A VINDICATION OF THE BISHOP of CONDOM's EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church.  
In Answer to a Book Entitled, An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, etc.  
With a Letter from the said Bishop.  
Permissu Superiorum.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel. 1686.   

A VINDICATION OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Catholic Church.  

PART I. Containing an Answer to the Preface.  
IT is no less strange, than much to be deplored that Religion, which ought to be the Common Band of Unity, should, by the subtlety of Satan, become the Occasion of Discord and Contention amongst Christians: And that all the Methods which the Catholic Church makes use of, or the Means her dutiful Children can suggest, should be so far from opening the Eyes of many, otherwise clear-sighted and well-meaning Persons, led away with the Prejudice of Education; as to give them occasion to calumniate her Doctrines, censure her Practices, and condemn her Pastors.  
One would have thought, such a Book as is the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, free from Passion, grounded upon the Pure Doctrine of the Council of Trent, and seconded by the greatest Authority in the Church next to that of the Council itself, should have calmed the Minds of them, who pretend to be lovers of Peace and Unity, and have made those, who propose to themselves any thing of sincerity in matters of such high concerns, to acknowledge the Doctrines of the Catholic Church to have been faithfully Expounded in it.  
But we see the contrary, and that a Book thus grounded upon the manifest Doctrine of a General Council, approved as such by the Learned Prelates of divers Nations, and by the Pope himself, must be made to pass amongst our New Reformers as a Book which Palliates or Prevaricates the Doctrine of our Church; and the very Approbations as mere Artifices to deceive the World, and not as Sincere, much less Authoritative Approbations either of the Nature or Principles of the same Doctrine. 
Pref. p. 15.   
Had the Author indeed of this Calumny, who pretends to lay down the Doctrine of the Church of England, given us some more Authentic Testimonies for what he Publishes; or taught us some better Method, whereby to know the Doctrine of a Church, he might have had a more plausible appearance of Reason to complain: But when we see him giving us the Doctrines of his Church upon no better Testimony than his own, and that of an Imprimatur; when we see him to be so far from fixing himself to the known Doctrine of the Church of England exhibited in her Canons, and Thirty nine Articles, that in several places he asserts what is not to be found amongst them; and when we hear him telling us, he has forborn to set his Name to it, 
Pref. p. 18.  lest perhaps any prejudice against his Person might chance to injure the Excellence of the Cause which he maintains; I cannot without some wonder reflect upon his Censure, and the Reception his Book is said to have had. But it seems for him to tell us, He is so assured he has not Palliated or Prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England in his Exposition, 
Ibidem.  that he entirely submits himself and it to her Censure; and the sight of an Imprimatur Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. prefixed before it, is sufficient in some men's Judgements to Authorise an Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; when the Approbation of so many Learned, Judicious and Pious Prelates of the Church of Rome, together with that of the whole Assembly of the Clergy of France, and of the Pope himself at two several times, must by our Author be noted as proceeding from a Peculiar Art, unknown to Protestants, who are accustomed, as he says, to sincere dealing. 
Pref. p. 13.  But we shall have occasion shortly to examine whether he has made use of that sincerity to which he makes so strong Pretensions.  
Indeed an Answer to his Book seems so needless, that I often thought it would be sufficient to tell this Nameless Author, That when his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, has received from the Church of England as full and as Authentic a Testimony of being neither Palliated, nor Prevaricated by him, as hath the Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux, from the Church Catholic; and that when his Arguments appear so much as directly to confront the Bishop's Exposition, it would be time enough to Publish a Justification of that Work against his Calumnies. But because this Author has declared (though rashly) in the name of Protestants, that they look upon those Opinions to be indefensible, 
Pref. p. 16.  which are not maintained against the Assaults of every one that pleases to write against them, and that 'tis an open, and shameful forsaking of them, not to take care to defend every thing that is Published; it may be some unwary Persons may look upon all he has said, as Gospel, unless his Discourse be unravelled, and the mistakes he has fallen under, with the Sophistry of his Arguments be shown.  
But before I begin, it will be necessary to give the Reader a short Account of the Bishop of Meauxes Intention in publishing this Book, and what he expected from any one who should go about to Answer it; which may serve for a true state of the Question.  
And First, as for his Intention; having all along observed that our Doctrines were strangely Misrepresented, and that not only the private Opinions of Scholastic Authors, but even the Inventions of our Enemies, were most commonly objected to us as the Tenets of our Church, he thought it necessary to propose her Doctrine plainly and simply, 
Expos p. 1.  and to distinguish it aright from those Tenets which have been falsely imputed to her, 
Note that the Quotations out of the Exposition are from the Impression published by His Majesty's Command.  by which he hoped many of those false Notions of her Doctrine, which divers Persons had formed to themselves, would have been removed, and an Union much more easily obtained; For it is a certain Truth, That if the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, when truly Represented, be Innocent and Pure, and so far from destroying the acknowledged Foundations of the Christian Faith, that it alone bears proportion and conformity to them, than all the pretended Reformations of that Doctrine are but vain and unprofitable Labours, and a Separation from that our ancient Mother-Church, upon no better Grounds, must be Schismatical; and therefore all those who have broken the Unity of the Church upon such a pretended Reformation, are obliged to return to her Bosom and Communion.  
So that his Intentions were not so much to Argue or Dispute upon Points of Catholic Doctrine, as to Propose them truly, and render them Intelligible. And therefore he pitched upon the Council of Trent as the fittest Compass by which he might steer his Course, resolving not to deviate from its Sense, being that of the Catholic Church; but merely to separate Matters of Faith from such Opinions as are neither necessarily nor universally received. 
Expos. p. 2.  And therefore he declared,  
Secondly, That they who would go about to Answer his Exposition, ought not to undertake to Confute the Doctrine contained in it, 
Expos. p. 43.  seeing his Design was only to Propose it without going about to Prove it; That it would be a quitting the Design of his Treatise to Examine the several Methods which Catholic Divines make use of to Establish or Explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it; That it would avail them nothing, 
Advert. p. 20.  either to object against us those Practices which they call general, or the particular Opinion of Doctors; because it suffices in one word to say, That those Practices and Opinions, be they what they will, which are not found conformable to the Intent and Decisions of the Council, are nothing to Religion, nor to the Body of the Catholic Church, nor ought by Consequence, as the pretended Reformed do themselves avouch, 
Daillè Apol c. 6. p. 8.  to give the least pretence to Separate from us; because no one is obliged either to approve or follow them. 
Expos. p. 43.  Lastly, That to urge any thing solid against his Treatise, and which may come home to the Point; it must be proved that the Church's Faith is not faithfully Expounded in it, and that by Acts which the same Church has obliged herself to receive; or else it must be shown that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force, and all the Disputes untouched; or in fine, it must be precisely shown in what this Doctrine subverts the Foundation of Faith.  
So that if they who Answered his Book brought only Arguments against the Doctrine delivered in it from private Authors holding particular Scholastic Opinions, and not from Authentic Acts received by the Catholic Church; or did not manifestly show the Bishop of Condom to have left out the chief Matters in Dispute, and touched only lesser Difficulties; or did not demonstrate how the Doctrine, as Expounded by him, subverted the remaining Maxims wherein both Protestants and we agree, the Bishop might justly esteem their Answers not worthy his Reflection, and that every Judicious Reader would grant his Pieces were (as this Author terms them, tho' in derision) of a spirit and force sufficient to despise whatever Attempts could be made upon them of that nature. 
Pref. p. 16.   
How true it is, that nothing solid of this kind was objected by the Pretended Reformed in France, appears by his Advertisement. And what our Author of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has Proposed, is now our Province to Examine.  
And first as to his Preface.  
He tells us of a first Edition suppressed, and another with Corrections published in its place, because the Sorbon refused to Approve the first. He tells us of one Imbert and a Pastor of Mechlin Condemned, the one by the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, and the other by the Faculty of Louvain, tho' they both alleged the Bishop of Condom's Exposition for proof of their Doctrines. He tells us that Cardinal Capisucchi and Father Crasset have taught Doctrines contrary to that of the Exposition, etc. But suppose all he there says should be true, what force can his Argument bear against the Doctrine as now Explicated in the later Editions of the Exposition? what if some particular Persons have sustained Scholastic Opinions, which in some sense seem to thwart the Doctrine of the Exposition, as to such Scholastic Opinions; and others, like drowning Persons, have grasped at any thing to save themselves, whether for them or against them? It follows not that the Exposition gives us not the Doctrine of the Church. But to show the World what has been imposed upon them on this account, by those who in their own Countries studied to maintain old Calumnies by new Inventions, I shall here insert the Copy of a Letter lately sent me by that Learned and Pious Prelate; in which they will see the true Matter of Fact as to those things alleged against his Exposition.  
Very Reverend Father,  
IT will not be difficult to answer your Letter of the Third Instant, nor to solve the Objections, drawn from Matters of Fact, sent you out of England against my Exposition of the Catholic Doctrine. The English Minister who has oppugned it, and whose Objections you have sent me, has done nothing but gathered together the vain Inventions which our Huguenots endeavoured to publish here, and which are come to nothing of themselves, without my being obliged to combat them.  
This Author first tells us the Sorbon would not Approve to my Book. But all the World here knows I never so much as thought of ask it. The Sorbon is never used to Licence Books in Body: If it did, I should not need its Approbation, having that of so many Bishops, and being Bishop also myself. That Venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops, who are naturally, and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church, than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors; when moreover most of those Bishops who have approved my Book are of the Body of the Sorbon, and I myself also partake of that Honor. It is a great weakness to require of me to produce the Approbation of Sorbon, when they see in my Book that of so many Learned Bishops, that of the whole Clergy of France in the General Assembly of 1682, and that of the Pope himself.  
You see by this, Sir, that it is a manifest Falsity to say, that a first Edition of my Book was suppressed, because the Doctors of Sorbon had something to say against it. I never did publish, nor cause to be Printed any other Edition but that which is in the Hands of every one, to which I never added nor diminished one Syllable; and I never yet feared that any Catholic Doctor could find in it any thing worthy of Reprehension.  
This to the first Objection of the English Author. As for what he adds in the Second place, That a certain Catholic, whose Name he designs by a Capital Letter, had written against me; suppose it had been true, so much the worse for that ill Catholic. But this is as the rest, an Invention of their own Heads: Our Huguenots have in vain endeavoured to vend such false Wares here: no body ever yet heard of that Catholic; they could never name him, and all the World has scoffed at them for going about it.  
In the Third place he tells us, That Father Crasset a Jesuit, has oppugned my Doctrine, in a Book Entitled, Lafoy veritable Devotion envers la saint Verge. I have not read that Book; but neither did I ever hear it mentioned there was any thing in it contrary to mine; and that Father would be much troubled I should think there was. For Cardinal Capisucchi, he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine I have taught, that his express Approbation is to be found among those which are Printed in my Edition of 1676, and it is he who, as Master of the Sacred Palace, Licenced the Impression of the Italian Version in the Year 1675, Printed at the Congregation De Propagandâ Fide. These are them my Adversaries bring against me.  
As for that Monsieur Imbert, and the Pastor of St. Mary's at Mechlin, whom they pretend to have been condemned, tho' they alleged my Exposition as a Warrant for their Doctrines; the Question is, whether they alleged it right or wrong. And such Matters of Fact as these advanced without Proof, 
* Or bringing the Propositions maintained by them. and Condemned.  merit not any further Information.  
But because you desire to know something concerning them, I must tell you that this Imbert is a Man of no Renown, as well as of no Learning, who thought to justify his Extravagances before the Archbishop of Bourdeaux his Superior, by alleging my Exposition to this Prelate, who had Subscribed to the Approbation in the Assembly of 1682. But all Mankind saw very well that Heaven and Earth was not more opposite than my Doctrine from that which this daring Person has presumed to broach. Moreover, it never entered into the Mind of any Catholic, that we ought to adore the Cross after the same manner as JESUS CHRIST in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; nor that the Cross with JESUS CHRIST was to be adored as the Human Nature of our Saviour with the Divine in the Person of the Son of God: And if this Man gives out he is Condemned for denying those Errors which no body ever sustained, he shows his Malice to be as great as his Ignorance.  
For the Pastor of St. Mary of Mechlin, who I am informed is a Person of Merit, I have seen a little Printed Treatise of his called Motivum Juris: where he advances this Proposition, That the Pope is in the Church as the Precedent in a Council, and the Major, or Bourghemaster, as they call them in the Low-Countries, amongst the Company of Aldermen. A Proposition very different from my Exposition, where I acknowledge the Pope to be as a Head Established by God, to whom we own Submission and Obedience. If then the Faculty of Louvain has Censured this Book, 
* Or any other Proposition of that nature, which this Author, if he had been Ingenuous, aught to have mentioned.  I am not engaged in that Dispute: And on the other hand, my Exposition is so far from being rejected in the Low-Countries, that on the contrary it has been Printed at Antwerp in their own Language, with all the Marks of Public Authority, as well Ecclesiastical as Secular.  
As for those Passages which they pretend I have Corrected in a second Edition for fear of offending the Sorbon, it is as you see a chimerical Invention, and I do here once more repeat it, That I neither published, nor connived at, nor caused to be made any Edition of my Book, but that which is well known, in which I never altered any thing.  
'Tis true, this little Treatise being at first given in Writing to some particular Persons for their Instruction, many Copies of it were dispersed, and it was Printed without my order or knowledge. No body found fault with the Doctrine contai'nd in it; and I myself, without changing any thing in it of importance, and that only as to the order, and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Style, caused it to be Printed as you now see. If upon that account they will have me in some manner to have been contrary to myself, they show themselves to be too credulous.  
But suppose it had been so, and that to free my Book from the danger of all Attempts, I had in some places Corrected my Expressions (which, God be thanked, I had no occasion to do) the Work ought to be so far from being disesteemed upon that account, that on the contrary it would be a Proof I had at last brought it to that Exactness, that neither the Sorbon, nor any other could find any thing to say against it, as in reality no Catholic Reprehends any thing contained in it.  
The last Objection which this English Minister brings against me is, That I am fertile enough in producing new Labours, but sterile in Answering what is written against my Works: from whence he concludes that I am conscious they cannot be Defended. 'Tis true, I have written three little Treatises of Controversy, one of which is this of the Exposition. As the principal Objection against this was, That I had palliated and prevaricated the Catholic Doctrine, the best Answer I could make to it, was to relate the Approbations which were sent me undesignedly from all Parts of Europe, and that from the Pope himself repeated. This Answer will bear no Reply, and I have said what was necessary upon that Subject in the Advertisement prefixed to the Edition of 1676.  
If he who has sent you the Objections of the English Minister has not seen this Advertisement, I desire you would take it up at Cramoisies in virtue of this Order, and send it to him as it is Printed this Year 1686, because I have there added the Approbation of the French Clergy, 
These Approbations are added in the Edition published by his Majesty's Command.  and a second Approbation of the Pope's very Authentic. And if he will but take the pains to join this Advertisement and the Approbations to his Translation of the Exposition, he will render his Labour more profitable to the Public, and stop the Mouths of all those who contradict it.  
Concerning the two other Treatises which I writ upon Matters of Controversy, one of them is upon Communion under both Species, and the other is my Conference with M. Claude Minister of Charenton, upon the Authority of the Church, with Reflections upon the Answers of that Minister. In these Treatises I have endeavoured to prevent the principal Objections, and to give Answers to them, so that all Men of sense are satisfied. After which to multiply Disputes, and to compose Books after Books to embroil the Question, and quit the first Design, neither does Charity require it of me, nor does my Employment give me leisure.  
You may send this Letter into England, that he who desires this Information may make use of what he thinks convenient; and if he think it may be beneficial, to mention he has had what concerns these Matters of Fact, and my Intentions from me, he may do it; and also assure them, without the least apprehension, that there is nothing in this Letter but what is public and certain, etc.  
From Meaux April the 6th 1686. SIR, Your very humble and affectionate Servant, ✚ J. Benign E. de Meaux.  
BEhold what the Bishop of Meaux himself has thought good to Answer to a particular Account was given him by Letter touching these Matters of Fact. There are two things remaining in the Preface, which seem to require a farther Examination, because they were not fully Represented to the Bishop. The first is the Objection drawn from Cardinal Capisucchi's Book, which this Author affirms to contradict the Bishop of Condom's Exposition. The other is the Consequence he draws from thence, and from other pretended Actions, (to wit) That Roman-Catholics think it lawful even to set their Hands to, 
Pref. p. 13.  and approve those Books, whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike.  
To the First; Whereas he affirms Cardinal Capisucchi to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Exposition, we must first take notice; The Bishop of Condom's intention was not to meddle with Scholastic Tenets, but purely to deliver that Doctrine of the Church which is necessarily and universally received; whereas Cardinal Capisucchi, being obliged to no such strictness, would not it may be contradict the Problematical Niceties of those Schools in which he had been Educated, so that what he said might pass without a Censure. And yet even in this, if his Sense be rightly understood, the unbiass'd Reader will plainly see that his Doctrine is the same with that of the Exposition.  
The Bishop of Condom declares, 
Expos. p. 8. Sess. 24. Dec. de Invoc. etc.  from the Council of Trent, That we are forbidden to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images, for which they ought to be reverenced; That the Honour which is given to them aught to be referred to the Prototypes represented by them: And this the Cardinal tells us in express Terms. Oh! but he tells us of a Divine Worship (says this Author) paid to the Images of the Holy Trinity, of our Blessed Saviour, and of the Holy Cross. Whether he use that Expression or no, I know not, having not yet seen the Book; but yet this very Author tells us how the Cardinal explicates himself, That the Honour which is paid to the Images is only upon account of the Things represented by them, and not upon account of the Images themselves, as thinking any Divinity in them; for to do that, he confesses, would be Idolatry. 
Ibidem.  And what is this, but what the Bishop of Condom has expressed in other Terms from the Council of Trent, That the Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent; 
Sess. 25. Dec. de Inu. etc.  that by the means of those Images we kiss, and before which we kneel, we adore JESUS CHRIST. Nay more, the Cardinal tells us, That this Honour is not to be paid to them otherwise than upon account of the Things represented by them, and as they are, in that respect, one and the same with the Thing which they represent: And what is that, but to adore God or JESUS CHRIST in presence of the Image, 
Ibid. Pontif. de Bened. Imag.  as the Bishop of Condom has expressed it from the Pontifical? This St. Thomas explicates by a familiar Example of the Royal Robes: For, as we plainly see the Purple puts us in mind of the Prince; and so does the Cross, of our Crucified Saviour: We pay a Sovereign Honour to the King when in His Robes, but in Incognito we pay not a Respect with such Formalities; 'tis not the Purple or the Robes we honour for themselves, but as making one with the King; nor is it the Cross we honour, but in respect of CHRIST: If the Honour which we show to the Purple, or the Chair of State, may in some sense be called Regal or Sovereign Honour, 'tis only in respect of our King or Sovereign; and in like manner, if that Honour which is shown to the Crucifix may in some sense be called Religious, or, which is more, Divine, 'tis purely in respect of JESUS CHRIST, who is both God and Man.  
All the difference therefore betwixt Cardinal Capisucchi and the Master of the Sacred Palace is thus easily reconciled; and if there be any difference, it only consists in this, that when the Master of the Sacred Palace wrote to the Bishop of Condom, he approved his Book in which he stuck close to the necessary and universally received Doctrine of the Church, and conformed himself to the Language of it, making a distinction betwixt the Images and things represented by them; whereas the Cardinal Capisucchi conformed himself to a Scholastic Style, and supposed the Representative as Representative, to be representatively one and the same with the thing represented. But I needed not to have taken this pains to reconcile the Bishop of Meaux with Cardinal Capisucchi; seeing another particular Examination of the Bishop's Book upon this Point (Answ. to Papist Protesting, etc. pag. 91.) has reconciled the Bishop's Doctrine with that of St. Thomas, that is, with Cardinal Capisucchi's, tho' he err in the right Explication of both their Doctrines.  
Now Secondly, as for his Assertion, That we think it lawful to disguise the Sentiments of our Religion; and his Confirmation of it, from the Procurer General of Paris his Answer to Father Thomassin, 
Pref. p. 14.  That they suffered in France an Italian should write according to the Principles of his Country, but for a Frenchman to do the same was another matter: He ought to have made a distinction between Matters of Faith and Scholastic Opinions, or, to use other Terms, the Doctrines of a Church, and the Doctrines in a Church: Every one knows, that the Doctrines of a Church, or Matters of Faith, being Tenets necessarily and universally received, aught upon no account to be dissembled or disguised; and he can bring no one Example of that nature: But as for Scholastic Opinions, or the Doctrines in a Church, of which daily Disputes are raised in the Schools, we see not only one Nation commanding one thing to be taught, and another quite the contrary; but even one University against another in the same Country, nay one College against another in the same University, without the least breach of Unity, or note of Intriguing Dissimulation.  
Thus Father Thomassin having undertaken a Scholastic Dispute of the Authority of the See Apostolic above that of a General Council, a Dispute which is defended in the Schools of Italy, but forbidden in France, and neither generally nor necessarily received by the Church, no wonder if the Procurer General of Paris should refuse to suffer it to be Printed.  
Thus also it is the Jesuits have found it convenient (upon other accounts also, it may be, as well as that, such as is the difficulty of sending to Rome for the Approbation of every Book, etc.) to take their Licences from their respective Provincials.  
Thus much for his Preface. And as for the Collections he has given of some Passages in the Edition printed without the Bishop of Condom's consent, we have little to say to them more than what the Bishop has himself answered in his Letter, unless it be to thank this Author for being so ingenuous as to print them; for every unbiass'd Reader may there see, that the first Edition, instead of proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome (as this Author says it did) so loosely and favourably, 
Pref. p. 2.  that many undesigning Persons of that Communion were offended at it; 
Ibid. p. 3.  did, on the contrary, (if any fault be to be found on that score) propose the same Doctrine with too much strictness. They may see also, that the Sorbonne was so far from marking out (as he says) several of the most considerable Parts of it, 
Ibid.  wherein the Exposition, by too much desire of palliating, had absolutely perverted the Doctrine of their Church, that this very Author, in his Collections, could not propose one Doctrine so perverted, without a forced Interpretation of his own; nay, on the contrary, he is sensible, that in some places the Bishop had rather spoken with too much strictness; and therefore, after his wont way of turning all things to a wrong intention, he tells his Reader, 
Collect. p. 23.  That th' other was really the true Sense of the Church, but it was thought too ingenuous; and 'tis not fit Protestants should know it: And in another place, 
Ibid, p. 32.  That the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear. But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors, M. de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfy his Holiness.  
But if in some other Places he has either retrenched or altered his Expression, any one, who is not willing to take every thing by a wrong Handle, may easily see it was not out of such ill Designs as this Author endeavours to persuade us; but purely to retrench what was not conformable to his Design of a bare Exposition, or what had been sufficiently expressed before; to keep himself more precisely to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent; or to obviate any malicious Interpretations, which Persons, disposed to take all things in a wrong sense, might force upon his Expressions, if he worded them not more cautiously.  
But, above all, it seems to me most strange that any, especially one who dares publish to the World the Doctrine of a Church, should make the alteration or retrenchment of some manner of Expressions in a Book writ, as he owns, four Years before, so heinous a Crime, that the Author must needs pass for one that either did not understand his own Doctrine, 
Pref. p. 4.  or at least had not the Sincerity to Expound it right. He may wish, it may be, he had been as cautious in his own Book, as the Bishop was in his.  
However, we have nothing to do with the first Impression. 'Tis this other, put out by the Bishop of Meaux himself, which has been presented to you, and to which so many Authentic Approbations and Testimonies have been given: And I affirm he must be strangely deceived, or wilfully blind, who will not grant it to contain the true Doctrine of the Church, according to the Sense of the Council of Trent. But now to the Book itself.   

PART II.  

ART. I. INTRODUCTION.  
SHould I undertake to examine all the Calumnies, Misrepresentation, unsincere Deal, and Falsifications of this Author, in almost every Article, I should swell this Answer beyond the Bounds I have prescribed to myself, and make it tedious to the Reader; yet some however I shall take notice of as they fall in my way; from whence I hope we shall find this advantage, that all those Books to which an Imprimatur, Carolus Alston, etc. is prefixed, will not hereafter be concluded free from Errors; nor will every nameless Author, who professes to be sincere, pass hereafter for an Oracle.  
His Introduction is Calumny in a high Degree, and the State of his Question drawn from thence as unsincere.  
He tells us of adoring Men and Women, Crosses, 
Introd. p. 3, 4, 5.  Images, and Relics; of setting up our own Merits, and making other Propitiatory Sacrifices for Sin, distinct from that of the Cross, which, he says, 
P. 5.  are contrary to our pretended Principles, (to wit) That Religious Worship is due to God alone; That we are to be saved only by Christ's Merits; and, That the Death of CHRIST was a perfect Sacrifice: but yet are not, as he tells us, obscure Consequences drawn from our Doctrines, but the plain and confessed Opinions of the Church of Rome, the Practice and Prescription of the Chiefest Authority in it: and therefore for us to refuse their Charge, is to protest against a matter of Fact; a Plea which even Justice itself has told us may without Calumny, be rejected as invalid.  
Were these Doctrines and Practices, which he alleges, the plain and confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, he would, 'tis true, have reason to say they contradict our Principles: But seeing they are all so solemnly renounced by us, that we detest the very thoughts of them, and cannot hear these repeated Accusations without nauseating them; and seeing he has been so often told, that these Consequences are not only far-fetched, obscure, and disavowed; but Consequences which are so false, that no Connection can be found betwixt them and our Doctrines and Practices when truly represented; we have just reason to refuse the Charge, and tell him, they have no more Justice to accuse us of them, than Dissenters from the Church of England have to accuse her of Idolatry and Superstition, for Bowing to the Altar, and at the Name of JESUS, or for using the Cross in Baptism; or then the Quakers have for accusing them and us of breach of the First Commandment, because we use the Civility of Hat and Knee to them who are but mere Creatures as we ourselves.  
But however, these things must be charged upon us as an Introduction; and then the Question must be stated after a new mode, and we represented as consenting to it.  
He tells us therefore, 
Pag. 5.  That they have got thus much at least by that Reflection; that it shows them how they, who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as INNOVATORS IN RELIGION, are at last, by our own Confession, allowed to hold the Ancient and Undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith; and from this pretended Concession he draws up the State of the Controversy, you may be certain, favourably to himself. But who is it (I pray) that allows him this Proposition, That the New Reformers hold the Ancient and Undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith? and where does he allow it?  
The Exposition has, 
Sect. 2. p. 2.  'tis true, 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: But how does he from thence show that Catholics reciprocally grant them to hold all those Fundamental Articles? I say, all; for no body ever denied they held some of them.  
This Author knows very well, we are so far from granting this to them, that, on the contrary, we always accuse them of Innovations, and denying those Articles which are Fundamental, and as necessary and as plainly revealed, as many of those others which they admit.  
We always affirm, We are in possession of our Doctrines and our Practices, that these have been delivered down to us by our Predecessors, as Truths revealed to the Prophets and Apostles; we always tell them, We have the Decisions of a Church in our behalf; a Church, I say, 
1 Tim. 3.15.  which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth; 
Matth. 16.18.  a Church against which the Gates of Hell, by the express Promise of JESUS CHRIST, was never to prevail; 
Eph. 4.11, 12, etc.  and in which Pastors and Teachers were to remain for ever, lest we should be led away with every wind of Doctrine: We tell them, He who denies one Article revealed by God, and proposed by his Church as so revealed, is as guilty of the Breach of Faith, as he who denies them all; because he rejects God's Veracity, upon which that Faith is grounded: And by consequence, we cannot but tell them, That whilst they renounce those Articles, which we believe are revealed Truths, they are guilty of Fundamental Errors, and hold not the Ancient and Undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith.  
So that the true State of the Controversy in general betwixt Catholics and Protestants is, whether they or we do Innovate; they, in refusing to believe those Doctrines we profess to have received with the Grounds of Christianity; or we, in maintaining our Possession. And the Dispute is, Whether Roman Catholics ought to maintain their Possession, for which many Protestants themselves grant they have a Prescription of above 1000 Years? or whether the Authorities, brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholic Doctrine, be so weighty, that every Roman Catholic is obliged to renounce the Communion of that Church in which he was bred up, and quit his Prescription and Possession? Which certainly they are not obliged to do, unless it can be plainly proved they have innovated, or taught such Doctrines as overthrow those Truths which are on both Sides allowed to be Divine.  
This the Bishop of Condom knew they could never do, and that our Doctrines, when truly represented, were so far from contradicting those mutually-received Articles of our Faith, that, on the contrary, they confirmed our Belief of them: And therefore he undertook to separate the Articles of our Faith, from what was falsely imputed to us, and resolved to propose them according to the received Sense of the Church declared in the Council of Trent. And whether he has faithfully performed this Undertaking, or no, is our present Question, which we are to examine in these following Articles.  
What does it therefore avail this Author to tell us, 
Pag. 6.  he will, in the following Articles, endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what they can approve, and what they dislike in the Doctrines of the Catholic Church; unless he first show us, and that by some Authentic Acts of the Church, that those are her Doctrines; and secondly, give us some assurance, of greater Authority than the Prescription of the Roman Catholic Church, that they are Novelties or Erroneous.   

ART. II. Religious Worship is terminated only in God.  
THat all Religious Worship is terminated in God alone, is the Biship of Condom's Assertion, 
Art. 2.  and the Church's Doctrine; to which both this, and another later Author agree; 
Answer to a Discourse entitled Papists Protesting, etc.  but both of them will have the Invocation of Saints, and the Honour which we pay to Images and Relics, to be inconsistent with that Maxim.  
What the Bishop has said is enough to satisfy any one, who is not obstinate; his Words are these: The same Church teaches us, 
Expos. p. ●.  That all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God, as its necessary End; and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin, and to the Saints, may in some sense be called Religious, it is for its necessary relation to God. From which Words it is plain, the Bishop thought Religious Honour or Worship might be taken in a double sense; the first strict, and that he acknowledges is only due to God; the other in a larger sense, which may be paid to Creatures. But how this other may be called Religious Honour, he tells us is, because of the reference which it has to God. Thus that Civil Honour or Obedience which we pay to Magistrates, if we do it for Conscience sake, that is, purely to obey the Ordinance of God, may be not improperly called a Religious Honour or Obedience, because by Honouring or Obeying them, for God's sake, we Honour and Obey God: Thus to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulations is called by St. James a clean and unspotted Religion. 
James 1.27.  But if we take Religion in a stricter sense, for a Supreme and Sovereign Honour, or an adhesion to an Independent Being with all the Powers of our Soul, etc. it is only proper to God, and cannot be paid to Creatures: and in that sense the Honour which we pay to our Blessed Lady, and other Saints, is far from being a Religious Honour. Let Mary be Honoured, 
Epiph. Haer. 79.  but let God be Adored, was the Saying of an ancient Father; not with Divine Honour, for that is due to God alone, Soli Deo honour & gloria; but with an Inferior Honour, which if our Authors will not have us call Religious, we will not dispute about the Name. We ought not to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone, that we may give it to his Creatures; neither Honour, nor Worship, nor Prayer, nor Thanksgiving, nor Sacrifice: But yet we may honour those whom God has honoured; we may give an inferior Degree of Worship to those who are in some Degree of Honour above us in this World, and why not to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other, so it elevate them not above the State of Creatures? We may pray to our Friends and Parents here on Earth, to pray for us, without derogating from our Duty to God; and why the same may not be addressed to Saints and Angels, who are no less our Friends, without robbing God of what is his due, is, I must confess, to me unintelligible. If you tell me the first is only Civil; or if it may be called a Religious Love or Honour, 
Answ. to Papist Protest. p. 38.  when it is done for God's sake; yet it is but an  Denomination from the Cause and Motive, not from the Nature of the Act, and therefore cannot make Gods of them; we affirm the same of the second, and renounce any other sort of Religious Worship, which is so from the nature of the Act and by consequence only due to God. This Distinction reflected on will be sufficient to answer all the Objections brought against our Doctrine by both those Authors: And we cannot but wonder, that Persons should use so many endeavours not to understand us; 
Expos. p. 10.  and because, as the Bishop of Condom has observed, in one sense Adoration, Invocation, and the name of Mediator are only proper to God and JESUS CHRIST, we are astonished why they will still misapply those terms to render our Doctrine odious; whereas if they would but strictly keep to the sense, in which we use them, all their Objections and Accusations would lose their force, and we might have some hopes of a more Christian Unity.   

ART. III. Invocation of Saints.  
AS for the Invocation of Saints, 
Art. 3. p. 9  he grants with Monsieur Daillè, that several of the Primitive Fathers, in the Fourth Age of the Church, 
pag. 7.  made Addresses to them; but will have them to be only Innocent Wishes, and Rhetorical Flights; What Authority does he bring for this Assertion, and his farther accusation of these Fathers of the Fourth Century, that they did certainly begin to departed from the Practice and Tradition of those before them? 
pag. 8.  Did any in that or the following Ages accuse or censure them? If not, by what Authority does he condemn those Prayers, those Innocent Wishes, and Holy Raptures (as he calls them, because he will not have them to be Prayers) as fond things vainly invented, etc.  
We only tell you it is lawful to Pray to them, and condemn such as censure all those Ancient and Orthodox Fathers. What Authority have you to oppose us? You say it is repugnant to God's Word; show that Word? If you cannot, we are in Possession, and the Antiquity and Uninteruptedness of our Doctrine, besides the Reasonableness and Innocence of it, confirms us in our belief, and aught to be more prevalent with us, than all the Sophistical Arguments brought against us.  
We name them in our Sacrifices, and give God thanks for the Victories they have obtained through his Grace, and humbly beseech him to vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession; if we mention their merits, 'tis only those Victories they had obtained by his Favours, which we beseech him to look upon and not to regard our unworthiness; even as we beg of him to hear their Prayers, which are more prevalent than our own, because more pure. But this is far from such an idle fancy, as if Christ, who is our Sacrifice, 
pag. 12.  needed, as he says the Assistance of St. Bathildis or Potentiana to recommend him to his Father, or the deserts of a St. Martin to obtain our forgiveness. We detest such thoughts; and abominate such Doctrines. The Bishop of Condom has fully explicated our Tenets, what this Author or others impose upon us, we are not to answer for, nor are we concerned to maintain the ill consequences which follow from such Impositions.   

ART. IV. Images and Relics.  
HIs next Article of Images and Relics complains how the approved Doctrine of our most reputed Writers contradicts what M. de Meaux would have us to think is their only design in that Service. 
Art. 4. Pag. 13.  Let us examine this a little?  
The Bishop of Condom's business is to explicate the universally approved Doctrine of the Church, according to the Sentiments of the Council of Trent, and not to meddle with Scholastic Opinions, or those Practices which are neither necessary, nor generally received. He tells us therefore, 
Expos. Sect. 5. pag. 8.  That all the Honour that is given them, aught to be referred to the Prototypes represented by them; and that we do not attribute to them any other Virtue but that of exciting in us the Remembrance of those they represent; That the Honour we render them is grounded upon this, that the very seeing of the Image of JESUS CHRIST Crucified cannot but excite in us a more lively Remembrance of him who died upon the Cross for our Redemption; That whilst this Image before our Eyes causes this precious Remembrance in our Souls, we are naturally moved to testify, by some exterior Signs, how far our Gratitude bears us; which exterior Signs are not paid to the Image, but to JESUS CHRIST represented by that Image. So that, properly speaking, according to the Bishop of Meauxes sense, and that of the Council, the Image of the Cross is to be only looked upon as a Representative or Memorative Sign, which is therefore apt to put us in mind of JESUS CHRIST, who suffered upon the Cross for us: and the Honour which we there show, precisely speaking, and according to the Ecclesiastic Style, is not properly to the Cross, but to JESUS CHRIST, represented by that Cross. Not to JESUS CHRIST as present in, or with, or to that Cross, as if the Cross itself were the Object of our Worship (as another Answerer represents our Doctrine); 
Answer to Papist Protesting, Sect. 5. passim.  but to him in Heaven, whose becoming Man, and dying for us, we remember by looking upon the Cross. So that JESUS CHRIST is the sole Object of our Adoration, and not the Cross.  
The Cross therefore, whether taken as Wood or Stone, or moreover as the Image of JESUS CHRIST Crucified, is not properly the Object of our Worship; but is a Help to recall our wand'ring Thoughts back to a Consideration of the Benefits we have received by his dying for us: and whilst we have these good thoughts in our Minds, our Affections are inflamed, and we, in presence of that Image, which occasioned those pious Affections, show, by some exterior Act, what are our inward Sentiments, and pay our Adorations to our Redeemer, but not to the Image that represents him.  
This is the Pure and Innocent Doctrine of the Church, without mixture of Scholastic Subtleties: and this the  Author acknowledges to be very innocent. 
Ibid. p. 84.  It is (says he) a very innocent thing to worship GOD or CHRIST, when any Natural or Instituted Sign brings them to our minds, even in the presence of such a Sign: as if a Man, upon viewing the Heavens and the Earth, and the Creatures that are in it, should raise his Soul to God, and adore the Great Creator of the World; or upon the accidental sight of a Natural Cross (and why not upon the designed sight of an Artificial one?) should call to mind the Love of his Lord who died for him, and bow his Soul to him in the most submissive Adorations. But because he could not deny this to be Innocent, therefore he will not have it to be the Doctrine of our Church; but will have the Use of Images in our Church to be not primarily for Remembrance, but for Worship: 
Ibid. Pag. 85.  and this, he tells us, the Council of Trent expressly teaches, but is far from proving it. The Council indeed tells us (as he citys) That the Images of JESUS CHRIST, 
Sess. 25. Dec. de Invoc. etc.  etc. are to be had and retained especially in Churches (not as he renders it, especially to be had and kept in Churches) and that due Honour and Veneration is to be given them— because the Honour given them is referred to the Prototypes. 
In Templis praesertim habendas & retinendas.  But it never tells us the Primary Use of Images is for Worship. Nay, on the contrary, this Council, 
Ibid.  presently after, commanding Bishops to teach diligently the several Benefits that occur by the Representations of the Mysteries of our Redemption, makes not the least mention of that of Worship, but only that they are to Teach, to Instruct, to Recall to our remembrance, to excite our Imitation, and the like. But he tells us, that a mere Sign, which only calls CHRIST to our Mind, can deserve no Honour or Worship: and therefore seems to conclude, That since the Council of Trent allows of a due Honour to Images, 
Ibid. pag. 85.  she must allow it to them as Signs representing the Person of CHRIST as if he were present; which whether they raise our Hearts to him in Heaven or no, yet, according to the Council of Trent, (says he) must direct our Worship to him as represented in his Image. That a mere Sign deserves no Honour, as such, we deny; but that this Honour which it deserves must be the same with that which is due to the thing signified, neither does the Council of Trent, nor the Church determine: The Council tells us only, That due Honour and Veneration is to be paid them upon account of their Prototypes; but never tells us of what nature this Honour is. What are the Scholastic Opinions concerning this, is not to our present purpose; seeing we speak here only of universally received Tenets. And what he would persuade the World to be our Doctrines, as, That we do direct our Worship to JESUS CHRIST as represented in his Image; 
Pag. 85. Pag. 91.  That we worship him before the Image, in that Worship which we give to the Image; and that we look upon Images as Legal Proxies or Representatives of JESUS CHRIST and his Saints, and therefore pay the same Worship to them as to the Prototypes; are neither the Doctrines of the Church, nor of the Schools, who neither of them look upon Images as Proxies, to which the same Debt is due as that which ought to be paid to the Person in whose Place it is; but only as Signs or Representatives, before which we may adore that Divine Object which those Signs bring to our remembrance, and which we may make use of as a more effectual Means to put us in mind of that Object. Some Honour, notwithstanding, is due to this Image thus representing JESUS CHRIST, (for example) as there is some Honour due to the Image of our Sovereign; but of what nature this Honour is, is not defined by the Council.  
There is a vast difference then betwixt a Legal Proxy or Delegate, and an Image or Representative. The Picture of my Father is his Image or Representative, but cannot be called his Proxy or his Delegate. Pictures or Images are only made use of to call those Persons, whose Pictures they are, to our remembrance, either by representing their Features (if we had formerly known the Persons) or some additional Marks, expressing some Actions of their Lives by which they are known: but they were never used by Christians as the Proxies or Delegates of those Persons they represented to our Minds. Whether the Heathens used the Images of their Gods as their Proxies or Delegates, is not my present purpose to discuss; but this is certain, 
Just Discharge, Part 3.  they thought a Divinity was annexed to those Images, and some of them esteemed them Gods, and others thought them the Representatives of their Gods, who were not Gods, but rather Devils; and therefore when they offered Incense to them, and adored them, they were properly Idolaters.  
The use we make of Pictures or Images is purely as Representatives, or (that we may use his Term) Memorative Signs, which call the Originals to our remembrance; and the Honour which we pay to them is of the same nature with that which we pay to the Name of JESUS. When we either hear that Sound, or see those Characters, they bring the Author of our Redemption to our remembrance, and we bow the Knee and adore him. 'Tis not the Syllables nor the Characters that we adore, tho' we have a respect for them, and would not use any Indignity towards them, because they are Representative Signs; but it is JESUS CHRIST, represented by them, whom we adore. Thus after the same manner, when we see or read any other thing which brings his Life, his Death, his Sufferings to our Minds, we adore him in presence of that which calls those Pious Objects to our remembrance: neither are we therefore said to adore those Letters, that Book, or those Resemblances which cause such Thoughts, tho' we kneel, or bow, or prostrate ourselves before them.  
Neither is it more culpable to make use of those Pictures, than of Books: For if we would meditate upon the Passion of our Blessed Saviour, we endeavour to form in our Minds a Representation of his Sufferings; 'tis not that Idea or Representation which we compassionate and adore, but Him who truly suffered for us: But our Minds being accustomed to wander, and those Ideas which keep our Thoughts fixed upon him being apt to pass away; therefore we either take a Book, or Crucifix, or other Representation of his Passion; which whilst we look upon, those Ideas return to our Imagination, and we being piously affected, renew our Compassion or our Adorations, not to the Bible or the Crucifix, but to the Author of our Redemption.  
In like manner, in our Public Service, we desire to offer Incense to him who died upon the Cross for our Redemption; we fix our Eyes upon, and burn Incense before the Crucifix which represents him; not as if the Crucifix were his Delegate or Proxy, placed there on purpose to receive our Homage due to Him: but because by viewing That our Thoughts are fixed upon the Original who is represented by it to our Minds, and to whom we offer Incense.  
If this Homage, which we pay in presence of the Image, be termed by some a Homage paid to the Image, (which is an improper Speech) they explicate themselves, and tell us, That it is purely to it as to a Representative, and upon account of that Representation; not as to a Proxy or a Delegate, placed to receive that Homage, and to which upon that account it is due, as when we pay a Homage to a Viceroy upon account of the King in whose stead he is: for there the Viceroy is the immediate Object of our Honour, tho' only mediately of that Sovereign Honour which is due to the King whom he represents; but only as to an inanimate Being, to which nothing is due of itself, but purely upon account of that Animate Being which it calls to our remembrance, and as it calls it to our remembrance. Thus is there no Honour due to the Statue or Resemblance of a King, as it is a Statue; but only as it is his Resemblance: neither is that Statue his Delegate, but a memorative Sign of him, and which we honour as such: and thus as the Indignities offered to that Statue are interpretatively offered to the King; so is the Honour which is shown it, as representing him, interpretatively offered to the King whom it represents. In like manner that Homage which we pay to JESUS CHRIST, represented by the Cross, is, properly speaking, Adoration: But nothing at all is due to the Cross for itself; for that is an inanimate Being, capable of no Honour; but that Adoration is due to him who being an animate Nature, is called to our Minds by that Resemblance.  
The want of taking this our Doctrine in a right sense, has been the occasion of that Author's prolix Discourse of about Twenty three Leaves; in which he has not at all combated our Doctrine, but only some Scholastic Opinions, and that with so few Additions of any new Difficulties, that all he has said has been formerly refuted in the Just Discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet 's  Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, to which I will refer the Reader, and return to my other Antagonist, and see what he brings against this our Doctrine.  
First, he tells us, That St. Thomas and his Followers were never Censured for maintaining, in plain terms, That the Image of the Cross ought to be worshipped with the same Worship as that Saviour who suffered on it. 
Expos. of the Doct. of the Ch. of Engl. p. 14.  In answer to this, I need only tell him, We are not here to maintain every Opinion held by the Schools, nor is it necessary the Church should Censure them, unless they formally contradict her Doctrine, which St. Thomas is far from being guilty of: But, if he had been sincere, he ought to have taken notice of the Reason brought by St. Thomas and his Followers, which shows, That it is purely upon account of JESUS CHRIST represented, that is, brought to our remembrance by it, and not upon any account of the Cross itself. Which Reason, if rightly understood, speaks no more than this, That whilst I see the Figure of our Blessed Saviour Crucified, I, by bowing in presence of that Crucifix, adore him in Heaven; and if I bow, or kneel, or prostrate myself before that Crucifix, that Bowing, Kneeling, or Prostration may be termed Adoration; because it tends to JESUS CHRIST, the true Object of our Adoration, who is represented to my Mind by that Crucifix. It is therefore an Adoration of JESUS CHRIST represented by the Crucifix, but not an Adoration of the Crucifix itself: For this Holy Doctor declares, 
3. Qu. 25. Art. 3. in Corpore.  That no Reverence is due to any thing for itself, but to a Rational Nature; but that an Irrational Creature may be honoured with respect to a Rational Nature which it represents; which Honour does not terminate in the Irrational Creature, but in the Rational Nature: upon which account he maintains, That that Honour is the same with that which is paid to that Rational Nature.  
The Pontifical also (says he) admits the same. In the same sense, I grant, but not in that which he would willingly make us believe it does. He tells us indeed, That in the Prayers for Blessing the Image of the Cross, he who performs that Ceremony, amongst other Prayers, begs of God, That as many as bow down before it, may find Health both of their Souls and Bodies by it: Which he will have to be irreconcilable with the Bishop of Condom's Doctrine, and that of the Council of Trent, which forbids us to believe any Divinity or Virtue tied to Images, for which they ought to be adored, etc. But if he had dealt ingenuously, he would not have suppressed the Reason of that Bowing mentioned by the Pontifical, which would have easily reconciled the whole. The Words are these: 
See also the same quoted, and falsely rendered in English by the Answerer to the Papist Protesting. pag. 76.   orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam Crucem inveniant corporis & animoe sanitatem. But he thought it better to leave out the words propter Deum, for the sake of God: And this is his usual way of citing Authors. All the rest of his Expressions drawn from the Pontifical are of the same nature, either lame, or patched up from several Places; and therefore if they make any thing against us, are not worthy our regarding.  
But he has another Argument, and that from an Authentic Act of the Church herself in her Good-Friday Solemnity; in which the whole Church addresses herself (says he) to the Cross in these very dangerous words: Behold the Wood of the Cross! come let us adore it: And he tells us, the whole solemnity of that days Service plainly shows we do adore it in the utmost propriety of the Phrase: But here he has been also so unfortunate, as not to give us all the Words of the Church, and to add another which is not there, to make it speak his Sense. The Words sung by the Church in that Service are these, Ecce Lignum Crucis, in quo pependit Salus Mundi: venite Adoremus: Behold the Wood of the Cross, on which the Saviour of the World did hang: come let us Adore. He saw well enough these words taken altogether, would be a clear Explication of our Doctrine, and show it was not the Cross we adored, but the Saviour of the World who hung upon it; and therefore he concealed these last Words, and added the word it, and so gives us this mutilated Sentence, Behold the Wood of the Cross! come let us Adore IT instead of the other.  
But does not the Church in her Hymns of the Passion and Invention, pray to the Cross in express terms? In this, indeed, he seems to have some show of reason; but how often has he been told, these are Poetical Expressions, and that the word Cross, by a Figure sufficiently known to Poets, signifies JESUS CHRIST Crucified, to whom we pray in those Hymns.  
Now as the Honour which we pay to Images is referred to those, who are represented by them; so likewise, is that Honour and Veneration which we pay to the Sacred Relics of those Saints, who were Victims to God, entirely referred to them whose remains they are.  
He tells us, If that be the state of the Question, which the Bishop of Condom has proposed, 
pag. 17.  they confess that the Explication of it has taken away a great part of the difficulty, and that if this be all M. de Meaux desires of them, they are ready to profess their Opinion, that they judge it to be neither offensive to God, nor fit to be scrupled by Man. But lest we should be thus agreed, the Bishop must not be allowed to have explicated our Tenets right; and therefore, either some practices, or abuses, (which might have passed amongst those which he says we complain of) must be brought against him; or else the Council of Trent must be again Corrupted by him in order to it. He tells us, he can allow of Honouring them, but that the Council of Trent says, We are to Worship them, and that by so doing, we shall obtain many Benefits and Graces of God. That these Sacred Monuments are not unprofitably revered, but are TO BE SOUGHT UNTO for the obtaining their help and assistance; to cure the Sick, to give Eyes to the Blind, Feet to the Lame, and even Life to the Dead: Any one, to hear these words quoted, as from the Council of Trent, would really think we prayed and sought unto those Relics, that we might obtain sight for the Blind, etc. whereas the words of the Council express no such thing; which, to the end you may not think I Cavil, I will here give you as they lie. Sanctorum quoque martyrum, & aliorum cum Christo viventium sancta corpora, quoe viva membra fuerunt Christi, & templum Spiritus sancti, ab ipso ad oeternam vitam suscitanda & glorificanda à fidelibus veneranda esse, per quoe multa bèneficia à Deo hominibus proestantur: ita ut affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi, vel eas, aliaque sacra monumenta à fidelibus inutiliter honorari, atque eorum opis impetrandoe causâ Sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari, omnino damnandos esse, prout jam pridem eos damnavit, & nunc etiam damnat Ecclesia. 
Sess. 25. dic. de jovoc. etc.  The Holy Catholic Church teaches also, that the Holy Bodies of Saints and Martyrs living with Christ, which were the living Members of Christ, and the Temples of the Holy Ghost, and are one Day to be raised again to Eternal Life, and glorified by him, are to be Venerated by the Faithful, 
Hieronymus advers. Vigilantium.  by which Bodies many benefits have been granted by God to Men: So that they who affirm, that no Veneration 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 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, 
Conc. Nic. 2. Can. 7.  as the Church does now, and has also formerly condemned them.  
You see there is not one word here of Worshipping them, unless we take Veneration for it, which in some sense may pass, but not in this; neither is there one word of seeking to these Sacred Monuments to obtain their help and assistance; to cure the Sick, etc. These are wholly his own inventions put upon us for the words of the Council, he might very well say these were fond things vainly invented, etc. we require them not from him. All we desire is what he professes they are ready to perform: We will, (says he) Honour the Relics of the Saints as the Primitive Church did: 
Pag. 18.  We will respect the Images of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin; and as some of us now bow towards the Altar, and all of us are enjoined to do so at the Name of the Lord JESUS; so will we not fail to testify all due Respect to his Representation. We will not quarrel with him about the manner how we ought to call that Respect and Honour; and if any of ours say, that Honour and Respect being only due upon account of the Things they represent, and no ways upon their own, ought therefore to have the same Denomination with that which is due to the Original, I hope such an Explication, being no ways injurious to the Originals, deserves not so severe a Censure as some of them are pleased to give it; neither ought the Church, which is not concerned with those Opinions which are purely Scholastic, to suffer for what is probably disputed of in the Schools. Those who would see more of this Point, may be pleased to read the Just Discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet 's  Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, and Veron's Rule of Faith, upon this Head: and they who have not those Books, may be pleased to reflect seriously upon the foregoing Passages, and this following transcribed out of the Council of Trent.  
Imagines porro Christi, Deiparoe Virgins, & aliorum Sanctorum, in templis proesertim habendas & retinendas, eisque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam; non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam sint colendoe, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum: vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda; veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus, 
Psal. 134.  quoe in idolis spem suam collocabant; sed quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quoe illoe reproesentant: ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus & procumbimus, Christum adoremus & Sanctos, quorum illoe similitudinem gerunt, 
Conc. Nic. 2. Actio. 3, 4, & 6.  veneremur; id quod Concilorum, presertim vero secundoe Nicoenoe Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum.  
Illud vero diligenter doceant Episcopi, per historias mysteriorum nostroe redemptionis, picturis vel aliis similitudinibus expressas, erudiri & confirmari populum in articulis fidei commemorandis, & assidue recolendis: tum vero ex omnibus sacris imaginibus magnum fructum percipi; non solum quia admonetur populus beneficiorum & munerum quoe à Christo sibi collata sunt: sed etiam quia Dei per Sanctos miracula & salutaria exempla oculis Fidelium subjiciuntur: ut pro iis Deo gratias agant, ad Sanctorumque imitationem vitam moresque suos componant: excitenturque ad adorandum, ac diligendum Deum, & ad pietatem colendam. Si quis autem his decretis contraria docuerit, aut senserit, anathema sit. In has autem sanctas & salutares observationes si qui abusus irrepserint, eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus vehementer cupit; ita ut nulloe falsi dogmatis imagines & rudibus periculosi erroris occasionem proebentes, statuantur. Quod si aliquando historias & narrationes sacroe Scripturoe, cum id indoctoe plebi expediet, exprimi, & figurari contigerit: doceatur populus, non propterea divinitatem figurari, quasi corporeis oculis conspici, vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi possit. 
Sess. 25. Dec. de Invoc. etc.   
Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches, That the Images of JESUS CHRIST, of the Blessed Virgin-Mother of God, and of other Saints, are to be had and retained, especially in Churches; and, that due Honour and Reverence is to be given them, not that we believe any Divinity or Virtue to be in them, for which they ought to be worshipped, or that we ought to ask any thing of them, or put our confidence in Images, as the Pagans did, who put their trust in Idols; but because the Honour which is paid to them, is referred to the Originals which they represent: So that by means of those Images, which we kiss, and before which we uncover our Heads and Kneel, we adore CHRIST, and venerate those Saints whose resemblance they bear; which Doctrine has been taught by the Decrees of Councils against all Oppugners of Images, 
Conc. Nicen. 2. Actio 3, 4, & 6.  especially by the second Synod of Nice.  
But above all, let the Bishop● diligently teach, That by the Historical Representations of the Mysteries of our Redemption painted, or expressed in other forms, the People are taught the Articles of our Faith, and confirmed in them by a frequent Commemoration and Recollection; as also, That great Fruit is reaped from the use of all Holy Images; not only because the People are admonished by them of the Benefits and Gifts which are bestowed upon them by JESUS CHRIST, but also because the Miracles and salutary Examples, which God has been pleased to show us by his Saints, are visibly represented to the Faithful, that they may give God thanks for them, and may conform their Lives and Manners to the Examples of the Saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and practise Piety. But if any one do teach or think contrary to these Decrees, let him be Anathema. But if any Abuses should chance to creep in amongst these holy and wholesome Observances, the Sacred Synod earnestly desires they maybe entirely abolished; so that no Images shall be permitted which may give the ruder People occasion of believing false Doctrines or dangerous Errors. But if it shall sometimes happen to be expedient, for the Instruction of the unlearned People, to express or figure out some Histories or Relations of the Holy Scripture, let the People be taught the Divinity is not therefore figured to them, as if it could be seen with our corporal Eyes, or expressed by Colours or Figures, etc.  
This is our Doctrine; all other Additions or particular Doctrines we are not to answer for; and this is what the Bishop of Condom has expressly taught.   

ART. V Of Justification.  
IN his Article of Justification he tells us, 
Art. 5. p. 19  That the Doctrine of Justification is one of those Points that deserves their careful Consideration; as being not only one of the chiefest of those Points wherein they suppose the Church of Rome to have prevaricated the Faith, but one of the first that gave occasion to that Reformation that was made from it. If therefore the Doctrine of the Church Catholic, when rightly explicated, be clear from those gross Apprehensions they had of it, and be in itself innocent and pure, I hope he will grant the first Reformers to have been strangely out in their Measures, and that all those, who have followed their Footsteps in that Schism, are obliged to return to their Mother-Church.  
He speaks of wonderful Extravagances in Pardons, Indulgences, etc. in former times, and that generally the People put more confidence in the Inventions of Men, than in the Merits of JESUS CHRIST; but allows us to be better instructed since, or at least more cautious, for which, he says, we may thank the Reformation. But I believe he will find, that all those strange Extravagances were only the Fictions of their own Brains, and Calumnies raised on purpose to make us odious; and that if he look into our Councils and Doctors of those Ages, he will find our Doctrines to have always been the same and our Practices conformable.  
I need not take notice how much he consents to the Exposition of the Bishop of Condom, nor of the nice Distinction which he gives us betwixt Justification and Sanctification, which, he tells us, is the Doctrine of their Church, but, I believe, will be hard put to to prove it; neither need I tell you how much he imposes upon us, as if we made our inward Righteousness a part of Justification, and so by consequence said that our Justification itself is wrought also by our Good Works: for since he tells us, That were these things clearly stated and distinguished, the difference betwixt us considered only in the Idea, would not be very great: and that they might safely allow whatsoever M. de Meaux has advanced upon this Point, provided it be but well and rightly explained, we need not make any further demur, but go on with him to see how the following Doctrines will stand upon this Foundation.   

ART. VI Of Merits.  
HEre he tells us, 
Art. 6. Pag. 22.  That if what the Bishop of Condom has explicated, be all the Church of Rome ascribes to Good Works, (that is) That our Justification proceeds absolutely from God's Bounty and Mercy, and but accidentally only (in as much as God has tied himself by his Word and Promise to reward them) from our own performances; they need no long Exhortations to receive a Doctrine which they have always defended. But he presently dashes these our hopes of Union, by flying to the particular niceties of the Schools; and thinks it sufficient to shelter the Justice of their dissent in those Particulars from our Accusations, because some of those niceties have not been censured by the Church. I need not here say any thing more to him than what I have said before, that it is sufficient the Church has declared her Doctrine in the Council of Trent, and that the Bishop of Meaux has explicated it accordingly. The niceties of the Schools, when truly represented, as they make no Division in the Church, so ought they not to make any amongst Christians.  
But however, if this Author had been so ingenuous as to have given us the Words or the true Sense of those Authors he citys, the World would have seen no such great difference as he pretends there is betwixt them and the Church of Rome.  
He tells us first, That Maldonate the Jesuit, upon Ezek. 18.20. says, That we do as truly and properly merit Rewards when we do well, as we do merit Punishments when we do ill. But had he read Maldonate, he would have found his Words, when taken as they lie, to carry with them a very different sense from what he seems to conclude they bear: For being to explicate this part of the twentieth Verse, Justitia justi super eum erit, & impietas impii erit super eum; The justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him; he tells us, Ex hoc loco perspicuum est, & in nobis aliquam esse nostram ut vocant, inhoerentem, propriamque justitiam, quamvis ex Dei Gratia, & largitate profectam: & nos tam proprie, ac verè cum Gratia Dei bene agentes proemia mereri, quam sine illa male agentes supplicia meremur. De proemio enim justi, & supplicio impii eodem prorsus modo loquitur: i. e. From this Passage it is very clear, both that there is in us an Inherent, as they call it, and Proper Justice of our own, altho' proceeding from the Grace and Bounty of God: as also, that we do as properly and truly when we do well TOGETHER WITH THE GRACE OF GOD merit a Reward, as we do merit Punishments when we do ill WITHOUT IT. For he speaks here after the very same manner of the Just Man's Reward, and of the Punishment of the Wicked. These are his Words: but our Author, whose Religion, as he tells us, accustoms him to sincerity, had it may be forgot himself a little here, or read it in haste, or copied it from some other Author, upon whose sincerity he relied, which made him leave out these words, Together with the Grace of God.  
His next Quotation is from Bellarmine, who tells us, says he, 
De Justif. lib 5. c. 17.  That our Good Works do merit Eternal Life condignly, not by reason of God's Covenant and Acceptation, but also by reason of the Work itself. The Title indeed of that Chapter is something towards that sense; for the Words are these: Opera bona justorum meritoria esse ex condigno, non solum ratione pacti, sed etiam ratione operis; The Works of the Just are condignly meritorious, not only by reason of God's Covenant, but also by reason of the Works. But if we look into the Chapter itself, we shall see his Sense, and that he only holds a Scholastic Opinion, as most probable, and one not so inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Church as he would have it, nor so erroneous as that it needs an Index Expurgatorius.  
He tells us first, There are three ways by which Good Works may be condignly meritorious; either by reason of the Covenant alone, or by reason of the Work alone, or upon account of them both together. Then he tells us, That several Authors have held some one and some another of these ways; but he himself will keep the middle, as most probable, and show, That the Good Works of the Just are condignly meritorious of Eternal Life, not only by reason of the Covenant, but also of the Work together with it. And in proving this Assertion, he explicates his meaning, and shows, first, That the Good Works of the Just, taken of themselves alone, without that Covenant, are not condignly, or so rigorously meritorious of Eternal Life, that God could not without an Injustice refuse such a Reward: And secondly, That in Good Works, proceeding from Grace, there is a certain Proportion and Equality to the Reward of Eternal Life: because Eternal Life is, 
John 1.16.  as St. John tells us, GRACE. FOR GRACE.; that is, the Grace of a Reward, for the Grace of Merit: because Grace is SEMEN GLORIAE, the Seed of Glory: and because our Merits depend upon the Merits of CHRIST, both in this, that he has merited for us the Virtue of Meriting; and in this, that we merit, as the Living Members of JESUS CHRIST, and by an Influence which we receive from him as from our Head. So that he concludes from these and several other Reasons brought by him (all of which show he does not understand that either our Works can be called Good, or we be esteemed Just, without the Grace of God) I say, from these he concludes, That it would be to detract from the Glory of CHRIST, that our Merits (which receive all their Value from him) should be so imperfect, as not to be condignly meritorious, unless it were purely by reason of God's Acceptance. Now let any impartial Man be judge whether this Doctrine require so severe a Censure as he would have the Church to give upon it.  
Then he brings in Vasquez, 
In D. Th. 1. c. qu. 114. d. 214. c. 5. & alibi.  whose Doctrine is much what the same as Bellarmine's, as to the first of the three Conclusions brought by him. The second, as appears by the Words, is only a pure Scholastic Dispute about a Possibility: and therefore I need say nothing to them. As for his third, after some search, I could not find any Conclusion bearing that sense. But touching his Remarkable Corollary, I must needs tell him, he has been so disingenuous as to leave out those Parts which would have shown his Reader upon what Matter he was treating, and how little it made for his purpose, or against us. But that he may see I love sincere Dealing, tho' I be no Protestant, I will transcribe his Words.  
At vero cum opera Justi condign mereantur vitam oeternam tanquam oequalem mercedem, & proemium, non opus est interventa alterius meriti condigni, quale est meritum Christi, ut eis reddatur vita oeterna, quinimo aliquid habet peculiare meritum cujuscunque justi respectu ipsius hominis justi, quod non habet meritum Christi, nempe reddere ipsum hominem justum, & dignum vitâ oeternâ, ut eam dignè consequatur; meritum autem Christi, licet dignissimum sit quod obtineat a Deo Gratiam pro nobis, tamen non habet hanc efficaciam & virtutem, ut reddat nos formaliter justos, & dignos oeternâ vitâ, sed per virtutem ab ipso derivatam hunc consequuntur effectum homines in se ipsis. Et ita nunquam petimus a Deo per merita Christi, ut nostris dignis operibus & meritoriis reddatur merces oeternoe vitoe, sed ut per Christum detur nobis Gratia qua possumus dignè hanc mercedem promereri, quod etiam manifestum signum est non expectare nos novam imputationem meritorum Christi, proeter eam, qua initio acceptimus gratiam, & virtutem ad recte operandum, & condign promerendum.— Nam cum dicimus Christum meruisse nobis vitam oeternam, non intelligimus illam ita nobis meruisse, ut nostris operibus & meritis condignis non reddatur, nisi posteriori illa applicatione meritorum Christi, sed quia Christus merito suo obtinuit nobis justificationem, & ea omnia, quibus ad illam proeparamur, & proeterea obtainuit jam justificatis auxilia, quibus recte operarentur, & vitam oeternam promererentur.  
But (says he) seeing the Works of the Just do condignly merit Eternal Life, as an equal Recompense and Reward, there is no need that any other Condign Merit, such as that of CHRIST, should interpose, to the end that Eternal Life might be rendered to them; for the Merit of every Just man has something peculiar in respect of himself, who is Just, which the Merit of CHRIST has not, that is, to render him Just, and worthy of Eternal Life, that he may worthily obtain it; whereas the Merit of CHRIST, tho' it be most worthy to obtain Grace for us from God, yet it has not this Efficacy and Power to render us formally Just, and worthy of Eternal Life; but Men do in themselves, by a Virtue derived from Him, obtain this Effect. And thus we never beg of God that by the Merits of CHRIST the Reward of Eternal Life may be given to our Worthy and Meritorious Works; but that through CHRIST Grace may be given us, whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this Reward, which is also a manifest sign that we do not expect a new Imputation of the Merits of CHRIST, besides that by which we at first received Grace and Strength to operate rightly, and merit worthily.— For when we say, that CHRIST has merited Eternal Life for us, we do not understand it as if he merited it so for us, that it would not be rendered to our Good Works and condign Merits, unless by that succeeding Application of the Merits of CHRIST; but because CHRIST by his Merits has obtained Justification for us, and all other things by which we are prepared to it, and moreover obtained for them who are already justified those Helps by which they might rightly operate, and merit Eternal Life.  
From which last Words, and the others left out by this Author, it appears manifestly, that Vasquez was not disputing whether we merited Grace and Glory of our own selves, without the Assistance of the Grace of JESUS CHRIST; but whether, after that JESUS CHRIST had merited for us Justifying Grace, and all other Helps necessary to make our Works good, acceptable, and meritorious, there was still another Grace of JESUS CHRIST required over and above these his other Assistances, without which we could not obtain Eternal Life.  
Is this that Doctrine then which he says they most justly detest, 
Pag. 23.  and are not a little surprised to find that no Index Expurgatorius, no Authentic Censure has ever taken notice of so dangerous a Prevarication? Or rather are they not his own Prevarications, which he has put upon us as our Doctrines, and which are as detestable to us, as they are to him; nay, more, if he thinks these Authors held it possible for us to merit of ourselves, without the Grace of God, which prevents, accompanies, and Crowns all our Actions: for he acknowledges, that such a Doctrine of Merit as that which he has represented, as theirs would at least justify a Dissent from a Church in those Particulars, tho' it would not engage them wholly to forsake a Church that taught such things; whereas we doubt not to say, That it cannot be a True Church which teaches such Erroneous Doctrines, and therefore that we ought not to communicate with such an one.   

ART. VII. Satisfactions, Purgatory and Indulgences.  
HIs next Article is of Satisfactions. 
Art. 7. p. 24.  In which he confesses, that what the Bishop of Meaux has said they could most readily allow of, 
Pag 25.  were there but any tolerable Arguments to establish the Doctrine that requires it. 
Pag. 27.  He tells us also, that they practise that Discipline for many other benefits of it, and wish it were universally established even in a strictness equal to what it is fallen from: But yet he will impose upon us a belief, that by our own endeavours we are able to make a true and proper satisfaction to God for sin. How does he prove it? 
Ibidem.  Or how does he show that the Council of Trent is contrary to the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition? He tells us indeed, 
Page. 26.  that the Council of Trent declares, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 8.  That the justice of God requires it, and that therefore the Confessors should be charged to proportion the Satisfaction to the Crime; which he thinks is more than what the Bishop had explicated when he affirmed, That the necessity of this payment does not arise from any defect in Christ's Satisfaction, but from a certain Order which God has established for a wholesome Discipline, and to keep us from offending; and tells us, that Bellarmine concludes from these words of the Council, that it is we who properly satisfy for our own sins, and that Christ's Satisfaction serves only to make ours Valid; and citys in the Margin, Lib. 1. de Purg. c. 14. whereas there are but eleven Chapters in that Book.  
But that you may see how just he is in his Accusation of the Council of Trent, I will give you the words of it.  
The Council having declared the necessity of Satisfactions both from various Examples of Scripture, 
Gen. 3. 2 King. 12. Numb. 12, & 20.  in which it appears manifestly, that God sometimes remits the guilt of Sin, and yet retains a Punishment, as also from the Justice of God which seems to exact a severer punishment for Sins committed against a greater Grace and Knowledge than for Sins committed through Ignorance before Baptism: And having also declared the use and benefits of Penitential Works, to form in us a true Sense of the Enormity of Sin, to be as a Curb to keep us from sinning, and as a Medicine to heal the remnants of Sin, and conquer evil habits, and to render us conformable to our Head CHRIST JESUS, with whom, if we suffer, 
(a) Rom. 8.17. Conc. Trid. Sess, 14. c. 8.  we shall reign also, adds these words, Neque vero ita nostra est satisfactio hoec, quam pro peccatis nostris exsolvimus, ut non sit per CHRISTUM JESUM: nam qui ex nobis, tanquam ex nobis, nihil possumus, eo cooperante, qui nos confortat, omnia possumus. Ita non habet homo unde glorietur; sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est: in quo vivimus, in quo meremur, in quo satisfacimus, facientes fructus dignos Poenitentioe, qui ex illo vim habent: ab illo offerunt Patri, & per illum acceptantur a Patre. Debent ergo Sacerdotes Domini, quantum Spiritus & prudentia suggerit, pro qualitate criminum, & Poenitentium facultate, salutares & convenientes satisfactiones injungere: ne si forte peccatis conniveant, & indulgentius cum Poenitentibus agant, loevissima quoedam opera pro gravissimis delictis injungendo, alienorum peccatorum participes efficiantur. But this Satisfaction which we make for our Sins, is not so ours, that it is not JESUS CHRIST 's; for we who 
(b) 2 Cor. 3.5. Phil. 4.13.  of ourselves as of ourselves can do nothing, can do all things with him who strengthens us. So that Man hath nothing wherein to glory: 
(c) 1 Cor. 1.31. 2 Cor. 10.17. Gal. 6.3.  But all our glory is in Christ, in whom 
(d) Acts 17.28.  we live, in whom we merit, and in whom we satisfy, bringing forth 
(e) Matth. 3.8.4.17. Luc. 3.8.10. & 17.  Fruits worthy of Repentance, which have their Power from him: By him are offered to his Father. From all which the Council concludes thus, Therefore the Priests of our Lord ought, as Prudence and the Spirit of God shall dictate, to enjoin salutary and convenient Satisfactions, according to the Quality of the Crimes, and the Abilities of the Penitents, lest if they should chance to connive at Sins and be too indulgent to Penitents, by enjoining light Penances for great Offences, they should be made partakers of the Sins of others.  
Is not this the very Sense of the Bishop of Meaux? And what proof can he bring from hence, that we think we can of ourselves make a true and proper satisfaction to God for Sin as he insinuates.  
I would gladly therefore have this Author, and with him all Protestants to consider whether what he says be a sufficient ground to break off from an established Church, and separate from her Communion. All the Authority he brings is, 
Pag. 24.  We think the whole of this point to be the advancement of a Doctrine grounded upon no Authority of Scripture, etc. and we are persuaded, that when ever God remits the Crime he remits the Punishment also, 
Pag. 25.  it being a way most suitable to his Divine Goodness. He tells us indeed, that this is the Doctrine of the Church of England, but citys no Authority of Canons or Articles for it, which is very strange, seeing this Doctrine is of such concern, that it gives more to a Sinner for saying a bare Lord have Mercy upon us, than all the Plenary Indulgences of the Catholic Church, against which they make such clamours.  
And here also I cannot but wonder, that he who so often uses no other Argument but we are persuaded, we think, we suppose, that in almost every Article he brings this as his chiefest Argument, we suppose this is contrary to Scripture; or we think this is not to be found in it or in Antiquity; 
Pag. 25.  should yet quarrel with the Bishop of Meaux for using that word, and tell us, he ought to have brought some better proof for so great a Doctrine than barely we suppose: And this, especially, when the Bishop did not use the word, but only nous croyons, we believe, and so it was rendered by me. But it matters not, this served to make a show of an Argument, 
Pag 25, 27, 31.  and must be improved upon several occasions.  

Indulgences.  
INdulgences follow next. 
Art. 7. pag. 27.  And here he tells us, That the Bishop of Meaux has stated our Doctrine after a manner so favourable to them, that he is persuaded he will find more in his own Church than in theirs to oppose his Doctrine. We do not hear of any one yet that has opposed it; nay, on the contrary, we see it almost every where approved. If the Disputes in the Schools have descended to some particular Niceties not expressed by the Bishop, neither he nor we are concerned in them; and if some Abuses have crept in, seeing he acknowledges that both the Council and the Bishop of Meaux seem willing to have them redressed, 
Pag. 28.  methinks it should suffice.  
He tells us indeed of many Practices in the Church of Rome different (as he says) from that of the Primitive Church; but these being neither necessary, nor universally received, we will not quarrel with him about them, but content ourselves with what he has promised, if he will stand to his word, That whenever the Penances shall be reduced to their former Practice, they will be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described, and as the Primitive Ages of the Church allowed of.   

Purgatory.  
THo' he will not allow a Purgatory, 
Act. ●.  yet he is forced to acknowledge Prayer for the Dead in the very second Century. 
Pag. 31.  He would willingly attribute this to any other Intention than that of the Church of aiding or helping Souls departed; nay, further he tells us, they will not condemn the Practice, 
Pag. 32.  so it be not made an Article of our Faith. But since two General Councils have declared it, that of Florence, in which the Grecian Bishops were, and that of Trent; and since the Practice of all Nations, and the Testimonies of every Age confirm the Custom of Praying for the Dead that they might receive help; what can we say to them, who make a Breach in the Church, and condemn Antiquity upon no other grounds than a bare supposition, that it is injurious to the Merits of JESUS CHRIST, which yet has no other Proof but their vain Presumption.    

ART. VIII. Of the Sacraments in general.  
IN his second Part he tells us, 
Art. 9 pag. ●●.  That the Doctrine of the Sacraments has always been esteemed one of the most considerable Obstacles to their Union with the Church of Rome; That they cannot imagine why M. de Meaux should insinuate as if our Disputes about these, except it be in the Point of the Eucharist, were not so great as about other Matters, unless (says he) it be to serve for an Excuse for his own passing so lightly over them, or to make us less careful in examining their Doctrine.  
One would think, to hear this Discourse, that this Author had something very material to bring against our Church; neither has he given us any reason to suspect he would be careless in such a grand Concern: We will trace him in each Sacrament, and see whether the Arguments he brings be sufficient or not to justify a Breach in the Church, which has been the occasion of so great Evils.  
And first, in this Article we find little difference betwixt our Doctrines as to the Nature and Efficacy of the Sacraments, or as to the Necessity of them, or manner how they confer Grace, or the Dispositions requisite to partake of their Effects; the chief difference lying in the diversity of Expression.  
And as for the number of Sacraments, he has removed the chief Obstacle, by telling us, in the close of this Article, That their own Church says but little more than what our greatest Schoolmen have voluntarily confessed. But he needed not to have gone to the Schoolmen; for if they exact this Notion of a Sacrament, that it must be generally necessary to Salvation, as their Catechism expresses it, 'tis true, they will not find Seven Sacraments; but I am afraid also they will scarce establish Two: and if they add, with this Author, that the other Sacraments are not Sacraments after the same manner that Baptism and the Lords Supper are, 
pag. 41.  it will be readily granted them, seeing the very Words of our Profession of Faith express much-what the same thing, when it tells us, there are Seven Sacraments of the New Law Instituted by JESUS CHRIST for the Salvation of Mankind, tho' all be not necessary for every Man.  
If the number of Seven Sacraments be not mentioned by the Ancient Fathers, it is no wonder, seeing they writ not Catechisms; but neither do they limit them to Two: It is sufficient, that in discoursing upon any of these Seven, they generally and properly call them Sacraments. Neither can any Argument drawn from Scripture, against this Number, be of force, since the Scripture does not term any of them Sacraments but only Marriage. It is sufficient, 
Eph. 5.  that the Scripture mentions an exterior Ceremony, and an interior Grace annexed thereto, which shows the nature of a Sacrament.   

ART. IX. Of Baptism.  
AS for Baptism, we both agree, 
Art. 10. p. 35.  That it is the Law of Christ, which the Eternal Truth has established, that seeing all men are conceived and born in Sin, none can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and the Spirit. What reason therefore they have to break Communion with an established Church, because she will not be more Charitable than JESUS CHRIST, whose Law this is, I cannot understand.  
But (says he) This Law, as well as others, must be interpreted according to the Rules of Natural Equity; and since the Roman Church acknowledges that God sometimes accepts of the Will for the Deed, the ardent Desire of Baptism for Baptism itself, when it cannot be had; why should we not think he will accept of the Desire of the Church, and of the Believing Parents, to satisfy for the want of Baptism in Children who die without it, seeing St. Paul tells us, 
1 Cor. 7.  That the Seed of faithful Parentage is Holy from the very Birth.  
I must confess I am astonished to see this Argument, and to hear the Church condemned for her Uncharitableness in this Point, by one who pretends to give us the Doctrine of the Church of England; whereas she determines nothing of it, 
Pag. 37.  as he confesses. If he had been a Huguenot, or Puritan, it might have seemed reasonable to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome for a Doctrine which they condemn: But for a Church of England Man to justify a Breach for a Doctrine which he affirms his Church has determined nothing of, is to me a Riddle, but shows how little he esteems the Sin of Schism.  
Certainly there is a vast difference betwixt the ardent Desire of those who are by Age capable of receiving Baptism, and the Desire of the church or Parents: The one proceeds from Faith working by Divine Charity, already infused into the Soul of the Unbaptized Person, which if he extinguish not by the neglect of a Precept, will no doubt of it produce a good Effect: The other is wholly  to the Child, and cannot affect the Soul of it, unless by the application of that Sacrament which by the Institution of JESUS CHRIST must wash away our Original Gild.  
So is there also a vast difference betwixt a Legal Purity, of which St. Paul speaks in the  Text, and a Cleanness from Original Sin, of which we treat.   

ART. X. Confirmation.  
HE acknowledges Confirmation, 
Art. 11. pag. 39, 40.  or Imposition of Hands upon those who had been Baptised, to have been very Ancient in the Church, and which the very Apostles themselves practised; as also that the use of Chrism in Confirmation was very ancient. He tells us, they allow none that is not of Episcopal Order to Confirm, and that they piously hope the Blessing of the Holy Spirit descends upon those who receive it through the Prayer of the Bishop, to enable them to keep their Baptismal Covenant, to Arm them against Temptations, and to assist them in the way of Virtue and Religion, etc. All which show an outward visible Sign, of an inward Spiritual Grace; and the Divine Institution of this Sacrament; seeing none but God can promise Grace to an outward Sign; such as the Imposition of Hands and Chrism are: and certainly strength to keep our Baptismal Covenant, to resist Temptations and to practice Virtue are no small Graces, which he, at least, piously hopes are granted by God, through the Prayer of the Bishop; he might have added Imposition of Hands also; and should have given us a reason why they left off the use of Chrism, which he grants was early in the Church, and why they will not call this a Sacrament, which has all these marks of it, and which the Ancient Fathers frequently termed so: But if he will have it only to be a Sacrament not so generally necessary to Salvation as some others are, we will not dispute about the name under so strict a notion, tho' we affirm it to be a Sacrament properly speaking.   

ART. XI. Of Penance and Confession.  
HE wishes their Discipline were both more strictly required, 
Art. 12. p. 40.  and more duly observed as to Penance and Confession than it is. He tells us that their Canons require perhaps as much as the Primitive Christians themselves did, but that it proceeds from the decay of Piety in the People rather than any want of care in their Church, that they are not as well and as regularly practised.  
He cannot deny but that Confession both public and private were very anciently practised both in the Eastern and Western Churches; but supposes them to have been only a part of Christian Discipline: and therefore tells us, the Primitive Christians interpreted these Passages cited by the Bishop of Meaux, 
Matth. 18.18. Joh. 20.23.  with respect to Public Discipline: If he had produced those Fathers, and shown that they taught it to be only the Orders of a Public Discipline of the Church, and not an obligation upon a Sinner either to confess publicly or privately to the Priest, (which was sometimes called Confession to God, as Absolution was called Absolution from God) it would have been some satisfaction to the Reader.  
He insinuates as if we permitted every Priest to hear Confessions, and only just to hear them, and then without any more ado to say, 
Pag. 41.  I ABSOLVE THEE: But this it is not to understand our Discipline, which permits none to hear Confessions but such as are approved of, after a diligent examen of their Learning and Capacity, that they may be not only as Judges to pass a right Sentence upon the Enormity of the Crimes, the various species of them, the Obligations of Restitution, etc. but also as Physicians to prescribe wholesome Remedies to prevent Relapses, etc. which cannot be done without the Knowledge of the Case.  
And therefoe, tho' we assert the great convenience of Private or Auricular Confession, to take away the occasions of Fear, Shame and Scandal; yet our Dispute is not so much upon that, as upon a necessity of declaring our Sins to a Spiritual Physician, which whether it be publicly or privately matters not, so it be done; and without doing which, we say, neither can a Judge pronounce a just Sentence, nor a Physician prescribe wholesome Remedies.  
We grant therefore, that Public Confession was much in use in the Primitive Church for Public Sins, and that it was followed with a Public Penance for them; but that was most commonly either after, or accompanied with Private Confession of their Secret Sins also. That this Public Confession was a part of Discipline, and therefore alterable at pleasure, we deny not, but that either Public or Private Confession were necessary, we affirm.  
He tells us, 
Pag. 4●.  That the Church of England refuses no sort of Confession either Public or Private, which may be any ways necessary to the quieting of men's Consciences; or to the exercising of that Power of binding and losing, which our Saviour CHRIST has left to his Church. That her Absolution is so full, 
Pag. ●●  that the Church of Rome itself could not desire to add any thing to it. That they Advise even Private Confession upon many accounts which the Bishop of Meaux has remarked, and which they willingly allow as very useful to the Penitent; that is, I suppose, he allows with the Bishop the Penitential Court of Judicature to be a curb to Liberty, 
Expos. pag. 18.  a plentiful source of Wise Admonitions, and a sensible consolation for Souls afflicted for their Sins; all which he acknowledges render it very useful, and convenient even to those who have no doubt nor scruple. But yet he will not have this so beneficial an exercise to be necessary, where the Sinner can quiet his Conscience without it; but calls it an unnecessary Rack to men's Consciences: So that if a Man be either insensible of his sins, or have brought his Conscience to such a pass, that it checks him not, or be presumptuous of God's Mercies, and upon that think himself secure of a Pardon, it seems it is not necessary with them he should either have that Curb, or those Admonitions; whereas we think those Persons have most need of all the helps imaginable; and doubt not but that God, who gave so large a Commission to his Priest to bind or lose, did not exempt those who stand in need of it from a due submission to that Tribunal.  
We affirm therefore that Penance is necessary, not for every Man in particular, but to those only who have offended mortally after Baptism: That true Contrition, which must virtually include all the parts of it, is sufficient in case of a non-possibility of performing some of them: That Confession which is one of the parts of it, either public or private, is necessary to be performed to a Priest, that they who have Authority to bind or lose may know upon what it is they are to pronounce Sentence: That tho' our Sentence be absolute, yet since we cannot know when the Penitent has those due Dispositions which are required to receive the Benefit of it; neither also can we be sure that God always confirms our Sentence.  
These are our Doctrines, this we have always held and practised, and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most Ancient and Orthodox Churches; and we cannot but be astonished why they should be rejected and no better grounds brought than we suppose, 
Pag. 43.  or we must 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. If he say, he only undertook an Exposition of their Doctrine, and therefore was no more obliged to prove it than the Bishop of Meaux himself; I must tell him, the difference is great; for the Bishop of Meaux undertaking to Expound a Doctrine established in the Church, that very Possession was a sufficient proof of its Antiquity and Universality; it being a constant maxim in our Church, that no particular Opinions or Practices ought ever to be established as necessary to all; and that nothing can be declared as an Article of our Faith, which was not materially so before, that is, which was not handed down to us by universal Tradition as a revealed Truth: Whereas this Author undertaking to give us an Exposition of a Doctrine which dissents from ours so established, and of which we are in possession, if he would have it bear any weight, he ought to have given some solid Reasons for their defection from those Doctrines, which had been established in England for above a Thousand Years, from the very time that Pagan Idolatry was rooted out by St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk; he ought, I say, to have given some solid Reasons, such as were no less than Domonstrations, or manifest Revelations, to which, and to no other, those who are in Possession of a Doctrine so established aught to submit, and without which all Arguments for a Reformation dwindle into this which is very inefficacious; we suppose we have a just reason to reform; we think we are in the right; we are persuaded it is according to Scripture, etc. but we are not certain.   

ART. XII. Of Extreme Unction.  
AS to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 
Art. 13. p. 44.  this Author cannot deny but the words of St. James, If any man be sick, 
James 5.14, 15.  let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Name of our Lord. And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick, and our Lord shall lift him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be remitted to him: I say, he cannot deny, but these words exhibit to us an outward Visible Sign, and an Inward Spiritual Grace: but yet he will not have the meaning of this Passage to reser at all to a Sacrament, but only to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles, contrary to the express words of Scripture, and to the sense of them received and delivered to us by Antiquity.  
The Grace of Curing the Sick was not given to all Priests or Elders alike, but only to some select Persons; these did not only cure the Sick, but the Lame and the Blind; their Power of Miracles was not tied to the Ceremony of Unction only; all those that were anointed were not cured; neither had all they who were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing, any assurance, by that Cure, of the Forgiveness of their Sins: Yet St. James here speaks of those only that are Sick; he appoints them to call in the Priests in general, and not them only who had the Gift of Healing; he speaks only of anointing them with Oil, and not of any other Ceremonies, used by CHRIST or his Apostles, in order to the curing of the Sick. He promises, The prayer of faith shall save the sick, adn the Lord shall lift him up; which, if it had been meant of Bdily Health, those only would have died in the Apostles time, who either neglected this Advice, or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of that Ceremony: And lastly, he pronounces, That if they be in sins, they shall be remitted; which shows plainly enough, it cannot belong only to Bodily Cures, as he would have it.  
But he tells us, The Rituals of the Roman Church, for above Eight hundred years, understood it plainly of Bodily Cures, and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confesses, that it can belong to no other. Had he only told us, that the ancient Roman Rituals show this Ceremony had a respect to Bodily Cures, as well as to the Cures of the Mind, he had told us nothing but what our Rituals at this day manifest, and what may be gathered from the Council of Trent, as the Bishop of Meaux observes; 
Sess. 14. de Sac. Extreme. Unc. cap. 2.  which speaking of the Effects of this Sacrament, tells us, That the Sick Person does sometimes by it obtain Health of Body, when it is expedient for the Salvation of the Soul. Had he told us also only, that Cardinal Cajetan thought it could not be proved, 
Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis: sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus JESUS, a discipulis exercendam in aegrotis, Cajet. Annot. in loc.  neither from the Words, nor from the Effect, that the Words of St. James speak of the Sacramental Unction of Extreme Unction; but rather of that Unction which our Lord JESUS instituted in the Gospel, to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick, he had been a faithful Quoter of Cajetan's Sense: But to tell us, he freely confesses it can belong to no other, is to impose upon him and his Readers.  
He tells us, They anoint not their Sick for the Recovery of their Bodily Health, because the Miraculous Power of Healing, to which that Ceremony ministered, is ceased in the Church. But unless he can manifestly prove, the Unction had no relation to the Sicknesses of the Soul, and this from clearer Testimonies than the continued Practice of the Church till this last Age, he brings nothing against our Possession, nor can he justify the laying it aside.   

ART. XIII. Of Marriage.  
HE tells us concerning Marriage, 
Art. 14. p. 45.  That M. de Meaux says nothing of it, but what they willingly allow: and we desire no more. He supposes, that all true and proper Sacraments ought to be generally necessary to Salvation; 
Pag. 46.  and after the same manner a Sacrament, as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are; and citys Lombard quoted by Cassander on their side: But this, I suppose, was only for ostentation; for no Catholics ever esteemed Marriage to be a Sacrament generally necessary to Salvation; otherwise, as he grants himself, they would never have prohibited the Use of it to the Clergy. But if he intent his Quotations should refer to the Reason he gives why it cannot be a Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the Holy Encharist are, because (as he says) it wants an Outward Sign, to which by CHRIST's Promise a Blessing is annexed, he will not only find this Author against him, but the whole Torrent of the Fathers, and the plain Texts of Scripture as interpreted by them.   

ART. XIV. Of Holy Orders.  
HE tells, 
Art. 15. p. 46.  That the Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders, being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Spirit, may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular Sacrament; but because the Grace that is conferred by it is not common to all Christians, he thinks it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church, as Baptism and the Lords Supper are. So that thus far I find no difference betwixt us.  
He tells us also, That they will not raise any Controversy about the distinction of Orders below Deacons; because he acknowledges them to be ancient in the Church: and I am satisfied with that Acknowledgement, and would not willingly raise new Disputes.   

ART. XV. Of the Eucharist.  
WE come now to the Article of the Eucharist, 
Art. 16. p. 47.  in which we cannot but with him testify our just regret, that this Sacrament of Love and Charity should become now an Occasion of Contention.  
It is not my Province to examine the Arguments he brings against our Doctrine, they having been so often and so fully answered by others; or to show how weakly he oppugns the Bishop of Condom's Reasons; but only to justify his Exposition. Yet however I cannot but take notice how insincerely he gins his Attaque, from whence we may judge what is to be expected in the Sequel.  
He tells us, That M. de Meaux seems to allow, that in two Cases it might have been lawful to forsake the Literal Interpretation of these Words, This is my Body: 
Ibidem.  The first is, If there be such grounds in those Words for a Figurative Interpretation, as naturally lead to it. Which having supposed to be granted by the Bishop, he undertakes to prove from Gratian and Bellarmine, that the Words do lead to a Figurative Interpretation; and endeavours to confirm it by the Words of the Institution, and other Examples of Scripture. But what will he say now, when I shall show him, that he imposes upon the Bishop, and has not proved one tittle either against him or us?  
The Bishop's Words are these: 
Expos. pag. 19  As for us, who find nothing in the Words which JESUS CHRIST makes use of in the Institution of this Mystery, OBLIGING US to take them in a Figuration Sense, we think that a sufficient Reason to determine us to the Literal. He speaks here, you see, of our being OBLIGED to take those Words in a Figurative sense, which both he and all Catholics affirm can never be proved against us; but no body ever denied but the Words as they lie (without considering the Circumstances, and Practice of the Church delivering the Interpretation of them down to us) might possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation, seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture: as, for example, I am a Door, I am a Vine, etc. which being always taken by the Church in a Figurative sense, we should esteem him a Madman that should think it possible after this to persuade all the World they ought to be taken in a Literal. And as it would be a Madness to suppose all Mankind might in future Ages become so sottish, as to renounce this Figurative Interpretation, of JESUS CHRIST's being a Door and a Vine, and fall so far into the Literal sense, as to believe him to be substantially present in them, and pay the utmost Adorations to him there; set them up in Temples to be adored, and celebrate Feasts in Honour of them: So we cannot but think it to be very irrational to imagine, that, if the Disciples, and the whole Church in all Nations, had been once taught, these Words, This is my Body, were to be taken in a Figurative sense, it could ever have happened the Visible Church in all Nations should agree to teach their Children that it ought to be taken in a Literal; and proceed so far as to pay their Adorations to what they knew was but a morsel of Bread, expose it to be worshipped, etc. which they could not but know was an Idolatry would bring inevitable Damnation to them and their Posterity, who should be guilty of it. And further, We cannot see how it can enter into the Minds of Rational men, that this so grand an Error should either overspread the Church in a moment, or so insensibly creep into it, that she, who was so vigilant in all other Errors of lesser moment, should yet be so blind as not to see this, or so wicked as not to take notice of it.  
He should then, if he would have opposed M. de Meaux, or the Catholic Church, have undertaken to prove, That the very Words of the Institution oblige us to take them in a Literal sense.  
He tells us indeed, That if the Relative This, in that Proposition, This is my Body, referred to the Bread that our Saviour held in his Hands, the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another, Bread and CHRIST's Body, will necessarily required the Figurative Interpretation. But unless he can prove that the Pronoun (hoc) this must necessarily relate to (Panis) Bread, and not to (Corpus) Body, his Argument will avail him nothing; but that all his Logic will never be able to effect. 
Pag. 45.  His Argument is this: What did he say was his Body, but that which he gave to his Discipoles? What did he give to his Disciples, but that which he broke? What broke he, but that which he took? And St. Luke says expressly, He took Bread. But what follows from all this, but that JESUS took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Take eat, THIS IS MY BODY? But he goes on: What JESUS took in his Hands, that he blessed: What he blessed, the same he broke and gave to his Disciples: What he gave to his Disciples, of that he said, This is my Body: But JESUS, says the Text, took Bread; of the Bread therefore he said, THIS IS MY BODY. But what does all this argue against us, unless he beg the Question, and suppose that no real Change was made by those Words? Which to show how true it is, let us propose an Example. We will suppose, and that not incongruously, that our Blessed Saviour, in changing the Water into Wine, might have made use of these, either mental or vocal Words; This is Wine, or let this be Wine: Now here it is manifest the Word This was not determined, but only signified Substance, till the Word Wine was annexed. This supposed, if any one would see the force of his Argument, let him change the Expression, and instead of Bread use Water, and instead of Body use Wine, and then reflect whether he can from thence prove that these Words, This is Wine, must necessarily mean, This Water is Wine: or rather, whether that would not be a Proposition which implies a Contradiction, 
Gratian de Consecrat. d. 2. c. 55. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 19 SS. prumum,  as Gratian and Cardinal Bellarmine prove in the foregoing Places cited by him, of the like Proposition, This is my Body.  
But it will not be amiss to consider Cardinal Bellarmine's Argument, to which this Author refers. He tell us there, how these Words, Take and eat, for this is my Body, must necessarily infer either a real Change of the Bread, as Catholics; or else a metaphorical Change, as the Calvinists hold: but that they will by no means admit of the Lutheans sense. Which Proposition he endeavours to prove against the Lutherans, assirming the Words, This is my Body, to bear necessarily one of these three senses. First, This which is contained under the species of Bread, is my Body; which is the Catholic sense, and supposes a Mutation. The second is that of the Sacramentaries, who admit of no Mutation; and their sense is, This Bread is the Figure of my Body. The third, which is that of the Lutherans, who admit of no Change, but yet allow a Real Presence, must bear this Interpretation, This truly Wheaten Bread is truly and properly my Body. But this (says he) can by no means be admitted, whether we speak of the thing itself, or of the Proposition: For it cannot possibly be, that one thing should not be changed, and yet should be another; for it would be that thing, and would not be that thing. Moreover, in an Affirmative Proposition it is necessary the Subjectum, (or thing of which any thing is affirmed) and the Praedicatum, (or thing affirmed of it) should have a regard to the same thing. Then follow the Words which he citys: It cannot therefore be, that that Proposition should be true, in which the Subjectum, or former part, designs Bread; and the Praedicatum, or latter part, the Body of CHRIST: For Bread and the Body of CHRIST are two very different things. This indeed may prove that the Words of the Institution may possibly lead to a Figurative Interpretation; but are far from proving that they oblige us to take them so, which was what the Bishop of Condom affirmed, and which he, if he had used Sincerity, should have oppugned; and not have spent so much time to prove what was not the Question.  
But, as I said, it is not my Business here to justify our Tenets, but to see what he has to say against the Exposition as such.  
I do not find he pretends here that the Bishop of Meaux has palliated or prevaricated the Doctrine of the Catholic Church: But I observe, he uses frequently the Word Corporeally, and the Corporeal Presence; which the Bishop has avoided, keeping himself to the Terms of the Council of Trent, which tells us only, that JESUS CHRIST is truly, really, and substantially present in the Sacrament; but uses not the Word Corporeally, I suppose, because it may bear a double sense, and signify either, first, that the Body is really and substantially present, tho' not after a carnal, gross manner, with all the Qualifications of a Natural Body; and this is the sense of those Catholics who make use of it: Or, secondly, it may be taken as signifying the Body to be present after a corporeal, carnal manner, with all the Conditions and Qualities of a Natural Body; which sense our Enemies are apt to impute to us, as if it were our Doctrine, though very unjustly.  
But had he been Faithful in giving us the Doctrine of the Church of England, I doubt not but the Arguments he brings against the Bishop of Meaux, would have proved as much against it, as it does against ours.  
He tells us, 
Pag. ●●.  They confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a mere Figure; but they deny, that therefore it must be his very Body; I would gladly know what that is which is not the thing itself, but yet is more than a mere Gigure of it. If he mean that it is not the Body Corporeally, according to the Explication of the word as I have given it in the Second Sense, we agree with him: But if he mean, by this somewhat more than a mere Figure, that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper, as their Church Catechism has it; I see not also in what the difference consists betwixt us, neither can I see how his Arguments oppugn our Doctrine without confuting theirs.  
'Tis true, their Twenty eighth Article tells us, that The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner; and that the means whereby the Body of CHRIST is received, and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. Yet because I am not willing to think their Canons and Church Catechism contradict one another; I am willing to think the meaning of the saying, that Faith is the means by which they receive it, is, that they cannot receive the benefit of Christ's Presence without a lively Faith, but should rather Eat and Drink their own Damnation; as is more fully expressed in the next Article: and also that the expressions of a Heavenly and Spiritual manner, are only to oppose that Carnal and Gross manner which a Natural Body has, as having local extension, etc. which Body, as such, cannot possibly be in more places than one, as St. Augustin affirms, and to which that part of the Article in Edw. 
Sparrow's Canons, pag. 49.  the Sixths' days (to which this has succeeded) does allude. If he think I impose upon their Church, I desire him to let us know by some Authentic Testimony, what is the meaning of that part of the Article; and to show us how it can stand with the Doctrine delivered in the Church Chatechism, which affirms as I have told you, that The inward thing signified is the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST which is verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful; it does not say, by Faith, but by the Faithful: As also how it agrees with these words of the same Article, The Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of CHRIST, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of CHRIST.  
If then he admit with King James, 
Causab. Ep. ad Card. Per.  that they believe JESUS CHRIST to be as really present in the Sacrament as Roman Catholics do, but only know not the manner: 
Pag. 61.  What becomes of all his Sarcasms of Worshipping a Deity, whose substance they first formed and then spoke it into a God, etc. He knew full well that such Objections were the very Calumnies of the Heathens, who did not only object to Christians their eating of their God, but also of eating Man's Flesh in their Sacrifices, of drinking children's Blood, and several other such like accusations; all which proceeded from some imperfect knowledge they had got of the Christian Sacrifice, notwithstanding all the care the Primitive Christians took to conceal that Adorable Mystery from Infidels, and even Catechumen. What becomes of all the Arguments brought from pretended contradictions, and an impossibility of being present in many places at once? Does not their real Participation (if, as the Bishop says, there be any Sense in the Words) fall under the same censures? And what becomes of all his Objections raised from the difference betwixt some Schoolmen who endeavour to explicate the manner of his presence; and the free acknowledgement of others, that we are ignorant of it? Do not they themselves profess the same? And if we cannot comprehend how God can be three and one, or the Divinity be Incarnate, must we necessarily therefore deny the Blessed Trinity, or the Incarnation? In a word, what will become of all the Arguments in General brought against Transubstantiation, substantiation, Adoration, Sacrifice of the Altar, Communion under one Species, etc. seeing Learned Protestants themselves confess, that if the words of the Institution be taken in a Literal Sense (without which a Real Presence can never be admitted) they must yield up the Cause in all those Points to Roman Catholics? This Brerelay has shown in his Liturgy of the Mass Printed Anno 1620. pag. 225, 339. from several of their own Authors.  
But he tells us, that many of our Schoolmen acknowledge there is not in the Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation; that there is not any Texts that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it; that it was not a matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran; and then triumphs as if these expressions were a perfect yielding up of our Cause.  
But I would gladly have him to consider upon what account it is these Learned Men use those expressions, and examine a little their Reasons, and then I doubt not but if he observe the Connection of their Discourse, he will not find such an occasion of triumphing.  
It is an usual thing with Novelists to pretend nothing must be admitted as a matter of Faith, but what can be manifestly proved from plain Texts of Scripture: This Catholics deny, and tell them, such a proposition destroys all our Faith; because no body can prove, for example, by Scripture the Books of the Gospels or the Epistles of St. Paul to be the Word of God or Divine Revelation: and if they cannot prove those Scriptures to be Divine, but by Tradition and the Interposition of the Church; and yet tell us Tradition and Church Authority are not sufficient, what will become of all the Articles contained in those Books? Nay further, Catholics tell them, that if they rely only upon the bare words of Scripture without having recourse to the Authority of a Church, and the Consent of Pastors and Teachers in all Ages and Places, they will never be able to demonstrate any one Doctrine; that is, they can never prove it so clearly as to convince those who rely wholly upon their Reason, and will admit of nothing for a proof in such weighty matters, but what is so clear, that whoever understands the Terms and Propositions must necessarily consent to the Conclusion drawn from them. The Schoolmen do not only instance the Real Presence and Transubstantiation in proof of this; but the Trinity also and Incarnation, and in a word, all the Articles of our Creed.  
And the very opposition which Heretics in the several Ages of the Church have formed against those Doctrines is a clear proof of this, seeing they, upon all occasions, pretended Scripture for their grounds, and because Catholics could not bring any Text of Scripture against them so clear but they could elude it by some seeming Exposition; therefore Scripture alone could never decide the Controversies; but the voice of the Church in her Councils was in all Ages esteemed necessary to stop their Mouths, and her Decisions and Declarations of the Sense of Scripture was that which confounded all their Errors.  
Thus it was that Arius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Nice, not by the sole words of Scripture, but by the words of Scripture as understood and explicated by the consent of the Catholic Church; and thus it was that Berengarius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Lateran and several others, and that Condemnation confirmed by that of Trent.  
He tells us, moreover, That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran, 
Pag. 56:  1200 years after CHRIST; and had not That and the Council of Trent interposed, it would not have been so to this very day. And citys Lombard, Scotus, Gabriel, and Bellarmine for this Assertion. Let us examine his Quotations; but first we will represent the State of the Question, as the best Method to understand their Meanings.  
We must therefore take notice, that the word Transubstantiation was first publicly used in the Council of Lateran, as the word Consubstantial was in the first Council of Nice; but that, as the thing intended by the word Consubstantial was all along of Faith before that Council, so was the thing intended by Transubstantiation ever believed by the Faithful in all Ages. The thing intended by the word Transubstantiation is expressed by the Council of Trent in these words.  
If any one shall say, 
Sess. 13. Can. 2.  That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, together with the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST; and shall 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: Let him be Anathema.  
This Council having before expressed our Belief of the true, 
Ibid. Can 1. Chap. 1.  real, and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the most Holy Sacrament, brings this Transubstantiation, or Conversion of one Substance into another, as the natural Consequence of it. But because there are many sorts of Conversions of one Substance into another, all which may be called Substantial Conversions, and by consequence the word Transubstantiation might be properly enough used to express that Change; therefore it is manifest the Church does not intent here to fix the Manner of that Conversion; but only to declare the Matter, (viz.) That the body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST becomes truly, really, and substantially present, the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly, really, and substantially present, though the Appearances thereof remain. This Matter is that which is of Faith, and was always so before the Council of Lateran: but as for the Manner how this Conversion is made, it is even at present a disputable Question in the Schools. It being then manifest, that our Dispute with protestants is not about the Manner how JESUS CHRIST is present, but only about the thing itself, whether the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST be truly, really, and substantially present after the Words of Consecration, under the species or appearance of Bread and Wine, the Substance of Bread and Wine being not so present; let us examine whether the Authorities he brings, as to both his Assertions, have any force against our Tenets.  
He tells us first, That Lombard, Scotus, and many others confess, that there is not in Scripture any formal Proof of Transubstantiation: and citys in the Margin Lombard. 4. Sent. didst. 10. But there is no such thing in him, as I shall more fully show in declaring his Doctrine. He brings in Scotus also, 4. Dist. 2. Qu. 11. whereas there are only two Questions in that Distinction.  
His next Quotation is Bellarmine, 
Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. ff. Secundo dicit.  who, he says, confesses, and citys many others of the same Opinion, That there is not any (formal Proof from Scripture) that without that Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it. 'Tis true, Bellarmine here acknowledges that Scotus said there was not any Place in Scripture so express, that it would evidently compel any one to admit of Transubstantiation without the Church's Declaration; which, he confesses, is not altogether improbable. For, says he, although the Scripture, which we have mentioned above, does appear to us so clear, that it may compel a Man who is not perverse to believe it; yet whether it be so or no, we may justly doubt, since Learned and Acute Men, such as in the first place Scotus was, have thought the contrary. And this is all he says.  
'Tis true also, that Scotus, in 4. Dist. 11. Qu. 3. n. 5. brings this Objection, That nothing is to be held as of the Substance of Faith, but what is expressly to be had out of Scripture, or is expressly declared by the Church, or evidently follows from what is plainly contained in Scripture, or plainly determined by the Church: But that it neither appears manifestly from Scripture, nor from the Church's Declaration, nor is it evidently inferred from either, that the Substance of Bread does not remain in the Eucharist: And answers it n. 15. thus; That the Church has declared it in the Council of Lateran, c. Firmiter Credimus: In which Chapter, he tells us, the Truth of some things which are to be believed, are more explicitly declared than they were in the Apostles Creed, or in that of Nice, or that of St. Athanasius. So that from hence some have concluded, that Scotus probably held this Assertion, That the Scripture did not evince it; as also the other, That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not so explicitly believed before that Council of Lateran, as it was since. But this is no more than what he, or any one might say of the Consubstantiality of the Son, before the Council of Nice.  
It is also to be taken notice, that this Distinction of P. Lombard was wholly written upon the Manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament, and other Scholastic Disputes of that nature, and not upon the thing itself as of Faith; and therefore no wonder if Scotus, writing upon that Distinction, should grant how that manner of Conversion, which he thought was a Consequence of the Council of Lateran's Definition, was not so explicitly known before that Council as since, or not clearly found in Scripture. But if you look upon him, Dist. 10. qu. 1. n. 2, 3. where he is to treat of the Real Presence of CHRIST's Body and Blood under the species of Bread and Wine, he tells us, that it is a Truth which was expressly delivered from the beginning, even from the very time of the Institution of the Eucharist. His Words are, Ista enim veritas a principio fuit expressè tradita, ex quo Eucharistia fuit instituta. And he adds, That the Foundation of that Authority are the Words of the Institution, This is my Body, and this is my Blood; which he says cannot be taken Figuratively, if we observe the Rule of St. Augustin, 
Aug. 83. Quest. qu. 69.  That the Circumstances of Scripture do clear the Sense of it: For CHRIST having added to these Words, This is my Body, this Circumstance, which shall be broke● for you; and to these Words, This is my Blood, th●● Circumstance, which shall be shed for you, it is manifest they ought to be taken in a Literal sense.  
Then he tells us, That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges, That had not the Church declared herself for the proper sense of the Words, the other might with as good warrant have been received; and quotes him in 3. D. Thomae, qu. 75. art. 1. But he says no such thing, nay rather the contrary, as will appear to any one who reads that Article, in which he tells us, That we learn from the Truth of the Words of our Lord taken in their proper sense, that the Body of CHRIST is truly in the Eucharist; which is the first thing, says he, which we learn concerning this Sacrament from the Gospel. But the second, continueth he, which the Gospel has not explicated, we have expressly received from the Church, that is, the Conversion of Bread into the Body of CHRIST; which, he says, we have not only received from the ancient Doctors of the Church, but from the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third, De Summa Trinit. & Fide Cath. Firmiter credimus; where both Points are expressed, viz. That the Body and Blood of CHRIST are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine (which regards the first). And it follows, The Bread bein transubstantiated into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood, by Divine Power.  
After this, he speaks of the Reality of CHRIST's Body in the Eucharist, and of the Manner how it becomes there, viz. by Conversion; and of the first he says, Sciendum est, omnes circa primam novitatem continentiae, & re & voce consensisse, dum omnes communiter fatemur corpus Christi prius non contentum sub hac hostia modo veraciter contineri: quamvis circa modum quo continetur variae sint opiniones. (i.e.) We must know, that all Persons are at perfect agreement both as to the manner of Expression, and as to the thing itself, when we speak of the first new Change which is there made of the thing contained, seeing we all commonly confess, that the Body of CHRIST, which was not at first contained under this Host, is now truly there contained: though there be various Opinions concerning the manner how he is there contained.  
Then summing up several of those Opinions, as, Whether it be by such a Change as is made by Nutrition; or, Whether the Bread be Annihilated; or, Whether it be by a true Conversion; he undertakes to prove, that it is by a Conversion which does produce and effect the Presence of CHRIST in the Host, and freely confesses, that this Conversion is not explicitly mentioned in the Gospel, but only deduced from the words This is my Body, by the Doctors of the Church.  
After which, returning to his first Point, in which he had concluded, that the Body of CHRIST was truly in the Sacrament, he tells us, In hoc omnes fideles conveniunt: sed modus quo est in disputationem vertitur: All the Faithful agree in this; but as to the manner how he is there, that is a disputable Question.  
This is, in short, the Intent of that Article, which is far from what this Author has imposed upon him.  
Next he tells us, That the generality of our Commanion confess, that if the Words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them, they must be taken in their (Figurative) sense. 
Pag. 74, 75.  But this has been sufficiently cleared already.  
Lastly, He tells us, 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. What Doctrine does he here mean? Not that of the Schools, concerning the manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament; for a little after he tells us, That anathemas have been pronounced against them, and they esteemed Heretics and Schismatics for opposing it: But the Church never yet proceeded so far as to declare the Manner, or censure any Opinions concerning it.  
By this Doctrine then, which he tells us was not of Faith till the Council of Lateran, he must understand the Doctrine of the Church, and say, That the Body and blood of JESUS CHRIST was not till then believed to be truly, really, and substantially present under the species or appearances of Bread, the Substance of Bread being not so present after Consecration. But how does he prove this? He first brings Scotus cited by Bellarmine; but we have already examined his Concessions, 
pag. 84.  which make but little for our Adversary.  
Then he quotes Gabriel cited by Suarez, T. 3. Disp. 50. sect. 1. But Suarez there undertaking to prove two Assertions; the first, That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is made by a true Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which, he tells us, is of Faith; and the second, That this Sacrament is made by a true Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body, and of the Wine into the Blood of CHRIST: he tells us, That the word Transubstantiation, taken in its proper and strict sense, signifies transitum seu conversionem totius substantiae in totam substantiam; a Transition or Conversion of a whole Substance into a whole Substance. After which, he concludes thus: From this Doctrine of Faith we may gather, first, That the Scholastics, as Scotus and Gabriel, are to be corrected— and, secondly, That the thing itself was ancient, and perpetually believed in the Church, 
Non suerit tam apertè explicata, sicut mode est.  though perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is.  
In the last place he quotes Lombard, L. 4. Dist. 11. Lit. A. But it is manifest that Lombard speaks there only of a Scholastic Tenet: Which to the end you may see, as also what was esteemed of Faith in his time, before the Council of Lateran, I will give you a short account of his whole Doctrine, as to this Point.  
He gins his eighth Distinction telling us, 
Lomb. in 4. dist. 8. Lit. B.  That the Blessed Sacrament was instituted when JESUS CHRIST, after the Typical Lamb, gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood in the Last Supper. Then speaking of the Form, This is my Body, etc. 
Lit. C.  he tells us, Cum haec verba proferuntur, conversio fit panis & vini in substantiam corporis & sanguinis Christi: That when these words are pronounced, there is made a Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST.  
Then speaking of a Sacrament as being the Sign of a Sacred thing, 
Lit. D.  he tells us what is the sign, and what is the Thing in this Sacrament. The Form (i.e. Appearance) says he, of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, is the Sign of the Sacred thing— So that the species bear the Name of the Things which they were before, that is, of Bread and Wine: But the thing signified is twofold; the one contained under those species, and signified by them; the other signified, but not contained. The thing contained and signified is the Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin, and the Blood which he shed for us. But the thing which is signified and not contained, is the Unity of the Church in those who are Predestinated, Called, Justified and Glorified. So that there are, says he, three things to be distinguished, one which is only a Sacrament, and not the thing, (viz.) the visible species of Bread and Wine; another which is the Sacrament and the thing, (viz.) the proper Flesh and Blood of Christ; and a third, which is the thing and not the Sacrament, (viz.) his Mystical Body that is his Church; but the visible species are the Sacrament or Sign of both these things.  
Then in his Ninth Distinction speaking of a two fold Manducation, the one Sacramental, in which the good and bad do Eat the Body of Christ; and the other only Spiritual, in which only the good are made partakers of it; which is by Faith: he proceeds to tell us of the Errors of some, who held that the bad did not receive the Body of Christ: and affirms, that it must be undoubtedly held, that it is received by the good not only Sacramentally but Spiritually, whereas the bad receive it only Sacramentally; that is, under the visible species of Bread and Wine they receive that Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin, and the Blood which he shed for us; but not the Mystical Body, that is the benefits of his presence; All which he there proves from St. Gregory and St. Augustin, and explicates some ambiguous terms which might give occasion of error.  
His next Distinction cited by this Author which 
Bist. 10.  treats De hoeresi aliorum, etc. Of the Heresy of others, who say, that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in Sign, tells us, That there are others who transcend the madness of the former (Heretics) who measuring the Power of God according to the manner of natural things, do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth, affirming that the Body and Blood of Christ are not on our Altars, and that the substance of Bread and Wine are not converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood— and take occasion of erring from the words of Truth, whence began the first Heresy (against this Truth) amongst Christ's Disciples. Then showing what pretensions they make for their Error both from Scripture and Fathers, and having solved them, he says, Satis responsum est Hoereticis & objectionibus eorum: We have sufficiently answered Heretics and their Objections who deny the true Body of Christ to be on our Altars, and the Bread to be changed into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a Mystical Consecration. Then setting down his proofs out of the Fathers to confirm our Doctrine, he concludes this Distinction with these words; Ex his aliisque pluribus constat, etc. From these and many others it is manifest, that the true Body and Blood of Christ is on our Altars, yea that whole Christ is there under both species; and that the Substance of Bread is converted into his Body and the substance of Wine into his Blood.  
Having thus confirmed the substance of our Faith as to the thing, 
Dist. 11. Lib. A.  he proceeds in his next Distinction cited also by this Author to treat of the manner how this Conversion is made, whether it be Formal or Substantial, or of some other kind; and this being a pure Scholastic Nicety, he tell us, he dare not undertake to define it, but declares, that if we ask him about the manner he will give us this short answer, 
Lit. C.  Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest, A Mystery of Faith may be safely believed, but not safely searched into.  
This is the Doctrine of Lombardus who lived before the Council of Lateran, and this is the Doctrine we now hold without the least alteration; and this Doctrine was always held ever since the Institution, tho' it was thought convenient by the Primitive Fathers to conceal it from the Enemies of Christianity, and from those who were not Initiated; so that it may be said, that it is now more publicly taught than it was then, but was always equally believed by the Faithful.  
These things being thus cleared, and the charge he has made against us being found to be thus false, the consequences he has drawn from thence, will fall upon himself, and we must needs tell him, that we cannot but admire the Power of Truth, and hope that God has permitted him thus to misrepresent our Tenets, to disguise the Truth, and to cite Authors contrary to their Intentions, that the Eyes of of all those of his Communion may be opened, and that they may see what blind guides they follow, who either take up things upon trust, or wilfully prevaricate the Text, that they may keep them in Ignorance.  
Moreover this Author affirms, 
Pag. 61.  the Church never taught nor practised the Adoration of the Sacrament for above 1000 years; that the Elevation of it was not heard of till the Seventh Century, and then used not to expose it to the People to be adored, but to represent the lifting up of CHRIST upon the Cross; that all the Circumstances of this Worship are but Inventions of yesterday; that the Primitive Christians did several Actions which seem inconsistent with Adoration, etc. And we must take all these Assertions upon his bare word for Truths. I shall unto go about to swell this Answer, by proving an Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament within the first 400 years, and the Expressions of the first Ages which argue an Elevation, nor the other Proofs we have for a Real Presence, nor the Consent of the most Learned Protestants; this has been too frequently done, to repeat it here: The Reader who is desirous of searching into the Truth, may see, if he understand French, what M. Arnold has writ in Three Volumes, of the Perpetuity of Faith; or else what Brierlay has written concerning the Sacrifice of Mass; what Coccius in his Thesaurus, and what many others have published upon those Accounts; in which they will find, that our Doctrine is conformable to Scripture, that it has been continued down to our time by an uninterrupted Succession, and that our Practices have been always conformable to our Doctrine; which is sufficient to evince the Truth of it, and show the unjust Pretences of a Reformation.   

ART. XVI. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
IN his Twentieth Article, Of the Sacrifice of the Mass, 
Pag. 62.  which he tells us is justly esteemed one of the greatest and most dangerous Errors that offends them; he yet acknowledges, That seeting aside the Foundation of the CORPOREAL PRESENCE, on which the Bishop builds, and his Consequence, That this Service is a TRUE AND REAL PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, which, he says, they are persuaded his manner of Expounding it will never bear; there is little in it besides, but what they could readily assent to. but if he cannot allow of the Corporeal Presence, will be, with the Church of England in her Catechism, allow a Real Presence? If he do, I would gladly know whether that Foundation be not solid enough to build those Doctrines on, which M. de Meaux has founded upon that Reality. If he will not allow of a Real Presence, how is he of the Church of England?  
Again, I would gladly know of him 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, tho' not possibly in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the Words? If she do not, what means her Ordination, and the Title of Priesthood which her Ministers challenge with so much earnestness? And if she do, why will he quarrel with the Council of Trent for calling it a True and Proper Sacrifice, 
Sess. 22.  etc. a True and Proper Priesthood? especially since the same Council tells us, that this Sacrifice is instituted only to represent that which was once accomplished upon the Cross; to perpetuate the Memory of it to the end of the World; 
Sess. 22. c. r.  and so apply to us the saving virtue of it, for the remission of those Sins which we commit every day.  
In a word, The Bishop of Meaux has expressed himself so clearly and consequently to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and of the Catholic Church, that I cannot but admire any one who affirms, as this Author does, that the Doctrine the Bishop of Meaux has expressed, 
Pag. 63.  is truly the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and such as the Church of England has never refused: and except it be their doubt of the Corporeal Presence, Mons. de Meaux had certainly reason to expect there was nothing in it which they could justly except against; I cannot, I say, but admire he should upon no better grounds than a pure Cavil about the Name and Nature of a Sacrifice, when taken in the strictest Sense, and the word Corporeal instead of Real, 
Pag. 62.  affirm this to be one of the most dangerous Errors that offend them. But the Breach must be kept open, and widened too if possible. And because the offering of Christ once made, is that proper Redemption, Propitiation, and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World; and because there is no other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone, 
Article 31.  as their Article expresses it and we allow, therefore this Author must from thence conclude, that the Representation, Commemoration and Application of that first Offering by those who are Members of that Priesthood, according to the Order of Melchisedec, which the Apostle tells us was to be perpetual, must not be called a True, 
Heb. 6.  Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice, tho' it be only Commemorative and Applicatory.   

ART. XVII. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
BUT the next Article shows us more manifestly, 
Art. 21. p. 67.  that all this Dispute is purely de Nomine. In which it manifestly appears that he mistakes the Sense of the word Offer, 
Pag. 32.  as used by the Catholic Church in this place; for the Bishop of Meaux tells us, the Catholic Church forms her Language and her Doctrine not from the sole Epistle to the Hebrews but from the whole body of the Holy Scripture, and therefore, tho' in that strict sense, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the word Offer, JESUS CHRIST cannot be said to be now offered, neither in the Eucharist, nor any where else; yet because in other places of Scripture the word is used in a larger signification, where it is often said, we offer to God what we present before him; therefore she does not doubt to say, that she offers up our Blessed JESUS to his Father in the Eucharist, in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him.  
But this must not suffice; for than that which he calls the principal and most dangerous Error, would appear to be none at all; and therefore because the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of one Offering which has fully satisfied for our Sins, of one Offering which was no more to be offered; that is, of an Offering in a strict Sense, in which there must be a Real Suffering and Death of the Victim; therefore this Epistle must be against the Doctrine of the Roman Church, tho' she speak only of an Unbloody Sacrifice, of a Commemorative Sacrifice, which without the Sacrifice of the Cross would be no Sacrifice, which takes its Virtue, Efficacy and very Name from it, because it refers to it, and applies the Virtue of it to our Souls. Let any one judge if this be not next door to a wilful misunderstanding of our Tenets, 
Pag. 63.  especially when he had before confessed that the presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord, is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us, and that if this were all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice, there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it. This is what she means by it, (that is) an application of the Merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was to be but once offered, and from whence it takes all its value. But this he will not have to be our Doctrine; and I see no reason for it, but because if he admit it to be so, one of the greatest grounds of their pretended Reformation must needs vanish.   

ART. XVIII. Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine.  
HIs Reflections upon this Doctrine run altogether upon the same strain; 
Art. 22. p. 69.  and therefore what I have said will suffice in answer to that Article. If he admit a Real Presence with the Church of England, Reason must necessarily assure us, that where Christ is really, he ought to be Adored; and where he really presents himself to his Father to render him Propitious to us, he may be said to offer up himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice.  
And those who will admit the Reality, or not condemn the belief of it in others, ought not to condemn the necessary Consequences of it in us, into which we have penetrated better than they.   

ART. XIX. Communion under both Species.  
COmmunion under one kind being also a Consequence of the Doctrine of the Real Presence. 
Art. 23. p. 72.  Those who admit the Real Presence, or condemn it not, ought not to condemn the Consequence of it. He refers us to the Answer to M. the Meauxes Book of Communion; and I refer him to M. the Meauxes Book, which so fully explicates and proves this Doctrine, that all the effects against it are but vain.  
But if the Church of England allow the Communion to be given under one Species in case of necessity, 
See Art. 30.  how will it stand that she esteems it to be the express Command of JESUS CHRIST which is certainly indispensable?  
Edw. 
Sparrows Canons p. 15.  the Sixth in his Proclamation before the Order of Communion, ordains, 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 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.  
And after the Order of Communion, there is this Annotation.  
Note that the Bread that shall be Consecrated shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed. And every of the said Consecrated Breads, shall be broken into two pieces at least or more, by the discretion of the Minister, and so distributed. And Men must not think less to be received in part, than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of JESUS CHRIST.  
In the Proclamation it is ordained, that it shall be commonly delivered under both kinds except necessity otherwise require, which shows manifestly that the Church of England thought then that one kind was sufficient in case of necessity, and that whole Sacrament was contained under one kind; for half a Sacrament is no Sacrament. And, if a necessary occasion be sufficient to dispense with the Administration of it in both kinds, who ought to be Judge but the Pastors and Teachers in every Age, or the Church Representative? which shows that this is a part of Discipline and not of Faith, since both sides confess that in case of necessity it may be given in one kind, and that by receiving each Particle one receives the whole Body of JESUS CHRIST, as appears by the Annotation, so that the Bishop of Condom's Argument against the Calvinists of France has its full force against the Church of England.   

ART. XX. Of the wrítten and unwritten Word.  
IN the next Articlé we are agreed in the main, 
Art. 24. p. 75.  We both acknowledge the unwritten Word to have been the first Rule of Christians, and that it was so far from losing any thing of its Authority by addition of the Written Word, that it was indeed the more firmly established. We receive with equal veneration the Written and the Unwritten Word when we are assured they come from the Apostles. And as we do not admit of every thing which is called Tradition, so what is made appear to have been received in all Churches, and in all Ages we are ready to embrace as coming from the Apostles. Our difference consists only in this, who shall be judge when this Tradition is Universal: We rely upon the Judgement of the present Church in every Age either assembled in the most general Council that Age can afford, or else declaring her Doctrine by her constant practice, and the uniform Voice of her Pastors and People; and are assured it is not sufficient for any Private Persons or Church to say we suppose, or we are persuaded they are contrary to the Written Word, or we find it not there, to make the Church's Sentence void, or justify a dissent.   

ART. XXI. Of the Authority of the Church.  
IN his next Article, 
Art. 25. p. 76.  of the Authority of the Church he grants many things which the Bishop of Meaux had asserted, from which we might expect great Fruit, but he presently nips all our hopes in the very bud.  
He grants the Catholic Church to be the Guardian of the Holy Scriptures, 
Pag. 76, 77.  and of Tradition, and that it is from her Authority they receive both. That they never deny the Church to have an Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline, 
Pag. 78.  but even of Faith too. That they neither fear the entire defection of the Catholic Church, nor that she should fall into such an entire Infidelity as should argue her not to be a Church. 
Pag. 80.  And in his next Article he allows the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith, and declares as a Doctrine of his Church, that they allow such a deference to a Church's Decisions, as to make them their directions, what Doctrine they may, or may not publicly maintain and teach in her Communion; that they show whatever submission they can to her Authority, without violating that of God declared to us in the Holy Scripture: And lastly, that whatsoever deference they allow to a National Church or Council, the same they think, in a much greater degree, due to a General. In which none shall be more ready to assist, nor to which none shall be more ready to submit. These are fair offers to establish a Church-Authority; and did he manifestly destroy all he has here said by some other exceptions we might have hoped some good effects of such a Submission. He tells us, 
Pag. 79.  and that truly, that any particular Church may either by error lose, or by other means prevaricate the Faith even in necessary points of it. And yet notwithstanding he does not only set up a particular Church to examine the Church's Decisions, 
Pag. 78.  which he tells us after all may err; but even every individual Person; who according to his Doctrine, may not only examine the Decisions of the whole Church, but glory in opposing them, if he be but evidently convinced that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word. His words are these, 
Pag. 79.  Tho' we suppose the Scriptures are so clearly written, that it can hardly happen that in necessary Articles of Faith any one Man should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion: He had told us a little before, that any particular Church (such as he esteemed the Church of Rome to be) might either by Error lose, or by any other means prevaricate the Faith, even in necessary points of it: and yet what he there wishes they had not too great cause to fear the Church of Rome has in effect done, he here tells us can hardly happen to one particular Man. But what follows is more intolerable, and since he gives us it as a Doctrine of the Church of England, I desire him to tell us in what Canon, Article or Constitution it is contained. But (says he) if such an one were evidently convinced that his belief was founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word, so far would it be from any Error to support it [against the whole Church] that it is at this day the greatest Glory of St. Athanasius that he 'slud up alone against the whole World in defence of Ghrists' Divinity, when the Pope, the Councils, the whole Church fell away. Behold here a Doctrine which if admitted, will not only maintain all the Dissenters that are, but that ever can be from a Church; a Doctrine which will establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World; every one of which may, if he be but evidently convinced (that is, if he have but impudece enough to think he is so) that his belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Word, not only oppose the whole Church but glory in it. And a Doctrine backed by as false and Authority, as the Assertion itself is false and scandalous; for never any one yet before this Man said that the Pope, the Councils, and the whole Church fell in St. Athanasius his time; on the contrary it is manifest to all those who have read any thing of History; that the Pope and all the Western Churches, and the approved General Councils of those times, all stood up for St. Athanasius; and if he said he was against all, and all against him, it was only to express the great number of Eastern Bishops that opposed his Doctrine: But any thing must pass now, to deceive the vulgar, tho' Men of Sense see the contrary.  
Another Argument he brings to delude the Authority of the Church of Rome, is to make her apss only for a particular Church. But how often have they been told that Catholics do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocese to be the Catholic Church, but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. And that this is the true Church appears by the marks of it delivered in the Nicene Creed, no other Church being able to pretend to that Unity, Sanctity, Universality and Antiquity, which she is manifestly invested with. The true Church must be one, and by conquence free from Schism, which destroys that notion which some of late have held, that the true Church is that Catholic Church, which is composed of all Christians, the Roman, the Grecians, the Armenians, Prtoestants, etc. all which they acknowledge to be Members of the True Church; tho' they may be rotten ones, and this notion our Author seems to have of it when he tells us, that the Roman Church has in all ages made up but a part of the Church, 
Pag. 77.  and that not always the greatest neither. The true Church must be also Holy, and must by consequence be free from Heresy, and teach no Erroneous Doctrine; which how it stands with that Idea which this Author insinuates, that the Church of Rome has erred event in necessary points of Faith, and is yet a Member of the True Church, is worthy a mature Consideration. This indeed made the first Reformers who accused the Roman Catholic Church of Idolatry and Superstition say, that the Church of JESUS CHRIST was hidden, fled into the Wilderness, 
See the Protestant Authors cited by Brereley in his Protestant Apology, Tract. 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 4.  and invisible for 1000 or 1200 years, that the Pope was Antichrist, and the Church of Rome Antichristian: But the Men of our Age being sufficiently convinced that the Church of Christ was to have Kings and Queens for Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers, that she was to have Pastors and Teachers in all Ages, 
Whitakers contra Duraeum, l. 3. p. 260.  that the Administration of the Sacraments, and the Preaching of the true word of God were the Essential Proprieties of the Church, etc. and that all these marks do necessarily denote a Visible Church; and finding moreover they could never prove any Christian Kings before Luther Converted to Protestancy, or any visible Pastors or Teachers of their Doctrine, or any Assembly that Administered the Sacraments as they do, or Preached the word of God in their Sense; and finding they could not deny the Conversion of many Kings and Nations to the Religion established in the Church of Rome; found themselves obliged also to admit her as a part of the True Church tho' a corrupted one; and would rather destroy the Sanctity of Christ's Church and her Unity, than acknowledge themselves to be justly cut off from being Members of her.  
The third Mark is Catholic, which is universal as to Place, Time, and Doctrine; that Church cannot be the true Church the sound whereof is not gone through the whole Earth, and is not itself spread over and visible in all Nations; that cannot be the true Church which has not continued in all Ages Visible, Holy and Uniform; neither lastly, can that be the true Church which either adds or diminishes from the Doctrines revealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles; so that those are as guilty of the Breach of Faith, who refuse to believe what has been taught, as those who impose new Doctrines.  
The last mark of the Church is, that she must be Apostolic, that is, grounded upon the Doctrines and Faith of the Apostles, and deriving a continual Succession from them. All which marks are so far from being applicable to the Church of England, or to the Universal Church according to the notion given of it be these late Writers, that a Man of the smallest judgement, if Impartial, cannot but see the fallacy thereof.   

ART. XXII. Authority of the Holy See, and of Episcopacy.  
AS for his two other Articles, The Opinion of the Church of England as to the Authority of the Church, and that of the See Apostolic, and Episcopacy I have nothing to say to him, but to desire him to remember his promises, 
Pag. 81.  and to inquire what is the Authority the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged, and the Holy Fathers have always taught the Faithful to give to the Successor to St. Peter; and whether the first Four General Councils might not be termed neither General nor Free with as much Reason as the Council of Trent, or those others acknowledged by all the Western World, and most of the Eastern Churches before the new pretended Reformation.  

The Conclusion.  
I Come now to his Close, in which he sums up all the Poison of his Book; lays what he pleases to our charge, and draws what Consequences he will, to inflame his Reader.  
He tells us of Bitter and  Hatred we have conceived against them; 
Pag. 82.  and desires to know what warrant we have for it. I desire all unprejudiced Persons to consider, whether we have not more reason to complain than he.  
Here was a Church established in England; Truths delivered to her with Christianity itself were here Practised and Preached; Religious Houses were here endowed with ample Revenues, etc. when behold a Pretended Reformation comes, destroys this Church; dissolves all the Constitutions of it; changes the established Doctrines; and altars many of its ancientest Practices; pulls down Religious Houses and Churches; alienates the Revenues; turns the Religious Inhabitants into the wide World; make Laws against all those who should defend that Doctrine; Imprisonment, loss of Goods and Fortunes, nay even of Life itself, are the Punishments ordained for them who are found guilty of Practising or Preaching that Religion. And what less could such a Church do than Excommunicate they, who thus Renounced her Doctrines, Contemned her Authority, and persecuted her Children. But this Excommunication must be called Severity and unchristian hatred. And if we declare that all those who forsake the Unity of the Church are guilty of Schism; and they who will not acquiess to those Points of Faith which God has Revealed, and the Church, which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth has declared to have been so Revealed, are guilty of Heresy; and that Heresy and Schism will bring inevitable damnation to all those who die without repenting of them; we must be esteemed uncharitable. I must therefore Retort his Popular Argument, and ask him and all unprejudiced Protestants what they can find in all our Doctrines, when truly Represented, to warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceived against us; a hatred which has occasioned so many Penal and Sanguinary Laws; and still makes them use all endeavours to keep them in full force against us?  
Do we not firmly believe the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense and unanimous consent of the Ancient and Primitive Fathers? Do we not embrace the three Creeds, nay, and believe all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion?  
Do you not acknowledge us to be true Members of the Catholic Church, and by Consequence your Brethren, tho' you will have us to be unsound and weak?  
If we maintain any Doctrines different from yours, do we not show you plain Texts of scripture for most of them; and the consent of Primitive Fathers, and the acknowledged Practices of the Church for above 1000 Years for every one of them?  
Do we not fix our Grounds upon the undoubted Word of God delivered down to us either by Writing or uninterrupted Tradition, and explicated by the unanimous consent of the Pastors and Teachers in all times and places?  
If we tell you a due Honour is to be paid to Images purely upon the account of being Representatives, and not for themselves; is it not agreeable to your own Practice who bow to the Altar, keep uncovered in a Church, bend the Knees at the Name of JESVs not for the sake of the Altar, Fabric, or Sound, but with a reference to the Victim, which Consecrates the Altar, to God who is in a peculiar manner present in the Church, and to JESUS CHRIST the Son of God understood by that sound; which Honour, if it may be called Religious in some respect, it is not manifestly because it tends ultimately to God himself?  
If we desire the Saints and Angels, who Reign in Heaven to Pray with us, and for us, to their and our Common Creator, and if we acknowledge such Prayers are good and beneficial to aid and help us in our necessities; we know no more injury is done to JESUS CHRIST our sole Redeemer by such Addresses than by your own to a Parent or a Friend, we detest that Religion of Angels mentioned by the Apostle, 
Col. 2. 18.  according to that Sense that place manifestly bears, and as the Ancient Fathers understood it; but we think with the same Fathers that a due Honour ought to be given them, as to the Messengers and Friends of God. And any undue Worship, which elevates them above the pitch of our fellow Creatures, we detest. What more can any one in reason desire of us? And if we pronounce anathemas against those who deny it to be lawful to make such innocent Addresses, or to pay such a due and limited Honour, it is because they contradict Antiquity, and the approved Fathers of the Church.  
We acknowledge, 'tis true, a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST under the Species or Appearances of Bread and Wine; and are we not assured of it by the very Words of JeSVS CHRIST, by the manifest consent of Antiquity; by the continual practice of both the Greek and Latin Churches? If we be ignorant of the manner, at least we are not of the thing: And does not your Chatechism and your most Learned Divines acknowledge as much, your Confession of your ignorance of the manner of his being present does not hinder you from acknowledging the Body and Blood of our Blessed Saviour to be verily and indeed taken and received, not only by Faith, but by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper.  
This Real Presence is grounded upon the Words of our Blessed Saviour, This is my Body, taken literally; from whence also it necessarily follows, that after the words of Consecration, 'tis not more Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST. This Consequence of the Real Presence many Protestants themselves confess and acknowledge, that if the words must be taken literally they must necessarily grant both Transubstantiation, Adoration, and all the rest of our Doctrines about this Sacrament: And if any one ask us why we take it literally, we may with the Bishop of Condom say, they may as well ask us why we keep the High Road; that is, all the Fathers of the Church in all Ages having taken it in that Sense, we ought no more to deviate from it, than from a beaten Road.  
If we adore our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament it is but a necessary Consequence of his Real Presence; and what they who believe him present cannot but think themselves obliged to do.  
We acknowledge, that where God's Commands are Positive, they are indispensible; and therefore if we judge Communion under both kinds, not to be positively Commanded, we judge so because the Church in all Ages dispensed with it; and you yourselves grant, that in cases of necessity eveyr Pastor may give it under one kind only, and is he not left judge when that case occurs, and when he may make use of it?  
These things considered, I must use your own words.  
Men and Brethren: 
Pag. 84.  consider, we conjure you, these things: and if you please, consider us too, what we are and what our Manners and Conversation amongst you has been, even when Perjury and Faction loaded us with all the Injuries Hell itself could invent, and exercised their utmost severities upon us. What also we are at present, and how our change of Fortune makes us neither remember former Injuries, nor desire to revenge them. Believe us at least, that we have no other ends but Truth, no designs but to convince your Judgements; and if we dare not be over curious in enquiring into the manner how the Mysteries that are revealed can possibly be true, 'tis because we know they are revealed, and doubt not of God's Veracity. Believe us, that we have no other Interest but the Salvation of our own Souls, and those of others, by endeavouring to represent our Doctrines as they truly are, and soliciting the Children of the Church to return to their Mother's Bosom.  
We are in possession; the Proofs you bring against us are only Negatives and mere Conjectures; you think them convincing Arguments, but are not certain, but that you may fail in your Concjectures.  
You cannot show one positive Argument against the Invocation of Saints either from Scripture, or from Fathers: Not one against the Doctrine of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Veneration of Images upon account of their Representations; not one against the number of Sacraments, not one to prove Communion under both kinds to be indispensible, or that Children dying without Baptism are saved. In a word, you cannot show one positive Argument against any one Doctrine of our Church if you state it right: All you can say, is, it does not appear to us out of Scripture, it does not appear to us from Antiquity; show us, you say, your Authentic Records, your Deeds of Gift, your Revelation and we will believe; as if uninterrupted possession were not sufficietn Proof.  
Our Plea is good, olim possidio prior possidio. If you will dispute our Title, you must show your positive Records of a more Ancient Date. But what need of so much bitterness whilst you plead your Cause? Is it not enough to dispossess us, but all the rigours imaginable must be inflicted, and when Power is wanting must the Pen and Tongue be exercised, in painting us as the most hideous Monsters for the Rabble to devour.  
If we be silent, we shamefully give up the Cause: If we speak and show our Doctrine in their true and native dress, we are represented to be New Reformers, Palliating or Prevaricating our Doctrines. And tho' we detest all Dissimulation in any case, much more in matters of Religion; yet even in that we must be represented as Dissemblers; who make neither Conscience of Lying, Imposing, Forging, nor any other Villainy to support our Cause: Is this Justice? is this Brotherly Charity? is this Christianity?  
We declare this is our Doctrine: They who are bred up in it acknowledge it as such; they whose Consciences made them forsake their former Errors, and embrace the Catholic Faith (of which I myself, I bless God am one) after all strict enquiry find it to be such: They who are newly converted daily exclaim against their being formerly deceived, and find this Doctrine as here represented to be that, and only that which is required of them to believe, in order to their being Members of Our Church, Nay, even they who are the fiercest against us are desired to try the Experience themselves, and see whether upon the profession of these Truths, they will not be admitted to our Communion. What can we say or do more, to make ourselves be believed? We who refuse to take those Oaths which thwart our Conscience tho' we lose all our Temporal advantage by the refusal, are yet ready to take any Oaths that this is our Doctrine; But yet we must not be believed! And shall not a strict account be one day given for all these Scandals unjustly thrown upon us?  
Lay not, O God, these Sins to their charge, but open the Eyes of all the People of this Nation, that they may see thy Truth and embrace it, to the eternal good and comfort of their Souls. Amen.      

A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter.  
✚ A Meaux. 6. Auril 1686. Mon Reverend Pere.  
IL ne sera pas difficile de repondre a vostre lettre du 3, ni de satisfaire aux objections de fait qu'on vous envoye d' Angleterre contre mon Exposition dela Doctrine Catholique. Le Ministre Anglois qui l'a refutée & dont vous m'enuoyez les objections n'a fait que ramasser des Contes que nos Huguenots ont voulu debiter ici, & qui sont tombez d'eux mêmes, sans que j'äye eu besoin de me donner la peine de-les combattre.  
Cet Auteur dit premierement que la Sorbonne n'a pas voula donner son Approbation a mon Liure. Mais tout le monde scait ici que je n'ai jamais seulement songé a la demander. La Sorbonné n'a pas accoutumè d'approuver des Liures en corps: Quand elle en approuveroit je n'aurois eu aucun besoin de son Approbation ayant celle de tant d'Euêques & étant Euêque moymême. Cette Venerable Compaignie, scait trop ce qu'elle doit aux Euêques qui sont naturellement & par leur carractere les urais Docteurs de l'Eglise pour croire qu'ils ayent besoin de l'approbation de ses Docteurs. Joint que la pluspart des Euêques qui ont approvué mon liure sont du corps de la Sorbonne, & moymême je tiens a honneur d'en estre aussi. Cést une grand foiblesse, de me demandre que j'aye a produire l'appobation de la Sorbonne pendant qu'on voit dans mon liure celle de tant de scavants Euêques, celle de tour le Clergé de France dans l'assemblée de 1682. & celle du Pape même.  
Vous voyez par la, mon Reverend Pere, que c'est une fausseté toute visible de dire qu'on ait supprimé la premiere Edition de mon Liure de peur que les Docteurs de Sorbonne n'y trouvassent a redire. Je n'én ai jamais publié ni fait faire d'Edition que celle qui est entre les mains de tout le monde; a laquelle je n'ai jamais ni osté ni dimiuüé une syllabe: & je n'ai jamais apprehendé qu'aucun Docteur Catholique y pust rien reprendre.  
Voila ce qui regarde la premiere objection de l'Auteur Anglois. Pour ce qu'il ajoûte en second lieu qu'un Catholique, dont il designe le Nom par une lettre capitale, avoit ecrit contre moy; quand cela seroit, ce seroit tant pis pour ce mauvais Catholique. Mais c'est, comme le reste, un conte fait a plaisir: C'est en vain que nos Huguenots l'ont voulu debiter ici: Jamais personne n'a oiü parler de ce Catholique: ils ne l'ont jamais pû nommer & tout le monde c'est moqué d'eux.  
En troisiême lieu on dit que le Pere Crasset Jesuit a combattu ma Doctrine dans un liure intitulé la veritable devotion envers la Sainte Vierge. Je n'ai pas lû ce liure; mais je n'ai jamais oiü dire qu'il y eut rien contre moy, & ce Pere seroit bien faché que je le crûsse.  
Pour le Cardinal Capisucchi loin d'ètre contraire a la Doctrine que i'ai enseignée on trouvera, son Approbation expresse parmi celles que jay rapportées dans l'edition de l'Exposition de l'an 1676. Et c'est luy qui comme Maitre du sacré Palais permit l'an 1675. l'impression qui se sît alors a la Congregation de propaganda fide, de la version Italienne de ce liure. Voila ceux que les Aduersaires pensent m'opposer.  
Quant a ce Monsieur Imbert & a Monsieur le Pasteur de Sainte Marie de Malines qu'on pretend avoir esté condamnez, encore qu'ils alleguassent mon Exposition your guarend de leur Doctrine; c'est a scavoir s'ils l'alleguoient a tort ou a droit; Et des faits avancez en l'air ne meritent pas qu'on s'en informe davantage.  
Mais puisqu'on desire d'en estre informé, je vous dirai que cet Imbert est un homme sans nom comme sans scavoir, qui crût justifier ses extravagances devant Monsieur l' Archeuêque de Bordeaux son Superieur en nommant mon Exposition a ce Prelat qui en a souscrit l'approbation dans l'assemble de 1682. Mais tout le monde uît bien que le Ciel n'est pas plus loin de la terre, que man Doctrine l'etoit de ce qui avoit auancè cet Emporté. Au reste jamais Catholique n'a songé qu'il, fallût rendre a la Croix le même honneur qu'on rend a J. C. dans l'Eucharistie, ni que la Croix avec J. C. dust estre adorée dela même maniere que la nature humaine avec la Divine en la personne du Fils de Dieu. Et quand cet homme se vante d'estre condamné pour avoir nié ces Erreurs que personne ne soûtint jamais, il montre autant de malice que d'ignorance.  
Pour le Pasteur de Sainte Marie de Malines qu'on dit estre un homme de merite, j'ai uû un petit imprimé de luy intitulé, motivum juris: ou il auance que le Pape est dans l'Eglise ce que le President est dans un Conseil & le premier Escheuin ou le Bourgmestre, comme on l'appelle dans les Paysbas, dans la commpaignie des Echeuins; Chose tres eloignée de l'Exposition, ou je reconnois le Pape comme un Chef établi de Dieu, a qui on doit soumission & obeissance. Si donc la Faculté de Louvain a censuré cet ecrit, je ne prends point de part dans cette dispute, & d'ailleurs mon Exposition est si peu rejettée dans les Paysbas qu'au contraire elle y parôit, imprimée a Anuers en langue Flamande avec toutes les marques de l'autorité publique tant Ecclesiastique que Seculiere.  
Pour ces pretendus passages qu'on pretend que j'ai corrigez dans une seconde Edtion de peur de fâcher la Sorbonne, c'est, comme vous voyez, un conte en l'air, & je repete que je n'ai publié, ni avoüé, ni fait faire aucune edition de mon ouurage que celle que l'on connôit, ou ie n'ai jamais rien changé.  
Il est urai que comme ce petit Traité fût donné dabord ecrit a la main pour seruir a l'instruction de quelques personnes particulieres, & qu'il s'en repandit plusieurs copies, on le fit imprimer sans order & sans ma participation. Personne n'en improuva la Doctrine & moymême, sans y rien changer que quelques choses de nulle importance, seulement pour l'order & pour une plus grande netteté du discours & du style, je le fis imprimer comme on l'a uû. Si la dessus on veut croire que jaie esté quelque sorte contraire a moymême, c'est estre de trop facile croyance.  
Mais quand ainsi seroit, & que pour mettre mon ouurage hors de toute atteinte je me serois en quelques endroits corrigé moymême, ce que, Dieu merci, je n'ai pas eu besion de faire; tant s'en faut qu'on en eût dêu moins estimer l'ouurage, qu'au contraire ce seroit une preuve que je serois venu a bout de le mettre en si bon état, que ni la Sorbonne, ni qui que ce soit n'y pût rien trouver a redire comme en effet aucun Catholique n'y reprend rien.  
La derniere objection que me sait le Ministre Anglois c'est que je suis assez fertile a faire des noweaux liures; mais que je ne reponds pas a ce qu'on écrit contre mes ouurages: d'on il conclut que je reconois qu'on ne peut pas les deffendre. Il est urai que j'ai fait trois petits Traitez de Controverse dont l'un est coluy de l'Exposition. Sure celuyla, comme on objectoit principalement que j'avois adouci & deguisé la Doctrine catholique, la meilleure reponse que je pouuois faire étoit de rapporter les Approbations qui me venoient naturellement de tous les costez de l'Europe, & celle du Pape même reiterée par deux fois: Cette reponse est sans repartie, & j'ai dit ce qu'il falloit sur ce sujet la, dans un Auertissement que j'ai mis a la teste de l'Edition de 1676.  
Si le Pere qui vous a enuoyé les objections du Ministre Anglois, n'a pas connoissance de cet Auertissement, je vous prie de le prendre chez Cramoisy en vertu de l'ordre que vous trowerez dans ce paquét & de l'enuoyer a ce Pere comme il a este imprimé en 1686. Parceque j'ai ajouté dans cette Edition l'approbation du Clergé de France & une seconde Approbation tres Authentique du Pape.  
Que si le Pere veut prendre la peine de joindre a la Traduction de l'Exposition celle de cet Avertissement & des Approbations qui y sont jointes, il rendra son travail plus profitable au public, & il fermera la bouche aux contredisants.  
Quant aux deux autres petits Traitez que j'ai compose sur la Controverse, l'un est sur la Communion sous les deux especes: Et l'autre c'est ma Conference avec Monsieur Claude Ministre de Charenton, sur l'autorité de l'Egiise, avec des reflections sur les reponses de ce Ministre. Dans ces Traitez je tache de prevoir les objections principales, & d'y donner des reponses, dont les gents sensez soint contents. Apres cela, de multiplier les disputes & de composer liures sur liures, pour embroüiller les questions & en faire perdre la piste, ni la charité ne me le demande, ni mes occupations ne me le permettent.  
Vous pouvez enuoyer cette lettre en Angleterre. Le R. Pere qui a desiré ces eclaircissements en prendra cequ'il trouvera convenable. S'il trouve qu'il soit utile de dire qu'il a appris de moymême ce qui regarde ces faits & mes intentions, il le peut: & il peut aussi asseurer sans erainte qu'il ny a rien qui ne soit public & certain.  
Jeluy suis tres obligé de ses travaux, s'il desire quelqu'autre chose de moy je le ferai avec joye, &c.  
Mon Reuerend Pere, Vostre bien humble & tres Affectionè Serviteur, ✚ J. Benigne E. de Meaux.   

A POSTSCRIPT To the Author or Authors of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, etc.  
I Doubt not but this Vindication will have the same fate with others of this nature; that is, it will not be long before some kind of Answer will be made to it; for nothing can be so clearly expressed or so firmly established, but that a Person, who intends to Cavil, may either form a seeming Objection against it, or wrest it into a different sense. But for my part, because I would not have the unbyass'd Readers, who are desirous to examine Truth, amused in the search of it, nor have such things put into their Hands as answer not their Expectations, but leave them to repent their ill spent Money and their Time; therefore I would desire there might be such a right understanding of the Case, such fair dealing, and such sincerity used amongst us, that the World might be convinced we contend not for Victory but for Truth. In order to which the best Method will certainly be to keep close to the Point in Question, which is whether the Bishop of Condom has truly represented the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, without either Palliating or Perverting it. I say, the Doctrine of the Church; for we have nothing here to do with the Doctrine of the Schools. Seeing therefore the Bishop of Condom professes to conform himself to the Doctrine of the Church as delivered in the Council of Trent, to which all Catholics do submit; They who will oppose his Exposition must (if they will bring any solid Arguments against him) show he has corrupted that Council, and given us a Doctrine which is neither conformable to that of this Council, nor consistent with some other Public, Authentic and Universally received Definitions and Decisions of the whole Church. If any thing of this nature be produced, I promise an Ingenuous return shall be made, without the least Cavil or reflecting Language. To aovid which I have one thing earnestly to beg of you, that before you publish any thing of this nature, you would be pleased to take the pains yourselves to peruse the Authors cited by you, and not to Transcribe Quotations, nor take up things by hear-say. You cannot be ignorant but it has often been objected to Protestant Writers by us, that they are faulty in this, and subject to great mistakes, if not wilsul Prevarications. I hope therefore you will hereafter consult at least your Reputations (if the search after Truth be not a sufficient motive) and take nothing from any of them without a serious examination of the Sense of the Authors quoted by them, and a sincere Application of it to the Point in Question. If you please to take that necessary Advice along with you for profitably reading Books of Controversy extracted out of Walsingham 's search into matters of Religion, Part 3. c. 10. Printed at the end of the Second Edition of the Complaint of the French Clergy, and follow it precisely, I hope you yourselves will one Day see the Truth, and to the Glory of God profess it. However this benefit will come by it, that you will save others the pains of examining so many different Authors; that you will remove that just occasion which is now given of censuring your Religion, as not maintainable without such sinister do; and lastly, you will free me from that troublesome and ungentile Office of demonstrating to the World that unsincerity which you have shown in your Quotations, the falsications of which I would not have taken notice of in this, had not Truth and Religion been at Stake.  
FINIS.   

THE CONTENTS.  

PART I. COntaining an Answer to the Preface. Pag. 1  
PART II. Art. 1. Introduction. 22  
Art. 2. Religious Worship is terminated in God only. 27  
Art. 3. Invocation of Saints. 29  
Art. 4. Images and Relics. 31  
Art. 5. Of Justification. 46  
Art. 6. Of Merits. 48  
Art. 7. Satisfactions, Purgatory and Indulgences. 54  
Art. 8. Of the Sacraments in general. 59  
Art. 9 Of Baptism. 61  
Art. 10. Of Confirmation 63  
Art. 11. Of Penance and Confession. 64  
Art. 12. Of Extreme Unction. 68  
Art. 13. Of Marriage. 70  
Art. 14. Of Holy Orders. 71  
Art. 15. Of the Eucharist. 72  
Art. 16. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. 94  
Art. 17. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 96  
Art. 18. Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine. 97  
Art. 19 Communion under both Species. 98  
Art. 20. Of the written and unwritten Word. 100  
Art. 21. Of the Authority of the Church. 101  
Art. 22. Authority of the Holy See, and of Episcopacy. 106  
The Conclusion. Ibid.    

A Catalogue of Books Printed for Henry Hills, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty, for his Household and Chapel, 1686. And are to be Sold next door to his House in Blackfriars, at Richard Cheese's.  

REflections upon the Answer to the Papist misrepresented etc. Directed to the Answerer. Quarto.  
Kalendarium Catholicum for the Year 1686. Octavo.  
Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery. In Answer to ā Discourse Entitled, A Papist not misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Vindication of the Papist misrepresented and Represented, and the Reflections upon the Answer. Quart.  
Copies of Two Papers Written by the late King Charles II. Together with a Paper Written by the late Duchess of York. Published by his Majesty's Command. Folio.  
The Spirit of Christianity. Published by his Majesty's Command. Twelve.  
The first Sermon Preached before their Majesties in English at Windsor, on the first Sunday of October 1685. By the Reverend Father Dom. P. E. Monk of the Holy Order of S. Benedict, and of the English Congregation. Published by his Majesty's Command. Quarto.  
Second Sermon Preached before the King and Queen, and Queen Dowager, at Their Majesty's Chapel at Saint James', November 1. 1685. By the Reverend Father Dom. Ph. Ellis, Monk of the Holy Order of S. Benedict, and of the English Congregation. Published by his Majesty's Command. Quarto.  
The Third Sermon Preached before the Kind and Queen, in their Majesty's Chapel at St. James', on the third Sunday in Advent, Decemb. 13.1685. By the Reverend Father Dom. Ph. Ellis, Monk of the Holy Order of St. Benedict, and of the English Congr. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty. Published by His Majesty's Command. Quarto.  
Sixth Sermon Preached before the King and Queen, in their Majesty's Chapel at St. James', upon the first Wednesday in Lent, Febr. 24.1685. By the Reverend Father Dom. Ph. Ellis, Monk of the Holy Order of St. Benedict, and of the English Congregation. Published by his Majesty's Command. Quarto.  
An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversy. By the Right Reverend James Benign Bossuet, Counsellor to the King, Bishop of Meaux, formerly of Condom, and Preceptor to the Dauphin: First Almoner to the Dauphiness. Done into English with all the former Approbations, and others newly published in the Ninth and Last Edition of the French. Published by His Majesty's Command. Quarto.  
A Sermon preached before the King and Queen, in Their Majesty's Chapel at St. James', upon the Annunciation of our Blessed Lady, March 25.1686. By Jo. Betham Doctor of Sorbon. Published by His Majestics Command. Quarto.  
An Abstract of the Dovay Catechism, for the Use of Children and Ignorant People. Now Revised and much amended. Published with Allowance. Twentyfours.  
A Pastoral Letter from the Lord Bishop of Meaux, to the New Catholies of His Diocese, Exhorting them to keep their Easter, and giving them necessary Advertisements against the False Pastoral Letters of their Ministers. With Reflections upon the Pretended Persecution. Translated out of French, and Published with Allowance. Quarto.  
The Anser of the New Converts of France, to a Pastoral Letter from a Protestant Minister. Done out of French, and Published with Allowance. Quarto.  
The Ceremonies for the Healing of them that be Diseased with the King's Evil, used in the time of King Henry VII. Published by His Majesty's Command. Quarto in Latin, Twelve in English.  
A Short Christian Doctrine. Composed by the R. Father Robert Bellarmin, of the Society of Jesus, and Cardinal. Published with Allowance. Twelve    

ERRATA.  
PAge 8. l. 15. deal to. p. 10. l. 23. r. Are the men. p. 22. l. 18. r. Misrepresentations. p. 98. l. 14. r. Efforts. p. 108. l. 31. r. is it not.