as these words, Adersuit fastigium virgae ejus, after some other explications, says thus. Vel si adoravit sastigium, idem est sens●●, quia adoravit Christum signisicatum per virgam illam, sicut & nos adoramus Crucifixum & Crucem ratione Christi passi in ipsa. Vade proprie non adoramus Crucem, sed Christum Crucifixum in ipsa. And in Cap. 3. ad Colloss. lect. 1. upon these words, Quod est Holorum servitus, he shows that there may be Idolatry in Worthiping an Image. Id●l●latria est quande qun exhibet alicui Imagini honorem dibitum Deo. It is not then to be thought, that by his Conclusion in his Sumn, he either contradicted himself, or professed what he here declares to be Idolatry; but that he intended only to express that the adoration which we pay before the Cross is truly Divine, because it is not properly to the Cross, but to Christ who suffered upon the Cross. Item. 2.2. 9●. 81. art. 3. ad 3. Motus qui est in imaginem prout e● Imago, non consistit in ipsa, sed ●endit in id cnjus est: I●ago.  places that his meaning could not be, that the Cross itself was to be adored, but that the Worship which is paid before the Cross is Divine, because it is paid to that Divine Object, which is represented by the Cross, the Cross being no other but as a Perspective to bring the Object more clearly to our. Apprehension, and through which the Adoration passes to the Object which it represents. 
Creature irraticnali in se onsideratae non del●●tur ab houri●● aliqua jubject●● vel hon●●— Q●●● autem Crux Christi honoretur, hoc sit ●●●em homo●e quo Chri●us honoratur sicut purpura Regis honoratur codem honore quo Rex, us Damalcen. dicit●●n ●ertie libro. Il. 2.2. qu. 103. art. 4. ad. 3. Def. pa. 16. Appendix pag. 141. §. xii.  So that the Cross, as St. Thomas himself here says, being an insensible Creature, deserves no Honour, but only as it represents Christ, or is in some manner one with him; in which manner the Honour which is paid to it, is paid to Christ, who is one with it; and by consequence, that Honour, as being due to Christ, must be Divine. How much more Christian and Scholar like, had it been for him to have searched into, and, according to Reason and Religion, explicated the words of this Holy and learned Doctor, whose Writings have been admired and reverenced by all the Christian World, than so ungentilely to accuse him of Reveries as he calls them? If our Defender had not understood how the Image is esteemed to be one with the Object represented, or thought it to be a new and Sophistical Invention, he might indeed have been excused, (if he had confessed as much;) but when we find that explicating another Mystery (after his Mode) he tells us, the KING and his IMAGE, are not TWO but ONE KING, one would think it should not be so difficult a thing for him to understand also, how Jesus Christ and his Image are but one Christ, and how the Adoration, that is Paid to them, is but one Adoration to one Christ. Hear his own words; In a word, in the Hypostatical Union tho' there be two distinct Natures, God and Man, yet there is but one Person, one Son made up of both. So, In the Holy Eucharist, tho' there be Two different things united, the Bread and Christ's Body, yet we do not say, there be two Bodies, but one mystical Body of Christ, made up of both; as the KING and his IMAGE, to use the Similitude of the Ancient Fathers, are not TWO, but ONE King, etc. Which expression is the very ground why St. Thomas, Cardinal Capisucchi, etc. maintain that Doctrine, as appears by the words of the Cardinal cited by the Defender, with the reason annexed to it, which he thought not fit to transcribe, but which I have mentioned in the Preface.  
This Doctrine taken in this sense, as paying nothing to the Image itself, 
See before in the Margin at. *  but only as it is one (in respect of its representation) with the person whose Image it is; or if we speak properly, with St. Thomas, taken not as if we adored the Cross, but only Christ Crucified upon it, and making use of the Cross only to help us to call him to mind, and form in our Imaginations, the Image of him whom we ought to adore; this Doctrine I say, thus taken, is innocent, and they who hold it, are no more guilty of Idolatry for making use of that material Image, than they who form one in their Imagination (either according to the Picture they saw last, or the Discourse they heard or read) before which Idea they adore Christ represented by it, not distinguishing him from that Idea itself, which is in some sense one in its representative nature with him whom it represents. What necessity then is there that St. Thomas, who as it is manifest intended that sense, or the Pontifical, which speaks in the same manner, should be accused of Idolatry? But this Scholastic nicety is not easily understood by every Doctor of the Populace; and therefore they must be made to believe, That Catholics hold the Cross itself (absolutely and in the grossest manner) is to be adored as Jesus Christ; otherwise they could not so easily make them pass for Idolaters.  
This than may suffice concerning the Doctrine of St. Thomas, 
§. 24. The Pontifical.  as also in Answer to that Expression taken out of the Rubric of the Pontifical, where it is mentioned, that the Legates Cross must take place of the Emperor's Sword; because [Relatiuè] Latria is due thereto; yea also to that of the Messieurs du Port Royal, 
Def. pa. 24.  who speak of adoring the Holy Thorn; In all which we may say with St. Thomas, as above, that there is some kind of Impropriety in the Speech, but such as clears itself by the application of the premises.  
His next Argument is taken from the Pontifical, in the Ceremony of the Benediction of a new Cross. I told him he had mutilated a Sentence, and left out two little words, Propter Deum, for God's sake, which would have sufficiently answered his Objection. 
A Falsification.  He cannot deny the Fact; but says, he left out others also as much to the purpose as these. I am sorry, that he did. What amends does he make in this Defence? He troubles himself to give us an Abridgement of the Ceremony, and here and there picks up expressions which may seem scandalous to those, who, like mortal Enemies, are resolved to wrest every word and action of their Adversaries to an odious sense, and at last magisterially pronounces those pious Ejaculations to be rather magical Incantations, than Prayers, and the Ceremony of this Dedication (he should have said Benediction) to be Superstition, not to say worse. But pray, 
Pag. 13.19.  Good Sir, call to mind the two words you made a shift to leave out, Propter Deum. Is not all that is here done, done for God's sake? Are not the Prayers addressed to him? Are not the Ceremoneiss, as well as the Cross itself, which is blessed, ordained to put us in mind of the Benefits of our Redemption, of the price was paid for our sins, of the Obligations we have received upon that account, and to excite us to perform them? What is it then you find in these Prayers, 
An Unchristian and Unscholar-like Calumny.  or in this Ceremony (designed for the Honour and Glory of God) deserving that  and Vnscholar-like expression of Superstition or magical Incantations?  
The words you c●e are, that God would bloss this Wood of the Cross, that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind; a means for the establishing our Faith, for the increase of good Works, for the Redemption of Souls; and a comfort and Protection against the crue● darts of our Enemies. What is there I pray amiss in these words, unless you wrist them to a Sense the Church never intended? Does not every pious Preacher beg the same for the Discourse he is about to make to the People? May not every Author of a devout Book beg of God, that he would give a Blessing to his Labours, that what he writes may be a saving Remedy to Mankind, that it may establish the Faith of his Readers, excite them to the performance of Good works, aid them to work out their Redemption, be their Comfort and Consolation, and arm them with Arguments of defence against the Suggestions of their Enemies? What Magic is there in all this? And why, I pray, may not we then beg the same for these Books of the unlearned, these Emblems, or if I may so call them Dumb Sermons, which as they are naturally apt to put us in mind of the price of our Redemption, will no doubt of it, by the assistance of God's Grace, which we implore, animate us to perform those Duties which are required of us in order to the application of our Ransom.  
But the Bishop blesses the Incense, sprinkles the Cross with Holy Water, incenses it, and then Consecrates it in these words: Let this Wood be sanctified, etc. And after a long Preamble (if the Cross be not of Wood) beseeches God that he would SANC ✚ TIFY to himself this CROSS, etc. What is it he here again quarrels at? Where is the foul, the notorious Idolatry? 
Pag. 18. The use of Incense and Holy-water very antitient.  Is it the Incense, or the sprinkling with Holy Water? Certainly he will not condemn the use of those Creatures sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer; a Practice so ancient and universal in the Church, that according to 
(a) Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institurum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur. Aug. lib. 4. de Baptis. cenntra Donatistas', c. 24. Tom. 7. pag. 433. A.  St. Augustin's Rule, we must necessarily conclude it to have come from the Apostles.  
They who would establish a beginning of the use of Holy Water, tell us, that 
(b) Aquam enim sale conspersam populis ben●dicimus, ut ea cuncti aspersi sanctisicentur ac purificentur; quod & omnibus Sacerdotibus faciendum esse mandamus. Ep. 1. decret. Extat. To. 1. Concil. pag. 68 n. 5. C. Binn.  Alexander the First, Bishop of Rome (who lived; you must know, Anno 121. so near the Apostles) commanded it to be practised: But they who read his first Epistle, will find, that he did not command it as a new thing, but as the ancient Practice; unless they will have him to have instituted the Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, and healing of the Sick, which he there also seriously advises the Priests to celebrate often and devoutly. Now if this be Incantation with him, he may please to learn, that the Aqua benedicta, as Baronius tells us, dissolves all Incantations and Magic frauds rather than introduces them, being famed for sundry Miracles which God hath pleased to work thereby in several Ages, witness Epiphanius, S. Hierom in the Life of S. Hilarion, Theodoret and others.  
And as for Incense, which is a Testimony of the 
(c) Omnes de Saeba venient Aurum & Thus deferentes. Esa. 60.6. Muth. 2.11.  Adoration which is due to God, of the fervour with which our 
(d) Dirigatur Oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo. Ps. 14.2.  Prayers ought to ascend to him, and of the good 
(e) Christi bonus odor sumus Deo. 2 Cor. 2.15.  Life we ought to lead, I suppose he will not defy 
* S. Dion. Areop. Eccles. Hier. c. 4. pag. 281. A. S. Ambros. in cap. 1. L●e.  St. Dionysius the Areopagite, nor St. Ambrose, nor other Ancient Fathers, who upon occasion make mention of it, nor condemn them and us of foul Idolatry, or witchcraft . e. Incantation for the use of it. Neither can he, I hope, condemn the solemn use of these Creatures in this particular: For what doth the Church intent thereby, but by the Water to show the Purity and Holiness of that Sacred Utensil, as it relates to our Blessed Redeemer, the Lamb of God offered upon the Altar of the Cross? And what by the Incense, but the precious sweetness of that Mystery (as I may call it) the Church being willing to express her Devotion to her ever-blessed Redeemer by such Testimonies? And he who likes them not, 'tis feared would not have liked the Penitent Magdalen's Spikenard poured out on the Feet of her Lord. Neither can any man of the Church of England reasonably question the uses of these things which were in practice, even in the Jewish Synagogue, seeing the wisdom of the Church has beyond all exception thought fit to retain several of their solemn usages; Sacrifices and Sabbaths being excepted.  
Well, but it may be that in the very Prayers this foul and notorious Idolatry is couched. Certainly he dare not affirm that, seeing they are immediately addressed to God himself, to beg of him a Blessing upon that Creature, and that he would impart the same Benediction to this Cross that he did to that upon which he suffered, and grant that they who pray and bow down before this Cross PROPTER DEUM, in honour of him who suffered upon it, may so call to mind his Passion, that they may find health both of Soul and Body through the same JESUS CHRIST, etc.  
Oh, but after this Benediction the Bishop, and as many as will of those that are present, kneel down and devoutly ADORE it and kiss it. Here I suppose is the foul and notorious Idolatry: But let him consider their Intention. Is not all this, as well as the other, PROPTER DEUM, FOR GOD'S SAKE? 1. Is it foul and notorious Idolatry to kneel down before a Cross or kiss it in honour of that God and Man who suffered on it for our Salvation? 2. Or is it Idolatry to adore the Saviour of the world in presence of the Cross, if we speak in a more proper sense and according to the Ecclesiastical style? 3. Or lastly, can he call it Idolatry to adore, that is, venerate (unless he will always fix an univocal sense to an equivocal word) that which represents unto us the Blessed Author and mysterious manner of our Redemption? This would certainly render us Enemies of the Cross of Christ; and condemn them who kiss the Bible, or kneel to their Parents, or God's vicegerents upon Earth; much more those of the Church of England who Adore God before the Altar in their Public Devotions and Communions.  
But he has one Question yet to ask of M. de Meaux, and that is; If the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign; to what end is all this Consecration, so many Prayers, shall I say, or rather magical Incantations? and how comes it to pass, that a Cross, without all this ado, is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross, as after all this Superstition, not to say any worse in the dedication of it?  
Pray, Good Sir, call to mind what you so much pretend to be, a Scholar, and a Christian. As a Scholar change a little your Medium, and see whether your Argument will not fall as heavy upon yourselves as upon us: And as a Christian remember that you must answer for every Idle word, much more for every abusive term or scurrilous misrepresentation of another. Do not you yourselves use to set apart some Persons, Things or Places to the Service of Almighty God, which were of themselves after a sort proper for that purpose, without such a busy Ceremony? and would not you, if a Dissenter observing your Ceremonies in Consecrating a Church, or a Bishop should tell you that what you do is Superstition or magical Incantation, would not you, I say, esteem such expressions little less than Blasphemy, and look upon such accusers as Ignorant and Malicious, not knowing what they say, or of what they affirm? If a Quaker, I say, should ask you what need of so many Prayers and Formalities, to bless a place for the Burial of the Dead? as if any Piece of Ground were not proper enough for that without such Superstition; ●hould he call your Cross in Baptism, your Ring in Marriage, and your other Formalities, magical Incantations, I doubt not but you would bless yourself from his Ignorance: And yet all this which you condemn in others who oppose you, you applaud in yourselves when you would render us odious.  
Turn then the Argument upon yourself, and retract this unchristian Censure, and grant that, tho'a cross Bar in a Window, or a Turnstile may put us in mind of the Instrument of our Redemption, yet the Figure of the Cross may be justly set apart in order to bring those pious Thoughts to our Mind, which of itself, perhaps remotely, it is apt to do.  
His 3d. Argument, was from the Good Fryday's Service. 
§. 25. Pag. 19 Good Frydays Office.  I had here also shown his unsincere tricks in adding and diminishing words to make our Church speak as he would have it. Does he deny the Fact? No, but yet calls my Challenging him, a Cavil, and after giving a larger account of that Ceremony, he tells his Reader, that he refers it to any reasonable Man, to consider whether he had reason or not to apply, as he did, the Adoration to the Cross; and whether he had not some cause to say then, what he cannot but repeat here again, That the whole solemnity of that Days Service plainly shows, that the Roman Church does Adore the Cross, in the utmost propriety of the Phrase. The Accusation runs high, and had need to have good prooss to back it, if the Jury be not packed: 
A Calumny.  But he knows he shall have an Ignoramus, if the Vulgar be called in to give their Verdicts, and he has learned a Machivelian trick, 
Fortiter calumniare & aliquid semper adhaer. bi●.  to keep them from seeing what is as clear, as the Sun, by casting so thick a mist of Calumnies as can scarce be so suddenly dissipated, but that he may in the mean time, gain his ends.  
What is there I pray in all this Ceremony, (unless wrested by such Calumnies) which is not only good and holy in itself, but wonderfully efficacious to stir up in all those who are present, a true Sense of our Blessed Saviour's sufferings upon that Good day for Us? What Christian can call to mind the ignominious Death his Redeemer that day suffered for the love of him, and not be ready to profess his gratitude by all the exterior Signs imaginable? Who is there, I wonder, that has any Sense of his own former misery, or grateful Affection for his Redemption, that can look (especially on this day) upon the Resemblance of his Crucified Saviour, and not feel his heart melt with compassion, love, and a grateful acknowledgement for these Mercies? And at that time, what offence can it be, for his sake, to Kiss, to Embrace, to Reverence that Sacred Instrument, which calls those Blessings to our remembrance? He, that Kisses the Picture of his Wife in her absence, testifies the Conjugal Affection which he bears her, but is no Fool nor Idolater; and must he that Kisses the Crucifix in Testimony of the Love he bears to his Lord and Master, needs pass for either? He who Kisses the Bible in Veneration of the Truths, that are there contained, will be rationally interpreted a Pious Christian; and must he be counted an Idolater, that Kisses the Resemblance of him, who is the great Mediator of the New Testament?  
The words, that are Sung by the Priest in the first part of the Action are, Behold the Wood of the Cross, upon which the Saviour of the World did hang. And the whole Choir Kneeling down Sing, Let us Adore, not the Cross in the ut most propriety of the phrase as our Calumniator would have it, but the Saviour of the World, who hung upon it. Behold and see our Idolatry!  
Then the Priest, having laid the Cross upon a place prepared before the Altar, goes and puts off his Shoes, and Kneeling thrice Kisses it: And the rest of the Clergy and Laics, two and two do the same: These are uncouth and unusual Ceremonies to Men, who have been estranged from Devotion. But what is it here, the putting off their Shoes, or the Kneeling, or the Kissing, that he brands with Idolatry? Yes, he knew all these exterior actions might easily be represented to the undevout Vulgar, as containing in them Horrid Superstition and Idolatry, and therefore his Argument must be managed with a respect to them.  
But pray, good Sir, consider, what our Intentions are by those exterior Actions? Are they not to pay our Adorations to the Saviour of the World, who this day hung upon the Cross; 
A Falsification.  (words which you left out in your Exposition, and would now have to be useless, to explicate our intention, tho' with as little Justice?) It is evident, that by putting off our Shoes (a Ceremony which God Commanded once, and never repealed as yet, a Ceremony which speaks an ardent Devotion, but no Superstition) It is evident, by Kneeling and by Kissing of the Cross, we intent no more to Adore that material Cross, than Moses intended to Adore the Holy Ground on which he stood; 
Exod. 3.5.  or the Jews intended to Adore the Ark, when they bowed before it; or than Protestants themselves, intent to Adore the Bible when they Kiss it; or the Name of Jesus when they bow at the hearing of it; or the Altar when they bow toward it. But our intentions pass further, as that of Moses did to God, whose presence hallowed that Ground; as that of the Jews did to God, who, tho' he dwell not in Tabernacles made with hands, yet would have them there make their Addresses to him after a more peculiar manner.  
He will never have done; For our Rubric calls this an ADORING of the CROSS; and one of the Hymns which is Sung by the Choir gins with these words, WE ADORE THY CROSS O LORD; and therefore this shows, that we Adore the Cross itself in the utmost propriety of the phrase. As to the Rubric, if he be not satisfied by what I have said already, I desire him to peruse Bellarmin, de Imaginibus Sanctorum, Cap. 22.23, 24, 25. who will tell him, that if he take Adoration in a strict Sense, it is not, properly speaking, given to the Image, but to Jesus Christ represented by that Image. And as for that Hymn (as he calls it) the very 
a Crucem tuam ad●ramus Domine: Et Sa●ctam rejurre lion●m tuam ●●udamus, & glorisicamus: Ecce emm proster lignum vening gaudium in universo muad.  next Sentence shows, 
By the Cross is meant Christ's Pason.  that by the word Cross there is meant the Passion of our Saviour, as St. 
b Gal●t. 6.14.  Paul did, when he said, far be it from me, that I should glory in any thing, but in the CROSS of our Lord JESUS CHRIST. The words are, We Adore thy Cross, O Lord: And praise and glorify thy holy Resurrection; for behold by the Wood (that is because of thy suffering upon the Wood) joy is come to the universal World.  
And now let any reasonable Man consider, whether he had cause to repeat his first accusation, that the whole solemnity of this days Service plainly shows, that the Roman Church does Adore the CROSS in the UTMOST PROPRIETY OF THE PHRASE. No, no, here is no Idolatry, if the Primitive Christians, if the Apostles were to be Judges; for St. Paul looks on it as no Superstition to fall on our face in the Assembly and Worship God, 1 Cor. 14.25. Which if any should practise now it would be counted Popery, tho' no Image were in sight. But the case is this: As the Church of England in general for Gravity and Reverend behaviour exceeds the Conventicles, or other Reformed Churches, so the Cathedrals of the Church we confess are more Solemn than the Country Churches, the Catholics, as 'tis fit, far beyond the English Cathedrals. And what is the issue? The Churches of England are censured as Superstitious by the Kirkmen and Conventiclers; the Cathedrals are censured as such by the Parish Churches; and the Catholic is censured also by the Reformed Cathedral: Still the more Solemn and Devout Church is censured for Idolatrous by the less. I shall shut up this with the following Story, whilst I ask my Antagonist this Question. Suppose he had been present in the City of 
c St. Athan. de Imagine Domint nostri J. Christ's qualiter Crucifixa est in Syria in urbe quae Berthus dicitur, Tem. 2. p. 17. c. 1. B.  Berthus in Syria, in St. Athanasius his time, and had seen the Jews (as the same Saint relates) using all the Indignities to a Crucifix (which a Christian had accidentally left behind him whilst he removed from his Lodgings) that their Predecessors had done to our Blessed Saviour himself; would he not have looked upon those actions as intended against our Blessed Saviour, and not terminated in that Wood? Would he not have condemned those Jews as guilty of the same Crimes they were who Scourged him, Buffeted him, and Nailed him to the Cross? Would he have excused them, because they did those actions to an inanimate Being? Or would he not rather have interpreted their intention, as passing from the Cross to our Blessed Saviour, whom it represented? If he cannot deny, but that he should have been concerned at these Indignities, or the like, which, as it is reported are done by the Renagado Christians when submitting to the Koran, they shoot at the Picture of our Saviour; I see no reason why he should not in like manner interpret these exterior Testimonies of our respect, not to terminate in the Crucifix, but to tend to him who suffered upon the Cross.  
Indeed in our Days we have seen such contempt shown to the Images, 
When Sir Will Wader burned the Crucifix.  even of our Blessed Saviour himself in the public Eye of the World, that the Enemies of Christianity blushed for Christians, crying shame upon those, who acknowledged him to be their God, and yet treated his Resemblance with such disrespect.  
Now comes his last Argument, taken from the Hymns of the Church; and because I said, he had been often told, 
§. 26. The Church's Hymns.  that there were Poetical Expressions in those Hymns, and that the word Cross, by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets, signifies jesus Christ Crucified, to whom we pray in our Hymns; he is brisk and confident, and has a mind to expose our Literature as well as our Idolatry, and tells me, he will not ask me by what Authority I send them to the Poets for interpreting the Church's Hymns: But if I please to inform them what that Figure is, which in the same place makes the Cross, to signify Christ, in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross, and who those Poets are, to whom this Figure is sufficiently known, I shall oblige them. Nay, he tells me, that they are amazed at the very report of such a Figure, and believe it next a Kin to Cransubstantiation.  
In answer to this, I hope it is not a Crime in me to send him for the interpretation of the Church Hymns to the Poets, that made them. Poets I say, unless he will be so far an Hypocritic, as to deny Prudentius and Fortunatus to be of that number. But if he look into his Corpus Poetarum, he will find them to have a place amongst the other Poets; and if he look into their Works, he will find this very Hymn he boggles at; and it may be, if he cast an Eye upon the Title of it, he will call to mind what Figure it is he there uses (for I do not pretend that there is only one Figure in all the Hymns; sometimes we find Metonymias, sometimes Prosopopeias', and sometimes others:) his Title is not the Cruse, of the Cross, but the Passione Domini, of the Passion of our Lord: And if under the term Cross he understand Christ and his sufferings upon it, our Defender need not be amazed at it; nor endeavour to make the Figure by which it is done, so ridiculous: He will find it very familiar to St. Paul; I have told him already how that Apostle, when he gloried in Christ and his sufferings, said, 
Gal. 6.14. The Cross taken for Christ, etc.  God forbidden I should glory, saving in the Cross of Christ, by which the World is Crucified to me, and I to the World. And I may now bid him look into the first Chapter of his Epistle to the Collossians, v. 20. and he will see that he calls the Blood of our Redemption the Blood of the Cross: Into the third Chapter to the Philippians v. 18. where he calls the Enemies of Christ, the Enemies of Christ's Cross: Into the first Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, v. 17. and 18. where he calls the frustrating of Christ's Passion, the making void of his Cross, the Preaching of his Gospel, the Preaching of his Cross: And into the sixth of the Galathians, ver. 12. where he calls the Persecution, that was suffered for professing the Faith of Christ Crucified, the Persecution of the Cross: As also into the twelfth of the Hebrews, v. 2. Where speaking of our Blessed Saviour's sufferings, he says he endured the Cross. Yet these are things concealed from him, he is amazed at the report of such a Figure, and believes it next a Kin to Transubstantiation. I hope if they be so near a Kin, when he becomes a Convert to St. Paul in one of them, he will also be in the other. But what does he mean by Us and We all along, as when he tells us, that this noted Figure has been so long concealed from Us? Does he vouch for his whole party, or only for himself? Not surely for his whole party; for if he do, they will beg his pardon, at least some them, and in particular Mr. 
a Reyn. c. 8. divis. 2. pa. 412.413.  Reynolds (if my Author cite him truly) who tells us, that St. Paul after a Figurative manner of speech by the Cross meant Christ Crucified. Nay I may say, all those of the Church of England as by Law Established, will certainly deny themselves to be of his confederacy; otherwise what I pray means their 30th. Canon in which their Church acknowledges 
b Imo Spiritus Sanctus per Apostolorum ora ipsum Crucis nomen (Judaeis utique invisum) usque adeo honoravit, ut non modo Christum ipsum Crucifixum sub eodem comprehenderet, sed & mortis ac passionis Christi vires, effectus, ac merita, una cum selattis, fructibus, ac promissis universis quae nos ex eisdem aut percipimus, aut in futurum expectamus. Sparows Canons, pag. 282.  that the Holy Ghost did by the Mouths of the Apostles so far Honour the Name of the Cross (so odious to the Jews) that under it they did not only comprehend Christ himself Crucified; but the force, effects, and merits of his Death and Passion, with all the comforts, fruits and promises, which we receive or expect thereby.; But if by we and us he only mean himself, and desire me to oblige him so much, as to inform him what Figure that is, which makes the Cross signify Christ, I must send him to the aforesaid Canon, which I suppose he understood when he entered into the Ministry of the Church of England, tho' he has now forgot it.  
Neither let him say that he calls for a Figure which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ, in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross; for he will not find our Hymns any more guilty of that, than the expressions of St. Paul before mentioned, in which he will find the foregoing, nay in some of them the accompanying words distinguishing Christ from the Cross, and yet according to his own thirtieth Canon, the Holy Ghost under the word Cross did comprehend, not only Christ crucified, but the force, effects, and merits of his Death and Passion, etc.  
But to examine more particularly this Hymn which he instances. He formerly bogled only at the Stroph O crux, ave, spes unica, 
Exposit. pag. 14.  Hail, O Cross, our only hope, etc. In which (as I then told him) it is manifest the Church makes her addresses to the Cross with Christ, that is, to Christ Crucified upon the Cross, 
Christ our only Hope.  as the words spes unica sufficiently demonstrate; for he will not have us certainly to have two only Hopes; neither will others surely (whatsoever he does) think us so silly as to make a formal Prayer to an insensible thing. But in vindication of himself, he brings St. Thomas acknowledging the worship of Latria due to the Cross, and proving it (as he says) from this Hymn (to which I have already answered, and shall not here repeat it again) and picks out at pleasure three other Strophs of that Hymn, in which, as he says, the Cross is distinguished from Christ. What if it be in those three Stanza's, does it necessarily follow that it is so in this too? For my part I see no such consequence. And must certainly conclude, that if the Apostles did by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost comprehend Christ and all the benefit of his Passion under the word Cross, the Church, which is also taught by the same Holy Spirit, ought not to be censured for the same.  

Of Relics.  
AS for Relics; 
§. 27.  we are called here to a Verbal Disputation. And because Veneration, Worship and Adoration, are frequently confounded in our Authors, he endeavours, from several of them, to justify his Translating of the Word Venerari in the Conncil of Trent, by Worship in his Exposition. I do not love to prolong Disputes, and therefore shall readily give him leave to use the word Worship, upon condition that he take it in the sense of those Authors who understand no more than an Honour or Veneration, which we pay to the Sacred Remains of those Saints, who were once the Temples of the living God; and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict sense. Only I must tell him, that we do not seek to those Sacred Monuments for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance, 
No Prayers to Relics or Monuments.  as he very falsely insinuated from the Council, and now, to justify himself, makes use of as great a piece of Scholarship as can well be paralleled.  
I told him, That the Words of the Council were, That they who affirm that no ●●●eration or Honour is due to the Relics of Saints; or that those Relics, and other Sacred Monuments, are unprofitably Honoured by the Faithful; or that they; [the Faithful] do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints, to the end they may obtain their aid (the aid of the Saints, EORUM) are wholly to be condemned, as the Church does now, and has formerly condemned them. But, alas! it seems I did not understand the Latin, or else I had a mind to Cavil; for he tells his Reader, my Citation of the words of the Council, was only a Trick to deceive those who understood it only in my Translation, that I transposed the Latin, on purpose to raise a Dust to deceive the Reader, the true Order being plainly as he before rendered it; so that they who shall affirm, That no Worship or Honour is due to the Relics of Saints; or, That these and the like Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honoured; and that for the obtaining of their Help (the Help of those Sacred Monuments, 
A false Tran●ation.  EORUM) the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented, are to be condemned. Certainly this was a great Crime, and my throwing the false Translation upon him, one of the reasons I suppose, why he gave me that pious Admonition; 
Presace pag. xuj.  Entreating me by the common name of Christian, and those hopes of Eternity, after which he believes we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend, to consider how deagerous this way I have taken, is; what mischiesis it will bring in the Opinion of all good Men, of what soever persuasion they be, to the very cause that is maintained by such Means: In a word, what a sad parchase it will prove in the end, if to lessen the reputation of an unknown, obscure Adversary, I should do that which shall lose me my own Soul. But really I must desire this Gentleman to cast once more his Eye upon the Latin, and see whether of us two have rendered it right in English. For my own part, in his own words, I thank God my Religion needs not such Defences, 
Ibid.  nor would I ever have used those means, to assert it, if it did. I was always taught that no evil was to be done tho' for a good end; nor was I ever brought up in any Schools, that esteemed the Interest of the Church so Sacred, as to be able to sanctify the worst of Means, that can be made use of to promote it: I have indeed heard some Roman Catholics accused, as if they taught such Doctrines; but I always found the Galumny stand at the Accusers Doors, whose Art was only to cry Whore first. And as for the Defender, I hope, if he be convinced he has done me and the Council of Trent, I may say also the Catholic Church, an Injury in this, he will perform his Promise, and think himself indispensably obliged to make a public Acknowledgement of it, and thank the Vindicator that has called him to so necessary a Duty. I appeal then to any Jury of Scholars in the World, Whether when I Translated these words, Ita ut affirmantes— EORUM opis impetranda causâ memorias SANCTORVM frustra frequent ari, omnino damnandos esse, after this manner; so that they who affirm the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented for the obtaining their Aid, that is, the Aid of the Saints, are to be condemned; fixing Eorum to its Substantive Sanctorum, which follows in the same Sentence; rather than to Monumenta in the foregoing; from whence it is separated in most of the Editions I have seen, by a Hyppooolon; I say I appeal to any Jury of Scholars, Whether I did not give the true sense of the Sentence, and whether the Defender be not short in his Translation. But if he have a mind still to pursue the Cavil, all I can do is to wish him a clearer sight, or to send him to the Words as they are Printed in Bail's Summa Conciliorum, Sess. 25. the Invocat. Venerat. etc. pag. 701. E. Where he will find the Word Eorum quite left out, which will I hope satisfy him, that we neither make our Prayers, 
I'a ut affir●●●tes Sanct●rum Reliquits veneratienem at que benerem non debevi, veleas aliaque sacra Monum ●ta a filelib●● inu●iliter bon●rari atque opis impetrande causi Sa●●orum Memorias frustra frequentars, ommine damnindes esse, etc. Memoriae Sancterum & alia sacra Monumenta are the same, and therefore if corum h●d been referred to the Monuments or Memorials, it ought to have been of the seminine gender in that sentence, thus earum [memoriarum] opis in petrandae causa. Non qued credatur inesse, aliqua in its Divi●itas, vel, virtus, proper quam sint col●●dae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid peiendum, vel quod fidutia in L●●agin, but sit fig●●da, etc.  to the Monuments, nor to the Relics nor Memorials of the Saints. The Council then, as appears plainly by the words of it, condemns three forts of persons; The first, those who affirm, that Veneration and Honour is not due to the Relics of Saints; The second, those who affirm That Relics and other Holy Monuments are unprofitably honoured; and the third, those who say that the Memorials of the Saints are in vain frequented in order to obtain the aid and assistance of those Saints; and they who give another sense wrest the Words, and impose a Doctrine which never any Divine of the Church of Rome held; nor any that I have met with but the Defender, accused them of; and yet this must be again repeated in his Close, as a piece of old Popery; but he should rather have called it new Calumny, and a fearful Blunder of his own. They who doubt whether I speak truth or no, may be pleased to Read the Council itself, and some Lines further they will find that it professes it does not believe that any Divinity or Virtue is in Images, for which they ought to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any trust to be put in Images; and I think the same case holds in Monuments.  
There remains one Objection from Bellarmin, 
§. 28.  concerning the Veneration of Images mentioned by the Defender in his Close, which is, 
Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 21. p. 1697. Ch. 22. Non esse dicendum, jataginibus deberi culium Latriae. Ch. 23. Imagines Christi improprie, velper accidens posse honorari culiu Latriae. Ch. 24. Imagines ●er see & propries non esse colend●●●o cultu, quo 〈◊〉 ipsum colitur. Ch. 25 Quina conelusio. Culous qui per se, & proprie debetur Imaginibus, est Cusius quidam impersedus, qui a 〈◊〉 & reductive peranet ad speciens ajue, Culius qui debeiur examplari.  That he affirms the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be Venerated, not only by accident and improperly, but also by themselves and Properly; so that the Veneration is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they are the Representatives of the Originals: But had he looked into his Explication, he would have found that the Veneration he there speaks of, is only such as is given the Book of Gospels or the Sacred Utensils of the Church. And the Titles of his three following Chapters, and the Conclusion he draws from them in the fifth, show that the Vindicator and he did not differ in their Faith.    

ART. V Of Justification.  
THe Defender is very free in his Accusations, 
§. 29. defence pag. 25.  but very unfortunate in his Proofs. He tells us of sirange abuses with which the true Doctrine of Justification was overrun at the beginning of the Reformation, and wonders at my confident denial of it without any Proof; when at the same time he brings no other himself, but a bare affirmation, that he must be very ignorant, in the Histories of those times, 
The Catholic Church falsely accused.  etc. I must confess we shall find in those Ages strange Accusations of the Catholic Doctrine; but who ever peruses the Acts of our Councils, will find they were only mere Calumnies and Misrepresentations: I need not send owned Defender further than to the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the Year 1685: Where he will find those Calumnies, Injuries and Falsities, proved out of their own Authors.  
But what our Defender means now by the true Doctrine of Justification is not very easy to Guess, unless he State it in calvin's way, or the 11th Article of his Church: which yet he knows (tho' he have a mind to keep counsel) is disavowed by the best and honestest Divines of the English Church; I speak not here of Mr. Thorndike, but of many others, as Dr. Taylor, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Bull, and, who must be set by himself, Mr. Baxter: Nay Report too says, that the Pulpits also (as many as do not persevere in Calvinism) do directly declare against it; and that with all the reason in the World; that Men may no longer perish by wresting St. Paul's difficulter expressions to their own Damnation, which 'tis believed 
(a) 2 Pet. 3.16.  St. Peter points at, we are sure 
(b) Jac. 2.20 26.  St. James doth. Yes, yes, time was, they tell us, that the Church of Rome was loudly accused of Erring in Fundamentals, because she taught Justification by Faith and Works, without which Faith is but Dead; but now the Fundamental Error is found to lie elsewhere (God be thanked) and yet Justification must still remain (for so goes the Game) a Bone of Contention. Want of Charity will always keep us asunder, and tho' we be agreed, yet the spite of it is, we will not agree. The Defender knows upon what Politic motives things are so managed, and who are to be gratified at this Juncture, lest there should appear a possibility of union 
* See the Advertisement to the Bp. of Condoms Exposition. pag. 8. Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. pag. 21.  with that Church from which they separated themselves principally upon account of our Doctrine of Justification, tho' they now adventure to say, that were things clearly stated and distinguished one from another, the difference between us, considered only in the Idea, would not be very grew: a and that they can safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point, provided it be will and rightly explained. And he has advanced nothing but what is the Doctrine of the Council of Tront.  
The Expositor and I were agreed in most things; 
§. 30, Sanctification and Justification.  only I told him, I thought he would be hard put to it to prove the Distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification to be the Doctrine of the Church of England: and that he imposed upon us, when he affirmed us so to make our Inward Righteousness a part of Justification, that by Consequence we said our Justification itself is wrought by out good Works.  
To the first, It appears indeed he is hard put to it, when he is forced to a Deduction (how clear let others judge) from their 11th and 12th Articles: and from the Homily of Salvation, which, as he citys it, calls the forgiveness of sins, Justification; but does not say that Justification is only the Remission of our sins, which was his undertaking. But had I told him of the little less than contradictions he fell under in that place, he would have seen the difficulty of getting clear. For having told us before that they confess with M. de Meaux, 
Expos. pag. 19  that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed, but actually Communicated to the Faithful: He here tells us, 
Pag. 20.  They believe their sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us. Nay tho' he tell us their Church by Justification understands only the Remission of sins; 
Contradictions.  and by Sanctification the Production of the habit of Righteousness in us: yet within two lines he tells us, that this Remission of sin is only given to those that Repent, and that they who Repent are those in whom the Hoty Ghost produces the Grace of Sanctification, for a true Righteousness and holiness of Life; which is just as much as to say, we distinguish Justification and Sanctification: But no man can be Justifiel unless he be also Sanctified. That our sins are Pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us: but that his Merits are not only imputed, but actudlly Communieated to us. He will oblige us, if he please to tell us how these agree; as also how the Doctrine of their 11th. Article, 
We are accounted righteous before God only, for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour J. Christ by Faith, and not for our own works and deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a wholesomt Doctrine and very full of comfost. Art 11. Sparrows Canons, pag. 95.  that we are Justified by Faith only, is consistent with what he tells us, pag. 19, of his Exposition, that none of those things which precede our Justification, whether our Faith, or our Good works, could Merit this Grace: And what he sums up pag. 21. That Christ died, and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us. God therefore through the Merits of his Son, freely forgives us all our Sins, and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace. By this Covenant, founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ, he sends us his Holy Spirit, and calls us powerfully to Repentance. If we awake and answer this call, than God by his free Goodness justifies us; that is, he pardons our Sins past, gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commandments from time to time; and if we persevere in this Cavenant, Crowns us finally with Eternal Life: Thus far he. But, Is awaking and answering to his Call, is persevering in his Covenant no good works? And if these be necessary to have God freely Justify us, and Grown us with Eternal Life, how are we, I pray, Justified by Faith only?  
As for the other part in which I told him, 
§. 31.  he imposed upon ●s, as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of our Justification, and so by consequence said, that our Justification itself is wrought also by our Good works: 
A false Imposition.  Doth he think, that I told him he imposed upon us, when he affirmed, that we comprehend under the notion of Justification, not only the Remission of Sins, but also the Production of that inherent Righteousness, which they call Sanctification? No, the Imposition did notilie in that part of the Proposition, 
Our justification is gratis. Gratis autem justificari ideo dicamur: Quia nihileorum quae justificationem praeccdunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam Justi ficationis gratiam promeretur: Si enim Gra●ia est, jam non ex operibus: Alioquin, ut idem Apostolus inqun, Gratia jam non est. Gratia. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. de Justif. cap. 8.  but in the consequence which he drew; viz. That we say our Justification is wrought also by our Good works. This was the Imposition, and if he had remembered what he had Copied out of the Bishop's Exposition, and the Bishop from the Council, he would not have gone about to justify his Accusation. For the words are these: We believe with him [the Bishop of Meaux] That our Sins are ●eely for given by God's Mercy through Christ. and that none of those things which precede justification, whether our Faith, or our good works, could merit this Grace;; to which very words the Council of Trent adds this reason; for if it [Justification] be a Grace, it pr●ceeds not from Good Works; for other wise as the same Apostle says, Grace would be nom no more Grace.  
Well, how does he justify his Imposition? By a Canon of the Council forsooth, which has not one word in it to his purpose; but it seems he either did not understand it, or else had a mind so to blunder it in his Translation, that they who understood not the Latin might take it for granted to speak his Sense. And by I know not what negligence of the Corrector, fuerit was Printed instead of fiunt, so that even those who did understand the Language could not find out the Error, without consulting the Council itself.  
The Council speaks of persons already Justified, 
Si qui● dixerit konsinis justificati boma opers ita esse dexa Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsim Justisicati merita; aut ipsum Justificatum, bonis operibus, quae ab eo per Dei Gratiam & Jesus Christi meritum, cujus vivum membrum est, fiunt, non verè mereri augmentum Gratiae, vitam aeternam, & i●siut vitae aeternae (si tamen in gratia decesserit) consecutio●em, atque etiam Glorie augmentum; Anathema this.  and tells you, that their good works performed through the Grace of God, and Merits of Jesus Christ, whose living Members they are, do truly Merit Increase of Grace and Eternal Life; and that they are not so the gifts of God, but that they are also the good Merits of the same Justified person. But how does all this prove, that the good works of a person who is not Justified, Merit his first Justification? There's the Point. We say indeed, that it is necessary the free Will should cooperate with the Grace of God, and that a person should be disposed by convenient preparations to receive that Grace; but still we say it is a Grace which is given us Gratis, and as I said before from the Council, which neither Faith nor good works which precede Justification could Merit for us.  
His Translation is amiss in this, 
A false Translation.  that he renders these words, Aut ipsum Justificatum, bonis operibus, etc. Thus, Or that he being Justified by good works does not truly Merit increase of Grace, etc. As if he were Justified by his good Works: Whereas the Sense is manifestly this; Or whoever shall say, that he who is Justified does not, by his good works,— which are performed by him through the Grace of God and Merits of Jesus Christ, whose living Member he is, truly Merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life— let him be Anathema. That this was the Sense of that Canon he seems to have understood, when in the next Page he expresses it thus, that our Doctrine of Merits in that Canon is, That Man being Justified by the Grace of God, and Merits of Jesus Christ, does then truly Meru both increase of Grace, and Eternal Life. So, that it appears manifestly (tho' he would disguise it) that we do not say our Works done out of the state of Grace, are meritorious of Grace or Salvation: But we say, that those good works which are done in the state of Grace, do Merit an increase of Grace, and if they be persevered in to the last, the reward of Glory. If he deny this, let him speak plain; but let him take care how he thwarts the many express Texts of Scripture which prove our Doctrine.   

ART. VI Of Merits.  
I Told him upon this Article, that the Niceties of the Schools, 
§. 32. Vindic. pag. 48. Scholastic Niceties to be avoided.  as they make no Division in the Church, so ought they not to make any amongst Christians: But yet for all this, our Defender must have recourse to them, for want of better hold. The Opinions of Bellarmin, Vasquez, Scotus, etc. must be brought again, and their words quoted in the Margin, as if the whole stress of the cause lay there. But would he have considered what he was forced to acknowledge, that Bellarmin is against Scotus; Vasquez against Bellarmin, etc. and have reflected, that all of them were Catholics united in the Principles of one Faith, tho' dissenting in these School Questions: I say, would he but have considered these things, he would have saved himself a great deal of pains; and his Readers much trouble: But he says, he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools, but to the Expositions of our Greatest Men; whose names were neither less, nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations, than M. de Meaux 's, or the Vindicators (forsooth) can be now. No doubt those persons Names were, and are deservedly Celebrated in Generationibus suis; and whatever proportion the Bishop of Meaux may Challenge in the esteem of the World amongst these Celebrated Writers, the Vindicator desires only to rest in his obscurity. But to say, he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools, but to the Expositions of our greatest Men, is what may pass in Discourse or from the Pulpit, where no body contradicts him; but should not have been exposed to view in Print, because it will not abide the Trial. I never heard that these persons writ direct Expositions upon the Council itself, tho' they make use of it for the establishment of their private opinions. And to say, he recurred not to the Niceties of the Schools, when he had recourse to Merit de Condigno, and the various opinions of Catholic Divines upon that Question, is such a piece of Boldness, 
Bellarmin having summed up the three opinions the Defender mentioned, and rejected the first and third, tho' he affirmed them to be far from Heresy, says, he looks upon the middle Sentence to be the more probable. Nobis media sententia probabiltor esse videtur, de Justif. lib v. c. 17. A. pa. 1122. The very Titles also of the Chapters cited by the Desender, show, that what Vasquez there disputes of, is only a Scholastic Question. In operibus justerum non esse meritum simpliciter, aut condignum vitae aeternae, nonnulli Scholastici docuerunt. Vasquez Quaest. 114. disp. 213. cap. 3. Tit. See also the Titles of the 1, 2, 3, and 4. Chapters of his next Disputation.  that cannot pass the honest Readers censure. What I have already observed of the various opinions of Catholic Divines summed up by those Authors he mentions in the respective Chapters, is a sufficient proof of what I say, and I shall not trouble my Readers with any other.  
But the Council of Trent has (he says) spoken so uncertainly in this point, 
§ 33.  as plainly shows, either they did not know themselves what they would establish, or were unwilling that others should. How great pity it is so learned and sincere a Censor as this Defender is, lived not in that Age, or assisted not at that very Council! What is it they did not know? Was it the Doctrine of the Church concerning Merits? Or was it the Doctrine of the Schools? Neither the one, nor the other. But this he may say, and that truly, that they were not willing to enter into the particular disputes of the Schools, nor to mix uncertainties, tho' of the highest probability with what they had been always taught to be of Faith: No wonder therefore, if they speak not so positively in those differences he proposes, seeing they are not Doctrines of the Church, but the opinions of our Schools. I say therefore to him, that if he like not Vasquez, nor the Cardinal's opinion, pray let him follow that of Scotus, and he will be still a Catholic as to that point.  
But Maldonate comes in: The Defender says, my Exception against his false Quotation is Impertinent. Why so, good Sir? To tell you, 
A mutilation.  that you mutilate Sentences at pleasure, and give us what you please, for the Sense of our Authors? His words were— We do as properly and truly, when we do well, together with the Grace of God, Merit areward, as we do Merit, punishment when we do ill without it: And is it Impertinent to tell you, you read the Author in haste, or copied the words from some other, which made you leave out those words together with the Grace of God? Yes, says he, It is impertinent as to them who dispute not the Principle, but the Merit of Good Works. Pray, who ever maintained that Good Works had any Merit, or were acceptable unless joined with the Principle, the Grace of God? And if you will not take the Principle together with the Action, which is therefore Meritorious because joined with that Principle, you dispute not against us, no more than they would do, who to deny the power of Water in Baptism to wash away Original Sin, should speak nothing of the Power of God annexed to the Sacrament, or tell us it is impertinent to mention it, etc. St. Paul said, Omnia possum in co qui me confortat, that he could do all in him that strengthened him; he tells us, that he laboured more than all the rest; but yet not he, but the Grace of God with him; Jam non ego, sed Gratia Dei mecum. Nay, 
The Church's Doctrine.  our Blessed Saviour tells us, that we can do nothing without him; sine me nihil potestis facere. Will any one say, 
Cum enim ille ipse Christus Jesus tanquam caput in membra, & tanquam vitis in palmites, in ipsos Justificatos jugiter virtutem influat; quae virtus bona corum opera somper antecedit, & comitatur, & subsequitur, & sine qua nuto pa●●o grata & meriteria esse possent: Nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est, quo minus plene illis quidem operibus, quae in Deo sunt facta, Divinae legi pro hujus vitae statu satisfecisse, & vitam aeternam suo etiam tempora, (si lamen in gratia decesserint) consequendam, vere promeruisse censeantur: Cum Christus Salvator noster aicat; si 〈◊〉 biberit ex aqua, quam ego dabo ti, non sities in aternum; sed fiet in e● sons aquae salientis invitem 〈◊〉 Con●. Trid. sess. 6. de Justif. cap. 16.  that St. Paul did nothing all this time; because if he had not had that Divine Assistance he could not have done it? Or would it have been impertinent to keep such Disputants to the words of the Text? They who would see our Doctrine upon this Point, need but look into the Council of Trent, where, notwithstanding all the Obscurity he pretends, they will find it clearly expressed, that we only therefore think the Good Works of Justified persons to be Meritorious and Acceptable to God, because being performed in the Grace of Jesus Christ (who at all times showers down a Powerful Influence upon Justified persons, as the Head upon the Members, and as the Vine into its Branches, which Powerful Influence precedes, accompanies, and follows all their actions) they want nothing to make them truly Meritorious; seeing our Lord himself has told us, that if any one drink of the Water that he will give him, he shall not thirst for ever, but it shall be in him a Fountain of Water springing into Eternal Life.   


ART. VII. SECT. 1. Of Satisfactions.  
AFter having given so full an Account of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, 
§. 34. Defence p. 32.  from the Council itself, in my Vindication; I little thought any one would have charged me and Monsieur de Meaux, with going contrary to the Council, without any further proof of the Accusation, but a bare citation in the Margin of the very Chapter I had almost entirely rendered into English, and the Canon expressing that same Doctrine. He would have done well to have shown in what place the Council ascribes to our Endeavours (quatenus ours) atrue and proper Satisfaction. This would have been indeed proper to his Business. But to fly again to Bellarmin and Vasquez, and bring them in, as affirming us to make a proper Satisfaction for our sins, and that in such Disputes as they themselves only call probable, avails little. Had he shown us, that any Council of the Church; nay, I may boldly say, any approved Divine had said, 
No Satisfaction without the Grace of God and Merits of Christ.  That Man of his own self (without the Grace of God accompanying his actions, and without being justified first by God's free Mercy and Goodness) can properly satisfy for his Sins, he would have had reason to condemn such Doctrine. But when I have shown him, how the Council says expressly, Thu Satisfaction which we make for our Sins, is not so ours, that it is not Jesus Christ's; for we, who of ourselves can do nothing, can do all things with him who serengthens us, etc. And he himself having taken notice in the Margin how those Authors, whom he citys, mention those Works only to be Satisfactory, which are done after the guilt of sin is remitted, and the Sinner justified and received into Favor; and that the Works which are Satisfactory must be done also together with the Grace of God; methinks hè might have spared his pains in this point. But perhaps he will tell me, he disputes not the Principle, but the Value, etc. as he told me in his last Article: If so, I must again tell him, if he separate the Principle from the Action, he Disputes not against us, but his own Chimeras.  
As for his first Quotation from Bellarmin, I wonder how he would have had me to seek for it, 
He citys Bellarmin as affirming, That it is we who properly satisfy for our sins, and that Christ's Satisfaction serves only to make ours Valid. Whereas the words he citys from Bellarmin are very different; for answening an Objection, that if Christ's Satis faction be applied to us by our Works, either there are two Satisfactions joined, or but one, etc. He says first with some Divines, there is but one Sitisfaction, and that Christ's, and that we do not properly satisfy. 2. With others, that there are two Satisfactions, but one depending on the other. But the third, says he, videtur PKOB ASILIOR, seems more PROBABLE, that there is only one actual Satisfactian, and that ours; neither is Christ or his Satasfaction excluded by this; for by his Saisfactian we have the Grace by which we sathfy: And after this manner it is that Christ's satisfaction is said to be applied to us, not that his Sactification does immediately take away the temporal pain which is due to us, but mediately, that is, in as much as from is we receive Grace, without which our Satisfaction would have no value. How does this third Answer agree with our Defenders Proposition?  when he grants there was an Error in the Press: And I doubt not, but all those who read his English, and compare it with the Latin he now citys in the Margin, will excuse me that I did not find it: for really he must be a more skilful Man in Languages, than I, that can find that Position, as he words it, in the place he citys: It would have been more ingenuous to have given us the words of the Author at length, than by such a turn as he has done, to make the Proposition as it lies, neither Bellarmin's Sense, nor tenable.  
I know the Doctrine of Satisfactions, 
§. 35.  was not the sole pretence of their Separation, tho'. it was represented as one of the most necessary; But if it be proved, that this alone was so far from being a sufficient ground, that it was no ground at all, and so of all other particulars; we must conclude, that all of them put together could give no just cause for such a Rent or Rebellion in the Church: I told him, that he ought to have given us some better Reason for his Assertion, that whenever God remits the Crime, he remits the Punishment, than we think so or we are persuaded; especially, seeing this Doctrine is of such concern, that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon us, 
Protestants grant more efficacy to a Lord have Mercy upon us, than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence.  than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church: But this I perceive puts him on the Fret; and therefore he calls it a shameful Calumny, and tells me, he is confident I did not believe it myself? Pray, Good Sir, Is it not your Position, That when ever God forgives the Gild, be forgives the Punishment? Is it not your Tenet also, that God is ready to forgive the Gild, whenever a Sinner truly reputes? Tell me then, suppose a Great Sinner is so suddenly taken out of the World, that tho' he was truly forry for his Sine, yet had only time to express his Sorrow by a bare Lord have mercy upon me; Will you say such a Man cannot reap the Benefits of God Almighty's Favour, or have the guilt of his Sin forgiven him? If you dare not say this; tell me your opinion, Whether does he go? If you say, To Heaven strait; I say, you give more to a bare Lord have mercy upon me, than we do to a Plenary Indulgence: for a Plenary Indulgence remits the Penalty due to Sin only upon Account of some other Satisfactions in the Church's style: But you will, it may be, tell me, this is not a bare Lord have mercy upon me, but is, as I now suppose, accompanied with a sorrow for his Sin. I grant it; and so must the Person who gains the Indulgence be, not only sorry for his sins, but confess them, resolve to amend them, quit the Occasions; and make some other Satisfactions, not only to the Persons whom he has injured, but to God, by Prayers, Almsdeeds, or Fasting.  
In the last place, 
§. 36.  he finds fault with my Remark upon his Reflection upon the Bishop of Meaux, for bringing only we suppose, to establish this Doctrine, when yet very often he did no more himself: 
A Falsification.  But he takes no notice, that I told him he had falsified M. de Meaux in that very expression; for his words were we believe, nous croyons, which words were conformable to his design of an Exposition, not of a proof. However he tells me, he belleves I can hardly find any one Instance where that is the only Argument he brings for their Doctrine. In answer to which, I dare confidently affirm, that strip him of the Calumnies, Misrepresentations of our Doctrine, and Falsifications, he has scarce an Argument in his Book, of greater force than his we suppose: And to show he thinks it to be strong, he lays a stress upon it in this place, and tell us, that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient not to receive our Innovations, till we can bring them some better Arguments to prove they ought to quit their Supposition. Nay, he puts us upon the proof, and pretends that they cannot find any Footsteps of our Doctrines, in Scripture or Antiquity, and has good reason by the weakness of our attempts to believe there are not any. Certainly the Defender is not so ignorant in Controversy, nor so little read in Polemic Divines, as he here shows himself to be. What! do our Authors never show him any footsteps of our Doctrines in Scriptures, or in Antiquity? Are our attempts to prove our Doctrine so feeble, that People have reason to think a mere Supposition will ruin our Foundations? No, no! the Defender certainly did not believe himself when he writ this, tho' he was willing others should believe him. Have we not, besides our bringing the Authority of the Universal Church; besides the lasting possession which we enjoy; besides the Express Definitions of Councils, acknowledged to be General, not only by all the Bishops in England before the Reformation, but by all Christendom; besides the express Sentences of the Fathers in all Ages; 
We are in a well grounded possession, and therefore are not to quit it for bare Suppositions.  have we not, I say, besides all these Proofs, offered also the plain Texts of Scripture; and Challenged Protestants to show so much as one positive Text for their Negative belief, so much as one Father (unless wrested contrary to his intention) on their side, or so much as one Council for any of those Points in which they differ from us? And would it not be a folly for any one to quit a possession grounded upon such Proofs, for a bare we suppose the Contrary? They who doubt of what I say, would do well to read our Books, and compare the Arguments of our Authors, and see whether Scripture or Antiquity will show the footsteps of our Doctrine or of theirs. And as for Antiquity, if they will not believe us, let them believe their own Protestant Authors, who are so little confident of the Father's being on their side, that they accuse them of Errors, not only in the Point of Satisfactions, but in almost all the Points in Controversy, as has been sully shown by Brereley in his Protestant Apology, First Part, and by several others. And as for Scripture, amongst many others, let them read the Anchor of Christian Doctrine, and the Catholic Scripturist.   

ART. VIII. SECT. 2. Of Indulgences.  
WHat I said before, I say again, That if any abuses, 
§. 37. Councils have redressed the abuses in them.  either by negligence of Pastors, or Covetousness of inferior Officers, have been Practised in Promulging Indulgences, our Councils, not only desiring that they may be redressed, but having made such severe and wholesome Laws in order to it, I wonder persons should from thence take occasion to quarrel with us. I say also, 
Trident. Sess 2●. Decreto de Indulg.  that I will not undertake to defend Practices which are neither necessarily nor Universally received as of Faith. 
We defend not practices which are neither necessarily nor universally received.  But then the Defender asks me, Whether it be not necessarily nor universally received, to believe that Indulgences satisfy for the Temporal pain of Sin? If he speak of pains due in the Court of God, I must with Veron in his Rule of Faith, Chap. xuj. tell him, That it is no Article of our Faith, no Council has ever Defined it, and several approved Divines deny it, and have not been censured for it.  
All that we are obliged to believe, 
§. 38. Our necessary Tenets. Prof●ff. of Faith.  is, that the power of Indulgences has been given and left in the Church by Jesus Christ, and that the use of them is very beneficial to all Christian people. Nay, the same Veron shows, that several Approved Authors, as St. Thomas, St. 
Disp. 10. Sect. 3.  Bonaventure, Cajetan, etc. cited by Suarez, held, that By Indulgences, which are now granted, there is no remission of Pain due to sin, in the judgement of God, but only of the obligation of performing the Sacramental Penance, that is, remission of some part of those severe Canonical Penances, 
Exposit. pag. 28.  which our Author acknowledges were imposed upon Offenders in the Primitive Church, and sometimes remitted or Indulged upon an Excellent Repentance, danger of Death, or when some Martyr Pleaded in his behalf.  
But then, 
§. 39 No buying or selling of Indulgences.  says he, Do you not put up Bills over your Church-Doors and Altars, almost every Sunday, to Vend them on this account? No, we do not vend them upon this account, there is no buying or selling of Indulgences in our Churches, or at our Altars; on the contrary, if any thing be given for them, they lose their force, and are no more Indulgences. But this however must be said ad faciendum populum, and his Learned Auditory will admire his Learning and applaud his Eloquence. But, good Sir, reflect upon our Doctrine, 
Protestant Indulgences sold in their Spiritual Court.  as freed from Scholastic opinions, and see whether you do not Practise as much as we. Have not you your Spiritual Courts? are there not Canonical Penances there inflicted, nay remitted? and those Remissions Vended too, which is more than we do? Is there not one Penalty for Cursing, another for Swearing, another for Fornication, etc. and who are there amongst you that cannot buy off his Public Penance for a sum of money? Are not these Indulgences? and are there not greater abuses crept into this your Reformed Court, by the negligence or covetousness of Officers, than any you can find in the Church of Rome?  
But you do not make his Holiness the Church's Treasurer: 
§. 40. They give greater power to a Minister, than Catholics, as Catholics, give to the Pope.  No, but you give every one of your Ministers more power than his Holiness Challenges. For you (at least as many of you as endeavour to make People confess their Sins to you) in giving Absolution, do not only pretend to forgive the guilt of Sin, but by that forgiveness all the Pain that is due to it, even in the Court of God: Whereas all that is Universally received as of Faith in the Church concerning Indulgences, is, 
What is Universally received as of Faith.  that the Supreme Pastor has power to Dispense with Canonical Penances, and that only upon some just and sufficient motive. As for the other part, the remission of the Temporal Punishment due for the sin, as an offence to God; tho' we have reason humbly to hope it may be mitigated, by our Confession, Contrition, Almsdeeds and other Penitential Works enjoined by those Indulgences; yet is it not of Faith to believe they are taken away. And seeing this is piously believed, tho' not commanded as of Faith, and that we know the practising those penitential Exercises, if they be not Beneficial as to that Point, yet are they still acceptable to God Almighty; therefore we deny not but the endeavouring to gain Indulgences by those Religious actions pre-required in order to the remission of the Pain due in the Court of God, may also be grateful to him. These things being considered; and it being manifest, that what is of Faith in this Dispute, has been the practice of the Primitive Church, I must again put the Defender in mind of his Promise, 
The Des. Promise.  that he make himself ready to receive such an Indulgence as Made Meaux has described, and as those first Ages of the Church allowed of: and if he be a Son of Peace let him own as much in the Pulpit, otherwise Words are but Wind.  
Now to show himself a Traveller, he tells us News, 
§. 41.  that his Holiness has lately sent an universal Indulgence throughout the whole Church, upon such and such strange Conditions, which he repeats: And when these things are considered (says he) I doubt it will little avail the Vindicator to put me in mind of my Promise. Pray Sir consider, what it is you so find fault with: Would it not really be a happy Day to see all the lose People in England join with the devouter Party, 
What a Jubilee is.  cast themselves at their Ministers feet and there confess before God and him, their Sins and Enormities, with a true hatred and detestation of them, and all for the love of God, with a resolution of never committing the like again; yea, forsaking the occasions that induce to sin, making a satisfaction to all those whom they have injured, and forgiving those who have injured them; after which, having also by a three days Fast, with humble Prayer and Alms-deeds begged of God Almighty to avert his Indignation; would it not be to you a ravishing Sight to see them all in this Equipage go and receive the Blessed Sacrament, and jointly pray with Fervour and Devotion for the common Concerns of Christendom, and the propagation of the Holy Catholic Faith; would not this, I say, be a happy Sight? Certainly you cannot but wish that such days were again in England, and such practices restored. And should you live to see the Church of England practising such Devotion, would you not be offended at any one who should refuse to absolve in the Court of Conscience, the most enormous, if penitent, Sinners; or to remit the Canonical Penances upon such a general account in order to their better life? Nay, further I may say, would you condemn any of yours, if to excite such persons to these pious practices, he should assure them, that if they perform them with true Sorrow for their sins, and a sincere Repentance, God will restore them to the same state they were first put into by Baptism; that is, free them, not only from the Gild of sin, but the Punishment also due to it? If it be your Principles that God never remits the Sin, but he remits the Punishment; why do you put it in the Margin as an Objection, that the Archbishop of Paris should promise such Remission to a Repentance accompanied with such pious Exercises? If then it would be looked upon by you as a blessed Day to see such Devotion in this one Nation, if you be in earnest, what Joy must it be to every pious Soul to see the whole Christian World prostrate themselves before the Throne of Grace, and by such practices endeavour to assuage his Anger? Such a time as this we calla Jubilo, and such a blessed time it was when the Pope Granted that plenary Indulgence you mention, Anno 1683.   

SECT. 3. Purgatory.  
HAd our Defeder reflected upon the strength of that Argument, 
§. 42. Proved by two General Councils.  which I hinted at from two general Councils, he would not have made so slight of it, nor called upon me for some reasonable proof for the Falseness and Impertinence of his Assertion, that the Primitive Fathers in praying for the Dead had several other intentions, but not that of assisting them, or freeing them from Purgatory.  
Tho' the eldest of the Councils I mention, was 1400 Years after Christ; yet if he consider that it was before Protestancy; that both the Eastern and Western Bishops in it consented to that Decree; that the Acts of this Council were received by the much Major and Superior part of the whole Christian World, as conformable to a Practice delivered to them by their Forefathers, as of Faith; And withal, that this Council was seconded by another as Genreal as the circumstances of Time could afford; I say, 
This proof comprehends Scripture, Fathers, Tradiction and universal practice.  if he reflect upon these Heads, he will see that I was not hard put to it for Arguments, but that I comprised them all in one, and sending him to the Councils, I sent him at the same time to Scripture, Fathers, Tradition, and the Universal Practice of God's Church, upon all which their Desintions were manifestly founded.  
They who have been hitherto deceived by the Defender and those of his Coat, and made to believe, we have nothing to say in defence of our Tenets, would do well to peruse our Authors, and read the 
* The Author of Nubes restium has collected some of the many Testimonies; where they who read them, will see whether they prayed only for the Intentions mentioned by our Author, and not rather for their help and assistance: they will see also that the Fathers deliver it as an Apostolic Doctrine, and therefore lest it not, to us to believe, or not believe, at pleasure.  Fathers; If so, they will find that we establish our Doctrine upon the Primitive Practice, not only of the Church of Christ, but of the Jewish Synagogue; and that we have both Scripture and a sufficient number of Fathers on our side. Nay, they will see also, that it was neither false nor foolish which I said, That since the Practice of all Nations and the Testimonies of every Age confirm the Custom of Praying for the Dead, that they may receive help, what can we say to them who make a Breach in the Church, and condemn Antiquity, 
Vendic. p. 59  upon no other grounds than abare Supposition, that it is injurious to the Merits of Jesus Christ? a Supposition which yet has no other Proof, but their vain Presumption. How often have we called upon them to show us one sole passage of the Ancients, or one sole Text of Scripture positively affirming there is no Purgatory; 
No Fathers nor Scripture against it.  or that the Prayers which are offered up for the Faithful departed, avail them nothing? But if they cannot show this, it is neither foolish nor false to tell them, they go upon bare Suppositions and their own Presumption; whilst Scripture, Fathers, and Universal Practice are for us.     

PART II.  

ART. VIII. Of the Sacraments in General.  
IF our Defender have a mind to see how we prove all the Seven Sacraments to have Outward Signs of an Inward Grace, 
§ 43.  and that they were instituted by Christ, he may be pleased to cast his Eyes a little upon our Divines, where he will find it amply proved: But to say, That not one of our Church has yet been able to do it, is so manifest a Falsity, as will appear also in the Sequel, that it does not need any Endeavours to disprove it. But however these things must be said, lest People should open their Eyes and see the Truth; and they who pretend to be Lovers of Peace and Unity, resolve to multiply Accusations, to hinder such good effects: Where lies the Sincerity?   

ART. IX. Of Baptism.  
THe Dispute in this Article is a mere Cavil, 
§. 44.  proceeding from the want of a right understanding of the Bishop of Meaux, and a willingness to show at least some kind of Opposition to overy thing that is said.  
Roman Catholics, Protestants of the Church of England, 
The Church of England and Lutherans hold Baptism absolutely necessary. Expos. Do●t. Ch. of Eng. pag. 6.  and Lutherans are agreed as to the Absolute Necessity of Baptism, and that seeing we are all conceived and born in Sin, none can enter into the Kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water, and the Holy Spirit. This the Defender in his Exposition tells us is the Law of Christ, which the Eternal Truth has established; and whosoever shall presume to oppose it, let him be Anathema. From this received Principle the Bishop of Meaux deduced, That Children dying without Baptism do not partake of the Grace of Redemption, but that dying in Adam, 
Therefore Children dying without it, have no part in Christ.  they have not any part in Jesus Christ; and the reason he gave for this his Assertion was, because Children cannot supply the want of Baptism, by Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, nor by the Vow or Desire to receive this Sacrment. Now, because my Opponent argued against this Consequence, deduced from the absolute Necessity of Baptism, telling us, that we ourselves acknowledge the Desires, etc. of Persons come to Years of Understanding, to besufficient to supply the wants of their Actual Reception of Baptism; and that the Desire of the Church for Children that die without it, may in like manner suffice; I answered, There is a vast difference betwixt the ardent Desire of those who are by Age capalbe of receiving Baptism, and the Desire of the Church or Parents: the one proceeding from Faith working by Divine Charity, already infused into the Soul of the Vnbaptized Person, will no doubt of it produce a good Effect, if he extinguish it not by the neglect of a Precept: but the other, being wholly  to the Child, cannot affect the Soul of the Child, unless by the application of that Sacrament which Jesus Christ has instituted as necessary to wash away. our Original Gild: Against this Argument he had nothing to say, but that, he is not concerned whether it be better than his or no, though, he thinks, I am very much: that is, just nothing.  
But however the Bishop of Meaux must be run down, 
§. 45.  and exposed as a man talking with great rashness, etc. But to clear the Bishop, I must desire it may be considered, that tho' we and the Lutherans are agreed as to the absolute Necessity of Baptism; yet the Calvinists accord not with us: For they do not only say, that they cannot determine whether Children dying without Baptism may not be Saved by the Faith of their Parents; but positively affirm they are saved by that Faith, 
The Calvinists oppose this necessity. Tr●●●se of Communim, under both Species, 2d. Part. §. 6. Disc. c.xi ri. vi. Objerv.  and that Baptism is not necessary; insomuch that, as the Bishop of Meaux expresses it in another of his Books from their Discipline; nothing gives them more trouble than the vehement desire they see in Parents, to make their Children be Baptised when they are Sick or in danger of Death. This Piety (says he) of the Parents is called by their Synods an infirmity. It is a weakness to be concerned lest the Children of the Faithful should die without Baptism. One of their Synods had condescended, that Children in evident danger of Death should be Baptised, contrary to the Ordinary custom. But the following Synod reproved this weakness; And these fortified persons blotted that Clause out, which shown a concern for such danger, because it opened a way to the opinion of the necessity of Baptism.;  
So that the Dispute betwixt the Bishop of Condom and the Hugonots, 
The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument. Ex●●●. pag. 17  was concerning the Necessity of Baptism, and not the Consequence of that Necessity, as our Defender would gladly have it: And his Assertion is, that both Catholics and Lutherans are astonished, that such a Truth as the absolute Necessity of Baptism, should be denied, which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question, it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful. Had our Defender rightly taken this Dispute, he would have spared himself the pains he has been at to search Hooker, Bramhall, Cassander, Grotius, and the Authors cited by them; Some of which, it may be, thought not the Consequence drawn from the Belief of the absolute necessity of Baptism, so clear as to be an Article of Faith; whilst others (especially Gerson) were willing to persuade themselves, that God Almighty, notwithstanding his unlimited Decree, might extend his Mercy to such Children: But that his Decree being for all in General, we ought to Pronounce according to that Decree; because without a particular Revelation we ought not to make any Exception from that Rule: But neither they, nor any else before Calvin, denied the absolute necessity of Baptism, as the Bishop Asserts: And our Defender, if he had any thing to say against him, should have opposed that part, 
A Falsification.  and not have corrupted his words, and told us, that he affirms that this denial of Salvaton to Infants dying Unbaptised, was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question. No, no; the Bishop knew well enough, that Gerson's Piety had made him cast an Eye upon the Mercies of God, which he was willing to think, might in some cases make him dispense with his Rule, and thwart the necessity of the Deduction; He knew that Biel and Cajetan were willing to follow singular opinions, and therefore might be of the same mind; He knew also, no doubt of it, that Grotius had cited St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustin for this opinion, tho' they who look into those Fathers will find he was mistaken; neither did St. Augustin in his cooler thoughts differ from himself, when provoked by Pelagius, tho' our Defender, after Grotius, dare argue that he did: But neither they, nor any other openly denied the necessity of Baptism, as the Calvinists do; Nor do the Authors he mentions, affirm any such thing; and therefore it was needless for him to call them in to his help, or to tell me, I had wholly passed by what seemed the most to deserve an answer.  
Upon this account one may see, it was not so ridiculous as he would make it, to tell him, If he had been a Huguenot or a Puritan it might have seemed reasonable to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome, for a Doctrine which they condemn: But that I was astonished to see this Argument, and to hear the Church condemned of uncharitableness, by one of the Church of England, which (as he says) has, it seems, 
* The Church of England in the order for the burial of the dead, rands however, unbaprizeed Children with those that die Excommunicated, or have laid violent hands upon themselves.  Determined nothing of it.  
But if he do not (as he owns) justify a Breach with us upon this account; why, I pray, does he start the Dispute to keep it open, or make it wider by such sinnter Defences?   

ART. X. Of Confirmation.  
IF our Defender had, 
§. 46.  (as he professes) several of our own Party on his side, persons who denied the Divine Institution of this Sacrament, he would not, I believe, have concealed their Names; but would have been as ready to have stuffed his Margin with them, as he was in the precedent Article with Cassander and Grotius, whom he would make his Readers believe, were of our most approved Authors, tho' the first was censured for his rash attempt in the Interim, and the other lived in opposition to the Church, tho' it be thought he died in Communion with it.  
Surely our Defender was sadly put to it, when he was forced to fly to the silence of the Council of Trent, and of its Catechism; and to argue, that because neither of them offered any thing to prove this Sacrament, therefore forsooth, it cannot be proved. Was it not sufficient for those Books to explicate our Doctrine? 'tis not surely the Business of a Council to prove, 
Proved by Fathers and Scripture.  but to Assert our Belief: And whether the Catechism has been wholly silent in this, let the Readers Judge; as also, how bold and rash some persons will be in their Assertions.  
The Chatechism tells us, 
Catech. Rom. part. 2. de Cinf. c. 3. p. 158.  that the Church has always taught and acknowledged, that all things that belong to the Nature and Essence of a Sacrament are found in Confirmation; and proves it from many Ancient and Holy Popes and Fathers of the Church, 
(a) Epist. ad Episc. Hisp. c. 2. Et de Consec. Dist. 5. cap. Spiritus Sanctus.  St. Melchiades, who lived Anno 315. 
(b) Ep. 4. ad Jultan. & Jul.  St. Clement, Anno 102. Also from 
(c) De Consec. dist. 5.  Pope Vrban Anno 232. Fabianus, Anno 253. And Eusebius, Anno 311. Nay, it shows us moreover, that 
(d) De. Eccl. Hier. c. 2.  St. Denys the Arepagite does not only speak of Confirmation, but expresses the very Ceremonies, and the manner of making the Chrism; and that 
(e) Lib. 6. Hist. Eccles. c. 33.  Eusebius of Caesarea, thought that Novatus fol into his Heresy for neglecting in his Sickness to be Confirmed.  
And tho' our Defender in his former Treatise was not so bold, but only affirmed that the Council and Chatechism did not go about to prove, either Christ's Institution, or the outward visible Sign, or the inward Spiritual ●●race by Scripture; yet this Catechism shows, that 
(f) Ambr. in fin. c. 7. de lit qui mist. init. & lib. 3. de Sacramentis. c. 2. Tom. 4.436. pag.  St. Ambrose and 
(g) Aug. lib. 2. cen●ra. lit. Petil. c. 104.  St. Augustin were both of them so persuaded, that no one could doubt of the truth of this Sacrament, that they both of them confirmed it from many Testimonies of Holy Scripture; as one of them from Ephes. 4.30. affirming these words, And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby ye are Sealed, to be meant of the Sacrament of Confirmation; And the other concluding that the Precious Ointment, of which the Psalmist speaks, 
Ps. 132.2.  which being poured forth upon Aaron's Hend, ran down upon his Beard and the Skirts of his Garment; as also, that of St. Paul, 
Rom. 5.5.  where he tells us, that the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given unto us, to be referred to Confirmation. And certainly the best way of proving things from Scripture, is to bring the Interpretations of Fathers, who lived before out Disputes arose. 'tis true, the Catechism after this general Proof of its Antiquity and its being a Sacrament, descending to particulars, chooses rather to use the plain Testimony of 
* Laodic. c. 48. Cartb. 2. ca 3.  Councils and Ancient Fathers, as of 
(a) Fab. Pap. in inst. Epist. 2. quae est ad Episc. Oriental Tom. 2. Concil. & citatur de Consc. dist. 3. cap. lit. vestris.  St. Fabianus Pope and Martyr, 
(b) S. Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. ct. 4.  St. Denys, etc. [to which might be added, 
(c) Aug. in Ps. 44. v. 9 et lib. 13. de Trin. c. 26.  St. Augustin, 
(d) Ambr. in Ps. 118.  St. Ambrose, 
(e) Cypr. Epist. 70.  and St. Cyprian, etc.] than the words of Scripture alone, which it knew would be contested by them, who make it their business to oppose the Church, and make the Scriptures speak as they would have them: But, as I said, the best way of proving things from Scripture, is to show that Antiquity understood it so.  
As to the Argument I brought from his own Concessions; 
§. 47.  tho' it was not so fully concluding as it might have been; yet let him answer me, Why they now continue the imposition of Hands, if it was not left by the Apostles to be continued in the Church; and if it was left by them; for what end did they leave it, if not for the same, for which it was instituted, the giving of the Holy Ghost and Grace to confirm and strongthen us in our Faith? And if the Eucharist itself do not certainly and infallibly give Grace to all those that receive it, but only to them that receive it worthily; I suppose he will not expect any more from Confirmation. Let him therefore tell me, Whether, if a person duly prepared come to receive this Imposition of Hands, the Grace of the holy Ghost does not certainly descend at that Holy Rite, for those great ends the Prayers design? If these things be, as I think he can scarce deny them, he cannot deny also, but that this looks somewhat like a Sacramènt. But if (as he says) this be only a mere indifferent Ceremony, continued only in imitation of the Apostles, and to which no Blessing is ascribed, that may not equally be allowed to any other the like Prayer, Why might not this Prayer be reiterated as well as others? Why must this Ceremony be only allowed to be performed by Bishops? and why are persons so much exhorted not to neglect it?  
But if he think not this a sufficient Argument, 
Bellarm. de Saer. Conjirm. lib. 2.  I would desire him to consider that I might (by only making use of Bellarmin) have shown him from plain Texts of Scripture (at least looked upon by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as such) that Imposition of Hands, which we call Confirmation, is a Sacred sign of an Interior Grace, given with the Holy Ghost to the Faithful: I might have shown him Ten Popes, the last of which was no less than St. Gregory the Great, all of them affirming the Holy Ghost, or his Gifts, to be given by this Sacrament; some of them calling it a great Sacrament, and others mentioning both Chrism and Imposition of Hands: I might have shown him no less than three General Councils, and eight others on our side; some of them very ancient: I might have shown him also nine Greek Fathers, and as many of the Latin, of which St. John Damascen and St. Augustin, are the last; all whose Testimonies are so full, that our Defender will be ill at ease to give a civil Answer. All this he knew I might do, besides many others, which joined with the perpetual practice of the Church, and the unanimous consent of Christians, before the Pretended Reformation, are certainly good Arguments in our behalf.  
But he tells us, 
Des. pag. 40.  it is wonderful to see with what Confidence those of the Church of Rome urge the Apostles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation, when this Imposition of Hands is resolved to be but an Accidental Ceremony, and accordingly in our practice wholly laid aside. It is a sign our Defender did not look into our Pontifical, when he Writ this; nor considered what he cited from Estius in the Margin: For we have not left off Imposition of Hands, neither does Estius affirm it; but only that the necessity of it is ceased, as if the words he quotes be true.  
But our Bishops (says he) Lay on Hands after the Apostles Example; 
§. 48.  but yours, Anoint, make Crosses in the Forehead, tie a Fillet, about their Heads, give them a Box on the Ear, etc. for which there is neither Promise, Precept, nor Example of the Apostles. Such an Argument as this might a Dissenter from the Church of England bring against the several Ceremonies used in their Ordination; and what our Defender would answer to him, I desire he would apply to himself. 
The Ceremonies Explicated.  Several Ceremonies he knows are used to show the effects of the Sacraments; and if he do not know the meaning of these, let him look again into the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and he will there find, that Oil expresses the plenitude of Grace, which by the Holy Ghost flows down from our Head Christ Jesus upon all his Members; 
Ps 132. Ps. 44. Josn. 1.  from whose fullness we have all received; he being anointed with the oil of Gladness above his Fellows. he will find also there, that Balsam puts us in mind, that we ought to be the Good Odour of Jesus Christ; 
2 Cor. 2.15.  and keep ourselves from all Putrefaction and the Contagion of Sin. If he also search into the ancient Expositors of Scripture, 
* Ambr. iib. de lis qui initiantur Mysteriis. c. 6, 7. Tom. 4. pag. 424. & 425. Ed. Basil. 1567.  St. Ambrose, St. Anselm, 
(a) In Commentario. 2 Cor. 2.21.  Theodoret and others, he will find that both this Anointing and this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead, are plainly expressed, or alluded to in Scripture, where the Apostle St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that it was God who confirmed them with him in christ; that it was god who anointed them, signed them as with a Seal, and gave the Pledge of the Holy Ghost in their Hearts. I need not, I suppose, tell him that this signing with the Sign of the Cross in the Forehead, signifies, that we ought not to be ashamed to Confess the Faith of Christ Crucified, as the Church of England expresses it in the Office for Baptism; that the white Cloth, or Fillet (as he calls it) is to put us in mind of the Purity we ought to maintain, and keep the Garment of Innocence, which we received in Baptism, unspotted; and that the Blow on the Ear, is to teach us that we ought from thence forwards to suffer patiently all Injuries and Persecutions for the Faith. These and such like significant Ceremonies we use; and tho' he and his party be pleased to joke at them, yet having such Testimonies as we have of their Antiquity, and Apostolical Institution, we choose rather to glory in them, than under the pretences of a Reformation, to Renounce them, and the Practice; yea, the Communion of the Universal Church.   

ART. XI. Of Penance.  
CErtainly, the Defender never read what I offered; 
§. 49. Defence pag. 41.  otherwise he would never have said, that I had not advanced any one thing to answer his Objections.  
He says, he proved at large, that Penance was not truly and properly a Sacrament, nor ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church. How did he prove it? By many bold Assertions, without any Warrant. And if I affirmed the contrary without Proof, I had his Precedent for it.  
The Bishop of Condom had proved the Sacrament of Penance by the Terms of the Commission granted by our Blessed Saviour to the Apostles and their Successors, 
Matth. 18.12. John 20.23.  of remitting and retaining sins; 
Expos. p. 18.  the terms (says he) of which Commission, are so general, that they cannot without Temerity be restrained to public Sins. Our Expositor's Answer to this was, that the Primitive Christians had interpreted those passages of St. Matth. and St. John concerning Public Discipline, to which, he supposes with them, that principally at least, if not only, they refer. I desired him to show who those Primitive Christians were, 
Vindic. pag. 64.  and where they taught those passages to be only referred to a public Discipline. But to this he would not vouchsafe to give an Answer.  
He objected, that if Penance had been any thing more than a part of Christian Discipline, the Ancient Church would not have presumed to make such changes in it; nor Nectarius have begun to weaken it in his Church of Constantinople, nor his Successor St. John Chrysostom have seconded him in it. In answer to which, I told him, that Public Confession, [such as that which Nectarius and St. Chrysostom took away] was a part of Discipline, and therefore alterable at pleasure; 
Vindic. pag. 65.  but that either Public or Private Confession was always necessary, because it was always necessary, a Judge should know the Case, and a Physician the Distemper, before the one can pronounce a right Sentence, or the other prescribe a wholesome Remedy: But he thinks it a sufficient Reply, to say, he cannot take this upon my Word.  
He had laid Scandals upon our Doctrine and Practice, or at least insinuated them; and therefore I looked upon myself as obliged, to give my Readers a short Account of both; and after I had done it, I told him those were our Doctrines and Practices conformable to that of the Ancient and Orthodox Churches; and that I was astonished why they should be rejected, and no better ground brought than we suppose, 
Expos. Doct. Church of England. pag. 43.  or we beg leave with Assurance, to say, that such Doctrines are directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church, and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture. One would have thought in answer to this, he should have shown some better Proofs, and have brought Testimonies of that Tradition, or at least have produced some one of those plain and undoubted Texts of Scripture; But alas, he could not do that, and therefore, he passes it off by calling it Stuff, and with a fulsome Joke, upon my Ashonishment, telling me, that if ever I get so well out of it as to come to my Reason again, and will undertake to prove Penance to be truly and Properly a Sacrament, etc. I shall have an ingenuous Reply to my Arguments.  
In the mean time, say I, 
§. 50. The Church of England wishes it were reestablished.  let him and his Church be so ingenuous as to restore the practice of Confession and Penance, which they seem so much to wish for in the Ash-wednesday Office, at least that in public (not to say any thing of the judgement of all the sober persons, even amongst themselves, who wish well to all Salutary Methods, which Christ has left in his Church, and particularly to this) and then we might find a happy opportunity of proposing Arguments.  
In Confirmation you make a shift to deny the Sacrament, but have not renounced the Practice; it may be for Episcopacy sake: but in Penance the Practice has followed your renouncing the Sacrament. And call you this a Reformation, which seems to be more careful of the Dignity of the Pastor, than of the Salvation of the Flock? I think the Defender would do well to consider this, and perhaps he will be astonished at their own proceedings.  
I told him, this Doctrine was established in England, together with Christianity, by St. Augustin and the Benedictin Monks; and that if he would have us to relinquish it, he must bring us, either some manifest Revelations or demonstrative Reasons, for nothing else could induce us to quit a possession of so long standing: But he knew this would be impossible for him to do, and therefore he resolved to keep at distance, and put us upon the proof: A proceeding which would not hold in Law, where an uninterrupted Possession is a sufficient Evidence: 
See Mr. Ricau●'s History, Anno 1678. Ch. 12.  What I have said of England, I may say of all other, both Eastern and Western Churches, who unanimously held, at the beginning of the Reformation, that Penance was a Sacrament, and looked upon the Doctrine as coming from the Apostles, they having an uninterrupted Possession of it.   

ART. XII. Of Extreme Unction.  
IF the Defender had rightly considered the Question betwixt us, 
§. 51. The Defender mistakes the Question.  he would have spared a great part of the pains he has taken in this Article, and have let alone the pretended Proofs he brings from our Ancient Liturgies, as wholly impertinent.  
Tho's he could not deny, but that in Extreme Unction there is both an outward Visible Sign, and an inward and Spiritual Grace annexed to it; yet because he was to oppose the Catholic Church, he would have this to be only a Ceremony made use of in the Miraculous Cures of the Apostles: And to prove this, he affirmed, that the Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for 800 Years after Christ, show the practice to have had the primary respect to Bodily Cures, and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confessed the words of St. James could belong to no other; and from thence concluded, they had reason to leave off this Extreme Unction, because Miracles are now ceased.  
In answer to this, 
A Falsification of Cajetan.  I told him; First, that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say, as he affirmed he did. But what if he had? Would it be sufficient to reject a practice coming down from the Apostles, and from Age to Age, visibly continued in all Christian Churches, both of the East and West for 800 Years, as he himself confesses, notwithstanding that the Gifts of Miracles were ceased; and this upon the Testimony of one Man's affirming, that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture? What if it may be proved by the Universal Practice and Tradition of the Church, is not that Practice and Tradition the best Interpreter? must that be laid aside, because a Cajetan, or some few persons in these latter Ages, think St. James in that passage, had an Eye to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles, when it is most likely, the Unction mentioned by the Holy Evangelist St. Mark had a respect, at least as a Figure, to this Sacrament?  
2. 
§. 52. It has a respect to bodily Cures.  As to the Ancient Rituals, I told him, that ours also agree with them, that this Sacrament has a respect to bodily Cures, as well as those of the Mind; and therefore I told him, that unless he could manifestly prove, that the Unction mentioned by St. James, and practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 Years, had no relation to the Sickness of the Soul, as a Sacrament; but only to the Body, in order to miraculous Cures: He would prove nothing against us, who acknowledge, that the Sick persons do many times by it obtain health of Body, when it is expedient for the Salvation of their Souls. But this he saw was impossible: However something must be said, tho' to no purpose; and therefore to make the unwary Reader think he had much the better on it, St. Gregory's Ritual, and the other ancient Forms used in the Greek and Latin Church for 800 Years, must be quoted at large, and all the passages in them, that tend to the Cures of the Body, varied in a different Character; but where the Mind is concerned, the ordinary Character must serve; and thence as wild a Conclusion must be drawn, that this Unction had more than a bare respect to bodily Cures; nay, that it was especially, or (as he said before) primarily designed for them.  
How! did the Greek and Latin Churches for the first 800 Years practise this Unction; and do Protestants, 
§. 53.  who pretend to reform according to the Primitive purity reject it? Yes, but They practised it with a primary respect to Bodily Cures, and we to those of the Soul. 
Sanctisying Grace, Assistance against Temptations, and Remission of Sin, are the Primary Effects.  No wonder if we call Sanctifying Grace, Assistance against Temptations in the last Agony, and Remission of Sin, the primary effects in Dignity, whilst the corporal Cure may be the primary in Order, and only with respect to the other. But how does he prove, that the Unction used by the Primitive Christians for the first 800 Years, respected miraculous Cures only? All the Prayers and Ceremonies, says he, show it. And do they not also show a respect to those of the Soul? Is there not mentioned a Tutamen mentis, as well as Corporis, 
Defence p. 46.  in the Benediction of the Oil? 
Ejusque dimite peccata. Ibid. Eripe animam ejus. pag. 48. In te habitet Virtus Christi Altissimi & Spiritus Sancti. p. 49, Viseerumque ac cordium interna medica: Medullarum quoque & cogitationum sana discrimina.  Does not the Priest pray for the Remission of his Sins, a delivery of his Soul; that the Power or Virtue of Christ the most High, and of the Holy Ghost way dwell in him? He prays also, tho' the Defender did not think it convenient to tell his Readers so in English, That the interior of his Heart and Cogitations may find a remedy; that God would heal the Distempers of the inward parts and thoughts; that the corruptions of his Ulcers and Vanities may be evacuated; that God would skin over the ancient Scars of his Conscience and Wounds; that he would take away his mighty Passions, 
Vlcerum, vanitatumque putredines evacua; Conscientiarumque atque plagarum abducito cicatrices veteres; immensasquo remove Passiones: Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma, DELICTORUMQVE cunctorum veniam tribue— fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio, morbi & languoris praesentis expulsio, atque PECCATORVM omnium OPTATA REMISSIOt Per Dom. pag. 50.51.  and Pardon all his Sins; and (which is worthy our remark) does not this Prayer end, with begging that this anointing him with Holy Oil may be an expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity, and the desired Remission of all his Sins, Through our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.  
Again; How had these a respect to miraculous Cures only, when the Fathers of those Times tell us, that such Miracles ceased presently after the Apostles Times? Does not their practising of this after the cessation of those Miracles, show that they expected an interior Assistance of the Soul, rather than a miraculous Cure of the Body? Well might I therefore tell him, that his sense of the words of St. James, and of the intention of this Extreme Unction, was contrary to what we were taught by all Antiquity.  
I told him also, 
§. 54.  that the very words of St. James evinced it. And I have heard of some Protestant Anabaptists, that think so, and therefore use it. 
Luther.  However he knows who they were that threw off the Epistle, partly upon that account. Infirmatur quis in vobis, 
The words of St. James Evince it.  says the Apostle, If any one, or whoever is Sick amongst you. The words belong to all Christians: But if he had spoken of miraculous Cures only, he needed not have invited them; their own Wants would have persuaded them sufficiently to send for those who had the Gift of Miracles, as the Centurion sent to our Blessed Saviour.  
Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae: Let him bring in the Priests, the Clergy, the Ordinary standing Rulers of the Church, of which, as I told him, All had not the Gift of Healing; and some, who were not of the Clergy, had it. 'Tis manifest then, the Apostle would have said, send for those who have the Gift of Healing, be they Clergy or Lay persons, had he spoken of miraculous Cures only. But says the Defender, if all had it not, 'Tis very like St. James meant, They should be sent for that had it; whereas first, this is clear against the Text, which speaks at Large, send for the Priests. Secondly, It would have been to no purpose, 
Defence pag. 44.  seeing by his own Confession, they who had the greatest measure of those Gifts, could not exercise them when they would, but only when the Spirit of God instructed them. And lastly, Seeing he assures us, that they never attempted those miraculous Cures, but when the same Spirit taught them, that the sick person had Faith to be healed, and that it would be to the Glory of God to do it; I desire he would at his leisure let us know how it came to pass, that the Primitive Christians exercised this Extreme Unction (if it tended only to miraculous Cures) after Miracles were ceased. For it is manifest, that if they never did, or if it were unlawful for them to use this anointing with Oil for miraculous Cures, but when the Spirit of God dictated to them that they should be healed; this Extreme Unction mentioned by St. James, and generally practised for the first 800 Years, most of which Time there was few such Miracles wrought, cannot be that miraculous Unction of which he speaks. When therefore St. James adds, let them Pray over him, anointing him in the Name of the Lord, he speaks of an ordinary dispensation, and gives us hopes of the effect.  
I told him, Miraculous Cures were wrought in the Lame and the Blind, but the Apostle includes not them. Here to show his Learning, he tells us, that the Greek word may include them also. But does the Apostle speak of such as are well and Heartwhole, as we say the Lame and the Blind may be, such as do not keep their Beds; or does he not rather speak of Decumbents in Sickness in your own sense? for they only can be raised up.  
I added, that the Power of Miracles was not tied to Unction only. From whence it followed, that if the Apostle had only spoken of miraculous Cures, he would not have limited them to that Ceremony. But the Defender thinks this was the ordinary Sign, the most common and frequent amongst them; and grounds his thoughts upon St. Mark 6.13. But the Evangelist only tells us there, that the Apostles did anoint many sick people, and cure them: But seeing the same Holy Evangelist, Ch. 16. v. 18. tells us, that Christ promised, that those who believed in him, should lay their Hands upon sick people and heal them; why may not this Imposition of Hands be looked upon as no less common and frequent; nay, more frequently used in those miraculous Cures, than Unction, because, more ready, and easy to be performed upon any occasion? And if so, had the Apostle intended only to invite persons not to neglect those miraculous Cures, by our Author's Argument, he should have mentioned that Imposition of Hands.  
I told him further, that all those that were anointed, were not cured. But this he says, is false and dishonourable to the Spirit by which they acted. How! were all those that were anointed for the first 800 Years cured? If not; let him tell us when those miraculous Cures ceased, and why the Spirit of God, which, he says, taught them when they should anoint, and when they should not, did not also teach them to discontinue the Practice of it, when the Church needed not Miracles to confirm her Doctrines; and how it is that Protestants are become so learned at present, as to reject it after above 1600 Years perpetual practice.  
Moreover, I said, that all those who were cured by them that had the Gift of Healing, had not an assurance by that cure, of the Forgiveness of their Sins. This again, he says, is false. From which and the foregoing Assertion it would follow, in our Defenders sense, That no persons either died or were damned, that had this Extreme Unction given them, till the Spirit of God left the Church, and she fell into an Error, using it with a primary respect to the Soul, when God had instituted it only for miraculous Cures. And therefore I had reason to tell him, that if St. James' expression (the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up) had been meant of bodily Health, those only would have died in the Apostles Time (I might have added, as long as the Church understood that passage in his sense, which he thinks was for 800 Years) who either neglected this Advice, or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony. An argument, which because he could not answer, he was willing to throw Dust in his Readers Eyes, by retorting of it, and telling us, that if it were to be understood of the Souls Health, it would follow, that none were damned, either then or now, but they who neglect this Advice, or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Sacrament: Of the Truth of which he desires my Opinion. I answer him, That it is a Truth never doubted of in the Church, that all those who receive this Sacrament with due preparation, and in that state which is required, as necessary by the Curch, and fall not into new mortal sins before their Deaths, are saved. And if he do but consider, that the Church requires the person who rightly receives this Sacrament, should be in the state of Grace, it being one of those which only augments Grace, but does not restore it when lost, he will rest of this Opinion.   

ART. XIII. Of Marriage.  
THe Bishop of Meaux having told us, 
§. 55. Ma●th. 19.5.  that Jesus Christ has given a new Form to Marriage, reducing this Holy Society to two persons immutably and indissolubly united; 
Eph. 5.32. The Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed. ●xpos. Doct. Church of England. pag. 45.  that this inseparable Union is the Sign of his eternal Union with his Church; and that therefore we have not any difficulty to comprehend, how the Marriage of the Faithful is accompanied by the Holy Ghost and by Grace; And the Defender having told us in his Exposition, that for the Point of Marriage, Monsieur de Meaux has said nothing, but what they willingly allow of; I was in hopes the Dispute would have been at an end; because as, I told him, we require no more. And to clear the Point further, 
We demand no more.  I told him, that tho' Catholics esteem Marriage to be a Sacrament, truly and properly so called, yet not in so strict a sense as he would bind the word Sacrament to; that is, it is not a Sacrament after the same manner as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are; nor generally necessary to Salvation. The Reasons he then brought, why it was not strictly a Sacrament, were first, because (as he said) it wanted an outward Sign, to which, by Christ's Promise a Blessing is annexed: And secondly, because the Church of Rome denying it to the Clergy, did not esteem it generally necessary to Salvation. As for his last Reason, I say I acknowledged it was not a Sacrament in that strict manner; but as for the first, I told him it might easily be evinced by the whole Torrent of Fathers and plain Texts of Scripture, as interpreted by them; and now indeed he seems to grant that this Reason of his was silly, and throws it upon the Vindicator, as if it had not been his own.  
But notwithstanding all this, 
Yet new Cavils must be raised.  new Difficulties must be raised by this pretended Son of Peace; and being beaten off from the outward Sign, which is so apparent in Scripture and Fathers, he flies to the Inward Grace, and tells us, that Cassander affirms that P. Lombard, and Durandus denied that Grace was conferred in it.  
But they who diligently view P. Lombard, 
§. 56. Lombard does not deny Grace to be given in this Sacrament. l. b. 4. Dist. 2. A.  will not find this in him. They will find indeed, that he does not esteem it a Sacrament, as Baptism is, which is not only a Remedy against Sin, but confers Gratiam adjutricem; whereas Marriage is only instituted as a Remedy. But he does not absolutely say, that Marriage does confer no Grace, (for the very Remedy he mentions, implies a Conscience of the Divine Law, otherwise 'tis using the Woman not the Wife) but only not in so large a degree as Baptism, as not being primarily instituted for that end. This will appear much more clearly, 
Sacramentum est m●●sibilis Gra●iae v sil il● forma. ●●b 4. dist. 1. lit. A. Sacramentum propr●e dicitur, quod ita signum est Gratie Dei & invisibilis Gratiae forma, ut ipsius Imaginem gerat, & causa existat. ibid. Illa premit●ebant, tantum & signisicavant, haec autem dant Salutem. ibid. l●. E. If Durandus did, he is often singular.  when we consider, that this Master of Sentences, having a little before defined a Sacrament to be a Visible Sign of an Invisible Grace; and that it must be so a Sign of this Invisible Grace, that it must bear the Image and be the Cause of it; Having also told us, from St. Angustin, that the difference betwixt the Sacraments of the old and New Law, consisted in this, that the Sacraments of the old Law only promised and signified; but those of the New give Salvation; He tells us often here, that Marriage is one of the Sacraments of the New Law, as it was also one of the old; from whence it manifestly follows in his sense, that as it did signify Grace before the Fall of Adam; so it does now confer it, whilst it consers a Remedy. As for Durandus, the only man he can name, if the desire he had to be as much esteemed as St. Thomas of Aquin, by opposing him, has made him singular many times and given to Paradoxes, who can help his Infirmity? But such as he are the only Authors our Defender can bring against us.  
He tells me I vainly boasted of what I was not able to perform, 
§. 57 The Primitive Fathers during the first Four General Councils acknowledge it to be a Sacrament.  when I spoke of a Torrent of Fathers on our side. For Bellarmin could only bring six or seven, and those nothing to the purpose, nor very ancient neither. But had he told his Readers, that the Fathers, the Cardinal brings, are no other than St. Leo, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose St. Augustin, St. Cyril, and the Holy Popes Syricius and Innocentius, all of them living within the time of the first Four General Councils; Had he told them also, that these Fathers do not only call it a Mystery, but a Sacrament, and tell us, that it 
(a) Vndecum Societon nuptiarunt ita ab ini●●o constituta sit. ut praeter Sexuum conjunctionem haberet in●se Christi & Ecclesiae Sacramentum, dubium non est, eam mulierem non pertinere ad Matrimenium, in qu● docetur nuptiale non fuisse mysterium. St. Leo Epist. 92. ad Rusticum Narbonensem Episcopum. c. 4. Chrysost. Hom. 20. in Epist ad Ephes.  expresses the Union betwixt Christ and his Church; Had he told them, that they call the violation of it, not only a sin against God, and a breach of his Law, 
(b) Qui sic egerit, peceat in Deum, cujus legem violate, gratiam solvit: Et ideo quia in Deum peccat. Sacramenti Coelestis amittit consortinum. Ambr. Lib. 1. de Abraham, c. 7. ●●t. ex Comment. in c. 5. ad Ephes.  but a dissolving of Grace, a losing the Consert of a heavenly Sacrament, and a 
(c) Syricius Papa. Epist. 1. cap. 4.  Sacrilege: Had he told them, that 
(d) Cyrillus, lib. 2. in Joan. c. 22.  St. Cyril affirms, that Christ did not only sanctify Marriage, but prepare Grace for it, that our entrance into this Life might be blessed; and that 
(e) In Civitate Domins in monte Sancto ejus, ho est, in Ecclesia nuptiarum, non solum vinculum, sed Sacramentum commendatur. Lib. de fide & operibus.  St. Augustin frequently tells us, that Marriage amongst Heathens, and those that are not of the Church, is only a Tie or civil Contract, Vinculum, but that it is a Sacrament in the Church; they would, it may be, have thought the Authority of those Fathers not to be so contemptible, and such plain expressions, something to the purpose, though our Defender thinks otherwise of them.  
But let him tell us plainly; 
§. 58.  Is Marriage nothing but a civil Contract? and that of persons unbaptised, of equal perfection, and as indissoluble as that of Christians? Upon what account is it in the Law of Grace made Inseparable, and tied to one and one, if it neither signify the Union betwixt Christ and his Church; nor have a Grace annexed to it to enable persons to overcome the innumerable difficulties which attend that state, and possess their Vessel (as the Apostle speaks) in Sanctification and honour, and not in passion of Lust and Ignominy, to preserve Conjugal Chastity in Sickness and necessary Absence, to sweeten cohabitation, and to enable them to bring up their Children in the Faith and Fear of God? For our parts we acknowledge God's Mercy in giving a Grace in this Sacrament for those great ends: 
Marriage is grown contemptible in England, since it was denied to be a Sacrament.  But it has been observed by some learned Men, that in this little time since Matrimony was disowned for a Sacrament, there has been more Brangles, Disquietudes, Adulteries, Suing for Divorces and Alimony, and more Petty Treasons, (that is, Murdering of Husbands) etc. in England, than was to be heard of many hundred of Years before: and what other, do you guests, should be the reason of this, but the neglect of that Grace which God is ready to confer upon those who prepare themselves aright for this Sacrament, and the looking upon it only as a civil Contract.  
There is one thing more the Defender is angry at, 
§. 59 It is proved from St. Paul Eph. 5.32.  that is, that I should say, we have plain Texts of Scripture for us as interpreted by the Fathers. I need not bring any other than that of St. Paul, who having exhorted married persons to love one another, as Christ loved his Church, and because they are two in one Flesh, tells them, this is a great Sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church, which words show plainly what I have already mentioned, that Marriage is truly a Sacrament in the Church and in Christ, tho' it be only a civil Contract out of it. It is a Sacrament instituted by Christ to represent the indissoluble Union betwixt him and his Church, and therefore has his Grace annexed to it, that it might truly represent that Union; for an uncomfortable Marriage does not well represent it, nor one that may be dissolved. But here the modern Innovators, after Erasmus, cry out the word Sacrament is a false Translation, the Greek word being Mystery: But this is only a Trick of Protestants, who as they were wont in their first Bibles to leave out the word Church, wherever they met with it in Scripture, and put in Congregation; because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would bear that sense: so here, because the Greek has no other word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express a Sacrament and a Mystery, therefore it must be rendered Mysiery, lest their People should with their Forefathers understand Marriage to be properly a Sacrament. But certainly they who are not willing to be imposed upon, will rather follow the Interpretation of all the ancient Fathers and Commentators upon this place, who unanimously agree, that St. Paul's sense was, that Matrimony is properly a Sacrament, and that a great one, because it signifies the Union betwixt Christ and his Spouse, the Church, than these novel Critics.  
Indeed where persons have a mind to cavil, there is no Text of Scripture so plain, but may be wrested to a different sense; and therefore we are forced, upon those occasions, to fly to the Tradition of the Church, 
By Universal Tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches.  and the unanimons consent of those Interpreters who lived before that Dispute arose. And thus it is no wonder, that Estius should say, we have not any Text of Scripture that plainly and evidently proves this Doctrine, without having recourse to the Tradition of the Church. But when this Tradition is such, that not only the ancient Fathers, as St. Hierom, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophilact, St. Augustin, St. Anselme, and generally all Commentators, till Erasmus, agreed in it; but also the whole Church, both of the East and West, consented to it, as appears, not only by the general consent of all their Divines for the last 600 Years, but by the Definitions of Councils held since that time; and particularly that of Florence, where the Greek and Latin Fathers were agreed upon this point; as also by the Testimony of Hierimias Patriarch of Constantinople for the Greeks, who in his own name, as Cardinal Bellarmin observes, 
Bellarmin. de M●rim. Sacrant. lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 1304 B.  and in the name of all the Grecian Bishops, declared against the Augustan Confession of the Lutherans in this point of Marriage, being a Divine Sacrament, as he did also against all their other Innovations; I say, when this Tradition is so ancient, clear and universal, what a madness must it be to reject it, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies a Mystery as well as it does a Sacrament?  
One thing more remains, 
§. 60. Marriage not necessary for every one.  which has been thought a witty Objection against the Church; that she makes Matrimony a Sacrament, and yet denies it to her Clergy; for a Sacrament (say they) must be Generally necessary to Salvation; But this is plainly a forced Principle, taken up upon begging the Question about the number of the Sacraments; and besides is not so hearty believed in the Two which Protestants pretend to maintain; For the Sons of the Church of England (for any thing yet appears) are not much persuaded of any such great necessity (I speak not of what they call Superstitious Unction, but) even of the Eucharist itself for dying persons: For unless they can get company to Communicate besides the Decumbent, he must lie in his Agony, and venture into the other World without his Viaticum.  
As for the Churches scrupling Marriage to her Clergy, it is a difficulty to those who consider not the Sanctity of Priesthood: If there be any state more perfect than another, I hope it belongs to the Priest; but the state of Marriage is more imperfect than the state of a resolved Virginity, (as you dare not deny) shall not the Church than give leave to her Hierarchy (who are, or aught to be the most perfect) to degrade themselves amongst the conjugate, when she always maintained an order of Virgins even in the weaker female Sex; or rather may she not direct them to follow the Evangelic counsel of being Eunuches for the Kingdom of God? But I will not dilate upon this. The Church appoints her Sacraments where they are proper. She does not appoint Marriage for all, nor Extreme Unction to the Lusty, nor Holy Orders to every one. You make a profession to scruple the use of Marriage at some solemn times (if you dissemble not;) and the Church upon the same reasons scruples Marriage itself to some certain Orders of Men.   

ART. XIV. Of Holy Orders.  
IN this Article, 
§. 61.  as well as in the last, the Defender hath shown us, how much he is a Man of Peace, and what hopes we may have of composing Differences. He gave us indeed, a fair Overture for an Agreement in his Exposition, and I told him I was glad of it: But what will his party say, if he seem to close with Rome, and therefore all his fair appearances, and concessions must be now cast off; and of a closing Friend, as he then appeared, he is now become an open Enemy?  
If the Vindicator, (says he) be agreed with me in this Article; what then? he does not say, I am glad of it, we draw near to Unity; no, that would be to incur the Censure of those who live by breaking the Church's Peace; but he says, If we be agreed, he musi renounce the number of his Seven Sacraments. How? For my part I thought he had spoken his mind sincerely before, and the sense of his Church, 
Expos. pag. 46.  when he told us, That Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders, 
The Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament.  being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost, might perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament; and therefore I told him, that we said no more, and that we denied it to be a Sacrament common to the whole Church, as Baptism and the Lords Supper are; and so far I found no difference betwixt us. One would have thought upon this account, that he had rather renounced his number Two, than I my Seven Sacraments; seings, in effect, he allowed Holy Orders to be a third.  
Oh, but he only said, 
§. 62. His new Evasions answered.  perhaps it may be called a particular Sacrament; and being now far from agreeing to any thing which has once been esteemed by them a difficulty; he therefore says, he denied there was any Sign instituted by Christ to which his Grace is annexed. This indeed he tells us in his Defence; but in his Exposition he was far more moderate. The outward Sign of it (says he there) we confess to have been Imposition of Hands, and as such we ourselves observe it. From whence a lover of Peace in the Church would have rationally enough concluded, that the Church of England, was agreed with the Catholic in this Point, when he says, they use Imposition of Hands as an outward sign of it; of what? of the Particular Sacrament? Yea. But it seems I was out in my conjecture, for he intends not to contribute any thing to the healing of the Church in any Punctilio; and therefore, tho' we be half Friends as to all appearance, yet some new Scruple must be thrown in the way to quash all hopes of Accommodation. 
(a) Expos. pag 46.  We do not read, says he, that Christ instituted that sign, much less tied the promise of any certain Grace to it. 
(b) Def. pag. 53.  All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture, is only the Example, of three or four places, where it was practised indeed, but no where commanded. See how some Men can digest any thing. Are not three or four places of Holy Scripture showing the Practice of it, a sufficient Testimony that it was commanded? Were the Apostles for will-worship, uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies; did they things on their own Head without their Lord's Order or his least Innuendo? My Adversary thinks, it seems, that nothing is commanded, but what he can read commanded; No unwritten Tradition now with him. At other times perhaps he'll grant there may be some: But now we read not: Therefore, etc. Whereas we read not any Command by Christ for the observation of the Lords Day, only three or four Examples of the practice of it, that is all the Authority, etc. If Scripture be his rule of Faith, let him show us a greater authority than the example of three or four places contradicting our Tenets, and he will have reason to Dispute with us.  
As for those of our own, who (as he says) maintain that Imposition of Hands, is not essential to Holy Orders; if they be not worth his naming, they are not worthy my concern: We are not to answer for the particular Sentiments of Scholastics, as I have often told him.  
But the Grace conferred is no Justifying Grace; nor by consequence, such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament. Thus our Defender: Whereas in his Exposition he acknowledged, that Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders is accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Ghost. A Blessing do you say? and why not a Grace, seeing St. Paul expressly calls it so, 
2 Tim. 1.6.  admonishing St. Timothy to stir up the Grace of God, which was given him by the Imposition of his Hands; 
1 Tim 4.14.  and in another place exhorting him not to neglect the Grace in him, which was given him by Prophecy [that is, according to the particular revelation made to St. Paul concerning him] with the Imposition of the Hands of Priesthood? He goes on. If it may be called a Grace, 
Expos. ibid.  yet not a Grace common to all Christians— but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ: And therefore we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church, as Baptism, and the Lords Supper are. Pray Sir, who ever said, that the Grace, which is given in Holy Orders, is a Grace common to all Christians; or that it is a common Sacrament of the whole Church? Is it not sufficient for a Sacrament that it be the visible sign of an invisible Grace bestowed upon some particular persons, segregated to a special employ for the benefit of the whole Church? must all persons be Deacons, all persons Priests, all Bishops, or else Holy Orders no Sacrament? Oh, but it is not a Justifying Grace. What do you mean by a Justifying Grace? Is not this Grace given in Holy Orders, a Grace that renders the persons who receive it acceptable to God Almighty, and enables them to perform the functions to which they are called? Does not this Sacrament confer at least an increase of Sanctifying Grace, tho' it be not instituted to confer the first Grace of Remission of Sin? If you will have nothing else to be a justifying Grace, but what is instituted primarily for the Remission of Sin, I am afraid you will hereafter conclude the Eucharist to be no Sacrament, because it does not primarily confer such a Grace.  
Thus you see, the whole business of our Defender is nothing but Shifts. If it may be called a particular Sacrament, yet is it not common to the whole Church; If a Grace be given in it, yet not a sanctifying Grace, a Grace common to all Christians; If we find three or four places in Scripture mentioning Imposition of Hands in order to the conferring of some Grace whatever ever it be; yet we do not find it commanded. What is all this but puttings off, and a begging the Question, by supposing, that nothing can be truly a Sacrament, which is not General to all Christians? But I am afraid I have been too long upon these particulars, seeing the Next great Article challenges an exact Examen.   

ART. XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. Of the Eucharist.  
IT is not a little Astonishment to see what an Agreement there is in all Antiquity, concerning the Sense of these four Words, 
§. 63. Defence pag. 54. Two hundred several senses put upon these four words this is my body.  This is my body; and what various Interpretations have been made of them in this last 150 Years, when our Reformers left every Man his Liberty to interpret Scripture for himself, without any controlment. 
(a) Repet●●. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. Apud. Gualther. Cron. Sect 16. pag 808.  Claudius' Sanctesius has collected no less than 84, 
(b) Girded. contr. 1. cap. 28 pag. 202. de Ecclesia.  others 200 various Senses put upon these four plain Words, which before this new pretended Reformation begun, were generally understood in a literal Sense. Every one contends his Sense to be the best; and seeing, as the Bishop of Meaux well observed, they all of them fly from the literal and adhere to a figurative, it behoves them to show the necessity of taking the Words in that Sense; whereas we who find nothing in those Words obliging us to quit the literal Sense, need no other reason for our so doing, but that we follow the plain and beaten Road. 
We follow the beaten Road.  But our Defender thinks he has found sufficient reasons to oblige us to acquiesce and quit our High-Road for his By-path. But first, before we consent to him, let us view both ways, and weigh the reasons which move us to continue in the one, and the Arguments he brings to make us quit it, and walk in the other. To effect this, let us divide this Article into three Sections; In the first of which I will show what is the Doctrine which we maintain, and what our opposers hold; in the second, I will endeavour, according to my Ability, to hint at some of the many reasons, why we persevere in that Doctrine; and in the last, I intent to examine his Objections, and show the Fallacies of his Arguments.  

SECT. 1. Our and our Adversaries Tenets.  
WHen we speak of Jesus Christ, 
§. 64. Christ must be either really, or only figuratively present in the Sacrament.  we speak of one who is both God and Man; and when we speak of his Presence in a place, we must either speak of the presence of his Manhood, together with his Divinity, by a real substantial presence; or we must speak of his presence in a figurative manner; seeing there cannot possibly be a Medium. For either Christ. who is God and Man, is there body and Soul and Divinity; or he is not there.  
If then he be present in the blessed Sacrament, he must be either really present, which cannot be, unless his Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity be there really and substantially; or he must be there only morally or figuratively, as signified by the exterior Signs of Bread and Wine, and by them bestowing upon us the benefits which he purchased for us by taking our Natures on him.  
Now Jesus Christ may be really, 
§. 65. He may be really present after different manners.  essentially and Substantially present in a place, after different manners. For he rendered himself sometimes visible and palpable, and sometimes not: yet was his Body essentially the same, when he was invisible and not to be felt, as when otherwise. His body was sown a Corruptible Body; but is now raised a Spiritual Body; yet is this Spiritual Body essentially and substantially the same with that which was once corruptible, tho' it was never to see Corruption.  
All Persons, 
§. 66. All agree that Christ is morally present in the Sacrament. Catholics and Lutherans that he is really present, but not after a natural manner.  both Catholics and Protestants, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is morally or figuratively present in the Sacrament; that is, that the outward elements signify his Body and Blood; that a lively Faith apprehends him there present; and that he bestows upon the worthy Communicants the Graces purchased for us by his becoming Man, and dying upon the Cross. But Catholics and Lutherans, agree further in this, that Jesus Christ (that is God and Man, Flesh and Blood, Soul and Divinity) is not only morally there, but also truly, really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament; tho' they both of them deny him to be there circumscriptiuè as the Schools call it, that is, in his Natural Body after a natural manner, with respect to place. Their chief difference consists in this, that the Lutherans will have him to be so present, that Bread is also present with him (which Catholics deny) and tho' they pretend to submit their Faith to the acknowledgement of his real presence, which they do not see; yet will they follow Sense so far, as to judge, because they see the appearance of Bread to remain, that is is really Bread also; when the Substance of Bread is as invisible, 
The Zwinglians, etc. say he is only figuratively there.  as that of the Body of Christ. The Zwinglians, Socinians, etc. admit nothing at all of real here. The presence which they speak of, is only figurative, signified by the Bread and Wine: so that as they see the Bread broken, eaten, etc. and the Wine poured out, etc. so ought they to call to mind, that Christ's Body was Crucified and torn, etc. for us; which whilst they reflect upon and receive, they are by Faith (or a strong Fancy) made partakers, as they think, of the Benefits of that his Death and Passion, the Blessings which the offering of his Body may procure.  
But Calvin perceiving, that if he said no more, 
§. 67. Calvin would find a middle way.  he should find it an insuperable Task to answer all the plain expressions from Scripture and Fathers, would seek a middle way, where there can be none; and therefore no wonder if he fell into such a contradiction, as is that of a real presence, and no real presence. Sometimes he 
(a) Calv. Consinsus cum Pastoribus Tigurinis. In sine.  affirms Christ's Body to be only in Heaven; and 
(b) Vere in Caena datur nobis corpus Christi, ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem, hoc est, substantia Corporis Christi pascuntur animae nostrae, ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo. Calv. in cap. 26. Matth.  sometimes to be truly in the Sacrament. Sometimes 
(c) Porro de modo st quis me interroget, faieri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vgel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat. Id. lib. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 32.  Telling us, that it is a Mystery that we cannot comprehend, much less explicate, that Christ's Flesh and Blood should come to us from such a distance and be our Food; and 
(d) Interins vero hanc non aliam esse, quam fidei manducationem, fatemur: ut nulla alia fingi potest. Id. ibid. §. 5.  at other times telling us, that this Manducation is only by Faith; and the like Absurdities and Contradictions, some of which may be seen in Cardinal Bellarmin, Lib. 1. de Euchar. Sacram. cap. 1.  
This Doctrine of Calvin being the most agreeable to the Politicians in King Edward's Reign, and to Queen Elizabeth's Interest, 
§. 68 Agreeable to our English Politicians.  who were desirous to accommodate a Religion to all parties and Factions; no wonder if they embraced it: And therefore lest Catholics or Lutherans should have any just cause to renounce their Communion, for want of a Real presence, their Catechism tells us, the Inward part, or thing signified in this Holy Supper, is the Body and Blood of Christ, 
See the Church Catechisim.  which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper. But lest if this should be understood plainly, as the words import, the Sacramentarians should be against them, therefore their 28 Article has taken care of them too, and tells 'em, that the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord's Supper only after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner: and the means by which this is done, is Faith. But then again, if this Article be a Faithful Comment upon their Catechism, how shall the Primitive Fathers be answered; and what will the Calvinists say? To have an evasion therefore and to gain them, this presence must be sometimes called a real presence, and sometimes only a spiritual. A spiritual Presence not only as to the manner (for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction, 
Defence pag 61.  that a Body should have any existence, but what alone is proper to a Body, i. e. Corporeal) but as to the nature of the thing itself; but yet it is real too. 
A Jargon.  What kind of Jargon is this? and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions?  
Christ is really present. 
§. 69. Pag. 60. line. 32.  (says the Defender) in the Sacrament, in as much as they who worthily receive it, have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ, and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood, whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs; and therefore it is more than a mere Figure.; One would think this enough. Oh but his Body is not there. How! is Christ there, and not his Body? Yes, his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine; there is no corporeal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood; 
Rulric at the end of the Communion Office.  for his Body is only in Heaven, and it is against the Truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one. How is it then, that he is there? will you acknowledge, 
Cas●●b. Epist. ad ●●rd. P●●en.  with King James the First, that you believe a Presence no less true and real, than Catholics do; only you are ignorant of the manner? If so, tell us, and recall what you have said, that it is a plain Contradiction, that a Body should have any existence, but what alone is proper to a Body, i. e. Corporeal (I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body) seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of. No, this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics. And further, the late Church Rubric, whose Fate has been so various, and the 
* I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God, profess, testify and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, at, or after the Consecration thereof, by any person whatsoever; and that the Sacrifice of the Mass, as it is now used in the Church of Rome, is Superstitious and Idolatrous. 30 Car. 2.  Test, 
The Church of England has altered her Doctrine since King James the first time.  contradict the Religion professed in that King's days; for now at least you know (by a new Revelator) that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation; otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments, and make them swear and subscribe to it, under such forfeitures and penalties.  
This is the Doctrine we are invited to believe, which how inconsistent it is with itself, appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative. Let us now see what is the Doctrine of Roman Catholics.  
The Council of 
(a) Sess. 13. c. 4.  Trent tells us, 
§. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrine.  that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say, that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread; therefore it was always believed in the Church of God; and this Holy Synod does now again declare it, that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion (or change) of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood; which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation.  
And the same 
(b) Ib. can. 1.  Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly, really, and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Virtue.  
Thus we believe a true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, that is, of his Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Lutherans agree with us in it, but will have Bread to remain too, which we deny. And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same, but will have the presence to be Spiritual, by which (as I told them) if they intent only that Christ's presence is not there after a natural, circumscribed, corporeal, extensive manner, we admit of it; but if they mean by this spiritual manner, that Christ, who is both God and Man, is not truly, really, essentially, substantially present, we deny it.  
They who affirm, 
§. 71. Three manners of a Real presence.  as we do, that Christ's Body is really present in the Sacrament, Propose several ways by which they think it may be done, all which may be reduced to Three. First, that his Body may be present together with the Bread; as Fire is together with Iron, when red hot, Water with Ashes, etc. Secondly, present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread, is also the true Body of Christ. Or Thirdly, that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there, the Substance of Bread ceasing to be. As to the first, the words of the Institute are against it; For if Christ had rendered his Body present after that manner, he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum, but Hîc est corpus meum, Here is my Body. The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholly impossible, as implying a manifest Contradiction, that it should be Bread and not Bread, the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ. The third is the true Catholic Doctrine, and is called by the Church Transubstantiation, that is, a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body, and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood, as I have mentioned from the Council. And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament.  
Now this existence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, is not after a natural, corporeal, extensive manner, because it is neither visible nor palpable: But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament. We have Examples of this from Holy Writ; For if we doubt not, but that he could free his Body from being visible, palpable, and heavy, and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mother's Womb, without breach of her Virginity, and through the Doors when shut, can we doubt his Power in rendering it present, without local extension, or the other qualifications of a common natural Body? And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense, yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses, when he tells us, that the Body is sown a corruptible Body, and is raised a spiritual Body.  
As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies being present in more places than one, etc. First we affirm them to be no Contradictions; A contradiction being an Affirmation and Negation of the same thing in the same time, place, manner, and and all other circumstances, but such an Affirmation and Negation are not made of Christ's presence in several Hosts. 
See the Gulled in Controverly, d●sc 1. ch. 6. § 65, 66. & seqq.  And secondly, all those who affirm a real Presence (as the English Protestants seem to do) have the same difficulties to overcome; and none but the Sacramentarians, who affirm the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be merely figurative, as the King is said to be present in his Picture, Coin, or Charter, are free from them.  
Having thus explicated our Tenets with respect to those of our Adversaries, we come now to show upon what Grounds we believe them.   

SECT. 2. Some Reasons for our Doctrine.  
THe Doctrine of the true, real, 
§. 72. All the proofs for an Article of Fatith concur for this.  and substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and the absence of the Substance of Bread, is so certainly a revealed Truth, that there is scarce any one Article of Christian Faith that Christ seems to have taken so much care to establish, as this. All the usual Arguments that are brought at any time to confirm us, that a Truth has been revealed, occur here, and by an united Force confirm one another, and strengthen our Belief beyond exception. If we cast our Eyes into the Old Testament, we there find the 
(a) The Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedech, Gen. 14.18. The Bread of Proposition, Exod ●0. 23 1 Same 31.40. & se●q. The Bread which the Prophet Elias having eaten by the command of an Angel walked in the strength of it forty days to the Mountain of God, Horeb. 3 Reg. 19.6. The Paschal Lamb, Exod. 12. The Blood of the Testament, Exod. 24.6. Heb. 9.20. Manna, Exod. 16. compared with John 6.49. & 1 Cor. 10.2. If any one doubt whether these were sigures of the Eucharist or no● let them read St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and the other Autient Fathers cited by Cardinal Bellarmin, lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 3.  Figures of this Unbloody Sacrifice, which must necessarily express something more excellent than themselves. If we look into the 
(b) Isa●as 25.6. Zach. 10.17. Malac 1.11.  Prophets, we find their Prophecies cannot be fulfilled in a Figurative presence. If we come to the New Law, we find not only an express 
(c) John 6.51. The Bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world.  Promise from Christ himself; but 
(d) Matth. 26.26. Marc. 14.22. This is my Body. This is my Blo●d of the New Testament which shall be shed for many; [or, as the Protestants ●ender it; which is shed for many] for the remission of sin Luke 22.19. This is my Body which is given [i. offered] for you; from whence the ancient Fathers conclude, not only the real presence, but its presence as a Sacrifice. Although Sense tell the it is Bread, yet it is the Body, according to his words. Let Faith confirm thee, judge not by Sense. After the words of our Lord let no doubt rise in thy mind. Cyril. Mystag. 4. Of the verity of Fiesh and Blood, there is left no place to doubt: by the profession of our Lord himself, and by our Faith, it is Flesh and Blood indeed. Is not this true? To them be it untrue, who deny Jesus Christ to be true God. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit. vers. 10 This is the Chalice, the New Testament in my Blood which [Chalice] shall be [or i.] shed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It appeared to Beza so clear, that if it was the Cup or Chalice that was shed for us, it must contain in it truly the Blood of Christ and be properly a Sacrifice, that he could find no evasion but to call it a Soloecism or Incongruity of Speech, or else that the words (which yet he confesses to be in all Copy, Greek and Latin) were thrust into the Text out of the Margin. See his Annotations upon the New Testament. 1556.  Three Evangelists, and 
(e) 1 Cor. 10.6.11.24.  St. Paul relating the Institute in such words, that many of our Adversaries themselves confess, that if they must be taken literally we have gained our Cause. If we look into Antiquity, and the Writings of the 
(f) See Nubes Test●um, from pag. 99 to 150. Conseusus veterum; And the many other Books formerly write upon this Subject, as Gualters Cronology, Co●cii Thesaurus, etc. In which you may see a Collection of the plain Testimony of Fathers and eminent Writers in every Age from the Apostles time to our Ages, not only concerning this Article of Transubstantiation, but most others now in Controversy.  Primitive Fathers of the first 600 Years, we find the manifest 
(g) All the ancient Liturgies are a sufficient Testimony of this, in which as Blondel himself, though a Huguenot, confesses, the Prayer in the Consecration of the Elements was to this purpose, That God trolled by his Holy Spirit sanctify the Elements, whereby the Bread may be made the Body, and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. The Adoration also which was paid to our Blessed Saviour there present, shows their Belief. See St. Ambr. de spir. lib. 3. c. 12. and St. Aug. in ps. 98.5. who upon these words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus, tells us, that Christ has given his Flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation: Now no man eats this except he first Adore it. And moreover, says he, we do not only not sin by adoring it, but we should sin if we did not adore it. See Considerations upon the Council of Trens, chap. 16. §. 32. Digress. §. 20. etc. Also Protestant Apolegy, Tract. 1. Sect. 3. Subd. 2.  Practice of this belief: If into the later Ages, we find for above 
(h) This has been sufficiently shown by the aforesaid Authors, and Monsieur Arnold in his perpetuity de la foy, and the Plain concession of Protestants, as may be seen in the Protestant Apology.  1000 Years such an Uniformity amongst all Christians, that scarce one person, who deserved the name of Pastor (that is scarce one Bishop) either in the 
(i) As to the consent of the Greek and Latins, see the Guide in Controversy, disc. 3. ch. ●.  Greek or Latin Church, but embraced it. There is scarce any Nation in the World in which a Synod has been held since this last 600 Years, that is, since Berengarius begun to broach the contrary Error, but has declared their constant belief of Transubstantiation. And the most 
(k) Guide in Controversy, dise. 1. ch. 6. §. 57  general Councils that those Ages could afford have confirmed it by their Definitions, and condemned the contrary Opinions with their anathemas. So that if Councils, both national and General have any Authority; if the consent of all Churches for a 1000 Years, have any weight; If the clear Writings of ancient Fathers long before our Contest, have any force; if Scripture itself, both old and new, when thus interpreted be of any moment; we must necessarily conclude, that Jesus Christ gave his Disciples, truly, really, and substantially his Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament.  
Had we not such clear proofs from Antiquity, yet certainly the Consent of the much major and superior part of Christians for this last 600 Years, would be sufficient to any reasonable mind, who would but consider, that if it had not been taught by Jesus Christ, those persons who introduced it and those who followed them would have been guilty of Idolatry (as the Test and some Protestants now accuse us to be) and by consequence the whole Church which taught and practised it during that time, would have erred in Fundamentals, and taught a damnable Doctrine, destructive of Salvation, contrary to the Promise of Jesus Christ, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her: But when we find, that the Council of Lateran, and those others in Berengarius' time, were so far from pretending that they introduced a new Doctrine, excogitated by themselves, or invented by some of their learned Predecessors, that they freely and fully declared, that it had been delivered to them as a Doctrine taught by Christ and his Apostles, that their predecessors in their several respective Countries had taught them the same and practised it, that all their Historians and ancient Writers had confirmed it; when we consider also how impossible it is, that, if the figurative presence had been once the established Doctrine of the Church, the Doctrine of the real presence could have gained such credit, that all Christians in all Countries should consent to it, and commit manifest Idolatry wilfully, against their former belief, no one of the Many Learned, Pious, and Courageous Bishops, who were vigilant in opposing the smallest growing Errors, ever speaking of this as an erroneous Doctrine, or as a novelty; I say, when we consider all these things which have been so fully and so often proved, that nothing but Impudence can deny them; how can we have the least Difficulty in believing this Doctrine to be, that of Jesus Christ, or his words not to be literally true? Thus much for our Grounds, I come now to show the weakness of my Opponents Arguments against them, and our Doctrine.   

SECT. 3. Objections answered.  
BEfore I begin to answer my Adversaries Objections, 
§. 73.  I must desire my Reader to consider, that Catholics are in Possession of this Belief of the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, and that Protestants who would throw us out of Possession are the aggressors. Now as a Possessor of an estate time out of mind, is not condemned, if he proceed upon a supposition that the Deed of gift by which his Ancestors first possessed that estate, was good; In like manner must it be with us: We believe that Jesus Christ pronouncing those words This is my Body, 
Catholics being in Possession are the Defenders. Protestants the Aggressors.  changed the Bread into his Body; we received this belief from our predecessors and they from theirs; we therefore, who are in Possession and are to defend our right, cannot be condemned if we suppose our Belief to be true. But as on the other hand, an Aggressor, is not to be heard, if he only suppose the Deed of gift to be void, and argue from thence that the Possession is unlawful: So ought it also to be with them who oppose us. If they only suppose our Blessed Saviour did not change the Bread into his Body by those words, this is my Body, and argue merely upon that supposition, they ought not to be heard. They are to prove he did not make that change; 
Protestants must therefore bring clear and undeniable proofs against our Possession.  and not only to suppose it. They are to prove his words cannot possibly be taken in a literal Sense; and not only that they may be taken figuratively. They are to prove that we are obliged to take the words in a figurative sense; and not only to show they they may lead us to it. Our Possession is a manifest proof against their supposition, and we need no more.  
This being considered, let us now weigh my Adversaries Arguments. 
Arguments from Scripture answered.  And first those from Scripture.  
His first Argument is reduced by himself to this Syllogism.  
If the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body, belong to the Bread, so that the meaning is, This Bread is my Body, 
§. 74. First objection, From the words of the Institute.  than it must be understood figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and impossible.  
But the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body, does belong to the Bread; forasmuch as Christ took Bread, and blessed Bread, and gave Bread to his Disciples, and therefore said of Bread, This is my Body: Therefore  
That Proposition, This is my Body, must be understood figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and Impossible.  
The Major or first Proposition, he tells us, is our common Concession.  
In answer to which I say, 
Answered.  If he understand the Major in Luther's sense, as Bellarmin and Gratian do, whom he citys for it, that is, that the word This in that Proposition, This is my Body, should so signify Bread that the meaning of it is, This truly wheaten Bread, remaining such, is also truly the Body of Christ; I grant it; for as I told him before, from the Cardinal, it implies a contradiction: for it cannot possibly be, that one thing should not be changed, and yet should be another; because it would be that thing, and not that thing.  
But if he mean by his Major, that the word This in that Proposition, This is my Body, has such a reference to Bread that the meaning is This Bread is my Body, that is, this substance of Bread which I take in my hands, I do by these words change into the substance of my Body, I deny it, neither is it our common Concession: for in that sense it is neither an absurdity nor impossibility to understand the Proposition literally.  
So that you see Luther will have no change, and will yet have the words to be understood literally; and we call that an absurdity.  
Catholics admit of a change, and so understand them literally, which is far from being either impossible or absurd.  
We argue that the Proposition in Luther's sense admitting of no change, is false, absurd, and impossible, unless it be taken figuratively: But in our own fence, admitting a change, is true and genuine, and need not be taken figuratively.  
His Minor or second Proposition, he tells us, is Beauties own grant, nay what he contends for. Is this Learned Cardinal then so great a Blockhead as to maintain that the words ought to be taken literally, and yet at the same time to contend that the word This must refer to Bread, andthat if it ref●r to Bread the words must be taken figuratively or else ●●t is plainly absurd and impossible? No no, the Cardinal understood better things than to make such blundering and contradictions; And if our Defender had read him a little farther, he would have found that what he contended for, was, that the words of the Institution are not Speculative but Practical, or, as the Fathers call them, operative, performing what they signify; and that the word This does neither demonstrate Bread nor the Body of Christ, but that being, that thing, that substance, which is contained under the species: so that the sense is, This substance, under these species, is my Body; or as Guitmundus long since explicated it, This [till this present, Bread] is [now] my Body. Not as if it remained Bread, and the Body of Christ too; but that by the force of those operating words, that substance of Bread was changed into the substance of his Body.  
So that you see by this, his second Proposition must be also distinguished, as having two senses; in one of which it is true, and in the other, false.  
The Relative This, in this Proposition, This is my Body, refers to Bread: I distinguish the Minor, if you mean, that it so refers to it, that that which was Bread is now no more Bread but the Body of Christ, the substance being changed, I grant it; and this Cardinal Bellarmin contends for: But if you mean that the word This so belongs to Bread, that this Proposition is true, This truly wheaten Bread, remaining Bread, is also truly the Body of Christ, I deny your Proposition; for, as the same Cardinal contends, it is a contradiction that one thing should remain unchanged and yet should be another.  
In proving the Minor you were to show that Bellarmin contended for this last sense, and that we all consented to it, if you would have had a Logical conclusion. But that you know is contrary to our Tenets; However such a piece of Sophistry as this is enough to blind a great many well meaning, tho' illiterate persons: But the fallacy of it once detected, I hope they will see clearer: and this may be done by changing the Medium, For your Argument is no more than this following, and concludes no better.  
If the Relative This in this Proposition, this is my Body, refer to common and unconsecrated Bread, so that the sense of the Proposition should be, this common and unconsecrated Bread is my Body, we must needs say that Christ gave common and unconsecrated Bread to his Disciples, or else the Proposition is plainly absurd and impossible.  
But the word This in this Proposition, This is my Body, does belong to common Bread; for Christ took common and unconsecrated Bread, and of it said, this is my Body.  
Therefore he gave common and unconsecrated Bread to his Disciples, or else the Proposition is plainly absurd and impossible.  
Who does not perceive that this Argument is like another which the Defender has been often told to be unconcluding, viz.  
What I bought in the Market, that I eat;  
But I bought raw Flesh in the Market:  
Therefore I eat raw Flesh. For the change that is made is suppressed in all these Syllogisms, or supposed not to be, which is the main point which we defend.  
But to show the unconclusiveness of such Sophisms as these, give me leave to propose a parallel case, which may in some measure clear the difficulties.  
A. has an estate, and having a great kindness for B. gives him this estate by these words, This is your estate. 
§. 75. A Parallel case answering most objections against the real presence.  B. enters into possession of this estate, and his heirs after him for many Ages; so that after 1600 Years X, the successor of B, is found possessing this estate, with a tradition from L. M. N. and his other immediate predecessors for 1000 Years, that it was given to B. his Ancestor by A. using these words at the gift This is your estate. But h. and some others pretended successors to A. endeavour to disturb X. and throw him out of possession, and thereupon one of them pretends.  
1. That the estate was not so given away to B, but that it remained A's too; and therefore was both B's and A's, and he being the successor of A. ought therefore to be joint possessor with X.  
2. Another pleads, that the words This is your estate, meant only, this signifies your estate, or this resembles your estate, or when you see this estate it will put you in mind of yours, etc.  
3. Others again make many various interpretations of these four plain words.  
But X. defends himself against them all by his and his Predecessors undisturbed Possession; and seeing he can find one time in which All the Tenants to that estate assembled together, declared it to have always belonged to his Predecessors, he thinks that sufficient, tho' it may be he has lost many testimonials which his adversaries require him to show for his Ancestors Possession of it in the first 400 Years after the grant. And in answer to their Arguments,  
He tells the first, that his claim is absurd; because it is impossible the estate should remain the estate of A, and yet become the estate of B; and that therefore, if the word This in that Proposition, This is your estate, did so refer to the estate of A, that the sense should be, This estate of A, remaining such, is the estate of B; either the Proposition must be taken in a figurative sense, so that it only signifies or represents the estate of B, or else it is plainly absurd and impossible.  
But h. being a Subtle Sophister, produces this Argument in open Court.  
If the Relative This in this Proposition, This is your estate, do refer to the estate of A, so that the sense of it is, this estate of A, is your estate, then by your own consent, it must be understood figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and impossible.  
But the Relative This in that Proposition This is your estate, does belong to the estate of A; forasmuch as A, spoke of his own estate, pointed to his own estate, gave his own estate, and therefore said of his own estate, This is your estate.  
Therefore that Proposition This is your estate must be understood figuratively, or else it is plainly absurd and impossible.  
Would our Defender, if he had been judge in this case, have given the estate to h. for his witty Sophism? Or if he had been in X's case would he have quitted his Possession, forced by the irresistibleness of a quibble? Who does not see the unconclusiveness of this Argument in such temporal concerns as these; and must the world needs be deceived with them where Eternity is at stake?  
But h. will not acquiesce, and notwithstanding that all Courts Inferior and Superior have condemned him, yet will he still put in his claim, and never cease calumniating both X and the Courts of Judicature that gave Sentence against him; still inventing new Cavils, and pretending that X. 
* This is the Defenders answer to the parallel case I brought him from our Blessed Saviour's turning Water into Wine by these or the like words This is Wine, the weakness of which put off will appear from what I premised as a consideration at the beginning of this Section.  begs the Question, supposing there was a change of Dominion made by those words, This is your estate, and that his Predecessors understood it so: but that for his part, he supposes the Contrary, and he can find some persons, even in the first ages, that said the estate of A. did resemble the estate of B. And he does not see but that his supposition is of as much weight as that of X's, and his interpretation as sound; and seeing all Courts of Judicature are fallible, and those words of A. are the rule he must go by, seeing he cannot persuade himself the words ought to be taken any otherwise than figuratively, he will not acquiesce to any Court: Would not any one think that such an obstinate Sophister as this aught to be thrown out of Court, and forbidden ever to put in his claim to disturb it?  
This is truly our case: I leave the Defender to make the application, and the Reader to judge whether obstinacy in Religion be not a greater crime than in Law; and whether a Supreme Court of Ecclesiastical Judicature has not more reason to pronounce an Anathema against those who disturb the settled peace of the Church, by opposing her received Doctrines; than a High Court of Justice to condemn a litigious person as a common Barreter? Thus much to his first Argument.  
It seems I committed a fault before, 
§. 76. Second Objection, From the practice of the Jews. Defence, pag. 54.  in not taking notice of our Authors second Argument drawn, as he pretends, from our Saviour's intention: An Argument which he tells us has been urged chief since Beauties' time, and therefore I had nothing to say to it; (a great sign of its force and Antiquity:) An Argument used by the Jews against Christians; and therefore fit to be taken up by our new Reformers. 
Expos. Doctrine Church of England. pag. 50.  Let us now therefore see it,  
As in the Jewish Passover (says he) the Master of the house took Bread and Broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt; 
Ibid. pag. 49.  so in the Holy Sacrament, our Saviour, after the same manner, took Bread and Broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my Body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me.  
But, as it is evident, that that Bread which the Jews every year took and Broke, and said, This is the Bread of Affliction, etc. was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there; but was designed only to be the Type or Figure of it: So neither could our Saviour's Disciples, to whom he spoke, and who, as Jews, had so long been acquainted with that Phrase, ever believe, that the Bread which he held in his hands, which he Broke, and gave them saying, This is my Body, which is broken for you, etc. was the very actual real Body of Christ.  
Therefore they understood it to be a Type or Figure of that Body which was about to be broken for them.  
In answer to this, I say First, If not only the Bread but the Paschal Lamb itself, was a Type and Figure of this Sacrament and Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedec; this being Instituted, as our Author confesses, for the like end which the Passover had been, and now for ever to succeed in its place, 
Expes. pag. 49.  certainly the thing Figured aught to be more perfect than the Figure, the Substance than the Shadow. But if the Perfection of the Substance consisted only in signifying our Blessed Saviour's sufferings; certainly that Bread of affliction was as Perfect a Type as this; and the Paschal Lamb a much more Perfect Figure of his Passion.  
Secondly, All the whole Argument, you see, runs upon a supposition, that our Blessed Lord spoke figuratively, because the Master of the Feast in the Passover did so; which is as unconclusive an Argument, as if in my last Example h. should argue thus, the Predecessors of A. when they shown the Map of their Estate, were wont to say This is my Estate; therefore when A. said to B, this is your estate, he gave him only the Map, and not the Estate itself.  
Thirdly, 
Expes. pag. 50.  I cannot but admire that our Defender should think the Bishop of Meaux, obliged to make less exceptions against this Argument, because it was the Original remark of the very Jews themselves long before the Reformation. You will not send us sure to the Jews to know whether our Blessed Saviour was the true Messiah or no; and will you send us to them to know whether he gave his Body and Blood to his Disciples in the Sacrament? They Crucified the Lord of life as a Malefactor, and must they be believed in the highest Mysteries of our Religion? No wonder if they who esteemed him to be mere Man, should esteem his Blessed Sacrament to be more Bread.  
Lastly, You tell us the Master of the Feast took Bread and Broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is the Bread of Affliction which your Fathers eat in Egypt: From whence have you this? for I find it not in Scripture. 'tis true we find Deut. 16.3. that God commanded the Jews to eat for seven days the Bread of Affliction without leaven, to the end they might remember that it was with fear and trembling that they went out of Egypt; But was it not true Bread they there eat; and why shall we not then believe it is the true Body of Christ, tho' we eat it in remembrance of his bitter Passion?  
I need not take notice of his other insignificant Arguments drawn from Scripture, 
§. 77. Third Objection. From its being called Bread after Consecration.  as that the Apostle calls the Sacrament Bread even after Consecration; that to break Bread, was the usual Phrase in the Time of the Apostles for receiving the Holy Communion. Every common Catholic can tell him that Eve was called Bone of Adam's Bone; Moses his Rod, 
Expos. Doct. Ch. Eng pag. 50. 1 Cor. 10.16, etc.— 11.26. Act. 2.46, etc.  when changed into a Serpent, was still called a Rod; The Wine at the Marriage in Cana was called Water; the Blind are said to see and the Lame to walk. He has also been often told that the Scripture usually speaks according to the appearance of things, and therefore as it called the Angels, Men, because they appeared like Men, etc. so does it call the Eucharist Bread, because it has the outward Appearance of Bread. Moreover by Bread in the Jewish language was usually understood any kind of meat, and therefore no wonder if they called this most solid, and super substantial Food, Bread.  
I come now to examine his other Arguments; and first, 
§. 78. Objections from Fathers and Schoolmen. First, from St Chrysostoms' Epistle to Casarius.  that drawn from an obscure passage in an Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Caesarius, which he has managed with all the artifice he could, because it stood in need of it.  
The Words literally rendered are these,  
For as before Bread be Sanctified, we all [it] Bread, but the Divine Grace, by the Ministry of the Priest having Sanctified it, it is freed indeed from the Appellation, [or name] of Bread, but esteemed worthy of the Appellation [or name] of our Lord's Body, altho' the nature of Bread hath remained in it, and it is not called two bodies but one Body of the Son: So also here the Divine Nature having overflowed the Body, both these have made up one Son, one Person. But however we must acknowledge an unconfused and inaivisible manner, not in one Nature only, but in two perfect [Natures.]  
From this obscure passage the Defender argues first, 
Defence. Appendix pag. 138, 139, 140.  that the Expressions are plainly against Transubstantiation, because it says the Nature of Bread remains in the Eucharist after Consecration; and that which was called Bread before, by being Consecrated is become worthy to be called the Body of Christ.  
2. That the design of this Allusion shows it to be plainly against our Tenets: For Caesarius being fallen into the Apollinarian Heresy, which held but one Nature in Christ, affirming the Human to be converted into the Divine by being united to it; this Argument would have concluded nothing against him, unless it had supposed the substance of Bread to remain with the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.  
In answer to this; 
§. 79. Answer.   
First, it is worthy to be taken notice of, what poor shifts our Adversaries are driven to, that when they may find multitudes of clear Expressions in St. Chrysostoms' undoubted works, showing his belief of a Real and Substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and the absence of the Substance of Bread; in so much as that he was deservedly called the Doctor of the Eucharist, as Bigotius has well observed, and the Defender takes notice; nay censured even by 
(a) See the Centuriators and Musculus quoted by the Protestant Apology, Tr. 1. Sect. 2. Sub. 2. §. 2 at 2. in the Marg. pag. 82.  Protestants themselves, to have taught or confirmed Transubstantiation; yet an obscure passage must be picked out of a controverted Epistle; A passage to which the Original Greek is not where to be found, taken out of a 
(b) He verum esse de codice hujus Epistolae sateri cegor, qui licet ann●rum sit 500 parum tamea emen latè Scriptus est, & opem a Graeco praetipuè codice, aut ab alio saliem Latino, postulat. In eo quem vidi, aliquando voces continuae sunt— verbis aliquando ita co●uptis, ut ad sa ●●tatem reduci m●n me possint absque subsidio aliorum cedicum. Quae scribarum incuria deterruit, opiner, Petrum Martyrem ab ea edend●. Taceo in●erp etationem quae minus accurata, imo plane barbara videtur. Thus Bigetius cited by our Defender in his Appendix, pag. 147.  Latin Copy which is acknowledged to be so very full of faults, that it stands in need especially of the Greek, or at least of other Latin Copies to Correct it: In which the words are so corrupted, that it is impossible, as Bigotius himself acknowledges, to make them right without the assistance of other Books. A Book where the Interpretation was so little Correct, that it seemed to be wholly Barbarous; yet an obscure passage (I say) must be picked out of this controverted, uncorrected, Barbarously interpreted Epistle, and the world made to believe that it is not only sound and authentic, but moreover, that it bears a sense, which they who examine the connexion, will find to be very different from the Author's intention.  
Secondly, it is no less worth taking notice of, 
§. 80.  that they are not so solicitous to defend their own Teners as to ruin ours; in so much that they care not what Doctrine they establish from this passage, nor how they make St. Chrysostom oppose St. Chrysostom, and the other Fathers of his time, nor what absurdities they make him fall into; so they do but find some pretence to make the world believe they have something against our Doctrine.  
If St. Chrysosiom brought this Parallel in opposition to the Heresy of Appollinarius, and meant, as our Defender would have it, that as Cesarius believed the Substance of Bread remained after consecration together with the Substance of Christ's Body unconfused in the Eucharist: so ought he also to believe that both the Divine and Human nature did remain unconfused, in one Christ: It must necessarily follow that St. Chrysostom believed the Body of Christ was as really in the Eucharist, as he believed the Divinity to be Really in Christ: And if so, it would as necessarily follow, that as Christ is to be adored because he is God, tho' he be man also; so is the Eucharist to be adored because the Body of Christ is there, tho' Bread ought not to be adored: It would also necessarily follow that Christ's Body would be in as many places at once as there were Hosts; That his Body and Bread would be both in one place; That his Body would be in Heaven and upon our Altars at the same time, etc. So that whilst he endeavours to make St. Chrysostom deny Transubstantiation, he makes him espouse all the difficulties of it and Consubstantiation mixed together.  
For if this Parallel be exact (as our Defender would have it) St. Chrysostom must have held this opinion concerning the Eucharist; That, as there are two different Natures in Christ, the Human and Divine, which being Hypostatically united together, make up but one Person, Christ; So are there two Natures in the Eucharist, Bread and the Body of Christ, both which make up but one Substance, the Body of Christ; and that as in Christ the Divinity Hypostatically united to the Humanity makes but one Subsistence, one Person in two different Natures, and that truly called Divine; So in the Eucharist the Nature of Christ, united to the Nature of Bread, makes up but one Body, and that worthy to be called the Body of Christ. And that, as the Human Nature of Christ, by being united to the Divine, has many Epithets given it, which properly belong to the Divinity; so the Bread itself, by the Union of the Body of Christ with it, is worthy to receive the Epithets (I may add also the Adoration) due to the Body of Christ. If this be the Doctrine of the Church of England, let our Defender speak; if not, let him confess, either that St. Chrysostom did not agree with them, or that he has a wrong conception of his Parallel.  
But, 3ly. Supposing this Epistle , and that part of it uncorrupted, 
§. 81.  let us see whether it make for them or us; and to do this we must consider the scope and drift of St. Chrysostom in bringing that Parallel, and gather the Sense of the Epistle as well as we can from such a barbarous Translation and uncorrect Copy.  
After St. Chrysostom had testified his regret, that his friend Caesarius had fallen into the Apollinarian Heresy by Reading of a Book which taught, 
Verum tamen nos revordantes tuae nobiscum conversationis, sentientes autem ex his quae scrapsistis, errorem subsistere erga tuam dil●ctionem ex illorum insipientiâ non solum erg● dispensationis Mysterium, magis autem & erga Nominum conjunctionen, excogitavimus Deo cooper ante nostrae Infirmaitati de emnibus manifestam ostentati nem facere, adredorgu●ionem quidem malae opinionis corum qui haereticum libi protulerunt librum, correctionem autem tuae venerationis. Deum ergo quando dicis, Dilectissime, agnovisti id quod simplex est naturae, quod incompositum, qued inconvertible, quod invisible, quoth immortal, quod incircumscriptibile, & istis similia., Hominem autem dicens, significasti id quod naturae est infirmum, esuritionem, sitim, super Lazarum lachrymas, metum, sudoris ejectionem, & his similia, quibus id quod divinum est extrae est. Christum autem quando dicis conjunxist● utrumque, unde & passibilis dicatur idgm ipse & impassibilis, passibilis quidem carne, impassibilis autem Deitate. Eadem ipsa & de Filio, & Christo, & Jesus, & Domino praedicantur. Communia enim ista & suscepttbilia duarum Essentiarum nomina sunt; quarum conjunctio in baereticis quidem errorem facit, proprie pro communi utentes nomine Christi uno. His autem communibus istis uti oportet Nominibus quando dispensationis consitendum est Mysterium. Si enim Deum dixeris pertulisse, qualicunque cogitatione quod impossibile est, dixisti, id quod Blasphemum est, & in manetis, & in aliorum haeresim declinasti. Impietatem, si iterum hominem dixer qui pertulit, invenir●● purum aedificans Templum. Templum Crucis extra inhabitantem nunquam dicitur, quia jam non est Templum.  that the Essential concourse, and Sacred Union betwixt the Divinity and Flesh made up but one Nature, he exhorts him to return again and possess himself; and tells him, that he Erred, not only in the Mystery of the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour, but more especially as to the Conjunction of Natures, viz. of God and Man, which Errors he endeavours to Reform in him. And first, begins with that of the Names, telling him, that when he mentions God he acknowledges a Being, whose Nature is Simple, Uncompounded, Unchangeable, Invisible, etc. But when he mentions Man, he signifies a Being whose Nature is infirm, subject to Hunger, Thirst, Tears, Fear, Sweat, etc. But when he mentions Christ, he joins both these Natures together; so that he the same Person is called Passable and Impassable; Passable in his Flesh; Impassable in his Divinity; And the same may be said of the Names of Son, of Christ, of Jesus, and of Lord, these being common Names including the Names of both the Essential Natures of God and Man; the joining of which Natures causes the Error in Hereties, who use the proper Name [God] where they should use the one common Name Christ. For these common Names (continues he) we must use when we speak of the Mystery of the Incarnation, Death and Passion of our Saviour. For if thou shouldst say it was God that suffered (which is impossible in any Sense) thou speakest Blasphemy, and art fallen into the Heresy of Manes and others. If again thou say it was Man that suffered, thou buildest a Pure Temple; But it is never called a Temple of the Cross without an Inhabitan [Divinity] for than it is no Temple. Then he brings an Objection.  
But perhaps they will say with our Lord; 
Et forsitan dicunt, & quomodo Dominus dixit, ut quid me vultis occidere hominem, qul verltatem vobis locutus sum quam audi●i à Deo? Benè & omnino sapienter hee dicendum est. Neque cuim ex hoe ab Inhabi anti defraudabatur: sed figuificare volens yatientem naturam he ainis memoriam fecit, propter quod & D●us & Homo Christus: Deus propter impassibilitatem, Home propter Passionem. Vnus Filius, Vnus Deminus idem ipse proculdubis unitarum Naturarum, unam dominationem, unam pot●statem possidens, etiamst non consubstantiales existunt, & unaquaeque incommixtam Propriatatis conservat ag●i●ionem, propter hoc quod incoufusa Sunt, dico. Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis, Panem nominamus, Divinâ autem illum sendificante Gratiâ, mediante saoerdote, liberatus est quidem Appellatione Panis, dignus autem babitus est Dominici Corporis Appellatione, eliamst Natura Panis inapso permansit, & non duo Corpora, sed unum Corpus filil praedicatur: Si● & hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. inundante Corporis naturâ, unum filium, unam personam, u●raque haec ficerunt. * Sint duo.  why will you slay me a Man who have spoken the Truth to you, which I have heard from God? And he answers it thus. This is well and altogether wisely said; neither does this show him to be deprived of the Inhabitant [Divinity:] But being desirous to express the suffering Nature, he mentioned that of Man, because Christ is God and Man; God as being Impassable, Man as Capable to suffer. And yet but one Son, one Lord, as without doubt Possessing one Dominion, one Power of the United Natures, altho' they be not Consubstantial, but each of them retain their own Properties, being two unconfused Natures. Then follows the Example.  
For as before Bread be Sanctified we call [it] Bread, but the Divine Grace, by the Ministry of the Priest, having Sanctified it, it is freed indeed from the name of Bread, but esteemed worthy of the Name of the Body of our Lord, altho' the Nature of Bread hath remained in it; and is called not two Bodies but one Body of the Son: Even so here the Divine Nature overflowing the [Human] Body, they both make but one Son, one Person.  
Any one, 
§. 82. The true sense of St. Chrysostom.  who has not a mind to wrest St. Chrysostoms' sense, may see that the comparison is here betwixt the Person in Christ, and the Body or Substance in the Sacrament; And that as there is but one Body, one Substance, and That the Substance the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, tho' the Nature, that is, all the Qualities of Bread Remain; so also in Christ there is but one Person, one Subsistence, tho' there be two different Natures.  
All the difficulty lies in the word Nature, which our Defender thinks aught to be taken in the same sense, as where it is applied to the Human and Divine Nature.  
I shall not question whether this be not one of the less faithful Translations in this Epistle, because, we know not what the word may be in Greek, neither will I go about to show that the Accidents themselves are often said to have their nature, and That sometimes called the Nature of the Substance of which they are the Accidents. But I must say that if the word Nature in that Place meant Substance, or Body; so that the sense should be this; tho' the Substance or Body of Bread remain, the Parallel would have been false, and St. Chrysostom instead of dissuading Caesarius from the Heresy of Apollinarius, would have drawn him to that of Nestorius: For Caesarius must necessarily have Argued thus: Your Parallel is betwixt the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Person or Subsistence of Christ in the Mystery of the Incarnation; If then there be two Substances in the Eucharist, there are also two Subsistences in Christ. But this was far from St. Chrysostoms' design.  
His intention was therefore to show Caesarius, that, as in the Blessed Sacrament after Consecration there is but one Substance. one Body of Christ, tho' the Accidents of Bread remain, and that this Substance is truly called the Body of Christ: so in the Mystery of the Incarnation there is but one Son, one Person, and that Divine, tho' the Nature of the Manhood do remain.  
Now what can be more clear for Transubstantiation than this, that in the Eucharist there should be but one Body, one Substance, and that the Body of Christ?  
But our Defender objects, that St. Chrysostom only says it is worthy to be called the Body of Christ, and it is called not two Bodies, but one Body of the Son: and therefore, the change is only in the Appellation, and not in the thing itself.  
But certainly, if Caesarius had understood St. Chrysostom in that sense, Caesarius might have answered him, You would persuade me I see to be an Arian, and believe there is only a change in Christ as to Appellation, and that he is not truly God, but only called so. But this Great Saint and Learned Doctor, was far from erring in these Points: For,  
Lastly, 
§. 83.  That he did believe the Real and Substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, and that a change was there made of the Substance of Bread into the Sustance of his Body appears, by many plain expressions in his undoubted works: Bigotius mentioned two passages in his suppressed Epistle, which I will here give the Reader in English (tho' the Defender did not think it convenient so to do) and add two or three more.  

a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 2. ad pop. Antioch. in fine pag. 43. B. edit. Frontoduc. 1616.  Elias (says he) left his Mantle to his Disciple, but the Son of God left us his Flesh: Elias stripped himself indeed to leave it; but Christ both left us his Flesh, and retaining it himself, ascended. Let us not therefore lose courage, nor lament, nor fear the difficulty of Times. For he who did not refuse to shed his Blood for all, and has communicated to us his Flesh, and also that very Blood, what will he refuse for our Salvation?  
The second passage cited by Bigotius is thus at length:  

b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 83 in Matth. pag. 703. D. edit. Commel. 1003.  Let us therefore every where believe God, neither let us resist him, although what he says may seem absurd to our sense or cogitation: Let his word rule our Sense and Reason which we perform in all, but especially in the Mysteries, not only looking upon those things which lie before us, but retaining also his words. For we cannot be deceived by his words, but our senses are easily to be deceived. Those cannot be false, but these are often and often deceived. Seeing therefore he has said, This is my Body, let us not be doubtful but believe, and view it with the eyes of our Understanding. And a little after he says. 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. p. 704. A.  How many are there now who say, I would gladly see his form, his shape, I would see his very Garments, I would see his shoes! Behold, Thou seest (answers he) himself, thou touchest him, thou eatest him; and thou art still desirous to see his Garments. And a little further: Who will declare the power of our Lord, and who will publish all his praises? What Shepherd ever yet fed his Flock with his own members? And why do I mention Shepherds? There are many Mothers who give their Children to other Nurses: but he [Christ] not so; he nourishes us with his own Blood, and closely knits himself to us in all things— 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. p. 705. A.  The things we propose are not done by Human power. He who wrought these things at the last Supper, is the Author of what is done here. We hold but the place of Ministers, but he who Sanctifies and changes them is [Christ] himself.  
To these I may add that in his Liturgy the Priest prays 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 5. p. 614. B. edit. Frontonduc.  that God would make that Bread the Precious Body of his Son, etc. and that which is in the Chalice the pretions' Blood of his Christ, etc. changing them by his holy Spirit.  
And in his Homily, the Proditione Judae, he teaches that Judas received the very Body and Blood of Christ which he betrayed; his words are these.  
And Judas was present when Christ said these words; 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 3. Serm. 30. pag. 463. A.  This is the Body (said he) O Judas which thou hast sold for thirty pieces of Silver: This is the Blood for which thou hast made a bargain with the Pharisees. Oh the Mercy of Christ! Oh the Madness of Judas! He made a bargain to sell him for Thirty pence; and Christ offered him the Blood which he sold, that he might have remission of his Sins, if he would have ceased to be wicked: for Judas was there, and was permitted to partake of the Sacrifice.— 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. C.  For it is not man who makes the proposed, [Elements] to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ himself who was crueified for us. The Priest performs the ceremony and pronounces the words, but it is the Virtue and Grace of God which operates the whole. He said, 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. C. Gen. 1.28.  This is my Body. This word Transmutes [or changes] the proposed [things or Elements.] And as the voice which said increase and multiply, and fill the Earth, was but once spoken; but in all times, by the operation of Nature, felt the effect as to Generation: So that voice was but once uttored, but yet gives a firmness to the Sacrifice throughout all the Tables of the Church, even to this very day, and shall continue it even to his very coming.  
These things being considered, 
Appendix. p. 129.  the Defender need not fear that St. Chrysostom should lose his credit amongst us, or that we shall henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation, since we cannot any longer suppress his Doctrine. No, no, neither he nor Theodoret were against the Doctrine of the Real and Substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, tho' our Adversaries by all their Arts endeavour to draw one obscure passage out of either of them, as favouring their opinion.  
As for St. Chrysostom, I must tell the Defender with Bigotius, 
Integrum librum conficerem, si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem, in quibus de Sacratissima Eucharèstia similiter loquitur; sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit eos in fonte legisse.  that should I extract all the places out of his works in which he uses the like plain expressions of the Real presence, it would make a Book by itself. They who desire farther satisfaction may go to the Fountain itself, and if they will but spend some sew hours in a Library, and there Read entirely, and not by parcels, his 83 Hom. in Mattb. his 21 Hom. in Act. and his 24 in 1 Cor. they will there find how contrary St. Chrysostoms' opinion is to what the Defender would make us believe.  

(a) Expost. Doctr. Ch. of Eng. p. 56.  His next Argument is from the Schoolmen, 
§. 84. Argument from Schoolmen.  who (as he says, and citys these Authors in the 
(b) Lomb. 4. dist. 10. Scotus 4. dist. 2. qu. 11.  Margin for it) confess that there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation. 
(c) Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 13. ss. secundo dicit where he citys many others of the same opinion.  That there is not any that withot the Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it. 
(d) Cajeta● in 3. D. Th. qu. 75. Art 1.  That had not the Church declared herself for the proper sense of the words, the other might with as good warrant have been received. 
(e) See Scotus cited by Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss. Vnum tamen. See also Gabricl cited by Suarez T. 3. disp. 50. Sect. 1. So Lembard. l. 4. sent. dist. 11. lit. A.  And that this Doctrine was no matter of Faith, till the Council of Lateran, 1200 Years after Christ, and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed, it would not have been so to this very day.  
In answer to this Argument I told him first, 
Vindi●. pag. 80.  that if the Schoolmen used those Expressions that There was no formal proof in Scripture for Transubstantiation which could evince it without the Declaration of the Church; it is but what they also affirm as to the Trinity and consubstantiality of the Son; nay even as to all the Principal Articles of our Faith, and as to the Scriptures themselves their being the word of God: all which stood in need of the Church's Declaration to make them clear, and convincing either to obstinate Heretics, who were always ready to drop Texts of Scripture; or to Atheistical persons, who would rely upon nothing but Sense and Reason.  
Secondly, 
Ibid. pag. 82, 83.  I desired him to state the Question right, and to distinguish betwixt the Doctrine of the Church and the Doctrine of the Schools. I told him the Doctrine of the Church was contained in the Canons of the Council of Trent, which Anathematised all those who should say that the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
Sess. 13. can. 2.  together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; or should deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood, the species of Bread and Wine only remaining, which Conversion the Catholic Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation. But I told him that the Schoolmen, tho' they all agreed as to the matter, yet might have had several opinions concerning several possible manners of explicating Transubstantiation; all which opinions as they were not of necessary belief, so were they not to enter as a part of our Dispute with Protestants. And upon this account I told him,  
Lastly, that he mistook the meaning of our Authors, who when they spoke of the matter, that is, of the real and substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, and absence of Bread, which is made by that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of one into the other, called by the Church Transubstantiation, they were all at perfect agreement, asserting it as a matter of Faith always believed in the Church; tho' more explicitly declared in the Council of Lateran, and other succeeding Councils, upon account of the opposition made by Berengarius and his Followers. But that as to the manner of explicating this Transubstantiation, as whether it were by Production, or Adduction, or Annihilation; 
Lombard says, Cum haec verba proferuntur conversto fit Panis & vini in substantiam corporis & sanguinis Christi. Lomb. in 4. dist. 8. li●. C. He also in his 10 dist. shows it to have been an Herosy in his time not to have believed that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of ids' Body and Blood. Tho' in the 11 dist. he confesses he knows isot the manner how this conversion is made. See the Vindic. pag. 91.  the disputes that might arise amongst them regarded not our Faith, which only tells us there is a true and real Conversion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, which Conversion the Church calls Transubstantiation.  
The Reply our Defender makes to this, 
§. 85. A mistake of the Vindicators sense. Defence pag. 62. & seqq.  is ushered in with a Mistake (grounded perhaps upon my not so cautiously wording a sentence which, if taken alone might bear the sense he draws it to; tho' if one regard what went before and followed after, it cannot reasonably be wrested to it) a Mistake, I say, affirming me to have advanced an Exposition quite contrary to the Doctrine of our Church and design of the Council of Trent, which did not only define the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentarians; but also the Manner or Mode (as he calls it) of his presence in the Sacrament against the Lutherans in two particulars. 1. Of the absence of the substance of Bread and Wine; 2. Of the Conversion of their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Species only remaining. But I assure him, it was never my intention to deny the Doctrine of a true Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ; but only to affirm that the manner how that Conversion is made was controverted in the Schools: and therefore what he brings against this mistake of his from Suarez is not at all against me; for I am ready to affirm with him, that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread, but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other, are guilty of Heresy: The Church having defined this last as well as the two first. But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected; I may well say that the matter or thing is defined, but not the manner.  
I agree then, with our Defender, that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine; (tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point) but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present; that is to say, whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation; or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another. Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence, have any force against this Doctrine.  
First he says that Lombard, 
§. 85. Lombard. Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist. 10. lit. A. de Heresi aliorum. Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes, qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes, audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt: asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem, nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis & sanguinis converti; Id. ibid. dist. 11. lit. A.  writing about this Conversion, plainly shows it to have been undetermined in his time. What was undetermined in his time? The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ; etc. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made; and indeed Lombard is so express in this (as I shown in my Vindication) that he says, they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars, or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood, transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of, and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth. What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion? This I grant; And This the Defender might easily have understood, if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is, de modis conversionis, of the Manners of Conversion; and the words themselves, viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is, whether Formal or Substantial, or of another kind, I am not able to define it.  
They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely, will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrine which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, which the Church calls Transubstantiation, was not believed in his time; and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made.  
But Secondly, 
§. 87. Scotus. Defence pag. 64.  our Defender says, Scotus is yet more free, and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true, insomuch that he confesses that the Church's Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrine.  
I do not wonder that Scotus should say, he was chief moved to embrace a Doctrine, because the Authority of the Church declared it; when the ancient Fathers did not doubt to say, 
Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas. Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist. Manich. Defence pag. 80.  that if it were not for the Authority of the Church, they would not believe the Gospels themselves. They indeed who (as our Author does) pay so little deference to a Church, that they maintain, that if any Man (Cobbler or Weaver) be evidently convinced, upon the best enquiry he can make, that his particular belief [of no Trinity, no Divine person in Christ, etc.] is founded upon the word of god, and that of the Church is not; he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church; 
Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestion●●, Ecclesiam de ea consulat. Aug. contra Crescon. c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16.  They, indeed, I say, may think it strange that we submit our judgements, in matters which surpass our Reason, to the Church's decisions, whilst they refuse such submission; but we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God.  
Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation [i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England] contrary to Transubstantiation, to be more easy and to all appearance more true? He brings in, 'tis true, his Adversary, (not one of the church of England's belief, but a Lutheran, who holds a real Presence of Christ's Body and Bread to remain together) proposing this question to him: How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article, 
Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli, cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem, & veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo;— Dico, quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, quo conditae. Et ita supponendum est, quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit, quo tradita est nobis fides, spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta, & ideo hunc intellectum eligit, quia verus est. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum, sed Dei instituentis: sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesi● explicavit, directa in hot, ut creditur, spiritu veritatis.  when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense, and in appearance more true? And he answers him in short, and most solidly, thus: I affirm (says he) that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ. And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church (taught by the spirit of Truth) Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit, by which our Faith is delivered to us, and therefore chose this sense because it is true. For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false, but in the power of God who instituted it: the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God, directed in this, as we believe, by the Spirit of Truth. An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections, without entering into so long a dispute, as it must have been, to show that Transubstantiation is more according to the literal sense of the words, and has less difficulties in it than Consubstantiation: but it does not follow, that Scotus thought his Adversaries assertion to be more easy, much less more true.  
But our Defender goes farther, and tells us, that Scotus held this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very ancient, nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran; and citys Bellarmin for it, tho' he render his words ill in English. 
* For Bellarmin does not say that Scotue held the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very ancient; but only that it was not an Article of Faith, dogma. fidei, before that Council; which are two very different things. §. 88 Suarez. Non fnerit tam aperte explicata, sicut modo est. Suar. in 3. D. Tho. vol. 3. disp. 50. §. 1.  How much better would it have been for him to go to the Fountain itself and have shown us this in Scotus? But he will scarce find it there: and suppose he could, one Swallow makes no Summer; and I think it will appear far more reasonable to any thinking man to believe that Scotus erred in saying so, than the Council of Lateran, (in which there were 400 Bishops and 800 Fathers) in declaring that to be the Faith of the Church, which was not so.  
Thirdly, Suarez (he says) acknowledges the same of Scotus and Gabriel Biel: Suppose they had held that Doctrine, what would follow, but as Suarez Argues, that they deserve reproof, seeing the thing itself was ancient and perpetually believed in the Church, tho' perhaps in former times, it was not so fully explicated as now it is?  
As for my overlooking that passage of Suarez, which affirms the conversion of one substance into another to be of Faith; and the Defenders arguing upon that account, that Suarez is opposite to my opinion and pretences; I have already told him, that he proceeds upon a mistake of my meaning, which being rectified he will find that Suarez is nothing against me, nor am I guilty of any prevarication.  
Fourthly, 
§. 89. Cajectan.  The Defender tells me, that my Prevarication in the next citaton, viz. of Cardinal Cajetan, is more unpardonable. And why? Because he affirmed that the Cardinal acknowledged, that had not the Church declared herself for the proper sense of the words, 
Defence pag. 65.  the others might with as good reason have been received; and I told him, that Cajetan had no such thing in that Article, and appealed to any that should read it, for the truth of what I said. This he says, is such a Prevarication, that should a Protestant have done it, I would, he believes, have found out many hard names for him, to testify my zeal against Falsehood and unsincerity, 
Id. pag. 66.  and shown what a kind of Religien that must be that is not maintainable without such sinister do: But that he will remit me wholly to the Readers Censure, and my own Conscience for Correction.  
I am glad he allows me the Readers to be of my Jury. I hope he will give me leave to except against all those that are so far biased in their affections to him and his party, that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen, but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards Popery, forsooth, tho' against Justice, Equity, and Conscience. Take but away, I say, such biased and Ignoramus Juryes as these, and I will appeal to any Learned, Judicious, and Conscientious men, whether that Proposition he advanced be to be found in that Article of Cajetan or no.  
The Defender was so far from showing this in Cajetan, that he has pitched upon a place which has as little to the purpose as one would wish. He tells us indeed, that we have no other express Authority from Scripture, for the belief of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, but only the words of our Saviour, This is my Body; for these words must of necessity be true. And because the words of Scripture may be Expounded two ways, Properly or Metaphorically; The first error in this particular was of them who interpreted the words of our Lord Metaphorically; which Error was treated of by the Master of Sentences, and is reproved [by St. Thomas] in this Article. And the force of the rejection consists in this, that the words of our Lord have been understood by the Church properly, and therefore they must be verified properly: Which is as much as to say, that St. Thomas, and Cardinal Cajetan after him, looked upon the Churches having always understood the words of our Saviour literally, to be the strougest Argument against the Sacramentarians, who Erred in understanding them Metaphorically: But what is that to our Defenders Proposition? And where does the Cardinal say, there is as much reason for the one as the other, abstracting from the Church's declaration, which is the sense of his Proposition? Wherefore now it comes to my turn to remit him (as he does me) to the Readers Censure, and his own Conscience for correction.  
His last Argument is drawn from the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist in these words; 
§. 90. Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist. Expos. D●ct. Ch. of Engl. pag. 60.  Since it is certain that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised, nor the Church for above a 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament; neither could they according, to Monsieur de Meauxes Principles [who holds, that the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as Believe it, without all scruple, to the Adoraton of it] have believed the Corporeal presence of our Blessed Saviour in it.  
The Antecedent he goes about to prove first from the Scriptures silence in this matter; 
ssect; 91. I.  which tho' it says, Take, Eat, Do this in remembrance of me, yet never says, This is my Body, fall down and worship it: And from St. Paul, who when he reproved the Corinthians for violating this Holy Sacrament, did not tell them (tho' it was obvious, and much to his purpose)  
that in profaning this Holy Sacrament they were not only guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, which it was Instituted to represent to us; but even directly Affronted their Blessed Master Corporeally present there; and whom instead of Profaning, they ought, as they had been taught, to Adore in it.  
Secondly, 
II.  From the new practices of Elevating the Host introduced says he in the 7th Century, to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross, but not to expose it to the People to Adore it; from the Bell, the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament, the Pomp of carrying it through the streets, Exposition of it upon the Altars, Addresses to it in cases of Necessity, and performing the chief Acts of Religion in its presence: all which, he pretends, are but Inventions of yesterday, or were never mentioned in Antiquity.  
Lastly, 
III.  Because the Primitive Christians instead of this Worship did (as he says) many things utterly inconsistent with it; as Burning in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament; permitting the People to carry it home that had communicated; sending it abroad by Sea and Land without any regard that we can find had to its Worship; burying it with their Dead; making Plasters of the Bread; mixing the Wine with their Ink; which certainly, says he, are no instances of Adoration.  
Before I begin to Answer this Objection, 
§. 92.  I must beg leave to show our Belief in this matter, and the Grounds we go upon.  
First we believe, 
It is lawful to Adore God and Christ wherever they are.  whoever acknowledges Jesus Christ to be God and Man, may lawfully Adore him wherever he has a Rational ground to believe him to be present; yet is he not at all times obliged to pay this actual Adoration; because otherwise the Apostles must have done nothing else but Adore when ever they were in the presence of their Lord.  
Secondly, the Grounds of our Belief that our Blessed Saviour is really Present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, are undoubtedly Rational, as I think I have sufficiently shown; and therefore all those who believe him Present, may lawfully Adore him there, 
We cannot always pay this actual adoration.  tho' they are not always Obliged actually to pay that Adoration; otherwise they must do nothing in presence of the Sacrament but Adore Him.  
Thirdly, It is worthy our Remark that the words Sacrament, Host or Eucharist are sometimes taken for Christ alone, sometimes for the Species alone, 
We adore Christ in the Sacrament; not what is sensible.  and sometimes for both Christ and the Species; but when we speak properly of Adoring the Sacrament, we speak only of Adoring Christ in the Sacrament: For we do not adore what is Visible, Tangible, or any ways Sensible in the Sacrament; but only Christ Jesus, whom we believe to be under those Visible, Tangible, and Sensible Elements.  
Lastly, The Church being confirmed in this Belief, has Authority, as occasion serves, to command the payment of this Adoration, which is Due at all times; and to set apart some solemn Festivals, or Ceremonial Rites to invite her Children to perform this Duty.  
These Considerations being premised; I deny his Antecedent: 
§. 93.  and to his Proofs I answer.  
To the first I say, the Scriptures silence is no more an Argument against us in this, 
I. The Scriptures silence no Argument against a perpetual practice.  than it is against the Adoration of our Lord when present in the flesh: for tho' we find there a Command of going to Christ, and following him; yet will he scarce find an express place in the Gospels, where Christ commands his Disciples to Adore him. This Adoration depending wholly on his being God, it was sufficient that he convinced them of his Divinity; and we being thus convinced by his own words that he is present in the Sacrament, we are obliged to adore him there.  
And if St. Paul did not Argue as our Defender would have had him, yet does he do it with no less force and Energy. It was sufficient to tell them it was the Body and Blood of Christ; that to receive it was an Annunciation of his Death; that they who received it unworthily were guilty of the Body and Blood of their Lord; that they cat and drunk their own Condemnation, not Discerning the Lords Body. That therefore there were many sick and weak amongst them, and many died; These, as they were sufficient Arguments to persuade them not to profane the Sacrament; so were they sufficient Arguments to convince them and us of the Obligation to Adore him Present in it, tho' St. Paul did not put them in mind of that Necessary consequence.  
To the Second, 
§. c 4. II. The Church condemns arising Heresies by Her practice.  It has always been the custom of the Church to condemn Heresies by her Practice, as well as her anathemas; commanding the Glory be to the Father, etc. to be said or sung after every Psalm, in opposition to the Arian Error; and the Feast of the Blessed Trinity to condemn the Antitrinitarians, etc. no wonder therefore if, when this pernicious Heresy of the Sacramentarians begun, 
Atque sic quidem oper●uit victr●cem re● itatem de mendacio & heresi triumphum agere; ut ejus adversarts in conspectu tanti splendoris, & in tanta untversae Ecclesiae laetitia positi, vel debilitati & fracti tabescant, vel pudore affecti & confusi allquendo resipiscant. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 5.  she testified her Adorations by new practices and solemnities; Tho' therefore the Feast of Corpus Christi, the Exposition, the Elevation, etc. May not be very Ancient; yet was it no new thing to Adore Christ in the Sacrament. And it was but necessary that when Heretics begun to offer Indignities to that Sacred Mystery, the Church should enjoin new Praises, Honours, and Adorations to her celestial Spouse; to the end, as the Council says, that Truth might by this means triumph over Lies and Heresy; and that its Adversaries at the sight of so much splendour, and amidst such an universal joy of the Church, being weakened and disenabled, might decay, or through shame and confusion at last repent.  
To the last I answer, 
§. 95. III. Particular practices hurt not the Universal Doctrine.  That if some things were done to avoid inconveniencies, or others out of a heat of Zeal, which are not agreeable to our practices at present, they were not generally received; nay censured by the Church when once they grew more public; or laid aside when the inconveniencies were removed. But these practices did not show a disbelief of the Real Presence, tho' our Defender may perhaps show that they tended to a disrespect, upon which account it was that the Church abolished them.  
If it was a custom for some time, 
Hesych. in Levit. l. 2. c. 8.  in the Church of Jerusalem, to burn what remained after Communion; Was it not a show of Reverence and Respect, lest perhaps the Sacred Symbols might fall into the hands of those, 
Burgr. hist. l. 4. c. 35.  who would Profane them? And the same may be said of the custom in the Church of Constantinople, of giving the remaining particles of the immaculate Body of Jesus Christ our God, as the Historian expresses it, to young Children. But this I hope was consistent with a belief of the real Prerence.  
If also the Primitive Christians permitted the Faithful to carry it home with them, or sent it by Sea or Land to the Sick, or to them with whom they would testify their unity, it was not, I hope, any sign of their disrespect, but rather a testimony of their Veneration; and a practice which did not derogate from their belief of its being the Body of their Lord.  
If a St. Benedict caused the Blessed Sacrament to be laid upon the breast of a dead Corpse which the Grave would not retain, 
Ite, atque hoc dominicum corpus super pectus ejus (cum magna reverentia) ponite, & sic sepulturae cum tradite. Greg. dial. l. 2. c. 24.  but threw it up as often as it was buried, to the end it might remain interred; was it a disrespectful action? especially seeing St. Gregory the Great, who relates it, says he did not only call it the Body of our Lord, but ordered them to lay it upon his Breast cum magna reverentia. Other Examples of burying the Sacrament with the Dead, show rather a zeal (tho' not secundùm scientiam) than a disrespect. And if this miraculous effect invited others to presume to do the same, the Church's vigilance soon suppressed the growth of such an inconvenient and unnecessary practice.  
If a Pope or Council to testify their holy Zeal and Indignation against Pyrrhus the Monothelite, or Photius the Schismatic, 
Apuct. Baron. Anno 648. § 15. Conc. 8. Constant.  mixed some drops of the life-giving Blood, (as one of the Historians calls it) or the Blood itself of our Saviour (as the other) with their Ink, it shown, 'tis true, a zealous indignation, but is no proof against the real Presence, but rather for it.  
If St. Augustin tell us once of a Devout Mother, that made a Cataplasm of the 
* What this Eucharist was is uncertain, the Ble●sed Bread frecuently given in the Church in cestimony of our union with one another, being often called by that name but was not the Sacrament.  Eucharist, and applied it with great Faith to the eyes of her Son, 
Aug. oper. impers. contra Julian. l. 3. c. 164.  who was born with his eyelids joined together; and that the Child had his eyes opened; the miraculous effect showed that his pious Mother, had a strong Faith; but is no argument that she believed it to be only Bread, or a mere commemoration of the Body of our Lord; or that it was a Custom in the Church to make Plasters of it.  
But because our Author is so positive, 
§. 96. Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist very antiens.  that the Church for above a 1000 Years neither required nor taught this Adoration; I will here give some few expressions of the Fathers to cool his courage, and show how little conversant he has been in their writings, and with what boldness foam men will talk, when they are engaged to defend even a bad Cause.  
If I mention St. Denis the Arcopagit's Prayer to the Blessed Sacrament, 
Dion. Areoy. de Excles Ulerarch. c. 3 parte 3. pag. 245. B.  or How he relates many of those Ceremonies which we now use, and in particular a kind of Elevation, which he calls a showing it to the People, my Adversary will perhaps tell me I mistake the Man: but he dare not, I hope, say, but that at least he who writ that Book, lived long before his 1000 Years, the time he has prefixed for the Epocha of this Adoration.  
If the Defender had Read 
(a) Quero quid sit s●ate●um pewm ejas, & dicit made Seriptura, Terra scabellum pe●um megrim. Fluctuans converto mead Chri, tum, quit ipsum quaero bic, & invenio quomedo sine impietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum ejus. Suscesit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae carnem accepit. Et quia in i●sa cirne hic ambulavit, & ipsam carnem nobis mand● candam ad salutem dedit: nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius ader●verit: iaventum est quemadmodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini; Et non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando— Ideo ad terram quandibet [Sacramentalem] cum te inclinas atque prosternas, non quasi terram imuearis, sed illum Sandum, cujus pedum scabellum est qued adorm. Aug. in Ps. 98. Tom. 7. pag. 1104. C.  St. Augustin, he would have told him, it was so far from being a Sin to adore the Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, that they sinned who did not adore him.  
Had he Read the same 
(b) Manducaverunt corpus humilita is Domini sui etiam divites terrae, nec sicut ●auperes sat●rati sunt usque ad Imitationem, sed tamen adoraverunt. Ibid. pag. 105 A. Item Epist. 110. ad Honoratum cap. 27. Et ipsi quidem adducti sunt ad mensam Christi, & accipiunt de corpore & Sanguine ejus: sed adorant tantum, non etiam saturantur, quontam non imitantur— Et ipsi veniunt ad mensam manducan & adorant; non tamen saturantur, quia non esuriant & sitiunt Justitiam.  Holy Doctor upon these words of the Psalmist, Edent pauperes & saturabuntur— Manducaverunt & adoraverunt omnes pingues terrae, he would have found this Exposition, that the proud and haughty of the earth approach to Christ's table, receive his Flesh and Blood, but they only Eat and Adore, but are not filled, because they do not hunger and thirst after Justice, whereas the Poor and humble Eat and are filled because they follow him.  
Neither did St. Augustin invent this Doctrine of his own head, but received it from his Master 
(c) Paque per scab●llum erra intelliguur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam bodie quoque in M●steriis adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Demino Jesu adprarunt. Ambr. de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12.  St. Ambrose, who did not only Expound the same words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus, after the same manner, affirming that they adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries, (not in Mystery:) but also has particular 
(d) Panis dulcissime, s●na palatum cordis mei, ut sent●●m suavitatem ameris tui, sana ab omni longuore, ut nullam praeter to muem pulchritudinem— Panis vive, panis pulcher, bank ●unde, qui descendisii de caelo, & does vitam mundo, veni in cor meum, & munda me ab omni inquinamento carnis & spiritus, etc. Orat. praepapal. ad missam.  Prayers to the Blessed Sacrament, which so offended the 
(e) Cent. 4. col. 430.  Centnriators, that they reproved them, saying, they contained an adoration of Bread in the Sacrament; and made 
(f) Problema de Romage fidei ementito Catholicismo, peg. 421. ●pnd Brierleys' Liturgy of the Mass. pag. 207.  Mr. Parkins reject them as none of St. Ambroses, for this sole reason, ibi adoratio Sacramenti.  
I shall not mention any more of the Latin Fathers for this Adoration. And for the Greek Fathers 
(g) See the whole 24. Homily of St. Chryso●tem upon the first of the Corintbiant & Orat. de Sancto Philogonio, Hom. 31. ad pop. Antioch. Ac magiquidem nibil aliud quam adorarunt, tibi vero, si cum pura accesseris con c●en●ia, permittemus ut sumas, & sumpto domum aveu.  St. Chrysostom was wont to compare the Altar with the Manger, and affirmed we ought to Imitate the Magis who Adored him in the Manger; whereas we see him, not in the Manger, but on the Altar; not in the Arms of a Woman, but the Priest standing by him, and the Spirit with great power hover over the proposed Mysteries. In his Liturgy we find the Priest, the Deacon, and the People, ordered to adore with Piety and Devotion: He tells us also, that their custom was then to 
(h) Hom. 41. in 1 Cor.  Pray to the Lamb lying there, for the souls of the Dead. He affirms The Angels to be 
(i) De Sacerd●tio. l. 6. c. 4. & Hon. 1. de Verbis Is●iae. Nuc. Orat. 11. que est de ●orgonia sorore.  present at this wonderful table, and to compass it about with reverence; and in confirmation of it reports, that an aged holy man, to whom God had revealed many mysteries, was thought worthy by almighty God to see such an Angelic Vision.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen reports how his Sister Gorgonia being sick, proserated herself before the Altar, and calling upon him who is worshipped on it, etc. O Miracle (says he) she went away presently in perfect health.  
We Read also in St. Basil, 
S. Basit, de Spiritu Sundo c 27. where mentioning several unwritten Traditions, he says: Invocationis verba, dum estenditur panis Eucharistiae & poculum benedictionis quis scripto reliqun●  that in his time there was a prescribed form of Prayer, or words of Invocation when the Blessed Sacrament was showed to the people.  
In a word, all Antiquity speaks of this Adoration; all the Liturgies both of the Latin and Greek and Abyssine Churches, show the Practice of it long before our Defender speaks of; so that a Treatise might be made a part of this, to the eternal shame of those who are so bold as to say, that the Church neither required nor taught it for above a thousand years.  
From these and several other the like passages of ancient Fathers I conclude quite contrary to the Defender, that seeing the Primitive Christians did adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament, and Pray to him, they did believe him to be really present in it.  
I pass by the wonderful respect that was shown to the Sacred Vessels, Corporals, and other Utensils, 
§. 97.  consecrated to the Service of the Altar; neither Lay persons, nor yet they who had only taken the mi●● Orders, being permitted to handle those which had touched that Adorable Sacrament. I omit the Reverence with which it was received; and the wonderful care lest any drop or particle should fall to the ground, and the punishment inflicted upon them that should let it shall (which caution was not used towards the water of Baptism, though Holy also,) neither will I insist upon the receiving it fasting, as St. Augustin says, in honorem tanti Sacramenti, in honour of so great a Sacrament; nor of the admonition that was given to married persons to live continent certain days before their Communion; nor of the manner of reserving the Sacrament in Silver Doves, in Golden Towers and Tabernacles; nor the care they had, lest Insidels or the Catechumen should be present at those Sacred Mysteries; These were not accidental, or at haphazard, but the-deliberate practices of those Primitive Ages; and I think aught rather to be considered than those pretended instances brought in by my Antagonist.  
They who desire to see more, 
§. 98.  let them read the two Discourses lately published concerning this point; and Brierley's Lyturgy of the Mass.  
I will conclude, with this one Reflection, which I desire all thinking persons to consider: If the Doctrine of the real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament carried with it so many Absurdities as our Modern Authors would make us believe; and the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament was so manifest an Idolatry, as they pretend; all Christians certainly, who were tender of their Salvation, must needs have had an abhorrence of, and so much the greater aversion from that practice, by how much it was more contrary to their great Principle, that God only was to be Adored. Seeing then it is manifest by the concession of Protestants and public Records of every Nation, that the Adoration of the Sacrament was publicly practised, not in one corner of the World only, but throughout all Christendom for this last 800 Years; and that no persons, that we know of, ever contradicted that practice, but such as were immediately condemned as Heretics: Seeing also the plain expressions of the Primitive Fathers, show this to have been also practised in their days; and that no beginning of this practice can be shown; we must necessarily conclude, that our Modern Authors are deceived, both as to the Absurdities with which they charge the Doctrine, and the Idolatry of the Practice: and that the Church in all those Ages did believe, as we do, that Christ's Body and Blood was truly, really, and substantially present in the Sacrament, and there to be adored.    

ART: XIX, XX, XX●● Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
HAving been of necessity so prolix in the foregoing Article, 
§ 99 What a Sacrifice is.  I hope my Readers will excuse me if I be short in these which follow, and are but consequences of a Real and Substantial presence.  
The word Sacrifice has various acceptations. Some times it is taken Improperly or Metaphorically, for any act of Devotion referred to the Honour and Worship of God, as Prayer, Alms-deeds, Praise, Contrition, etc. But when we speak properly, we intimate an External act of Religion, whereunto the office or function of a Priest is ordained. Hebr. 5.1. And according to this acceptation we define a Sacrifice to be, An External act of Religion, whereby a Priest lawfully called, offereth unto God alone some Sensible and Permanent thing, with alteration or real change thereof, in due acknowledgement of God's sovereign Dominion over us, and our all-dependance on his power and providence.  
Our Defender in this, and the following Articles (as formerly in his Exposition) seems to lay the stress of the cause upon the Council of Trents calling this truly and properly a Sacrifice; whereas he thinks it is only Metaphorically so: And will have nothing to be called truly and properly a Sacrifice, in which there is not a true and real destruction, or slaying of the thing Sacrificed; and citys Bellarmin in the Margin for it. In answer to which I need only give that very objection of the Cardinal at length, in which any one will see that our difference here is more in the Name than in the Thing, tho' however this must be represented as one of those Errors which most offend the Church of England, and our bleeding divisions must be kept open to the ruin of both Church and State.  
Cardinal Bellarmin being about to show the several opinions concerning the Essence of a Sacrifice, 
Cardinal Bellarmin vindicated.  and in what part of the Mass it consists, tells us, that some place it in the Consecration, for this reason, because they will have the Essence of a Sacrifice to consist in a slaying of the Victim; but by that act only there is a true Immolation of Jesus Christ, viz. a separation of his Body from his Blood by ●he words of Consecration, tho' the natural concomitance hinder the Blood or Soul from being truly separated from the Body.  
Against this reason (after other Arguments) he brings this, 
Denique vel in Missa fit vera & vealis Christi mactatie & occisio, vel non sit. Si non fit, non est verum & real Sacrificium Missa: Sacris●eium enim verum & real, veram & realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrisicii. Si autem sit: ergo verum erit dicere, à Sacerdotibus Christianis verè & realiter Christium occidi, at h●o Sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur. de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 27. pag. 873. A.  In the Sacrifice of the Mass either there is (says he) a true and real mactation and slaying of Jesus Christ, or there is not. If there be not, then (according to you) the Mass is no real Sacrifice: for when the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in being slain (as it is your opinion) a true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real slaying. But if there be, than we might truly say, that Christ is truly and really slain by Christian Priests; but this is rather a Sacrilege than a Sacrifice.  
From this manner of Arguing any one may see that it is neither the Cardinals, 
§. 100 The essence of a Sacrifice consills not in slaying the Victim.  nor the Church's opinion, that the Essence of a Sacrifice consists in Slaying of the Victim: But yet we acknowledge a True and Real Sacrifice in the Mass. And had he gone a little farther in this Author, he would have seen how all the Essential parts of a Sacrifice are contained in it.  
Our Defender in his Exposition tells us, there are Four things required to make a Sacrifice. 
Pag. 66. Four things reqired to a Sacrifice.  1. That what is offered be something that is Visible. 2. That of profane which it was before, it be now made Sacred. 3. That it be offered to God. And 4 , by that offering suffer an Essential destruction. And supposes the greatest part of these conditions, nay all of them, to be evidently wanting. Now Bellarmin in this same place tells him, that three of these Conditions are fund in the Consecration of the Eucharist, and the other is evidently included in them.  
First (says he) a Profane or common thing Bread, is by Consecration made the Body of Christ, the Visible Species of Bread remaining; neither does it follow from thence, that Bread is only Sacrificed, but that which remains, the change being made.  
2. That Sacred thing which remains under the Visible species, is offered to God, by being placed upon the Altar.  
Lastly, 
From hence it appears how falsely our defender in his Exposition, pag. 65. accused the Cardinal of saying that, Either Christ Sacrificed in Eating, or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it. Read his 7. Proposition in the same 27. Ch. of his 1. Book, Sacramenti consumptio ut fit a Sacerdote Sacrificante p●rs est essentialn, sed non tots Essentia And the 8th, Consecratio Eucharislia ad Essentiam Sacrificii pertinet. The words of Bellarmin which he cited are these, Christus isse out Consecrando & consumendo Sacrificavit, aus nullo modo Sacrificavit. But it was not to his purpose to put in consecrando.  By Consecration that which is offered is ordained to a True Real and external change and destruction, which was necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice: for by Consecration the Body of Christ receives the form of food; but food is ordained to be Eaten, and by that to a change and destructon: neither is that any objecton, that the Body of Christ suffers not, nor loses its natural being when we receive the Eucharist: for it loses its Sacramental being, and thereby ceases to be really upon the Altar, ceases to be a sensible food. The Cardinal being thus Vindicated, I say,  
Our Defender cannot deny, 
Malac. 1, 11. 3. 3. Esay, 66.21.  but that the Prophets in the Old Law foretold, and that in the time of Antichrist, the daily Sacrifice should be taken away: He cannot also deny but that the New Testament speaks of Altars and Priesis. 
Dan 11. 3● 12.11 hebr. 13. 10. compared with the 1 Cor. 10.  And that the Fathers of the Primitive Church usually called the Eucharist a Sacrifice, an Oblation, an unbloody Sacrifice, a Sacrifice which 
* Pervenit ad Sanctum magnumque Conc●tium quod in quibusdam locir & civitatibus, Presbyteris gratiam Sacrae communionis Diaconi porrigant; quod nec regula, nec consuetudo tradidit, ut ab his qui potessatem non habent offerendt, illi qui offerunt Christi corpus accipiant. Conc. Nic. Primum can. 18. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 344.  Deacons had not power to offer, but only Priests, and the like Expressions. Upon what ground then can he pretend that all these Expressions were Metaphorical, and endeavour to elude all these, by sticking firm to his Notion of a Sacrifice that there can be no true offering without suffering; And because, Christ does not suffer in the Mass, therefore he is not truly Offered? The Bishop of Meaux, one would have thought has fully removed that difficulty, telling him, that if we take the word Offer in the sense it is made use of in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as implying the Actual death of the Victim, we will publicly confess that Jesus 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 Scriptures, is not afraid to say that Jesus Christ Offers up himself to God wherever he appears before his Face upon our behalf, and that by consequence, he Offers up himself in the Eucharist, according to the Holy Father's expressions.  
We affirm then that in the Mass is Offered up to God a True proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice. A Sacrifice in remembrance of that on the Cross, and applying to us the benefits there purchased for us. A Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is both the Priest and the Victim. But yet no bloody Sacrifice. Here is no Death of the Victim, but in Mystery and representation. But however it is a True and proper Sacrifice, as Christ is truly and properly a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.  
I might here have taken notice how this Expositor brings in the Bishop of Meaux, 
§. 101. Expos. Ch. of Eng. pag. 67.  observing that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews concludes, that there ought not only not other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ, but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered: and makes his Advantage of it. Whereas, if he had added the next words, they would have solved the Difficulty. 
A Falsification.  For the Bishop's words are, that the Apostle concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ, but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us. But these last words were overseen by our Expositor, or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions, as make for Peace.  
I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests, whether they be truly Priests or no; whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar, truly and properly speaking or no; tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words. To all which he returns a profound silence.  
As for the Reflections upon what has been said, I leave the Reader to make them himself; and hope, if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul, he will seriously consider the premises, and hearty beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith, without which it is impossible to please him.   

ART. XXII. Communion under both Species.  
THe Vindicator tells me, 
§ 102. The Vindicators Arguments shown to be neither faise, unreasonable, nor frivolous.  that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church. The first false. The second both false and unreasonable. And the third nothing to the purpose. By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication; and very willing to cast the Liar upon me, if he could: But the false, the unreasonable, and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lie at the Accusers Door.  
My Argument was but one, and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent. He had told me from their 30th Article, 
Art 30.  That the Church of England declared, that the Cup ought not to be denied to the Lay-people; for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike. From hence I Argued, that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity, she was not consonant to herself, nor agreed with her 30th Article, which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species; and his express Commands are certainly indispensible. Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity, the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France, were equally in force against the Church of England, viz. that they must not deny, but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion; seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ.  
But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species, in case of Necessity, I proved from Edward the Sixths' Proclamation, before the Order of Communion. In which I said, he had ordained, That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administered unto all persons within this our Realm of England and Ireland, and other our Dominions under both kinds, that is to say, of Bread and Wine. except necessity otherwise require. This, he says, as thus alleged, is False, because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing, but only says, that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained— Therefore, He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it. Let it be so, if you please, that Edward the 6th did not by virtue of this Proclamation ordain it; yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubric to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament, that if necessity required it, they might give it in one kind. And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed, seeing it has now not only a Proclamation, but an Act of Parliament to back it.  
But he says, it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England, from what was allowed only, and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation. If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament, or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void, it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it. But if this Act be still in force, I see no reason why we may not justly conclude, that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species; which if she do, all her Arguments against Catholics (as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament, violated Christ's Ordinance, gave but a half Communion, and the like) have as much force against herself, as us. And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind, why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power? And if a natural Reason, such as is a loathing of Wine, may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup, to some particular persons; why may not a Supernatural Reason, such as is the detection, and by that means, the refutation of an Heresy, not to mention the avoiding of many indignities, etc. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians, especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament?  
As for the Note, I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked, and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds. However I might justly conclude, that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained; and this Body be now a living Body, (which it cannot be, unless the Flesh and Blood, the Soul and Divinity be united) They who receive one Particle, receive whole Christ, and with him his Gifts and Graces, that is, a full Sacrament.  
So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is (as you see) a plain mistake: I do not say he had no Reason for it; because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margin, over against a wrong place; but had he considered the sense, he might have saved that ungenteele Answer. The second Argument, as he calls it, is neither false in the bottom, nor unreasonable. And if the last be not so convincing an Argument, yet does it not want some force. And I will add to this Note another, which I desire the Defender to take notice of, that that Act of Parliament, tho' it ordained Communion under both kinds, unless in cases of necessity, yet was so moderate as not to condemn thereby the usage of any Church out of the King's Majesty's Dominions. Which moderation had he been endowed with, he would not have expressed such detestation of the Doctrine, nor passed so severe a Sentence against the Catholic Church for the Practice.    

PART III.  

ART. XXIII. Of the Written and Unwritten Word.  
THe Defender having so ingenuously confessed, 
§. 103. Expos. Doct. Ch. of England. pag. 75.76.  that the Unwritten Word or Tradition, as to that Gospel which our Blessed Saviour preached, was the first Rule of Christians; that this and the written Word are not two different Rules, but as to all necessary matters of Faith one and the same; and the unwritten Word was so far from losing its Authority, by the addition of the written, that it was indeed the more firmly established by it: And having acknowledged for himself, and his Church, that they are ready to embrace any Tradition though not contained in the written Word, provided that they can be assured it comes from the Apostles; or that it can be made appear to have been received by All Churches in All Ages; 
How to know Apostolic Tradition.  I thought it necessary to propose a certain means by which we might come to know what had been thus delivered; and that grounded upon the very nature of Tradition. But this the Defender now opposes and I shall endeavour to make clear. In order to which we are to consider,  
First, 
§. 104. I. The nature of Tradition in this case. Divine Truths surpass the reach of Human reason.  as to the thing itself; that we speak here of Divine Truths, which surpass the reach of human Reason, revealed to the Apostles; which Truths the Apostles were obliged to teach to the Faithful then living, without addition or diminution; and the Faithful then living, were also tied under the same Obligation, to deliver the same Divine Truths in like manner without addition, diminution or alteration to their Successors, and they to theirs in every Age.  
2ly. 
II. They were taught by the Apostles to all Countries.  These Truths were to be taught in all Countries and Kingdoms, by the Apostles and their Successors; and not only taught, but practised: So that what one Country or Nation learned from one Apostle, the same was another to learn from another, and a third from a third, a fourth from a fourth, etc.  
3ly. 
III. And they wre obliged to deliver them to their Posterity, without any Eslential alterations.  The obligation of delivering these Truths without addition, diminution, or alteration, was and is the strictest that can possibly be imagined; viz. the forfeiture of eternal Happiness; and the incurring of eternal Torments. So that whoever should undertake to teach his own Invention for a revealed Truth, or to deny a known revealed Truth, because it was not agreeable to his Fancy, or Interest, and taught others to do the same, could not but know that he did not perform his Obligation, and therefore justly incurred that penalty.  
4ly. 
iv There must be Heresies.  But if such Men did arise (as there must be Heresies,) who would not rely upon what had been taught them; but, proud and conceited of their own abilities, would form to themselves new Notions of things, and rely upon their own Wit or Judgement, even to contradict those delivered Truths, 
A connivance at them is damnable.  or interpose others not delivered: A silent Connivance in Pastors and Teachers in that case, suffering their Flock to be seduced, would be a Crime not much inferïor to that of the Seducers, and would deserve no less a punishment.  
5ly. 
V This Age must necessarily know what was taught in the last.  It is absolutely impossible that any thing can be taught in this Age contrary to what had been delivered in the immediate foregoing Age, but that this Age must necessarily know it to be an Innovation: And therefore it is absolutely impossible to make a whole Age believe, they had not been taught a Doctrine as a delivered Truth, when their Fathers of the immediately preceding Age had actually taught them, that it was delivered.  
6ly. It being thus manifest, 
VI Error cannot spread itself insensibly.  that it would be absolutely impossible for an Error against a delivered Truth, to spread itself over the Face of the World without being perceived by them, to whom that Truth had been delivered; so is it absolutely inconsistent with the nature of Man, to think that such an universal Deluge of wickedness and delusion should happen, that all Pastors and People of whole Christendom should in any one Age combine together to deceive the next Age, and either deliver to them an Error as a delivered Truth, or make a delivered Truth pass for an Error, when they could not but know that the doing of it must necessarily be a Sin, which, unrepented of, would bring Damnation; and that no Repentance could be without making a just satisfaction.  
7ly. 
VII.  From hence I conclude that if in any one Age we find all Christians agreeing that such a particular Doctrine or practice was delivered to them, as coming from the Apostls, it must necessarily follow, that the Age next preceding that, 
All persons would never combine to damn their own Souls, by renouncing what they had been taught.  did also believe it to be a Truth so delivered; because no reason can be given, nor cause assigned why the Pastors and People of so many different Countries and Interests, otherwise solicitous for their Salvation, should all combine together to damn their own and their Posterities Souls, and deliver that as a Tradition to their Successors which they had not received from their Predecessors.  
8ly. From hence I also conclude, 
VIII. The present Church in every age is the best judge of what is universal Tradition.  that the present Church in every Age is the best Judge of what is universal Tradition, and what not; and that the way to know her Judgement, is to regard the uniform voice of her Pastors and People, either declared to us by the most universal Councils that Age can afford; or by her universal practice.  
9ly. Moreover, 
IX. This Church is secured from error by God's Promise.  besides this moral Impossibility that the whole Church in any one Age should conspire to teach a Doctrine, as traditionary, which they had not been taught by Tradition; we have further the Promise of Almighty God, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church, that he will send the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who shall remain with her Pastors and Teachers to the end of the World, and teach them all Truth; that these Pastors and Teachers shall be our Guides, lest we should be led away with every Wind of Doctrine, and several other the like Promises. So that,  
10th. 
X.  And Lastly, I say, Tho' it were possible, according to Nature, that all Mankind should at once be so forgetful of their Happiness, as to combine to damn themselves and their Posterity by teaching what they had not been taught; yet has God's Promise of being always with his Church, secured her from falling into such a damnable State; and therefore we may securely rely upon her Testimony; and particular persons or Churches are obliged to submit to her Sentence, and not to contradict those Doctrines upon a suppolal (as our Expositor does) That they are so far from being the Doctrine of the Apostles, 
Expos. Decked Ch. of Engl. pag. 76.  or of all Churches, and in all Ages, that they are periwaded they are many of them directly contrary to the written Word.  
Having thus explicated the progress of Truth, 
§. 105.  and shown what natural means God has established to secure us in the knowledge of it, and how impossible it is for the whole Church in any Age to deviate from it: 
The nature of Error with the rise and progress of it.  it will not be amiss in few words to show also the rise and progress of Error, and by what Arts it is usually propagated, which-will be the ready way to detect it. And in order to this we may reflect.  
1. 
I. All Error against Faith is of a later date then Faith.  That an Error in Faith is Twofold, either affirmative or negative. A negative is a denial of a Truth, which had been revealed, and propagated over the whole World; An affirmative is an Affirmation of a falsehood for a revealed Truth, when it had not been so revealed nor propagated; from whence it necessarily follows, That all Error against Faith is of a later date than Faith itself, and being such can never, tho' it pretend to it, show an uninterrupted Tradition from those to whom revealed Truths had been first committed.  
2. 
II.  Truth is so amiable in itself, that if Error did not endeavour to  itself in its Dress, no persons would embrace it, but it is impossible for Error so to counterfeit Truth but that there must be some Essential difference, 
Error cannot imitate Truth in all things.  some characteristical note, by which the one may be fully distinguished from the other.  
3. These Errors being as I said either the forsaking of a known Truth delivered to that Age by the foregoing, or an introducing of a Novelty which had not been Delivered. It manifestly follows that amongst all the pretences which Error can make for itself it can never at its first rise challenge to have been delivered by the immediate foregoing Age, 
Error at its first rise can never pretend an uninterrupted Tradition.  but must take a leap to some forgotten time, and pretend the immediate foregoing age to have been deceived, and either through negligence to have forgotten what had been taught to their Predecessors, or for want of Vigilance to have suffered Errors to creep into her by degrees, till they spread over the face of the whole World.  
The letter of Scripture suffering various Interpretations, 
iv An uniterrupted Tradition is the distinguishing note betwixt Truth and Error.  it is plain that Error may pretend to Scripture; the ancient Fathers being likewise dead, and not able to vindicate themselves, their writings may be wrested, and Error may make use of them to back itself; Reason too being biased by Interest, Education, Passion, Society, etc. may be led away, and form specious Arguments for what is false. Fancy also may be led astray, and as experience tells us, may pretend new lights, which, like the ignis fatuus, leads men into error; Tradition only rests secure, and Error can never plead for that without pretending some interruption. Thus tho' the Arians Pretended Scripture, the writings of the Fathers of the first Age, Reason, and it may be a fancied Light within them, yet could they not pretend to an uninterrupted Tradition, because that Age in which they first begun to teach, withstood them, and they themselves accused that and the foregoing Age of Error.  
It is then the distinguishing note of Error, 
V Error always accuses the Church in the preceding age.  to cry out against Tradition or the Unwritten word, and her plea is always as I said either the Foregetfulness of the preceding Ages, or their want of Vigilance; and thereupon she dares never stand to the Judgement of that present Age in which she Gins to appear, but appeals (forsooth) to the purer times next the Apostles, to the fountain head, to the written Word, to some dark expressions of the Fathers of the first Ages, or the like, 
VI But the Constitution of the Church, the Nature of the Doctrines of Christ, and her Ceremonies condemn this Plea.  as thinking herself secure, because she can give some plausible reasons for her Tenets.  
But if we examine her plea we shall find it groundless: For if we consider the constitution of the Church of Christ, and the nature of the Doctrine which she teaches, we must necessarily Conclude that it is impossible for her either to be so Negligent, as to forget the Essential Truths delivered to her; or so Careless, as to suffer destructive Errors to spread themselves insensibly.  
The Constitution of the Church is such, 
VII.  that there are Vigilant Pastors and Teachers set over the whole flock by Almighty God, who are obliged to watch over their people, let they should be led away into Error, and have had the promise of the same Omnipotent God, that he will be with them to the end of the World, teaching them All Truth, and by consequence securing them from Destructive Errors, So. that tho' it were possible by the course of Natural causes that all the Pastors and Teachers in the World, should in some one Age or other forget to teach a delivered Truth; or be so negligent as to suffer an Error to creep in by degrees, and spread itself from Country to Country, or from Age to Age, till some more vigilant persons should arise to re-establish Truth or detect falsehood; Yet if we consider the promises of Almighty God, and the Vigilance he has over his Church, we may securely rely upon him, that he will never suffer his Church to be thus prevailed against, nor such an Universal Negligence or Lethargy to predominate in her.  
Moreover, even her Speculative Doctrines are so mixed with Practical Ceremonies, which represent them to the Vulgar, and instruct even the meanest capacities, in the obstrusest Doctrines, that it seems even impossible for any to make an alteration in her Doctrine without abrogating her Ceremonies, or changing her constant practices. And it must needs appear to any considering man, even abstracting from the aforesaid promises of Almighty God, that it is impossible that any Age should forget to practise what the preceding Age had taught them; or cast off universally her received Ceremonies, and neither Pastors nor people speak against such Innovations.  
These things considered I think I had just reason to say, that the present Church in every Age was to be judge of the universality or not universality of Tradition; and that if she declared herself, either by the most general Council that Age, all things considered, could afford; or by the Constant Practice and Uniform voice of her Pastors and People, every private Church or person ought to submit to her decisions.  
But this Doctrine will not down with our Defender, 
§. 106. defence pag. 77.80. The Defenders Arguments against this judge of Tradition answered.  who has so great a deference for a Church that he is not afraid to say, that any private or individual person may examine and oppose the decisions of the whole Church, if he be but evidently convinced that his priate belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word. And he has two reasons he says, why he cannot assent to this method of judging which is universal Tradition.  
1. Because it is a matter of fact whether such Doctrines were delivered or no, 
1. Objection.  and this matter of fact recorded by those who lived in or near that first Age of the Church: if then the Records of those first Ages contradict the sentence of the Church, any man who is able to search into them, may more securely rely upon them than upon the Decrees of a Council of a later Age or the voice and practice of its Pastors and People. And this he says is the case in many things betwixt them and us.  
Answer. But Good Sir, weigh a little the force of your Argument, and see whether it be not built upon a mere supposition, that the Church has erred or may err in the delivery of her Doctrines; even against the plain words of Scripture, or positive Testimony of the Fathers. But such an absurdity being supposed, what wonder if many others follow after.  
Again, tell me, are those Records you speak of plain to any one that is able to search into them? If so, I hope the Church is as clear sighted and able to search into them, as any individual Church or person; Or are they obscure? And then I suppose you will allow the universal Church's constant practice in that Age, or her declarations in her Councils to be at least a better Interpreter, than such Private persons or Assemblies; And if the Catholic Church examining those passages in the ancient Fathers tells me they are so far from contradicting her Practices or Doctrines, that if rightly understood they speak the same thing with her, I think there lies a greater obligation on me to submit my Judgement to that of the Universal Church, than obstianately to follow my own sense, or that of a particular Church dissenting from the whole. And that this is the case betwixt Catholics and Protestants the Defender knows, and the Reader may gather from this Treatise.  
But the Defender has yet a more cogent reason against this method, 
§. 107.2. Objection.  which is that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures, and give this Unwritten word the upper hand of the Written.  
Answer. Had he said, that this method would be apt to set up the Decrees of Councils, and the judgement of the Church before the Private spirit or judgement of Particulars, I should readily have granted what he said. 
Tradition and Scripture are not Competitors.  But I see no competition in our case betwixt Scripture and Tradition, but that they both strengthen each others Testimony, unless he will have the Text and the most authentic Comment to be competitors.  
Now the Defender looks upon it as a high affront to Scripture, that the Church's decrees or practices should obtain and be in force with all its members, when many of them may be persuaded that they cannot find what she decrees in, nay, that it is contrary to the word of God. And declares for himself and all his Party, That they cannot allow that any particular Church or Person, should be obliged upon those grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine, which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in, nay, to be contrary to the Written word of God. For in this case he thinks it reasonable, that the Church's sentence should be made void, and the voice of her pretended Traditions silenced, by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God.  
But had he expressed himself clearly and according to the point in question, he should have said, that the sentence of the Church was in such cases to be made void, and every man's private interpretation of Scripture (if he be evidently convinced that it is according to the word of God) preferred before the Decrees of General Councils, or the uniterrupted Practice and Preaching of her Pastors. But of this Argument more in the next Article.   

ART. XXIV, XXV. Of the Authority of the Church.  
THe Authority of the Church is a point of so great Importance, 
§. 108.  that being once established, all other Doctrines will Necessarily follow.  
The Concessions which our Defender had made in his Exposition, were indeed such as might very well have given us hopes he would have submitted to the natural consequence of them: but we might well be surprised to see them so suddenly dashed, by such wild Exceptions as do not only destroy all Church Authority, but open a way to as many different Opinions in Religion, as there are persons inclined to make various interpretations of Scripture, and headstrong enough to prefer their Own sense, before that of Others.  
What I pray avails his Concessions, 
The Desenders Concessions.  that the Catholic Church is ostablished by God, the Guardian of Holy Scriptures and Tradition: That she has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline, 
Expos pag. 76. pag. 78.  but even of Faith too: That it is upon her Authority they receive and reverence several Books as Canonical, 
Pag. 76.  and reject others as Apocryphal, even before, by their own reading of them, they perceive the Spirit of God in them. And, 
Pag. 77.  that if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of Scriptures as for the receiving of them, they should have been as ready to accept of that too: [surely he does not mean such a Tradition as no one ever called in question; for there is scarce a Book of Scripture but some Heretic or other has questioned whether it were Canonical or no] What (I say) do such Concessions as, these avail us, when he allows every Cobbler or Tinker, nay, every silly Woman (for he excepts no body) the liberty, not only to examine the Church's Decisions, but to prefer their Own sense of Scripture before that of the Whole Church?  
This position is so Extravagant that I think I need only give it in his own words, 
§. 109.  to make him and all that party who he tells us have approved his Book, 
HIs Exceptions examined.  either ashamed of this Doctrine and recall it, or else declare they admit to Authority in the Church: and this I shall do as I examine his Exceptions in their order. 
First Exception, That the Church of Rome is only a particular Church Answered. The Roman Catholic Church includes all particular Churches united in Communion with her.   
His first Exception is, that the Church of room is only a particular Church, and therefore cannot be properly called the Catholic Church.  
To this I answered, that we did not intent by the Roman Catholic Church, the particular Diocese of Rome; but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. And that this alone was the Catholic Church I proved fully by the marks assigned by the Nicene Creed, viz. of Unity, and by consequence of freedom from Schisms and Divisions; of Sanctity, and by consequence of being free from Heresies, Idolatries, Superstitions and other Essential Errors: of Universality also with that Unity and Sanctity; and of being Apostolic, that is, grounded upon the Doctrines and Faith of the Apostles, and deriving a continual Succession from them. I proved, I say, the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, Alone to be the Catholic Church which we believe in our Creed, because no other Assembly of Christians can pretend to these marks but she.  
But our Defender found this reason too solid to be eluded by his quirks, and therefore said nothing to it; but justifies his exception by an Argument which I wonder any man of reason would offer to produce.  
Now if this [that we take all Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, 
defence pag. 78.  for the Roman Catholic Church] in truth, (says he) be that which they mean, when they style the Church of Rome the Catholic Church, then surely every other National Church, which is of that Communion has as good a title to the name of Catholic, as that of Rome itself.  
What sense I pray is there in this Proposition thus worded? If he mean (as he must to make an Argument) that every particular National Church in Communion with the Church of Rome, has as good a title to the Name of the Catholic Church, as all those particular National Churches joined together have; he will have much a do to persuade any Rational man to believe him, who can but understand that a part is not the whole  
But if he mean that every particular National Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, has as good a title to the name of Catholic, as the particular Diocese or National Church of Rome itself; (that is, as he explicates himself presently after, has the same Purity and Orthodoxness of Faith.) Suppose we grant him it (always allowing that difference betwixt the See of St. Peter, and other Bishoprics, as there is betwixt the head and the other members of the same Body) what consequence will he draw from thence against us, who allow all other Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome to be truly members of the Catholic Church, and the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor? Oh, says, he This renders every distinct Church professing this Faith equally Catholic with the rest, and reduces the Church of Rome, as well as others within its own Suburbican Diocese, and so makes it only a particular, not The Universal Church. And what then, I pray? Who ever said that the particular Diocese of Rome is the Universal Church? We say indeed that the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pastor of the whole Church of Christ, which we therefore call the Roman Catholic Church; but this does not make the Suburbican Diocese to be this Catholic Church; For, as the Empire when it was in former times diffused through most parts of Europe, part of Asia and part of Africa, was called the Roman Empire, from the Imperial City Rome: so is the Catholic Church spread over the face of the whole world called the Roman Catholic Church, because every particular Member is joined in Communion with the one Supreme Pastor whose See is at Rome. And this Universal Church we say can neither fall into Error, nor prevaricate the Faith in any necessary Points of it, whatsoever a particular Church may do.  
Hence it appears that his second and third Exceptions are nothing to the purpose, 
§. 110. 2d and 3d Exceptions null.  as being grounded upon his notion of the Roman Catholic Church, taken for the particular Diocese of Rome.  
But now (says he) should we allow the Church of Rome as great an Extent as the Vindicator speaks of, etc. 
Ibid.  yet all this would not make her the Whole or Catholic Church; unless it could be proved that there was no other Christian Church in the world, besides those in Communion with her; and that all Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the same Faith, 
The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her.  and continued just in the Same Worship as she hath done. And this he conceives cannot easily be made out with reference to the Grecian, Armenian, Abassine Churches; all which (he says) have plainly for several ages differed from the Church of Rome, and those in her Communion, in points relating both to Faith and Worship.  
This is the great Argument of Protestants, who would willingly (as I took notice in my Vindication) have the Catholic Church to be composed of All those who profess the Faith of Christ, spread over the face of the Whole World; 
Pag. 104. All those who profess the Faith of Christ are not members of the Catholic Church.  whether they be Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, Socinians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Church of England Men, Roman Catholics or others, All which they acknowledge to be Members of the Catholic Christian Church, tho' some of them may be Rotten, putrid Members; they may be true tho' corrupt. Churches, as a man may be truly a man, and yet be very dangerously ill. 
Plain man's reply pag. 14.  Thus they provide for Universality in the Church, but leave its Sanctity and Unity to shift for themselves; unless what a late Author has produced, will pass for a Vindication of their Unity, 
Vindic. of the Ch. of England from Schism and Herisy. Part. 1. Sect. x.  who acknowledges that there may be a Schism from a particular Church, but that A Separation from the Catholic Church, taken in the most comprehensive sense, is not Schism but Apostasy: So that if what he says have any sense, he must mean, that All the different Sects of Christians in the world make up but one Church, all which Sects ought to be at such an Union with one another (as long as each one keeps within their respective Countries, where their Religion is established by Law) that no one ought to treat another as a Schismatic, seeing there cannot be, properly speaking, any Schism from the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but only Apostasy which is a Total Defection from Christiantiy: But that, if these or any of them should meet in a National Church, the Religion established by Law may justly Excommunicate and cut them all off as Schismatics; seeing there may be a Schism from a particular Church.  
How Extravagant such a Doctrine as this is, I leave to the Judicious Reader to consider; And return to the Defenders Argument.  
He tells us, 
§. 111.  that the Church of Rome cannot pass for Catholic, unless we can prove; either first, there was no other Christian Church in the world be sides those in Communion with her; or secondly, that all other Christian Churches have in all ages professed just the Same Faith, and continued just the Same Worship as she hath done.  
I wish he had explicated himself a little clearer, and not kept himself in such Universals as is that of a Christian Church: For by a Christian Church may be understood any Assembly of Christians, 
By the Catholic Church we mean All Orthodox Christian Churches united.  tho' professing known and condemned Heresies; as well as an Orthodox Church, maintaing the Purity of Faith and Worship. If therefore to prove a Church to be truly Catholic, he think us obliged to prove there was never any other Assembly, but those in Communion with that Church that ever professed the name of Christ, or were called Christians, or that ever held a different Faith or way of Worship from what she held; he must either expect we should say there never was any Heresy amongst those who professed to believe in Christ; nor any Error in their Worship, but that all Christian Churches held together in Necessaries to Saulation; which is manifestly false; or else that Heresy and Schism do not hinder persons from being Members of the Catholic, Church; But this we cannot do, unless we will open a Gate, for all even lawfully condemned Heresies to enter into the Catholic Church (for I suppose he will not deny but some have been justly cut off by Her) And tell the world plainly, that the Arians or any other Heresy, may as well claim a title to the Catholic Church as any other body of Christians, tho' Orthodox in their belief. And if this be his meaning, it follows, that no person or Church whatever can be lawfully cut off from the Catholic Church, so long as they turn not Apostats, and deny their Christianity. All which is absurd in an eminent degree.  
But if he mean only this, that to prove a Church to be truly Catholic, we must show there never was any Orthodox Church in the world but what was a Member of that Church; and that all Orthodox Churches in all Ages professed just the same Faith, and continued just the Same Essential Worship that she did: we will join Issue with him, and doubt not but to be able to satisfy any  judgement, that the Roman Catholic Church can Alone challenge this Prerogative; 
All Orthodox Churches in the World communicated with the Church of Rome.  and we dare affirm there never was any Orthodox Christian Church in the world but what communicated with the Bishop of Rome; And that all other Churches in the world, that were Orthodox, professed just the same Faith (as to all the Essential Points of it) and practised the very same Essential Worship which show now does.  
That this later acceptation of the Catholic Church is what ought to be embraced, will appear to any man who considers, that when we speak of the Catholic Church, we speak of that Church, which has all the other marks of the True Church of Christ, joined with that Universality; viz. Unity, without Schisms and Divisions; Sanctity, without Errors, Heresies or damnable Doctrines; and an Uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles. They therefore who have been justly cut off from being members of the Church of Christ, or have unlawfully Separated themselves from her Communion, cannot justly pretend to be Member of the true Catholi Church; no more than they who have been Lawfully Condemned for teaching Erroneous Doctrines in matters of Faith or Manners; or those who like Corah and his companions, set up an Altar against an Altar, and challenge to themselves a Function, like that of Aaron's, without being lawfully called thereto.  
To prove therefore this Truth, 
§. 112. That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, is the the true Catholic Church proved.  that that Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, is this true Catholic Church, I must desire my Reader to consider,  
1. That when Jesus Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel, he told them, that they who did not believe, should be condemned, but they who did believe and were baptised, should be saved.  
2. That these Believers were called Christians, that is, Members of the Church or Kingdom of Christ; which Church or Kingdom was to be spread over the face of the whole world, to continue till the end of the same, to preserve the Doctrines delivered to her, to be one and therefore free from Schisms, Holy and therefore secured from Heresy and damnable Doctrines; All which we express in our Creed; I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  
But seeing the Scripture tells us there must be Heresies and Divisions, which as they are destructive of Unity and Sanctity, the marks of his true Church; so are they also impediments to Salvation, and therefore must be avoided; and seeing this Church must be free from them, she must have a power given her from Christ to separate those who are Heretics or Schismatics, from the Orthodox Christians, and cut them off from being Members of her Communion.  
3. That this Orthodox Church having once lawfully cut off such or such Heretical or Schismatical persons or Assemblies, they could not pretend to be Members of her Communion so long as they maintained those Errors, or refused to pay a due Obedience: and therefore if, during their Separation, other Heresies or Schisms should bud out, the Orthodox Church was not obliged to call in the assistance of those formerly condemned Assemblies to help her to cut off or condemn the second; nor those first and second Assemblies to help her to condemn a third, a fourth, or a fifth. But, as she Alone had Authority to cut off the first Heretics or Schismatics, so had she also Alone the same Authority to cut off the second and third, and in a word, all other succeeding Assemblies, who either thus opposed the Truths, delivered to her, or refused to pay her a due obedience.  
4. These things thus considered, it necessarily follows, that in after Ages that Church alone can challenge the Title of being truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic (which in one word we call Catholic or the true Orthodox Church of Christ) which has from Age to Age cut off Arising Errors, 
That Church alone can be called truly the Catholic Church, which has in all ages condemned arising Errors and was never condemned herself.  condemned proud Schismatics, and Excommunicated obstinate Heretics and Heretical and Schismatical Assemblies, and was not herself condemned or cut off by any sentence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: And tho' perhaps the number of those particular Heretical or Schismatical Assemblies (one condemned in one Age and another in another, some few of all which might perhaps survive even till our time) might be considerable if taken altogether, tho' inconsiderable in themselves; yet being every one of them lawfully cut off by that Orthodox Church, they can never stand in competition with her, nor challenge a place in her Councils; neither is she obliged to call in their help to Condemn any other New Heresy arising after them: And if that New Heresy should pretend she was obliged, such pretensions would be unreasonable.  
This is the case with the Roman Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches now extant in the world. 
§. 113.   
The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome having condemned the Arians in the first General Council of Nice, 
the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome was never condemned by any General Council.  needed not to call them in to help her to condemn Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches in the three following Councils. The same Catholic Church that thus condemned Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, in the four first General Councils, condemned the followers of Origen in the 5th, the Monothelites in the 6th, the Iconoclasts in the 7th; And the Schismatic Photius and his adherents in the 8th. And as this Catholic Church needed not the assistance of those Heretics who were condemned in the first four General Councils, to help her to condemn those that were extant when she called the 5th, so did she not need the aid of them or of those that were condemned by the 5th or 6th to help her to condemn the Iconoclasts or Photius in the 7th or 8th.  
And thus we can show in following ages as Errors did arise, still new Councils Called, as the first, second, third, 
See Binins Tom. 7. part. 2. pag. 806. F.  and fourth of Lateran, in which last the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was defined against Berengarius and his followers the Albigenses by 400. Bishops and 800. Fathers. After these the first and second of Lions, the later of which condemned the Errors which the Eastern Churches had fallen into by the delusion of Photius the condemned Schismatic, 
Ibi compartunt Paleologus Impa Constaniinopoli●●nas cuns magno comits u, qui tertia decima vice in sententiam Romane Ecclesiae Graecos suos toties deficientes Conetilio necessario pertraxit. Bin. Tom 7. ●onc. pag. 891. c.  and in which, as Binius notes from Trithemius, the Grecians returned the thirteenth time to the Roman Catholic Faith. Then followed that of Vienna in France against the Beguardes and the Beguines; After which the Council of Florence, Anno 1438. In which the Greeks and the Latins consented to these Points, The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the belief of a Purgatory, and the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, tho' through the negligence of the Emperor John Palaeologus, occasioned by his too much solicitude for worldly concerns, and the calumnies of Mark the Metropolitan of Ephesus, this Council had not its wished effect. After this the 5th Council of Lateran, Anno 1512. for the reestablishing the Unity of the Church and the condemnation of the Schism begun by the unlawful assembly at Pisa. And lastly, the Council of Trent, Anno 1545. Against Luther, Calvin, and all the Modern Heresies.  
This (to be silent concerning the vast number of Provincial Councils) we can show eighteeen Ecumenical Councils, 
All the General Councils that condemned Errors, Communicated with the Church of Rome.  Generally received as such, by all but those whose Errors were either condemned in them or some foregoing Councils: The Members of all which Councils were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, and none dissented from that Communion but such as had been thus condemned; neither can Protestants ever show that even the particular Church of Rome, or any other in Communion with her were ever thus cut off by any General Council, or the Doctrines that she holds condemned: It is only she therefore and those Churches in Communion with her (all which we call the Roman Catholic Church) that can challenge the title of Orthodox, that is, of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.  
This Truth being thus established, and it having been plainly showed what we mean by the Roman Catholic Church, I pass over his second and third Exception because (as I have already said) they are built upon a False notion of the Roman Catholic Church taken only for the Diocese of Rome, or a particular Church, and come to his  
4th. 
§. 114. the Defenders fourth Exception.  Exception, which is, as I said, more intolerable than the rest, and which, since he goes about to justify it as a Doctrine of his Church (for he has promised to give us no other) he would have done well to have showed us some Canon, Article or Constitution for it; without which, others of his Brethren will, I fear come off with this Excuse, that he is a young man and does not well know the Tenets of his Church.  
He tells us, that it is left to every Individual person, not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church, but to Glory in Opposing them, if he be but evidently convinced that his Own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word.  
This, I told him, was a Doctrine, that if admitted, 
Maintains all Dissenters.  would maintain all Dissenters, that are or can be from a Church and establish as many Religions as there are persons in the world, 
defence pag. 80.  which consequences he confessEs to be ill, but such as he thinks do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in his Exposition. But what if they follow indirectly, or by an evident, tho' secondary deduction, would not that suffice to discountenance such a Doctrine as opens a gap to such licentiousness in Belief, when Faith is but One, and without which it is impossible to please God?  
But let us see how he maintains it does not directly follow from what he has laid down in his Exposition.  
First, he tells us, that he allows of this Dissent or Opposition (from the whole Church) only in Necessary Articles of Faith, where he supposes it to be every man's concern and Duty, both to judge for himself, and to make as sound and sincere a judgement as he is able. And secondly, He tells us, that as he takes the Holy Scriptures for the Rule, according to which this Judgement is to the made; so be supposes these Scriptures to be so clearly written, as to what concerns those necessary Articles, that it can hardly happen that any one man, any serious and impartial enquirer, should he found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion.  
From these two wild Suppositions, without any proof of them, as if they were first Principles which needed none, he draws this Admirable Conclusion, worth the consideration of every Member of the Church of England, and for which the Dissenters will no doubt return him thanks.  
If (says he) in Matters of Faith a man be to judge for himself; and the Scriptures be a clear and sufficient rule for him to judge by; it will plainly follow, that if a man be evidently convinced, upon the best enquiry he can make, that his particular Belief, [in necessary point of Faith] is founded upon the Word of God, and that of the [universal] Church is not, he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church— because he must follow the Superior, not the Inferior guide.  
Now from hence any Rational Man will certainly conclude, that at least all Dissenters in necessary points of Faith (of which I see not but that they themselves must be judges) may make use of this Principle to maintain their Dissent; And as long as they ground themselves upon the Scriptures interpreted by themselves, and have but confidence enough to think they have examined them sufficiently; what ever Church pretends to punish or compel them, does an unjust action; because they are obliged to follow the Superior not the inferior guide. Neither is this method (as the Defender acknowledges it is) liable only to some Abuse, 
Ibid. pag. 81.  through the Ignorance or Malice of some men: But the Universal Church (and much more every particular) is put into an incapacity of reducing either the Ignorant or the Malicious to their duty, if they have but Pride enough to be positive in, as well as conceited of their own Opinions.  
But however this Method, tho' thus liable to some abuses, is certainly in the main most just and reasonable, and agreeable to the constitutions of the Church of England, which does not take upon her to be Mistress of the Faith of her Members, 
See. ●rt. 20.  but alloows a higher place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture than to that of her own Decisions, Thus Herald  
I know not what thanks the genuine Sons of the Church of England will return him for thus destroying the Authority of their Mother; 
§. 115.  but I am sure the Dissenters will thank him for this liberty, if he will but give them any assurance that it shall be maintained to them with all its consequences; and such large concessions as these may Unite them all, tho' the Anathemas of their Synods and all the Penal Laws and Tests have proved ineffectual.  
It is not my business to go about to teach the Defender the Doctrine of his own Church; 
Bishop Sparrows judgement of the Authority of a Church.  but had he read the Preface to the collection of Articles, Canons, etc. by Bishop Sparrow, he would have found a Doctrine diametrically opposite to this of his, and that one of them misunjhderstood that 20th. Article: For the Bishop declares that without a Definitive and Authoritative sentence, controversies will be endless, and the Church's peace unavoidably disturbed, and therefore the Voice of God and right Reason hath taught, that in matters of Controversy the Definitive sentence of Superiors should decide the Doubt; and whosoever should decline from that sentence, and do presumptuously, should be put to death, that others might hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously, Deut. 17. which is to be understood mystically also of death spiritual by Excommunication, by being cut off from the living body of Christ's Church, Nay he there proves there is a double Authority in the Church the one of Jurisdiction, to correct and reform those impure members by spiritual censures, whom Counsel will not win, and if they be incorrigible, to cast them out of this Holy Society; and the other a Legislative power to make Canons and Constitutions upon emergent occasions, to decide and compose controversies, etc. and this he shows by Reason (as he says) and Gods own Rule, by matter of fact, by that very 20th. Article of the Church of England, which declares, that the Church has power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith, and the practice of the Primitive Church, in her General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; whereas all these have no force with our Defender; For he, it may be, is evidently convinced that those Texts of Scripture, As my Father sent me, so send I you, John 20. All power is given to me, go therefore and teach all Nations, Matth. 28. Obey them that have oversight over you, and watch for your Souls, Heb. 13, etc. were misapplyed by Bishop Sparrow, or the Church of England in his days; Nay moreover, if he be but evidently convinced that the Holy Scriptures [where or how I cannot conceive] have taught the contrary, and that the whole Church has erred in challenging this Authority, both in the Primitive and later times, he will think himself (if he be constant to his Principle) obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the whole Church, because he must follow the Superior not the inferior guide. That is in plain English, if his Fancy tell him the Church has erred, he must believe his Fancy rather than the Church, he must follow the Superior, not inferior Guide.  
Let us now examine a little his two Postulatas upon which he grounds this Doctrine. 
§. 116.   
His first is, That he allows of this dissent or opposition (from the whole Church) only in Necessary Articles of Faith. 
The Defenders first Postulatum, answered.   
Now I thought the Protestants of the Church of England had at least, held the whole Church to be unerrable in Fundamentals, or necessary Articles of Faith: Our Defender knows very well that the most eminent of his Church have held so, and if he have forgot it, I will at another time refresh his memory. If he answer it was only their private opinion, but not the Doctrine of their Church; I desire him to show his assertion, that the whole Church may err in necessary Articles of Faith, and every private person is bound to descent from her, etc. to be the Doctrine of their Church. Their 19th Article says indeed, that particular Churches have erred; But affirms, the Visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is Preached; and the Sacraments be duly minisired according to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the sane. Now one would think that that Congregation of Faithful who Preach the pure Word of God, an administer the Sacraments duly according to Christ's Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requiste to the same; should be freed from error in those Necessaries. But this is the new Protestancy, our Defender endeavours to expound; and it is a hard case that we must beforced to teach those who pretend to expound the Doctrine of their Churcy, what it she holds. Let him therefore I say show this to be the Doctrine of his Church before he build other Doctrines upon it.  
And when he has done that, there will remain some other Obstacles to be removed, before his Supposal will be admitted by us. One of which is how he proves it obligatory for every individual person to descent from the Church or oppose her Doctrines, in those necessary Articles of Faith, upon their being evidently convinced in their judgements that they have hit upon the right sense of Scripture and the Church has not; and yet will not allow them the same Liberty, upon the same Evidence, in matters which are not so necessary. One would think that if they be obliged to submit to the Church in non-necessaries; they should be so much the more in necessaries. Unless he will have the Church to be an unerring guide in non-necessaries, and man's particularl judgement of the sense of Scripture Errable; and on the contrary man's particular judgement of the sense of Scripture infallible in Necessaries, and the Church's judgement fallible.  
No, But his reason is because it is every man's concern and duty both to Judge for himself, and to make as sound and sincere a Judgement as he is able when the Dispute is about necessaries; whereas he is not so bliged about non-necessaries.  
I deny not but that it is every man's concern and duty to make the best Judgement he can about necessaries to his Salvation; when a less care is required in non-necessaries. But is it not the Church's concern and interest to do the same? and when she has done that, will right reason teach every particular man to prefer his sense before hers in either of them? No certainly, but on the contrary will dictate to him that the best and securest means he can take not to be deceived in his Judgement is to rely upon the Church's sentence; because God has given a Promise to secure his Church from Error; whereas there is no Promise to Individuals that they shall not be Deceived, in searching the sense of Scripture. If the Defender, can show such a Promise he will instead of destroying the Pope's Infalliblity, set up as many infallible Popes as persons. For to be Infallible in this case is no more than seriously and impartially to follow an Infallible rule, which is so clear in itself, that every serious and Impartial Enquirer shall certainly understand the right sense of it. Every individual person therefore (according to our Defenders supposition) who is fully convinced that he has made use of the best endeavours he can (his Employments, Capacity, Learning, etc. considered) to come to the right sense of Scripture, which Scripture is in itself Infallible, may assure himself that he has Infallibly hit upon the true sense of Scripture; from whence it would necessarily follow (truth being but one) that we should have no Errors in the world but amongst those who are neither serious nor impartial in their enquiry: For the fault must either, first, be in that they do not use their best endeavours; or secondly, that their Rule they go by is faulty; or thirdly, that they take that for a Rule which is not rruly so, and guiding themselves by a Rule which was not given them to be their Guide to wonder if they go astray.  
His second Postulatum is, that the Holy Scripture is the Rule; 
§. 117. His second Postulatuns answered. Ibid. pag. 80.  and that those Scriptures are so clearly written, that as to what concerns those necessary Articles, it can hardly happen that any one man, any serious and impartial enquirer, should be found opposite to the whole Church in his opinion.  
It seems the Defender would gladly be nibbling at Doctor Stillingfleets principle, 
Princip. 15.  That the Scripture contains the whole Will of God so plainly revealed, that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation. But seeing how unable the Doctor was to defend it, 
See Error nonplussed.  he gives some limits to it, as afraid to speak out what he would willingly have believed: And therefore does not positively say, That the Scripture is so clear and sufficient a Rule in necessaries, that every sober Enquirer cannot miss of the right sense of it; but that it is so clear, etc. that it can hardly happen that any one Man, any serious and impartial Enquirer, should be found opposite to the whole Church, in his opinion. Now what he says can hardly happen, may at least happen sometimes; and if it do, what must that one Man do? He is then obliged (says the Defender) to adhere to his own Belief, in opposition to that of the Church. How! is Scripture the Rule of Faith? Is this Rule. clear and sufficient in Necessaries to every sober Enquirer; and is it not clear to the whole Church? Or does the whole Catholic Church of Christ cease to inquire seriously and impartially? Yes, if this Man be but evidently convinced that he is the sober Enquirer, and she is not, he must prefer his own sense before hers, (says the Defender.) But what is this Evident Conviction here required? If all Mankind, for Example, tell me this is the Year 1687 since Christ, and I should stand stiffly against their Account, and tell them, it is but the Year 1686; certainly I should be esteemed mad by all Mankind, and my pretending my being evidently convinced in my own imagination, or my really being so, would not hinder me from being justly condemned of the greatest Folly and Impudence imaginable, as preferring my own sense and sentiments, before the common sense and sentiments of the whole World: But this it seems which would be esteemed Folly in such temporal concerns, would be Prudence with our Defender, in the necessary concerns of Faith and eternal Happiness; for with him tho' it be highly useful to individual persons or Churches, 
Ibid. pag. 81.  to be assisted in making their judgement by that Church, of which they are Members; yet if after this instruction, they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith, between the voice of the Church and that of the Scripture, they must stick to the latter, rather than the former; they must follow the Superior, not Inferior Guide. 
§. 118. What are necessary Articles of Faith?   
I would gladly know of our Defender what he means by Necessary Articles, all which are so clear in Scripture: Are they all those which are contained in the three Creeds? Or will he run to Hobbs his necessaries, only a belief in Christ? If he take in all the Creeds (as certainly he is bound by his Church) or if at least he admit that of St. Athanasius, in which he declares, that except a Man believe all that is contained in it, he cannot be saved; let him tell me, and prove it when he can, that all the Articles contained in it are so clear in Scripture, that every individual person, every sober Enquirer shall certainly find them there. The Socinians will smile at his Boldness. But certainly according to his Principles it must be so; for if those abstruser Doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation and Divinity of our Blessed Saviour, contained in that Creed, be necessary Articles of our Faith; and all Necessaries be clear in Scripture to every sober Enquirer (which they must be, if every Man must judge for himself, and Scripture be the only Rule to judge by) than it would necessarily follow, that every Tinker, Cobbler, Weaver, or Tankard-bearer, if they do but seriously inquire into Scripture, would certainly find them there. But if neither they, nor our Defender, nor his whole Church can find such evidence for them there, as to silence the Socinians, who profess to follow the same Rule, to be sincere, and to use all due diligence, it will cortainly follow, that those Points are not clearly contained in Scripture, unless we take the Authority of the Church along with us for the interpretation; and by consequence, not necessary Points of Faith, with our Defender.  
If any one therefore inquire into the occasion of this difference, even in necessaries amongst those who follow the same Rule, and use their best endeavours, they will find their Error to proceed from this, that they err in making choice of that for their Rule, which is not so. And to show that Protestants, err in this; making Scripture, as interpreted by their own private Judgements, the only Rule of Faith, I make use of this Argument, besides the several reasons before alleged, 
§. 119. Hebr. 11.6. Eph. 4.4. Scripture interpreted by Private Reason or the Private Spirit, cannot he our Rule of Faith.  and the inconveniencies that follow from it.  
All Christians agree with the Apostle, that without Faith it is impossible to please 〈◊〉 and that this Faith is but one. They all agree also that this Faith contains in it many Mysteries beyond the reach of mere human Reason; so that man, by the use of that alone, could not come to the knowledge of the chief Mysteries of our Faith: The Trinity, Incarnation, Original Sin, Resurrection of the Flesh, etc. They all affirm therefore that God who sent his Son to redeem man, (who could not do any thing of himself to satisfy his infinite Justice) would not command him to believe this one Faith under the pain of Eternal damnation, and at the same time leave him without a means to bring him to the knowledge of what he was to Believe, This means is called the Rule of Faith, by Controvertists.  
Now seeing God would have all men to be saved, of what learning or capacity, of what age, country or condition soever; this Rule or this means must be general and applicable to all, and therefore Plain and Easy, by which the Ignorant and unlearned may arrive at the same one Faith as well as the learned; 
Isa. 35.8.  for God has prepared a Way that the wayfaring men tho' fools shall not Err therein: It must be Visible and Apparent to All persons in All places, and in All Ages; to All I say who will not shut their eyes: It must be Sure, Certain, and Infallible, that the ignorant who Rely upon it may come to the unity of Faith with Security, and the Learned who follow it, may be convinced of the truth of that one Faith rationally, and oppugners find no substantial Arguments against it. All which qualifications do not only arise from the Goodness and Wisdom of Almighty God, but are conformable to the very notion of a Rule of Faith.  
If then the Scripture as interpreted by that private judgement of Particulars be this Rule of Faith, it must have all these advantages towards the uniting us in this Faith without which it is impossible to please God.  
I will not descend to particulars, and show how the Scripture is void of the essential qualifications of a Rule; that has been done by many hands, and particularly by the question of Questions: But I will Argue from what our Adversaries themselves grant us.  
I suppose than it will not be denied me but that the Scripture, even in necessaries, 
2. Pet. 3.16.  may be differently interpreted, since St. Peter affirms that the Unlearned and the Unstable do not only Wrist the Epistles of St. Paul, but other Scriptures also to their own damnation: now the question is only, (when things are thus controverted) which is the True sense of Scripture; and since these Controversies may arise in necessary matters of Faith, God would not leave us destitute of a means to come to know which is the True and genuine sense of this Scripture in those necessaries; and this means must be, as I said before, easy, plain general, secure and infallible; or else this Scripture, (supposing, not granting it to be the Rule of our Faith) would be useless to some part of mankind (if it wanted any one of those qualifications) and by consequence those persóns might justly complain that God had not taken a sufficient care for their Salvations.  
If we examine our Defenders Rule for us to come to the True meaning of this Scripture, he tells us it is a serious and impartial inquiry: If so, than it would necessarily follow that every serious and impartial Enquirer, would infallibly hit upon the true Faith, which Faith being but one, all those impartial Enquirers would be at unity in their Belief. But since experience tells us that many serious and impartial Enquirers (if we can believe any men in what they affirm, with the most solemn protestations imaginable, in a matter of such high concern) do differ in the sense which they draw from Scripture even in necessaries, we must conclude, That Scripture interpreted by this private reason of every individual person, cannot possibly be this easy, clear, universal, and Infallible rule, or means to come to an unity in Faith.  
What I said against this Private Reason of particular persons or Churches, 
§. 120.  concludes also against the Private Spirit which some pretend to, which Spirit if it were the Spirit of God, would certainly teach all persons the same thing.  
Others there are who tell you that the means to come to the knowledge, of the true sense of Scripture is to compare one Text with another, to examine the Commentators, the Original Languages, the Ancient Writers, and Interpreters, etc. but this way; beside that it is coincident with Private Reason which we have already shown cannot be our Infallible Rule to come to the true sense of Scripture, is moreover impossible to be done by the generality of Mankind, whose concerns to get a livelihood are such, that they have neither time, opportunities, nor abilities to do it.  
Our Defender will perhaps Argue here from his good friends Doctor Stillingfleet and Mr. Chilling worth, that they need not take such pains; nay moreover, that if they use only such a moderate industry as is consistent with their employments, tho' they should err, God will not impute it to them.  
In answer to which, I would only ask them, Whether God has established a Faith or no, which must be one, and without which it is impossible to please him: If they cannot deny this as being the plain words of Scripture; I ask again what is opposite to Faith but Error in its essentials? where therefore has God promised in Scripture that a man who errs in the essentials of his Faith shall not have that Error imputed to him, when on the contrary. he tells us that without Faith it is impossible to please him?  
If he say these people are in an invincible ignorance, and God will not punish that; I must answer him, that God has not left the generality of mankind without an easy, general, and Infallible means to overcome that ignorance, if they will but make use of it.  
And this secure, 
§. 181.  easy, universal and infallible means, is that which we Catholics make use of; viz. an attention and 
(a) Luc. 10.16. Ma●th. 18.17.  submission to the voice of the Catholic Church, which is 
(b) Eph. 4.4, 5, 6, 13. Cant. 6.9. John 16.16. John 17.20.  Uniform in itself, established by Christ as an 
(c) Isa. 35.8.  Easy means for the instruction of all both Learned and Unlearned; as an Universal means, she being 
(d) Ps. 19.4. Isa. 2.2. Ps. 86 9 Dan. 7.14.  spread for that end throughout All Nations: as a 
(e) Masth. 5.14, 15, etc. Ps. 19.4. Isa. 59, 21.60.1, 3.11.62, 6. Ezech. 37.26. Dan. 7.14.  Visible means, being continued through All Ages by an uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and People: As an Infallible means, being 
(f) John 16.13. 1 Tim. 3.15.  guided in Truth, and secured from Error, especially in Necessary matters of Faith and Salvation, by the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost; So that all persons whatsoever whether, Learned or Unlearned, may 
(g) Deut. 17.8, etc. Math. 23.3. Isa. 2.2, 3. Marth. 18.17.  securely rely upon what this Church teaches, especially in Necessaries.  
If our Defender after better reflections acknowledge the Catholic Church to be infallible in Necessaries, or Fundamentals, and inquire which is this Catholic Church; I must desire him to peruse with a serious application what I have already proved, and not to pass over my Arguments so slightly, as shows he never weighs their force.  
But our Defender has made use of an Instance to prove his admirable Doctrine by; 
§. 122. The Instances from St. Athanasius answered.  an Instance, which if any Catholic had brought the like, he would have called false and Impertinent: An Instance which hath been often brought and Refuted, and yet nothing is said to the refutation, but the Objection is still repeated by those who are conscious they cannot defend their Cause, and yet have not sincerity enough to repent. Lastly, an Instance which may pass current amongst them who will believe no body but their own party, but can have no force with men of Reason.  
I told him in my Vindication that the story which he tells of St. 
Expos. Doct. Ch. of England. pag. 80.  Athanasius his standing up alone against the whole world in Defence of Christ's Divinity, when the Pope, the Councils, nay the whole Church fell away, was very falsely represented. And he now grants the Expression of St. Athanasiu's being against the whole world, and the whole world against him, 
defence pag. 81.  did refer chief to the Eastern Bishops, and was not so literally true as to those of the West, from whence an ordinary Reader would infer, 
See Liberius his Letter to the Oriental Bishops apud Socrat. lib. 4. c. 11 12. & Tom. 1. Con●. pag. 584 & St. Basil Epist. 75. pag. 877.293. pig. 1058. Edit. Paris 1518. cited by the Guide in Controversy. Dise. 2. §. 27. n. 2. p. 119. The History of Pope Liberius and the Council of Ariminum. §. 123.  that it was literally true, as to those of the East: But they who examine things more maturely, will find that even at that time the Body of the Eastern. Prelates, tho' suffering much from the other savoured party, remained Catholics; However he thinks, that if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops at Ariminum and. Sirmium, and how Pope Liberius himself tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith, sent to him from Ariminum, etc. yet subscribed to another at Sirmium, in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was purposely omitted, etc. he was not much out when he said, that St. Athanasius stood up in defence of Christ's Divinity, when the Pope, the Council, and almost (for he is now more moderate) the whole Church fell away.  
But what will he say if neither Liberius nor the Latin Prelates in the Councils of Sirmium or Ariminum ever denied the Divinity of Christ or subscribed to the Arian Heresy? Had he looked into our Authors he would have found it proved beyond exception, and that from the best Historians, that tho' Liberius who was sent into Banishment to Beroea by Constantius, because he would not condemn St. Athanasius in the Council at 
(a) Sozom l. 4. ● 10. p. 481. Ibeod. lib. 2. c. 16. pag. 371. B.  Milan without a hearing, at last out of fear and impatience in his exile subscribed to a Collection presented by Basil and other Eastern Bishops, containing in it the Decrees against Paulus Samosatenus, and the Sirmian Formula against Photinus, 
Socrat. lib. 2. c. 5. p. 244.  as also that drawn up at the Consecration of the Church of Antioch, all which contained nothing but Catholic Doctrine, except the leaving out the word Consubstantial, which they pretended was abused by some, not understood by others, and was not found in Scripture: yet did he then Excommunicate all those who affirmed the Son not to be like his Father in Substance and all other things. 
Sez lib. 4. c. 14. pag. 483.  The Sirmian Formula was explicated by St. Hilarius in a Catholic Sense; and it is worthy remark, that in these Formula's they professed the Son to be of the Father's Substance; that he was in all things like his Father, even as to Essence and Substance; and that he was before all Times and Ages: So that tho' Liberius cannot be excused for his compliance with the Emperor, and the scandal which he gave to those who refused the least Communication with the Arians; yet does it no ways follow that he fell from the Faith; 
Act. Liber. Soz. lio. 4. c. 18. p. 487. B.  And he regained his credit afterwards by his firmness to the first Orthodox Decrees of the Council of Ariminum; resolving rather to live and die in the Catecombes, than Sign what had been consented to by the Bishops at the later end of that Council when it was not free, and the design of the Arians was made public, etc.  
As to the Council of Ariminum, 
§. 124.  if we consider all things maturely we shall find, that of the 400 Bishops that appeared there, only 80, or as St. Athanasius says, 50 of them were of the Arian party; that at their first Assembly they refused the Formula of Faith, brought by 
* Socrat lib. 2. c. 29. p. 2●0 F.  Vrsacius and Valens from Sirmium, they condemned Arianism and established the Nicene Faith, and sent their Decrees to the Emperor, desiring a dismission of the Assembly: But the Emperor dissatisfied with this constancy, would not give any answer to their Legates, but ordered the Bishops to stay at Ariminum till his return from an Expedition against the Barbarians, 
Socrat. Ibid. p. 262. F. Sozom. lib. 4. c 18. p 487.  at which time he hoped they would concur with him: To which they answered, that they could not departed from the Sentence they had already pronounced, and therefore begged leave again to return before Winter to their Churches, to which the Emperor giving no answer, 
Russin. Hist. lib. 1. c. 21. pag 203.  several of them returned by stealth, the others kept like prisoners (which want of Freedom shown this later part of the Council not to have been Legitimate) at last deluded by the Emperor's Agents, and the specious pretences of a firm Peace and Union, which would follow amongst the Western and Eastern Churches, yielded to Subscribe a Form, in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not rejected but omitted, as being not well understood by the Latins. But however this general Form was suspected by the Catholic Bishops, and they would not Subscribe to it without some additions to secure the Church's Faith from Arianism, and other misconstructions, in which Additions they condemned Arius and all his perfidiousness, and declared the Son to be Equal to the Father, 
Severus Hist. lib. ● Hier. dial. adver. Lucifer Apud Guide of Controudise. 2 §. 26. n. 5. pag. 117. Sozom. l. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. C.  and without beginning or time; and that he was not a Creature; and pronounced and Anathema against all those who should offer to say, that the son was not Eternal with his Father (all which either show the Son to be Consubstantial to his Father, or that they are two Gods, which the Arians denied) the Arians having consented to these Additions, and the Catholic Faith being now thought secure, the Council was dismissed.  
But Valens and his Followers, having now, got a specious pretext, proclaimed abroad that the Council of Ariminum had consented to the Arian Doctrine, and condemned the Nicen Faith, explicating the Formula to their own sense; and pretending that when they said the Son was not a Creature, they meant he was not a Creature as other Creatures were, etc. But the Western Bishops seeing themselves thus cheated by the subtlety of the Arians, were highly vexed, and protested against it; and at this time it was that St. Jerome says, the world admired to see itself become Arian all of a sudden, not as if it were really so, but because the equivocal words were easily turned by the Arians to their own sense, and the People deceived by their pretences of a General Council.  
Constantius also the Emperor resolved to make this Formula be Signed, by all persons that were not at that Council, or that had gone from it without his leave; and hence a great Persecution arose, and many Bishops, amongst which 
(a) Sozom. lib. 4. c. 18. pag. 487. B.  Pope Liberius was one, were Banished; others cruelly 
(b) Martyr. Rom. Marcel. de Schism. Vrcis. & Dumas. Apud Mainburg Hist. de l' Arianism. 1. Party. lib. 4. p. 39 Edit. Paris in 4●0.  murdered, as Gaudentius Bishop of Ariminum, Rufinus and others.  
So that it is plain from what has been here deduced from the best Historians of those times, that neither the Pope nor Council nor Western Church condemned the Divinity of Christ.  
Moreover, it is to be remarked, that St. Athanasius with all thee other Eastern Bishops of his party, most of them either Deposed, Banished, or Persecuted by the Emperor, and all these Western Prelates stood up for the defence of the Faith, defined in the Council of Nice, against the Arians, who Innovated, and would impose a sense upon Scripture which they had not been taught by their Forefathers, but had taken up upon their own Private Judgements: So that our Defenders Instance, if rightly taken, will be very much to his disadvantage, and is a convincing proof against his assertion; for it is manifest, that to Imitate St. Athanasius, a person ought to stand to the Definitions of a lawful General Council, against all the Private Interpretations, and pretended evident convictions of those who oppose it. And aught to be so far from preferring his Private Sentiments of the sense of Scripture before the Judgement of the Church, that he ought to suffer all manner of Persecutions, and even Death itself, rather than recede from her approved Faith.   

ART. XXV. Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy.  
OUr Defender having laid down such a Principle in the foregoing Article of his Exposition, 
§. 125.  as rendered all Chruch-Authority ineffectual; Yet as if he had forgot himself in the very next, he tells us that he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith, as bound thereto by a Subscription to the 39 Articles, in the 20th of which that Authority is expressed. And to show us what he means by this just Authority, he tells us, that they allow such deference to her decisions, 
Expos. Church of Engl. p. 80.  as to make them their directions what Doctrine they may or may not publicly maintain and teach in her Communion. That is (I suppose) as much as to say, they allow an exterior assent as far as Noncontradiction. But even thus much is certainly inconsistent with that obligation, which our Defender affirms, 
defence pig. 80.  particular persons lie under, to support and adhere to their own belief in opposition to that of the [whole] Church, if they be but evidently convinced that the Church has erred in her decisions.  
I perceive he was Conscious of this Incongruity, and therefore left a hole to creep out at, 
Expos. Church of Engl. pag. 81.  telling us, that they allow whatsoever submission they ●an to the Authority of the Church, without violating that of God declared to us in his Holy Scriptures. So that thence it may as well be concluded as from his former Principle, that every Private person, Tinker, Gobler, or Weaver, having received the Decrees of a General Council, in to examine them himself by Scripture, before he give his interior Assent; and if having summoned together his own Extravagant Notions of the Word of God and its sense, he be but evidently convinced, as he imagines that the sentence of the Church thwarts the Scriptures, he not only may, but in our Defenders Principles is obliged to support and adhere to his own; seeing, as he thinks, he cannot allow such a submission to her Authority without violating that of God, etc. And if so, I would gladly ask him what is that just Authority which he tells us the Church has in matters of Faith, and when and whom it binds.  
Object. But perhaps it may be here asked, What if the Church should Define there is no God, no Jesus Christ, no Heaven, no Hell: and I be fully convinced in my own judgement, by reading Scripture that there is a God, a Jesus Christ, a heaven, and a Hell; would you have me quit the sense of Scripture in these plain Points in which I have evident conviction, and follow that of the Church?  
Before I answer, I must needs say that I think this Question, tho' it be the groundwork of our Defenders foregoing Position, and without the supposal of which he can never pretend it to be reasonable, yet will perhaps be derided by him when proposed in such plain terms; For no man certainly can ever think that the whole Church of Christ, against which the Gates of Hell are never to prevail, can fall into such a Total Defection as to Apostatise and oppose such places of Scripture as are plain to every understanding. Moreover,  
The Defender knows very well, that the differences betwixt us and them lies rather on the contrary side, and that if the Scripture be plain for either side it is for 
* See several Books published upon this account; as the Anchor of Christian Dodrin; the 2d part of the Prudential Balance; Catholic Scripturist, etc.  ours. He knows how they have been often invited to show one positive Text of Scripture against any one of our Tenets, without their false glosses to it, which make it no Scripture. He knows (or at least may be easily informed) that we have shown them positive Texts, according to the Primitive Father's interpretations, both for our Articles and against their Innovations: and the late Request to Protestants to produce plain Texts of Scripture in about 16 of their Tenets, and the shuffling answer to it, are a sufficient Argument that it is unreasonable for them to pretend to it.  
Answer. My answer is therefore, that the Defender, and they who with him suppose the Church can ordain things directly opposite in necessaries, either to Faith or Manners, even in things clear to every understanding, do not consider the notion of a Church, nor the Promises that God has given to secure it from such Damnable Errors, as must destroy its Essonce: So that establishing a False notion without proving it for their ground, no wonder if many Absurdities arise from it. From which it will appear, that a Libertines argument for his Debauches, drawn from a supposition that there is no God, no Heaven, no Hell, nor other Life, is as conclusive as theirs, who suppose the whole Church can or ever shall propose a truth to be believed, or an action to be practised, which is contrary to the express words of Scripture in places plain to every understanding: or contradict Divinely delivered Truths.  
However the Defender tells us, that they allow a deference, and that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council, 
Expos. Changed Engl. p. 81.  the same they think in a much greater degree due to a General. And that whensoever such an one (which he says they much desire) shall be freely and lawfully assembled, to determine the Differences of the Catholic Church, none shall be more ready both to assist in it, and submit to it. 
§. 126. The Council of Trent vindicated.   
Upon this account I desired him to consider whether the Council of Trent had not the qualifications of a General and free Council, and whether the Four first General Councils were not liable to the same exceptions as were made against the Council of Trent.  
This he calls a new question hooked in; and gives an old threadbare answer to it, as if we never had before confuted it.  
1. 
His first Exception that it was not General, answered.  He says, it was not so General, because it was not called by so Great and Just an Authority as those were; that is, those were called by the Authority of the Emperors, and this by the Authority of the Pope.  
But what, is there no Authority given to the Church to call her Pastors together, in cases of necessity, but that it must be the Temporal Power must do it? If so, than our Defender must condemn the first Council of the Apostles (Act. 15.) and all the other Councils held till Constantin the first Christian Emperor's time. But if he dare not do this, but answer that the Church had the Privilege at that time whilst the secular Power was Heathen; I ask him how she came to lose it afterwards? Did Princes by submitting themselves unto the Church rob their Mother of her just Authority? 'tis true they assisted by interposing their Commands also, and so strengthened the obligation of Assembling themselves: But will any one say that such an accumalative power in assisting the Church was a depriving her of that Authority?  
Moreover, if he cannot deny but the Church had that Authority when the Secular Powers were heathens and enemies to Christianity; I hope he will not deny her the same when some part of those Powers are Enemies to the Orthodox Faith; for the Church is liable to the same damages from an Heretical Prince as from an Unbelieving.  
Again, the whole practice of the Church is against what our Defender says. It is well known, 
Doctor Field of the Church pag. 697. apud. Censid. on the Council of Trent. c. 3. §. 49.  and consented to by Protestant Authors, that the calling of a Diocesan Synod belongs to the Bishop, that of a Provincial to the Metropolitan, of a National to the Primate, and of a Patriarchal to the Patriarch; and why not that of a General to the Prime Patriarch? unless he will say that God has taken care to provide for the unity of so many different Patriarchates, and established a means to compose the differences that may arise in them; but has not taken care of the whole Church.  
Furthermore, 
§. 127. The first 4 General Councils were called by the Pope.  our Defender is out in pretending that the four first General Councils were called by the Emperors. For as to the First, if we may believe the 6th Synod Act. 18. and Pope Damasue [in Pontific.] it was called by the consent of Pope Sylvester; 'tis true, Constantine having received Pope Sylvester's order, promulgated the convocatory Letters, and was at the expenses of conducting the Bishops to the Council. As to the Second General Council, that of Constantinople, 
Concurrer imus Co●st intinopolim ad vestre Reverenti● l●eras, missa, Ibeodosio, su●●ma pietate, Inperatori. Theodor. Hist. lib. 5. c. 9 pag 403. B. Sy●odum Ep●esinam ●actam esse Cyrtssi industria, & Celestini authoritate. Prolper in Chronico.  the Bishops there assembled, in their Letters to Pope Damasus and to the Council then met with him at Rome, tell him that, they had met and assembled themselves at Constantinople, according to the Letters he had sent to Theodosius the Emperor. As to the Third (that of Ephesus) S. Prosper tells us it was assembled by the Authority of Pope Celestine, and the Industry of Cyril, whom he appointed to preside in his place, and with his authority. And concerning the Fourth, that of Chalcedon, not to mention the Emperor and his Sister Pulcheria's letter to Pope Leo, in order to the calling of it, His Legates in the very first Act accused 
(a) Judicii sui necesse est cum dare rationem, quia cum nec personam judicandi haberet, subvepsit & Synodum ousns est steer, sine avihoritate Sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam rite factum est, nec fieri lionit. Summa Conc. Tem. 1. pag. 246. b. A.  Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, for calling a Synod without the Authority of the Apostolic See, which they say never was rightly done, nor was lawful to be done; which accusation they would certainly never have brought, nor would the Council have admitted of it, had they themselves been guilty of the same, or if it had not been at that time a constant and known practice, that his consent and approbation was necessary, according to the Ancient Canon and Custom, 
(b) Aug. Epist. 91. Athan. Apol. 2. p. 575.1.1. Apud Cons. Conc. Y●ent §. 45. Secrat. l. 2. c. 13. p. 247 C. Soz. l. 3. c. 7. p. 466. F.  Nothing is to be determined without the Bishop of Rome.  
Lastly, to remove the least scruple in this point, it is manifest the Council of Trent was called by the Pope, as the Learned Author of the 
(c) §. 80, etc.  Considerations of the Council observes, after having first had the consent, nay, after much solicitation and importunity, as 
(d) Lib. 6. pag. 551. apud Consid. Conc. Trid. §. 81.  Soave says, of the Emperor, and all other Christian Princes, excepting those that were Protestants, and Henry the 8th, who being the much less number, were either to be concluded by the contrary vote of the rest, or else there can never be any General Council hereafter; it being evident, that seeing Christianity is now divided into so many Sovereign and Independent States, and no Heresy can ever need the remedy of a General Council, but such as has got the Patronage of some Christian Prince, if every such Prince be allowed a negative voice against the rest, there will never want some or other whose Extravagances in Religion will make him averse from such Assemblies, which he cannot but foresee will Condemn and out-vote his party. 
Soave. p. 8.12.  Nay, moreover it was called by him after the Protestant Princes had declared a great necessity of it, and Luther and his Party had appealed to it.  
The Second Exception which the Defender makes against this Council is, 
§. 128. His Second Exception that it was not free, answered.  that it was not free, because those who had most to say in the Defence of the Truth durst not appear at Trent, being sufficiently forewarned by what others had lately suffered in a like oase at Constance.  
How often has our Author been shown that this pretence is nul; And the Council of Sonstance, that of Trent, and the whole Catholic Church vindicated from that odious imputation, of believing that Faith and Plighted promises were not to be kept with Heretics? Had the Defender perused our Moral Divines, as well as Controvertists, he would have found it to be a Catholic Doctrine, That Faith is as much to be kept to Heretics, Insidels, Heathens, Enemies, nay even Subjects in Rebellion (Princes having at such times parted with their own Rights) as to Catholics themselves in all respects; and that no exceptions are made but such as judicious Protestants grant aught to be made even betwixt themselves; as where the Faith given was not absolute but conditional, and that condition was not performed; or if the matter of the Faith, Oath, or Promise, was a thing unlawful to be done, either by some Divine or Human Law, if in respect of that Human Law, it were a Faith given by inferiors and subjects to such Laws?  
How often has he also been shown, 
§. 128. The Story of John Husse.  that it is more than Probable that Husse's safe Conduct from the Emperor was either conditional, which Conditions were not kept, he flying from the Council without leave; or at most, no other than what was granted by that Council afterwards to Hierom of Prague, and upon which he also thought fit to venture himself; that is, that he should have a safe conduct from violence (Justitiâ semper saluâ) but not from Justice? Seeing neither he nor his adherents (who at that time writ the relation of his Death) ever claimed the privilege of such a safe Conduct, or accused any of the Breach of it?  
How often has it been made manifest, 
haec S●ncta Sign dus Johan. Husse, attente, quod Ecclesia Dei non habecat ultra quid gerere valeat, judicio saeculari relinquere, & ipsum Curiae saeculari relinquendum fore decernit. Sess. 15.  that if any fault was here committed, it was by the Secular Power, and not the Ecclesiastical; for the Church proceeds not to the Sentence of Death, but after her having convicted them of Heresy or Schism, turns them over (as she did hus) to the Secular Power; so that if the Secular Power had given him a safe Conduct, not only from violence but from the Execution of Justice, that Secular Power was to blame to break it; but the Church was not concerned in it, nor the Council whose safe Conduct he never did demand?  
Neither let the Defender here produce the Councils Decree in the 19 sess. to prove that that Council held it lawful to break Faith with Heretics, and dispensed with the Emperor in his Duty; for that Decree was made after the Execution of hus; and it only pretends that the Emperor by his safe Conduct cannot prejudice the authority of another: So that the Ecclesiastical Judge having always an Authority to examine Heretics, and proceed against them with the Spiritual Sword; The Temporal Authority cannot by giving a safe Conduct deprive her of that Jurisdiction.  
How often has it been shown that the Delegates of Bohemia, who were Hussites, about 16 Years after repaired to the Council of Basil, upon the fecurity of the Council and the Emperor Sigismond's safe Conduct, which they would never have done, had they not been convinced that the terms of John Husse and Hierom of Prague's safe Conducts were too narrow to shield them from the execution of Justice, tho' it might Secure them from any injury?  
Lastly, is it not plain that the Council of Trent, gave them a safe Conduct, with a non-obstante to the Decree of the Council of Constance? and yet notwithstanding all these plain Testimonies have been produced over and over again, the Defender moves not one jot from the first Accusation, but insinuates it, as if it were a known and approved Truth.  
His Third and last Exception is, 
§. 129. His Third Exception against the number of Italian Bishops, answered. Chap. 10. §. 167.  that those who being present did set themselves to oppose Error and Corruption, were perpetually run down, and out voted by shoals of new made Bishops, sent out of Italy for that purpose.  
This has been answered beyond reply, by the Author of the Considerations on the Council of Trent, who has not only shown how naturally it must have followed, that more Italian Bishops would be there than of any other Country, by reason of the nearness of the place, and their not being impeded by National colloquies, etc. as the Germans were; That their presence there cannot be blamed, they having all of them Lawful Votes, tho' the absence of others might be excused; that as the Pope was diligent to send in these, so was he earnest to procure a fuller Representative from other Nations; and the Council had proceeded to lay heavy Mulcts upon the absent, had not the Ambassadors interceded: 
S●ave pig. 504.558 559.  But he has also shown from Soave his History That the Italian Bishops were much more addicted to their own Princes, in things wherein their Ambassadors craved their assistance, than to the Pope; and that the Venetian and Florentine Bishops, were upon such occasions divided from those of the Papacy; That nothing could be passed in the Council, if a considerable part contradicted, tho' a major part favoured it; and certainly the Representatives of all other Nations were always esteemed a considerable part; so that if the Italians might hinder any thing from being carried by Vote, yet could they never of themselves obtain it to be carried; That the Pope needed not any such contrivance for the Protestant Controversies, in condemning of which Soave confesses the Votes of the whole Council concurred, and that 
* Pag. 282, 183. See the unanimous consent of the council as to these following points in S●ave: Original sin. pig. 175.184. Justification. p. 223. Confession, p. 348. Transubstantiation and Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 324.326. Mass and a Propitiatory Sacrifice. p. 544.554.738. Lawfulness and Sufficiency of Communicating under one kind. p. 324.325.519. Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and Veneration of Images. p. 799.803.  as to those points, like a City Beleagred, the Factions among Them ceased, and all joined against the common Enemy. And lastly, that where the Pope's single interest was more nearly concerned, he had no such assistance of the greatest part of the Italian Bishops, nor the major part of the Council at his command, (§. 168.)  
If then (these points being cleared) we consider the Exceptions which Arius and his followers, with the Socinians at this day, make against the Council of Nice, and the other condemned parties against the other Three Councils, I think I had just reason to ask him whether the Council of Trent was not as General and Free a Council as any of the Four? And if such, I desire him to remember his promise, to allow a much greater deference to it than to a National Church or Council.  
If our Defender think it convenient to go on with his calumnies against this Council, I would desire him first to peruse the Considerations of the Council of Trent, and not to argue as if nothing had been ever said in defence of it. 
§. 130. The Authority of the Holy See, from ancient Fathers. Exposit. Doct. Ch. Engl. pag. 81.   
As to the Authority of the Holy See, he told us he was content to yield him [the Bishop of Rome] whatsoever Authority the ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged, and the Holy Fathers have always taught the Faithful to give him. If he be serious in this, I hope he will not refule to say with,  
St. Irenaeus, that 
(a) Ad bancenim, Ecclesiam, propter, potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam. S. Iren. lib. 3. advers haer. c. 3.  it is necessary that every Church should have recourse to that of Rome, by reason of its more powerful Principality. And will with the same ancient Father allow him a Power to 
(b) Euseb. l. 5. Hist. c. 23. p. 69.  Excommunicate even the Eastern Bishops; and much more those sure under the Western Patriarchate.  
With 
* De Monogamia c. 8. p. 529. Edit. Riga●t ●Paris 1664.  Tertullian, 
(c) Epist. 55. p. 91 Epist. 71. ad Quintum Fra trem. p. 140. Edit. Paris 1648.  St. Cyprian, 
(d) Admetus ps 131.  St. Hilary, and generally with all the ancient Fathers before the Council of Nice, that the Church was built upon St. Peter; tho' some of those who lived after the rise of the Arian Heresy, added also the Confession of St. Peter, that Christ was the Son of the living God, as a Fundamental Truth upon which the Church was built.  
With 
(e) Et tamen Primatum non accepit Andreas, sed Petrus, Amb. Tom. 5. in crp. 12. Epist 2. add Corinth.  St. Ambrose, that St. Peter had the Primacy given him, tho' St. Andrew was first called. And that the 
(f) Scribo tibiut scias quemodo Ecclesiam ordines, quae est domus Dei, ut cum totus mundus Dei sit, Eclesia tamen dem●●s ejus dicatur, cujus hodie Redor est Damasus. Tom. 5. in cap. 3. Epist. 1. ad Tim.  Pope is the Governor of the House of God, the Church, the Pillar and ground of Truth.  
With 
(g) At dich super Petrum Pundatur ●e●●●sia: licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cunlli claves regni Coelorum accipiant; & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur, tamen propterea inter duodecim unus elagitur, ut capite constitute, Schismatis tollatur occasio. Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra Jovinian. c. 14.  St. Jerome, that even amongst the Apostles a Head was chosen, that an occasion of Schism might be taken away.  

(h) Ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens, Beatnudini tuae, i. e. Cathedrae Pe●ri, communione consocior. Super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hane domum agnum comederit, profanus est. Si quis in Arca No non fuerit, peribit regnante diluvio— Quicunque ●ecum non colligit, spar git.— Quam: brem obtestor Beatitudinem ●uam per Crucifixum, per mundi salu●em, per Homousion Trinitatem, at mihi Epistolis tuis, five tacendarum, sive dicendarum Hypostaseon detur Authoritos. Hier. Epist. 57 ad Damasum Papam.  That he following no other Leader but Christ, is in Communion with his Holiness, that is, with the Chair of St. Peter. Upon that Rock he knows the Church is built. Whosoever Eats the Lamb out of this House is profane. Whoever is not in the Ark of Noah, shall perish in the Flood.— That whoever does not gather with him [the Bishop of Rome] scatters. And therefore, I hope as he did, so will our Defender, if he think good to stand to his promise, conjure his Holiness by our Crucified Lord, etc. to give him Authority how to use or lay aside this word Hypostasis, in Explicating the Mystery of the Trinity. [I may add, Transubstantiation, in Explicating that of the Eucharist.]  
I hope he will with the same Saint glory in being 
(i) Ego interim clamito, Si quis Cathedrae Petri jungitur, meus est. Ep. 58. ad cund.  united to the Chair of St. Peter, and exhort 
(k) Et quia vercor, i'm rumore cognovi, in quibusdam adbuo vioere & pullulare venenata plantaria, illud te pio charita is affectu praemenendum puto, ut Sancti Innocentii qui Apostolicae Cathedrae Successor esT, teneas Fidem: nec peregrinam, quantumvis tibi prudens callidaque videaris, doctrinam recipias. Epist. 8. ad Demetriad. c. 9  others to do the same,  
With 
* Deus unus est, & Christus unus, & una Ecclasia, & Cathedra una super Petrum domini vace fundata, Altud altar constitui, out Sacerdotium novum fieri, praeter unum Altar, & unum Sacerdotium non potest. Epist. 40. pag. 59  St. Cyprian that there is One God, one Christ, one Church, one Chair founded upon Peter, by the word of Christ. That the Church of Rome is 
(l) Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo Episcopo sibi ab Haereticis Constitute, navigare audent, & ad Petri Ca●bedram, a●que ad Ecclefiam principalem, unde unitas Sacerdotalis exoria est, a Schismaticis & profanis literas far, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos (quorum fides, Apostolo praedicante, laudata est) ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum. Epist. 55. ad Cornelium, pag. 95.  the Chair of St. Peter, the Principal Church, from whence Priestly Unity had its rise, and that Perfidiousness can have no access to the Romans. And that 
(m) Neque enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt Schismata, quam inde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur. Ne unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitratur; cui si secundum magisteria divina obtemperaret fraternitas universa;— nemo discidio unita: is, Christi Ecclesiam scinderet; Nemo sibi placens ac tumens seorsum foris haeresim novam conderet, etc. Ibid. pag. 90.  Heresies and Schisms would never arise in the Church if the whole Fraternity paid obedience due to one Priest, one Judge, Christ's Vicegerent, according to Divine Ordinances.  
This for the Fathers; 
§. 131.  many more of whose Testimonies I might have brought, but that a Volume might be written of them.  
As for the Ancient Councils I shall name two or three of their expressions, hoping the Defender will be as good as his word.  
The Council of Nice according to the Arabian Canons plainly testifies, that 
* Sicque praeest Patriarcha iis omnibus qui sub potestate e●us sunt, sicut ille qui tenet sedem Romae, caput est & Princeps omnium Patriarcharum. Quandoquidem ille est Primus sicut Petrus, evi data est potestas in omnes Principes Christianos, & omnes populos corum, ut qui sic vicariue Christi, Domini nostri, super cunctos populos, & cunctam Ecclesiam Christianam. Et quicunque contradixerit a Synedo excommunicatur. Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. f. 416. c. 1. C.  Patriarches are over Arch-Bishops and Bishops; as the Pope is the head and Prince of all Patriarches: and calls him the Vicar of Christ over all People, and the whole Christian Church, and Excommunicates all those who shall contradict it. And tho' this be not found amongst the ordinary Canons, yet is it manifest that this Council did acknowledge not only a Primacy of Order, but of Jurisdiction also. For 
(a) See Bin. Tom. 8. Conc. pag. 715 c. 1. C.  St Athanasius having found that the Arians had Corrupted all the Greek Copies of the Canons of that Council, sent to Rome to obtain a true Copy of them; And the Pope who was not willing to send him the Originals, sent him Authentic Copies of such Canons as were necessary for his Defence: amongst which Pope Liberius sent him one acknowledging the Privilege of Appeals to the See of Rome, by which this Holy Father defended his cause against the Arian Synod of Antioch which had Excommunicated him, and from whence he had appealed to the See of Rome: And 
(b) Quas praevidentes Sancti Patres insidias & illyrians all ercationes, unanimiter in praedida Nicena Statuerunt Synodo, ut nullus Episcopus, nisi in Legitima Synodo, & suo tempore Apostolica authoritate convocata, super quibusdam criminationibus publisatus audiatur, i. c. judicetur vel damnetur. Sin aliter presumptum a quibusdam fuerit, in vanum deducatur quod egerint, nec inter Ecclesiastica ullo modo reputabitur. Ipsi vero primae sedis Ecclesiae convocandarum generalium Synodorum jura & judi●ia Episcoporum, singulari privilegio, Evangelicis & Apostolicis atque Canonicis concessa sunt instnutis, quia semper majores causae ad sedem Apostolicam mulis authoritatibus referri praecepta sunt. Nec ullo modo potest major a minore judicari. Ipsa namque omnibus major & praelata est Ecclesiis, quae non solummodo Canonum & Sanctoram Patrum decretis, sed, Domini Salvatoris nostri vece singularem obtinuit Principatum. [Tu es, inquit, Petrus, etc. Et quaecunque ligaveris etc.] Porro du●um a Sanctis Apestolis, successoribusque corum, in praefatis antiquis decretum fuerat statutis, quae hactenus Sancta & universalis Apostolica tenet Ecclesia, non oportere praeter sentemiam Romani Ponificis Concilia celebrari nec Episcopum damnari, quoniam Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam Primatem omium Ecclesiarum esse voluerunt, Ein. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 475. c. 2. B.  Pope Julius is thought to have Writ an increpatory Epistle to the Eastern Bishops, showing them from the Council of Nice, That it belonged only to the Bishop of Rome, to call a General Council, and to Judge Bishops. Neither were such Councils to be celebrated, nor Bishops condemned without the Sentence of the Bishop of Rome. That this Authority of the Roman See, was not only granted by Evangelical, Apostolical, and Canonical Institutions, but even by the voice of our Blessed Saviour himself, and that this was a thing known from the Apostles times.  
I doubt not but that our Defender (as those of his party, do usually in these cases) will call the Authenticness of this Epistle in question, but at least he cannot deny the second Apology of St. Athanasius, nor, that appeals were made long before this time to the See of Rome; nor that the Council of 
(c) C●n. 3, 4, 5. Bin. Tem. 1. Conc. p. 527.  Sardica (whose Canons were sometimes cited for those of Nice, as only seconding what had been there once confirmed) allowed of them, and appointed, that in case of such Appeals, no Bishop should be placed in the See of the deposed Bishop, till the Pope had given Sentence; which had been the case of St. Athanasius, in whose Seat Gaudentius had been placed by the Eusebians; nor that these 
(d) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 540. c. 1. F.  Fathers acknowledged that it would be the best and most agreeable thing that Priests from all Countries should have recourse to the Head, that is, to the Seat of Peter the Apostle; nor that it was looked upon in this Age, as an 
(e) Socrat. l. 2. Hist. c. 5. p. 244. D. etc. 11. p. 246. etc. 13. Epist. Julii ad Orient. Episc. Apud St. Athan. Apol. 2. Soz●m. lib. 3. c. 7. p. 446. F. &. c. 9  Established Law, that nothing was to be determined without the concurrence of the Apostolic See; all which considered, he will find no just reason to reject this Epistle upon the Plea that it Establishes the Pope's Authority.  
I have already mentioned that the Second General Council, that of Constantinople, was called by the 
(f) Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 667. A.  Pope's Authority. And this 
(a) Can. 3. Bin. Tom. 1. Conc. p. 661. B.  Council ordained that the Patriarch of Consiantinople should have Prime Honour after the Bishop of Rome.  
The Third General Council that of Ephesus, 
(b) Bin. Tom. 2. Conc. p. 282. B.  Deposed Nestorius, as they say, Compelled by the Sacred Canons and the Epistle of Pope Celestine; and referred the more difficult case of John 
(c) Ibid. pag. 353. D.  Patriarch of Antioch to the Pope.  
The Fourth (besides what I have already mentioned, that they admitted ●he accusation brought against 
(d) Bin. Tom 3. Conc. p. 50. B.  Dioscorus for having taken upon him to assemble a Council without the Pope's Authority) frequently calls Pope Leo, the 
(e) Act. 1.2. & 3. passim.  Universal Bishop of the Church, and affirms that our Blessed Lord had 
(f) Epist ad Leonem. Ibid. p. 474. B.  committed to him the care of his Vineyard, that is, his Church.  
I will not mention any later Councils: these may suffice to Protestants of the Church of England as by Law Established, Seeing their Authority has been approved by 
(g) 1 Eliz. c. 1.  Act of Parliament.  
Neither will I go to the ancient Canons of the Church, but shall conclude,  
That seeing it is manifest that ever since the Council of Nice, the Bishop of Rome did exercise this Universal Pastoral care over the whole Church, Excommunicating offending Bishops in other Kingdoms and Countries, restoring those, that had been Excommunicated unjustly, to their Sees, and Confirming others, calling General. Councils and Presiding in them; and that Appeals were usually made to him in greater Causes from all Countries, no beginning of which can be shown, nor no opposition made to it, in those Primitive Ages, but only by the Arians or other Condemned Heretics: Seeing, I say this is clearly matter of fact, we must necessarily conclude, that this Authority was looked upon at that time as given him by Divine Right, and as coming down in a constant practice from the Apostles. For seeing all persons in all Ages and Countries are ready to defend their Privileges and oppose usurpations, had this been such, or had they been exempt from such Jurisdiction, they would have Unanimously opposed it in some of the succeeding General Councils, after they had seen such Epistles from the Popes, challenging that Authority. But we find them so far from this, that his plea is admitted in those very Councils, and not the least Opposition made.  
From what I have already said, it will appear how easy a thing it might be to show him in the Primitive Fathers, and Councils, what is given by all Catholics at present to his Holiness, or challenged by him as of Necessary Faith.  
As to the Pope's being styled Universal Bishop, he knows that St. Gregory the Great declined that Title in one Sense, tho' he challenged it in another; that is, he looked not upon himself as Universal Bishop in this sense, as if there were no other Bishop but he; 
Sicut docuit Beatus Gloriesorum Apostolorum Princeps, cujus Cathedram Beatitudini tuae credidit Christus optimus Pastor. Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 681. c. 2. D. Non enim ignor●s ejus ingenium, qui quotidie a Sacro doctore tuo Petro doceris oves Christi per totum habitabilem mundum creditas tibi pascere, non vi sed sponte coactus. Ibid. P.  but yet in this other, as he was the Supreme visible head of Christ's Church upon Earth. And for the Proof of this Title, besides what I have already mentioned, I will send our Defender to the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Pope Symmachus, in which they do not only acknowledge him to have been placed in the Chair of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles by Christ the chief Pastor, but that all the Sheep of Christ in the whole habitable world were committed to him to Feed. And in this sense, I suppose it is that he was called Universal Bishop and Patriarch in the Council of 
* Bin. Tom. 3. Conc. p. 246. 250.  Chalcedon.  
That the Pope was usually styled the Successor of St. Peter, and Vicar of Jesus Christ upon Earth, is so noted in Antiquity, that I wonder the Defender would desire me to direct him to the places: I have already shown him some of them, which I hope may suffice, if his business be not to Cavil.  
The last Authority which he says the Pope lays claim to, is, that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him; The terms of which Proposition are very ambiguous, and therefore when our Defender has explicated his meaning more clearly, and shown that all Catholics allow it in the sense he intends, I will undertake to show him, that the same Authority was acknowledged to be due to him, even in the Primitive times; For the Church has not innovated in this, any more than in her other Doctrines.  

The Close to the Defender.  
Sir,  
HAving so fully answered all the objections you have made against me, or our Doctrine; 
§. 132.  and in the foregoing Articles not only vindicated what was delivered by the Bishop of Meaux, as the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and Council of Trent; but also shown the consent of Antiquity for the truth of it; I hope you will excuse me if I tyre not my Reader by a repetition of the same, in Answer to your recapitulation under the reflecting Titles of Old and new Popery. I shall therefore only refer you and them to what has been said in the body of the Book, and most commonly in the close of every Article, for an answer to what was not particularly mentioned in your Defence; where I hope I have convincingly made it appear that your Parallel is wholly grounded upon your mistake (not to give it any worse title) of our Doctrine.  
You know very well Sir, that I might in exchange have given you a Parallel of New and Old Protestancy, (if that can be called old which is not of above 150 Years standing) with a great deal more reason than you have done of Popery; and have shown you the many Alterations that have been made during this last Age even in your Rubrics, Liturgies, Doctrines, Discipline, and form of Ordination, without descending to that varlety of Contradictions which are found even among your Approved Authors: But because this Answer has swelled above the bounds I intended, I shall let that alone to another hand, or till some other opportunity be offered.  
And here I might take my leave of you; but that a tender concern for the salvation of your Soul, and for all those others who are misled by you, calls upon me to admonish you of your Duty. 
§. 133. The Defender's obligation to make Satisfaction to the Church. Non tollitur peccatum nisi restituatur oblatam.   
Sir, You know when an injury is done to any particular person, and either their Goods or Good-name are taken from them, a restitution must be made, and that under pain of eternal Damnation: for St. Augustin's rule is without exception (unless in cases of an impossibility) that the sin is not remitted unless the injury be repaired by restitution.  
But when the Calumny passes from particulars to whole Communities; as the Crime becomes much greater, so does the Obligation of making Satisfaction become more Cogent. And seeing no Community is so Holy as that of Christ's Immaculate Spouse his Church, those Calumnies that are forged against her, must be expiated by a more than ordinary Satisfaction; And where her same has been struck at in Public, nothing but a Public Recantation can make Atonement.  
I must therefore here, Sir, call upon you once more, and mind you of your Necessary Duty, that is, of making a Public acknowledgement of those Calumnies you have thrown upon the Church, and the misrepresentations, unsincerities and Falsifications you have made use of to back those Accusations.  
This I tell you is a necessary Duty, and without which you cannot expect your Sin can be Forgiven you; and therefore I must in almost your own words entreat you by the hopes of Eternity to consider how dangerous this way you have taken, is, and what a sad purchase it will be, if to gain some reputation, or Temporal Interest in this world, you do, or omit that which will unavoidably lose your own Soul.  
You ask me whether you have Calumniated us, or misrepresented our Doctrines; and where are the Vnsincere deal, Falsifications, Authors miscited, or misapplied.  
Sir, I know these are harsh words, and I wish for your reputation sake, I could smother the Crimes; but alas they are too obvious to be concealed, and in Every Article almost you are guilty of them. This I have sufficiently Demonstrated, and if Sense and Reason can be Judge in any thing, even in their proper objects, I appeal to that which is common in every man, for the truth of what I say.  
I will not again return to Particulars, lest I should seem to take too much Satisfaction in having my Adversary at an advantage; No! I should have been contented to have let these or any other Injuries pass, had they only affected me; but where the Church (which must be Holy) is struck at, and such Arts used to blacken her, should I hold my Peace, my silence would be a Gild.  
It is not of an Error or two of the Press, nor yet of the omission of some words which were not pertinent nor material that I here complain; I speak of words left out which prevaricate the plain sense; I speak of misconstructions, and misapplications contrary to the intent of the Authors; and this not only to show a pretended difference amongst ourselves; but to back most horrid calumnies which you have uttered against that Church, which is without spot or blemish, and this in the very entrance into your Exposition.  
There is certainly Sir, no Crime so black as that of Idolatry; 
Expos. Doct. Ch. of Engl. p. 3. 14.  to accuse therefore a Church of committing it by adoring men and women, Crosses and Images, and that in the utmost propriety of the Phrase, the proofs ought certainly to be clear, and demonstrative; but when we find nothing but wresting of places and words, and mutilations of Sentences to make them speak what you please, I think the most moderate term we can give such accusations is to say they are Calumnies.  
The Truth of what I say, has been abundantly shown in the foregoing Articles; and I admire after such accusations, 
Defence p. 84, 85.  that you can talk so confidently of a peaceable Exposition, kindly and charitably performed, and which you were willing to hope might be received with civility. Is this the way to heal our Breaches, to bring that Peace and Unity which you say you so much long for?  
You tell us indeed that our Errors are many of them disavowed by us, and is not that enough? 
Ibid. p. 103.  Why so much pains then to prove us guilty of them? Why is there not an union at least in those points? Why must we be still called Idolaters, & c? We know ourselves Innocent, and we assert it; we know the Church was always so, and we prove it; but yet the most solemn assertions, and the clearest proofs must pass for nothing amongst those who pretend to Civility, Peace, and Charity.  
I conjure you therefore, Sir, by all that is Sacred, by the common name of Christian, by that Unity that ought to be in the Church of Christ, as well as by its Sanctity, by the Eternal God and his Son Christ Jesus, that as you tender the Salvation of your own Soul, and those of so many others as have been induced by you to an imitation of those Calumnies, that you retract the false witness you have born against your Neighbours, and hinder not that union which might otherwise be hoped for in the Church of Christ, by hindering those who have gone astray, from returning to the Arms of their Innocent Mother.  
I know the pride of our nature is apt to hinder persons from retracting what they have once advanced; but certainly they who consider that Eternity is at stake, and that an injustice, which will render us miserable for that Eternity, cannot be expiated without making satisfaction, will not find it so difficult to acknowledge their mistake, tho' wilful, rather than run into inevitable damnation. And pray God give you this serious thought and resolution.  
And when you are serious, Sir, and resolved to do your duty, pray consider also; First, the obligation you have brought upon yourselves by such accusations: Consider; Secondly, the danger you have thrown yourselves and your adherents into by your separation; and Lastly, consider the many advantages you are deprived of by being separated from our Communion.  
If you accuse us Catholics of Idolatry and of those other Errors and Crimes you mention, 
I. §. 134. The obligation the Defender has laid upon himself by accusing the Catholic Church of Idolatry.  I see not how you can pretend us to be members of the Church of Christ, one of whose inseparable marks is that of Sanctity, which is certainly inconsistent either with such Crimes or Errors; for as a man cannot be accounted a sound man if he have a mortal distemper on him, so neither can a Church be accounted Holy if it teach a damnable Doctrine: And if we cannot be accounted members, neither can they who preceded us in the same Practices and Doctrines; and therefore you who lay this accusation, oblige yourselves to show a visible Church, distinct from that of ours, which has in all ages been free from such Errors and damnable Idolatries; but this, as I have formerly taken notice, your Book of Homilies to which you subscribe, thinks impossible; and without considering the consequences of denying Christ to have such an Innocent Church, tells us plainly that for above 800 Years, All men, 
Third part of the Homily against peril of Idolatry, pag. 143. fol. Anno 1673.  women and Children of whole Christendom fell into the damnable Sin of Idolatry.  
Show us such an Innocent and Holy Church as this, and we will Communicate with her. But if you cannot show such an one, you must give us leave to believe our Blessed Saviour, who promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church, and that he would send the Holy Ghost the Comforter who should remain with her to the end of the world, etc. rather than, with such Calumniators, accuse him of the breach of his promise, and affirm that he had no Holy Church on Earth for above 800, nay as others say, for above 1000 Years. And seeing we know ourselves Innocent of those Crimes, of which we are accused as well as they, how can we communicate with our and their accusers?  
I would not have you Sir, to fly to your usual Parallel, and tell us that God had always his Wheat among the Tares in the field of his Church. The Parable is just, if rightly understood; that is, there shall be always good and bad in her Community. But if you compare the Wheat to the orthodox Doctrine of Christ, and the Tares to Errors, or Heretical Tenets, they certainly, who were guilty of those Errors, must be accounted Tares; and if, as your Book of Homilies affirms, the whole Christian world was guilty of them, both in Head and Members for above 800 Years, where was the Wheat all that time? The belief of some true Doctrines, mixed with many Errors would not secure them, unless you will say, that the same individual Root might bear both Wheat and Tares, and be at the same time gathered into the Granary and burnt with unquenchable fire. But if you say there were at that time orthodox Christians, and a Church which Preached the word of God, and administered the Sacraments rightly, and was free from the Tares of false Doctrine; let it or its Members be shown, and we will Communicate with them. But it is easier to talk this out of a Pulpit, than prove it to men of Sense.  
Secondly, 
II. §. 135. The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion.  the danger you are in by being thus Separated from the Church of Christ, is such, that any one I think who considers it seriously with its consequences, cannot but desire to free himself.  
You deny not but that the Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, was a true Church, and that Salvation was and is to be had in it, that she had and has true Pastors, true Sacraments, true Creeds, the true Word of God, etc. Only you say, Errors have crept into her since the First 400 Years, and that you have reform them by the Example of those first Ages, and by the infallible Word of God.  
But, besides that it is a question to which it will be difficult to give a satisfactory answer, from whence they had it who assumed that Authority to reform; and what testimony they can give of their mission: I would only ask you, Sir, what assurance you can give me, that your pretended Reformers in this last Age see more clearly the sense of this infallible writing, or know more exactly what was the practice of the First 400 Years, than all your Forefathers of those preceding ages? If you cannot give a satisfactory answer to this, and show such an assurance that you have hit upon the right Faith and they did not, such an assurance I say, upon which we may trust the Salvation of our Souls (which being a matter of the highest concern the security ought also to be the highest) we shall have reason to doubt you have been out in your reformation; and that whilst you pretended to reform, you have on the contrary made a breach in the Unity of the Church and have rend the Seamless garment of our Lord, and torn his mystical Body, a Crime not much unlike theirs who Scourged, Buffeted, and Crucified him, and will be as severely punished.  
If you say, they were evidently convinced that Scripture was against the universal practice and belief of the Church, and therefore they were obliged to follow the Superior not Inferior Guide, I desire to know how they came to be evidently convinced: and if you cannot show some secure and unerring principle to rely upon for that conviction, I must exhort you to consider the hazard you have run yourself into by following them; the danger which all those who are misled by you incur; and how strict an account you and they must one day give, if that Principle of yours, That every individual person may descent from the Catholic Church, so his judgement be convinced he follows the right sense of Scripture, and she does not, be found false, and you and they deluded by it into disobedience: For seeing our Blessed Saviour himself bids us look upon them that will not hear the Church, as no other than Heathens or Publicans, such disobedience must needs be followed with a punishment answerable to those crimes.  
Lastly, 
III. §. 136. The advantages he is deprived of by being out of the Church.  as for the advantages which you are deprived of by being separated from the Catholic Church, I beg of you to consider them not only in general but in Particular; And to this end, pray read seriously the conclusion of the Third Discourse of the Guide in Controversy, and compare the times which preceded your pretended reformation with those which have followed it, and see what a deerease of Truth, Piety, Devotion, Humility, Love and Obedience has happened, since you separated from your unerring Mothers arms, and betook yourselves to the guidance of your own fallible interpretations. Which if you do, I hope you will with the Prodigal Son return to the embraces of your tender Parent, who with expanded arms and a compassionate bleeding heart, Solicits her Almighty Spouse for your Conversion.     
FINIS.   

A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter to the Vindicator.  
Meaux. 13. May. 1687. Mon Reverend Pere.  
LES nouvelles objections, que vous m'envoyez sur le sujet de mon Exposition, sont si legeres, que si je n'aprenois par un homme de votre merite, qu'elles sont jugées de quelque poids par les Protestans d'Angleterre, je croirois perdre le temps d'y rêpondre. Car qu'importe apres tout, si ce Liure a esté mis en l'estat ou il est, sur des Censures de la Sorbonne, comme on le veut croire, ou par mes propres reflexions? Il suffist, quoiqu'il en soit, qu'a present ni la Sorbonne ny trouve rien a dire, ny qu'aucun Catholique ne le contredite; & qu'au contraire le Clergé de France en corps, tant de Docteurs de toutes les Nations, des Cardinaux tres illustres par leur Scavoir & leur Pieté, le Pape mesme l'approuve. Que doit importer a un homme qui cherche la Verité, par quel mojen je sois parvenu a escrire une doctrine aprovuée; puisque enfin on ne peut nier que la mienne ne le soit dans toute L'Eglise, & qu'avec cette Doctrine je ne sois universellement reconnu pour Euesques tres orthodox, dans la Communion du St. Siege, & de tous les Euesques Catholics? Coux qui Voudront dire apres cela, qu'il n'est pas permis d'estre Catholique dans la Croiance dont je fais une profession si haute, & si publique; cherchent a s'aveugler eux mesmes, & ne veulent pas voire la Lumiere du Mydy.  
Apres cela Si je persiste a dire, comme je fais, que mon Ouurage n'a jamais esté soumis a la censure de la Sorbonne, & que soutenu par une authorité plus grande que la Sienne, je n'ay jamais seulment songé en demander l'approbation, on verrà bien que ce n'est pas l'interest de mon Livre, mais le tesmoignage de la Verite qui me fera par ler ainsi.  
Je persiste encors a dire, qu'il ni a jamais eu aucune Edition de mon ovurage avouée de moy, que celle qui est presentement repandüe par tout, & traduitte en tant de Langues. Que si la plu a quelqu'un d'y condre les Aprobations & le Privilege du Roy avec le nom de Gramoisy, c'est une foible preuve pour demantir ce que je dis. Mais quand j'aurois adiousté des cartons à une impression desia faite avant qu'elle fust debitée, & quand i'y aurois corrigé ce qu'il m'y auroit plu, ou que je l'eusse, si on le veut, tout à fait changée, quelle consequence y auroit il a tirer contre moy de ces changemens? Mettons encors, si l'on veut, qu'il y eust eu quelqu'un assez vainement Curieux pour avoir soin de trouver cette Impression avantque je l'eusse ainsi corigée, qui jamais s'est avisé de faire un proces à un autheur sur toutes ces minuties; & ne voit on pas clairement, que ceux qui debitent avec tant de soin des choses si Vaines, cherchent des chicanes & non pas la verité. Apres tout, Mon Rev. Pere, si on parle encore de ces menües observations, qui ne meritent pas sculment qu'on y reflechisse, & que vous jugiez qu'il fust utile pour convaincre les opiniâtres, d'avoir une Attestation de la Sorbonne, qui sist voir que jamais on ny à seulment parlé de mon Livre pour luy en demander son Approbation, ou le sousmettre à son examen, vous pouvez repondre assurement qu'on en envoira dans la forme la plus Authentique que les Esprits contentieux pouroient desirer. Voila pour la premiere objection.  
Pour la seconde. J'avoüe sans peine que l'edition de mon Livre que jay publiée, differe en quelque chose de mon Manuscrit, dont, comme je vousay dit par mes precedentes, on avoit repandu plusieurs Copies; car il faut toujours se souvenir quil avoit este fait d'abord pour l'instruction de quelques particuliers, & non pas pour estre imprimé. Par cette mesme raison je ne doute pas qu'on ne trouve dans les Editions que je n'a y pas avouées, quelque chose qui ne sera pas mot à mot ce qui aura paru dans la uraye: Mais pour peu qu'on ait d'equité, on reconnoistra que cette diversité ne regarde que la netteté ou la brieveté du stile, & jamais le fons mesme de la croyance. C'est mesme ce qui paroist dans les exemples de cette pretendüe Premier Edition que vous dittes qu'on objecte. Quand i'aurois dit, par exemple, que l'honneur que l'on rend à la St. Vierge deuroit estre blasmé s'il n'estoit pas Religieux, c'est a dire, s'il ne se raportoit pas a Dieu qui est l'object de la Religion, au fond il ny à rien que de tres certain; & si dans la suitte je l'ay tourné d'une autro maniere, ce n'a esté que pour parler plus brievement, & pour eviter de miserables Equivoques, qu'on fait tous les jours sur le terme de Religieux. Je voudrois bien demander aux Protestants d'Angleterre, si les Festes qu'on y celebre à l'honneur des Saincts ne font pas partie du culte Religieux qu'on rend à Dieu pour le remercier de les avoir sanctifié & glorifié. En un mot, & pour ne point perdre le temps d'avantage, à discuter des choses en l'air, & des changemens si legers, qu'a peine m'en Souviens-je moy mesme, ceux qui voudront soustenir qu'ils sont plus considerables, que je ne dis n'ont qu'a remettre leur Edition pretendüe entre les mains de quelques personnes digne de fois ou je puisse la faire voir par quelqu'un de mes Amis, je me fais fort alors ou de la convaincre d'une fausseté manifeste, ou, si elle à este faite veritablement sur mon Manuscrit, de montrer plus clair que le jour, que ces differences qu'on releue tant, ne meritoient pas seulment qu'on y pensast.  
Vous voyez, Mon Rever. Pere, que j'entre autant que puis dans le dessein de vostre Charité envers les Infirmes; car pour moy, encors un coup, qu'ay-je à faire de me defendre de ces legers corrections, puisque j'avouerois sans difficulté de grandes fautes, si j'avois esté assez peu instruit pour les faire, avec beaucoup d'actions de graces envers Dieu qui m'auroit ouvert les yeux pour les reconnoistre.  
Sur la Troisiesme objection il ni à rien qui me regarde en particulier, & je veux bien vous dire avec franchise, que loin d'estre emeu de la lettre de St. chrysostom, que vos Ministres accusent la Sorbonne d'avoir Supprimée, je suis persuadé au contraire qu'elle est tres avantageuse a l'Eglise; de sorte que, bien loin de la Supprimer, je seray toujours d'avis qu'on la publie comme tous les autres ouvrages des Peres, ou il ni a contre la doctrine de L'eglise que des difficultes apparantes, & jamais d'objections Solides. Mais c'est ioy la matiere d'un autre entretien; & je dois parler maintenant des objections qu'on vous fait contre mon Exposition.  
On veut dans la quatrieme qu'un Catholique ait escrit contre ce Livre, à cause qu'on à oüy dire, dit on, a Mr. Conrart qu'il avoit veu cet escrit. Avec la permission de ceux qui objectent des choses si vaines, que pretend t-on conclure de la? Et quand sur la foi de Mr. Conrart Huguenot entesté de sa Religion, s'il en fust jamais, on voudroit croire qu'un Catholique eust escrit contre moy; n'y a-t-il pas de bons & de mauvais Catholics, de Jalouxs, des indescrets, & des ignorans? Et que peut on penser de ce Catholique qui n'a pour tout confident d'un Ouurage qu'il entreprend contre une Evesque de sa Communion, que des Huguenots? En Verité il y à bien de la soiblesse à relever, de pareilles choses, & ceux qui s'en laissent esbloüir, ont bien envie d'estre trompés.  
Cinquiéme objection: Je persiste encors' a dire que je n'ay point leu le Livre du Pere Cresset qu on m'oppose; jay bien sceu, à la verité, que Mr. Jurieux me l'opposoit; mais les Protestans eux mesme demeurans d'acord que cet Autheur mesle ensemble le uray, le faux, & le douteux, je ne me croy nullement obligé à m' esclaircir de la plus part des objections quil me fait, non plus qu'a y respondre. J'ajoustera seulment icy, que le Pere Cresset luy mesme, touché de ce qu'on disoit que sa Doctrine ne s'accordoit pas avec la mienne, m'en à fait ses plaintes a moy mesme, & à escrit dans une Preface d'une seconde Edition de son Livre, qu'il ne differoit en rien d'avec moy, si ce n'est peut estre dans les expressions; ce que je laisse à examiner à quiconque en voudra prendre la peine. Aux surplus il n'y a personne qui ne sçache que lors qu'il s'agist d'entendre les Dogmes, il faut considerer ce qu'on en escrit Theologiquement & precisement dans un Ouurage Dogmatique, plustost que quelques exagerations qui seront, peut estre, eschapees dans des Liures de pieté. On parle encore dans cette cinquieme objection de ce que jay dit dans ma Lettre Pastorale touchant ce qui s'est passé dans le Diocese de Meaux, & dans plusieurs autres, dont les Evesques mes confreres & mes amis m'avoient fait le recit; & moy je persist à dire, sous les yeux de Dieu, qui jugera les Vivans & les morts, que je n'ay rien dit que de veritable; & que l'autheur de la Republique des Lettres avoit recen un mauvais memoire, quand il a dit que je retrancherois cet Article dans les Editions suivantes, puisque je n'y ay pas seulment songé.  
Quand a ce qu'on object en sixiéme lieu du Cardinal Capisucchi vous sçavez aussi bien que moy, Mon R. Pere, que c'est une froide objection qui roule sur l'equivoque du Mot de Latrie. Vous connoissez la distinction des Scolastiques entre la Latrie Absolüe & la Latrie relative. Et tout icy se reduit ensin si Visiblement a une dispute de mot, que je ne puis comprendre comment des gens sensés s'y amusent. Pour moy qui ne m'estois pas proposé de defendre les expressions de l'echole, quoique tres aisées a bien expliquer, mais le language de L'eglise dans les decisions de foy je n'avois pas besoin d'entrer dans cette subtilité; & le Cardinal Capisucchi qui en faisoit un traité expres, n'a rien dit en tout cela qui me soit contraire.  
La Septieme objection est une lettre qui me fut escrite il y à quelques années par un nommé Imbert qui crut s'attirer quelque protection de ma part, en me disant quil soufroit persecution pour la Doctrine de mon Livre de l'Exposition. Je n'en crus rien; parce que je connossois trop Monsieur L'Archevesque de Bourdeaux son Prelat dont il se plaignoit, mais comme i'ay toujours vescu avec ce sage Archevesque dans une tres sincere amitié & correspondence, je luy escrivis sur ce sujet. J'appris que ce Monsieur Imbert estoit une teste malfaite, qui avoit fait jusque dans L'eglise des extravagances signalées, dont il n'avoit eü gard de se venter aupres de moy; il s'estoit meslé dans sa conduitte beaucoup d'autres choses fort irregulieres qui m'empescherent d'entrer plus avant dans cette affaire, & d'interceder pour un homme, ou d'abord je n'avois cru que de la foiblesse & de l'ignorance. Cependant les Protestans imprime la lettre de cet homme, & la simple allegation d'un tel tesmoin deviendra, s'il plaist à Dieu, une preuve contre moy. Je vous le dit devant Dieu, Mon Re. Pere, j'ay le coeur serré quand je vois des objections de cette nature releuées serieusment dans des Liures, & je demande a Dieu, dans le gemissement de mon coeur, O Seigneur, souffrirez vous encors long temps que des ames Chrestiennes se laissent prendre dans de si fragiles lacets?  
Les extraits du Cardinal Bona qu'on raporte dans la derniere objection, regarde la difficulté commune, tant rebattüe par les Protestans, sur la maniere de prier les Saincts. Cette difficulté consist en ce que comme ceux qui prient avec efficace & qui obtiennent l'effet de leurs Voeux sont quelque fois regardes comme faisans les choses à leur maniere, il arrive aussi quelquesois, qu'au lieu de dire aux Saincts, priez, on leur dit, faites, en sousentendant toujours que cest par leurs prieres Seulment qu'ils font. Par de telles objections on fera voir au St. Esprit qu'il a tort quand il dit si souvent dans l'Escriture, que les Saincts ont fait ce que Dieu à fait par eux, & a leurs prieres. Si ces facons de parler se trouvent dans l'Escriture, pourquoy ne voudroit-t-on pas qu'elles se trouvent aussi dans les prieres de l'Eglise. Mais peut-t-on s'expliquer plus clairement que fait l'Eglise sur ce sujet? Puisque pour une fois quil se trouvera, & encors dans les Hymnes & les ouvrages de Poësies, que les Saincts sont prié de faire & d'accorder quelque chose, il se trouvera Cent fois tres biens expliqué qu'ils le font par leurs intercessions & par leurs prieres. Et si la chose n'estoit pas encors expliquées par les pricres de l'Eglise, pouvoit il rester aucun doute apres les explications que jay raportées du Catechisme du Concile, & apres les decisions du Concile mesme? Car, je vous prie, pensons un peu entre nous ce qu'il enseigne dans la Session 25. Ne pose-t-il pas pour fondement de l'invocation qu'on leur addresse, qu'ils offrent des prieres pour nous? Par consequent le dessein est d'enseigner que leur puissance est dans leurs prieres. Et on nous demande apres cela des nouvelles explications, comme si le Concil de Trent ne s'estoit pas assez expliqué sur une matiere d'aillieurs tres claire. En Verité, Mon Reverend Pere, cela aslige un Coeur Chrestien, de voir que le sens de l'Eglise estant si bien esclaircy dans ses decisions, on continüe encors a nous chicaner sur des Mots.  
Je ne vous parleray point de l'affair de Monsieur de Witte Pasteur de St. Marie de Maline; je ne vois rien la dedans qui me regarde en particulier, non plus que dans les lettres du Clergé sur le sujet de quelques Brefs du Pape. On ne pretend jamais offenser sa Saincteté, ni diminuer le moins du monde l'Authorité de son Siege, en disant qu'il en peut emaner des choses ou l'on pretend que la regle nest pas toujours obseruée; au contraire de tels Exemples deuroient fair voir aux Protestans comment une Eglise peut respecteusement soustenir ce quelle croit estre de ses droits, sans rompre l'unité, & sans blesser la subordination.  
Excusez, Mon Reverend Pere, si je vous fais si tard cette reponse: d'autres occupations qui ne m'en ont pas laissé le loisir me serviront d'excuse, s'il vous plaist. Je finis en loüant uôtre Zele qui ne vous permet de vous relascher dans le desir qui vous presse de Sauver vos freres. Je suis avec un Estime particuliere,  
Mon Reverend Pere, Vôstre tres humble & tres Affectionè Serviteur. ✚ J. Benigne de Meaux.   

A Copy of the Bishop of Meauxes Letter to the Vindicator.  
✚ From Meaux. May the 13th. 1687. New Style. Reverend Father.  
THE new Objections you send me upon the Subject of my Exposition are so slight and inconsiderable, that if I were not assured, by a Person of your Merit, they are thought of some weight by the English Protestants, I should think my time lost to reply to them; For, after all this bustle, what matters it, whether this Book were reduced to what it is, by the Censure of the Sorbon, (as they would have it thought) or by my own proper reflections? Which soever it was, it is sufficient, that the Sorbon has nothing now to say against it, neither does any Catholic contradict it; on the contrary the whole Clergy of France, and a multitude of Doctors of all other Nations, as also of Cardinal's famous for their Learning and Piety, nay even the Pope himself approves it. What needs any one, who searcheth after Truth, concern himself to inquire by what means I came to Write approved Doctrine, seeing 'tis certain they cannot deny mine to be so throughout the whole Church, nor that I am in the Profession of this Doctrine, universally acknowledged to be an Orthodox Bishop, in Communion with the Holy See and all other Catholic Bishops? They who, notwithstanding all this, say he cannot be a Catholic who retains the Faith which I so loudly and so publicly profess, take pains to blind themselves and will not see the light at Noonday.  
If after this I persist to say, as I do, that my Book was never submitted to the Censure of the Sorbon, and that being supported by a greater Authority than That, I never Dreamt of ask its Approbation; It will plainly appear, that it is not the Advantage of my Book, but the Testimony of Truth that makes me say so.  
I continue still to say, there was never any Edition of my Book owned and avowed by me, but that which is now every where spread abroad, and Translated into so many Languages: But if some Body has been pleased, to tack the King's Approbation and Privilege, with the Name of Cramoisy, to some other Edition, it is but a weak Argument to give the lie to what I say. But what if I had made some Additions to a Printed Impression, before it was made public; what if I had corrected in it what I thought fit, or, if they please, altogether changed it? What consequence can they draw from thence against me upon account of those Alterations? Let us put the case also, if they please, that some Body should have been, so vainly curious, as to take the trouble to find out this Impression before I had thus corrected it; who has ever undertaken to quarrel with an Author for such trifles? Is it not plain that such Men, as take so much pains to publish such foolish things, seek not the Truth, but to juggle and perplex the World with Tricks? After all, Reverend Father, if they still continue to talk of these Observations, which do not deserve so much as to be reflected on, and that you Judge it profitable for the Conviction of Opiniators to have an Attestation of the Sorbon, to make it appear that their Approbation was not so much as demanded to my Book, or that it was not at all submitted to their censure, you may answer with assurance, that they will send it in the most Authentic Form, that contentious Spirits can desire, This to the first Objection.  
As to the Second I do readily acknowledge; that the Edition of my Book which I published, differs in some things from my Manuscript, of which as I told you in my last, many Copies had been scattered about; for you must always remember, that it was at first made for the instruction of some particulars and not to be Printed: And for the same Reason I do not doubt but they may find in the Edition which I did not approve, some things not agreeing word for word with the True one; but a little Justice must needs make them acknowledge the difference there to regard only the Beauty or Conciseness of the Style, and not at all the Substance of the Faith. This is visible even in the instances, which you say they produce from that pretended first Edition. Had I said, for Example, that the honour which is given to the Blessed Virgin ought to be blamed, if it were not Religious, that is to say, if it did not refer to God, who is the Object of Religion; there is nothing but truth in that expression, if we examine it to the bottom: And if afterwards I have given it another Turn, it is only that I might speak with more Brevity, and avoid the Pitiful Equivocations which are every day made upon the Word Religious: I would fain ask the Protestants of England, if the Feasts they there Celebrate in honour of the Saints, do not make a part of the Religious Worship they pay to God, in Testimony of their thanks for his having Sanctified them, and Crowned them with Glory? In a word, that I may not lose time in discussing such trivial things, and slight changes, that I can scarce remember 'em myself, let such as are minded to maintain them to be more considerable, than I say they are, only put their pretended Edition into the hands of some person of Credit, where I may have it seen by some of my Friends; and I do then engage myself either to show the manifest Falsity of it; or, if it has been truly Printed after my Manuscript, to make appear as clear as the day, that the differences, they so much magnify, deserve not even to be thought upon. You see, Reverend Father, that I pursue as far as I can the design of your Charity towards the weak; for as to myself, once more, what have I to do to defend such slight corrections; seeing I should be very ready to acknowledge great faults, had I been so meanly instructed to commit them, with much hearty Thankfulness towards God who had opened my Eyes to see them.  
There is nothing in the Third Objection, that particularly concerns me, and I must tell you freely, I am so far from being moved by the Epistle of St. Chrysostom which your Ministers tax the Sorbon to have suppressed, that on the contrary I am persuaded it is very advantageous to the Church; Insomuch that I am so far from suppressing of it, That I shall always advise it should be Published, as all the other works of the Fathers, in which there is only some difficulties in appearance, but never any solid Objections against the Doctrine of the Church. But this is the Subject of another entertainment; and I must speak at present of the Objections they bring you against my Exposition.  
In the Fourth Objection they will have it that a Catholic has Writ against my Book, because they have (as they say) herd M. Conrart say, that he had seen the Writings. With their Permission who make such vain Objections; what do they pretend to conclude from thence? And suppose, upon the Credit of Monsieur Conrart a Huguenot, hot headed (if any one ever was) with his Religion, they should suffer themselves to be persuaded, that a Catholic did Write against me; Are there not Good and had Catholics; Jealous, Indiscreet, and Ignorant ones? And what can any one think of such a Catholic, who has none but Huguenots, for his Confidents in a work he undertakes against a Bishop of his own Communion? Certainly it shows a great weakness to magnify such poor Objections; And they who suffer themselves to be imposed on by them, must needs have a mighty inclination to be deceived.  
Fifth Objection, I still continue to say, that I have never Read Father Cressets Book which they bring against me; I know well, indeed, that Monsieur Jurieux Objected it to me; but seeing Protestants themselves acknowledge this Author to mingle True, False and doubtful things together, I do not think I am at all obliged to inform myself of the greatest part of the Objections that he brings against me any more, than, I do to answer him; I will only add here, that Father Cresset himself, troubled and offended that any one should report his Doctrine to be different from mine, has made his complaints to me; and in a Preface to the Second Edition of his Book, has declared, that he varied in nothing from me, unless perhaps in the manner of expression; which whether it be so or no, I leave to them to Examine, who will please to give themselves the trouble. Moreover every body knows, that when we would understand what is Doctrinal, we must consider what is Written Theologically and precisely in a Dogmatical work, and not some exaggerations, which may have escaped in some Books of Devotion.  
In this Fifth Objection they also take notice, of what I said in my Pastoral Letter, touching that which passed in the Diocese of Meaux, and several others, as I was informed by the Bishops my Brethren, and other my Friends. And I do again assert in the Presence of God, who is to Judge the Living and the Dead, that I spoke nothing but the Truth, and that the Author de la Republique des Lettres, received very bad intelligence, when he said that I intended to strike that Clause out of the following Editions; whereas for my part I never so much as Dreamt of doing it.  
As for what they Object in the Sixth place about Cardinal Capisucchi, you see as well as I, Reverend Father, that it is a weak Objection which runs upon the Equivocation of the word Latria, you understand the School Distinctions between Absolute and Relative Worship. And in short all this falls so visibly into a Dispute about words, that I cannot imagine how Men of Sense, can amuse themselves about it. As for me, who never engaged myself to defend the expressions of the School, tho' never so easy to be explicated, but only the Language of the Church in her decisions of Faith, I was not obliged to enter into those subtleties; And Cardinal Capisucchi, who has Writ an express Treatise of them, has said nothing in the whole that contradicts me.  
The Seventh Objection is a Letter Written to me, some Years since, by one Imbert, who hoped he should obtain some Protection from me by telling me he suffered Persecution upon account of the same Doctrine, taught by me, in the Book of my Exposition; I did not believe him, because I was too well acquainted with my Lord the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, his Diocesan, of whom he made his complaint; But as I had always lived in a strict correspondence and Friendship with that Archbishop, I wrote to him upon this Subject, and understood that this Mr. Imbert was a  Man, who had done, even in the Church, very remarkable extravagancies, which he was more cautious than to boast of to me. His conduct had been tainted with many other irregularities, which indeed hindered me from interesting myself for him any further in the business, or to intercede for one, in whom I had found nothing but weakness mixed with Ignorance. Nevertheless Protestants Print this Man's Letter, and the single Allegation of such a Witness must become, God willing, a proof against me. I speak it in the Presence of God (Reverend Father) my Heart is grieved to see Objections, of so poor a Nature seriously pressed in Books; And I beg of Almighty God in the anguish of my Soul, O Lord wilt thou still continue to suffer Christian Souls to let themselves be caught in such weak and miserable Snares!  
The Extracts from Cardinal Bona, which they bring in the last Objection, regard the Common difficulty so often proposed by Protestants about Prayer to Saints. The Difficulty consists in this, that as they who Pray with efficacy, and obtain the effect of their desires, are sometimes considered as the doers of the things after their manner; It happens also sometimes, that instead of saying to the Saints Pray for us, they say, do this; always understanding that it is by their Prayers they do it. By such Objections the Holy Ghost might be blamed, for saying so often in the Scriptures, that the Saints have done that which God has done by them, and at their Prayers. If such manners of speaking be familiar in Scripture, why will they not also have them used in the Prayers of the Church? But is it possible to explain one's self more clearly than the Church does upon this Subject; seeing for one time you find (and that in the Hymns and other Poetical works) that we Pray the Saints to do, or to Grant, some thing, you will meet with it a Thousand times Explicated, that they do it only by their Intercession and Prayers? And had not the thing been already explicated by the Prayers of the Church, could there yet remain any doubt after the Expositions I have brought out of the Councils Catechism, and after the decision of the Council itself? For I beseech you let us weigh a little with ourselves what it Teaches in the Twenty fifth Session, does it not put this as a Foundation of the Invocation which we make to them, that they offer up Prayers for us? And consequently its design is to show us their Power is in their Prayers, and yet, new Explications are still demanded, as if the Council of Trent had not sufficiently declared her Doctrine in a matter otherwise very clear. Truly Reverend Father, it extremely troubles a Christians Heart, to see, tho' the Sense of the Church be made so very Evident, in her decisions, People should continue still thus to Juggle and Cavil with us about words.  
I will say nothing about Mr. De Witte Rector of St. Mary's of Meckline. I find nothing in that Objection which concerns me in particular, nor in the Letters of the Clergy, upon the Subject of some briefs from the Pope. Nobody ever pretends to offend his Holiness, or in the least title to diminish the Authority of his See, by saying, that things may proceed thence which may not always be according to Rule. On the contrary Protestants mies observe from such Examples, that a Church may with respect maintain, what she thinks to be her Right, without either breaking Unity or hurting Subordination.  
Pardon me, Reverend Father, for making this return so late, my Employments of another Nature which would not give me leisure sooner, must (with your leave) be my excuse. I conclude praising your Zeal, which will not suffer you to mitigate the urgent desires you have for the Salvation of your Brethren. I am with particular Esteem,  
Reverend Father, Your most humble and most Affectionate Servant. ✚ J. Benign de Meaux.   


The INDEX to the PREFACE.  

THE Mischief of Heresy and Schism. §. 1.  
Catholics seek the best means to obtain Peace. Ib.  
We neither decline particulars, nor refuse to fight with Protestants at their own Weapons. §. 2.  
We Appeal to Scripture. Ib.  
To the Fathers and Councils in all Ages. §. 3.  
To an uninterrupted Tradition. §. 4.  
And show the Truth of our Doctrines from Protestants own Concessions. Ib.  
But Protestants fly to particular disputes; and in them to the particular Tenets of Schoolmen. §. 5.   
And at last to downright railing.  

Therefore a plain Exposition of our Doctrine was thought necessary. §. 6.  
A Brief account of the Religion of our Ancestors, from the first Conversion of this Nation, till Henry the 8ths. Schism. §. 7.  
A like account from Henry the 8ths. time till his present Majesty. §. 8.  
The Rise of the present Controversy. §. 9  
Of the betwixt the Vindicator and the Defender. §. 10.  
The state of the Controversy Misrepresented by Protestants, who fly to Private Opinions, and stick not to what is of necessary Faith. §. 11. 

Honour due to Saints. §. 12.  
Images and Relics. §. 13.  
Justification, Merit, and Satisfaction. §. 14.  
Purgatory, Indulgences. §. 15.  
Sacraments, Church. §. 16.  
Rule of Faith. §. 17.    
Protestants will not distinguish betwixt Faith and Private Opinions. Ib.  
But prolong Disputes about unnecessaries, which the Vindicator resolves to decline. §. 18.    

THE INDEX to the BOOK.  


ARTICLE I. Introduction. pag. 1.  
IDolatry and Superstition is the Protestant Cry and Calumny at present. §. 1.  
Other Protestants thought the Charge unjust. Ib.  
It was begun in Queen Elizabeth's time. Rejected in King Charles the 1sts. And now renewed to make us odious. §. 2.  
Catholics are allowed by Protestants to hold all Fundamentals, but not Protestants by Catholics. §. 3. 

Monsieur de Meaux, and the Vindicators Sense perverted by the Defender.  
Catholics no more guilty of Idolatry than Protestants.  
An Instance of the Defenders Charity and Moderation. Ib.     

ARTICLE II. Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone. page 6.  
A Necessary distinction in Respect, Honour, Worship, Adoration, etc. Which are Equivocal Terms and misapplied by the Defender. §. 4.  
As also in Bowing, Kneeling, etc. §. 5.  
The Honour paid by these words or actions, is distinguished by the Object. §. 6.  
Divine Honour called Latria, is due to God only.  
Inferior Honour, called Doulia, may be given to Creatures proved by 

1. Scripture. §. 7.  
2. and the Practice of Protestants. §. 7.     

ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints. pag. 10.  
PRayer, Invocation, etc. are Equivocal terms misapplied by the Defender. §. 8. 

Saints may be Honoured.  
They Pray for us.    
We may desire them to Pray for us, proved. Three sorts of such Prayers. §. 9  
By the Practice of the Primitive Fathers in the Fourth Age as Protestants grant. §. 10.  
These Prayers were not Rhetorical flights. §. 11. in 

St. Gregory Nazianzen.  
St. Ephrem.  
St. Basil.  
St. Gregory Nissen.    
The Primitive Fathers wrongfully accused by the Defender as if they held, that the Saints were not admitted to the sight of God till the day of Judgement. §. 12.  
Wrongfully accused as if they had departed from the Practice and Tradition of the foregoing Ages. §. 13.  
They prayed to Saints within the first 300 Years, proved. §. 14. 

By Confession of Protestants.  
By the Testimony of the Fourth Age.  
Of the Fourth General Council.  
Of Origen and St. Methodius.    
The Defenders affected misapplication of the word Prayer. §. 15.  
No Scripture against the Invocation of Saints. §. 16.  
Catholics imitate the Scripture Phrase. §. 17.  
The word Merit Equivocal, and often misapplied by the Defender. §. 18.  
The use of it in our Prayers conformable to the Language of Holy Writ. Ib.   

ARTICLE IV. Images and Relics. pag. 25.  
I. THE benefit of Images. §. 19 

1. To inform the Ignorant.  
2. To increase Devotion.  
3. To persuade to a good Life.  
4. A Holy Imitation.  
5. To increase our Reverence and Respect.    
II. No danger of Idolatry now from the use of Images. §. 20. 
From the Nature of Christianity and The Nature of Idolatry. §. 21.   
III. Objections Answered. §. 22. 

1. From St. Thomas of Aquin. §. 23.  
2. The Pontifical. §. 24. 
The Use of Incense and Holy-water very Antient.   
3. Good-Fryday Office. §. 25.  
4. The Church's Hymns. §. 26.     

Of Relics. §. 27.  
We Pray not to them, nor to Monuments. Ib. 
The Defender renders the Councils expression falsely.   
We Honour them and Images as Sacred Utensils. §. 28.   

ARTICLE V pag. 45. Of Justification. §. 29.  
THE Catholic Church falsely accused. Ib.  
Justification and Sanctification. §. 30.  
Our Justification is Gratis. §. 31.   

ARTICLE VI Of Merits. pag. 49.  
SCholastic Niceties to be avoided. §. 32.  
The Church's Doctrine.   

ART. VII. Sect. 1. pag. 52. Of Satisfactions. §. 34.  
NO Satisfaction without the Grace of God and Merits of Christ. Ib.  
Protestants grant more Efficacy to a Lord have mercy upon us, than Catholics to a Plenary Indulgence. §. 35.  
We believe or we suppose, ought not to be an Argument against our Possession. §. 36.   

SECTION II. Of Indulgences. pag. 55.  
COuncils have redressed the Abuses in them. §. 37.  
We defend not Practices which are neither Necessarily nor universally received. Ibid.  
Our necessary Tenets. §. 38.  
No buying or selling of Indulgences. §. 39  
Protestant Indulgences sold in the Spiritual Court. Ib.  
They give greater Power to a Simple Minister, than Catholics as Catholics give to the Pope. §. 40.  
What a Jubilee is. §. 41.   

SECTION III. Purgatory. pag. 59  
Proved by two General Councils; which proof comprehends Scripture, Fathers, Tradition and Universal Practice. §. 42.  
No Fathers nor Scripture against it. Ib.    

PART. II.  

ARTICLE VIII. pag. 60. Of the Sacraments in General. §. 43. ARTICLE IX. Of Baptism. Ibid.  
LVtherans and those of the Church of England hold Baptism absolutely necessary. §. 44.  
Whether Children dying without it have any part in Christ. Ib.  
The Calvinists oppose this necessity. §. 45.  
The Defender mistakes the Bishop of Condom and the Argument. Ib.   

ARTICLE X. Of Confirmation. pag. 63.  
PRoved by Fathers and Scripture. §. 46. 47.  
The Ceremonies Explicated. §. 48.   

ARTICLE XI. pag. 67. Of Penance. §. 49.  
THe Church of England wishes it were reestablished. §. 50.   

ARTICLE XII. Of Extreme Unction. pag. 70.  
THe Defender mistakes the Question. §. 51.  
This Sacrament has a respect to Bodily cures. §. 52.  
Sanctifying Grace; assistance against Temptations, and Remission of sins are the Primary effects proved from the Ancient Rituals. §. 53.  
The words of St. James Evince it. §. 54.   

ARTICLE XIII. Of Marriage. pag. 75.  
THe Bishop of Meaux and the Defender agreed: We demand no more and yet new Cavils must be raised. §. 55.  
Lombard does not deny Grace to be given in it. §. 56.  
If Durandus did, he is often singular. Ib.  
The Fathers in the time of the first four General Councils acknowledge it to be a Sacrament. §. 57  
Marriage is grown contemptible in England since it was denied to be a Sacrament. §. 58.  
It is proved to be a Sacrament from St. Paul, and by the Universal Tradition both of the Greek and Latin Church. §. 59  
Not necessary for every one. §. 60.   

ARTICLE. XIV. Of Holy Orders. pag. 80.  
THe Defender allowed it to be a Particular Sacrament. §. 61.  
His new Evasions Answered. §. 62.   

ARTICLE. XV. XVI, XVII, XVIII. Of the Eucharist. pag. 83.  
TWo hundred several Senses put upon these four words hoc est Corpus meum.  
Catholics follow the beaten Road: Protestants by-paths. §. 63.   

SECTION I. pag. 84. Ours and our Adversaries Tenets. §. 64.  
CHrist must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament. Ib.  
He may be really present after different manners. §. 65.  
All agree that he is Morally present in the Sacrament. Ib.  
Catholics and Lutherans agree, that he is Really Present, but not after a Natural manner. §. 66.  
The Zwinglians, etc. say he is only Figuratively present. Ib.  
Calvinists and the Church of England would gladly hold a middle way. §. 67. 68  
The Church of England has altered her Doctrine since King James the firsts time. §. 69.  
The Roman Catholic Doctrine. §. 70.  
Three manners of Real Presence. §. 71.   

SECTION II. Some Reasons for our Doctrine. pag. 89.  
ALL the proofs for an Article of Faith concur for this. §. 72.   

SECTION III. pag. 92. Objections Answered. §. 73.  Objections from 


Scripture. 

The first, The words of the Institute. §. 74. 75.  
The second, The custom of the Jews. §. 76.  
The third, From its being called Bread after Consecration. §. 77.    
Fathers and Schoolmen. §. 84. 

1. From St. Chrystoms Epistle to Cesarius. §. 78. etc.  
2. Lombard. §. 86.  
3. Scotus. §. 87.  
4. Suarez. §. 88  
5. Cajetan. §. 89.    
Adoration of the Host. §. 90.  
This Adoration shown to be very Ancient and taught long before the time prefixed by the Defender. §. 96. etc. 

1. The Scripture commands it not. Answered. §. 93.  
2. The Elevation of the Host now. Answered. §. 94.  
3. Several Practices of the Ancients inconsistent with the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. Answered. §. 95.       

ARTICLE XIX. XX, XXI. pag. 123. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. §. 99  
WHat a Sacrifice is.  
The Essence of a Sacrifice consists not in slaying the Victim. §. 100  
Four things required to a Sacrifice, all which concur in the Eucharist. Ibid.   

ARTICLE XXII. Communion under both Species. pag. 127.  
THe Vindicators Arguments shown to be neither false, unreasonable nor frivolous. §. 102.    

PART III.  

ARTICLE XXIII. pag. 129. Of the Written and unwritten word. §. 103.  
HOw to know Apostolic Traditions. §. 103. 104.  
The Nature of such Traditions. §. 104.  
The Present Church in every Age is the best Judge, Proved. Ib.  
The nature of Error with the rise and progress of it. §. 105.  
The Defenders Arguments against this Judge of Tradition answered. §. 106. 

1. Objection. Ib.  
2. Objection. §. 107.     

ARTICLE XXIV. XXV. pag. 136. Of the Authority of the Church. §. 108.  
THe Defenders Concessions. Ib.  
His Exceptions Examined. §. 109.  
First Exception, that the Church of Rome is only a particular Church, Answered. Ib.  
His second and third Exceptions Null. §. 110.  
The Church of Rome is truly Orthodox, and all Orthodox Churches have all along Communicated with her. §. 110. 111.  
That Church alone which is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome is the True Church, proved. §. 112. 113.  
His fourth Exception maintains all Dissenters from a Church. §. 114. 115.  
His first Postulatum answered. §. 116.  
His second answered. §. 117.  
What are necessary Articles of Faith. §. 118.  
Scripture Interpreted by Private Reason cannot be our Rule of Faith. §. 119.  
Nor by the Private Spirit. §. 120.  
But by the Catholic Church. §. 121.  
His Instance from St. Athanasius answered. §. 122.  
The True History of Pope Liberius and the Council of Ariminum. §. 123. 124.   

ARTICLE XXV. pag. 158. Of the Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy. §. 125.  
THe Council of Trent Vindicated. §. 126, etc.  
His first Exception, that it was not General, answered. Ib.  
The first four General Councils called by the Pope. §. 127.  
His second Exception, that it was not free, answered; and the Story of John Husse shown to be misrepresented. §. 128.  
His third Exception against the number of Italian Bishops, answered. §. 129.   

The Authority of the Holy See. §. 130.  
From Ancient Fathers. Ib.  
From Councils. §. 131.  
Nothing Anciently was to be determined without the concurence of the Apostolic See. Ib.   

The Close to the Defender. §. 132.  
THe Defenders obligation to make Satisfaction to the Church. §. 132.  
The Obligation he has laid upon himself by accusing the Roman Catholic Church of Idolatry. §. 144.  
The danger he is in by being separated from her Communion. §. 133.  
The advantages he is deprived of, by being out of the Church. §. 136.      

To be added, pag. 30. line 14.  
But this is the Language of our Defender. The Opinions of the most Learned Doctors, tho' esteemed such by his own Party, are called Reveries: 
Des. pag. 16.  The Pious and significant Ceremonies of the Church; tho' imitated in their own Assemblies, 
Ib. pag. 18.19.  are termed, Magical Incantations: The Rhetorical Expressions of the Greatest Saints, if they thwart his Notions, must pass for Horrid Blasphemies. St. Thomas, heretofore Styled the Angelic Doctor, is by a dash of our Defenders Metamorphosing Pen, 
Appendix ●●● 110.  turned Raver: St. , St. Anselme, the Devour St. Bernard, the Abbot of Cells, St. Antonine, and St. Bernar●●●no, Horrid Blasphemers: And Christ's Holy Catholic Church, Idolatrous, and guilty of Magical Incantations. And yet we must remember that he who Writes this is a Scholar and a Christian, nay one who Writes nothing but peaceable Expositions with all the Kindness, 
〈…〉. 85.  Charity and Moderation imaginable.  
FINIS.